+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8436
Total Topics: 228
Most Online Today: 5
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery  (Read 3054 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8241
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #120 on: November 15, 2017, 05:41:13 pm »



November 14, 2017

Congress and Oil Industry Collude to Charge Anti-Pipeline Activists With Terrorism

The American Petroleum Institute has crafted a letter, signed by 84 members of Congress, suggesting that anti-pipeline activists should be charged with domestic terrorism. DeSmog Blog's Steve Horn says it's just one of many instances of a government-industry alliance against green activists



http://therealnews.com/t2...emid=74&jumival=20457


It REALLY WAS a good ride, not for you and me, but for TPTB. So expect them to do WHATEVER to prolong their RIDE, against all scientific evidence that EXPLOITATION WITHOUT REFLECTION OF FELLOW EARTHLINGS OF ALL SPECIES (not just humans) AND THE BIOSPHERE FOR PROFIT OVER PLANET is deleterious (i.e. SUICIDAL/abysmally STUPID) to the Homo SAP species.


The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!    [/move
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8241
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #121 on: November 22, 2017, 07:19:27 pm »
How Pipelines Put You In Danger For Profit! (w/Guest Greg Palast)


Greg Palast joins Thom to share his investigation into the alteration of pipeline safety equipment to avoid the cost of repairing old pipelines, the results are explosive.

Thom Hartmann Nov. 21, 2017 5:00 pm

Agelbert NOTE:
Fossil Fuel Indutry reaction to the above irrefutable evidence of Skullduggery:





Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8241
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #122 on: December 12, 2017, 07:57:42 pm »

 



Zinke, Perry and Pruitt’s Pretend Populism Profits Polluters

We started the week with a look at Pruitt’s industry-friendly contradictions--but we hardly scratched the surface yesterday.
 
For example, the New York Times reported on Sunday how Pruitt’s EPA has taken a step back from actually enforcing air and water pollution laws. Despite Pruitt’s professed dedication to enforcing the laws, his EPA has started a third fewer cases than Obama’s EPA by nine months in, and only a quarter as many as George W. Bush’s EPA in the same timeframe. This math makes it clear that Pruitt is giving polluters a pass, despite his claim that he doesn’t “hang with polluters; I prosecute them.” Take even the most cursory look under his whole down-home country lawyer shtick, and his true colors are revealed.
 
But Pruitt is far from the only Trump advisor palling around with polluters instead of regulating them. Last week, In These Times ran photos of a meeting between Energy Secretary Rick Perry and coal man Bob Murray in advance of Perry’s coal-friendly FERC proposal, after Murray vehemently denied he had influence over the plan. The Washington Post’s Steve Mufson expands on this reporting with his own piece last Friday about the plan that comes “straight from coal country.” Nora Brownell, Former FERC committee member appointed by George W. Bush, tells the Post that the plan is “cash for cronies.”
 
And then there’s Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior. In an op-ed for CNN last week, Zinke wrote that the decision to dramatically shrink national monuments was a result of “prioritizing the voice of the people over that of the special interest groups.” Unfortunately for Zinke, the three million public comments filed--99% in support of the monuments and against shrinking them--undercut this claim. Who is in support of Zinke’s move to minimize? Well we can’t say for sure, but here’s a Washington Post headline with a clue: “Areas cut out of Utah monuments are rich in oil, coal, uranium.”
 
And hey, another clue in another Post headline: “Uranium firm urged Trump officials to shrink Bears Ears National Monument.” As Juliet Eilperin reported this weekend, a anium company lobbied and met with Zinke about the decision to downsize. Though Zinke told reporters there’s no mine within the monument, the new shrunk size of Bears Ears means significant uranium deposits are now no longer off-limits to industry.
 
Zinke hasn’t just been busy penning op-eds: he and the House Natural Resource Committee took some time to hit back at Patagonia’s criticism of the monument downsizing. But criticizing an American company for expressing its first amendment right to free speech is, in the words of former White House ethics officer Walter Shaub, “wildly inappropriate.”

Sure, this administration may be lawless and constantly capitulating to polluters and profiteers. But at least they’re down-home populists, in touch with nature and the common man, right? All of Zinke’s horseback-riding and cowboy-hat-wearing seems to suggest that he’s just a simple country boy.
 
That facade may be a little too thin for Zinke’s liking. In an interview with Outside Magazine published last week, Zinke presents himself as a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist and seasoned fisher, talking with reporter Elliot Woods while standing in a river, rod in hand. Unfortunately for Zinke, he’s no Teddy, and on top of that Woods seems to be a much better fisherman than the Secretary of the Interior, noting at the end of the piece that Zinke was having some trouble casting because he rigged his reel backwards.
 
And last May, when Zinke spent thousands in public money to helicopter out to a horse-riding session with Mike Pence, Zinke wore his cowboy hat backwards. This is apparently a frequent mistake: the Sierra Club pointed out that in the shot of Zinke exiting Air Force One for last week’s announcement, his hat was again on backwards.
 
Now we don’t expect Trump or his fan base to get all that upset about all these handouts to polluters at the public’s expense. But a faux-pas like this, with a man incapable of properly wearing his hat?
 
The red-MAGA-cap crowd’s anger is surely brimming over.   
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8241
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
« Reply #123 on: December 12, 2017, 11:41:43 pm »
 



In the Battle of Pruitt Vs Pruitt, Industry Wins Every Time

Scott Pruitt’s long-awaited first appearance before the House committee that oversees the EPA was, somehow, both incredibly boring and richly informative. While Pruitt delivered his well-honed lawyer act like the seasoned professional he is, dodging and pivoting like a champ, there were a few notable fumbles in his performance.

For example, when Florida Representative Kathy Castor questioned Pruitt about his refusal to recuse himself from decisions involving both his donors and his previous co-litigants, Pruitt refused to answer. He instead deferred to the EPA’s ethics office, who apparently allow him to work on suits he was part of before becoming administrator. Implied conflicts of interest, Pruitt seemed to infer, aren’t a valid reason for recusal if the EPA ethics office doesn’t mandate it.

However, when pressed about his reforms to the EPA science boards, Pruitt’s response was that the removal of EPA grant recipients was to prevent “a perception or appearance of a lack of independence.” Who was making those complaints? Why, the tobacco and fossil fuel industries of course! And whose favorite researchers have gotten added to the board? Those same industries, whose products are regulated by the EPA.

So Pruitt claims replacing independent advisors with industry-funded advisors is necessary to prevent the EPA from appearing biased. But when it comes to Pruitt and his appointees working on cases and decisions they were once involved in, apparently the appearance of a lack of independence doesn’t matter. Even ignoring the fact industry scientists are the opposite of independent, Pruitt’s own standard for avoiding the appearance of impropriety is conveniently inconsistent.

As E&E’s Scott Waldman described in his roundup of the hearing, Pruitt also contradicted the very arguments the people he’s brought onto those advisory boards make about the dangers of particulate matter. Responding to California Rep. Raul Ruiz, Pruitt acknowledged the health benefits to reducing particulate matter pollution. But the Clean Power Plan repeal’s economic justification hinges on zeroing out those benefits to skew the cost-benefit analysis.

Pruitt also said a little more about the Endangerment finding than he has before, making the lawyerly process argument that by referring to the IPCC reports, the EPA committed a “breach of process.” But as Chelsea Harvey at E&E reports, that exact argument was used in a 2012 case, Coalition for Responsible Regulation Inc. v. EPA.

It lost. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision ruled it “little more than a semantic trick,” saying the "EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."   

Although Pruitt claims a deference to the “rule of law,” (even running a group with that in its name before moving to the EPA) apparently the rule of law doesn’t count when industry lost.

Although Pruitt claims particulate matter pollution is a health threat, his own CPP repeal math doesn’t include it.

Although Pruitt claims the appearance of a conflict of interest warrants removing advisors to the EPA, that same concern doesn’t extend to his own conflicts, or of those he’s bringing into the EPA.

At this point, if Pruitt claimed he wasn’t a robot controlled by polluting industries, we’d want to check that secret superfluous $25,000 phone booth for charging cables and a remote control interface.  ;D
 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
50 Replies
2637 Views
Last post October 17, 2017, 03:13:27 pm
by AGelbert
180 Replies
6202 Views
Last post December 08, 2017, 01:41:51 pm
by AGelbert
209 Replies
3643 Views
Last post December 12, 2017, 02:40:24 pm
by AGelbert
0 Replies
427 Views
Last post October 25, 2013, 04:19:25 pm
by AGelbert
0 Replies
214 Views
Last post November 21, 2013, 12:05:39 am
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
Today at 09:32:10 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
Today at 06:13:43 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
Today at 03:06:04 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
Today at 02:32:07 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
Today at 02:03:19 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
Today at 01:46:40 pm

Fibonacci Sequence: The Spiral of Life by AGelbert
Today at 01:07:22 pm

Money by AGelbert
December 13, 2017, 09:30:16 pm

Darwin by AGelbert
December 13, 2017, 07:13:37 pm

Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery by AGelbert
December 12, 2017, 11:41:43 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial