+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 42
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 10539
Total Topics: 246
Most Online Today: 5
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 30 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 19, 2018, 02:40:29 pm »




September 18, 2018

Shell 🦕 and Exxon's 🦖 secret 1980s climate change warnings


SNIPPET 1:

America’s amoral military planning during the Cold War echoes the hubris exhibited by another cast of characters gambling with the fate of humanity. Recently, secret documents have been unearthed detailing what the energy industry knew about the links between their products and global warming. But, unlike the government’s nuclear plans, what the industry detailed was put into action.


SNIPPET 2:

The documents make for frightening reading. And the effect is all the more chilling in view of the oil giants’ refusal to warn the public about the damage that their own researchers predicted. Shell’s report, marked “confidential,” was first disclosed by a Dutch news organization earlier this year. Exxon’s study was not intended for external distribution, either; it was leaked in 2015.

Nor did the companies ever take responsibility for their products. In Shell’s study, the firm  argued that the “main burden” of addressing climate change rests not with the energy industry  , but with governments and consumers.

That argument might have made sense if oil executives , including those from Exxon and Shell, had not later lied about climate change and actively prevented governments from enacting clean-energy policies.

Full IRREFUTABLE article:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings



 

 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 16, 2018, 06:50:46 pm »


Quote
This piece is really about removing our support, removing the social validation of these companies, removing what we call their social license. We want politicians and others to think of the fossil fuel industries like they think of the tobacco industry. Like a politician doesn’t want to see their picture in the newspaper shaking hands with the tobacco industry, because we all know they are pariahs. The tobacco industry was willing to lie and undermine public health for their profits.

It’s the exact same thing with the fossil fuel 🐉🦕🦖 industry. Their fundamental business model is threatening humanity. It is killing people right now. Yet we name our stadiums after them, we let them sponsor jazz festivals. We act like they’re a functional member of society when they are literally killing people.

Video and transcript:

https://therealnews.com/stories/annie-leonard-governor-jerry-brown-doesnt-care-about-climate-justice
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 13, 2018, 04:27:54 pm »


🤬

Trump 🦖 Lights the Fuse on a Deadly Methane Bomb💣

BY William Rivers Pitt Truthout
PUBLISHED September 13, 2018

SNIPPET:

The reasons why climate scientists don’t sleep well at night can be condensed into one word: methane. The current methane situation within ongoing planet-wide climate change is already dire. In his ruinous quest to erase the legacy of his predecessor, Donald Trump intends to make matters even worse.

Full article:

https://truthout.org/articles/trump-lights-the-fuse-on-a-deadly-methane-bomb/



 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 01, 2018, 10:53:51 am »



Agelbert NOTICE: To the clever Hydrocarbon Hellspawn trying to stop people from posting on this forum by locking all my board topics:

You have finally gotten my attention. Let the REAL (i.e. SPIRITUAL WARFARE) games begin. I work for God. I know you don't. Therefore, I am confident that your personal life (or lives, if you operate as a team of empathy deficit disordered hackers) will soon be a living hell. Your despicable actions will NOW begin to cause you sporadic, unpredictable, but frequent, multiple difficulties in your daily lives.

By attacking this forum, you have earned your place as an enemy of the Being I work for, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Repent of your evil stupidity while you have the time. Have a nice day.

 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 31, 2018, 06:01:47 pm »

CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.


Tesla “Big Battery” Responds To “Power System Emergency” In Australia 

August 29th, 2018 by Steve Hanley

Last Saturday afternoon, lighting strikes in Australia temporarily interrupted transmission lines that interconnect the electrical grids in the eastern part of the country. For a time, the grids in Queensland and South Australia were turned into energy islands, cut off from the national grid infrastructure. The Australian Energy Market Operator termed the incident a “power system emergency.”

Tesla big battery in South Australia

Customers in New South Wales and Victoria experienced widespread power outages while those in in Queensland and South Australia noticed little more than a momentary flicker of their lights. In Queensland, that happy circumstance was due to an abundance of renewable energy available to meet that state’s energy needs. Some of the excess was being shared with NSW before the transmission line between the two was put out of commission.

South Australia was largely unaffected, thanks to the Hornsdale Power Reserve, known affectionately in SA as the “Tesla Big Battery.” It kicked in immediately to add 84 MW of power to the state’s electrical grid and stabilize the frequency of the local grid, which was disturbed when the link to neighboring Victoria was disrupted.

The success of the “Big Battery” was a silent rebuke to new Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, a Donald Trump wannabe who channeled US senator James Inhofe when he brought a lump of coal onto the floor of parliament earlier this year to demonstrate his love of coal. In July, Morrison uttered these sage words to demonstrate his vast storehouse of knowledge about energy policies:

“I mean, honestly, by all means have the world’s biggest battery, have the world’s biggest banana, have the world’s biggest prawn like we have on the roadside around the country, but that is not solving the problem.” The Big Banana is an amusement park located in Coffs Harbor in northern NSW.


Big Banana NSW

Last year, Morrison went out of his way to mock the Tesla battery installation in South Australia. “I don’t care if it’s wind, coal, the world’s biggest battery, but you’ve got to measure it on its contribution, and it doesn’t measure up to a big solution. 30,000 SA households could not get through watching one episode of Australia’s Ninja Warrior with this big battery. So let’s not pretend it is a solution.”

As RenewEconomy so cogently points out, “The Tesla big battery, also known as the Hornsdale Power Reserve, was able to play a key role in helping keep the grid stable and the lights on in South Australia on Saturday, in its biggest threat since the 2016 blackout. It did solve a problem. Morrison’s Big Banana, on the other hand, wasn’t able to lift a finger to help customers in NSW. Such a shame they didn’t have a battery to help them.” It also noted that people in SA were able to watch their tellies uninterrupted by the crisis.

The outage occurred on the first day of Morrison’s term in office after ousting Malcolm Turnbull last week. Compounding the ignorance of his administration, Matt Canavan, the country’s new resources minister, told The Australian after the event, “The system has heightened vulnerability because of the reliance on interstate and unreliable power. More investment in coal, gas or hydro would firm up the system, create more supply and bring down prices.”

That’s a lie. When the interstate transmission lines went down, NSW was forced to shed 724 MW of load and Victoria 280 MW. In South Australia, no load was shed. None. As in, not any. AEMO said after the event the outages had nothing to do with any loss of generation. In fact, no generator — whether coal, gas, wind or solar — tripped off as a result of the transmission failure. So, sorry, Matt Canavan — no amount of extra generating capability would have helped the situation.

Morrison has appointed Angus Taylor, a fierce critic of renewable energy policies, as his new energy minister, leading the Australian Clean Energy Council to declare that is is now up to the individual states to move the renewable energy revolution forward with no expectation of assistance from the federal government, according to a report by Energy Matters.

If you think it is merely a coincidence that Australia and the US are both now hostages to fossil fuel advocates 🐉🦕🦖 , you are simply not paying attention.
Despite some recent efforts to greenwash themselves, the fossil fuel interests are busy committing crimes against humanity in the background while they continue to stuff their pockets with oil-soaked cash and coal-polished coins, and then use some of that money to buy influence at the highest levels.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/29/tesla-big-battery-responds-to-power-system-emergency-in-australia/


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 29, 2018, 12:13:59 pm »


The Atlantic

The Global Rightward 🐉🦕🦖😈 👹 🏴‍ ☠️ 🚩 Shift on Climate Change

President Trump 🦀 may be leading the rich, English-speaking world to scale back environmental policies.

By ROBINSON MEYER

AUG 28, 2018

SNIPPET 1:

At a basic level, this pattern holds up, well, everywhere. Every country except the United States supports the Paris Agreement on climate change. But no major developed country is on track to meet its Paris climate goals, according to the Climate Action Tracker, an independent analysis produced by three European research organizations. Even Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom—where right-wing governments have made combatting climate change a national priority—seem likely to miss their goals.

Simply put: This kind of failure, writ large, would devastate Earth in the century to come. The world would blow its stated goal of limiting atmospheric temperature rise. Heatwaves 🌡️ might regularly last for six punishing weeks, sea levels could soar by feet in a few short decades, and certain fragile ecosystems—like the delicate Arctic permafrost or the kaleidoscopic plenty of coral reefs—would disappear from the planet entirely.

SNIPPET 2:

So Australia’s energy policy is now again adrift. Its new prime minister, Scott Morrison, is perceived in the country as being on the center-right, and he’s said he won’t abandon the Paris Agreement. But Australian carbon emissions have been rising for six years and it’s totally unclear whether it will meet its greenhouse-gas targets. The new prime minister has also already appointed a far-right opponent of renewable energy to lead Australia’s ministry of energy and environment.

What else drove this coup? Look to a July speech made by Tony Abbot 🦀, a former Australian prime minister and by far its most conservative leader this decade. He exhorted Australia to follow President Trump’s 🦀 lead and leave the Paris Agreement—which is notable, since Abbot himself signed the agreement. But the situation had changed: “Absent America, my government would not have signed up to the Paris treaty, certainly not with the current target,” he said.

Full article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/a-global-rightward-shift-on-climate-change/568684/

Agelbert NOTE: Excellent article. The Hydrocarbon Hellspawn 🐉🦕🦖😈👹 never stop corrupting governments all over the world.

One day somebody will ask (while they take one of these Big Oil Cretins to prison for life), "What part of the FACT that CO2 is a pollutant that can wreak havoc on the biosphere in mere Parts Per Million do you NOT understand?".



Earth with and without GHG:

The last time CO2 was this high:
   

 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 26, 2018, 02:29:37 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Back in 1979 Americans were rather tired of paying through the nose for energy and all things related to energy (food, housing, transportation, breathing, etc. you get the idea). The Hydrocarbon Hellspawn were happy as pigs in poop, blaming OPEC for all those bad nasty oil high prices (that was making the Big Oil in the USA mind bogglingly rich from PRICE GOUGING Americans at the pump and everywhere else).

The blame was put on OPEC while the crooks and liars passing the cost to American public did everything they could to keep their gravy train going. President Carter put his finger on the cause without naming the industries that pushed rampant comsumerist materialism (as far back as Bernays in the 1930's - see: Century of Self) from planned obsolescence to "new" car models each year to feed our status seeking greed. When Carter gave the following speech, it threatened Big Oil (and the Republican Party already owned by Big Oil).

WHY? Because their entire profit over people and planet business model has always been based on making us addicted to pigging out on energy use, no matter the pollution cost, so Big Oil can buy or bop any politician that wants to stop their direct and indirect subsidy welfare queen gravy train.

 

So, their man George H. Bush made SURE Carter lost in 1980 by engaging in a treasonous conspiracy to not release the US State Department hostages  taken in Iran until AFTER the election, so Reagan could use it as a propaganda attack on Carter during the campaign. It worked. >:(

Then Reagan did his part for Big Oil by telling everyone to consume (i.e". "Moring in America" = "make America great again" ). Big Oil drops the price of oil to ZIP to boost their people in the US Petrostate, even while they wail and moan about low oil prices.

Yes, the history books just don't want to talk about how Big Oil managed to drop prices so fast, IMMEDIATELY after Reagan was elected, despite OPEC still wanting more money for their oil. As soon as Reagan got in, Big Oil in the USA was able to control OPEC crude oil prices just fine, even though they just couldn't seem to "control" OPEC prices while Carter was in power... 

Big Oil disngenuously claims it was the "genius" of the "petro-dollar" scheme cooked up by another tool of Big Oil, Kissinger that lowered prices. That is 100% bullshit. WHY? Besides the fact that Kissinger started petro-dollar ball rolling BEFORE Carter became President (Kissinger was part of the Nixon Adminsitration), said duplicitous claim TOTALLY ignores the decision (irrefutably evidenced - SEE: The Tryranny of Oil by Antonia Juhasz) by Big Oil to help the US economy under Reagan in the opposite way that they (NOT OPEC!) HURT the US economy during the Carter Administration (the Bush+Iran Treason was icing on the 'make Carter lose' cake ).

I was there. I  :-[ was a Republican. The anti-Carter propaganda was so thick you could cut it with a knife. I :-[ fell for it. I voted for Reagan (just in 1980).


Learn from me and from history.

It's far worse now, but the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn game plan 🐉🦕🦖 😈 👹 💵 🎩 🍌 🏴‍ ☠️🚩 is identical.  🕵️

We kill Big Oil or Big Oil kills us, along with all the greedy, empathy deficit disordered, abysmally stupid Wall Street Capitalist bastards that support their "business model".



The “Malaise” Speech: When Jimmy Carter Humbly Told the Truth to Americans

July 16, 2018 | By The Conversation

Guest post by David Swartz of Asbury University/The Conversation


Employees at a gas station in Los Angeles watch President Jimmy Carter giving his energy speech over national television on July 15, 1979 (AP file photo)

Nearly 40 years ago, on July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter went on national television to share with millions of Americans his diagnosis of a nation in crisis. “All the legislation in the world,” he proclaimed, “can’t fix what’s wrong with America.” He went on to call upon American citizens to reflect on the meaning and purpose of their lives together.

Carter made several specific policy prescriptions. But in a presidency animated by spirituality perhaps more than any other in American history, this speech called more generally for national self-sacrifice and humility.

At a time when political strongmen, hypernationalism, and xenophobia have risen in the U.S. and the world, Carter’s speech offers a powerful counterexample to these trends.

A nation in ‘very serious trouble’

In 1979, Jimmy Carter was three years into his presidency. The burdens were many. Leading a divided Democratic Party, he faced a staunch and growing Republican opposition. The nation suffered from stagflation, a combination of economic stagnation and 12 percent inflation.

In 1973 the OPEC cartel, comprised mostly of Middle Eastern countries, had cut oil production and imposed an embargo against nations that supported Israel. In the late 1970s production declined again. Coupled with high global demand, this generated an energy crisis that increased gasoline prices by 55 percent in the first half of 1979.

In protest, truckers set bonfires in Pennsylvania, and Carter’s approval rating sank to 30 percent. An anxious Carter cut short his overseas trip to Vienna where he was holding nuclear-arms talks with the Soviet Union’s Leonid Brezhnev.

After a brief stop in Washington, the President retreated to Camp David for ten days. As he considered the severe and interlocking problems facing his administration, Carter read the Bible, historian Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism, and economist E.F. Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful, a meditation on the value of local community and the problems of excessive consumption.

He also invited representatives from many sectors of American life – business and labor leaders, teachers and preachers, and politicians and intellectuals – to consult with him. By the end of his retreat, Carter had concluded that the country faced more than a series of isolated problems. Collectively they comprised a fundamental cultural crisis.

The malaise speech


Having cloistered himself for an unprecedented length of time, the President emerged from Camp David with great drama on July 15, 1979. In a nationally televised speech that was watched by 65 million Americans, Carter intoned an evangelical-sounding lament about “a crisis of the American spirit.”

He said,

Quote
“In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now worship self-indulgence and consumption.”

Indeed, the President’s sermon expounded at length about excess. “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns,” he preached. But “owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning.”


It was a penetrating cultural critique that reflected Carter’s spiritual values. Like the writers of the New Testament, he called out sin. Like the prophets of the Old Testament, he confessed to personal and national pride.

In the mode of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, he noted the limits of human power and righteousness. In this moment of national chastening, he committed himself and the nation to rebirth and renewal.

As a scholar of American religious history, this so-called “malaise speech” (though Carter never actually used the word “malaise”) was, in my opinion, the most theologically profound speech by an American president since Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.

A squandered opportunity

This articulation of economic and political humility sounded the perfect pitch for a nation whose confidence in civil institutions had been shaken. The Watergate scandal had revealed corruption in the nation’s highest political offices. The Vietnam War had ended with a Communist victory.

The “malaise speech” was a continuation of a long-running theme for Carter. In his 1977 inaugural address, he intoned, “We have learned that ‘more’ is not necessarily ‘better,’ that even our great nation has its recognized limits, and that we can neither answer all questions nor solve all problems … we must simply do our best.”

Popular memory suggests that the nation reacted negatively to his speech. In The Age of Reagan, historian Sean Wilentz writes that Carter appeared to be blaming the American citizens for their problems. Others panned Carter’s idealistic approach to the energy crisis as naïve.

Soon after the speech, Carter got a bump in his approval ratings. AP Photo/Harry Cabluck

But that was not how most Americans received the speech. In fact, Carter enjoyed an immediate 11 percent bump in his job approval rating in the days that followed. Clearly many agreed with Carter’s line that the nation was mired in a “moral and spiritual crisis.”

The President, however, failed to capitalize on the resonance with his meditation. Just two days after his speech, Carter fired his entire cabinet, which seemed to suggest that his government was in disarray.

The President’s poll numbers immediately melted. As Time magazine described it, “The President basked in the applause for a day and then set in motion his astounding purge, undoing much of the good he had done himself.” Ronald Reagan soon capitalized on the disillusionment. “I find no national malaise,” said Carter’s successor, who campaigned on a platform of America as “a shining city on a hill.

About to win the Cold War, America was ready for some exuberant nationalism, not a plain-style president who insisted on carrying his own garment bag aboard Air Force One.

New resonance

Forty years later, national jingoism pervades both political parties. Republicans and Democrats alike speak of the United States as a “city on a hill,” and Donald Trump’s “America first” rhetoric has lifted hubris to new heights and alienated allies around the world.

The Conversation Jimmy Carter’s sermon of humility speaks more than ever to crises of our times.

David Swartz is Associate Professor of History, Asbury University. This article was originally published on The Conversation.

https://www.who2.com/president-carter-national-malaise-speech-sermon-1979/

Quote
“The world says: "You have needs -- satisfy them. You have as much right as the rich and the mighty. Don't hesitate to satisfy your needs; indeed, expand your needs and demand more." This is the worldly doctrine of today. And they believe that this is freedom. The result for the rich is isolation and suicide, for the poor, envy and murder.” ― Fyodor Dostoyyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov


Tomorrow is Yesterday...

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 23, 2018, 08:40:16 pm »


Trump’s 🦀 Dirty Energy Appointees Dismantle Clean Energy Controls 

August 22, 2018

Trump’s EPA announced a plan to end Obama’s Clean Power Plan, using coal companies’ proposals, which lowers federal regulations on emissions and allows states to set their own emissions reduction goals. We discuss the proposal with Mustafa Ali


https://therealnews.com/stories/trumps-dirty-energy-appointees-dismantle-clean-energy-controls



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 21, 2018, 03:21:32 pm »

The New Republic


The Modern Automobile Must Die    

If we want to solve climate change, there's no other option.

By EMILY ATKIN

August 20, 2018

SNIPPET:

Germany was supposed to be a model for solving global warming. In 2007, the country’s government announced that it would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by the year 2020. This was the kind of bold, aggressive climate goal scientists said was needed in all developed countries. If Germany could do it, it would prove the target possible.

So far, Germany has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 27.7 percent—an astonishing achievement for a developed country with a highly developed manufacturing sector. But with a little over a year left to go, despite dedicating $580 billion toward a low-carbon energy system, the country “is likely to fall short of its goals for reducing harmful carbon-dioxide emissions,” Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday. And the reason for that may come down not to any elaborate solar industry plans, but something much simpler: cars.

“At the time they set their goals, they were very ambitious,” Patricia Espinosa, the United Nations’ top climate change official, told Bloomberg. “What happened was that the industry🦕🦖—particularly the car industry 😈🐉🦕🦖didn’t come along.” 

Changing the way we power our homes and businesses is certainly important. But as Germany’s shortfall shows, the only way to achieve these necessary, aggressive emissions reductions to combat global warming is to overhaul the gas-powered automobile and the culture that surrounds it. The only question left is how to do it.

In 2010, a NASA study declared that automobiles were officially the largest net contributor of climate change pollution in the world. “Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and greenhouse gases that promote warming, while emitting few aerosols that counteract it,” the study read. “In contrast, the industrial and power sectors release many of the same gases—with a larger contribution to [warming]—but they also emit sulfates and other aerosols that cause cooling by reflecting light and altering clouds.”

In other words, the power generation sector may have emitted the most greenhouse gases in total. But it also released so many sulfates and cooling aerosols that the net impact was less than the automobile industry, according to NASA.

Since then, developed countries have cut back on those cooling aerosols for the purpose of countering regular air pollution, which has likely increased the net climate pollution of the power generation industry. But according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, “collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all U.S. emissions,” while “in total, the U.S. transportation sector—which includes cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships, and freight—produces nearly thirty percent of all US global warming emissions ... .”

In fact, transportation is now the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States—and it has been for two years, according to an analysis from the Rhodium Group.

Full article:

https://newrepublic.com/article/150689/modern-automobile-must-die
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 19, 2018, 08:54:25 pm »

So, How’s That Major-Party Election Madness Working for Us?

August 12, 2018

By Paul Street —  The Republicans and Democrats are two faces of the same failure. And there will be no real hope of rescue by third parties until the American system of electoral politics is rebuilt from the ground up.

SNIPPET:

Quote
A smart and liberally inclined family doctor I know recently expressed concern over her high-income husband’s support for the malignant narcissist and pathological liar currently occupying the White House. “I can understand him being a Republican,” the doctor says, “but I just don’t get him backing Donald Trump.”

The problem here—what the doctor doesn’t get—is that Trump’s malicious persona and politics are darkly consistent with the white-supremacist and arch-reactionary heart and dog-whistling racism of the Republican Party going back five decades. It was just a matter of time until something like Trump happened: a Republican candidate who really meant the racism. Along the way, the Republican Party has become what Noam Chomsky credibly calls “the most dangerous organization in human history” because of its total disregard for livable ecology and its dedication to destruction and dismantlement of any institutions in place to address global warming.
The Greenhouse Gassing to Death of Life on Earth is a crime that promises to make even the Nazi Party look like a small-time crime syndicate.

Read more:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/so-hows-that-major-party-election-madness-working-for-us/

 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 19, 2018, 06:48:35 pm »


US   🐉🦕🦖 says conserving oil is no longer an economic imperative


By ELLEN KNICKMEYER

SNIPPET:

August 19, 2018y

WASHINGTON (AP) — Conserving oil is no longer an economic imperative for the U.S., the Trump administration declares in a major new policy statement that threatens to undermine decades of government campaigns for gas-thrifty cars and other conservation programs.🤬

The position was outlined in a memo released last month in support of the administration’s proposal to relax fuel mileage standards. The government released the memo online this month without fanfare.

Growth of natural gas and other alternatives to petroleum has reduced the need for imported oil, which “in turn affects the need of the nation to conserve energy,” the Energy Department said.

It also cites the now decade-old fracking revolution that has unlocked U.S. shale oil reserves, giving “the United States more flexibility than in the past to use our oil resources with less concern.” 


With the memo, the administration is formally challenging old justifications for conservation — even congressionally prescribed ones, as with the mileage standards. The memo made no mention of climate change. Transportation is the single largest source of climate-changing emissions.

President Donald Trump 🦀 has questioned the existence of climate change, embraced the notion of “energy dominance” as a national goal, and called for easing what he calls burdensome regulation of oil, gas and coal, including repealing the Obama Clean Power Plan.

Despite the increased oil supplies, the administration continues to believe in the need to “use energy wisely,” the Energy Department said, without elaboration. Department spokesmen did not respond Friday to questions about that statement.

Reaction was quick.

Full article:

https://www.apnews.com/18583e5da59d4329bc6a409e233aad7f/US-says-conserving-oil-is-no-longer-an-economic-imperative



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 18, 2018, 06:47:32 pm »


Is Climate Change Killing More People Than George W Bush Ever Could?


Thom Hartmann Program   
 
Published on Jul 31, 2018

Short answer yes, it already has, and partly because of his wars he started we still have to do something and the question is what?



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 14, 2018, 06:22:50 pm »

Agelbert  RANT :

The mens rea of the fossil fuel industry and almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies, including Procter & G a m b l e and Duke Energy, has been recently exposed. They all funded lobbyists and propagandists in order to obstruct climate change legislation.

I use the Latin legal expression, "mens rea", because the above obstructionists of climate change legislation were knowledgeable over 40 years ago of the damage that burning fossil fuels causes to the biosphere in general and humans in particular.

As Theresa  Morris made quite clear in her essay, these corporations made the wrong choice. And they made that choice because they refused to think things through.

Ethical considerations aside for a moment, the people in these powerful corporations are not stupid. They love their own children.

So, if they knew, because over 40 years ago ExxonMobil scientists laid out the facts to oil executives, who then secretly joined with several other corporations to fund denial of climate change and obstruct climate change legislation, why did they, with malice and aforethought, engage in disguising the fact that they were, and are, getting an F in viable biosphere math?

Some will say that it's a no brainer that they did it for profit. While that is partially true, it ignores the fact that big oil corporations DO believe their own scientists. It also ignores the fact that fossil fuel corporations DO NOT believe the happy talk propaganda that they fund.

They plan ahead. They plan to take advantage of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' mentioned by  Stephen Gardiner. The corporations did not get limited liability laws passed because they wanted to be socially responsible. I believe they will use the 'Fragmentation of Agency', in regard to biosphere damage claims, to unjustly limit their liability in a typically unethical "damage control" exercise.

One of the themes about human history that I have tried to communicate to readers over and over is that predatory capitalist corporations, while deliberately profiting from knowingly doing something that causes pollution damage to the populace, always plan AHEAD to socialize the costs of that damage when they can no longer deny SOME liability for it. Their conscience free lackey lawyers will always [b]work the system[/b] to limit even PROVEN 100% liability.

When 100% liability is blatantly obvious, as in the Exxon Valdez oil spill, they will shamelessly use legalese to limit the liability. ExxonMobil pulled a fast one on the plaintiffs by getting "punitive", rather than "compensatory" damages. See what the learned counselor said, "The purpose of punitive awards is to punish, not to destroy, according to the law". Ethics free Exxon and its ethics free lawyers KNOW how the Court System "works". JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 18:151] The purpose of this comment is to describe the history of the Exxon Valdez litigation and analyze whether the courts and corresponding laws are equipped to effectively handle mass environmental litigation..

While the profits are rolling in, they will claim they are "just loyal public servants, selflessly providing a service that the public is demanding", while they laugh all the way to the bank. When the damage is exposed, they will claim we are "all equally to blame" (i.e. DISTORTED Fragmentation of Agency).

This is clearly false because polluting corporations, in virtually all cases, AREN'T non-profit organizations. If they were NOT PROFITING, THEN, and only then, could they make the claim that "we all benefited equally so we all are equally responsible to pay equally for the cost."

Those who presently benefit economically from the burning of fossil fuels, despite the scientific certainty that this is ushering in a Permian level mass extinction, will probably be quick to grab on to a severely distorted and duplicitous version of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' meme, in regard to assigning the proportionate blame for the existential threat our species is visiting on future generations.

Privatizing the profits and socializing the costs is what they have done for over a century in the USA. They have always gotten away with it. That is why, despite having prior knowledge that their children would be negatively impacted by their decisions, they decided to dispense with ethical considerations.

They assumed that, with all the profits they would accumulate over the last 40 years (or as long as the populace can be blinded to the truth of the existential threat), they could protect their offspring when things got "difficult".

They know that millions to billions of people, in all probability, will die. But they think their wealth can enable them to survive and thrive.   

As for the rest of us, who obtained a pittance in benefits in comparison to the giant profits the polluters raked (and still continue to rake) in, we can expect an army of corporate lawyers descending on our government(s) demanding that all humans, in equal portions, foot the bill for ameliorating climate change.

The lawyer speak will probably take the form of crocodile tears about the "injustice of punitive measures" or, some double talk legalese limiting "punitive damage claims" based on Environmental LAW fun and games (see: "punitive" versus "compensatory" damage claims).

This grossly unjust application of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' is happening as we speak. The poorest humans are paying the most with their health for the damage done by the richest. The richest have avoided most, or all, of the deleterious effects of climate change.

When the governments of the world finally get serious about the funding needed to try to clean this mess up (present incremental measures ARE NOT sufficient), the rich plan to continue literally getting away with ecocide, and making sure they don't pay their share of the damages for it. 

As Kevin Anderson (after showing the alarming rate of increase in CO2 emissions) put it in the graphic below, the 1% bear about 50% of the blame.


Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should look like this:



The way the fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies, will want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart to look like is as follows:


The world of business has made many Empathy Deficit Disordered, unethical choices. We are all paying for their rejection of  their responsibility to use dianoia in their decision making process.

But they are relatively few in number. Their chicanery would cease from a huge public outcry if they did not have so many people aiding and abetting their unethical biosphere destroying modus operandi.

Those are the comfortable millions who have swallowed the corporate happy talk propaganda.

Those are the people that continue to delay progress on the implementation of the drastic government action we must demand, which is desperately needed to stem, or eliminate, the length and breadth of the climate change damage existential threat.

The people who think that this climate change horror can be addressed by incremental measures are, as Aristotle said, deliberately becoming irrational.

Dianoia is sine qua non to a viable biosphere.





 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 09, 2018, 10:16:53 pm »

 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

Aug 8, 2018



Trump 🦀Admits Gas Mileage Reversal Will Kill 60k Jobs

As the barrage of dumb Trump stuff marches on (Yay crimes! Boo water!), analysis of Trump’s stupid policy moves often fails to grab the public’s attention (yay asbestos!)

One of the administration’s most stupid policies of late is its decision to reverse Obama-era gas mileage standards. Don’t let the official language about the supposed lifesaving benefits fool you: rolling back these standards, in essence, lets car companies off the hook for producing better cars, and keeps customers buying, and burning, more gas. 

E&E News, thankfully, has put some smart reporters on the “stupid policy” beat, and produced a number of interesting stories lately about the auto mileage standard rollback. Last Thursday, the outlet ran an intriguing story about how the car rule came together. Though officially the policy was a joint effort between the EPA and Department of Transportation, E&E reported that retired EPA officials told them the DOT “cooked the books,” and that “EPA staff had basically nothing to do with” the final policy document.

If DOT did take the steering wheel for this particular policy, it’s not because of ample staff time: the division of the DOT that worked on the rule, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has far fewer experts at its disposal than the EPA. One former EPA staffer told E&E that her “understanding is that NHTSA in-house has only two engineers that are responsible for the fuel economy standards, whereas at EPA, we have hundreds of engineers.”

Perhaps that dearth of experience is a reason why, per a second E&E story last week, the auto rollback policy proposal cites research from scientists who told E&E that they think the rollback is “nuts” and “just not consistent with the evidence." One researcher also pointed out the irony that the data used in the study and cited by the administration is private, and therefore wouldn’t be permitted under the EPA’s proposed (and opposed) pro-tobacco science rule.

That the policy proposal justifies the burning of more oil with research about the dangers of doing just that is hardly the only oddity. Two stories E&E ran yesterday provide more details on the nearly thousand-page auto rule proposal.

For example, despite Trump’s claim last year that “the assault on the American auto industry is over,” and the right wing’s well-worn canard about regulations costing jobs, Trump’s proposed rule change, per E&E, actually says the opposite: the weakened standards could result in as many as 60,000 fewer jobs in the industry. As it turns out, innovation and competition are good for business and employment, and letting those things stagnate isn’t. What a shocker!

Equally shocking is that the proposal points to higher oil consumption as a result of the suggested changes, estimating that an additional 500,000 barrels will be burned per day after the policy is implemented. As a result, E&E reports, the rule suggests that CO2 concentrations by 2100 will reach an unthinkable 789.76 ppm 😡, nearly doubling the concentrations. 😱 🤬

Although the administration has downplayed just how much additional carbon pollution the rollback will emit, Rhodium’s Trevor Houser pointed out on Twitter that “by 2035 the impact could be larger than total national emissions of 82% of countries today.”

More pollution, fewer jobs, more time and money spent at gas stations. Surely not a good rule for anyone.

Except, of course, the oil industry 🐉🦕🦖, which lobbied for the move. That Trump 🦀 would appease them , and not any other Americans, is pretty much the only thing that makes sense about the reversal.a



 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 08, 2018, 07:58:48 pm »

CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.

Saving Private Tesla: 7 Questions

August 8th, 2018 by Michael Barnard 


Quote
Michael Barnard Mike works with startups, existing businesses and investors to identify opportunities for significant bottom line growth in the transforming low-carbon economy. He regularly publishes analyses of low-carbon technology and policy in sites including Newsweek, Slate, Forbes, Huffington Post, Quartz, CleanTechnica and RenewEconomy, with some of his work included in textbooks. Third-party articles on his analyses and interviews have been published in dozens of news sites globally and have reached #1 on Reddit Science. Much of his work originates on Quora.com, where Mike has been a Top Writer annually since 2012. He's available for consultation, speaking engagements and Board positions.

On August 7, 2018, Elon Musk tweeted a game changer. He indicated that he was working toward taking Tesla private and had secured the funding to do so. It’s fairly easy to guess from this five-day view of Tesla’s stock price when the tweet dropped.

TSLA trading was halted briefly with the significant rise in market capitalization and volume.

Which leads to a set of questions. Is Elon Musk serious? Is it a good idea? Is announcing it on Twitter legal? Who wins and who loses? How will individuals invest in Tesla after this? What could stop it? What’s next? Let’s take these one by one.


Is Elon Musk serious?

Yes, he is. At around the same time as he tweeted, an email was sent to all employees and then later posted to the corporate blog. It outlined the status, the reasons, and for IPO- and Silicon Valley-savvy employees, provided a great deal of reassurance that this was focused on moving the company forward.


Is it a good idea?

Yes, I think it is. Before seeing the email/blog post, I pointed out the four advantages I saw to going private.

First, it’s good for current investors. If they own shares now, they can cash out at 20% above start of Aug 7, 2018 value. Furthermore, TSLA was already close to its historic maximum after the quarterly analyst call and Tesla’s achievement of the key 5,000 cars per week target. Investors, whether they were recent or long-term holders of TSLA shares, will do very well by this. If they had bigger dreams, they can retain their shares in Tesla after it goes private.

Second, it eliminates the Tesla shorter nonsense. There will no longer be that subset of market-driven venality creating a churn of negative PR for Tesla. There will no longer be any short selling opportunity for shorters, so they will turn their sights to other targets and stop paying attention to Tesla. The negative press won’t stop, as shorters were well-aligned with organizations and individuals seeking to impede electrification of transportation and the inevitable shift to an electric economy. The Koch Brothers, the oil majors, and the Libertarian “think” tank content providers will continue to fund and churn out various pieces of nonsense. But they won’t be aided and abetted by the shorters and the shorter-oriented press.

The third is that this would make Tesla a $70 billion private company, which is well under the largest. Both Cargill and Koch — there’s that name again — are well over $100 billion, and Koch is increasingly stuck with stranded assets, hence its ongoing, overlapping campaigns against global warming, renewables, and electric vehicles. Private funding that Koch has lined up is looking for exits in many cases, and shifting to a privately owned Tesla would make sense. That’s part of the story of the $2 billion+ position the Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth fund has in Tesla. The size of the private company, in other words, wouldn’t be a hindrance to raising capital or funding debt. It will increase the cost of acquiring capital and debt according to some analysts.

The fourth is that Musk has significant experience running a successful private corporation — SpaceX. Private is arguably much simpler than public, and if you don’t have to deal with public stock offering compliance, then a subset of your overhead diminishes. One report references a 10% saving there. Instead of quarterly analyst calls, a smaller number of institutional discussions and governance suffice.

These are reasonably well aligned with Musk’s reasoning in the email/blog post. They are obvious in retrospect, bold in strategic execution.


Is announcing it on Twitter legal?

The consensus seems to be that it is. The question comes down to intent and accepted medium. If the intent was solely to pump and dump the stock, then it’s illegal. If the intent was to clearly tell the markets and investors about the intent to take Tesla private, then it is legal assuming the medium is appropriate.

And while many aged former SEC officials are looking somewhat aghast at the choice of Twitter as a medium, the consensus appears to be that as Musk regularly imparts corporate strategy via Twitter, as his following is 22.9 million and as the press watches his Twitter feed like a hawk, this is an appropriate medium. The medium would have to be one that is provably intended to hide the information, not ensure its broad and rapid dissemination. No one can claim that they weren’t given the opportunity as investors to know about this plan.

And given the other preparations that have been made, Tesla’s legal team probably signed off on Twitter as the vehicle for this.


Who wins and who loses?

As stated, investors win. [Editor’s note: However, some investors who wanted to hold the company for much longer but also wanted the high liquidity public stock ownership offers can lose, especially if they feel forced to sell at a lower price than they could have if they held onto the public stock. Shareholders of private Tesla will reportedly have the opportunity to sell shares once every six months or so, but details regarding this and how the company will be valued have not been disclosed.]

Employees of Tesla win as well, I think. The drumbeat of negative “news” goes down while they continue to be equity holders in the company. Their personal wealth goes up just as much as any other investor’s.

People who are focussed, as I am, on the transformation of our economy from technologies causing pollution and global warming to much more benign technologies are winners as well. Musk’s blog lays out the reasons why this is good for the management and future of Tesla, and Tesla is leading the electrification of transportation disruption, which is sweeping the automotive industry. It’s part of his master plan, and this assists with that master plan.

Shorters lose. Bigly. They have already lost billions on Tesla, but shorting has wins and losses and it’s a matter of timing. The biggest shorters with the longest positions have lost the worst, and the shorters who bet on the most recent quarterly analysts call lost large as well. But Tesla is a volatile stock, and there were undoubtedly many counter-investors who did just fine taking short positions at the right time for the right duration. And as has been shown, many of them have excellent communications channels with the Tesla-focussed press to gain the knowledge of when to make their bets. That’s all gone now.

The subsets of the media which received a ton of eyeballs from a steady stream of anti-Tesla news and posts — Seeking Alpha and Business Insider are the most obvious examples — will lose as well. With shorters and day traders no longer obsessing second by second over TSLA, eyeballs for those sites will diminish. (Editor’s note: That could also mean that eyeballs on CleanTechnica will drop. We are not stressed about that, since our core aim is to help society help itself, however that may be as it relates to cleantech news, analysis, and commentary. We only cover Tesla because of its important role in the cleantech transition. You can also support us via a monthly subscription if you are concerned about our revenue dropping. 😉 😀 )

Arguably, stock market analysts, especially the ones on the quarterly calls, lose. Tesla is a halo stock. Being on their calls is a status symbol. Tesla is sexy. If those calls go away, it’s back to a mind-numbing round of discussions of various less interesting company details. But that’s their job. Small loss for them really.

How will individuals invest in Tesla after this?
It will still be possible via a private investment vehicle that Tesla will set up. They need to do this for their employees. Musk asserts that retail investors will have a choice to be bought out or stay in the private investment vehicle. There are various mechanisms for this, but the specific one used is a matter of speculation at this point.


What could stop it?

Revlon.

Okay, that requires some explanation. In 1985, Revlon was sold with the aid of a junk bond king and saddled with $2.9 billion in debt. This caused Revlon grief for years, but what is relevant is that it is a case which has established fiduciary duty for Boards of Directors which require competitive auctions in situations like Tesla’s.

In other words, the Tesla Board of Directors has a legal obligation to ensure that taking Tesla private with the funding Musk has lined up is in the best interests of the shareholders. That’s not Tesla’s best interest. That’s not Elon Musk’s best interest. That’s the shareholders’ best interest.

Now, tweets like Musk’s don’t appear magically without a lot of planning and preparation. He’s on the wrong coast of the USA for that. This has undoubtedly been a subject of strategic discussion with the Board for months and possibly years. Equally possibly, the Board could have already discharged its fiduciary duty prior to the tweet coming out.

If not, then they will be required to basically auction the company off to the highest bidder, regardless of any structures and funding Musk has established today. Watch this space.


What’s next?

This isn’t approved. This has to go to stakeholders for their approval. That will take a bit of time to set up, as voting for shareholders isn’t electronic and formal mechanisms for this are specified under SEC regulations.

And if the Board hasn’t already performed its fiduciary duty and ensured that competitive funding alternatives lead to something in the best interest of the shareholders, that will take a while as well.

In the meantime, the shorters will undoubtedly be attempting to find ways to spin this and short Tesla stock until it disappears entirely.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/08/saving-private-tesla-7-questions/



Quote
Maarten Vinkhuyzen

The problem with the Revlon case is that the courts likely view what is best for stockholders as the highest bid now. The option that Elon offers, to stay on as stockholders in a private company will likely not be valued.

Another question is, what is the value of Tesla without Musk?
I doubt there can be a competing bid without Musk underwriting it.

And no (group of) business adversaries is going to spend that much money just to liquidate Tesla.

OK, Revlon is scary, it will delay the process, but it is unlikely to alter the outcome.


Martin Lacey > Maarten Vinkhuyzen

If big oil is intent on killing the EV they have more money than anyone and can buy Tesla and moth ball their technology. Highly unlikely, I know.

Amazon and Apple might well be interested in buying Tesla, incorporating it into their companies and will offer Musk a lead designer/engineer role and a big buy out. Both Amazon and Apple can make their own autonomous vehicles and use whichever autonomous suite is ready first.

agelbertMartin Lacey

I am certain big oil wants to kill Tesla by hook or by crook. That said, I think they will bankrupt themselves trying. Yes, they have a lot of money and almost unlimited government backing in the U.S. Petro-State under Trump, but I am convinced the EV train has already left the station.

It's just too late to stop the Renewable Revolution in general and EVs in particular. The Chinese alone are making a lot more EVs than Tesla ever will, so no matter how much skullduggery is aimed at Tesla, even Tesla will come out like Rocky in the movie series. Tesla will get punched around but will come out of this smelling like a rose. 

Betting against EVs is a losing bet that big oil has decided to push to the limit. It will help sink them faster. WHY? Because their happy talk propaganda has always been based on being our "loyal servant".

That is what got them so much public support. Now big oil is being exposed as the greedy, government bribing, welfare queen subsidized bullies they have always been.

Those crooks will not be able to counter the truth. The public will turn its back on big oil permanently.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 08, 2018, 07:34:37 pm »

Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s Plan To Take Tesla Private  ;D

August 7th, 2018 by Kyle Field


https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/07/tesla-ceo-elon-musks-plan-to-tesla-private/

Agelbert COMMENT to Zachary Shahan of Cleantechnica:

Zach, nobody here seems to want to mention it (except Kyle in the article), but the Saudi move is evidence that the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn fossil fuelers smell the bankruptcy coffee from losing their market for the (former refinery waste) products called gasoline and diesel.

I have done the math over and over. The "business model" of the Fossil Fuel Industry is a dead man walking without a welfare queen subsidized market for liquid pllanet polluting fuels.

That is the REAL bottom line for those crooks. They are, therefore, going all out to destroy the competition. This is not new to the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn. This is a part of their "buy em' or bop em'" fascist "business model".

Elon has anticipated those dastardly fossi lfuelers at every turn and beat them with high tech products and publlic good will.

But now, the threat to Tesla is an order of magnitude greater. Now, you can be 100% certain that Trump is backing the Saudi move with all the skullduggery he can muster.

Therefore, the e-mail announcing the possible move to go private is exactly the right move. Every shareholder will now realize what the Saudis (and the Koch/Exxon/Chevron,etc. et al tools, including Trump) are up to.

As a group the shareholders will individually put pressure on brokers to NOT sell without specific permission. All the hedge funds and pension funds that hold Tesla stock will be hearing , LOUD AND CLEAR, from people of good will that they will NOT agree to a hostile takeover from polluters.

So, with just a single e-mail, Elon has forced the cretins from the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn to abandon any hope of destroying the company with shorts (the "bop em'" mafia tactic they have used often to destroy the competition).

Simultaneously, the e-mail also exposes the "buy em'" option as an attempt to destroy the competition against liquid hydrocarbon fuels, effectivel destroying the underhanded, but clever, fossil fueller plan to fool the public into believing the stock buy is a "Saudi move o Renewable Energy".

The Hydrocarbon Hellspawn are against the wall. They fight VERY dirty when they are threatened.

Elon Musk needs every single person that understands the good that he is trying to accomplish to get active and call out the happy talk lies about polluting cars over and over and over again.

For those of us who cannot afford an EV, drive your gas guzzler as little as possible. BANKRUPT the fossil fuelers. They CANNOT survive without selling us a LOT of polluting fuel.

If we do not win this fight against the polluters, we are all dead. This is the fight of our lives, people.

Zach, if you could publish a breakdown of how depoendent on selling polluting fuels the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn are, it would help to explain why the fossil fuel industry is trying so hard to destroy the EV business model.

Everyone needs to understand that behind ALL fossil fuel industry moves like what the Saudis are doing (and what Trump is doing to force California to not adopt more environmentally friendly stringent fuel economy standards) is THIS (see below):


Climate Denial Is Now US Policy

Zachary Shahan Community Manager > agelbert
Thanks. This was an idea for my next or 2nd next article. I'm a bit torn on motives here, but want to put both out there for many to consider.

agelbert > Zachary Shahan
Excellent! Thank you.


Wallace on Tesla Stock Shorters:

With $17 (?) billion at risk it seems like a group of them would simply stake out the Fremont factory for a day or two and count the new cars coming out. Hell, they could hire a private investigator.

Either the numbers are coming out or they aren't. The only thing left is somehow Elon is cooking the books and hiding huge amounts of spending.

A few million dollars, I can see that being the Anti-Tesla Cult money, but this is billions. Serious money that someone must be taking seriously.

agelbert > Wallace:

See my comment to Zach. You may not agree with it but, if what I said is correct (and I stand by my claim that it is correct), then it explains why all the serious money from the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn is being spent to crush Tesla.

Tesla is the vanguard of a threat (multiplied many times by the current Chinese EV production rate) to over 60% of the products the fossil fuel industry welfare queens get subsidized to pollute us with.

The liquid hydrocarbon fuels that now provide gigantic profits are slowly changing to a toxic waste product needing hazardous waste handling equipment and technology. There is no way the fossil fuel industry can be "profitable", even with all their welfare queen subsidies, if their marketable products exclude fuels. You can get lubricants from the cracking tower and use the rest for feed stock to make textiles, medicines, fertilizers and plastics (etc.), but the fossil fuelers know that is not a profitable business model.

Here's the pie chart that shows how vital to the fossil fuel industry the polluting liquid fuels are:


This is the obligatory (with very little leeway to modify product percentages, per barrel of crude, in the cracking towers) number of gallons of products from a U.S. (42 gallons) barrel of crude:


Here's some detail:



To say that Fossil Fuel Industry 🦕🦖 😈 disinformation isn’t the whole story is to knock down a straw man: the fact remains that it is a major--and perhaps the most important--part of the story.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 07, 2018, 04:27:50 pm »


The GOP and Big Oil can't escape blame for climate change

By Dana Nuccitelli

Mon 6 Aug 2018 06.00 EDT


SNIPPET 1:

The New York Times magazine blames ‘human nature ,’ but fingers have already been pointed at the true culprits 🐉🦕 🦖

SNIPPET2:

In the key 1983 press briefing, Nierenberg basically lied about the climate report’s findings, claiming it found no urgent need for action. Nierenberg’s false summary made headlines around the world and stymied climate policy efforts for years to come. Only after 1985 when the discovery of ozone depletion captured worldwide attention was climate change able to ride its coattails back into serious policy discussions.

SNIPPET 3:

Culprit #2: the fossil fuel industry 🐉🦕🦖

In his unfortunate Prologue, Rich also describes the fossil fuel industry as “a common boogeyman.” He argues that the fossil fuel industry didn’t mobilize to kill the 1989 Noordwijk negotiation. That’s true, because it didn’t have to; had the treaty even succeeded, it would have just been the very first step in global efforts to cut carbon pollution.

Quote
Leah Stokes
(@leahstokes)
Of course Exxon wasn’t running a denial campaign until the 1990s. They didn’t need to yet. The threat of policy action was remote. When action became more likely, that’s when fossil fuel companies started their lying in earnest. 6/
August 1, 2018

Immediately after the Noordwijk shot came across its bow, the fossil fuel industry launched a decades-long, many-million-dollar campaign to undermine public trust of climate science and support for climate policy. For example, the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) fossil fuel industry group formed in 1989. By the time the 1992 Rio Earth Summit rolled around, these polluter industry organizations began heavily investing in disinformation campaigns to undermine international and domestic climate policies. Speaking about the Rio summit, Bush 🦀 sounded like Donald Trump 🦀, saying:

Quote
I’m not going to go to the Rio conference and make a bad deal or be a party to a bad deal.

Bill Clinton proposed an energy tax to try and meet the treaty goals anyway, but the GCC invested $1.8m in a disinformation campaign, and Congress voted it down. The GCC then spent $13m to weaken support for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the Senate voted 95-0 to pre-emptively declare its opposition to the treaty. Since then, Exxon alone has given $31m to climate-denying organizations.

📢 It’s been three decades since 1989 😠

The fossil fuel industry is one exceptionally wealthy, influential, and powerful ‘boogeyman.’ As Rich notes in his Epilogue, it’s also been quite successful:

More carbon has been released into the atmosphere since the final day of the Noordwijk conference, Nov. 7, 1989, than in the entire history of civilization preceding it

Apparently at a private dinner the night before his piece was published, Rich described the fossil fuel industry as being “guilty of crimes against humanity.” It’s a shame that his story took on such a different tone. As Benjamin Franta, PhD student in the history of science at Stanford summarized it:

One common mistake in this NYT magazine piece is the idea that companies like Exxon somehow changed from “good” (doing research in the 1970s and ‘80s) to “bad” (promoting denial in the ‘90s and 2000s). Exxon’s own memos show that the purpose of its research program was to influence regulation, not to solve the climate problem per se. The industry-organized disinformation campaign that emerged at the end of the 1980s was in response to binding policies that were just then being proposed. If such policies were proposed earlier, it stands to reason that the industry response would have occurred earlier as well. To say that industry disinformation isn’t the whole story is to knock down a straw man: the fact remains that it is a major--and perhaps the most important--part of the story.

In the alternative universe where the Bush administration didn’t sabotage the Noordwijk climate treaty, the fossil fuel industry would still have crippled global climate policies through its misinformation campaign and by purchasing the Republican Party’s climate denial complicity. 1989 was a missed opportunity, but the fossil fuel industry and GOP can’t escape responsibility for the ensuing three decades of climate failures.


Full article:



https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/aug/06/the-gop-and-big-oil-cant-escape-blame-for-climate-change-dana-nuccitelli


The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 04, 2018, 08:37:06 pm »



Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

August 1, 2018



Clickbait Goes to Print: NYTimes Magazine Issue a Climate Whodunit That Aquits the Guilty  >:(

The entire August 5th issue of the New York Times magazine is dedicated to a single story by Nathaniel Rich: how we could have saved the world from climate change, but failed.

The promotional materials say it reads like a historical whodunit, traversing the world before building to a moment when a global agreement was very nearly, but not quite reached: the 1989 Noordwijk Ministerial Conference in the Netherlands. The prologue says that neither the “common boogeyman” of the fossil fuel industry nor the Republican party are to blame.

Who or what, then, in Rich’s account, was responsible for torpedoing that conference and dooming us to climate inaction?

After 30+ pages of deeply reported storytelling on the science and policy of climate change in the ‘80s, relying on numerous interviews with some of the players involved, the last chapter addresses that pivotal 1989 conference where we almost saved the world. When asked what was happening as the Noordwijk conference negotiations went into the midnight hour, a Swedish minister reportedly said the US “government is f u c k i n g this thing up!”

That failure is how the piece ends. The failure at the hands of the Republican, fossil-fuel friendly Bush administration serves as the anticlimactic conclusion.

How can that be? According to the prologue and epilogue, it’s not the Republicans or fossil fuel industry that’s to blame, because some in the GOP weren’t deniers, and because the industry’s denial propaganda hadn’t ramped up yet. (A quick correction: the Reagan administration negatively politicized the environment, particularly DoI Secretary James Watts and EPA Admin Anne Gorsuch. Also, the early 80s saw the emergence of climate denial with API’s "Two Energy Futures: A National Choice for the '80s" and Sherwood Idso’s “Carbon Dioxide, Friend or Foe” in 1982.)

But we don’t need to trace the organized denial machine that far back to see the acquittal of these groups is unwarranted. Rich already did the work to prove their guilt.

If this were a game of Clue, it’d go like this. The key suspect is Bush’s Chief of Staff John Sununu, who was so amenable to fossil fuels that when he resigned, ECO magazine headlined the news by quipping that “Sununu resigns… Coal lobby in mourning.” Sununu was skeptical of climate science, to say the least, as Rich’s penultimate chapters deal with how he tried to censor James Hansen’s climate testimony.

The scene of the crime, where the failure happened, is of course that Noordwijk conference. And the candlestick/murder weapon was negotiator Allan Bromley. Rich wrote that “Bromley, at the urging of John Sununu and with the acquiescence of Britain, Japan and the Soviet Union, had forced the conference to abandon the commitment to freeze emissions.”

It was Sununu, in Noordwijk, with Bromley, who scuttled the deal that would’ve saved the world. Game over.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 02, 2018, 02:48:22 pm »

 

July 24, 2018

Revelator: 207 Environmental Activists 🕊 Murdered Last Year 

Globally more than 200 conservation activists were killed in 2017 for trying to defend their communities from environmental destruction, writes John Platt in The Revelator — an all-time high. And those numbers, reported by the group Global Witness, probably understate the crisis.

The murders were linked to agribusiness most often, then mining, then poaching and wildlife trafficking. More than half took place in Brazil and the Philippines — with Colombia, Mexico and the Democratic Republic of the Congo next in line. Hundreds more people were intimidated and hurt, including two indigenous activists in Brazil who had their hands cut off with machetes by ranchers who claimed their land.


What can be done to stop it? Read the feature now.

https://therevelator.org/murder-intimidation-environmental-activists/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 02, 2018, 01:47:26 pm »

August 2, 2018

LIVE Q&A: Who's Committing Treason?

TheRealNews

Started streaming 7 minutes ago

Aaron Mate hosts a live interactive discussion with Senior Editor Paul Jay, taking on issues from Russiagate to climate change to answer the question: Is Trump betraying the American people?


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 02, 2018, 01:39:47 pm »



August 2, 2018

The Trump Administration’s 🐉🦕🦖 Hazy Plans to Weaken Car Pollution Standards Won’t Work. Here’s Why.

Earthjustice attorney Paul Cort explains why Trump’s EPA chief is careening way outside his lane in trying to undo a key provision of the 1970 landmark Clean Air Act.

Full article:

https://earthjustice.org/features/pruitt-car-pollution-law
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 01, 2018, 07:56:02 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Feast your eyes on this latest bit of Trump Mindfork. Trump , a 24/7 TOOL of the Koch Brothers, is going full Orwell and claiming he ain't got nuttin' to do wid dem'.   

Quote
The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas. They love my Tax & Regulation Cuts, Judicial picks & more. I made…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2018

….them richer. Their network is highly overrated, I have beaten them at every turn. They want to protect their companies outside the U.S. from being taxed, I’m for America First & the American Worker – a puppet for no one. Two nice guys with bad ideas. Make America Great Again!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2018


Read more:


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 31, 2018, 02:19:17 pm »


July 31, 2018

Pence's Family Business Cost Taxpayers Over $20 Million In Environmental Cleanup. Make Them Pay Us Back!

by: OD Action

recipient: Vice President Mike Pence and his brother, Greg Pence


63,094

The family business of Vice President Mike Pence, Kiel Bros. Oil Co, went under in 2004, making millions for the Pences but leaving a trail of environmental wreckage and dangerous chemicals behind. Almost a decade and a half later, the cleanup cost has exceeded $22 million and counting.

And guess who's paying the majority of the Pences' tab — taxpayers. We refuse to stand for it and demand Mike Pence and his family fully reimburse the public for the fallout from their reckless business practices.

Pence and his Republican Party claim to loathe government spending and love "personal responsibility," using that ideology to deny millions of Americans lifesaving healthcare, food assistance, and housing — among other things.

But that is clearly a lie. When it comes to cleaning up the mistakes of businessmen born to privilege, Pence and his ilk are more than happy to let us pay their debts.

We think it's time for the Vice President to take a little personal responsibility of his own. Add your name to demand the Pence family pay back the tens of millions that taxpayers have paid to clean up their toxic mess!

https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/514/802/478/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 28, 2018, 07:22:13 pm »


Trump 🦀 Expected to Roll Back California’s Clean Air Plan

July 25, 2018

The Environmental Protection Agency will revoke California’s exception to the Clean Air Act that had allowed it to set higher clean air standards than the rest of the nation. This means auto manufacturers will be allowed to follow lower fuel efficiency standards and do not need to sell as many electric vehicles. We talk to Paul Cort of EarthJustice about the legal and environmental ramifications


Story Transcript

SHARMINI PERIES: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Sharmini Peries, coming to you from Baltimore.

The Trump administration has not only withdrawn from the Paris climate accord, but it is now expected to present a new plan this week to revoke California’s ability to set state vehicle emissions standards and to mandate electric vehicle sales. If implemented, and all signs are that it will be, this represents a major blow to California’s leadership role in setting emissions standards for the country. In addition, the new rules will roll back federal rules to boost fuel efficiency that are currently in place into the next decade.

Now joining me to discuss the consequences of this latest assault on carbon emissions and the standards is Paul Cort. Paul is a staff attorney with the organization Earthjustice in California, and at its regional office in San Francisco. Paul, I thank you so much for joining us today.

PAUL CORT: Thank you for having me.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Paul, let’s begin with these latest regulatory rollbacks with regard to fuel emissions standards. What are they, and what will it do?

PAUL CORT: Well, this is all still in the rumor stage, but it sounds like there are two pieces. The first piece would be to roll back the federal fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas emissions standards. So EPA in 2013 under Obama entered into an agreement with California and the auto manufacturers to establish fuel economy standards that would ratchet down over the next 10-plus years, through 2025. Trump administration, not surprisingly, wants to roll those back. It does not want the standards to continue to tighten through 2025, and has said that their preference would be to freeze those standards at 2020 levels and keep fuel economy at that level.

The second part is that they realize that what they’re proposing would be to split the standards. So they would loosen the federal standards, but California still has the ability to adopt more stringent emission standards. And so the Trump administration, recognizing that they don’t want to create two sets of standards, is not only going to roll back the federal standards, but go after California’s ability to set its own standards.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Paul, what does this mean in terms of emission controls?

PAUL CORT: Well, what the Trump administration is proposing to do by freezing that fuel economy standard is going to mean that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise. And the proposal would be the equivalent of adding 43 coal-fired power plants in the United States. It’s that level of greenhouse gas emissions that we would have avoided with the Obama standards.

SHARMINI PERIES: And not only, as I said off the top, since California is known for setting regulatory standards that other states then follow, this means an increase in emissions across the country, and not meeting the standards we had hoped for under the Obama plan.

PAUL CORT: Right. Well, the California standards are both about greenhouse gases but also about just basic air pollutants. The emissions that create smog and soot pollution in California, and in 13 other states across the country. So they want to go after the ability of those states not just to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but just to protect air quality in those polluted regions.

SHARMINI PERIES: And California had set those standards a while ago, because I remember when it was almost impossible to go to L.A. because the smog was so bad.

PAUL CORT: Yeah, so California’s had this special provision carved out in law in the Clean Air Act since it was adopted in 1970, because as far back as the 1950s and ’60s, California had recognized the need to clean up cars. California was responsible for the development of the catalytic converter. It was California standards, really, that have driven the advancement of automotive technology for going on 50 years now.

SHARMINI PERIES: Paul, it’s it’s rather ironic that a conservative president, President Trump, is insisting on regulating what a state can and cannot do. Because traditionally, the conservatives, or Republicans, have always stood up for the rights of states to regulate itself. What do you make of this political shift?

PAUL CORT: I mean, it’s clearly not principled or consistent with traditional conservative values about state leadership. And it’s not based in reality, either. Because again, the states, especially in this field, have been the innovators, have driven the technology. And, you know, all the ways that state leadership matters, here’s proof that having that state authority can lead to superior results.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Now, as far as justice is concerned, is this a done deal? Or are you going to plan to fight back?

PAUL CORT: I mean, all the rumors point to this proposal coming out. But we’re still puzzled whose interest this serves, really. The auto manufacturers don’t want this fight. They don’t want to have multiple standards out there. They don’t want the uncertainty that’s bound to come as a result of litigation. You know, maybe this is about the oil industry. But you know, I haven’t heard anyone, other than folks within the administration, pushing for these changes.

California has reached out and has offered to, you know, make slight changes to the program to account for some of the complaints that they’re hearing. But I’m not hearing anybody actually support this proposal. So at that level, I guess we’re holding out hope that someone will come to their senses and, and pivot before they finalize this. But this is the way it’s-.

SHARMINI PERIES: Paul, is there any chance that the car manufacturers themselves will proceed with the standards that they were expecting to deliver, regardless of what the federal government regulates?

PAUL CORT: I think, well, it’s hard to say. I mean, I think- you know, California and the United States will probably end up getting dirtier cars. But I think the, the ironic part about all this is that there are countries around the world, China, many countries in Europe, who are moving away from fossil fuels. And so for our industries to compete in those markets they’re going to have to develop these cleaner cars. And the result may be that those countries get the cleaner cars while we get stuck with the dirty ones.

SHARMINI PERIES: And what’s the deal with electric car vehicle sales? What is it that the federal government wants to do in that regard?

PAUL CORT: Well, they want to take away, again, California’s ability to require that auto manufacturers sell a certain percentage of zero emission vehicles. California adopted a mandate for zero emission vehicles even before they were talking about greenhouse gases. Because California realized again to meet just the smog standards in places like L.A. and the Central Valley that we need to move away from combustion in cars. And so it’s always been tied to meeting basic air quality standards. But EPA, again, according to the rumors, is going to argue that that’s about greenhouse gases, and that’s outside of California’s authority.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Paul, I thank you so much for joining us. I’ve been speaking with Paul Cort with Earthjustice. I thank you.

PAUL CORT: Thank you.

SHARMINI PERIES: And thank you for joining us here on The Real News Network.

https://therealnews.com/stories/trump-expected-to-roll-back-californias-clean-air-plan




Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 27, 2018, 05:44:00 pm »

Oil Change International  Exposing the true costs of fossil fuels

Dozens of Advocacy Groups Refute Energy Department 🦕🦖 Report Touting LNG Export Demand and Feasibility

Collin Rees, July 27, 2018 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 27, 2018

CONTACT: Seth Gladstone, seth [at] fwwatch.org
Lorne Stockman, lorne [at] priceofoil.org

Dozens of Advocacy Groups Refute Energy Department Report Touting LNG Export Demand and Feasibility

In Submitted Public Comments, Fundamental Flaws and Biases of Study Are Listed

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In comments submitted to the Energy Department today, dozens of national and international advocacy groups highlighted fundamental flaws in a draft federal study that is intended to assess the macroeconomic impacts of expanded liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The comments were submitted by groups including Food & Water Watch, Oil Change International, Friends of the Earth-US, 350.org, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for International Environmental Law, and dozens of local community groups fighting gas infrastructure in their areas.

The joint submission criticizes the study for: a failure to consider expanding state-based restrictions on fossil fuel extraction; a failure to consider expanding economic costs of fossil fuel-driven climate chaos; a failure to consider the increasing production and decreasing cost of clean energy sources; and a dismissal of growing international pressure to solve the climate crisis and rein in fossil fuels that will increasingly impact overseas demand for LNG.

The comments focus primarily on a blatant statement of bias made in the study that undermines its credibility. The study authors dismiss the potential impact on LNG demand of the Paris Agreement on climate change, something almost every nation other than the United States is working to implement, with what would appear to be their personal opinion that “future progress will (not) be very much greater than the past”. With this they assign a very low probability (5%) to the possibility of tepid future demand for LNG.

The draft study is deeply flawed, as the authors chose to ignore both climate science and climate action in favor of what appears to be a political imperative over any objective analysis. In my experience, this would not stand up to peer review in any academic institution,” said Lorne Stockman, Senior Research Analyst with Oil Change International and lead author of the comments. “The authors need to start again using robust methods for assessing the impact of climate policy on future global LNG demand. Anything less is doing a disservice to the taxpayers that paid for the study.”

While a number of states and most countries are smartly turning away from filthy, antiquated fossil fuels, the Trump administration is senselessly pushing ahead with climate-killing LNG exports. The world will increasingly reject our gas exports in favor of truly clean, renewable power, and as a result the costs of this policy to Americans will skyrocket. Trump makes up his own science, and our country and the world suffers,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, the group that co-authored the joint comment.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to promote and expand LNG exports on all fronts. This week it finalized a rule expediting the approval of “small-scale” LNG exports. The rule applies to LNG shipments destined for countries without free-trade agreements with the United States, which have generally been subject to a higher degree of agency scrutiny.

Read the full joint comment: http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2018/07/Comments-on-Draft-of-Macroeconomic-Outcomes-of-Market-Determined-Levels-of-US-LNG-Exports-Final.pdf

http://priceofoil.org/2018/07/27/advocacy-groups-refute-doe-lng-export-study/



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 25, 2018, 06:43:31 pm »

Agnotology: Part six of six parts


Agnotology: Part one of six parts

Agnotology: Part two of six parts

Agnotology: Part three of six parts

Agnotology: Part four of six parts

Agnotology: Part five of six parts


Fox 😈🦕🦖 news Climate change coverage

A truthful image from the UCS about Media propaganda.







Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 24, 2018, 06:12:53 pm »

July 24, 2018

The Private Sector & Climate Change: Holding Corporations Accountable

by  The Sanders Institute



There are a number of actions that our country could be taking to reduce our carbon footprint and lessen the progress of climate change, however, there are significant barriers in place that hinder these efforts.

Many of these barriers stem from corporate action. Companies that benefit from the continued use of energy sources that contribute to climate change have a vested interest in hindering the progress of solutions that will move us away from the status quo. Below are a few examples of how corporations have done this:

In the six years prior to 2017, rooftop solar panel installations grew by as much as 900% in the United States. Each year, more and more Americans were taking steps to install solar panels on their roofs, lessen their carbon footprint, and contribute excess energy back into the grid to further diminish the carbon footprint of others who could not afford solar panels. The New York Times reports that in 2017, growth in solar panel installations came “to a shuttering stop.” This was largely because of “a concerted and well-funded lobbying campaign by traditional utilities, which have been working in state capitals across the country to reverse incentives for homeowners to install solar panels.”

In addition, Instead of cutting residents a break for helping solve the climate crisis, the utility companies —led by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Edison Electric Institute (whose lobbying efforts ratepayers actually underwrite)—are lobbying for the end of “net-metering” laws that let customers sell excess power they generate back to the grid.

Moreover, lobbying is frequently combined with political contributions to, and coordination with politicians.  Arizona, whose capital lies in the “Valley of the Sun,” has incredible potential for solar power. However, according to Tuscon.com, last year in May, "A federal grand jury has indicted a former state utility regulator and his wife for taking bribes.” The former regulator took those bribes for approving a rate hike for the areas utility company. Despite this indictment, coordination between politicians and utilities in Arizona has not stopped. For instance, environmental groups in Arizona have proposed a constitutional amendment to the Arizona ballot that would require that 50% of Arizona’s energy needs be met with renewable energy sources by 2030.Inside Climate News reports that “a senate committee passed a separate bill—which an APS spokeswoman said the utility had proposed—that would add a second ballot initiative with a nearly identical title” The most recent bill has similar language to the one proposed by environmentalists but includes a “safety valve” that would not allow full implementation of the bill. This approach is designed to confuse and halt progress toward renewable energy.

Arizona is not the only state that has experienced corporate lobbying against climate change solutions, nor is net metering the only issue where corporations have succeeded in moving forward with policies and activities that demonstratively harm the environment. For instance, fracking continues despite numerous studies that show significant damage to  the environment and public health.

There are a number of ways that we can hold corporations accountable and stop actions that negatively affect the environment.

Get Money Out of Politics

Too frequently, our politicians are able to be swayed by campaign contributions that lead to decisions that harm the American people, and put the future of our planet in jeopardy.  It is all too easy to find the enormous contributions made by companies that contribute to our carbon footprint:

According to Open Secrets: Oil and gas companies have so far contributed over $14 million to all candidates in the 2018 election cycle, electric utilities have contributed over $11 million, natural gas pipeline companies have contributed almost $2 million, and coal mining companies have contributed over $800 thousand. 

If we get money out of politics legislators might be more likely to vote for policies and ideas that benefit their constituents, the environment, and the world.


Taxes That Reflect The True Cost of Pollution

A “Carbon Tax” is traditionally considered an “economist’s solution” to fighting climate change. In short, the Carbon Tax Center describes that “A carbon tax is a fee imposed on the burning of carbon-based fuels.” There are two strong arguments for why a carbon tax is both necessary and would work.

It holds carbon producers and consumers accountable for the damage that their actions have on the environment. To put that damage in perspective, National Geographic reports that “Extreme weather, made worse by climate change, along with the health impacts of burning fossil fuels, has cost the U.S. economy at least $240 billion a year over the past ten years.”Economics Help describes that “The idea of a tax is to make consumers and producers pay the full social cost of producing pollution.” Money raised by the government from this tax could be used to finance initiatives that will further reduce carbon emissions (e.g. subsidizing renewable energy or carbon capture.)

It creates incentives to for both consumers and producers to act in ways that will reduce their carbon footprint. Producers may invest in ideas that will reduce their carbon emissions to avoid paying as much in taxes. Price increases on items or utilities that include this carbon tax may result in consumers looking to alternative energy sources, or consuming less.

Economics Help describes that “the social marginal cost (SMC) of producing the good is greater than the private marginal cost (PMC) The difference is the external cost of the pollution. The tax shifts the supply curve to S2 and therefore, consumers are forced to pay the full social marginal cost. This reduces the quantity consumed to Q2, which is the socially efficient outcome (because the SMC=SMB)”  Therefore, the tax adjusts the price of good to take into account the harm that it is doing.


The impact of a carbon tax can be seen in the graph below:

True Cost of Pollution Source: EconomicsHelp

Carbon Taxes are also proven to have worked elsewhere in the world. British Columbia imposed a carbon tax of 10 Canadian dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in 2008 and then raised that tax to 30 Canadian dollars per ton by 2012. The New York Times reports that the tax “reduced emissions by 5 to 15 percent with ‘negligible effects on aggregate economic performance… It encouraged people to drive somewhat less and be more careful about heating and cooling their homes. Businesses invested in energy efficiency measures and switched to less polluting fuels.”

Get the Incentives Right

Each year, the U.S. government subsidizes a range of economic activities. It is important that those subsidies encourage economic activity that will help reduce our carbon footprint and climate change.

Unfortunately, many subsidies support industries that are contributing to climate change. Researchers at Oil Change International recently found that “Government giveaways in the form of permanent tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry – one of which is over a century old – are seven times larger than those to the renewable energy sector.” These fossil fuel subsidies, including both federal subsidies and state subsidies, total to $20 billion annually.

That said, the renewable energy industry has also received a number of subsidies through the years (varying though different administrations and not to the level of those for the fossil fuel industry). These subsidies have contributed to substantial growth in the renewable energy sector. Eighteen percent of the United States energy needs are now provided by renewable energy. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute states that the U.S. has reduced its emissions “by about 760 million metric tons since 2005.” The increase in renewable energy usage has contributed significantly to that reduction.

These subsidies for renewable energy There are also other benefits to renewable energy subsidies. Quartz Media reported that “the fossil fuels not burnt because of wind and solar energy helped avoid between 3,000 and 12,700 premature deaths in the US between 2007 and 2015” and that “the US saved between $35 billion and $220 billion in that period because of avoided deaths, fewer sick days, and climate-change mitigation.”

Incentives need to reflect economic activities that will help the environment, Americans, and the world, not harm them.


Get the Penalties Right

While incentives are important for companies that are working to help the environment, it is equally important to include penalties for companies that are harming the environment.

Most Americans are familiar with the largest oil spills in the United States like the BP oil spill, also called the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in 2010. However, large spills that get covered in the news are only a portion of the problem. According to the latest data from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, excluding the BP oil spill, 287,416 barrels of oil (or 12 million gallons of oil) were spilled in the U.S. between 1964 and 2015. That equals over two hundred thousand gallons of oil a year. The BP oil spill added another 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled, totaling over two hundred million gallons of oil. (There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel.)

A number of news organizations reported in 2015 that BP would pay more than $20 billion in settlement claims as punishment for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Justice Department called the settlement historic and quoted Attorney General Loretta Lynch in saying “Building on prior actions against BP and its subsidiaries by the Department of Justice, this historic resolution is a strong and fitting response to the worst environmental disaster in American history...BP is receiving the punishment it deserves, while also providing critical compensation for the injuries it caused to the environment and the economy of the Gulf region.”

However, when you dig deeper into that settlement, that “historic” amount of money isn’t so large when you take into account U.S. tax laws that allow corporations to write off natural resource damage payments, restoration, and reimbursement of government costs. Forbes reports that ultimately “BP should be able to deduct the vast majority, a whopping $15.3 billion, on its U.S. tax return. That means American taxpayers are contributing quite a lot to this settlement, whether they know it or not.”

In other cases, companies are given penalties that can be considered negligible when their annual earnings are taken into account. The Real News reports that “In the last 12 years, Marathon Petroleum Corporation, who manage one of the largest petroleum pipeline networks in the U.S., has had 61 incidents... including recent spill of 42,000 gallons of diesel. In the same week they had to pay A fine of three hundred thousand dollars for another spill last year.” In reference to this three hundred thousand dollar fine, Sierra Club’s Jodi Perras pointed out that Marathon is “a 13.8 billion dollar company.... they will expect to have a 330 million dollar profit this year. And so they are paying $335,000 for that spill in 2016. That's pennies to a company like that.” Ultimately, Marathon Petroleum Corporation is being fined 0.001% of their annual profits.

Penalties should be large enough to encourage constructive steps towards reducing future accidents and harm to the environment, and when they are large enough, the burden to pay them should be placed on the company, not taxpayers.

Tags: Carbon Tax,  Climate Change,  Incentives,  Penalties,  Private Sector,  Subsidies

https://www.sandersinstitute.com/blog/the-private-sector-and-climate-change-holding-corporations-accountable


The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 21, 2018, 06:01:06 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: The following three quotes explain the incredibly CROOKED Decision of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge John F. Keenan 🐩 described in the included Ecowatch article:

Quote
"There is a nice legal concept called estoppel. If you argue that you didn't kill the Major in the library with the Ming vase because you were in bed with his wife, you are estopped from pleading self-defence. In the same way, polluters are estopped from arguing that they were only complying with public policy as laid down in the law, because they spent tens of millions shaping those policies and laws to their advantage." James Wimberley

Quote
"When we are swiftly shuttling ourselves down the path of irreversible climate cataclysm, the only unreasonable option is to double down on the status quo."

Quote
Totalitarianism  " A society living by and for continuous warfare in which the ruling caste have ceased to have any real function but succeed in clinging to power through force and fraud" - George Orwell


EcoWatch

By Olivia Rosane

Jul. 20, 2018 11:46AM EST

The Big Apple Loses to Big Oil 🦕🦖 as Judge 🐵 💵 🎩 Dismisses Climate Liability Suit

A federal judge ruled on Thursday in favor of a motion by five big oil companies to dismiss a lawsuit brought against them by New York City, which demanded they pay the costs of adapting the city's infrastructure to climate change, The New York Times reported.

The ruling comes nearly a month after a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed a similar case brought by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco.

In his decision Thursday, Judge John F. Keenan of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York echoed the reasoning of Federal Judge William Alsup when he dismissed the San Francisco and Oakland case.

While both judges acknowledged the reality of climate change, they thought that crafting policy around it was too large an issue for the courts to settle.

"Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government," Keenan wrote in his decision.

But environmentalists pointed out that fossil fuel companies like the defendants had done everything in their power to stop the other branches of government from acting.


"There is a grave irony here. The fossil fuel company defendants claimed in court—and the judge 🐒 apparently agreed—that it is entirely up to Congress and the President to address climate change. But these same defendants 🦖😈 and their trade 💵 🎩 groups have fought successfully against even modest laws and regulations to cut the carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels that causes global warming," Union of Concerned Scientists President Ken Kimmel said in a statement reported by Climate Liability News.



Like San Francisco, New York City spokesperson Seth Stein said the city would appeal the decision.

"The mayor believes big polluters must be held accountable for their contributions to climate change and the damage it will cause New York City. We intend to appeal this decision and to keep fighting for New Yorkers who will bear the brunt of climate change," he told The New York Times.

The city had argued that the defendants―Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell―had known about the risks posed by burning fossil fuels since the 1950s and had "engaged in an overt public relations campaign intended to cast doubt on climate science," an argument Keenan acknowledged in his decision.

The cases brought by New York, San Francisco, Oakland and other municipalities attempt to sue oil companies using state public nuisance law that allows courts to find defendants liable for interfering with the use of property, according to The New York Times.

Attempts to sue oil companies over climate change under federal nuisance law led to a Supreme Court decision in 2011 ruling that the Clean Air Act displaced nuisance law on the federal level and put the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in charge of dealing with the issue.

The new batch of lawsuits argues state nuisance law still applies, but Keenan rejected the idea that state law would apply to the city's lawsuit, saying climate change was an area of "federal concern," The New York Times reported.

However, environmental law experts said judges trying similar cases in state courts might rule differently.

"The cases that are either filed in federal court or—as with the San Francisco and Oakland cases—removed to federal court are decided under federal law," University of California Los Angeles environmental law professor Ann Carlson told Climate Liability News. "Federal nuisance law is much less favorable for the cities and counties than state law is. The state courts are where we are likely to see interesting and perhaps surprising rulings."

There are currently similar cases pending in courts in California, Washington, Colorado and Rhode Island, Climate Liability News reported.

https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-liability-lawsuit-new-york-2588447153.html

The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 20, 2018, 09:41:59 pm »

 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

July 19, 2018



Mining Magnate  Revealed as Main Funder  of Australia’s Climate Denial Org 

India Pale Ales, or IPAs, can be a divisive drink among beer enthusiasts. Many, particularly of the hipster persuasion, swear by the hoppy and sometimes floral flavors of IPAs, eschewing more normal lagers and pilsners as boring swill. Normal people, on the other hand, often consider IPAs far too bitter to enjoy in any significant quantity.

We’d recommend settling in with a brew of your choice to deal with the overload of denial from down under to come: today we’re talking about an entirely different IPA, Australia’s Institute for Public Affairs.

IPA is basically Australia’s Heartland or Heritage. They’re ostensibly a nonprofit think tank, but in practice they act a whole lot like an arm of the conservative political movement and fossil fuel industry. Now, thanks to court filings reported on by Graham Readfearn this week in DeSmog, we know that IPA is also funded by a major mining interest: Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart.

Rinehart’s company, Hancock Prospecting Proprietary Ltd (HPPL), gave nearly $5 million to IPA in 2016 and 2017, according to documents produced as part of a lawsuit brought by Gina’s daughter Bianca accusing her mother of mismanaging company funds.

This is particularly problematic for IPA, Readfearn notes, because it directly contradicts the organization’s own tax reporting. In 2017, IPA reported that 86 percent of its $6.1 million income for the year came from individuals, and only 1 percent from businesses. But that’s hard to square with the fact that it got $2.2 million from HPPL that year--a full third of its income. Similar story for 2016: IPA claimed that 90 percent of its income was from individuals, despite getting nearly half of its income from an HPPL donation. (For the record, Bianca’s argument, as described in the court proceedings, is that IPA’s reporting implies that the HPPL donations are actually from her mother Gina as an individual, not HPPL as a business.)

Astonishing, though, that a group that promotes climate denial would be so loose with the truth about its industry backers! Something like that could never happen here in the US, right? Especially with the IRS relaxing reporting requirements, making it even easier for dark money groups to hide their funding?

Surely not! And we’re sure that had Scott Pruitt known that the IPA was so heavily reliant on polluter funding, he never would have spent $45,000 sending aides to Australia ahead of a trip he planned to take there to, at least in part, meet with the IPA. A trip that was being planned in part by consultant Matthew Freedman, who once worked for Paul Manafort helping Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos. (The Wiki page for Marcos has a whole section on his human rights abuses, ranging from abductions to torture to massacres. Marcos also lootied billions from the country’s coffers, in part to feed his wife’s extensive shoe collection.)   

Had Pruitt known the IPA was industry-backed, certainly he would’ve canceled the trip (which he did anyway because of last year’s hurricanes).

Just kidding! He would’ve gone regardless, but probably would have scrubbed the calendar record of the meetings.

Good thing Pruitt’s out and Andrew Wheeler is in. After all, it’s not like a major coal magnate just indicated at a public event that Wheeler has worked for him for 20 years, implying that Wheeler was doing coal’s bidding while a government employee.

Oh wait, that’s exactly what’s happened.

The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 12, 2018, 11:42:22 pm »

JUL 11, 2018TD ORIGINALS

Scott Pruitt 🦖Got Off Easy: Ecocide Is No Small Matter

By Paul Street

SNIPPET:

Billionaire climate-denying and planet-cooking savages like Donald Trump 🦀, the Kochs 🦖 and Harold Hamm 🦕 and their servants like Scott Pruitt 🐒 hardly invented our “ecological rift,” which is rooted in what John Bellamy Foster rightly calls “capitalism’s [longstanding] war on Earth.” With the U.S. in the oil-coal-and-gas-addicted, commons-plundering and poisoning lead, humanity has been steering madly toward the cliff of environmental self-extermination for decades. But with his determination to “deregulate energy”—to go full bore with the greenhouse gassing to death of life on earth (a crime destined to the make the Nazis look like small-time criminals)—Trump represents what Chomsky has called “almost a death knell for the species.” The Trump presidency’s extreme commitment to fossil fuels is no small part of why the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved its Doomsday Clock ahead by 30 seconds to two minutes to midnight.

A young mother with her baby in her arms confronted Pruitt at a Washington restaurant just days before his resignation. “Hi” she said, “I just wanted to urge you to resign because of what you’re doing to the environment and our country. This is my son. He loves animals. He loves clean air. He loves clean water. Meanwhile, you’re slashing strong fuel standards for cars and trucks, for the benefit of big corporations.”

Pruitt took his two bodyguards and left in shame before the mother and her child could return to their seats.

He got off easy. The loss of a government job and public humiliation is a small price to pay for playing a leading role in the eco-exterminist destruction of livable ecology.

People like Pruitt should feel lucky to be able to walk freely and breathe fresh air, or what’s left of it on a planet he’s been trying to destroy.

Four terrible things are darkly noteworthy about Pruitt’s forced resignation last week. First, it was absurdly belated. The fact that he lasted as long as he did atop the EPA makes one wonder just how far one of Trump’s favorite petro-plutocratic swamp creatures has to sink before he can lose his job in Washington. Pruitt’s departure came after months of seemingly endless controversy surrounding his personal corruption. The Pruitt scandal timeline includes the following:

● April 12, 2017: The Washington Post revealed Pruitt requested and received an around-the-clock security detail at huge cost to taxpayers (nearly $3.5 million during his first year in office).

Full article:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/scott-pruitt-got-off-easy-ecocide-is-no-small-matter/

+-Recent Topics

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
September 24, 2018, 02:24:48 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
September 24, 2018, 02:04:37 pm

Batteries by AGelbert
September 24, 2018, 01:25:02 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
September 24, 2018, 12:10:06 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
September 23, 2018, 08:48:28 pm

Money by AGelbert
September 23, 2018, 07:50:40 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
September 23, 2018, 02:50:35 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
September 21, 2018, 08:09:56 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 04:49:11 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 02:40:29 pm