+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 42
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 10680
Total Topics: 246
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Post reply

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: 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
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 13, 2018, 04:27:54 pm »


🤬

Trump 🦖 Lights the Fuse on a Deadly Methane Bomb💣

BY William Rivers Pitt Truthout
PUBLISHED September 13, 2018

SNIPPET:

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

Full article:

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



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


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



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

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

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

 

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

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

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


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

August 29th, 2018 by Steve Hanley

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

Tesla big battery in South Australia

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

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

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

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


Big Banana NSW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


The Atlantic

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

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

By ROBINSON MEYER

AUG 28, 2018

SNIPPET 1:

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

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

SNIPPET 2:

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

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

Full article:

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

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

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



Earth with and without GHG:

The last time CO2 was this high:
   

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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


Learn from me and from history.

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

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



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

July 16, 2018 | By The Conversation

Guest post by David Swartz of Asbury University/The Conversation


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

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

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

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

A nation in ‘very serious trouble’

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

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

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

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

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

The malaise speech


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

He said,

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

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


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

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

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

A squandered opportunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New resonance

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

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

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

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

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


Tomorrow is Yesterday...

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


Trump’s 🦀 Dirty Energy Appointees Dismantle Clean Energy Controls 

August 22, 2018

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


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



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

The New Republic


The Modern Automobile Must Die    

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

By EMILY ATKIN

August 20, 2018

SNIPPET:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full article:

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

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

August 12, 2018

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

SNIPPET:

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

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

Read more:

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

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


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


By ELLEN KNICKMEYER

SNIPPET:

August 19, 2018y

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Reaction was quick.

Full article:

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



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


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


Thom Hartmann Program   
 
Published on Jul 31, 2018

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



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

Agelbert  RANT :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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


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

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

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

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

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

Dianoia is sine qua non to a viable biosphere.





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

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

Aug 8, 2018



Trump 🦀Admits Gas Mileage Reversal Will Kill 60k Jobs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Saving Private Tesla: 7 Questions

August 8th, 2018 by Michael Barnard 


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

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

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

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


Is Elon Musk serious?

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


Is it a good idea?

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

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

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

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

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

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


Is announcing it on Twitter legal?

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

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

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


Who wins and who loses?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


What could stop it?

Revlon.

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

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

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

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


What’s next?

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

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

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

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



Quote
Maarten Vinkhuyzen

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

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

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

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


Martin Lacey > Maarten Vinkhuyzen

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

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

agelbertMartin Lacey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 7th, 2018 by Kyle Field


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

Agelbert COMMENT to Zachary Shahan of Cleantechnica:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Climate Denial Is Now US Policy

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

agelbert > Zachary Shahan
Excellent! Thank you.


Wallace on Tesla Stock Shorters:

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

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

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

agelbert > Wallace:

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

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

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

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


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


Here's some detail:



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

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


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

By Dana Nuccitelli

Mon 6 Aug 2018 06.00 EDT


SNIPPET 1:

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

SNIPPET2:

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

SNIPPET 3:

Culprit #2: the fossil fuel industry 🐉🦕🦖

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

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

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

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

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

📢 It’s been three decades since 1989 😠

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

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

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

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

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


Full article:



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


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



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

August 1, 2018



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

July 24, 2018

Revelator: 207 Environmental Activists 🕊 Murdered Last Year 

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

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


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

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

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

August 2, 2018

LIVE Q&A: Who's Committing Treason?

TheRealNews

Started streaming 7 minutes ago

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


+-Recent Topics

Wind Power by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 08:31:14 pm

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 05:15:13 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 04:51:30 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 04:32:51 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 02:54:22 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 02:51:42 pm

Batteries by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 02:03:09 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 02:00:45 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 17, 2018, 09:16:57 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
October 17, 2018, 05:43:54 pm