+- +-


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

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 54
Latest: abrogard
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16379
Total Topics: 268
Most Online Today: 12
Most Online Ever: 1155
(April 20, 2021, 12:50:06 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution  (Read 23763 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Agelbert NOTE: Below please find a line of doubletalk and science free bullshit that is typical of the fossil fuel industry influence over the U.S. government. This "study" is the fig leaf that the fossil fuelers will now use to cut corners on their rig structure and flood the arctic with rigs considered "safe".

A few years from now, the fossil fuel industry lawyers will turn to this very "study" when one of their platforms in the arctic causes a massive oil Deep Horizon style  blow out from a large chunk of ice impacting and toppling a rig, killing thousands of fish and other arctic marine and land life, as well as polluting the beaches nearby.

They will seek, as they successfully did in the Exxon Valdez disaster and the Deep Horizon disaster, to limit the liability of the oil rig owner to less than a tenth of the ACTUAL damage visited on the biosphere.

Have a nice day.

Existing Offshore Platforms Strong Enough for Arctic Operations, BSEE Study Finds

April 25, 2016 by gCaptain 

The U.S Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) has determined the designs of existing offshore platforms are strong enough to survive extreme Arctic conditions and sea ice experienced offshore northern Alaska in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.

The determination  was made following a recently completed research study by the BSEE, in partnership with the University of Alaska, that examined the ability of current offshore structural designs to successfully survive sea ice demands under extreme Arctic conditions.

The objective of the study was to produce information that will be used to supplement current standards and recommendations such as ISO 19906 Standard: Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – Arctic Offshore Structures. The findings of the study are to support regulatory decision making and ensures that industry operations offshore incorporate the best available and safest technologies as required by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and Energy Policy Act.

Over a two-year period, researchers gathered data from 16 seasons of ice measurements from the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, providing comparisons of various sea ice parameters like first and last ice occurrence, level of ice, rubble fields, ridges and ice movement. After a full analysis, the research team was then able to analyze a range of annual values to develop averages and draw conclusions from what was witnessed.

The study identified critical keel depth and provided an assessment of the suitability of the current ISO 19906 recommendations for estimating global ice forces on offshore structures. Following the collection of additional data, analysis and thorough review of recorded events, the researchers concluded that it appears the current standard of practice cited in ISO 19906 is conservative for current structural design parameters and is capable of surviving the demands from sea ice.

BSEE has a dedicated program coordinator in Alaska who assists with identifying research that advances BSEE’s regulatory objectives in the Arctic. There are currently seven studies ongoing that assess offshore engineering technology and conditions operators face in harsh Arctic conditions. All of these efforts assist BSEE in understanding how conditions in the Arctic could impact future regulatory standards.

The sea ice study will be presented when the Bureau hosts representatives from regulatory authorities of six Arctic nations next week in Washington, D.C. as part of a meeting of the Arctic Offshore Regulators Forum (AORF).

The AORF, which addresses a specific recommendation of the Arctic Council’s Task Force on Arctic Marine Oil Pollution Prevention, is an Arctic forum of technical and operational offshore petroleum safety regulators whose members are dedicated to the common cause of continually improving offshore safety outcomes.   

Its primary scope is the exchange of information, best practices and relevant experiences learned from regulatory efforts related to developing petroleum resources in the Arctic. 


Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

There's a lot of talk about fighting the power of Big Oil's political money, but too often it feels like we can't make a difference. Here's one key opportunity.

In California’s 44th Congressional district, the contrast between the two leading candidates couldn’t be clearer. Nanette Barragán stands for clean air, clean water, and a better future for the working class families of her district. Isadore Hall cozies up to Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and the gambling industry. It’s a very competitive primary in a deep blue district.

Nanette Barragán fights Big Oil.
As mayor pro tem of Hermosa Beach, she stumped for “No On O” to keep oil exploration out of her city and off Los Angeles-area beaches, and won in a landslide.
Barragán is the 12th child of Mexican immigrants, a fact that matters in a district that is 70 percent Latino. She’s passionate about bringing good, clean jobs to her district.

Nanette Barragán

By sharp contrast, her primary opponent fights for Big Oil.
Isadore Hall III has worked to shield oil and gas companies from carbon pollution fees, to protect them from fracking-chemical disclosure, and voted in support of natural-gas pipelines for his campaign donor Sempra Energy.

Isadore Hall III

Hall's campaign is funded by the gambling, tobacco, and oil industries. In the state Senate, Hall chairs the Governmental Organization committee in charge of regulating gambling and tobacco. Those industries are not allowed to give to his state Senate campaign — so they’ve been giving to his Congressional campaign. Under his leadership, the committee has become well known for stalling, tabling, amending, and killing tobacco legislation opposed by his donors.

Hall has received nearly $150,000 from the oil and gas industry in campaign contributions, and if elected he’ll be California’s oiliest Democrat for a long time.

The seat is open, as the incumbent Janice Hahn is retiring. Thanks to California’s top-two rule, the top two vote-getters in June will face each other again in November — so Nanette needs to make a strong showing now to be able to win this fall.

Climate Hawks Vote endorsed early, nearly a year before the primary in this solidly Democratic district. We’ve been joined by Democracy For America, US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, Emily’s List, BOLD PAC and PODER PAC, many members of Congress, and local leaders. But Hall has corporate support and the backing of the California Democratic machine — so we can’t rest easy.

With a June 7 primary approaching, our plan is to begin an aggressive outreach program to identify and turn out Barragán supporters in this highly diverse district. We’re hiring Spanish and Tagalog speakers to reach newly registered Democrats and other high-reward voters in California’s open primary. This low-cost, high-return effort will also be turning out new Bernie Sanders voters for the crucial presidential primary.

If you know anyone who lives in California’s 44th Congressional district, please send this to them and ask them to pass it on to their friends and neighbors.
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Groups Sue  EPA  Demanding Stricter Fracking Waste Rules

Natural Resources Defense Council | May 5, 2016 10:14 am

A coalition of community and environmental organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Wednesday calling for regulations to stop oil and gas companies from disposing and handling drilling and fracking wastes in ways that threaten public health and the environment.

Fracking fluid and other drilling wastes are dumped into an unlined pit. Photo credit: Faces of Fracking / Flickr

Waste from the oil and gas industry is very often toxic and should be treated that way,”
Amy Mall, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. “Right now, companies can get rid of their toxic mess in any number of dangerous ways—from spraying it on icy roads, to sending it to landfills with our everyday household trash, to injecting it underground where it can endanger drinking water and trigger earthquakes. EPA must step in and protect our communities and drinking water from the carcinogens, radioactive material and other dangerous substances that go hand-in-hand with oil and gas waste.”

The organizations are pushing the EPA to issue rules that address problems including the disposal of fracking wastewater in underground injection wells, which accept hundreds of millions of gallons of oil and gas wastewater and have been linked to numerous earthquakes in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.

“Updated rules for oil and gas wastes are almost 30 years overdue and we need them now more than ever,”
Adam Kron, senior attorney at the Environmental Integrity Project, said. “Each well now generates millions of gallons of wastewater and hundreds of tons of solid wastes and yet EPA’s inaction has kept the most basic, inadequate rules in place. The public deserves better than this.”

The groups filing suit include the Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthworks, Responsible Drilling Alliance, San Juan Citizens Alliance, West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, calls on the court to set strict deadlines for the EPA to comply with its long-overdue obligations to update waste disposal rules that should have been revised more than a quarter century ago.

The organizations are urging the EPA to ban the practice of spreading fracking wastewater onto roads or fields, which allows toxic pollutants to run off and contaminate streams. And the EPA should require landfills and ponds that receive drilling and fracking waste to be built with adequate liners and structural integrity to prevent spills and leaks into groundwater and streams.

The groups filed a notice of their intent to sue the EPA last August, warning the agency a lawsuit would follow unless it complied with its duty under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to review and revise the federal regulations and guidelines governing how oil and gas waste must be handled and disposed. RCRA requires that the EPA review the regulations and state plan guidelines at least every three years and, if necessary, revise them. The agency determined in 1988 that such revisions of the regulations were necessary to address specific concerns with oil and gas wastes, yet has failed to meet its legal responsibility to act for nearly three decades.


Over the last decade, the oil and gas industry’s fracking-based boom has produced a vast amount of solid and liquid waste. Each well produces millions of gallons of wastewater and hundreds of tons of drill cuttings, which contain contaminants that pose serious risks to human health. These include known carcinogens such as benzene, toxic metals such as mercury and radioactive materials. However, the current RCRA rules that govern oil and gas wastes are too weak because they are the same rules that apply to all “non-hazardous” wastes, including household trash.

As a result, oil and gas companies are disposing, storing, transporting and handling these wastes in a number of troublesome ways. These include: spraying fracking waste fluids onto roads and land near where people live and work; disposing of billions of gallons of oil and gas wastewater in underground injection wells; sending the drill cuttings and fracking sands to landfills not designed to handle toxic or radioactive materials; and storing and disposing of wastewater in pits and ponds, which often leak. Across the U.S., there are numerous instances of wastes leaking out of ponds and pits into nearby streams and the groundwater beneath and operators often “close” the pits by simply burying the wastes on site.“

In 1988, the EPA promised    to require oil and gas companies to handle this waste more carefully,” said Aaron Mintzes, Policy Advocate for Earthworks. “Yet neither EPA nor the states have acted. Today’s suit just says 28 years is too long for communities to wait for protections from this industry’s hazardous waste.”

The following are some examples of problems caused by the improper disposal and handling of fracking and drilling waste:

•Ohio: Underground injection wells in Ohio accepted 1.2 billion gallons of oil and gas wastewater for disposal in 2015, more than double the amount in 2011. Half this wastewater came from out of state. This has resulted in scores of earthquakes in the well-dense Youngstown area, with one well alone linked to 77 earthquakes. The Ohio Oil and Gas Commission recently noted that regulations “have not kept pace” with the problem and that (to an extent) both the state and industry are “working with their eyes closed.” Other states that have experienced increased seismic events in the proximity of injection wells include Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

•Pennsylvania: In May 2012, a six-million-gallon industrial pond holding fracking wastewater in Tioga County leaked pollutants, including arsenic and strontium, through holes in its liner into groundwater and a nearby trout stream.

•West Virginia: Oil and gas wastewater dumped or spilled in rivers in West Virginia and Pennsylvania contains high levels of potentially hazardous ammonium and iodide, according to a study by Duke University scientists.

•North Dakota:
In January 2015, three million gallons of drilling wastewater spilled from a leaky pipe outside Williston, polluting a tributary of the Missouri River. In July 2011, a pipeline serving a well in Bottineau County leaked over two million gallons of fracking wastewater, damaging 24 acres of private land.

•Colorado: A contractor for a pipeline services firm gave a detailed account of sand-blasting pulverized waste buildup (called “scale”) from pipeline seals directly into the air outdoors without a filter, even though such dust can be radioactive and cause damage to lungs.

•Across the Marcellus region: Over the past several years, landfills in states around the Marcellus shale formation—even in New York, where fracking is prohibited—have experienced increasing shipments of drill cuttings that contain high levels of radiation. Many of the landfills do not test for radiation and do not have adequate controls to prevent the often toxic and radioactive “leachate” from seeping into groundwater.

“Although West Virginia has taken some steps to improve regulation, the state’s approach has been to permit horizontal drilling without carefully considering whether current methods of waste disposal are appropriate or adequate,” Julie Archer, project manager at the West Virginia Surface Owners Rights Organization, said. “It’s past time for the EPA to provide clear guidance on how these wastes should be handled to protect our communities.”

EPA’s current regulations do not take into account the dangerous contents of oil and gas wastes or their unique handling and disposal practices.

Since 1988, the agency has acknowledged the shortcoming of its basic rules for solid waste management and has indicated that it needs to create enhanced rules tailored to the oil and gas industry. However, the agency has yet to take any action to develop these updated regulations.


“A major reason for the industry’s use of injection wells to dispose of toxic fracking waste is the low disposal cost,” Teresa Mills, director of the Ohio field office for the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, said. “We reject this reasoning because the public’s health and safety must come first.”
“As an organization representing hundreds of families living in close proximity to oil and gas operations, we see not only the physical pollution, but also the psychological toll that oil and gas waste exacts on communities,” Dan Olson, executive director of the Colorado-based San Juan Citizens Alliance, said. “That the EPA is 30 years overdue in creating common sense rules for managing toxic waste from oil and gas operations is a cause of great concern for everyone living near these sources of improperly regulated industrial pollution.”


Agelbert: This is why the "promise" of the EPA in 1988 was not worth the paper it was printed on:

What really Happened at the EPA 

Cathie Reid: You must get this action through and legislation enacted ... before any further disastrous TTP or other "Investor Protection and profit over Health and environmental/climate sustainability" Acts are passed that strip civilization of the frameworks and levers of equitable/peaceful prosperity.
frackugee: If the oil and gas industry are such great companies that we sooo need and are on here all the time saying how awesome they are(matt Jason) then they will have no problem accepting the fact that their waste is hazardous material and pay for that accordingly-oh wait that would stop the fracking they do today immediately as they will not spend 46$ a barrel for its proper disposal, that's right hazardous waste costs more to dispose of correctly then oil and gas are worth and the testing of the waste to determine what it is would blow the lid off the toxic brew they create at every single well. They are not good neighbor companies like they profess, every other corporation in this country plays by rules not these guys and they are called out on it all the time with video and complaints to epa at state and fed level and are never held accountable Shame on all of them

agelbert > frackugee: 

Well said.

There is also ZERO excuse for the oil and gas "externalization" of the toxic brew of gases they flare 24/7 at both land and ocean rig sites. It's time they be ordered to capture and package all those carcinogenic gases that they now dump on us for profit over planet.

They KNOW how toxic those gases are because the ocean rigs have a "water curtain" technology to keep the flared gas fumes from degrading the health of rig workers.

Water curtain in use - cleverly labeled "Water Curtain Rig Cooling Offshore Heat Suppression" as if "heat" was the anything but a side issue in the flared fumes toxins

IOW, the oil and gas pigs are polluting the ocean near the rigs along with the world's atmosphere. Flared gas fumes cause respiratory illnesses in the short term and cancer and global warming in the long term.

It's TIME the oil and gas corporations be STOPPED from polluting for profit!

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing 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!
« Last Edit: June 09, 2021, 06:11:15 pm by AGelbert »
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
The arsonists of Fort McMurray have a name

Fossil fuel corporations are causing the climate change fuelling mega-fires – and they should be footing the bill for the devastation    
(picture at story link)
A charred vehicle and homes are pictured in the Beacon Hill neighbourhood of Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, May 9, 2016 after wildfires forced the evacuation of the town.  Photograph: Chris Wattie/AFP/Getty Images

Thursday 12 May 2016 08.23 EDT  Last modified on Friday 13 May 2016 18.17 EDT 

As the fire that ravaged Fort McMurray finally moves past the city, and the province tallies the heartbreaking damage, a search will begin to discover the source of the destruction.

Investigators will comb the nearby forests for clues, tracing the fire’s path to what they call its “point of origin.” They’ll interview witnesses, collect satellite imagery, and rule out natural causes—much like the work of detectives.

Except in the age of climate change-fuelled mega-fires, this truly is a crime scene.

Not, I mean, the handiwork of troublesome teenagers, nor a campfire left accidentally burning. The devastation of Fort McMurray is the predictable outcome of arson on an entirely different scale.

These arsonists have a name and they’re hiding in plain view—because their actions, at the moment, are still considered legal. They’re the companies that helped turn the boreal forest into a flammable tinder-box. The same companies that have undermined attempts to rein in carbon emissions. The same companies that, by their very design, chase profits with no mind for the ecological and human consequences.

Yet in the fire’s aftermath, it has seemed impossible to name them: fossil fuel corporations. Of course they’re not the only ones who have fuelled climate change: all of us consume oil at every level of our lives. But the record is clear that we are not equally responsible: an astonishing 90 companies alone have caused two-thirds of global carbon emissions. And all the oil giants involved in the Alberta tar sands are among them: ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Total, CNRL, Chevron.

Alberta wildfires leave Fort McMurray charred and desolate – in pictures
(pictures at story link)
In the last week, these corporations have escaped accountability as quickly as ordinary Albertans have risen to action. Across the province, people have opened their homes to evacuees, offered gas, shared food. The most marginalized have given the most: First Nations welcoming thousands to their communities; Muslims praying for rain at the Alberta legislature; and Syrian refugees, barely resettled in the province, gathering donations. Stories of heroism have abounded: like the school principal who drove a bus full of children out of the burning city, reuniting each one with their families, and filling extra seats with strangers from the roadside. At almost a moment’s notice, a province often written off as dog-eat-dog individualists proved the naysayers wrong: they have come together in a spirt of fellowship and solidarity.

1:39 video (at story link)

Alberta wildfires: key facts and figures in a historic disaster

Most of these people had no idea of the disaster that was coming. But there were some who did: the corporate arsonists themselves. As far back as forty-five years ago, certain Canadian oil corporations already knew the lethal climate consequences of their business model. Last month, building on similar revelations about US companies, investigative reporters discovered stunning proof in the archives of a Calgary museum—a clue as good as any about this mega-fire’s “point of origin.”

An uncovered report produced in 1970 by Imperial Oil, the Canadian branch of ExxonMobil, put it crystal clear: “Since pollution means disaster to the affected species, the only satisfactory course of action is to prevent it.” Except the oil company proceeded to spend decades lying about what they knew, and ensured the disaster would be as profound as possible. Little wonder the same company report branded its own actions as “anti-social.”

The very picture of anti-social? A fire ripping through a city. The incineration of homes. Irreplaceable possessions and family albums burned to ash. Climate refugees spilling across a province and country, stripped of their livelihoods and uncertain of their future.

  A burnt vehicle in Fort McMurray, 10 May 2016 Photograph: Amru Salahuddien/EPA  (picture at story link)

Science may not show a direct link between climate change and the existence of one particular fire, but there is no doubt why the blaze that devoured the Alberta town was so powerful.

“We have loaded the dice for more extreme wildfires,” says Mike Flannigan, a wildfire scientist at the University of Alberta. “We attribute the increase in wildfires and their severity and intensity to human-caused climate change. We’ve been saying it for years. Many of us saw a Fort McMurray-like situation coming, but none of us expected anything as horrific as what has happened.”

Today, twice as much land in Canada is being devoured by fires as in the 1970s—and that will double or quadruple again in the decades to come. Climate change is putting such pressure on the boreal, which covers most of northern Canada, that a study published last year in the journal Science issued a stark warning: “this forest will convert to a type of savannah.”

To remain mute about those responsible for this devastation is not an act of sensitivity toward the citizens of Fort McMurray. It is to stand idly by while these corporations move on to claim their next victims. To argue, as prime minister Justin Trudeau has, that making the connection between climate change and this infernal fire isn’t “helpful,” is not a gesture of statesmanly maturity. It is the prevarication of political cowards.

Other politicians have adopted an even more toxic approach: not letting the crisis go to waste. Former Conservative natural resources minister Joe Oliver argued on national television that Trudeau should seize the fire as an opportunity to force through a tar sands pipeline to the coast. And British Columbia premier Christy Clark insisted the economic impact of the blaze could be balanced by ramming oil and liquified natural gas projects through the regulatory process—doubling down on what helped cause this crisis in the first place. In the days ahead, watch for this argument to grow even louder.

But the greatest model of insensitivity is this: the arsonists don’t seem content with the burning of just one Canadian town. The latest climate science has told us exactly how much fossil fuels we can burn before we lock in catastrophic warming—warming that will make today’s mega-fire look modest. But companies have access to four or five times that amount in their reserves. They plan to extract and burn it all. 

If we want to contain warming to the Paris climate accord’s target of 1.5 degrees, we will need to keep most fossil fuels in the ground—to strand these assets and shift to clean energy. But corporations have no such intention. “We don’t see any stranded assets. We think all our assets will be required,” an ExxonMobil spokesperson said after the signing of the Paris accord. It “reinforces our approach,” Shell added. In other words, they’re bent on arson on a global scale.

The law is finally catching up to this planet-altering recklessness. In the United States, both California and New York’s attorneys general are investigating ExxonMobil for spending decades misleading the public about its knowledge of the risks of climate change. Meanwhile, both Democratic presidential candidates have joined the chorus of voices demanding the federal Department of Justice join the investigation. Last month, lawyers in the Philippines launched another precedent-setting case: a lawsuit against fifty of the world’s fossil fuel companies for damages the country has suffered from climate change-driven hurricanes.

This path should show the way forward for Canada, entrenching a basic moral principle: the polluter pays. Fossil fuel companies shouldn’t be celebrated for the minimal corporate paternalism they are now demonstrating—housing, feeding and flying evacuated workers out of Fort McMurray and the surrounding work camps. They should be footing the bill for the devastation. They invested billions in an industry knowing it would prove destructive to the air, water, climate, and health of Albertans? It’s time to put our hands—through higher taxes, royalties, even a public takeover—on some of their gargantuan profits, and use them to transition to a new economy full of good clean jobs and beyond these dangerous energy sources.

That would mean rejecting the lopsided sacrifice currently demanded of us: that corporations derive the rewards while we cover their damages. Canada’s fossil fuel companies have vacuumed billions in profits out of Alberta, and used their political influence to prevent the emergence of a more diversified economy in a province with incredible renewable energy potential. Yet the relief and recovery effort, which may cost upward of $10bn, will be paid for by the government and taxpayers. The donations offered by individual Canadians are a testament to incredible generosity: they also represent an outsourcing of responsibility.

But that spirit of solidarity and mutual aid, of compassion and confidence in each other, is the best expression of ourselves. It points the way forward. Two people tragically died in the evacuation of Fort McMurray—but many more no doubt were saved, by courage and heroism and the deep care and love for fellow citizens that can flourish in a period of catastrophe. Such are the values we will need to mount a collective fight against the unfolding disaster of climate change.

Imagine these values actually governing our society—for a start, relaxing EI rules to ensure dignity for all of the evacuated workers. Imagine this resiliency, courage and generosity being harnessed to lead the transition to a healthier, more just post-carbon society—helping prevent even more extreme weather to come. Imagine the rebuilding of Fort McMurray being not just a page turned on an unprecedented disaster, but the beginning of a new direction.

If that can happen, the smoke will truly lift from this country and this town.

On Twitter: @Martin_Lukacs

Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution


I wonder what corrections, adjustments, extrapolations, interpolations and correlations were used on what original temperature data to create the cool graphic?

Well, considering the fact that you are a word twisting propagandist out to justify the use of fossil fuels come hell or high water, I don't wonder that you will engage in every hair splitting excuse you can think of to question reality. The answer to your futile, but clever, exercise in hairsplitting was partially provided at the link to Thom Hartmann's article. But, as usual, you prefer to snipe than to study.


YOU, the alleged "expert" in supply and demand for fossil fuels, continue to ignore the FACT that, at present, the world is producing over 1,000,000 bpd MORE than it uses. YET, you have the brass balls, or simply world class ignorance, to claim the recent rise in the price of crude is "based on fundamentals", instead of the commodities futures speculation CRAP that is ACTUALLY making the price artificially go up.

But hey, congratulations are in order to your welfare queen fossil fuel and nuclear pals. Just like YOU, they can't make any money without stealing money from we-the-people, so the fossil fuel OWNED politicians just rode in to BAIL DIRTY ENERGY ASSES OUT AGAIN.

Happy day for MKing 
and his biosphere math challenged, empathy deficit disordered pals!

05/16/2016 04:03 PM   

Fossil-Heavy Energy & Water Appropriations Bill Passes Senate
SustainableBusiness.com News

Last week, the US Senate passed the first appropriations bill for the 2017 budget, funding energy and water programs with $37.5 billion.

We're surprised that it passed 90-8, given that it clearly prioritizes fossil and nuclear energy over renewables. President Obama threatens to veto it for that reason. Where are the Democrats on this? ? ? ?

$9.3 billion of the $37.5 billion total is for nuclear weapons programs. $808 million is cut from the non-defense side of the Department of Energy, while the nuclear side gets $355 million more to "ensure nuclear stockpile readiness."

The White House says, "The bill "fails to put us on an achievable path toward doubling clean energy research and development by FY2021. Specifically, the Administration objects to the low funding levels provided for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)."   

"Funding at this level also would impede development of solutions to reduce U.S. dependence on oil and reduce energy waste, and undermine the Nation's competitiveness in the future global clean energy economy," the White House continues. 

Exactly What's Intended

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) says the bill prioritizes defense, nuclear weapons priorities and fossil fuel R&D, while reining in President Obama's out-of-bounds renewable energy agenda.

It "rebalances the portfolio to provide a true all-of-the-above strategy. It includes strong funding for nuclear energy, providing research and development to ensure a safe, efficient, reliable nuclear fleet, and laying the foundation for the next generation of nuclear reactors.   

 "It puts more money into fossil fuel  energy and less into renewables  , to ensure the nation is utilizing its abundant fossil energy resources as efficiently and safely as possible, he says." 

The one thing Democrats didn't budge on was the attempt to undercut EPA's Waters of the US rule  by eliminating its funding. ::)  It restores protection for two million miles of streams and 20 million acres of wetlands, allowing it to safeguard drinking water supplies for a third of Americans, and for ecosystems. Calling it "massive overreach, it is currently on hold by a federal court. 

They also voted down an amendment from Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) to wind down the Energy Department's Advanced Vehicle Manufacturing Loan program.

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) says, "We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand on climate change. And yet, the energy efficiency and renewable energy account would be funded at $248 million below the president's request. An annual appropriations bill is not the place to amend or significantly change the Clean Water Act or restrict gun laws. These efforts year after year imperil the appropriations process.   

Some Details   

Compared to Obama's 2017 budget, ARPA-E gets 16% less and EERE gets a 26% cut for renewable energy, 27% less for sustainable transportation and 20% less for energy efficiency. 

Obama's budget doubles funding for clean energy R&D, as 20 nations promised to do under Mission Innovation at the Paris Climate Summit. And it includes the nation's first carbon tax, which would fund a 21st century low-carbon transportation system.

Read our article, What's In Obama's 2017 Budget: Energy & Environment, called "dead on arrival" by the Congressional majority.

On the positive side, Obama supports the bill's investments in restoring aquatic ecosystems and helping communities reduce the risk of floods - improving resilience against climate impacts. It meets his budget request for restoration of the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem, Columbia River, South Florida Ecosystem, and Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery.

The bill now goes to the House for a vote. 

Read the White House statement on the appropriations bill:
Website: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr2028s_20160420.pdf


Agelbert NOTE: You may THINK you have won, MKing. But, as usual, you have cognitive problems with cause and effect.

You see, the fossil fuel government in the USA is NOT going to keep your precious welfare queen fossil fuel industry from going the way of the dodo bird. Sure, you have obtained your typical reprieve on we-the-people's money in the USA.

But you neglect the FACT, one that you have been eyeing over the past decade and not said SH IT about in this forum, that fossil fuels have been steadily losing energy market share, NOT because of any renewable energy subsidy, but because they have ZERO fuel costs. Once the Renewable energy infrastructure is installed (which gets cheaper every year to manufacture and install), fossil fuels simply cannot compete with ZERO clean energy fuel costs.

YOU said, a couple of days ago (and you repeat that wishful thinking frequently), that the fossil fuel industry would recover when the price comes back up, as it did in the 1980's. The problem with that thinking is that Dirty energy does not have a snowball's chance in hell of recovering it's lost energy market share from a 70 to 1 Renewable to fossil fuel new generation installation rate.

This is not the 1980's, when the available renewable energy (apart from hydro) was a drop in the energy market share bucket compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power. But you desperately want to believe it is.   

The ONLY common thread between the 1980's and now is the WELFARE QUEEN SWAG coming from the U.S. Government. You irresponsible CROOKS talk about "responsibility" in business practices when you get babied six ways from Sunday every time you get you ass in a debt crack. HYPOCRITES! LIARS! CHEATS!   

Now that my rant is over  ;D, this the message you may continue to try to deny with your wishful thinking, Mr. Supply and Demand Math Challenged Fossil Fuel Fascist:

No matter how much welfare queen swag you get from the fossil fuel government and no matter how much your bought and paid for politicians try to strange Renewable Energy by killing subsidies and inventing rules, regulations and laws, like you did in the 1980's, there is NO WAY that the fossil fuel industry will EVER be able to recapture their lost energy use market share in ANY of the high Renewable Energy percentage countries like Scotland (and Portugal and Costa Rica and Spain and the Netherlands and Sweden and Norway and Germany - and so one, etc.).

No matter how many politicians the fossil fuel fascists BUY to make fossil fuels artificially cheap through hidden and not so hidden "subsidies" (free passes on pollution and government money coerced from we-the-people), the fossil fuel industry simply cannot compete with Renewable Energy.

And smart people in the USA, England, France, Australia, south Africa, Italy, Japan (and so on - you get the idea) are certainly NOT going to go back to fossil fuels with a ZERO fuel cost on their current Renewable energy Infrastructure (which gets cheaper to manufacture and install every year). Even the "natural" gas fired power plants used for peak power grid demand balancing that now use Fracked gas can be run from TRULY NATURAL gas produced from methane harvesters on cattle and pig farms in these countries. Germany is already doing quite a bit of animal based methane harvesting with a nice side benefit that pumps out a NON-fossil fuel based NATURAL fertilizer product added profit stream.  ;D

Continually shrinking market share is a death sentence for an energy producer. That is why the fossil fuel industry is doomed to shrink into bankrupt welfare queen, has been irrelevance.           

Anybody that thinks we are in a repeat of the 1980's doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2021, 04:29:26 pm by AGelbert »
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Agelbert NOTE: A fossil fuel industry propagandist using the MKing handle he WON'T use his NAME   ) made an interesting claim recently. He said that he spoke to the governor of North Dakota.

Exact Quote from MKing:
I've actually spoken with the ND Governor back when things were blowing and going, as well as the Federal land managers of MT and ND, and there was a perspective there of 40 years of drilling to be had. Discussing why that might not be the most likely outcome, and that the amount of oil they were counting on might not be as large as they expected, was quite a chore. My presentation on this topic to Lynn Helms went over better.

I rather doubt that.

Doubt it all you'd like, it doesn't change the facts. And I won't mention the other folks in the room, because it would give away the exact meeting, and my place in it.

Quote from: agelbert

People who refuse to make their name public should not resort to such puffery.

Who said anything about my name not being public? RE and Surly have been going through my decades of science, not finding as much as a misspelled word, are you saying they didn't include you when passing this information around? You should ask for it.

And I have explained previously why I consider low profiles quite excellent. Go reread that.

Quote from: agelbert
But if some fossil fuel front man defending Fracking in North Dakota did speak to the governor, I am certain the following was accidently on purpose not mentioned in the conversation.  ;) Yes, the study was just published. But if you think the Frackers were unaware of these ""externalized" costs dumped on we-the-people so they could make more profit over planet, you do not understand the MKings of this world. They know. They know.   

If I was a front man, they never would have let me in the door. Get caught playing advocate as a scientist Anthony, and the credibility that took decades to establish through proper science can go right out the door.

A nice collection of non-answers from the MKing troll    , as usual.

Your NAME, you know, the one on your birth certificate, is NOT public until you post it HERE, just like I post mine, regardless of whether Surly and RE AND Eddie are in on your precious "Public" identity (that we "low life degree lacking plebeians" aren't "worthy" of knowing).

What "facts"? You mean the Monday morning quaterbacking bullshit? Post the "presentation" to the Governor of N.D. HERE with all those "warnings" about how "things would get worse" for fracking in the future or STFU.

Your "low profile" MO claim is only valid contingent on you not making name dropping boasts about your "presentations" to a state governor or your conference attendances with your "pal", Harold Hamm. Otherwise, not using your name publicly is a cheap dodge worthy of disdain.

When you post your NAME here, not just to the ADMINS, you MIGHT get some credibility as one of Billionaire Fracker Harold Hamm's FRONT MEN. You have alluded to that from time to time as if Hamm was anything but a welfare queen, tax dodging, pollution externalizing ASS HOLE.

Until then, I suggest you but your zero credibility boasts where the sun doesn't shine, Mr. fossil fuel industry propagandist.

And as for your typical response to the following  that you have a degree and I don't, SO WHAT?

There are scores of engineers and scientists BOUGHT by the fossil fuel and chemical industries with "advanced" degrees in science that lie on a daily basis.


I don't have a degree but I have forgotten more physics and thermodynamics than you ever learned in your pathetic efforts to justify fossil fuel industry profit over planet.

People like you still think human nutrient processing oxidation for caloric intake is equivalent to hydrocarbon combustion oxidation. People like you think enzyme mediated active transport is something that goes on in a chemical factory. People like you cannot see all the pollution holes in the thermodynamic constants used to determine enthalpy of formation of hydrocarbons using Hess's Law.

You claim, repeatedly (and erroneously), that fossil fuels are "cheaper" than Renewable energy harvesting technologies.

Every time I or somebody else points out that the fossil fuel industry CANNOT survive without subsidies, you change the subject or resort to mockery and derision.

When someone PROVES that Fracking MUST FLARE (POLLUTE WE-THE-PEOPLE) up to one third by volume the gases coming up a fracked well in order to make a profit, you puff about your "knowledge" and how "only ignorant people" question your "eminent" scientific background INSTEAD OF TALKING FACTS.

When a post comes up PROVING you frackers MUST discharge your wastewater crap free of any environmental regulatory constraints (i.e. POLLUTE willy nilly) in order, and in addition to, flaring, BECAUSE OF THE COSTS of avoiding said pollution, you ignore the post.

And you have, FOR YEARS, denied the FACT that over 90% of all well casings in fracked wells leak CRAP into the aquifers within five years.

You have consistently DENIED the fact that, had Cheney not gamed the water quality laws to give Fracking a polluting free-for-all, there would BE NO FRACKING BOOM, PERIOD.

YOU and the BASTARDS you represent made money BECAUSE, and ONLY BECAUSE, you could POLLUTE your way to obtaining the fossil fuels AND be welfare queen subsidized on top of that!

AND ALL those posts about Fracking piggery are based on PEER REVIEWED scientific studies, not on my opinion.

YET, you ALWAYS try to make this about me instead of the subject of the ECONOMIC STUPIDITY and environmental HARM of fossil fuels.

And YOU do that because you don't have an argument.
So you have a degree. SO WHAT? There are scores of engineers and scientists that have one that lie for money on a daily basis. You are one of them.
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Agelbert NOTE: This article is a little over two monts old. But the information is instructive in showing HOW the crude oil "supply" is gamed DOWN to engineer a higher price based on, "Fundamentals" of demand. So, when you look at those EIA numbers MKing likes to trot out to defend "fundamentals" of supply and demand, take a grain of salt to the "prudent case for future fossil fuel industry recovery through higher prices" BULLSHIT. 

The Curious Case Of The 550 Million Missing Barrels Of Crude Oil  ;)

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/09/2016


As Reuters reports, crude oil production exceeded consumption by an average of 0.9 million barrels per day in 2014 and 2.0 million bpd in 2015. Of this 1 billion barrels which the IEA believes was produced but not consumer, some 420 million are said to be stored on land in OECD member countries and another 75 million can be found stored at sea or in transit by tanker somewhere from the oil fields to the refineries. This means that as of this moment, about 550 million "missing barrels" are unaccounted for "apparently produced but not consumed and not visible in the inventory statistics."

As John Kemp writes, like most "plugs", the missing barrels are recorded in the "miscellaneous to balance" line of the IEA's monthly Oil Market Report as the difference between production, consumption and reported stock changes. The miscellaneous item reflects errors in data from OECD countries, errors in the agency's estimates for supply and demand in non-OECD countries, and stockpile changes outside the OECD that go unrecorded.

The current IEA data reveals that there is a miscellaneous to balance item of 0.5 million barrels per day in 2014 and 1.0 million barrels per day in 2015.

This is not new: missing barrels have been a feature of IEA statistics since the 1970s, and as Reuters adds over time, errors have occurred in both directions  ;), and have ranged up to 1 million or even 2 million barrels per day.


And as Reuters adds, while most of the time, the oil market ignores the miscellaneous to balance item, but it tends to become controversial when it becomes very large, either positive or negative. Such as now. Furthermore, the situation is additionally compounded by the massive documented inventory glut not only in the US but around the globe, and certainly in China which, as reported yesterday, reported a record amount of oil in January even as demand is said to have been declining.

This is what happened the last time there was an implied glut on par with the current one:

The last time the miscellaneous to balance item was this large and positive (implying an oversupplied market) was in 1997/98 when the issue triggered fierce criticism of the IEA's statistics.

Critics accused the IEA of over-estimating supply, under-estimating demand, contributing to perception of a glut, depressing prices, and causing unnecessary hardship to the oil industry. Senator Pete Domenici, chairman of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, asked the General Accounting Office to investigate the IEA's statistics and the question of missing barrels. In a report published in May 1999, GAO concluded "missing barrels are not a new condition, and the amount and direction of missing barrels have fluctuated over time".

Agelbert NOTE: Yeah, right. any time the fossil fuel welfare queens have issues with low prices, all of a sudden their bought and paid for sacred IEA is accused of fibbing to hurt the poor little fossil fuel industry.  But when the REVERSE is going on, the fossil fuelers like MKing worship at the "EIA is Gospel truth" altar. 

"At any point in time, the historical oil supply and demand as well as the stock data reported by IEA could be overstated or understated by an unknown magnitude." The GAO concluded then that it was not possible to "quantify how much of the missing barrels are due to statistical limitations and how much are the result of physical oil storage in unreported stocks". 

Some other comparisons:

In 1997/98, the market was oversupplied by 2.1 million barrels per day compared with total demand of around 74 million barrels per day, according to the IEA.

In 2015, the oil market was also oversupplied by 2.0 million barrels per day but consumption was running at more than 94 million barrels per day, around 25 percent higher.

To be sure, episodes of massive imbalance usually even out  ;), and following the 1997/98 episode, the missing barrels that accumulated in unreported non-OECD storage were drawn down in 1999, according to the IEA ("Oil Market Report", IEA, Dec 1999). In December 1999, the IEA wrote: "The weight of (the) evidence is that the missing barrels did exist and that they have now returned to the market."

What helped the 1998 glut was that by the end of 1999, the oil market was seeing excess demand and prices were rising. But the rapid recovery depended on very strong economic growth in North America and Asia (after the East Asian financial crisis in 1997/98). 

Another critical factor was the substantial production cuts by OPEC in conjunction with production restraint from non-OPEC countries. And it was both heralded and caused by a shift in the forward price curve from contango to a state of backwardation.

As Reuters concludes, the events of 1999 illustrate the factors needed to clear an inherited glut of oil (strong demand, production restraint and a shift in the shape of the forward price curve).

There are two major problems: this time around demand is declining - especially in trade-dependent distillate demand  - while debt across the entire world is at record highs,
and makes a fiscal stimulus improbable. Worse, following the November 2014 OPEC fiasco, the cartel effectively no longer exists. Furthermore, major oil exporting countries have not so far agreed to cut production, unlike 1998/99, and in fact Saudi Arabia has openly rejected the idea.  And finally, futures prices remain resolutely in contango, which is both a symptom of excess stockpiles and creates a financial incentive to continue holding them. As Reuters observes, there is no sign of the market moving into backwardation yet, which would indicate the supply-demand balance was shifting and would also create a financial incentive to release oil from storage.

Kemp's conclusion:

Several key OPEC and non-OPEC producers have announced a provisional production freeze which could speed up the rebalancing, assuming it is implemented. 

But it might not be enough to eliminate the glut quickly; outright production cuts may be needed to accelerate the process, depending on what happens to demand and production from other countries.

This is also why Goldman yesterday released its latest bearish report on oil, in which it said the
"commodity rally is not sustainable" and worse, "the force of their reversal has created a new trend in market positioning that could run further. However, the longer they run, the more destabilizing they become to the nascent rebalancing they are trying to price."

In other words, the sharp, brief rebound in prices, means that a long-term sustainable rebound in prices becomes that much less probable.

The bottom line is that the IEA's calculations are likely correct, and end markets are merely misreporting due to commercial interests:  "In 1997/98 episode, the IEA concluded most of the missing barrels went into non-OECD storage and uncounted OECD inventories . In the current episode, it is also very likely some of the 550 million barrels unaccounted for in 2014/15 have gone into unreported storage outside the OECD."


"Hitting peak oil will come faster than any of us think. But don't blame dwindling supply — it's all about disappearing demand" Amory Lovins
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 07:21:21 pm by AGelbert »
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Exxon Developed Low Emissions Technology, Lobbied Against It

The precursors of ExxonMobil have been patenting technologies for electric cars and low emissions vehicles since as early as 1963 while fighting against government funding for the same research.

Newly discovered records show that the oil giants like Esso had as many as 18 patents, including a process to produce electricity in a fuel cell and engine technology to reduce emissions and increase fuel efficiency.

At the same time, the main oil lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, opposed government funding, saying they took “exception to the basic assumption”   ;)  that clean air is possible only through an alternative to oil-burning vehicles.

Alan Jeffers, an Exxon spokesman, refused to comment on the documents. (Guardian, Gizmodo, MSNBC)


Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Big Oil Could Have Put A Dent In CO2 Emissions In 1970s - But Did Nothing

According to new documents from the Center for International Environmental Law, the industry chose to prioritize costs over the planet.   

The new documents show oil companies chose to invest in climate denying instead of on technologies to reduce emissions.

Between the 1950s and 1970s, the industry also financed studies into how petroleum products could be used to control the climate. 

The research included burning oil to clear areas of fog and smog, and constructing massive "artificial heat mountains" out of asphalt to increase rainfall.

As early as the 1980s, oil companies were beginning to invest in taller oil rigs that could withstand rising sea levels.

Tom Sanzillo, finance director at the Cleveland-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, told Vice there is a clear potential, perhaps even likelihood, that these documents will result in litigation against oil companies.

Sanzillo said, "This looks like it's pretty serious, and it just seems to get worse."


Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Germany urged to end coal financing / 'Save the Energiewende' protests


Campaigners urge Germany to stop financing coal projects abroad

Environmental groups urged G7 nations led by Japan and Germany to stop financing coal projects abroad, reports Alister Doyle for Reuters.

The study, released before the G7 summit in Japan this week by groups including the U.S. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), WWF and Oil Change International, said Germany provided nine billion euros between 2007 and 2015, second behind Japan with 22 billion.

Read the Reuters article in English here.

pv magazine
“Moment of warning: five minutes to midnight”

Associations for renewable energies have joined forces with the Industrial Union of Metalworkers (IG Metall) to organise a “moment of warning” as part of the campaign “Save the Energiewende”, reports pv magazine.

Protesters wanted to gather today in numerous locations across Germany to demonstrate against current government plans to slow down renewables development.

The organisers say that the development has advanced too much “to be stopped without collateral damage” and call for a “solid regulatory framework for a renewable energy system”    , writes pv magazine. 

Find more information in CLEW's factsheets EEG reform 2016 – switching to auctions for renewables  and Defining features of the Renewable Energy Act.

Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Headlines that Evidence the Fossil Fuel Industry Consistent LACK of Ethics: 

My father warned Exxon about climate change in the 1970s. They didn't listen (Guardian, Claudia Black-Kalinsky op-ed)

ExxonMobil tried to censor climate scientists to Congress during Bush era

Shell CEO warns renewables shift could spell end if too swift   

Lawmakers  approve bill to cut NOAA, climate research (E&E News $)

The "logic" of the fossil Fuel Industry and their bought and paid for "Lawmakers"

Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Emails Confirm Hillary Clinton Used Her State Department Role to Press Countries to Embrace Fracking

Posted on May 28, 2016

A campaign commercial that aired in upstate New York in April touted Hillary Clinton’s work as secretary of state forcing “some of the world’s worst polluters” to make “real change.” Then she promised to “stand firm with New Yorkers opposing fracking, giving communities the right to say ‘no.’ ”   

Lee Fang and Steve Horn reported at The Intercept on Monday:

The television spot, which was not announced and does not appear on the official campaign YouTube page with most of Clinton’s other ads, implied a history of opposition to fracking, here and abroad. But emails obtained by The Intercept from the Department of State reveal new details of behind-the-scenes efforts by Clinton and her close aides to export American-style hydraulic fracturing — the horizontal drilling technique best known as fracking — to countries all over the world.

Far from challenging fossil fuel companies, the emails obtained by The Intercept show that State Department officials worked closely with private sector oil and gas companies , pressed other agencies within the Obama administration to commit federal government resources including technical assistance for locating shale reserves, and distributed agreements with partner nations pledging to help secure investments for new fracking projects.

Brought to you by the patriotic profit over planet efforts of the fossil fuel government    and their loyal servant, Hillary Clinton.

The documents also reveal the department’s role in bringing foreign dignitaries to a fracking site in Pennsylvania, and its plans to make Poland a “laboratory for testing whether US success in developing shale gas can be repeated in a different country,” particularly in Europe, where local governments had expressed opposition and in some cases even banned fracking.

The campaign included plans to spread the drilling technique to China, South Africa, Romania, Morocco, Bulgaria, Chile, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Indonesia, and Ukraine.

In 2014, Mother Jones reporter Mariah Blake used diplomatic cables disclosed by WikiLeaks and other records to uncover how Clinton “sold fracking to the world.” The emails obtained by The Intercept through a separate Freedom of Information Act request provide a new layer of detail.

Continue reading.

—Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
It’s Time to Break Saudi’s Oil Monopoly and Embrace Clean Transportation

Carl Pope | May 31, 2016 9:15 am

Oil touched $50 last week, close to double its slump price earlier this year, before falling slightly below that benchmark. Short-term impacts—the wildfire in Canada and outages in Nigeria—helped reduce stocks and drive up the price; then Iraq production increases stalled the rally. The market seemed to have averted the risk of an extended period of $20-30 prices, unsustainable for oil dependent nations, even the richest like the Saudis, whose “pump and dump” strategy lies behind the current low-price environment.

What is lacking, particularly in the U.S., is a robust public conversation about breaking oil’s monopoly and replacing it with cleaner transportation.

At $40-60/barrel, however, the Saudis can stay the course. They can afford that price in terms of their budget deficit, if not easily. Some U.S. shale plays come back into production, but the capital heavy projects in the Arctic, ultra-deep ocean or Canadian tar sands are still off the table as prudent investments. Medium term, as non-OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries], non-shale production falls, with no new big ticket projects coming on-line to replace depleted wells, reserves fall. Increasing demand will then require increasing dependence on OPEC and soaring prices. Even if U.S. shale roars back in response, it can’t make up for an investment slump everywhere else. The Saudis can then set the price they want.

Western governments know this. They treat the Kingdom with kid gloves. In Kossovo, even while it was effectively an American protectorate, the Saudis were allowed to implant jihadi mullahs to create an ideological base for their Wahhabi Islam. In the process they “transformed this once-tolerant Muslim society at the hem of Europe into a font of Islamic extremists and a pipeline for jihadists.” Kossovo now sends more recruits to ISIS than any nation in Europe: 314 identified to date from a tiny country.

Kossovo is not alone. Wiki-Leaks found that the Saudi consulate in New Delhi had 140 imams on its payroll—and Indian Muslims lament the erosion of the tolerant Islam that was indigenous to their country.

In Washington, efforts to disclose the role of the Saudis in the 9-11 attacks, laid out in 28 still secret pages of the 9-11 Commission Report, are still stalled by counter-lobbying from the Saudi Government—although some of its representatives have previously asserted they have nothing to hide and would welcome the release of the documents.

So cheaper oil, even oil below $50, has not freed the U.S. from the security threats of oil’s monopoly over global transportation, while it has threatened to continue (or even exacerbate) the escalating disruption of global climate stemming from continued reliance on oil and other fossil fuels.

The Saudi Strategy to extend oil’s hegemony seems to be gathering steam.

But technology and politics are hinting there is a pathway to a world Beyond Oil. Recent months have been full of breakthroughs among advocates of clean transportation technologies like EV’s. The biggest splash was Elon Musk’s staggering 400,000 early orders for the launch of his Model 3. But significant new opportunities for EV’s were also signaled by the declaration by Indian Energy Minister Piyush Goyal that he wanted a national goal of complete electrification of the Indian motor vehicle fleet by 2030! The German government, its market lagging the rest of Europe in EU sales, committed $1.4 billion to catch up. The Austrian Ministry of Agriculture and Environment is working on a plan that would ban the sale of new gas and diesel cars by 2020. Lawmakers in the lower house of the Dutch Parliament approved a motion in March that would ban the sale of new gas and diesel cars five years later.

These kinds of policy support for a more rapid transition to cleaner, non-petroleum based transportation choices matter—a lot.

Indeed, even if clean transportation vehicles have higher sticker prices than diesel or gasoline engines, their positive impact on future oil prices makes them a very good deal for oil importers like the EU, the U.S., India and China. A recent study by Cambridge Econometrics, Oil Market Futures, concluded that investing in clean transportation could help head off the next oil price spike. It also found that without such leadership, oil prices could easily reach $130 by 2050, even though most of the U.S. shale reserves would become profitable again once prices reach $80. Importantly, it estimated public policies to encourage reduced reliance on oil could save $33 trillion in transportation spending over the decade from 2020-2030.

What is lacking, particularly in the U.S. ,  is a robust public conversation about breaking oil’s monopoly and replacing it with cleaner transportation. While states on the West Coast and in the Northeast push for lower oil dependence and the Obama Administration works on fuel economy standards, the oil and auto industries are gearing up a massive political assault on these efforts. Oil companies are pouring tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions into California legislative efforts. The President has done little to make the fight to get off oil a clear priority for his final year in office. Donald Trump, of course, thinks the answer is simply to drill even more wells, precisely the strategy that has left us vulnerable to the Russians and Saudis today.

But one intriguing idea has been offered up—that the next president should set up a National Commission to investigate the manipulation of the global oil market by exporters like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran. The idea was offered by Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE), a coalition of business and national security leaders. SAFE’s goal is not so much to discover new conspiracies—OPEC conducts its market manipulation in the broad light of day and economists have agreed for decades that in a competitive oil market, prices would be far lower.

But what has been lacking is a mechanism to focus public attention on the problem and the solution—ensuring that Americans have genuine transportation choices rather than being forced to fuel up with gasoline, diesel or jet fuel all derived from crude oil. SAFE’s proposed OPEC Commission could serve that function, forcing Washington to address the problem. The first Congressional support for the idea came from some interesting sources: Arizona Republican Congressman Trent Franks, Minnesota Democrat Colin Peterson and Donald Trump’s own energy advisor, North Dakota Congressman Kevin Cramer. (Trump himself did not embrace the idea, nor have either of the Democratic Presidential candidates).

So right now the Saudi bet is paying off—now it’s up to oil importing nations like the U.S. to decide if they want to be whipsawed by $100 oil (or higher) yet one more time—or if they will embrace clean transportation, save trillions, defang Russia and the Wahhabis, with pollution free alternatives to oil.


Agelbert COMMENT: Step one is to get rid of the "subsidies" for any and all fossil fuel exploration, exploitation and products from the well to the refinery to the gas station. There is absolutely no reason why we should dig our own grave supporting these polluting welfare queens.

Senator Sanders, now running for President, has repeatedly submitted legislation to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies over the last decade.

ALL the subsidy money hitherto earmarked for dirty energy MUST be spent on Renewable energy Infrastructure.

Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Sanders Touts Fracking Ban as Clinton Pushes Renewables Plan Just Days Before California Primary

Lorraine Chow | June 2, 2016 1:25 pm

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are ramping up their green bona fides before the Golden State’s crucial Democratic primary Tuesday. The Democratic presidential candidates recently elaborated their national energy plans, with Sanders calling for a nationwide ban on fracking and Clinton pledging to use federal lands to enable the nation’s transition to more renewable energy.

Bernie Sanders

“If elected president, we will not need state-by-state, county-by-county action, because we are going to ban fracking in 50 states in this country,” the Vermont Senator said at a press conference in Spreckels, California. “I hope very much that Monterey County will continue the momentum that makes it clear that fracking is not safe, is not what we want for our kids.”

He also called Clinton out for being weak on fracking regulations. The former Secretary of State has been attacked for her enthusiasm for fracking and natural gas, and for saying at a December 2014 New York City speech before the League of Conservation Voters, “If we are smart about this and put in place the right safeguards, natural gas can play an important bridge role in the transition to a cleaner energy economy.”

“Secretary Clinton and I obviously have many, many differences of opinions on many issues, but on the issue of fracking, our differences of opinion are pretty profound,” he said. “I think it is too late for regulation. I think fracking ought to be banned in America.”

During his speech, Sanders said that the Democratic Party as a whole should also adopt a fracking ban on its platform.

“I would hope the Democratic Party makes it clear that it has the guts to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and tell them that their short-term profits are not more important than the health of our children or the future of our planet,” he said.

Sanders said he will be fighting Clinton all the way to the Democratic National Convention in late July, even though at this point it is mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination based on pledged delegates alone.

However, as Grist noted, even if he loses the nomination, one of the candidate’s biggest contributions is pulling Clinton and the party to the left. Additionally, as the publication observed, he was recently awarded five out of 15 slots on the all-important Democratic Party Platform Drafting Committee, ensuring that his environmental and progressive legacy will live on if he doesn’t win.

Sanders’s candidates include academic and political activist Cornel West, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, Arab American Institute head James Zogby, Native American activist Deborah Parker and climate activist Bill McKibben.

Hillary Clinton

“Now, as we work to combat climate change and build America into the world’s clean energy superpower, our public lands can once again play a key role in unlocking the resources we need,” Clinton wrote in an editorial in the Mercury News published Wednesday.

She continued, “We can accelerate our transition to a clean energy economy by increasing renewable energy generation on public lands and offshore waters tenfold within a decade.” 

According to her campaign website, Clinton has set a goal to generate enough renewable energy to power every home in the country.

“To help meet this goal, Clinton will expand energy production on public lands and waters ten-fold within ten years of taking office, while reforming federal fossil fuel leasing,” the site states.

Clinton, who has a narrow two-point lead over Sanders in California, recently received a rare endorsement from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)’s Action Fund, the first time the NRDC has backed a presidential candidate.

“Hillary Clinton is an environmental champion    with the passion, experience and savvy to build on President Obama’s environmental legacy,” Rhea Suh, president of the NRDC Action fund, said. “More than any other candidate running, Hillary Clinton understands the environmental challenges America faces, and her approach to solving them is grounded in the possibility and promise our democracy affords.”

Michael Brune, Sierra Club’s executive director, also praised Clinton’s environmental stewardship plan, calling it a “huge step forward that would build on the progress President Obama has made to keep our cherished public lands public.”

He said that Clinton’s proposal pushes for reforms of oil and gas leasing programs, and “ends the debate once and for all surrounding offshore drilling in the Arctic and the Atlantic.”

“This detailed, specific plan also reaffirms our belief that everyone should have the same opportunities to enjoy and explore our parks, and boosts the American outdoor economy that creates jobs and generates billions of dollars. Additionally, Clinton is committing to protect our forests and expanding the resources available to fight devastating wildfires,” Brune added.

“We applaud this proposal that makes conservation central to Clinton’s campaign and offers powerful solutions to protect our treasured lands and make them more accessible and available for generations to come.”

The Sierra Club has not endorsed a presidential candidate.


Comment Thread:

agelbert  • 7 hours ago 

Hillary Clinton is a friend of the fossil fuel industry, their polluting practices and their welfare queen subsisdies, every bit as much as Donald Trump is.

Senator Sanders has repeatedly submitted legislation over the last decade to eliminate the welfare queens subsides we-the-people are saddled with on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.

Senator Sanders is credible on Renewable energy and reducing pollution from fossil fuels through the elimination of subsidies and a ban on Fracking.

Hillary Clinton is Trump in drag.
3 △  ▽ 

Rob Brown > agelbert  • 7 hours ago 


I'm not sure I quite agree with your last sentence! Literary fluorishes are always welcome but...... Otherwise you are making fair comments!
1 △  ▽ 

agelbert > Rob Brown  • 6 hours ago 

I just couldn't resist. You are right, of course. There are differences between Trump and Clinton.

But, as far as what needs to be done to provide a viable biosphere, Sanders has the track record and credibility to do it and both Clinton and Trump do not.
1 △  ▽ 


agelbert  • 5 hours ago 

“The Future of U.S. Climate Policy: Coal, Carbon Markets and the Clean Air Act.” - U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse October 29, 2014

“Pollution-driven climate change hurts our economy, damages our infrastructure and harms public health,” he told his audience. “However, none of these costs are factored into the price of the coal or oil that’s burned to release this carbon. The big oil and coal companies have offloaded those costs onto society. Economics 101 tells us that’s a market failure; in the jargon, that negative externalities are inefficient. If a company participates in an activity that causes harm, it should have to compensate those harmed.”

“By making carbon pollution free, we subsidize fossil fuel companies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually,” he continued. “By making carbon pollution free, we fix the game, favoring polluters over newer and cleaner technologies that harvest the wind, sun and waves. Corporate polluters, not bearing the costs of their products, are in effect cheating their competitors.”


Cummulative subsidies pie chart:
1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 6 hours ago 

Hillary Clinton REFUSES to support legislation to eliminate fossil fuels. Senator Sanders has repeatedly introduced legislation to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, advocated for Fracking and sweetheart deals for U.S. Oil and Gas corporations to to several countries. Senator Sanders has been consistently calling for a ban on Fracking.

Senator Sanders cares about we-the-people. Hillary Clinton does not.

Reflections From Below The Fossil Subsidy Iceberg

1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 6 hours ago 

01/30/2015 12:47 PM

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Finally Trending Down, But Not In US  :>(

SustainableBusiness.com News

Now that deep sea oil drilling projects are being cancelled across the world because of low petroleum prices, governments should use this opportunity to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).

And at least 27 countries are doing so, they say. It started in 2013, when fossil subsidies declined by $27 billion to $548 billion, while renewable energy support rose $11 billion to $96.5 billion. The process is accelerating with low oil prices.  

"In the absence of subsidies, all of the main renewable energy technologies would be competitive with oil-fired plants," says Faith Birol, Chief Economist at IEA.  

IEA calculates that for every $1 that subsidizes renewable energy, $6 is spent to subsidize fossil fuels - precious funds that could be used for sustainable development.  

Countries cutting subsides range from Mexico to Germany, from Morocco to Malaysia, mostly in the form of higher gas prices - everyone except the US, as usual! There's no need to subsidize fossil fuel consumption when prices are so low, saving governments lots of money and leveling the playing field for renewable energy.  

India, for example, has been spending 2.2% of GDP on fossil subsidies to keep electric and fuel prices artificially low.  

Fossil Fuel Subsidies US 

Countries need to stop providing subsidies to stoke exploration and production - amounting to about $88 billion last year. The UK, for example, is considering incentives for drilling in the North Sea, and the US - the biggest subsidizer - has a new offshore oil leasing plan. 

IEA has been fervently calling for an end to fossil subsides - that alone, would reduce global emissions 13% - while making it much easier for renewable sources to compete. It would also reduce air and water pollution and free up funding for the Green Climate Fund.  

Efforts to cut emissions by using more renewable energy can't do the job if fossil fuel use keeps growing, says IEA. If the status quo continues, global energy demand will rise 37% and carbon emissions 20% by 2040. That would lead to a 3.6°C (6.5°F) temperature rise - making catastrophic sea level rise, polar ice cap melt, water shortages and other severe effects inevitable.  

To get fossil subsidies down faster, the Center for American Progress is promoting "SPARC Bonds," which would be repaid with savings from reduced subsidies. Read more:

Website: www.americanprogress.org/issue...

see more

1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 6 hours ago 

SNIPPET from an article by Bill Ritter, Colorado’s 41st governor.

Fossil fuels enjoy a variety of targeted tax benefits as well as MLPs. Denying the same mix to renewable energy investors perpetuates federal policies that have long picked fossil fuels as the winners. The PTC/ITC and MLPs should not be an either/or issue. Both belong in an intelligent mix of tax policies that create more robust market competition on a more level playing field.

In addition, opening MLPs to renewable-energy investment is consistent with the "all of the above" energy strategy advocated both by President Obama and the Republican Party. I am confident that as various renewable energy technologies become ready for full-scale commercialization, they will compete very well.

In the absence of access to MLPs, private investors and state governments are creating other ways to capitalize emerging clean-energy technologies. Renewable-energy bonds, green-energy banks, crowdfunding and "yield cos" are among recent innovations.

Nevertheless, a great deal of private capital remains sidelined, waiting for stable and equitable federal energy policies. If we really believe in letting all market-ready energy options slug it out in robust competition, then we shouldn’t ask that federal policies fix the fight. But that is what happens when renewable-energy investors are barred from the tax incentives that investors in fossil fuels enjoy.

Bill Ritter served as Colorado’s 41st governor. He is currently the director of the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University.

1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 6 hours ago 

Unnatural Gas: How Government Made Fracking Profitable (and Left Renewables Behind)

To paraphrase Samuel Clemens in regard to some of his experiences with people that make holes in the ground to get stuff out of and sell to us for "profit", a FRACKING site is a hole the ground with a bunch of LIARS on top.

Here's an article the fossil fuelers will disagree with and ridicule as "garden variety" or "irrelevant" or disdain with some other pejorative bit of puffery.

The only part of the article the fossil fuel funded propagandists will agree with is that the Oil and Gas industry ACTUALLY gave solar power technology development a boost back in the 70s because PV supplied power to very remote locations the fossil fuelers tend be located for new profit over planet piggery.

The FULL story of how we-the-people have supported these fossil fuel and nuclear welfare queens is there from the start until this day. The appearance of fossil duel industry profitability ignores our tax money for research and continuous subsidy.

Fossil fuelers have an amazing ability to ignore, not just externalized costs, but the giveaways from we-the-people! They have the gall to compute those subsidies as part of the ROI (Return On Investment). That's a blatant accounting falsehood. Without subsides they are not profitable, period. But the fossil fuelers will continue with their fantasies, come hell or high water. So it goes.

The bias against renewable funding and support is clear. Recent analysis found that over the first fifteen years an industry receives a subsidy, nuclear energy received an average of $3.3 billion, oil and gas averaged $1.8 billion,Fto and renewables averaged less than $0.4 billion.

Renewables received less than one-quarter of the support of oil and gas and less than one-eighth of the support that nuclear received during the early years of development, when strong investment can make a big difference. Yet even with this disparity, more of our energy supply now comes from renewables than from nuclear, which indicates the strength of renewables as a potential energy source.

The President Carter supported momentum behind renewable development came to a rapid halt as soon as Ronald Reagan was elected president. Not only did he remove the solar panels atop the White House, he also gutted funding for solar development and poured billions into developing a dirty synthetic fuel that was never brought to market.

Unnatural Gas: How Government Made Fracking Profitable (and Left Renewables Behind)

see more

1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 6 hours ago 

The quagmire that faces industrialized civilization is that much of it was built using "cheap" fossil fuels which were, not only subsidized directly, but in nearly all cases the externalities were never factored in so the damage and costs associated with fossil fuel were lugged to the general population/wildlife/environment.

The other important thing is energy, especially artificially cheap energy, acts as an enabler of other resources.

This means if it is cheap to procure energy then the costs of getting other resources lessens and when you reduce the price of any commodity you encourage its consumption. As consumption increases you not only encourage more wasteful consumption but you also make it viable to mine big fields that could only be economic under the current regime of fossil fuels.

Think of all those gold mines or other rare metal mines that need to be treated with harsh chemicals. None of those projects would be viable if there was no "cheap" energy so this is another hidden associated cost of fossil fuels.
1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 7 hours ago 

Legislation to End Fossil Fuel Tax Breaks Introduced by Sen. Sanders, Rep. Ellison Friday, November 22, 2013

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 – As House and Senate budget negotiators look for ways to lower deficits,

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) today introduced legislation to eliminate tax loopholes and subsidies that support the oil, gas and coal industries.

The End Polluter Welfare Act of 2013 would remove tax breaks, close loopholes, end taxpayer-funded fossil fuel research and prevent companies from escaping liability for spills or deducting cleanup costs. Under current law, these subsidies are expected to cost taxpayers more than $100 billion in the coming decade.

The White House budget proposal for next year calls for eliminating several of the same provisions that the legislation by Sanders and Ellison would end.

"At a time when fossil fuel companies are racking up record profits, it is time to end the absurdity of American taxpayers providing massive subsidies to these hugely profitable fossil fuel corporations," Sanders said.

"The five biggest oil companies made $23 billion in the third quarter of 2013 alone. They don’t need any more tax giveaways," Ellison said. "We should invest in the American people by creating good jobs and ending cuts to food assistance instead of throwing tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at one of the biggest and most profitable industries in the world." 

The five most profitable oil companies (ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP and ConocoPhilips) together made more than $1 trillion in profits over the past decade. 

The Sanders and Ellison legislation is supported by environmental groups including Friends of the Earth, Oil Change International and 350.org. 

The fiscal watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, which has worked for nearly two decades to eliminate wasteful energy subsidies, also supports the bills.


Hillary Clinton was silent as DEATH on the above legislation which failed due to Republican pandering to the Fossil Fuel Industry. Hillary Clinton did NOT, and DOES NOT, support the elimination of fossil fuel industry welfare queen subsidies.
see more

1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 7 hours ago 

Here's the main problem I have with the defense of the fossil fuel energy status quo as if it was something reasonably priced, economical, viable and sane as opposed to the continuous fossil fuel industry disngenuous insistence on claiming that renewable energy is "too costly and/or unreliable":

Fossil fuel energy was never, and I mean never, cost effective.

In a sane society that doesn't pretend you can add and subtract whatever factors you wish in order to come up with a profit that will attract investment capital, you figure in all the costs to human society.

From the moment John D. Rockefeller started flushing gasoline down the rivers in Pennsylvania in the late 19th century (it was a waste product then) after refining crude oil for lubricants and lamp oil, huge costs were being foisted on society.

Coal is even worse. Fossil fuelers pretend all that is water under the bridge. Fossil fuelers pretend all the benefits of modern society are an acceptable tradeoff.

Well, they aren't. The only premise that is logical and sane now, with the continued damage that adds insult to injury to the biosphere we all depend on, is to admit that fossil fuels were never a viable, cost effective, sustainable source of energy for mankind and press on to renewable energy simply because there is no other alternative.

A sane person would not argue this isn't real and those who defend fossil fuel energy are not in la la land in regard to the actual cost of these poisons,

The subsidies the fossil-fuel (and nuclear) industry receive — and have received for many years — make their product "affordable." Those subsidies take many forms, but the most significant are their "externalities." Externalities are real costs, but they are foisted off on the community instead of being paid by the companies that caused them.[18]

Paul Epstein, director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, has examined the health and environmental impacts of coal, including: mining, transportation, combustion in power plants and the impact of coal’s waste stream. He found that the "life cycle effects of coal and its waste cost the American public $333 billion to over $500 billion dollars annually". These are costs the coal industry is not paying and which fall to the community in general. Eliminating that subsidy would dramatically increase the price of coal-fired electricity.[18]

IEA position on subsidies

According to IEA (2011) energy subsidies artificially lower the price of energy paid by consumers, raise the price received by producers or lower the cost of production. ,"Fossil fuels subsidies costs generally outweigh the benefits.

Subsidies to renewables and low-carbon energy technologies can bring long-term economic and environmental benefits".[19] In November 2011, an IEA report entitled Deploying Renewables 2011 said "subsidies in green energy technologies that were not yet competitive are justified in order to give an incentive to investing into technologies with clear environmental and energy security benefits".

The IEA's report disagreed with claims that renewable energy technologies are only viable through costly subsidies and not able to produce energy reliably to meet demand. "A portfolio of renewable energy technologies is becoming cost-competitive in an increasingly broad range of circumstances, in some cases providing investment opportunities without the need for specific economic support," the IEA said, and added that "cost reductions in critical technologies, such as wind and solar, are set to continue."[20]

Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies were $409 billion in 2010, oil products claim half of it. Renewable-energy subsidies were $66 billion in 2010 and will reach according to IEA $250 billion by 2035. Renewable energy is subsidized in order to compete in the market, increase their volume and develop the technology so that the subsidies become unnecessary with the development.

Eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies could bring economic and environmental benefits. Phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies by 2020 would cut primary energy demand 5%. Since the start of 2010, at least 15 countries have taken steps to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies.


I say they should take the subsidy money presently assigned to fossil fuels and transfer all of it to renewable energy subsidies.

Fossil fuel was never a viable energy option for mankind. We cannot afford to burn fossil fuels, period.
1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 7 hours ago 

Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S

What is a fossil fuel subsidy?

A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. There are a lot of activities under this simple definition—tax breaks and giveaways, but also loans at favorable rates, price controls, purchase requirements and a whole lot of other things.

How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal companies?

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below 


1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 5 hours ago 

Here's some more real world science that motivates the efforts Senator Sanders. He is the only presidential candidate that understands the gravity of our situation and will to do something to lessen the impact of catastrophic climate change.

quote:The troposphere is warmed in part through absorption of radiation by H2O and CO2, the stratosphere is warmed, indeed created, through absorption of radiation by O3. unquote

quote: the absorption of terrestrial radiation is dominated by triatomic molecules – O3 in the UV, H2O, CO2 and others in the IR (infrared) because it so happens that triatomic molecules have rotational and vibrational modes that can easily be excited by radiation with wavelengths in the IR. These molecules are present in tiny concentrations (see Table 1.2) but play a key role in the absorption of terrestrial radiation (see Fig.2.6). They are known as Greenhouse gases.

This is the fundamental reason why atmospheric radiation may be so vulnerable to the human-induced changes in composition shown in Fig.1.3. p46. unquote

quote: The most important negative feedback regulating the temperature of the planet is the dependence of the outgoing longwave radiation on temperature. p53. unquote

IR (infrared) is longwave radiation.

THE HOTTER IT GETS, the less effective the negative feedback mechanisms that were hitherto keeping a cooling balance on our planet are. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the greater the positive feedback mechanisms heating our planet are.

THAT is why it is called a runaway greenhouse; the hotter it gets, the faster the rate of heating increases.
 △  ▽ 

agelbert > agelbert  • 5 hours ago 

NOTE to EchoWatch AND Disqus. Every single time I have made the above post, it has been flagged as spam. I have not place a link to the studies because this web site has link bounce software that seems to be triggered after about four posts. I have filled my "quota" today, I guess.

This link bounce practice is un-American. Please stop it. In a couple of hours, if this post is still here, I will post the link to the studies irrefutably connecting GHG(s) in general, and CO2 in particular, as THE cause of global warming.

The fossil fuel industry is the culprit. They must go or we will.
 △  ▽ 

agelbert > agelbert  • 16 minutes ago 

Well and good. The post explaining the runaway greenhouse hasn't been attacked as "spam".

Here are the links the data came from:

Absorption frequencies for energy transfer and info on water and CO2 molecules as well as uv energy.


1. http://www.3sc.net/solarm/solr...

2. http://www.grida.no/files/publ...

3. http://www.grida.no/publicatio...

4. http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.go...

5. http://paoc.mit.edu/labweb/not...

6 .http://paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap...
1 △  ▽ 

karen orlando
  • 6 hours ago 

Quite a few people listed in this article like bill mckibben and Michael brune aren't terrifically impressive on climate progress as both are antifracking and anti natural gas. Clearly Bernie is their candidate because his climate platform is also against nuclear. Seems backward thinking to me but that's their choice. Clinton has a briefing fact sheet which doesn't appear to be anti natural gas.

 △  ▽ 

agelbert > karen orlando  • 5 hours ago 

Talk is cheap. The WALK provides incriminating evidence.

Emails Confirm Hillary Clinton Used Her State Department Role to Press Countries to Embrace Fracking

Posted on May 28, 2016


The documents also reveal the department’s role in bringing foreign dignitaries to a fracking site in Pennsylvania, and its plans to make Poland a “laboratory for testing whether US success in developing shale gas can be repeated in a different country,” particularly in Europe, where local governments had expressed opposition and in some cases even banned fracking.

The campaign included plans to spread the drilling technique to China, South Africa, Romania, Morocco, Bulgaria, Chile, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Indonesia, and Ukraine.

In 2014, Mother Jones reporter Mariah Blake used diplomatic cables disclosed by WikiLeaks and other records to uncover how Clinton “sold fracking to the world.”

The emails obtained by The Intercept through a separate Freedom of Information Act request provide a new layer of detail.

 △  ▽ 

Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33197
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Frackopoly: The Battle for the Future of Energy and the Environment will be in bookstores this Tuesday, June 7.

Emily Wurth, Food& Water Watch act@fwwatch.org
Fracking isn't new. Oil and gas industry influence isn't new. But do you ever wonder how we got into this mess?

Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter's new book — Frackopoly: The Battle for the Future of Energy and the Environment — exposes the handful of corporations, financial institutions and individuals that have shaped the policies that keep us reliant on dirty energy sources. With the same forces in play, learning this history is critical to finally moving beyond fracking and fossil fuels.

Our current crisis is no accident. It took over 100 years for the oil and gas industry to accumulate the power they still wield today.

In a recent example, ExxonMobil’s own researchers were aware of the devastating climate impact of fossil fuel extraction and consumption in the late 1970s. Despite what it knew, ExxonMobil has spent $31 million since 1998 to fund climate-denier think tanks and politicians, while keeping its research out of the hands of the concerned public.

The good news: We've already seen that the growing grassroots movement can overcome the biggest and the baddest efforts of the dirty energy industry. Communities are fighting back, and in a big way — and it’s been nothing short of inspiring.

We put together this video to give a taste of what you’ll find in Frackopoly:

Take a look at the video, then sign the petition to stop the Frackopoly:

Thanks for taking action,

Emily Wurth
 Water Program Director
 Food & Water Watch

Emily Wurth,Food& Water Watch act@fwwatch.org
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Ps. 97:11


+-Recent Topics

Future Earth by AGelbert
July 27, 2021, 12:44:32 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 07:32:32 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 06:25:17 pm

Renewable Hydrogen Power by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 05:16:13 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 04:19:45 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 04:00:48 pm

Sustainable Cities by AGelbert
July 26, 2021, 12:51:24 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
July 23, 2021, 04:22:19 pm

U.S State Politics by AGelbert
July 22, 2021, 03:22:33 pm

Special Sensory Perception by AGelbert
July 22, 2021, 02:01:15 pm