+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 43
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 11313
Total Topics: 250
Most Online Today: 16
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 15 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: January 14, 2019, 07:05:57 pm »

 

 


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 12, 2019, 03:03:36 pm »

Outrage In Canada After Militarized RCMP 🦍 Arrest 14 Wet’Suwet’en Land Defenders on Sovereign Indigenous Land

January 11, 2019
Solidarity protests erupt across Canada while Justin Trudeau 🦕 faces hostile questions about indigenous rights in British Columbia


Story Transcript

DIMITRI LASCARIS: This is Dimitri Lascaris reporting for The Real News Network from Montreal, Canada.

As The Real News reported last month, the Wet’suwet’en Indigenous people of Northern British Columbia and Canada have established checkpoints on their land to prevent pipeline company TransCanada from building a gas pipeline across their territory. The Wet’suwet’en people have never signed treaties with Canada or otherwise ceded their lands, a fact confirmed by Canada’s own Supreme Court in 1997 in a landmark decision known as Delgamuukw. Several days ago, members of the Aboriginal police liaison of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police met with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs and indicated the specially trained tactical forces would be deployed to forcibly remove Wet’suwet’en people from sovereign Wet’suwet’en territory.

On Monday, January 7, indeed, armed police, some dressed in camouflage fatigues, broke down homemade barriers at a checkpoint on unceded Wet’suwet’en territory and arrested 14 land defenders. Following the arrests, and as reported by APTN News, hereditary Wet’suwet’en leaders pledged to keep fighting. Chief Madeek, Hereditary Leader of the Gitdumden Clan, declared that “We may have lost this battle, but not the war.” Upon learning of the arrests, civil society organizations from across Canada called for a series of cross-country series of protests in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en people, and for the purpose of denouncing the Trudeau government’s heavy-handed tactics on the sovereign land of the Wet’suwet’en. Over 50 such protests took place across Canada on January 8.

For The Real News, I attended one such protest in Montreal outside the riding office of the Canadian prime minister himself, Justin Trudeau. During the protest I spoke to longtime activist Gary Engler, one of the protesters, about his reasons for supporting the struggle of the Wet’suwet’en people.

Tell us your name, and where you’re from.

GARY ENGLER: Gary Engler, and I’m living in Saskatchewan and Quebec, half and half.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And originally, or at least for a long time, you were from the West Coast. You were in British Colombia.

GARY ENGLER: I lived most of my life in Vancouver until quite recently.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: You were talking a moment ago about the differences from a legal perspective between British Columbia and the rest of Canada when it comes to the status of the Indigenous peoples. Explain what you were talking about.

GARY ENGLER: In British Columbia, except for a very small part of the province, First Nations people never signed treaties. That created a legal situation that … Basically, court cases lasted for I don’t know, 40, 50 years. And this still in the process of being settled. But in the early 2000s or late 1990s the Supreme Court of Canada did decide in the Delgamuukw decision that the Gitxsan and Wet’suet’en people had never ceded sovereignty over their land and that they still were a sovereign people, essentially. And now what exactly that means is still in the process of being defined legally in British Columbia. So it’s a very unique situation.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And what–why did you come out here today?

GARY ENGLER: Well, I just think that Canada has been so rotten to its original people for so long, it’s necessary for anybody with a conscience to support people who are trying to say this is our land, we’ve been here for thousands of years, and we have rights, and you can’t just take it away from us whenever you want to. I mean, that’s a pretty fundamental problem that First Nations face, and anybody with a conscience should be supporting them.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: On January 9, following the protests in Montreal, the Prime Minister conducted a town hall in British Columbia where he tried to reassure a rather skeptical audience of his commitment to Indigenous rights.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: But we are making significant progress right now in self-governance, in new relationships, in support that is moving in the right direction.   On the other side of things, there is a question of services. There are far too many Indigenous communities in this country that are existing under boil water advisories, that are not having schools to go to. Not getting parity in terms of the money we invest in young people in non-Indigenous communities versus Indigenous communities.

TILLY (FIRST NATIONS WOMAN): Everything you benefit from is our oppression and our suffering. You are afraid to lose your comfort.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: No, I’m not, Tilly. I am ready to walk in partnership with you and building the future, and that is what we have been doing over the past three years in renewing this relationship. I can understand your impatience.
 

DIMITRI LASCARIS: This is Dimitri Lascaris reporting for The Real News from Montreal, Canada.

https://therealnews.com/stories/outrage-in-canada-after-militarized-rcmp-arrest-14-wetsuweten-land-defenders-on-sovereign-indigenous-land

Agelbert NOTE: Dr. Suzuki   tells it LIKE IT IS in Canada, among other places where CAPITALISM=INSANITY is destroying the biosphere:




Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 11, 2019, 06:11:06 pm »

MOVIE REVIEW: VICE Underplays the “Evil” of Dick Cheney 🦖 – Wilkerson and Jay Review the Movie (1/3)

January 11, 2019

Cheney was the coming to power of the far right of the American elite; the Neo-cons wanted to “cash in” as they asserted US military dominance over the world – Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff and is depicted in the film joins TRNN’s Paul Jay to discuss the movie, “VICE”


Story Transcript

LARRY WILKERSON: Cheney was evil. And there should have been no attenuation of an attempt to display that evil.

[TRNN INTRO]

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay.

The recent movie Vice tells the story of Vice President Dick Cheney, and also depicts the story of the roots of the Iraq War, 9/11, and more. It’s become a topic of a lot of conversation, and tells us something about contemporary American politics. And we’re going to be joined by a person who’s depicted in that film, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, in a few minutes. We’re going to talk about the film and more; about the context within which Cheney operated. Here’s a trailer from the film.

[TRAILER]

ADAM MCKAY: I was always intrigued by Cheney, and I was amazed by how much this guy had gamed the White House, how smart he was.

So what’s the plan?

Well, the plan is to take over the damn place.

ADAM MCKAY: Henry Kissinger called him the greatest combination of intelligence, ambition, and bureaucratic knowledge he’d ever seen.

What’s it going to be? Yes or a no?

It’s a yes.

You don’t even know what the question is, do you?

ADAM MCKAY: He learns very fast, and his belief was in consolidating power.

Are you even more ruthless than you used to be?

ADAM MCKAY: All these Shakespearean feelings come into play very naturally.

Like a puppet show, but much more enjoyable.

Who wants to be an anonymous source?

Make sure you work in the phrase ‘We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.’ That focus grouped through the roof.

ADAM MCKAY: America had made a giant change from the late ’70s on, and Dick Cheney was always in the middle of it.

Thank you, Congressman Cheney. I hear you’ve been quite the ally.

ADAM MCKAY: This is the most mysterious character I’ve ever worked on. He operates within the realm of legal exceptions and he sees a longer game. He realized that real power doesn’t reside in the spotlight, and quietly changed history as much as anyone.

So we gonna do this thing, or what? I mean, is this happening?

Neither branch has oversight of the VP.

We can make this work.

[END TRAILER]

PAUL JAY: So That was Adam McKay, who is the writer/director of the film Vice, leading us through it. Now joining us to talk about the film Vice is Colonel Larry Wilkerson. Larry is a retired United States Army soldier, former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Larry Wilkerson is an adjunct professor at the College of William and Mary, where he teaches a course on U.S. national security, and often contributor to The Real News. Thanks for joining us.

LARRY WILKERSON: Thanks for having me, Paul.

PAUL JAY: So what was your–you went to see the film, I think on the opening day with your family.

LARRY WILKERSON: Christmas Day, actually.

PAUL JAY: Christmas Day. And what was your first impression?

LARRY WILKERSON: My first impression was that the attempt–understandable attempt–by those who made the film to achieve a balance, largely by exploring the Cheney family and some of the problems and challenges they had, but other things, too.

PAUL JAY: This is Cheney’s gay daughter.

LARRY WILKERSON: The gay daughter, lesbian daughter, and so forth. Make them look normal, if you will, at least in that sense, was overdone. I understand, as I said, aesthetically, artistically, why they wanted to do that. But it was overdone. Cheney was evil. And there should have been no attenuation of an attempt to display that evil.

I say that when I served chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Powell, and thought Cheney–and still do–one of the best secretaries of defense we’ve ever had, if not the best, in the short time that period’s been in existence, or that position’s been in existence. But being secretary of defense and having adult supervision–H.W. Bush, for example, a supremely confident President, Powell underneath him, Jim Baker over at State, being secretary of defense and being effective in that scenario is very different from being vice president of the United States with a president who doesn’t know his ass from the hole in the ground. And so Cheney becomes a very different individual, and a very evil individual.

PAUL JAY: And what do you mean by ‘evil’?

LARRY WILKERSON: I mean that his purpose, and his ability to implement that purpose in secret and in the open, his skill, as Kissinger well described it, as a bureaucratic entrepreneur was used for purposes that were deleterious to and even in some cases inimical to the extent of almost being existential to the democratic federal republic that America thinks it is, and using the national security state, essentially, to do that. And his knowledge of that state made it doubly dangerous for this country. I’m not sure we’re going to recover from this.

PAUL JAY: He was not unusual in playing that role, that kind of sociopathic-

LARRY WILKERSON: I think he was unusual.

PAUL JAY: How about–how would you take Nixon to deliberately extending the Vietnam War? We know this from the secret–the taped conversations of Lyndon Johnson, where he tells Senator Dirksen that Nixon’s virtually a traitor.

LYNDON JOHNSON: Some of our folks, including some of the old China lobby, are going to the Vietnamese embassy and saying please notify the President that if he’ll hold out to November the 2nd they could get a better deal.

SPEAKER: Uh-huh.

LYNDON JOHNSON: Now, I’m reading their hand there, but I don’t want to get this in the campaign.

SPEAKER: That’s right.

LYNDON JOHNSON: And they oughtn’t to be doing this. This is treason.

LARRY WILKERSON: I will give you that Cheney brings it to an apogee. I will give you that Cheney is just one more element in a transition from what we might have been prior to World War II to what we are today. But I will also claim that he was not just the denoument of that transition. He was the maker and deliverer of that transition. It might have taken another 20 or 30 years for us to reach the point we have now.

Just imagine, for example, had Powell run, Colin Powell run for president in ’94, ’95, when he was contemplating it, and Cheney and George W. Bush and the 2000 hanging chad election never occurred. I think it would have put this off by a decade or two, at least. I think it’s inevitable we arrived at this point. But Cheney brought us to this point screeching at 70 miles an hour plus. And as a result of that I think we’re going to have a real hard time getting out of it, or maybe we won’t.

PAUL JAY: My critique of the film, and I appreciated a lot about the film, I think certainly there’s a whole generation of younger people that don’t know anything about this history. Which is kind of weird, because we’re so immersed in it. It’s almost like second nature that we know this history from 9/11 on.

LARRY WILKERSON: And my students now–remember, I started teaching about 14 years ago. My students had–you might say they were imbued with 9/11. Now my students were born or born after 9/11. And it’s strange to them. It’s a phenomena they don’t recognize the way my initial students did, the first five, six years. So it’s been very apparent to me what you’re talking about in terms of the the ignorance. That’s not a pejorative, it’s just a description of the ignorance we now have in this country about these times. And that’s part of the problem, too.

PAUL JAY: My critique of the film is the balance between telling this engaging story about this individual, Cheney. And he, without question, as an individual plays a very important role. But there’s also underlying forces going on, both in the economy, the politics, the geopolitics that Cheney represents these forces. And in the film itself it refers to this. Here’s a piece from the film. We got a bit of a problem. Because of copyright issues we can’t pull anything we want from the film, but we do have the script. So here’s–early in the film, here’s the basic thesis of the film. And it goes like this.

Narrator, a male in the late 20s: By all accounts of what people saw in the room that terrible day–that’s referring to 9/11–there was confusion, fear, uncertainty. But Dick Cheney saw something else that no one else did. He saw an opportunity. Well, we’re going to get into this 9/11 conversation a bit more with Larry in a minute. But the script goes on.

There’s a famous photo, the picture they show in the film. It’s a famous photo of men playing golf while the hillside behind them is on fire. The narrator continues: As the world becomes more and more confusing, we tend to focus on the things that are right there in front of us while ignoring the massive forces that actually change and shape our lives. Well, actually, that’s kind of my critique of the film, is that he doesn’t really explore the massive forces. It becomes the tale of Dick Cheney.

And there’s a context for Dick Cheney. Maybe the most critical piece of the context is the starting point. And this is described in a report that’s issued by the Project for New American Century in the year 2000. The report is titled Rebuilding America’s Defense: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century. And that’s, as I say, a report for the Project for New American Century in September 2000. And the people that founded Project for New American Century include people like William Kristol, Robert Kagan. Dick Cheney is a signatory, as is Rumsfeld, who is also in the movie Vice. And of course some other key people like Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle, and others who were part of the Bush administration.

I think the starting point for understanding the context of Cheney is understanding where the United States is in the world where the Soviet Union has collapsed, and it’s essentially a single superpower world.

The report states this: At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should be to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far and into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relative peaceful, prosperous, and free condition the world enjoys today. Up to now they have been deterred from doing so by the capability and global presence of American military power.

And the report calls for establishing four core missions of the U.S. military: to defend the American homeland, to fight and decisively win multiple simultaneous major theater wars. Perform the constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions, transform U.S. forces to exploit the revolution in military affairs, and most importantly, increase defense spending gradually to a minimum level of 3.5-3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15-20 billion to total defense spending annually.

So Cheney emerges as a secretary of defense, and then later as the vice president, in the context of a call to arms to take advantage of the situation of being the single superpower to dominate the world in a new way. In fact, they use language that we no longer–and this is specifically in relation to regime change in Iraq, which is one of the main things they push in this report–is we don’t need to worry about a unanimous or majority vote in the Security Council. We can do it ourselves without the United Nations authorization. This is back in the year 2000.

So, place Cheney in the context of this call to massively develop arms expenditure. Cheney, before he’s vice president, goes to Halliburton, which plays a role in all this. Sort of help paint the picture for the context of Cheney’s vice presidency.

LARRY WILKERSON: What you’ve just described–and interestingly, what I was thinking as you were reading from the PNAC statement, if you will–Caesar Augustus dictating how the Roman Empire is going to be maintained and made even more powerful once he assumed the mantle. I think there’s a bit of that there, but it is long in the making. Long in terms of our history, anyway. It begins in 1947, and it begins with the Cold War, of course. And it begins with the apparatus, institutional and otherwise, commercial, too, that’s built up around that twilight struggle called the Cold War.

So what happens as we come to the end of that Cold War? Not only are U.S. intelligence interests wrong; not only is there this shock at the end of the war, because it comes screeching to an end with Gorbachev and Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. Is we get a president who is a Republican, George H.W. Bush, and who is not in tune with this at all, much the way you might say from time to time we had presidents in the Cold War who weren’t completely attuned to what the people like Cheney at that time wanted to do. We forget, sometimes, that in the National Security Council we have archives that show us that people actually talked about operating on the dark side during the Cold War. They used Cheney-like language during that time. Most of the time they were deemed crazy and they were put to the side.

H.W. Bush does the same thing. Wolfowitz sends a strategy which reflects much of what you just said about maintaining American hegemony–indeed, increasing it–over to the White House during H.W. Bush’s term, from ’92 to–from ’88 to ’92. Bush says, apocryphally or otherwise, I can see H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft saying this: Send this back to the crazies in the basement of the Pentagon. They don’t want to have anything to do this. They realize that is imperial overstretch to the max, or at least it will lead to that. Well, that’s not Cheney’s feeling about it. He’s Bush’s secretary of defense, and he’s a very good secretary of defense. But he’s got a supremely confident president over him. He’s got Secretary of State Jim Baker, who can check him at any moment. And he’s got Colin Powell beneath him. So he’s got adult supervision. He can’t stray outside of that supervision.

Once he becomes vice president, and all of these forces you’ve just briefly described then find a fruition in his finding them to be coincidental with his own interests at that time, he becomes extremely powerful. And he’s extremely powerful not so much because of what Kissinger described as we were listening to the trailer. Those talents are there, sure. But he’s powerful because he has a president who is a dilettante, is a president who doesn’t know the first thing about national security. He has a president who takes four, some would say five, years–he finally fires Rumsfeld, for example, in November of 2006 before he figures out what the vice president has been doing to him.

So this is a confluence of events and personalities and characters, if you will, that hasn’t occurred in the whole length and breadth of the Cold War, and suddenly occurs as it’s ended, and becomes the principal developer of the national security state, because it is there and it has Cheney to do that. And I think it brings the national security state to an ultimate fruition; a fruition that now says we’re an empire. We will have perpetual war, just like Rome did, in order to maintain that empire. We will have mostly a volunteer force to do this, because we won’t call on our own people to do it. Oh, my God, they wouldn’t want to do that. And we will have the accoutrements of that war, the military-industrial complex, people making money off of the war, people making billions off of the war. Halliburton makes, for example, by one estimate as much as $40 billion off Iraq and Afghanistan during the period from the beginning to roughly the end of Iraq in 2011 or so. So that’s what we’ve got today.

PAUL JAY: That’s another very important point, that Cheney goes into being vice president after–lead a company 🦖 that makes a killing at a killing ☠️; a fortune at a war.

Quote
Agelbert NOTE: The (never mentioned in the media) Motto of American Fossil Fuel Fascists like Cheney.
Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good!
           

LARRY WILKERSON: Yes. Yes. It’s stunning how much that has taken over this country now.

PAUL JAY: And I don’t think the film tells that message nearly enough.

LARRY WILKERSON: No, it doesn’t go into that message. Look at the figures that were just released for the last 10 years on how many four stars, how many admirals, full admirals, full generals, how many three stars, vice admirals and lieutenant generals, and others have left the Pentagon and gone straight into six or seven-figure salaries with the defense contracting business. It’s astonishing. We have built a state that survives on making war, on killing other people for state purposes. And it makes a lot of people very, very wealthy, and Dick Cheney was one of those people who finished–put the finishing touches to that state, and put it, put those finishing touches to it in a very accelerated form, and made a fortune off it himself. I mean, I’m told by some who saw his financial disclosure forms that he went from somewhere around $4-5 million in personal wealth to over $70 million. His protestations-

PAUL JAY: This is at Halliburton? Or after he’s vice president?

LARRY WILKERSON: This is after he’s vice president. So his protestations to the contrary, Halliburton’s success in all of these wars–Afghanistan, Iraq, and so forth–did, in fact, benefit Dick Cheney.

PAUL JAY: Now, when we first started interviewing–and this goes back now to I think 2010, we started, the first time we started doing interviews–you said something which always stuck with me, is that … You know, we were talking about your own progression of your own thinking. And with the Iraq war it really hit home for you how banal the motivation of much of this is. You know, it’s just about moneygrubbing. It’s about getting rich, of course about power, but power to get rich. You can’t separate the two.

LARRY WILKERSON: My students sometimes have trouble with this. Which comes first, the money or the power? And you’ve just described it, I think, fairly accurately, in that they are concomitants.

Powell said to me, standing on his front porch after he had left the chairmanship–and we are standing on his new front–his new multimillion dollar home. We’re staying on the front porch. And I said, What next, boss? And he said, Well, I’m not sure. And I said, you know, cabinet secretary, state, defense, maybe president, or whatever? What are your plans? And he said, Well, I’m not planning on running for president, but I do look at Secretary of state or secretary of defense, and I have to make a lot of money. I said, What do you mean? He said, in order to be a cabinet officer in the United States today you have to be a millionaire or better.

And I thought about that in terms of a black man, and I said, well, maybe it’s because he’s looking at it from that perspective. But then I thought about it in general terms, and he’s right. He’s right. We don’t make people who aren’t either going to be millionaires or who aren’t already millionaires cabinet officers.

PAUL JAY: Because they have the right thinking, because they’re defending their wealth.

LARRY WILKERSON: Yes, yes. They’re defending the realm. They’re defending the system that we built up, which has, sadly enough, become almost dependent on constant war in order to keep those billions rolling. 😨

PAUL JAY: OK. In the next segment of our interview we’ll talk more about the film Vice, and we’ll start getting into more of the story of the film, which takes up the question of 9/11 and the Iraq War. So please join us for a continuation of our chat with Larry Wilkerson on The Real News Network.

https://therealnews.com/stories/movie-review-vice-underplays-the-evil-of-dick-cheney-wilkerson-and-jay-review-the-movie-1-3

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 10, 2019, 07:42:06 pm »



U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Block Exxon Climate Fraud Investigation

Massachusetts' attorney general is trying to force Exxon to turn over decades of records involving what it knew about climate change and what it told the public.

BY DAVID HASEMYER

JAN 7, 2019

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07012019/exxon-climate-fraud-investigation-supreme-court-ruling-massachusetts-attorney-general-healey



 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 06, 2019, 03:24:58 pm »

Originally published on EVANNEX By Charles Morris

Big Oil 🦕🦖 Tries To Kill The Electric Car (Again)

January 6th, 2019 by Guest Contributor

Is this a conspiracy theory that can be dismissed? Not really. The definition of a conspiracy is different actors working together in secret. While the efforts of EV enemies — legacy automakers, oil interests, and “conservative” governments — do complement one another, as far as we know, they haven’t formed any formal cartel (nor do the Lizard People, aliens, or Elvis seem to be involved). And there’s not much secrecy about what they’re doing. The efforts of oil industry–backed groups to hold back the electric tide are well-documented, most recently in a lengthy article in the New York Times.

The Trump administration has been working with auto industry trade groups (openly, not in secret) to water down federal fuel economy standards since before the president’s inauguration. This is a legal process that will take many months to play out, and advocates on both sides of the issue are working to sway public opinion. As the Times reports, Marathon Petroleum, the country’s largest refiner, has devoted much effort and money to ensure that the standards get rolled back. Along with its allies — oil industry trade groups and a network of conservative “think tanks” financed by billionaire bogeyman Charles G. Koch — Marathon argues that the US now has so much oil that it no longer needs to worry about energy conservation.

“With oil scarcity no longer a concern,” Americans should be given a “choice in vehicles that best fit their needs,” read a draft of a letter that Marathon helped to circulate to members of Congress. According to the Times, official correspondence later sent to regulators by more than a dozen lawmakers included phrases or sentences from the industry talking points, and the US administration’s proposed rule rollback relies on similar arguments.

Marathon Petroleum has also teamed up with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a reliable opponent of environmental regulation, to draft pro-industry legislation for state governments. ALEC’s handy guide to the issue describes current fuel-efficiency rules as “a relic of a disproven narrative of resource scarcity” and says “unelected bureaucrats” shouldn’t tell Americans what cars to drive.

Meanwhile, a major Facebook campaign — covertly run by an oil-industry lobby representing ExxonMobil, Chevron, Phillips 66 and other oil giants — urged people to write to regulators to support the rollback. The Facebook ads linked to a website with a picture of a grinning President Obama and the question, “Would YOU buy a used car from this man?” The site appears to have been so effective that a quarter of the 12,000 public comments received by the Department of Transportation can be traced to the petition, according to a Times analysis.

The Times article documents the influence Marathon wields over Trump administration officials and state lawmakers around the country. The refiner was a major donor to former Oklahoma State Senator and Attorney General Scott Pruitt, and its CEO, Gary Heminger, met with Pruitt several times after he became Trump’s EPA Administrator (Pruitt resigned in July, under the shadow of at least 14 separate federal investigations).

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/06/big-oil-tries-to-kill-the-electric-car-again/

Agelbert COMMENT: Yep. The math for oil refiners 🦕🦖 is what dooms them when most transportation becomes electric ⚡ powered. So, they come up with all sorts of Orwellian yammering about the "low cost" of petroleum sources.

The bottom line for refiners, that these Hydrocarbon Hellspawn 🦕🦖 just HATE to talk about 🙊, is that you CANNOT refine crude oil without getting LOTS of liquid fuels that Rockefeller had to dump in the rivers of Pennsyslvania (killing horses and cows that were downstream) before he teamed up with Ford to sell the waste product we know as gasoline (and diesel).



The fossil fuelers go BANKRUPT if their only products are lubricants and feed stock for plastics, pharmaceuticals, and so on.

The sooner that happens, the better chance humanity has to survive Catastrophic Climate Change.





Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 01, 2019, 02:14:27 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.

Rooftop Solar Tax Relief Bills Vetoed By Michigan Governor

January 1st, 2019 by Steve Hanley

In most parts of the country, the improvements people make to their homes increase the taxable value of their property. The building permit process has two parts. The first makes sure the proposed improvements comply with all applicable building codes. The second sends the information from the application to the tax assessor so the value can be taxed the next time property tax bills are rendered. But is a rooftop solar system a taxable improvement?

The answer to that question depends on where you live. Some states say yes, others say no. Even within a state, the rules may vary. That is the case in Michigan where most communities choose to treat rooftop solar systems as personal property that is not subject to real estate taxes. But Ann Arbor, one of the larger cities in Michigan, takes the opposite  view. It treats rooftop solar systems as real estate, claiming state law requires it to do so. Therefore, the value of those systems are taxed by the city.

Ann Arbor residents Mark Clevey and Nancy Fenton filed a lawsuit last year asking the court to declare their rooftop solar system was personal property and not real estate. They lost. According to a report by Michigan Live, tax tribunal judge Steven Lasher agreed with the city, saying residential solar energy systems are not common enough to be considered the type of “customary” personal property exempt from taxation.

To be clear, the judge ruled that if rooftop solar systems were more common, they would be exempt but because they are not more common, they are taxable, even though taking them out of the taxable category would encourage more people to install rooftop solar. “The law is a ass,” Charles Dickens wrote in the 19th century. Things in the legal sphere have not improved all that much since then, apparently.

In 2018, the Michigan legislature stepped in to resolve the issue. It passed two bills — HB 5143 and HB 5680 — that specifically defined rooftop solar systems as personal property. Even the Ann Arbor city council passed a resolution last fall supporting both bills. HB 5143 passed the House 106-3 and the Senate 38-0. HB 5680 passed the House 105-4 and the Senate 38-0. Just before the end of the year, Michigan governor Rick Snyder, the man who has refused to lift a finger to help the citizens of Flint solve their water crisis, vetoed both measures.

“There was no opposition,” says Clevey, who is also vice president of the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association. “It was a good idea, it was based on merit, and everybody came together and said, ‘This (taxation) is bad for everybody, so let’s get rid of this stupid law.’”

Ostensibly, the governor’s action was based on the fact that the new legislation would set up two classes of rooftop solar owners — those who installed their systems before the law changed and those who did so afterward. This sort of legislative oversight is routinely resolved by the courts, which have ruled consistently that any legislation is presumed to apply retroactively unless the legislature clearly states a different intention.

But Snyder was having none of it. Common sense, logic, and the will of the people be damned. The law is the law is the law and never the twain shall meet, or something like that.

Comments on the Michigan Live story may provide some illumination on this subject. A person calling himself Snide posted, “Almost unanimous support in both chambers by both parties yet he vetoes…. In this case I’d say follow the money……..who will benefit by this not going ahead and check Snyder’s connection to them,” which got this reply, “Fossil fuel companies have Snyder in their pocket.” Perhaps so. Snyder has been obstinately opposed to any proposal that would allow Tesla to sell direct to Michigan residents.

While perusing the comments, I couldn’t help noticing this posting from someone styling himself as SpotOn: “A123 was an alternative energy for cars. How did that work out? Over 500 Billion in subsidies before they went bankrupt.” A free subscription to the CleanTechnica newsletter to the first person who spots the error in that statement. If we could turn idiocy into energy, we could decarbonize the electrical grid overnight.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/01/rooftop-solar-tax-relief-bills-vetoed-by-michigan-governor/

Agelbert COMMENT: Michigan Governor Snyder's  despicable, as well as abysmally stupid, actions are easy to explain. Snyder is a Kochroach, period.

Steve Hanley, the author of this truth filled article, pointed out the mendacious doubletalk comment by "SpotOn 🦕". That comment can be explained the same way.

Steve said, "If we could turn idiocy into energy, we could decarbonize the electrical grid overnight. "

I would add a small modification to that statement:

If we could turn Hydrocarbon Hellspawn 🐉🦕😈🦖 bought and paid for Mendacious PROPAGANDA idiocy into energy, we could decarbonize the electrical grid overnight.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 31, 2018, 05:31:45 pm »

December 31, 2018

SNIPPET:

Put your hands together for the most watched video on our Facebook page in 2018! We’re honestly not surprised that this one took the crown. The Trump 🦀 Administration 🐉🦕🦖 has done a lot of damage to the climate movement this year – and clearly, people were paying attention.

Every week (and sometimes every day) seemed to present another instance of the White House on the wrong side of climate history. Case in point: the administration’s decision to place a tariff on solar panels manufactured overseas. This video explains why imposing this tariff was such a terrible idea, hurting both American workers and our planet.


https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/31/top-5-climate-change-videos-of-2018/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 16, 2018, 04:32:08 pm »

Friends of the Earth foe.org


VICTORY : Ryan Zinke 🦖 resigns as Interior Secretary

Dec 15, 2018, 9:59 AM

Dear Anthony,

Victory for the environment: Ryan Zinke resigns from the Department of the Interior after onslaught of scandals!
VICTORY! Ryan Zinke just stepped down as Secretary of the Interior, according to a tweet from Donald Trump. He will leave at the end of the year. This was largely thanks to people like you demanding he be held accountable for his corruption.

Every day Ryan Zinke was in office, he worked to destroy our public lands and waters -- with devastating impacts on our communities. He slashed protections for places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Bears Ears National Monument. And he did it all to help his fossil fuel industry friends.

The scandals surrounding Zinke have been building for months. The DOI Inspector General released a report showing that every time Zinke had a choice between benefiting taxpayers and himself, he chose himself. He even changed policies so taxpayers would cover travel for his wife, and wasted $25,000 on a romantic trip to Turkey with her.

His corruption was so severe that the DOI Inspector General referred an investigation to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution.

Friends of the Earth members like you spoke out on these scandals and made them impossible for Trump to ignore. Zinke resigned after you signed petitions, made phone calls, took to social media and took to the streets to demand that he be kicked out of the Department of Interior.

This shows that when people like you stand up to Trump and his Administration, you can make a difference. You can stop them from destroying our environment and endangering our communities.

Forcing Zinke out is a huge victory for people and the environment. Each day Zinke was Interior Secretary, he worked to advance his radical plan to slash national monuments, cut Indigenous communities out of the decision-making process, and ignore significant environmental, cultural, and scientific information. And he did it all in a mad dash to frack ☠️, mine ☠️ and drill ☠️ on America's public lands.

And until the scandals caught up to him, he was dangerously ☠️ effective at it.

By kicking Zinke out of the Department of the Interior, you helped send a strong message that it’s unacceptable for our leaders to put the fossil fuel industry and other corporate interests ahead of people and the planet.

Trump 🦀 is still trying to fill his government with corrupt extremists 💵 🎩 and climate deniers 🦕. Zinke’s likely replacement, David Bernhardt 🐉, is a walking conflict of interest. Before coming to Interior he was a high paid lobbyist representing the very industries that will profit from Trump’s plan to hand our public lands and waters over to polluters.

That’s why we’ll need you with us every step of the way as we work to stop these dangerous nominees and appointees. But Zinke’s ouster shows that when we all take action together, we win.

Thank you for helping build a better future for our country and our planet.

Standing with you,
Nicole Ghio,
Senior fossil fuels program manager,
Friends of the Earth

https://foe.org/news/

Agelbert NOTE: As you have observed, Trump has MORE than FOUR Profit Over People and Planet 'HORSEMEN' (see: The Book of Revelation in the Bible) on his WRECKING CREW.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 12, 2018, 05:07:12 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Don't think for a secomd that the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn are any less corrosive to our environment and our government than they were in 2017. If anything, they have increased their unethical destructive activity.

This article covers their typical mens rea modus operandi. These bastards need to be shut down in Ohio (and everywhere else) or we are toast.


OCT 29, 2017

BY BRAD WIENERS AND DAVID HASEMYER

How Fossil Fuel Allies Are Tearing Apart Ohio's Embrace of Clean Energy  >:(

With scare studies, policy drafts and political donations, industry groups turned Ohio lawmakers against policies they once overwhelmingly supported.

SNIPPET 1:

As fossil fuel 🦖 interests 👹 mobilized at the national level to fight proposals to mitigate climate change that would undercut their profits, they made Ohio a priority for fighting clean energy policy at the state level. Beginning in earnest in 2011, a network of coal companies, utilities, think tanks, nonprofit foundations and political action committees coalesced to roll back Ohio's alternative energy initiatives.

SNIPPET 2:

Agelbert NOTE: Bill Seitz is a typical (bought and paid for) KochRoach.

Read more:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29102017/renewable-energy-ohio-rps-law-fossil-fuel-political-donations-coal

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 10, 2018, 05:20:56 pm »

Court Orders Three Iowa Wind Turbines Dismantled

December 10th, 2018 by Steve Hanley

SNIPPET:

A court in Iowa has ordered three wind turbines in Fayette County, Iowa be dismantled by December 9. Local residents are standing outside watching them come down and cheering. What’s going on? Some of it has to do with NIMBY, some of it has to do with money, and some of it has to do with the “city vs. country” divide that helped propel the current president into office. The dispute comes down to whether or not the developers who put up the wind turbines had a proper building permit. The court ruled they did not.

Full article:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/10/court-orders-three-iowa-wind-turbines-dismantled/

Agelbert COMMENT: I smell one of these behind the "anlaysis" the judge made before his Court order:
 

If those who claim to be so discomfited by wind trubines had to actually pay for the damage the fossil fuel powered electricity they gleefully use in their homes causes, they would opt for sound proofing instead of Koch Brothers🦕🦖 funded, Profit Over People ☠️ and Planet🚩, Renewable Energy Strangling 😈. 

I defy anyone here to claim you "cannot soundproof against wind turbines". That is TOTAL BS. Do you want to talk SERIOUSLY about sound pollution or do you want to cherry pick "acceptable" and "unacceptable" sounds caused by out civilization (i. e. make stuff up)?

How many people in the USA live next to train tracks? MILLIONS of them. You don't hear of any court ordering the train tracks relocated because of the sound, MUCH GREATER than that of wind tirbines, generated by frequent freight trains, often carrying toxic cargo to boot!

True, if you are outside, you cannot avoid the sound that wind turbines make. But, if you are inside, which is where people in Iowa are 90% (OR MORE!) of the time, it is not terribly difficult to block the low frequency sound waves produced by wind turbines.

The HYPOCRITES that whine about wind turbines have consistently been quiet as DEATH about the decisions made in towns all accross the USA, for the last century, to permit the building of Coal fired power plants near neighborhoods of the poor.

I would order the judge that gave the Koch Brothers 🦕🦖 this Corruption Based Christmas Present to move to a house a mile or so downwind of a Koch Brothers 🦕🦖 refinery in Southern Texas.

I would plainly ask that judge, What part of the Precautionary Principle of Science does he so poorly interpret that he can turn a blind eye to massive fossil fuel pollution, while claiming that the sound of Wind Turbines is "unacceptable" through legalese DOUBLETALK about "permits"?
 

It was that judge's responsibility to COMPUTE the benefit of those wind turbines to the community, in terms of pollution avoided, and COMPARE THAT BENEFIT with the bother of the low frequency sound that could cause property values to go down around said wind turbines. He SHIRKED his respsonsibility, PERIOD!

As far as Fossil Fuels are concerned, people that talk about NIMBY (not in my backyard) have to change NIMBY to NOPE, not on planet earth. When they DO THAT, and not a second before, we can talk about whether wind turbines are properly positioned or not.

The double standard in this country between fossil fuel powered power plants and Renewable Energy power plants is the height of hypocrisy.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 25, 2018, 04:15:06 pm »

Oil Industry 🐉🦕🦖 Cleanup Costs Vastly Exceed Alberta Government’s  🦖  Estimates


TheRealNews

Published on Nov 24, 2018

Regan Boychuk of Reclaim Alberta explains that Canadian taxpayers could ultimately be on the hook for hundreds of billions of oil industry cleanup costs

Visit https://therealnews.com for more stories and help support our work by donating at https://therealnews.com/donate.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 13, 2018, 05:16:12 pm »

EcoWatch


Koch Industries 🦕🦖 Lobbies Against Electric Vehicle Tax Credit

DeSmogBlog

By Dana Drugmand

Nov. 12, 2018 11:26AM EST

Koch Industries is calling for the elimination of tax credits for electric vehicles (EVs), all while claiming that it does not oppose plug-in cars and inviting the elimination of oil and gas subsidies that the petroleum conglomerate and its industry peers receive.

Outgoing Nevada Republican Senator Dean Heller introduced a bill in September that would lift the sales cap on electric vehicles eligible for a federal tax credit, and replace the cap with a deadline that would dictate when the credit would start being phased out.

Under the current tax credit for EVs, once a manufacturer sells 200,000 EVs in the U.S. the amount of the credit gets slashed in half, then halved again. The full credit amount is $7,500. Tesla has already hit the 200,000 cap and GM will soon reach it, so both companies would benefit from a tax credit extension via eliminating the sales cap. Heller's bill lifts the 200,000 vehicle limit and substitutes a phase-out period starting in 2022.

But the conservative senator's bill is facing opposition from the conservative billionaire Koch brothers.

In a letter to senators dated Oct. 24, Koch Industries lobbyist Philip Ellender urges opposition to the expansion of EV tax credits through 2022. Ellender claims that the tax credits primarily benefit wealthy consumers and that subsidization interferes with "innovation and consumer choice."

The letter cites two studies, each by a right-wing think tank. One study comes from the Pacific Research Institute, which has received fossil fuel funding—including more than $1.7 million from Koch-related foundations and $615,000 from ExxonMobil. The PRI study, "Costly Subsidies for the Rich: Quantifying the Subsidies Offered to Battery Electric Powered Cars," emphasizes that "the majority of the dollar benefits from energy and electric car subsidies are paid to tax filers in the higher income tax brackets."

The other study is from the Manhattan Institute, another "free market think tank" that takes in money from the Koch network and Exxon. The study paints a misleading picture of EVs and their subsidies.

In addition to citing biased studies by groups tied to Koch money, Ellender claims in the letter, "We do not oppose electric vehicles."

This sentiment echoes the company's 2016 advertorial, in which Koch Industries claimed to be "all for electric vehicles."

Ellender also claims that Koch Industries is against any and all energy subsidies, even ones that benefit the company. According to the letter:

Instead of expanding this subsidy for wealthy EV owners, Congress should eliminate it along with all other energy incentives—including eliminating any incentives given to us and our competitors where we may participate. We are focused on long-term value creation, not short-term windfalls.
In reality, while Koch Industries is claiming publicly to support ending fossil fuel subsidies (along with EV and clean energy incentives), Koch lobbyists have long worked to ensure that the petroleum industry continues to get subsidized.

As Koch vs. Clean previously pointed out, "In a detailed 2011 report on Koch Industries, the Center for Public Integrity wrote: 'Oil is the core of the Koch business empire, and the company's lobbyists and officials have successfully fought to preserve the industry's tax breaks and credits.' The report documented that Koch lobbyists have worked to preserve billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies, including the Section 199 manufacturing tax deduction and the 'last-in, first out' accounting rule."

In fact, according to the International Business Times, Koch Industries has itself directly secured subsidies totaling more than $195 million.

The Koch network also lobbied for the Trump tax cuts that became law late last year. The corporate tax cut is not specific to energy, but it benefits giant corporations including Big Oil and Koch Industries nonetheless. Americans for Tax Fairness estimated that the Kochs would save more than $1 billion just this year from the tax cut—a significant windfall for a corporate behemoth that claims, "We  are focused on long-term value creation, not short-term windfalls."

Quote
Koch vs. California: These Groups Want Pruitt 🐒 to Undo the State’s Right to Regulate Auto Emissions https://www.ecowatch.com/california-pruitt-koch-emissions-standards-2558995169.html … @ewg @UCSUSA @YEARSofLIVING @ClimateReality @greenpeaceusa @EnvDefenseFund

9:50 AM - Apr 11, 2018

https://www.ecowatch.com/koch-electric-vehicles-tax-credit-2619368336.html


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 10, 2018, 05:26:10 pm »

The US 🦍 Must Take Responsibility for Asylum Seekers and the History That Drives Them

BY David L. Wilson 🕊, Truthout

PUBLISHED November 10, 2018

Many Americans feel genuine sympathy for Central American asylum seekers, but confronted with the US's own failing systems, fall for the right-wing line that "it's not our problem." However, anyone who has followed the history of US policies and involvement in Central America knows that the current crises in the region and these migrants absolutely are our responsibility.

Full article:

https://truthout.org/articles/us-must-take-responsibility-for-asylum-seekers-and-their-history/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 10, 2018, 01:26:46 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: YES, this belongs here. EVERY bit of  the U.S. Military Industrial Complex Sponsored Murder and Mayhem (including declared wars and undeclared wars) since 1980 has been planned BY the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn 🦕 AND executed by their bought and paid for TOOLS 🦍🦀 in Government. The Fossil Fuel Fascists 🦖, above and beyond the horrendous planetary death toll from carbon pollution hurting thousands of species (inculding humans ☠️), have the blood of millions of innocent people on their hands.

The War on Terror’s Toll, From Atrocities Abroad ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️ to Mass Shootings ☠️ at Home

November 10, 2018

A new Brown University study says the US-led so-called “War on Terror” has killed around 500,000 people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan — an “undercount,” it stresses. And as Ian David Long — an-ex U.S. Marine who served in the Afghan war — kills 12 people in Thousand Oaks, California, might we also count victims of mass shootings carried out by U.S. veterans? We speak to Vijay Prashad of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research.


https://therealnews.com/stories/the-war-on-terrors-toll-from-atrocities-abroad-to-mass-shootings-at-home

 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 08, 2018, 06:14:52 pm »

BY Norman Solomon , Truthout

PUBLISHED November 8, 2018


SNIPPET:

... sharp contrasts between advocacy for economic justice and flackery 😈 for de facto oligarchy 👹.



Surveys show that voters are hungry for genuinely progressive policies that have drawn little interest from mainstream media outlets. For instance, polling of the US public shows:

֍ 76 percent support higher taxes on the wealthy.

֍ 70 percent support Medicare for All.

֍ 59 percent support a $15 minimum wage.

֍ 60 percent support expanded tuition-free college.

֍ 69 percent oppose overturning Roe v. Wade.

֍ 65 percent support progressive criminal justice reform.

֍ 59 percent support stricter environmental regulation.

Read more:


Agelbert NOTE: I have ZERO confidence in Pelosi doing what she MUST DO (i.e go 100% Progressive, ESPECIALLY in regard to Renewable Energy) to keep the Hydrocrabon Hellspawn Oligarchy 🐉🦕🦖 STILL RUNNING (and still ruining through massive 24/7 government welfare queen subsidized pollution) the USA from accelerating down the path to the extinction of most mammalian vertebrate species, including humans. Never mind stopping them. They want to EXPAND the hydrocarbon Profit over people and planet 'business model' .

Stupid is as STUPID Suicidal Insanity DOES. 🤬


 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: November 04, 2018, 03:39:02 pm »


November 4, 2018

The brazen attack by Republicans on Debbie Mucarsel-Powell took away my breath. The National Republican Congressional Committee 🐉🦕 🦖😈👹 released an ad late last week claiming that climate hawk Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s “campaign is flooded with dirty coal money, the very polluters that threaten our way of life in the Keys.”

Yep, you read that right.

I can hardly wait for the NRCC’s similar attack ads against EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN 😈👹🦕🦖 EVER.

See, when we endorsed Debbie, we pointed out that climate peacock Carlos Curbelo has taken tens of thousands from Big Oil. Debbie’s been using his fossil fuel money ties on the campaign trail. And right now, we’re running digital ads in the district pointing out the tens of thousands he’s proudly taken from Exxon Mobil and others. That means the attacks are working -- but now the evil empire is striking back.

Can you contribute to keep our ads going?

Climate Hawks Vote ad in FL-26

Oh, and the "dirty coal money" that’s supposedly flooding Debbie’s campaign? It’s $2700 from climate hawk Tom Steyer. And his business used to invest in fossil fuel-powered utilities, a long time ago, before he became a climate hawk. And… well, sorry. I. Can’t. Even. #eyeroll #facepalm

Here’s the real target of the NRCC: the disillusioned, occasional voters who say “both sides are the same” and then stay home on Tuesday. But you and I know that both sides aren’t the same. One in Congress voted to drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The other won’t. That’s why it’s so important that climate hawks stand with Debbie.

With polls showing a one-point race in Florida’s 26th District, I’m going to ask you to help us fight back.

Can you chip in to help our ads reach more voters?

Your fellow climate hawk,

RL Miller

Reference

The GOP is attacking a Democrat for being weak on climate change. Wait, what?!,” Mother Jones

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/11/carlos-curbelo-debbie-mucarsel-powell-the-gop-is-attacking-a-democrat-for-being-weak-on-climate-change-wait-what/


Agelbert NOTE: Fascist enablers everywhere hate Tom Steyer because he wants to get the Trump FASCIST impeached.


Fascist enabler Republicans are serial LIARS who do not care how much this country is trashed by Profit Over Planet Fascism. A vote for a REPUBLICAN IS A VOTE FOR THE DEATH OF THE REPUBLIC, PERIOD.  
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 21, 2018, 02:59:10 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.

Lies, Lies, & More Lies: Lawrence Solomon🦕 Is Scared & So Is The Fossil Fuel Industry

October 21st, 2018 by Joshua S Hill

It should come as no surprise that the fossil fuel industry has many defenders 🐵 🐒 🦍 willing to step up to the plate and bat for them — it is, after all, a multi-billion-dollar industry with long-standing relationships and a desire not to collapse into infamy and oblivion.


The simple reality is that, for a large part of the planet, the fossil fuel industry is on its last legs. Developed nations are wholesale turning to renewable energy — either by federal impetus or through the work of sub-national players such as local governments and corporations — and developing nations are looking to renewable energy as a means to jump over the fossil fuel step altogether, avoiding the need to build up costly nationwide infrastructure and preventing further emissions increases.

Fear & Ignorance

This new reality, however, is apparently difficult for some people to comprehend. Most recently, BP CEO Bob Dudley, speaking as the “Petroleum Executive of the Year” at the Oil & Money conference in London, raised his fears of the global divestment and disclosure movements that are impacting the fossil fuel industry, suggesting that they “could lead to bad outcomes.” His rationale, however, was based on faulty assumptions and blind ignorance of the realities.

BP 🦕 CEO Bob Dudley 😈

However, Dudley can at least be given credit for admitting the need for change, and presenting a path forward which he claimed was “not a call for business as usual” and one that “requires significant and rapid disruption to our industry.”

The same credit cannot be given to Lawrence Solomon, however, a columnist for Canada’s National Post section (which bears the name Financial Post after the business newspaper of the same name) and the Executive Director of Energy Probe, the consumer and energy research team of Canada’s Energy Probe Research Foundation.

Writing an op-ed recently for the Financial Post, Solomon set aside any dignity or professional integrity he may once have grasped to and penned what can only be described as a hit-piece on the renewable energy industry with all the internal consistency of a wet tissue. Solomon’s article — entitled “Trudeau stands alone as Canada — and the world — abandons green energy” — ran with the witty lede, “Wind and solar have become the fossils of the energy industry; oil, gas and coal remain the fuels of the future.” An entire fact-check article could be written about the opening paragraph on its own — not bad, considering it boasts only 109 words in four sentences.

Solomon’s article was brought to our attention here at CleanTechnica by a frustrated reader who asked that we investigate the claims Solomon made in his piece — described by the reader as “so untruthful and so far from reality that I think it deserves to be called out.”

More than simply “calling out” Lawrence Solomon, however, I think it’s worth being completely upfront and honest about Solomon and his opinions — and opinions they are, make no mistake about it, in the true spirit of the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of the word — “A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge” — for, it would appear that Solomon’s opinions have never even heard of the concept of “facts” and “knowledge.”


Lies, Lies, & More Lies

To be fair, the issue is not so much with Lawrence Solomon in and of himself, rather, he is simply representative of a number of such pundits who occupy their own little space of real estate in magazines, newspapers, and on television the world over.


Solomon is in no way particularly special for the absurdity of his views, but he serves as a convenient example of the types of lies that are spread, and the way in which people opposed to renewable energy and in denial about global warming make their arguments.

In his opinion article, Lawrence Solomon attempts to make the argument that renewable energy is not only on the back foot around the world, but that it is in full retreat. To support this argument, Solomon refers to several pieces of so-called evidence which he has pulled kicking and screaming out of context. I’ll handle them one at a time.




China

Solomon claims that China has “begun to throw in the towel by cutting subsidies to renewables, an augur of the demise of investment in its renewables sector.” Solomon also points to recent reporting from green campaigners CoalSwarm which claimed that 259 gigawatts (GW) of new coal capacity are currently under construction.

Satellite visualization from Carbon Tracker

While Solomon accurately reported the findings from CoalSwarm’s new satellite imagery report — which showed construction ongoing at coal plants across the country, the result of a permitting surge between late-2014 and early-2016 — he incorrectly blames the reason for China’s decision to cut subsidies to renewables.

It’s important to remember the context of China’s current reliance on coal. The new capacity currently under construction is the result of local authorities approving new projects, and actually flies in the face of China’s Central Government’s decisions to halt construction of new coal-fired power plants. Toward the end of 2016 and over the first few months of 2017, China announced the cancellation of 30 large coal-fired power plants amounting to 17 gigawatts (GW), followed soon after by the cancellation of 104 more under-construction and planned coal projects amounting to 120 GW. In March of this year, a report showed that the development of new coal plants in 2017 had declined in China, thanks in part to the Central Government’s decision to suspend construction across hundreds of projects.

Unfortunately, CoalSwarm’s recent report might suggest that China’s Central Government no longer has the control it once had to make these sweeping cuts, but a report published earlier this month by Carbon Tracker shows that 40% of China’s coal plants are already losing money and that the country could save nearly $390 billion by closing plants instead of keeping them operational.

Further, it’s important to look at the whole of what is happening in China. In September, China’s National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) wrote a draft policy that paved the way to increase the country’s renewable energy target from 20% to 35% by 2030.

Later that same month, China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) issued draft guidelines that would look to phase out power generation subsidies — just as Solomon highlighted, except, the intention of the decision was to provide the country’s renewable energy sector with further technological and policy support so that those technologies can compete against other technologies on their own. Specifically, the draft guidelines seek to incentivize renewable energy technologies in regions where they can operate without help from government subsidies.

“The reason China’s cutting subsidy is mainly because of the huge deficit in the national renewable subsidy fund,” explained Yali Jiang, a solar analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance, who spoke to me via email. “By the end of 2017, the deficit amounted around $19 billion including those for wind and solar projects. As a result, the government expects to, for instance, restrict new solar installations that require national subsidy immediately.”

“China’s solar installation contracted in 3Q due to the policy change,” Jiang added. “The grid-connected PV capacity halved in July and August compared with last year. But the country remains to be the largest investor in clean energy in 3Q ($26.7 billion), a fraction above the same period of 2017.”

Far from being “an augur of the demise of investment in its renewables sector,” as Solomon so dramatically put it, China’s decision to cut subsidies is actually based in a desire to minimize the financial strain caused by subsidizing new power generation, while at the same time providing technological and political support that will help renewable energy compete on its own — much as it does in other parts of the world, such as throughout Europe and North America.


Europe

Lawrence Solomon, far from being happy with one example, decided to add another to the mix, explaining that, “With the cutting of subsidies to renewables in the [European Union], investment last year dropped to less than half of its peak six years earlier.”

Again, Solomon correctly looked at the chart, sourced from Bloomberg New Energy Finance and highlighted by the World Economic Forum in May of 2018 — an article, mind you, which highlights the success of the investment in China’s renewable energy sector, and betrays Solomon’s contention that China has suffered a decline in investment in its renewables sector (made literally the sentence beforehand).


While it is true that investment in Europe’s renewable energy industry has fallen off in recent times, it’s doubly important to look at the region’s capacity installations over the same time. Between 2011 and 2017 — the six-year period Solomon highlighted — generation from renewable electricity across the 28 Member States of the European Union skyrocketed.


Gross electricity generation from renewable sources, EU-28, 1990-2016 Image Credit: Eurostat

The share of renewable energy sources in the final consumption of energy has also steadily increased over the past decade, as can be seen in the table below.

Share of electricity from renewable sources in gross electricity consumption, 2004-2016 Image Credit: Eurostat

Complete renewable energy capacity additions for Europe are difficult to come by — unsurprising, given the nature of a supranational governing body — but we can mitigate that somewhat by looking specifically at the two dominant renewable energy technologies, wind, and solar.


Annual wind energy installations across Europe have steadily ticked up each year, declining only once since 2011, in 2013.


It’s worth noting, though, that new capacity additions for 2018 are on a worrying downward trend, as seen by half-year figures published by WindEurope in July.

Europe’s solar industry has similarly suffered from recent investment figures, as can be seen in the graph below, published by SolarPower Europe in June (as part of a global outlook).


Evolution of Global Annual Solar PV Installed Capacity 2000-2017

So while from a certain point of view, Lawrence Solomon can claim that Europe’s clean energy investment has fallen, resulting in lower solar capacity additions and moderate wind additions, it’s worth seeing this in light of the whole. Solar has begun growing again across Europe — with a total of 9.2 GW worth of new capacity added in 2017, a 30% increase on the year before — and offshore wind continues to increase its share. Europe was also one of the first regions to double-down on solar, and accounts for 28% of the global total, with a total of 114 GW worth of installed capacity.

Additionally, even though investments have decreased, this does not necessarily speak to a larger fall-off for the renewable energy industry. Rather, as technologies such as solar PV and onshore wind mature, their costs have decreased, which means that less money is needed to build even more capacity.

Lawrence Solomon may have struck closer to the mark with this particular example, but it does not serve to bolster his argument any, considering the impact of Brexit and the UK’s shift away from solar towards wind, the declining cost of mature technologies, and natural market dynamics and political malfeasance from politicians who share Solomon’s point of view.

Japan


Investment in Japan’s clean energy industry has indeed slowed since 2016 — essentially falling off a financial cliff at the end of 2015. Much like China, however, Japan’s situation is not as clear-cut as a graph might show.


“After years of record-breaking investment driven by some of the world’s most generous feed-in tariffs, China and Japan are cutting back on building new large-scale projects and shifting towards digesting the capacity they have already put in place,” said Justin Wu, head of Asia for BNEF, said in January of 2017.

“China is facing slowing power demand and growing wind and solar curtailment. The government is now focused on investing in grids and reforming the power market so that the renewables in place can generate to their full potential. In Japan, future growth will come not from utility-scale projects but from rooftop solar systems installed by consumers attracted by the increasingly favorable economics of self-consumption.”

It’s ironic, however, that Solomon decided to use Japan as throwaway proof of “a worldwide trend rejecting renewables.” If he had made the argument even a year ago, it might have held more weight, but given recent moves by Japan’s government, and corporations and utilities within Japan, it loses all importance.

In July, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, better known as TEPCO, announced that it intends to pursue the development of between 6 and 7 GW worth of renewable energy capacity worth tens of billions of dollars in an intentional move away from nuclear power. Speaking to Nikkei, TEPCO’s president Tomoaki Kobayakawa announced his company will look to develop 6 to 7 GW of renewable energy across Japan and overseas in a move expected to yield 100 billion yen ($8.98 billion) in profit. “We must gain a competitive advantage in renewable energy,” he said.

Meanwhile, in September, Japan’s Electric Power Development Co., better known as J-Power, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with French multinational electric utility ENGIE to collaborate on power projects, specifically offshore wind and floating offshore wind projects — a further sign of Japan’s turn away from nuclear, and specifically towards contending with Taiwan as an offshore wind hub. And only last week, the Fitch Group published a forecast which expected Japan to add 17 GW worth of new solar capacity by the end of 2020, before the sector begins to slow.

For Lawrence Solomon, Japan also does not prove his belief that renewable energy is on the back foot.


The UK, et al


I could go on. Solomon points to Germany, the UK, and Australia as further proof that the world is turning away from renewable energy. While both Germany and Australia serve as good examples of this, they are about the only two countries that do — and only from a national point of view, with sub-state actors serving to pick up where the nation’s governments left off (or, in Australia’s case, never picked up to begin with).

Solomon’s citing the UK as an example of a flagging renewable energy industry, however, truly beggars belief. Not only is the UK home to one of the world’s most persistent and dominant renewable energy countries, Scotland, but the UK is also the world’s offshore wind energy leader, boasting a portfolio of projects in operation, under construction, or in development, of 35.2 GW.

Agreed, the UK’s investment is likely to fall, a point made by the Green Alliance in January of 2017, analyzing the UK Government’s own numbers. The government has proven lackluster at best when it comes to preparing for a post-Brexit world, and it has thoroughly mishandled commitments to various technologies (onshore wind and solar, in particular). However, it’s important to look at the long-term — the Green Alliance’s analysis only looks to 2020, and a July announcement from the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy could mitigate some of these short-term losses, by setting a timeline for new offshore wind auctions starting from 2021.

“The renewables sector in the UK has seen pretty dire policy from government: solar and onshore wind projects have been effectively blocked, despite the fact that they’re now the cheapest form of new power,” explained Dustin Benton, Policy Director at Green Alliance. “By contrast, dirty power stations, supported by the UK’s flawed capacity market, have seen several hundred million pounds of government contracts over the past few years.”


Image Credit: MHI Vestas

“The exception to this generally gloomy picture is in offshore wind: despite irregular auctions, the sector has reduced prices by two-thirds over the past two years, and the government has committed to procuring around 16 GW of new offshore wind during the 2020s, putting the country on track for 30 GW by 2030 – a level consistent with meeting the UK’s carbon targets.”

It’s also worth remembering that Great Britain currently boasts its lowest ever share of fossil fuels in its energy mix, accounting for only 41% of total generation, down from 71% only 7 years ago.


How Do You Solve A Problem Like Lawrence? Lie!

An argument against renewable energy and climate change is not complete, however, without mentioning the biggest elephant in the room — the United States. Solomon reserves an entire paragraph for the US but barely manages to come close to the truth.

Solomon sets the scene — the Democrats are out of power and Donald Trump is in, and quickly moves to exit from the Paris Agreement. What did the country manage to do with this new paradigm shift?


Right out of the gate, Solomon … well, he pretty much rushes headlong into the gate. Solomon starts out by claiming that the US has revived its coal industry. One wonders exactly where to start on this. In January, Reuters obtained preliminary US government data which showed that the coal industry continues to shed jobs. In February, figures published by the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) revealed that not only had there been no new coal capacity added during 2017 (and only 3 units in 2016) but that coal’s total share of generating capacity has declined by 17.83% over the past five years. In fact, according to figures published in June by the US Energy Information Administration, coal has dropped to providing only 27% of total electricity generation.

The cause for coal’s steep decline? According to researchers from North Carolina State University and the University of Colorado Boulder writing in May, the responsible party is not renewable energy but is in fact the decline in natural gas prices. And only this week, the White House — the very center of Donald Trump’s power — has reportedly shelved a plan to bail out the coal (and nuclear) sectors.  ;D

The final point to make is, possibly, the most absurd. Written and positioned as if it was the final nail in Solomon’s argument, he writes that “The once-powerful United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, formerly a fixture in the news, is defanged and forgotten, having lost its US funding and its relevance.”

Solomon’s article was published on September 28, only 11 days before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a report warning that limiting global warming to 1.5°C will “require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” Putting aside the fact that the IPCC works in long-term cycles and is not beholden to publish material regularly (nor has it ever), Solomon must have regretted that particular sentence.


Abandoning Truth


It takes something special to be able to so blatantly and casually lie in public as Lawrence Solomon manages. To so clearly and repeatedly mishandle the facts and misconstrue the evidence requires either an almost champion level of ignorance, or a complete disregard for the truth. Solomon squeezes at least a dozen lies and half-truths into only 750 words — that’s at least one every 62 words.

Is the global renewable energy industry on the back foot? No — in fact, in many parts of the world, it is progressing faster than ever before, and well above any other energy technology. The industry is maturing, however, and with that naturally comes some bumpy patches — stagnation, political intervention and misappropriation, and economic fluctuations; to think otherwise is naive.



But to think that these bumps in the road represent some global shift away from renewable energy is to ignore all common sense and historical evidence. Renewable energy isn’t going away, nor is it declining in popularity. It is the future — not just because we need it to be, but because it is economically better. 


https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/21/lies-lies-more-lies-lawrence-solomon-is-scared-so-is-the-fossil-fuel-industry/


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 18, 2018, 02:54:22 pm »

Quote
Jens Stubbe

Nicholas you need to read this article.

Europe's love affair with diesel cars has been a disaster

The original impetus to launch Diesel big time for cars was that after the first oil crisis B&W launched motor technology for the shipping industry that could run on the cheaper and filthier bunker oil. This made Diesel an excess fraction.

Big oil rounded the car industry and EU up and they all agreed to launch Diesel for cars as a way to support big oil.

All European countries kept Diesel taxation down and Diesel for touted as more efficient and thus environmentally benign than gasoline.

Also to further press Diesel car technology down the throat of the ordinary car buyers the new car taxation began to be tied to CO2 emissions, which as everybody now knows are never really attainable in real life.

Along the way EU also imposed a demand for catalyzers. They do not function at all for most trips and they rarely last for mere than 100.000 km, so most driving are done with no effect from the catalyzers say for the benign effect for big oil that the catalyzer increase consumption by 10%.

EU has systematically rigged the scene for big oil and the car industry have been happy with the going of things in lieu with the fact that there never where any serious EU investigation going on regarding emissions so they could meet the emission standards with phony software and get permission for not meeting standards below certain ambient temperature (17 degrees Celsius).

Now the car industry is upset that they are to blame while all the time everybody else have been in on the plot.

agelbert  > Jens Stubbe
EXCELLENT comment!

Thank you 💐 Jense Stubbe.

   


Read more:

October 18th, 2018 by Nicolas Zart

SNIPPET:

The Groupe PSA, which includes Peugeot, Citroen, Opel, and Vauxhall, has had its hands full after acquiring Opel and Vauxhall. The transition hasn’t been as smooth as expected and now the company is facing legacy emission problems after a fiery French newspaper revelation.

Full Article:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/18/groupe-psa-braves-emissions-hell-with-pure-electric-citroen/



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 17, 2018, 01:44:54 pm »

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

Oxtober 17, 2018



Trump 🐵 Trying To Turn Military Bases Into Gas Stations


Beware the military-industrial complex, a real president once warned America. Unfortunately for us Trump, with all his complexes of a different sort, is looking to turn the military into an arm of industry, just like he has the rest of the federal government.

That’s the latest development in Trump’s attempts to bail out the dying coal industry, reports Ben Storrow at E&E. Initially, Storrow reports, the bailout was going to be the Department of Energy’s job. Last year Rick Perry put on his smartest looking glasses and did his best to cook up a report justifying the use of presidential war powers to require military bases to buy coal and nuclear power. But it turns out Perry might need more than just a new pair of black plastic rims: Bloomberg recently reported that the grid study didn’t turn out the way the administration wanted, which is likely why it’s yet to see the light of day.

DOE denied that portrayal this week, but Politico reported on Monday that Perry’s 🐒 plan is dead in the water , and Hannah Northey at E&E got a quote from a Trump admin official calling Perry’s proposal “poorly articulated.” (This must be a particularly painful dig for Perry, given that the criticism is coming from an administration led by a man who not only speaks like a child, but probably doesn’t even know the meaning of “articulate.” )

With an increasing recognition that Perry’s plan won’t work, Trump et al. are looking elsewhere to help the dying, dirty industry.

Not to be outclassed by the leg-flexin’ Texan, Department of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told the AP on Monday that the administration is considering using military installations as fossil fuel export terminals. Communities along the west coast have voted to prevent the construction of new export terminals, which has left the fossil fuel industry is hunting for ways to get its products to overseas markets.

Obviously the Trump 🦀 administration isn’t going to let a little thing like democracy stand in the way of doing whatever industry wants  , but to be fair this isn’t exactly all the Trump crew’s doing. In fact, a certain Representative from Wyoming by the name of Liz Cheney told the AP she had spoken with Zinke and Perry about using military bases “to get around some of the unreasonable obstacles that have been thrown up” to the export terminals.

A Cheney  considering democracy an “unreasonable obstacle” to fossil fuel profits? Seems Trump’s 2018 isn’t so unique after all… (Let’s just hope she doesn’t take too much after her father and “accidentally”  shoot anyone in the face over this, and then make the victim apologize.)

Fans of respecting the people who voted against polluting facilities on their coasts and in their communities were quick to criticize the plan. Washington Governor Jay Inslee told Politico that “it’s really impressive how this administration churns out harebrained schemes for their Department of c o c k-Eyed Ideas,while former undersecretary of the Navy Tom Hicks said it “doesn’t sound logical or fully baked,” and instead “sounds a little half-cocked.”  

While turning military bases into what amounts to gas stations may sound far-fetched and insane, Trump’s already more or less done so with the rest of the federal government, so why not use military bases to serve the fossil fuel industry

Besides, of course, the obvious fact that doing so would worsen climate change, a problem the military recognizes and is already confronting.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 15, 2018, 01:16:20 pm »


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

October 15, 2018

DOE Hasn't Released Inconvenient Report

A report commissioned by the Trump administration whose findings ran contrary  to the administration's 🦖 claims that propping up coal and nuclear is necessary for national security has yet to be made public, the report's author said last week.

Michael Webber of the University of Texas’s Webber Energy Group tweeted Friday that a report finding that onsite coal storage is not a "critical factor" for grid resilience was delivered to the DOE six months ago, but has yet to see the "light of day." "The three points the report makes are useful and counter to the [administration's] narrative--and squashed," Webber told Bloomberg.

Read more:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-12/study-that-fails-to-back-trump-coal-rescue-plan-kept-under-wraps




DC Rolls Out Dirty Welcome Mat For Oily 🦕 DOJ Appointee

It’s been 632 days since Trump took office and the halls of the White House are filled with the dirty footprints of the countless fossil fuel insiders. How could industry possibly assume more power in this administration?

Well, move over, coal-dusted smog lovers, and take a seat, gassy pipeline boosters, because last week the Senate officially confirmed one of the oiliest swamp creatures of all, Jeffrey Bossert Clark 🦖, to the top environmental position in the Justice Department.

        


Who is Clark, you may ask? Why, none other than the lawyer who successfully defended BP against state lawsuits in the aftermath of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill. He’s also involved in lawsuits against the Clean Power Plan, has voraciously challenged the government's ability to regulate carbon emissions, and has called climate science “contestable.” Clark’s also got full-throated support from CEI’s Marlow Lewis Jr., one of the fossil fuel industry’s favorite frontmen.

Clark’s nomination was officially announced last summer, so his confirmation isn’t exactly a surprise. But because we needed more depressing confirmation votes on our schedule this month, the Senate just got around to clearing Clark last week. In the 52 to 45 vote, Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (WV) and Claire McCaskill (MO) crossed the aisle to join Republicans in clearing Clark for the gig. (We’re not exactly shocked about Manchin...and white women haven’t been great firewalls for democracy recently, either.)

Per the Hill, Clark’s  job at the DOJ “will include being the top law enforcement official in pursuing claims against polluters and companies that violate environmental laws” and “defending Trump’s aggressive deregulatory agenda against an onslaught of lawsuits.” Since he’s questioned the legality of tying the EPA's endangerment finding to IPCC science multiple times, we’re not too confident he’ll hew to the IPCC when making his decisions. 

Want to protest Clark’s appointment? Better do it soon. The Trump administration has a proposal in the works that would block protests outside the White House and on parts of the National Mall.

They claim protests are costing too much money, but we have a sense it’s maybe something else going on... (If you want to preserve your ability to trample all over Trump’s lawn, the public comment period is open until the end of the day today.)

So congrats to the oil and gas industry’s latest shill to join the rest of the swamp creatures in Washington. There’s a chance that we may soon lose the ability to show them how we really feel on their home turf. But maybe it would be good to stay away: if Clark’s plans for the DOJ look anything like what he defended in the Gulf, DC will be a very messy place indeed.




Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 14, 2018, 04:25:57 pm »


Trump's 🦀 Aggressive Plans to Stifle Democracy


BY David Halperin Republic Report

PUBLISHED October 14, 2018

From Secretary of Education Betsy Devos's fight against protections for students to the National Park Service's rules that would bar demonstrations in front of the White House, Trump and his underlings are aggressively pushing measures to stifle public protest and citizen participation in our democracy.

Read the Article:

https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-aggressive-plans-to-stifle-democracy/




An Introduction to the Koch 🐉🦕🦀🦖 Digital Media Network

BY Will Lennon Center for Responsive Politics

PUBLISHED October 14, 2018

The Kochs' total spending may hit $400 million this midterm cycle, but exactly how much of that will go to digital advertising is impossible to determine at this point. However, by using the tools Google, Facebook and Twitter introduced to increase digital ad transparency in the wake of 2016 election controversies, we can get a glimpse at which races and issues the network is currently interested in.

Read the Article:

https://truthout.org/articles/an-introduction-to-the-koch-digital-media-network/


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 10, 2018, 07:04:02 pm »

October 9, 2018


A Former  ;) Oil 🦖 Lobbyist Quietly Wields Power Behind the Scenes at the Interior Department

By Ilana Novick —  Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt is “the ultimate D.C. swamp creature,” according to watchdog organizations.

Read more:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/a-former-oil-lobbyist-quietly-wields-power-behind-the-scenes-at-the-interior-department/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 10, 2018, 05:56:08 pm »


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 06, 2018, 02:24:03 pm »

EcoWatch

Kavanaugh Also Lied About His Environmental Record

By Olivia Rosane

Oct. 05, 2018 09:12AM EST

The upper chamber of the Senate is set to vote at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time Friday on whether to end debate on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. If the motion passes, the Senate could vote whether to confirm him Saturday, CNN reported.

Much of the outcome will depend on whether key swing voters believe Christine Blasey Ford's testimony that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party when they were both in high school, or if they accept Kavanaugh's denials. But anyone paying attention to how he represented his environmental record would have reason to doubt his credibility, The Intercept reported Thursday,

In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh presented himself as pro-environment overall.
Quote
"In some cases, I've ruled against environmentalists' interests, and in many cases I've ruled for environmentalists' interests,"
he said.

But an analysis from Earthjustice found that of 26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cases he had written opinions for, he had ruled for rolling back clean air and water protections 89 percent of the time. The Natural Resources Defense Council came out against a Supreme Court nomination for the second time in 25 years to oppose his advance to the nation's highest court. And an analysis by William Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, found that in 18 decisions he had made on wildlife cases, including split ones, he had ruled against protecting animals in 96 percent of them.

"He lied. He abjectly lied," Snape told The Intercept of Kavanaugh's testimony. "And if he's going to lie about his record on environmental cases, what's he not going to lie about?" 

In one moment in particular during his testimony on Sept. 5, Kavanaugh said he had upheld environmental regulations in several cases, including what he described as "the Natural Resources Defense Council case versus EPA, a ruling for environmentalist groups."

When senior NRDC attorney John Walke (National Resources Defense Council), who argued the case in question before Kavanaugh, heard his testimony, he was stunned.

"My immediate reaction was, I thought I had misheard him," Walke told The Intercept. "But as he kept talking, I realized he 😈 was talking about my clean air case before him. And then, I honestly could not believe that a federal judge and Supreme Court nominee was misrepresenting my case to U.S. senators in order to bolster his environmental credentials."

Walke wrote a Twitter thread explaining how Kavanaugh had misrepresented his own ruling. Walke pointed out that Kavanaugh had ruled against the NRDC and the Sierra Club, who had also participated in the case, on three out of four counts. He 🦖 upheld lax pollution limits for soot, lead, arsenic and other metal emissions from cement plants and let the EPA grant polluters  a two-year extension to meet the weakened limits. 😠  🤬 He only ruled in favor of the environmental groups on a procedural question.

"[T]he claim is revealing because my case was one of his own leading examples of pro-environmental rulings: that it is a very poor example ends up reinforcing the relative paucity of his 'rulings in favor of environmentalists' interests," Walke tweeted.

https://www.ecowatch.com/kavanaughs-environmental-record-2610220986.html



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 04, 2018, 05:40:13 pm »



Our government should be working for us, not Exxon and the Koch Brothers.


Tell  Politicians🐒
to Stop Taking Fossil Fuel 🐉🦕😈🦖 Money


Greenpeace USA

Published on Sep 20, 2018

Congressmen are taking millions of dollars from fossil fuel companies to deny climate change. Tell your politicians to sign the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.


Over 1,200 candidates across the nation have signed the pledge -- including -endorsed candidates like Beto O’Rourke and Jana Lynne Sanchez in Texas. See which candidates near you are still taking their dirty money and then send a message urging them to take the pledge here.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 27, 2018, 05:09:30 pm »



September 27, 2018

Scientists Oppose Trump Attack on Endangered Species Act

Polar bears

The Trump 🦀 administration 🐉🦕🦖 has proposed brutal 👹 changes to the Endangered Species Act. But hundreds of scientists and organizations, including the Center, are fighting back. We've called on the administration to withdraw the proposed rules, which ignore science, would strip protection from many species, and would speed up habitat destruction.

And you've spoken up too: On Monday we delivered more than 56,000 comments from Center supporters, defending the Act, to Interior Secretary Zinke. Thank you. We'll keep you posted.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 27, 2018, 05:08:46 pm »

 

September 27, 2018

Win for the West

A federal judge has blocked a Trump "energy dominance" policy slashing public and environmental review of oil and gas leasing on public lands. The injunction bans the Bureau of Land Management from using the policy on more than 67 million acres in 11 western states.

Lease sales slated for December — spanning hundreds of thousands of acres of sage-grouse habitat — must now face full public and environmental review.

"This is good news for public lands and the millions of people who love them," said the Center's Taylor McKinnon. Read more.
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

+-Recent Topics

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
January 20, 2019, 01:09:31 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
January 15, 2019, 08:51:55 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
January 15, 2019, 06:56:39 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
January 14, 2019, 07:05:57 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
January 14, 2019, 12:31:46 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
January 13, 2019, 06:10:10 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
January 13, 2019, 02:12:44 pm

Money by AGelbert
January 12, 2019, 05:00:03 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
January 12, 2019, 02:42:21 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
January 12, 2019, 12:29:46 pm