Renewable Revolution

Energy => Fossil Fuel Folly => Topic started by: AGelbert on June 18, 2014, 12:08:45 am

Title: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 18, 2014, 12:08:45 am
The PRICE of burning Fossil Fuels ALWAYS has been too COSTLY for planet Earth's Life Forms.

I maintain that fossil fuels, although presenting the appearance of cheapness, were and are not cheap or cost effective. The pollution price was always too high, even though we were not aware of it.

What fossil fuels really concentrated was political power to the detriment of democratic processes and the acceleration of conscience free predatory practices. Nuclear power was even worse because it began as a giant government jobs program (the Manhattan project) that has never   paid back the public for the forced investment. IT was and is a boondoggle from the word go. It's EROI, if you figure it properly, has always been negative. Blatant proof of that is the fact that private enterprise has always refused to insure those power plants and the government has always done it. It was a bad deal from the start. And no, we did not need or even want those power plants to help us make bombs. I have written about that here:

And the population increase was not due to fossil fuels but to advances in personal hygiene. You might allege that medical science obtained that information because of a fossil fuel funded increased living standard and leisure time but you would be wrong. The discovery of germs and the decrease in birth mortality from antiseptic procedures had nothing to do with industrialization.

I have written about that:

Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables
Why They Work and Fossil & Nuclear Fuels Never Did

The problem we have is really quite simple; a leadership that is math challenged. You simply cannot talk about infinite growth in a finite biosphere, period. Predatory Capitalism insists on doing that so it will have to go and humanity has to shed it's economical delusions of infinite growth or we will be the ones "going".

The resistance to change is not simply a matter of resource availability, but who controls those resources. Fossil fuels and nuclear power destroyed the democratized world system of energy availability and concentrated it in a few greedy hands. Renewable energy returns the democratic state of affairs to humanity. AND, as a consequence, the proper use and stewardship of the biosphere because you do not have a small group devastating the planet while they live in luxury and delusions of infinite growth even as they spread war and misery and death through the biosphere. THAT leadership doesn't want their current gravy train to be derailed.

The control of energy and resources in a small concentrated group of predatory humans is the problem that the industrial revolution brought us, not the happy myths of a tremendous increase in our standard of living or that "green" revolution the fossil fuelers, with there soil destroying chemical fertilizers, claimed we "owe" them for. Any analysis of current crop nutrition shows great  increases in size and yield and weight but less actual nutrition[/I] because of the missing minerals from several decades of forcing the soil with chemical fertilizers.

That's been documented by the United Nations even though most people still believe the "green revolution" baloney pushed by the fossil fuel industry.

We need fossil and nuclear fuels like a dog needs ticks with radioactive Lyme disease.

Of course there is going to be pain in the transition. and you know who is going to feel it the most? The people at the top because they are the delusional ones, not most of the everyday people that have seen the beauty of the earth degrade, the cancer epidemic affect every family and respiratory ailments galore while we have been told for well over 80 years that "times are getting better and better".  We have been ROBBED. And now the rich do not want to pay the piper. At present, the United Nations has documented that less than 20% of the human population is causing over 80% of the damage. I think the rich owe us 80% of the costs to transition to 100% renewable energy. I have written about that too.

Why the 1% is responsible for more than 80% of humanity's carbon footprint and why Homo sapiens is doomed unless the 1% lead the way in a sustainable life style.

For the rich, the meteoric rise in standard of living has been a profit over planet rampage of over 150 years. It 's time to stop that and go to 100% renewable energy.

PETITION TO: Demand Liberty From Fossil Fuels Through 100% Renewable Energy WWII Style Effort


This action is important because the health and very survival of future generations depends on it. We must strive tirelessly to provide a Viable Biosphere for our children. They deserve as beautiful a planet as the one we have lived in.

It's time to reverse all this environmental trashing and get real about the fact that sustainability is not optional for a caring, intelligent human population. We are the caretakers of the biosphere because we are self aware beings. It's high time we began living up to our responsibility to be good stewards of nature.

"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors; we borrow it from our Children." Ancient American Indian Proverb


Federal agencies have a target of making their buildings carbon neutral by 2030. We can do better, much better than that. We need a WWII sized effort for the health of our country and that of future generations.

The Federal Reserve provides low interest loans for cars and houses. They can also, for the good of the economy and the future of our country, provide the same low interest loans for a nationwide massive effort to transition to 100% Renewable Energy. We did this before with the Liberty Ship building effort of WWII to help us win the war. We can win the Climate Victory with a "Liberty From Fossil Fuels Through Renewable Energy" massive manufacturing of Renewable energy machines. I have all the details and have prepared a poster campaign to get all Americans on board with the effort like we did during WWII.

Mr. President, as you know, during WWII and up to this day, a banner was (and is) flown by Blue Star Mothers (son in the service) signifying their sacrifice and patriotic commitment to the national effort in the war front and the home front. Posters were widely distributed that asked people to save fuel with a mature lady (with the Blue Star Banner in the background) asking, "Don't you want our boys to have a chance to come home?".

We can do the same thing now and get everyone on board to win the Climate Victory. The banner for all patriotic Americans to fly is the Green Leaf Star American in the Service of Future Generations" banner/flag.

My first poster in the series has a lady (with the Green Leaf Star Banner in the background) asking, "Won't you give our children a chance for a healthy future?".

The effort would provide an explosion of jobs and a real chance at an economy that bioremediates the environment, rather than trashing it. Everyone, rich and poor would benefit. It's a win, win, Mr. President, despite the fierce opposition you will encounter from the polluting nuclear and fossil fuels vested interests. We can no longer afford profit over planet business as usual.

We all need to work together in the Service of Future Generations to regain a viable biosphere. Ubi jus ibi remedium.

Let's get it done!


A. G. Gelbert

Green Leaf Star American in the Service of Future Generations

Please sign the petition. The planet you save may be your own.



Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 18, 2014, 10:16:35 pm
Title: Why Sterilizing the Poorest 50% of Homo Sap Won't Solve ANYTHING!
Post by: AGelbert on June 21, 2014, 03:57:08 pm
Why Sterilizing the Poorest 50% of Homo Sap Won't Solve ANYTHING!

Brainwashed Propaganda Victims and Fossil Fuelers'  REACTION to the ABOVE: ( ( ( (

The "Human Population Must Be Reduced" Propaganda Myth. Why it is a divide and conquer tactic and why it has absolutely no basis in scientific fact.


"The total biomass of all the ants on Earth is roughly equal to the total biomass of all the people on Earth.
How can this be?! Ants are so tiny, and we are so big! But scientists estimate there are at least 1.5 million ants on the planet for every human being. Over 12,000 species of ants are known to exist, on every continent except Antarctica. Most live in tropical regions. A single acre of Amazon rainforest may house 3.5 million ants."

The Human biomass is tiny compared with thousands of species from insects to spiders to rodents, along with many marine creatures.  (

See for yourself the Evidence: (

I will provide for you a couple of links for you to research but let me give you a brief introduction to earth's biomass pyramid.

You have different trophic levels (life forms that eat other life forms to survive).

The lower you are on the pyramid, the more collective mass you have as a segment of the biosphere. What does that mean?

Here's a quote so you can see where I'm going with this:

"An ecological pyramid is a graphical representation that shows, for a given ecosystem, the relationship between biomass or biological productivity and trophic levels.

A biomass pyramid shows the amount of biomass at each trophic level.

A productivity pyramid shows the production or turn-over in biomass at each trophic level.

An ecological pyramid provides a snapshot in time of an ecological community.

The bottom of the pyramid represents the primary producers (autotrophs). The primary producers take energy from the environment in the form of sunlight or inorganic chemicals and use it to create energy-rich molecules such as carbohydrates. This mechanism is called primary production. The pyramid then proceeds through the various trophic levels to the apex predators at the top.

When energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next, typically only ten percent is used to build new biomass. The remaining ninety percent goes to metabolic processes or is dissipated as heat. This energy loss means that productivity pyramids are never inverted, and generally limits food chains to about six levels. However, in oceans, biomass pyramids can be wholly or partially inverted, with more biomass at higher levels."


Take insects as one example of the Laws of Thermodynamics as applied to life forms in the Biosphere trophic (food chain) pyramids.

In order for insects to BE food for spiders as well as many other creatures, the biomass of insects has to be much, much greater because of the heat energy losses in transferring energy from the insect to the spider (about 90% is lost in heat). The predators (that's what we are, by the way) are at the top of the pyramid and have the least total biomass of all the life forms.

Lions, tigers, sharks, whales, bears, wolves, etc. have a tiny planetary biosphere biomass in comparison with ants, earthworms, rodents, and krill (those tiny shrimp like creatures that whales eat). And the krill eat tiny nearly microscopic phytoplankton (that has more biomass than the ubiquitous krill).

Mollusks, as well as ants and several thousand other species have a larger biomass than humans. I bring up the mollusks because they have a HUGE biomass. I studied them in depth in college Zoology.

The phylum Mollusca:
"The phylum Mollusca is the second most diverse phylum after Arthropoda with over 110,000 described species. Mollusks may be primitively segmented, but all but the monoplacophorans characteristically lack segmentation and have bodies that are to some degree spirally twisted (e.g. torsion).

The Phylum Mollusca consist of 8 classes:

1. the Monoplacophora discovered in 1977;
2. the worm-like Aplacophora or solenogasters of the deep sea;
3. the also worm-like Caudofoveata;
4. the Polyplacophora, or chitons;
5. the Pelecypoda or bivalves;
6. the Gastropoda or snails;
7. the Scaphopoda, or tusk shells; and
8. the Cephalopoda that include among others squid and the octopus."

Agelbert Note: The biomass pyramid in the oceans in regard to mollusks and fish is NOT inverted. The oceanic "confusion" is due to the fact that some mollusks are apex predators like giant squid and the smaller mollusk predators like Octopodes that eat fish. Most mollusks are small to very small and are food for fish. They are the ones (bivalves near Fukushima) that concentrate radionuclides in their tissues that then get in the fish that eat them.  :( :P

The smaller mollusks (most of them are less than a foot long) are FOOD for fish. That means there HAS TO BE much more of them than there are fish. And I'm sure you don't believe the human biomass is greater than that of all the fish species, right?  ;D
Now for some biomass weights:
Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg.

"Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg. This figure is based on an average human weight of more than 100lbs, though (50kg, to be exact).  I don't know how accurate this estimate is, especially considering that about 1/3 of us are children.  There are supposedly around 1.3 billion cattle in the world, and, put together, they may weigh almost twice as much as our species."

Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba =  379,000,000,000 kg.
There are more ants than krill. Also, metabolism plays a role along with biomass. A "million ruby-throated hummingbirds will consume much more food than one African Elephant, even though both have about the same biomass (3,000kg, or 3.3 US tons). 

Thus, ants, as a group, may actually consume more resources per year than antarctic krill, even though both may have roughly the same biomass, because ants tend to be smaller, and live in warmer environments. Although there may be about 10-15 times the biomass of termites than cows in the world, studies have suggested that termites might produce almost 30,000 times as much methane per year because of their faster metabolism."

So how come nobody is hollering about reducing the termite population?  (

As the article in the quotes above points out, humans are a huge problem, not because of our biomass, but because of our carbon footprint (I.E. the use of fossil fuels!). And guess what portion of our population does over 80% of the Fossil Fuel consumption? You guessed it! The upper 20%!

 Who Done it?   ( (

 The Global Compact: 20% using 80% of the Resources (

To ACTUALLY address, confront and STOP the biosphere damage that Homo Sap is doing, we must face the scientifically confirmed REALITY that  if you get rid of the bottom 50% of the human population (the most poor among us) you will, I'm sorry to say, not even dent the pollution and biosphere destruction.

AS pointed out in the biomass numbers, the amount of people eating and defecating is not the problem, CARBON FOOTPRINT is the threat to a viable biosphere. We must attack that problem by reducing the carbon footprint of the most powerful people on this planet.

NOTHING ELSE WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM. The solution, in addition to a 100% transition to Renewable energy, involves eliminating corporate energy welfare queen subsidies for both fossil fuels and nuclear poison.

Democracy and a viable biosphere requires it from all of us. (

The "let's reduce the human population" ( baloney is a divide and conquer tactic to avoid billing the top human pigs (  for the damage they do while attempting to give the rest of us  ( totally unwarranted with ZERO empirical basis ( but VERY clever (  ( ) guilt trip. It's a lie. Don't buy it.

What we need to do is transition to 100% renewable energy as soon as possible. That will give our future generations a chance to live in a viable biosphere.

If you agree please sign my petition and pass it on.  Here is the link to the Care2 petition to President  Obama:

Also, feel free to visit my forum and post on any subject you wish. Thank you.
 Renewable revolution  ( (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 23, 2014, 03:31:12 pm
Noble Energy Spills 7,500 Gallons of Crude Oil Into Colorado’s Poudre River

EcoWatch | June 21, 2014 2:34 pm | Comments

A storage tank attached to an oil well damaged by recent flooding spilled 7,500 gallons of crude oil into the Cache la Poudre River near Windsor in Northern Colorado, reported the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) late Friday afternoon. The oil well and tank are one of thousands that are placed too close to waterways in Colorado despite environmentalists’ attempts to fight the oil and gas industry and change state regulations to better protect Colorado’s lakes, rivers and streams.

All the contents of the storage tank, 178 barrels of oil, spilled into the Poudre River. Photo credit: 7News Denver

All the contents of the storage tank, 178 barrels of oil, spilled into the Poudre River. Photo credit: 7News Denver

The spill impacted vegetation a quarter-mile downstream, but it appears no drinking water has been affected by the spill, according to COGCC spokesman Todd Hartman.

“During the floods of 2013 this kind of damage occurred on a massive scale, but Governor Hickenlooper and the COGCC made no substantive changes in regulations to avoid this now or in the future,” said Gary Wockner who directs Poudre Waterkeeper, a local affiliate of the international Waterkeeper Alliance. “Until the people of Colorado wrestle power away from the oil and gas industry’s poisonous grip on our entire political system, this pollution of our waterways, homes and democracy will continue to occur.”

The spill was discovered by the tank’s operator Noble Energy and later reported to the COGCC. All the contents of the tank, 178 barrels of oil, spilled into the river. High river flows that undercut the bank where the storage tank was sitting way too close to the river, caused the tank to drop and breaking a valve.

Clean-up crews are trying to absorb the spilled oil and a vacuum truck removed oily water from a low-lying area near the tank, according to a local news report. This spill falls right in front of an election on Tuesday, June 24, for a local moratorium on fracking in the nearby city of Loveland, and at the outset of a statewide ballot initiative in the fall of 2014 to further limit fracking in Colorado. Radio, TV and newspaper airwaves are under a deluge of advertising by the oil and gas industry to try and stop the moratoriums and ballot initiatives.

“All you have to do is turn on the TV and watch the advertisements right now—millions of dollars are being spent by this industry poisoning our political system so that they can poison our waterways and homes to earn the greatest possible profit in the shortest possible time,” said Wockner. >:(
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 24, 2014, 04:17:47 pm

 Representative Fred Upton (R-Mi6) says he supports an "all of the above" energy policy. This includes legislative favors for dirty energy's big-money interests, as well as Upton's five-year battle on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline—which he claims is part of his "vision" for the nation's "New Architecture of Abundance."

Upton’s constituents do not believe in his "vision." We see nothing new about continuing to spew fossil fuel exhaust. We see eternal abundance in wind and sunshine. (

As Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Upton spins his committee's support for dirty energy as "protecting jobs" and "taking care of the economy." Meanwhile, bills that encourage commerce in clean energy die in Upton's committee.  >:(

Upton’s constituents understand that the nation’s interest would be best served if Upton’s committee would stop doing favors for dirty energy and, instead, would encourage the research, development, production, and delivery of clean energy—the kind of commerce that would clearly benefit the environment and the economy while creating true job growth.

Upton, now in his fourth year as chairman, could have taken a leading role in the nation’s—and thereby the planet’s—all-important transition from dirty energy to clean. Instead, he lets renewable-energy initiatives die in his committee. Upton has forsaken his leadership responsibility and has capitulated to the big-money corporate interests that are pushing us toward our own extinction.

 That's why I signed a petition to Rep. Fred Upton (MI-6), which says:

 "Please stop pushing outdated big-oil energy solutions. As Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, you should be one of the nation’s strongest advocates for the business of researching, developing, and producing green energy, not black. If you can't take on that role, please retire."

 Will you sign the petition too? Click here to add your name:


Bruce Brown  ( (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 01, 2014, 01:41:58 am

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 02, 2014, 01:20:21 am
  (                            (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2014, 02:31:33 pm
Image courtesy of

Quakers Divest From Fossil Fuels

Paula Kline, Fossil Free Friends  | July 7, 2014 12:09 pm 

“We understand that addressing the climate crisis is a moral imperative,” said Bruce Harrison of Westtown Monthly Meeting. “The divestment movement draws attention to the seriousness of climate disruption and the need to combat the powerful coal, oil and gas companies, which persist in resisting efforts to curb polluting carbon and methane emissions.”

You see folks, the Quakers live mostly in PENNSYLVANIA. ( For those who don't know what Fracking has done, thanks to the environmental cost math challenged MKing's of this world (the fossil fuel loving crazies), just Google Frackcidents.

Here's my search results for those, unlike MKing, who can add and subtract.

NOTE: fraccidents is a DIFFERENT search item. Do that one after the above one for more "externalized costs of fossil fuels" that WE-THE-PEOPLE get STUCK with.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2014, 08:52:06 pm
Along with everybody else out there that isn't bought and paid for or too propagandized by the fossil fueler planet rapists, The REAL Christians GET IT!   (

I just read from a Seniors web site (of mostly Bible believing Christians) the truth that ACTUAL Christians NEVER were supposed to agree to trashing the environment. All that mind fork injected into the so-called Fundies has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity and EVERYTHING to do with a pro-war, pro fossil fuel oligarchic propaganda exercise lasting more than a century.

What's With That Dirty House Roof?

We recently celebrated "Earth Day".. From my Christian perspective, I believe we have a deep responsibility to be good stewards of the planet that God has given for each of us to use for a few years. "This Is My Father's World" Have you sung that hymn at church? I have, since I was a wee boy, and that's a long time. So then, today might be a good time for each of us to ask if we have been responsible with "our Father's world". And, how can I be more responsible tomorrow?

From a more practical perspective, what good is having all of the money or gold in the world, if we have destroyed our air, water, and land? Have you noticed how filth from the sky has fouled your roof, or the one next door. We didn't see so much of this just a few years ago. If you have a new home with a clean roof, just drive around and look at some 10-year roofs. Crud from the air has been deposited on roofs, and streaked by the rain.

If it's on the roofs, it has also been sucked into our lungs. An awful thought. It's in our air, our water, our land. We have taken God's gift to us, and polluted it. So what can we do about it? You have the answers if you - - just stop for a moment to think about it. Now - - - ACT!

Now, consider the implications for the fossil fuelers all over the world WHEN, not IF, the Catholic Church DIVESTS of ALL of its billions and billions of dollars, rubles, yen, yuan, euros and whatever in fossil fuel corporations AND tells there followers over and over that NOT taking proper care (I.E. investing in or subsidizing DIRTY ENERGY) of the biosphere is a sin....
What are they gonna do? Call the Pope a Commie?   ( I don't think ANYBODY is gonna swallow THAT Propaganda TURD.   ( Yeah, they'll TRY; but it ain't gonna FLY!   (

Pope Francis Calls Destruction of Nature a Modern Sin

EcoWatch | July 7, 2014 8:02 am

Fossil fuelers here--->( ( (


Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 11, 2014, 02:24:28 pm
Barre Seid   (  ( has admitted to being the big money behind the climate-denying Heartland Institute.

Another one of those people the fossil fuelers admire for "DOING"  so much to "earn" their wealth and "honored" place among human apex predatory ****s.  >:(

Yeah, I know. Despite the fact that I am part Jewish, I am about to be called an "anti-Semite"!  (

The pollution and GW we being assaulted with are SYMPTOMS of the DISEASE killing our biosphere, not the disease itself.

If we don't seriously address this DISEASE of S**t Canned Ethics for Short Term Profits  ( of the fossil fuel FOOLS that are despoiling our biosphere and accelerating planetary pollution, the big die offs (including large segments of the human population) begin at 2030.

The DIRTY ENERGY SOURCES long history of profiting from our blood and treasure while they despoil the biosphere.

The following quote from a peer reviewed book is of extreme importance to all Americans:
Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

"As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.

In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.

So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "

Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.

This totally unjustified profit, never mind the needless lose of lives, then increases the power of the fossil fuel corporations to perpetuate a biosphere harming dirty fuel status quo. How? By "funding" politicians with rather large "donations" to keep renewable energy from competing with dirty energy.
If all this was just about power politics, I might not be that concerned. Humans, particularly the overly ambitious and aggressive ones, have always fought and schemed to control and fleece the population at large.

But now we know the future of our biosphere is at stake. Now we know the entire edifice of dirty energy is a knife in the back of the biosphere that will destroy our species and many others.

The system, as defined by the fossil fuel fascist dystopia that currently runs most of the human affairs among the 1 billion population in the developed world that is saddling the other 6 billion, who are totally free of guilt for causing it, with this climate horror we are beginning to experience, IS quite stubborn and does not wish to change the status quo.

Mother nature will force it to do so.

Whether it is done within the next two decades or not (i.e. a switch to 100% PLUS bioremediation Renewable Energy steady state economy) will dictate the size of the consequent die off, not only of humans but thousands of other species as well.

We are now in a climate cake that has been baked for about 1,000 years according to atmospheric, objective, proven with experimental data, science.

If the crash program to switch to renewable energy is to begin soon, I expect the trigger for the crash program will be the first ice free arctic summer (according to my estimates) in 2017. But millions of people demanding a transition to 100% renewable Energy will give us a fighting chance to win the Climate Victory.

You can help us leave dirty energy sources that are killing us behind. I started a petition on Care2: Demand Liberty From Fossil Fuels Through 100% Renewable Energy WWII Style Effort. I'm hoping that if enough people sign my petition, we can make a difference. I have 271 signatures. Will you help me collect more by adding your name?

Posters to download and print to publicize the petition:

Here is the link to the petition:   ( (

For those who don't wish to bother signing or are concerned for your "privacy". Hello? Hello? This is the year 2014! By 2030  periods where the "Humid Heat Stroke Index" is so high that the human body can no longer maintain a normal core temperature will become common. Home Sap is on the short list for extinction!

That is sorta more important than hiding from the NSA or the CIA now ISN'T IT? And I DO NOT see ANY of the home addresses or e-mail addresses anyway, Care2 does! So, if you CARE about future generations,  you  have ZERO excuse, unless you are a bought and paid for climate denying, war profiteering LOW LIFE GREEDBALL, for NOT signing.

Sign this for the sake of common decency and future generations  (and pass this on to everyone you care about to sign too!) or resign yourself  to the fact that you are a NIHILSTIC DEATH CULT ACCESSORY to the HOMO SAP SUICIDE.

Petition link:
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 12, 2014, 07:52:14 pm
The video below is a simulation of tar oil dispersion pollution from a ruptured (proposed) pipeline due to the STRONG CURRENTS in this part of the Great Lakes. It is also a testament to the abysmal stupididy, greed and short sightedness of fossil fuelers and the government whores they buy. (

Placing several of THESE DOWN THERE, instead of a pipeline for fossil fuel climate poison, would avoid the environmental hazard and, with prudent maintenance, last several decades until more efficient turbines could replace them. and GENERATE MUCH MORE POWER than the crap in a pipeline. Another PLUS is that the MTBF of these turbines (made to withstand ocean salt water conditions) would be much greater in fresh water!(


We used to do OBVIOUS in this country (Canada too!). What happened? How did the fossil fuelers get (and curse our country with) such a TERMINAL CASE OF THE GREEDY DUMBASS!!!? ( (

Link to story with the video: 

More background info the fossil fuelers DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW:

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 13, 2014, 06:06:19 pm
Steve from Virginia said,
95% of petroleum consumption is non-remunerative waste; transport for pleasure/for the sake of it.

Exactly! And Chief Scientist of RMI has been saying just that (and MORE - 90% of NEEDED power generated for civilization is WASTE! ), AND SHOWING HOW TO ELIMINATE THAT WASTE SO WE CAN POWER THE PLANET WITH ONE TENTH THE ENERGY WE DO NOW WITH NO REDUCTION IN STANDARD OF LIVING, for DECADES! (

Energy efficiency 1 Amory Lovins

Energy efficiency 2 Amory Lovins

Energy efficiency 3

Energy efficiency 4

Energy efficiency 5

The next industrial revolution

Yesterday the MYTH that fossil fuel corporations don't transition to Renewable energy because fossil fuels are "cheaper" was once again trotted out. This was my answer:

"Exxon has $20 billion of cash on their balance sheet. If there were a way to make stupid money off "alternative energy", they'd be doing it. And profiting from it. At your expense."


The main reason that large dirty energy industries DO NOT want to transition to Renewable energy is because It has NEVER been about ENERGY beyond CONTROLLING the spigot to we-the-people.

That's why the fossil fuel industry simply didn't switch to the much more profitable and economical renewable energy technologies long ago (they certainly have the money to do so); they simply could not figure out a way to retain POWER and CONTROL with a distributed, rather than a centralized energy system.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr: In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other. And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves. If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other. (

THIS is the way it REALLY WORKS! It's as much about welfare queen oligarchic degrading of democracy as the degrading of the biosphere!

The DIRTY ENERGY SOURCES industries have long history of profiting from our blood and treasure while they despoil the biosphere.

The following quote from a peer reviewed book is of extreme importance to all Americans:

Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

"As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.

In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.

So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "

Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.

This totally unjustified profit, never mind the needless lose of lives, then increases the power of the fossil fuel corporations to perpetuate a biosphere harming dirty fuel status quo. How? By "funding" politicians with rather large "donations" to keep renewable energy from competing with dirty energy.

If all this was just about power politics, I might not be that concerned. Humans, particularly the overly ambitious and aggressive ones, have always fought and schemed to control and fleece the population at large.

But now we know the future of our biosphere is at stake. Now we know the entire edifice of dirty energy is a knife in the back of the biosphere that will destroy our species and many others.

The system, as defined by the fossil fuel fascist dystopia that currently runs most of the human affairs among the 1 billion population in the developed world that is saddling the other 6 billion, who are totally free of guilt for causing it, with this climate horror we are beginning to experience, IS quite stubborn and does not wish to change the status quo.

Mother nature will force it to do so.

Whether it is done within the next two decades or not (i.e. a switch to 100% PLUS bioremediation Renewable Energy steady state economy) will dictate the size of the consequent die off, not only of humans but thousands of other species as well.

We are now in a climate cake that has been baked for about 1,000 years according to atmospheric, objective, proven with experimental data, science.

If the crash program to switch to renewable energy is to begin soon, I expect the trigger for the crash program will be the first ice free arctic summer (according to my estimates) in 2017. But millions of people demanding a transition to 100% renewable Energy will give us a fighting chance to win the Climate Victory.

Here is the link to the petition: (

For those who don't wish to bother signing or are concerned for your "privacy". Hello? Hello? This is the year 2014! By 2030  periods where the "Humid Heat Stroke Index" is so high that the human body can no longer maintain a normal core temperature will become common. Home Sap is on the short list for extinction!
That is sorta more important than hiding from the NSA or the CIA now ISN'T IT? And I DO NOT see ANY of the home addresses or e-mail addresses anyway, Care2 does! So, if you CARE about future generations,  you  have ZERO excuse, unless you are a bought and paid for climate denying, war profiteering LOW LIFE GREEDBALL, for NOT signing.

Sign this for the sake of common decency and future generations  (and pass this on to everyone you care about to sign too!) or resign yourself  to the fact that you are a NIHILSTIC DEATH CULT ACCESSORY to the HOMO SAP SUICIDE. (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 19, 2014, 02:13:40 pm
EPA: Duke Energy Finished Cleaning Coal Ash From Dan River (

Brandon Baker | July 18, 2014 12:52 pm

“This arrogant announcement from Duke Energy is the ultimate insult to the people North Carolina and Virginia whose river has been devastated by the company’s toxic ash spill,” Waterkeeper Alliance attorney Pete Harrison—who conducted testing on the Dan River after the announcement—said in a statement.

“Worse yet, Duke doesn’t even acknowledge the fact that there’s still a public health advisory declaring that the river is not safe to fish and swim in. Duke’s celebratory announcement that it ‘completed’ the clean-up threatens to mislead the public into think the danger has passed.”

Coal ash, which contains arsenic, mercury and more, made its way into the river after a pipe collapsed at a waste dump, turning the river gray for about 70 miles.

Full article detailing the latest profit-over-planet EXTERNALIZED COST to we-the-people in the S H I T CANNED ETHICS FOR SHORT TERM PROFITS modus operandi the fossil fuel industry has espoused for about 150 YEARS! (

Don't believe me? See what refinery WASTE product Rockefeller was dumping in Pennsylvania rivers in the late nineteenth century until he hit the "jackpot" by finding a market for that WASTE. It's called GASOLINE! Wake up, people! These fossil fuel f u c ks are a scourge on humanity!

The so-called PROFITABLE fossil fuel industry is based on WE-THE-PEOPLE eating the pollution costs! The INSTANT they have to pay for pollution, they STOP being "profitable". For those that can add and subtract, that means they NEVER REALLY HAVE BEEN "PROFITABLE"!  >:(
Title: Fossil Fuel Government 2 minute Video Clip
Post by: AGelbert on July 21, 2014, 07:39:02 pm
Fossil Fuel Government 2 minute Video Clip from "The Age of Stupid":   (

Please Pass it on. People NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH! (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 26, 2014, 01:28:48 am
New Ad Campaign Blasts U.S. Chamber’s ‘Desperate’ Attempts to Kill Clean Power Plan
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 30, 2014, 02:39:53 pm
Legislators, Corporations Gather For Secret Meeting Against Clean Energy And You’re Not Invited  ( ( (


Going into their annual meeting in Dallas, Texas on Wednesday, ALEC — the secretive organization that brings together conservative politicians and major corporate interests — is looking to recalibrate their approach to repealing or obstructing a range of clean energy initiatives after a year of state-level defeats. The 40-year-old group, which has been pushing a corporate-backed, free market-driven (Agelbert NOTE: see Orwell) agenda for decades, is beholden to a number of utilities and fossil fuel companies that bankroll them and they are expected to show results. ( At the same time, with renewable energy gaining momentum across the country and homeowners increasingly eager to get in on the rapid growth and falling prices, ALEC risks alienating itself from the public yet again. ( (

Some interesting comments that show the American people are AWAKE!   (

Reply ·  · 1 · July 28 at 1:52pm

Mark Beresford ·  Top Commenter · Portsmouth

A handful of billionaires have owned the US since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 by some of the worlds wealthiest men. Including John D. Rockefeller, The second Baron Rothschild etc..

 Who do you think creates the boom and bust? Democracy in the US has been dead for years as the US population were led like sheep into a Plutocracy.

 The current Rockefeller vehemently believes in the creation of a new world order.

 here is a quote

 "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller [June, 1991]

 Let us not forget his father donated the land for the UN building in New York!

 Draw your own conclusions!

Reply ·  · 7 · July 28 at 3:32pm
Dave Pavlatos ·  Top Commenter · Owner at Delavan Martial Arts Academy

ALEC....the legislative branch of The American Taliban.

Reply ·  · 21 hours ago
Mike Roddy ·  Top Commenter · UC Berkeley

ALEC support of right wing politicians is the least of our worries. The oil companies have an excellent ground game, including using attorneys to delay and effectively kill renewable energy projects. The Salton Sea, for example, has some of the best geothermal resources in North America, is less than half developed, and the power is competitive with gas and coal right now, and often cheaper. It's needed for baseload to enable wind and solar.

 Only one small 50 MGW plant has been built in 20 years. In spite of being in a barren and toxic location, using proven technology, geothermal faces dizzying and endless approval processes. Plants over 50 MGW aren't even proposed, since timelines are extended even more.

 Progressives or global warming activists need a similar ground game, including pressure for entitlement reform at the state and local levels.

Reply ·  · 13 · July 28 at 1:32pm
Patrick Thompson ·  Top Commenter

you can also invest in solar companies, buying shares directly (SPWR, FSLR, SUNE, SCTY for a few). or you can invest through a crowd-funding site like (which has around 5% yield and so far, no delinquencies)

Reply ·  · 4 · July 28 at 3:44pm
Theodora Crawford ·  Top Commenter

I really don't think they can stop's obviously too good to remain ignored.

Reply ·  · 7 · July 28 at 4:22pm
dagj2·  Top Commenter (signed in using yahoo)

They can't stop it . . . but they can sure slow it down. The fact that several states don't yet have net metering laws is disturbing. They gotta keep that monopoly to themselves.

Reply ·  · Yesterday at 10:34am
Sara Ross ·  Top Commenter · Los Angeles, California

dagj2 - right, of course the big utility cos. sure don't want folks "going off the grid"

Reply ·  · 11 minutes ago
Charles Edward Pardue ·  Top Commenter

I find it strange that many Americans believe in conspiratorial organizations like the Illuminati, the Rothschild Bank, and such, yet they are totally ignorant of groups like ALEC, the Club For Growth, and others that present a very real and present danger.

 In fact most of these organization operate in plain sight, and a little basic research easily brings them to light. The bigger question to me is why they are so ignored by the media, and the citizenry, when their operations are presented in the clear light of day?

Reply ·  · 6 · July 28 at 5:07pm
Dam Spahn ·  Top Commenter

The Kochs want dictatorial powers, and with their money and mendacity, they might just already be there.

Reply ·  · 3 · July 28 at 8:36pm
Bruce Brown ·  Top Commenter · Works at Retired

Dirty energy's only competition is clean energy, and we know which side the big money is on.

Reply ·  · 3 · July 28 at 6:18pm
Peter Mizla ·  Top Commenter · Hartford, Connecticut

What Republicans have to offer America is no different that what they 'sold' to the unknowing public in the 1920s. Many Americans today still buy the same 'kool Aid'- only today we throw in the 'elephant in the tiny bathroom' Climate change-- 'what a way to go'.......

Agelbert NOTE: Not mentioned above (but SHOULD BE) by my lefty friends is that Dumocrats  (  are every bit as much part of the problem as Repuke-icans! (

The only political parties that have real solutions in the USA are the Tax Wall Street Party and the Green Party. WHY? because they know EXACTLY WHERE TO GO to get the money needed to fund the 100% transition to renewable energy that would be  MEGA (permanent, not temporary) JOB BONANZA and infrastructure redesign and repair for SUSTAINABILITY instead of PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE as is the current engineering "accepted wisdom" idiocy in the USA. Amory Lovins has ALL the answers to the reset of engineering criteria for sustainability.   (  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 22, 2014, 12:51:44 pm
Satellite Map Shows Fracking Flares in Texas and North Dakota Equal to Greenhouse Emissions From 1.5 Million Cars  >:(

Anastasia Pantsios | August 22, 2014 12:32 pm
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 29, 2014, 02:07:44 pm
The Fantasy of Distributed Generation, Efficiency, and Storage Raising Electric Rates   (

 Scott Sklar, The Stella Group 
 August 29, 2014


Money Quote SNIPPET:  (

Whether you’re in the Tea Party staunchly against government-supported monopolies or an environmentalist severely concerned about global climate change, the one thing the entire political spectrum should agree on is that spending trillions of rate payer dollars on generation facilities will not provide stable electric rates or lower costs for consumers. In fact, the opposite is true — saving energy and meeting a significant portion of one’s own needs through private investments will insure a more effective low-cost energy system.

In the early 1970’s, the management of MA BELL, our only phone company, said cellular was a whim in a country with 99.8 percent quality service — who would pay 15 times more for a unit of communication? It’s déjà vu all over again. I am hearing the exact same thing from many electric utilities and their regulators. Sorry Charlie, we’ve heard that all before.

Agelbert Comment: (  (

 A. G. Gelbert    August 29, 2014

Great article! This is sound reasoning that the fossil fuel "world" refuses to recognize.

I will add that the link between human health care costs and dirty energy costs far more to the economy than the "loss" of tax revenue from those who stop using fossil fuels for transportation and/or homes. Are they going to want to charge somebody a ridiculous surtax because they don't use heating oil any more!!?

It's time for people to make it clear to the government officials that the MATH of our economy includes ALL costs to the PEOPLE. This is supposed to be about the PEOPLE, not the welfare money for dirty energy welfare queens and politiicians looking for a revenue stream.

Health care is an enormous burden on municipal, state and national finances BECAUSE dirty energy is REWARDED for sickening our population through taxes and "subsidies" (institutionalized THEFT!). The politicians get some of the graft and the dirty energy corporations pay NONE of the costs that we-the-people have to carry.

That's not "doing the math"; that's CORRUPTION and suicidal insanity in the service of profit over planet. (

Do your part. Raise your voice against this ridiculous, insane, corrupt and suicidal world view that babies the dirty energy producers destroying our environment.    ( (  (

DEMAND a Government backed, World War Two style transition to 100% renewable energy in a decade or less!

Progress on: Petition to Demand a WORLD WAR TWO STYLE MASSIVE, ALL OUT EFFORT to transition to 100% Renewable Energy within a DECADE
Please Pass it on. People NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH!

Ms. Jan Thomas, IL Aug 25, 06:51 # 359
OK--358 signers in two months. I guess that says something about how much we care about the most critical issue of our lives!

Ms. Pam Russell, CO Aug 08, 14:08 # 353
Please get moving on cleaning up the environmental damage; on putting all USA intellectual and technical energy, governmental funding into transitioning to CLEAN ENERGY! We the People are SO tired of waiting the "The change we can believe in." Fracking, deep sea drilling, nuclear power plants, spreading poisons over our farmlands, pouring poisons, filth, fossil fuels, etc., into our lakes and rivers, manufacturing SO MUCH JUNK THAT IS MOSTLY PLASTIC only to throw it into landfills, AND THE OCEANS - This ALL MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY!! PLEASE!

Mrs. Roshani Sahu, India Aug 08, 11:51 # 352

Dr. Zanne Thanarose, TX Aug 08, 06:00 # 351

Name not displayed, WA Aug 06, 18:01 # 350

Name not displayed, OH Aug 06, 13:18 # 349
For our sustainable civilization and prosperity, go EV and HEV plus PV!

Mr. Fred Delmer, CA Aug 05, 21:43 # 348
Grow Hemp and get paid under Farm Act to grow as biofuel herbacious feedstock.

Ms. Bonnie Jean Tucker, NC Aug 03, 15:38 # 347
President Obama if you would consider the American people over your campaign donors, this Liberty from fossil fuels could work and would help free people from the debt of rising energy bills.Fossil fuels are not sustainable and you should LEAD THE COUNTRY ON THE RIGHT PATH NOW!!!!!
Ms. Teresa Sumrall, FL Jul 31, 16:20 # 342
There is no reason that we can not move to renewable energies. We have plenty of sunshine in our country. We need to reign in the fossil fuel industry and the utility conglomerates.

Ms. Judith Mitchell, ME 0Jul 31, 16:03 # 341
This is THE most crucial, looming, unavoidable problem of our existence on this Planet, our home. There is simply no more time left for foot-dragging or dithering or catastrophic politicking -- we are hurtling toward a real doomsday. There is a huge need to educate the public, to make alternative energy available and affordable -- in my dreams, this corrupt, swollen, greed-based capitalist/oligarchic system will be supplanted by some more equitable and humane system, and solar, wind, tidal and geothermal energy will be basically everyone's birthright.

Mrs. Barbara Schumacher, NJ Jul 22, 19:52 # 329
Give it a chance, Mr. President.

Mr. Hank Stone, NY Jul 22, 05:15 # 326
My grandchildren and yours need renewable energy!

Mrs. Julie Giessler, NY Jul 22, 01:41# 324
Renewable Energy is less costly than our use of fossil fuels. Profit-driven greed is influencing our legislators. Do the research and get the truth about renewable energy.

Dr. v. E. Perkins, CO Jul 19, 18:02 # 315
This is our obligation to God and to our descendants and to our fellow creatures who should not be suffering at our hands.

Mr. Larry Gibson, CA Jul 19, 08:17 # 311
Stop the insane & corrupt oil industries (Koch brothers their minions. The Gift that is the Earth cannot sustain & in the short term heal this massive assault to all species on land & sea. These masters of insanity care only for themselves. We should be able to arrest them & their wealth they are using as an atomic bomb against Life on Our Earth.

Mr. Ron McCullough, TN Jul 18, 19:51 # 304
We as a nation have to free ourselves from the tyranny and boundless greed of the fossil fuel oligarchs that keep us in the Dark Ages of renewable energy. How is it good governance to destroy the Earth for short term gains for the 1%? It's not. It's the result of corruption and cowardice of elected officials and it must stop!

Mr. Troy Kilbourne, MN Jul 18, 18:48 # 303
A "Manhattan Project" for renewable energy is, I believe, the only thing that can reverse our course towards catastrophic climate change. We did it back then, and we can do it now.

Mr. Stephen Spaulding, NH Jul 17, 06:00 # 302
The fossil fuel industry knows its stranglehold on us inevitably has to end. It's feverishly trying every way it can to lock us into dependence for another half-century. We cannot allow this to happen.

Ms. Jean Elliott, IL Jul 16, 09:44 # 300
This is an emergency. Climate and pollution disasters loom unless we get off fossil fuels.

Please sign this petition. The Biosphere you save will be your own.
Here is the link to the petition:

It’s Official: USA is #1 at Climate Change Denial

An intelligent comment by Gene J. on the above article:

Nothing about this issue and our denial of the evidence accruing every day before our eyes surprises me.

The money the 1% throw at this issue virtually guarantees many fools will have questions. The evidence, scientific evidence, is out there, available and unassailable - yet the republican party and its masters continue to value money over life.

Make no mistake that is what this is about. We change or we die. A mass extinction event making this planet uninhabitable for oxygen based life forms is coming, it may be a century or so before the full effects are seen, but the precursors are already here. But those who value money over human life think that because they will not be inconvenienced, it matters not.

These are the most selfish people in human history, they don't care at all about what their own heirs will face, they know they won't face it themselves and they don't care about anyone else, not even their own grandchildren.

They make me sick. Literally, because the foul effects of climate change are already affecting daily life with the ever increasing super storms, the incredible disruption in our oceans, the deteriorating quality of our air and the countless new and old diseases are children are already suffering from.

None of that matters as much as piling up money to them. Nothing will change until the people rise up.

But even that, I fear, is too little, too late at this point. We've done the damage, now we'll have to deal with the carnage to come.

I do not believe in hell, but there are times I wish I did. Because people like this deserve a special seat next to the fire for the hell they are creating for the generations to come who will live through the results of our stupidity now, until life ceases on this planet while it takes 50,000 or so years to cleanse itself of our presence. I just hope the next sentient species to arise can read, and believe, what the fossil record will tell them about how stupid we really were so that they do not repeat our mistakes.

Read more:

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 01, 2014, 09:48:48 pm
Fossil Fuelers have an incredible inability to do addition and subtraction, never mind any more advance mathematical operations.  (

Consider the huge increase in Renewable Energy 24/7 global power generation if 900 BILLION DOLLARS was spent on THIS:

The above is a NO-BRAINER for logical thinking humans. The power is ENDLESS as long as the earth rotates, is available near LARGE METROPOLITAN AREAS and is built and serviced with the SAME technology developed for off shore oil platforms. There is NO EXCUSE for not building these EXCEPT you can NEVER CHARGE for fuel cost "increases" because of geopolitical fun and mayhem.  ( Free fuel is against fossil fueler's religion! (

INSTEAD, the FOSSIL FUEL EROEI challenged MORONS "invested" (practically threw away because of the low profit margin! ONLY through "subsides" and other corporate welfare queen tax breaks can they make a profit on this STUPID search for more fossil fuels ( .)  nearly 900 BILLION BUCKS IN fossil fuel exploration. I have explained why these fossil fuelers continue to be one trick dirty energy "ponies". on the image below.  ;D

You just cannot fix STUPID.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 03, 2014, 03:09:44 pm
Exxon forced our first ad, Exxon Hates Your Children, off the air.   (

Comcast and Time Warner refused to let us run Exxon Hates America.   (

So this time, we’re taking Exxon Hates the World directly to the people, by launching a major ad campaign in the New York City subway system next week.

Watch. Tell five friends. Let Exxon know that we’ve got their number and help us make Exxon Hates the World go viral.

Thanks for everything you do to make this movement real. We couldn’t have done this with you.

 John Sellers, Other 98%   ( (



Have FUN on the INTERNET! Give Fossil fuelers an Excedrin HEADACHE! Press the VIRAL  ( button!
Title: Dirty Money, Dirty Fuels: Why Money in Politics Matters to the Environment
Post by: AGelbert on September 04, 2014, 08:47:06 pm
Dirty Money, Dirty Fuels: Why Money in Politics Matters to the Environment

Politics Matters to the Environment

Lukas Ross, Friends of the Earth | April 30, 2014 10:09 am | Comments

What if fighting dirty money in our elections was the key to fighting dirty fuels in our economy?

That’s the question asked in a recent report released by the Sierra Club and Oil Change International. From the perspective of the fossil fuel industry, political contributions are just another form of investment. The only difference is that, for the millions polluters spend on elections, they see billions in bonus profits.

As the report says, “The return these polluters are getting on these political investments—in the form of billions in corporate tax handouts—exceed 5,000 percent, demonstrating that Congress remains the best ‘investment’ possible for the coal, oil, and gas industries.”

For dirty fossil fuel companies, a political contribution is just another investment.   >:(

The oil and gas industries are among the worst offenders. Between 2009 and 2010, the report estimates that they spent $347 million on lobbying and campaign contributions, and in return netted a handsome $20 billion in federal subsidies. Most of these came in the form of accounting gimmicks that help hide corporate profits and obscure tax breaks that help cover drilling and refining costs. Because of loopholes like these, the actual taxes paid by most big energy companies fall well below the top corporate rate of 35 percent.

You would think that at a time when both Democrats and Republicans are preoccupied with deficits and debt, cutting subsidies for polluters should be an easy move. After all, these are some of the most profitable companies in world history; surely they need government support like Bill Gates needs food stamps. The fact that many of these giveaways are nearly a century old, dating from a time when fossil fuel extraction was a much riskier game, only adds to their irrelevance. At a time of significant fiscal strain, decades-old free money for rich polluters should be the first thing on the chopping block.

Unfortunately, in the new world of campaign finance born after Citizens United and supercharged earlier this month by McCutcheon vs. FEC, money speaks much louder than fiscal and environmental sanity. The report points out that solid majorities of Americans support action on climate change, investment in renewable energy, and a repeal of fossil fuel subsidies. And yet, Congress is arguably in its most rabidly anti-environment phase in U.S. history, voting repeatedly to block action on climate change, cut support for renewable energy, and hobble enforcement of clean air and water provisions.

The only way to solve this disconnect is through a new system of public financing. As such, the Sierra Club and Oil Change International are throwing their weight behind the recently sponsored Government By The People Act, which would allow federal candidates to receive money from small donors matched on a six-to-one basis. This would not end money in politics, or even strip polluters of their ability to purchase influence.

Winning those fights has to be part of a much longer campaign against corporate personhood and the idea of money as free speech. But in the meantime, it would give candidates who share the increasingly pro-environment sentiments of the American people a chance to be heard. Friends of the Earth supports the Government By The People Act and its vision for a more healthy and just world.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 05, 2014, 11:00:02 pm
Documentary Exposes Fossil Fuel Industries Assault   ( on the Wild West

Excellent Comment:


"Sometimes it seems like there’s no frontier left unspoiled by greed and the potential for profit." This is a very interesting observation. The sudden onslaught of corporate assaults upon what is left of the "unspoiled frontier" makes one begin to wonder if it is truly being motivated simply by corporate greed or something even darker like a fear and hatred of "untamed" Nature itself.

It is reminiscent in fact of the Puritan's insistence on burning down primeval forests and slaughtering wild life and "wild Indians" as some how a "threat" to their salvation, a reminder that they belong to Nature first, only secondarily and belatedly to "Civilization".

What is really behind this increasing onslaught that forests, wolves, wild horses, anything original in its reminder of the innocence of Eden must be wiped out as a painful memory of Paradise Lost ? It is easy to explain the profiteer's motive behind wiping out primeval forest land in Alaska or our wild horses running free.

It is less easy to explain the public's willing apathy in the face of such relentless destruction. Have we/they become so infused with what Erich Fromm called the "fear of freedom" (also the fear of what is natural) that we are ready to bend the knee entirely to this complete domination by corporate hostility to all that is not yet tainted by its grasping taloned outreach for profit ?

Have we so receded from the memory of Eden itself, so to speak, that we now side with dark winged Lucifer himself, Mephistopheles who tempted us to choose Power over Nature instead of happy harmony within Nature ?
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 06, 2014, 02:46:38 pm
LEARN WHY MOST of the Medals of HONOR awarded for one "battle" in U.S. History were awarded. Learn what you were never told about President Lincoln. Learn how the American Dream of PROPERTY OWNERSHIP worshiped by all "freedom loving capitalists" was USED to TAKE LAKOTAH PROPERTY AWAY FROM THEM!

The last chapter in ANY SUCCESSFUL GENOCIDE is when the oppressor can lift up his hands and say, "My God, what are these people doing to themselves? They are killing each other!  ( What is WRONG with these people?".   ( ( THIS ( is how we came to "own" these United States.

The Unity Concert is a gathering of members of the Pte Oyate (Buffalo Nation, also called the Great Sioux Nation), artists, performers and concerned global citizens committed to educating and raising support for the Black Hills Initiative. Its organizers and participants believe that the only way for the United States of America to be truly great is to honor its word. Honor the treaties. Join us in healing the Heart of a Nation by restoring the guardianship of the Black Hills to the Great Sioux Nation.

On September 13th and 14th, 2014, in the Black Hills of South Dakota, thousands of people will converge for a UNITY CONCERT -- bringing together Native American tribes with those on the right side of justice to return the guardianship of the Black Hills to the Great Sioux Nation. (

To those whiteys that read this and rush to say the Lakotah have been HURT but it "wasn't MY FAULT"... Yes it IS your fault BECAUSE, as long as you think the Congressional District Boundaries in the Lakotah area are VALID, you are contributing to this ONGOING GENOCIDE. Live with it! USA! USA! USA!

No, I am not going to the concert. I am poor. But always remember, if you are white and you are well off,  it's NOT YOUR FAULT.  ;)

NOTE: The following is NOT addressed anyone here personally; It is addressed to people of good will, regardless of color:  8)

Both my wife and I are considered minority trailer trash here in Vermont. In many ways similar to the Lakotah, our lives are somewhat self destructive and counterproductive. We struggle with a Dysphoric Mood because we ARE REALISTS that whitey will ALWAYS blame on our "mental health" rather than on a SICK, GREEDBALL, PROFIT OVER PLANT, SUICIDAL SOCIETY.

My wife, who could pass for a (very tall  ;D) Lakotah any time, is used to being targeted by the cops everywhere she goes. For complaining about prejudicial treatment at a supermarket, she was FORCED to abide by an order to STAY AWAY FOR A YEAR WITHOUT HAVING COMMITED ANY FELONY OR MISDEMEANOR WHATSOEVER.

The police delivered the order to her when she tried to go grocery shopping about three years ago. The "grounds" were "creating a disturbance". She said complaining about treatment was NOT creating a disturbance and the (at this time SMIRKING) store manager (that had gotten the order through the cops) had no grounds to get a restraining order. The THREE police (two males and one female - ya always need  show of FORCE for these blackies and brownies, ya know! ( officers repeated that she could not come on the premises or she would be arrested.

One (SMIRKING) police officer gave her a card and said "You can give my name to your lawyer (GRIN)". She obeyed the order for a year and went RIGHT BACK to shop at the same Hannaford to the horror of ALL the employees that act like King Kong just walked in the door and scatter when she comes in. My wife is a TOUGH COOKIE. But it's on the OUTSIDE only. The scars and the pain of whitey injustice for a person that graduated Cum Laude with a Bachelor in Science and a Major in Chemistry go DEEP.  I understand the Lakotah QUITE WELL. I hope and pray that God will reward their tenacity, decency and love of justice.

Title: If we Manufactured and Transported stuff like nature does....
Post by: AGelbert on September 28, 2014, 03:32:44 pm
Repeat after me: Mankind's technology  is a primitive, barbaric piece of planet trashing, eating where we ****, SUICIDAL STUPIDITY. :iamwithstupid:

It's time to use energy efficiently and sustainably. If we don't we die, period.  8)  (

Title: Seattle City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant should be PRESIDENT of THE USA!
Post by: AGelbert on September 28, 2014, 05:20:51 pm
Don't miss Naomi calling out the Fossil fueler's "IDIOTIC BUSINESS MODEL".  (  (  (

Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges, activist Bill McKibben, journalist Naomi Klein, Seattle City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and public radio talk show host Brian Lehrer participated in a panel discussion the night before the People’s Climate March in New York City this month.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 01, 2014, 04:19:56 pm
How to Make a “Perfect” Solar Absorber

New system aims to harness the full spectrum of available solar radiation.

 David Chandler, MIT 
 October 01, 2014 (

Agelbert Comment to the latest empty promise of new technology that will SOON, real SOON, "solve our energy problems".  ::) And of course, NO MENTION of how our gooberment slaps the "national security" GAG on any patent that threatens the Fossil fuel and nuclear welfare queen gravy train. (    (
Thank you for this article but I must point out the pro-fossil fuel government of the USA has, for over THIRTY YEARS, possessed a technology and the patent for it that would solve this heat storage problem. Insolation can easily be captured but not stored UNLESS you have a super insulator. The tiles on the space shuttle ARE THAT SUPER INSULATOR. Every building on the entire planet could be heated (and cooled using a heat pump) with the tile technology to save over 95% of required energy for the last 30 years!

WHY hasn't it been released to the public? Because our Fossil Fuel Loving Government deemed it a National Security Patent. Sure, a space vehicle with a bomb on it CAN use those tiles as a heat shield to re-enter the atmosphere. But there is no debate about whether countries capable of ICBMs need this or would use it to compromise our national security. They ALREADY have adequate re-entry shielding. But the fossil fuel Welfare Queen, over subsidized Industry would have lost, not billions, but trillions of dollars in profit over planet "profits" they made during the last thirty years.

Get that tile technology released and it's OVER for fossil fuel heating and cooling of every building on this planet (including those in Antarctica!).

I have been 2 feet away from a man holding a piece of a space shuttle tile about 8 inches square and about 3 inches thick in his bare, unprotected hand. He applied a blow torch to one corner until that corner turned cherry red. He was STILL HOLDING the tile in his bare hand.  :o His hand was less than five inches from the cherry red tile. It would NOT travel to where his hand was. Now THAT is a SUPER insulator solving most of the world's energy for heat and cooling problems.

And that demonstration took place in 1979.
The U.S. Government, thanks to the Fossil Fuel Industry, is STILL sitting on that patent.   (

This tile technology would be a nightmare for the refineries  ( crack crude oil for the fossil fuel welfare queens. When you crack crude , you get everything from heavy lubricants to gasoline to very toxic VOCs. You can tweak the cracking towers to get a little more of this and a little less of that but you ALWAYS get a certain amount of all the above. You cannot crack without getting the smorgasbord of petroleum "products". Those flaring torches on refineries polluting the **** out of the environment WOULD NOT be being burned if the fossil fuelers had figured out a way to get we-the-people to PAY for those poisonous, carcinogenic, toxic gasses (believe, they are ALWAYS trying to market "every part of the cow" so to speak - YOUR welfare is a marketing problem for them, not a concern.      (

Rockefeller created a market for the waste product, gasoline  ;D, that was flushed down the rivers of Pennsylvania in the late 19th century  :P  by convincing car engine manufacturers to tune the carburetors to use gasoline instead of ethanol (the original fuel for the internal combustion engine in Henry Ford's cars). And by some strange coincidence, when Prohibition came about (After Rockefeller funded temperance movements for nearly a decade with millions of dollars), ethanol was illegal too!

Now if you don't think that ensuring a demand for heating oil and kerosene is not important enough for the fossil fuel industry back in 1979 to keep that shuttle tile technology out of the hands of consumers, you have a leak in your attic.   (

More info on that technology:

High-temperature reusable surface insulation (HRSI) tiles, used on the orbiter underside. Made of coated LI-900 Silica ceramics. Used where reentry temperature was below 1260 °C. (

And that is just ONE of the several technologies the U.S. Government, on behalf of the Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Profit over Planet industries, is SITTING on. This is NOT a conspiracy theory; it is Predatory Capitalism Polluting our Government and our Planet.

The U.S. Government CAN transition to 100% Renewable Energy NOW. They just don't want to.

Petition to Demand Liberty from Fossil Fuels through a 100% Renewable Energy WWII Style Transition Effort (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 30, 2014, 01:36:40 am
A town and its environment  ( destroyed by Big Oil. When the people sought a remedy in  court, our bought and paid for handmaidens in our Fascist Court system shafted them with a tiny settlement in the SERVICE OF PROFIT OVER PLANET.  ( (  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 30, 2014, 07:57:18 pm
Fascist Victory on June 26, 2008 Supreme Court drastically cuts payouts for plaintiffs in Exxon Valdez oil spill

Hopes of fishermen throughout Washington and Alaska were sunk Wednesday when the Supreme Court slashed the amount of punitive damages that...

By Lynda V. Mapes

Seattle Times staff reporter

An oil-soaked loon awaits transport to a bird-rescue center after the Valdez spill.
Enlarge this photo (at link)

Hundreds of beach cleaners work to hose off and mop up oil along the shores of Green Island, Alaska, part of 1,300 miles of shoreline soiled by the spill.
Enlarge this photo (at link)

The Exxon Valdez is refloated after running aground in Alaska's Prince William Sound and spilling nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil in 1989.
Enlarge this photo (at link)

The spill, by the numbers

The money:

• Original damage award in 1994: $5 billion

• Amount award reduced to on appeal: $2.5 billion

• Final amount ordered Wednesday by U.S. Supreme Court: $507.5 million  (

• Valdez captain's punishment: $50,000 fine, plus 1,000 hours community service picking up trash and working at a homeless center  ::)

• Time it will take Exxon to earn current damage amount: about 12 hours of sales  (

• Amount Exxon has already paid, including cleanup and compensatory damages: $3.5 billion

• Amount Exxon actually paid, after tax write-offs and collecting insurance: $1.7 billion

The plaintiffs

• Amount average plaintiff will receive: $15,000, including interest, not including attorneys' fees   ;) or taxes.

• Amount damage award is cut for attorney's fees: nearly 25 percent  ;D

• Number of plaintiffs: More than 32,677

• Number of plaintiffs who have died since case was filed: more than 3,000

• Number of plaintiffs in Washington: 4,700

• Years case has been in court: 19

• Number of law firms involved: more than 60

The environmental toll ( (

• Species deemed recovered since spill: 9

• Species not recovered or still recovering: 11

• Workers deployed to clean beaches: more than 10,000

• Amount of oil estimated still on beaches: 200 tons

• Marine mammals estimated killed by spill: at least 2,662

Sources: Washington state Department of Ecology, Exxon Mobil Corp. ; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council  ;) ; Seattle Times research

The spill and the aftermath

11 million gallons
Amount of oil spilled, enough to fill 125 Olympic swimming pools

1,300 miles

Stretch of Alaskan shoreline oiled by March 1989 spill

30,000 birds

Estimated killed

$5 billion

Original damage award

$507.5 million
Wednesday's reduced award     (

$40.61 billion
Exxon's profit last year 

Amount average plaintiff will receive, not including attorneys' fees or taxes 

Hopes of fishermen throughout Washington and Alaska were sunk Wednesday when the Supreme Court slashed the amount of punitive damages that Exxon must pay for the epic Exxon Valdez oil spill nearly two decades ago.

The high court, in a 5-3 decision, found that punitive damages could not be larger than the compensatory damages for actual losses from the spill, which totaled $507.5 million.

The justices rejected the amount — $2.5 billion — that a federal appeals court had granted to be shared by 32,677 plaintiffs who had claimed damages from the worst oil spill in U.S. history, including fishermen, Alaska natives, local businesses and others.

That amount had been reduced from the $5 billion that a jury awarded in 1994.

The anxiously awaited decision, delivered on the eve of the Supreme Court's summer recess, brings to a close one of the longest-running class-action lawsuits in the country.

But it was not the end that many had hoped for.

"Crime pays, and environmental crime pays really well," said William Rodgers, a professor of law at the University of Washington and an expert on the Exxon Valdez case.

"I am sure they [Exxon] are sitting down and having a toast of the town.  (  The other lesson they have taught is scorched-earth litigation pays. Just keep litigating, making up issues."

The fight over the punitive damages reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999. Since then, Exxon filed more than 60 petitions and appeals, sought 23 time extensions and filed more than 1,000 motions, briefs, requests and demands. The company requested a reduction in the damages amount, a reversal of the verdict and a new trial, claiming jury misconduct and jury tampering, according to Rodgers.

More than 3,000 claimants died waiting for an outcome in the case.

The original jury award of $5 billion was intended to be the equivalent of about a year's average profits for the company. Last year, Exxon Mobil made $40 billion, the largest annual profit of any corporation in U.S. history.

Exxon has contended that it shouldn't be required to pay any punitive damages because it has already paid millions to clean up after the spill, plus criminal fines and restitution, compensation paid to more than 11,000 individuals hurt by the spill, legal fees and other costs.

"Obviously this was very much a tragic accident," said Tony Cudmore, an Exxon Mobil spokesman. "This case is not about compensation for loss, it is about whether further punishment is warranted, and in our view it is not."

As the plaintiffs took stock of Wednesday's ruling, some said they always figured that getting any payment out of Exxon was a longshot.

"I consider it kind of like buying a lottery ticket," Gig Harbor fisherman Ken Manning said.

"A lot of fishermen hate Exxon. The ill feeling I have is for the court system.  ( They have just strung everyone along for so long."

But other Washington state fishermen said the case wasn't about just money.

"This isn't about repaying a bunch of victims from 19 years ago," said Tom Copeland of Bellingham, who turned to farming bamboo after his fishing business suffered because of the spill.

"The important thing about punitive damages is telling them they have to clean up their act. It's important to give them the punishment they deserve, and they continue to deserve it."

Better handling of spills

The massive spill, which gushed 11 million gallons of crude into Alaska's Prince William Sound when the single-hull tanker hit a reef, transformed lives and an entire ecosystem seemingly overnight.

But it also forever changed the way government regulates spills and the transport of oil.

Congress has mandated that by 2015, all oil tankers have to have double hulls to reduce the risk of catastrophic spills.  ::) AGELBERT NOTE: Double hulls were proposed in 1980! Reagan deep sixed the proposals and contributed to the Exxon Valdez accident. We not only have a fossil fuel Government, we DO NOT have a functioning Court System EITHER! ONLY the lawyers and Exxon made out like BANDITS here!

Washington still endures some 4,000 oil spills a year, but the number of large spills has been reduced dramatically. That's because the Exxon Valdez disaster helped change the state's oil-spill prevention and response programs top to bottom, said Jon Neel of the state Department of Ecology.

In 2007, 182 tankers from all over the world called at Washington ports, 137 of them with double hulls. Petroleum products are also barged around Puget Sound and up the Columbia River, and pumped into vessels of every size every day on bodies of water all over Washington.

Some 20 billion gallons of oil move through the state as cargo and fuel each year, and some 14 billion gallons of oil are transferred, according to the Ecology Department.

Today, the state has one of the most rigorous spill-prevention programs in the country, including a 2006 initiative to place oil booms around large commercial ships and docks before transferring oil or fuel, except gasoline, when conditions allow.

The state also has a dedicated fund, staff, and full-time program to prevent and respond to oil spills — a focus that didn't exist before the Exxon Valdez spill.

The damage remains  (

Two decades later, the fragile ecosystem of Prince William Sound has yet to fully recover, especially on the hardest-hit beaches. More than 200 tons of oil remain in beach sediment. Herring — which are vital as food to 40 species of birds, mammals and fish — have never returned to pre-spill populations.

"Until herring recover, we are kind of treading water," said Riki Ott, a scientist and author in Cordova, Alaska. "Prince William Sound is beautiful, but if you take a shovel all you have to do is dig down six inches and there is oil. It smells like a gas station, still, today."

The legal fights over the Exxon Valdez aren't completely over.

Still to be litigated is a claim against Exxon by the federal government and state of Alaska for $92 million in so-called "re-opener" damages, intended to help pay for environmental harm not detected at the time of the spill.

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, a division of Alaska's Department of Fish and Game, last year said there are more species still suffering since the spill than have recovered.

Some Washington fishing families certainly put themselves in that category.

"Our life has been kind of on hold since the spill," said Katie Dexter, whose husband still fishes Prince William Sound.

"We have been in debt since the spill. We love Prince William Sound, and to see that kind of devastation has been hard on many levels. There is no amount of money that can really undo the damage."

Lynda V. Mapes: 206-464-2736 or Information from The Associated Press was included in this report.

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes on what the LAW was ALL ABOUT (

The Lady Justice Legal Scales mean the OPPOSITE of what you think they mean (

Don't count on our Court System to defend Americans from Fascism - Here's why the solution to Corporate Profit over Planet is EX CURIA (

How Lawyers  took the power from the King (for themselves) pretending it was FOR THE PEOPLE (

Golden Rule Government: A Lawful System Based on Caring instead of Conquest (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 30, 2014, 11:29:31 pm
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.
Robert Jenkins is a J.D. Candidate, UCLA School of Law, 2000; Bachelor of Journalism, University of Texas, Austin, 1997

Agelbert NOTE: Such careful language. LOL! Notice that word, "equipped".  ::) They are EQUIPPED, alright! They are EQUIPPED to be HANDMAIDENS of Fascist Government Policies. Their coercive power shows its fangs every single time, without exception, that the state, in cahoots with a large corporation, wish to "limit" the liability.

But NO SUCH care is taken when an individual, say, starts a fire by accident on corporate or public land. This brazen display of a double standard is proof that there IS NO LAW, just service for those in power. Every law, statute, code and regulation, both civil and criminal, can be litigated around in a mockery of any ethical considerations whatsoever. The system is EQUIPPED quite well to DEFEND POWER.

So, although I understand the approach of the lawyer here to look for "reparable" flaws in the system BECAUSE he is, after all, PART of that system as a licensed attorney, I can only conclude that it is extremely myopic.

That too, is part of the design of the Court system and lawyer Training logical thought train. They wish to hair split everything down to tiny, manageable pieces of "liability" which TOTALLY IGNORES the MASSIVE Mens Rea in all planning and execution of activities in the corporate world. The Court system REFUSES to ASSUME that corporations are, by definition, GUILTY until proven innocent. Corporations have a "guilty mind" because their charter DEMANDS they eschew ethics in order to attain profits.

This hair splitting plays into the hands of lawyers because they have more to argue about and thus charge more for their services and thus limit a large portion of the population to NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD their services. The corporations (actually, the wealthy individuals that run the corporations - the whole "limited liability" SCAM is all about legal IRRESPONSIBILITY)  HAVE the power and the money so it serves THEM well. This corrupt, self reinforcing loop of money chasing power and shafting the poor degrades democracy and accelerates total fascist tyranny over the masses.

The end result is a Court System that is INCAPABLE (by design, NOT by accident of some "overlooked" flaw) of administering justice but coats all their pro-corporate skullduggery with the color of law (look what "color of law" means to understand that statement I just made.  ;)).

Snippet 1:
Oil spills leave more than an environmental mess in their wake. They usually leave a mess of litigants and court dockets jammed with lawsuits filed by private and public parties, making claims for damages based upon a myriad of theories of liability.'

Snippet 2:
.. this comment focuses almost exclusively on the litigation between the numerous plaintiffs who suffered injuries as a result of the spill and the defendant Exxon. 15 Although this paper focuses on Exxon, it is important to note that plaintiffs filed suit against other defendants who played a role in the tragedy. 16 Despite these other suits, the plaintiffs'primarily focused their efforts on Exxon.

Snippet 3:
The analysis in Part II discusses the strategies chosen by the plaintiffs for pursuing their cases against Exxon, their goals, and the strengths and weaknesses of their choices.

Part III consists of two parts:

Section A discusses the substantive and procedural tools used by Exxon to minimize the number of plaintiffs proceeding with claims and their ultimate results;

Section B analyzes Exxon's use of settlements, particularly with the governments of Alaska and the United States to limit its liability to private parties.    (

Part IV describes Exxon's numerous post-trial motions and appeals as well as allegations by plaintiffs that Exxon is using delay tactics to avoid payment.   :(  >:(

Finally, the conclusion to this paper contains a general analysis of how the court system  performed  ;D in handling this complex environmental litigation. ;)

Snippet 4:
The litigants ... are as varied as the species of wildlife in Prince William Sound.17

The Exxon Valdez litigation began with more than 52,000 plaintiffs and 84 law firms filing more than 200 suits in both state and federal court in the first year alone. While the army of plaintiffs
were allies against a common enemy, they also had competing interests. Specifically, the plaintiffs were in disagreement on whether to proceed as individual claimants or to implement representative litigation through class certification. Those in favor of representative litigation believed it was the most effective way to combat a deep-pocket defendant like Exxon on behalf of plaintiffs who would otherwise lack the resources to pursue their claims. The plaintiffs favoring individualism through the pursuit of their own claims argued that representative litigation would be inefficient, take longer, and would deny them their constitutional right to the counsel of their choice.19  (

Exxon, for its part, argued that "certification would unnecessarily complicate the case, lead to logistical and paperwork problems, and allow for frivolous claims. "20° Exxon wanted to continue their ongoing claims-settlement program which had already paid a total of $235 million to about 10,500 claimants.2' 17. Swisher,

Agelbert NOTE: Right off the bat, we have plaintiffs approaching the COURT SYSTEM from the assumption that there is more justice for a "deep pocketed" adversary than not. This is prima facie evidence of a DYSFUNCTIONAL COURT SYSTEM.
If the Court system WAS functional, the constitutionally protected individual approach would be the obvious choice to obtain justice, rather than mass litigation.
Exxon hemmed and hawed about "frivolous" lawsuits and such because they were persuing a divide and counquer strategy through individual settlements (out of court, if possible). Exxon's legalese LIE that "certification would unnecessarily complicate the case, lead to logistical and paperwork problems, and allow for frivolous claims. " was part of it's ethics free efforts to AVOID liabiliity. (
Snippet 5:

Another reason representative litigation was the better choice for the plaintiffs in the Valdez litigation was because litigating against Exxon meant litigating against one of the world's largest corporations.43 Representative litigation enables plaintiffs to combine resources-a more effective way for individuals with limited funds to do battle against a deep-pocket defendant with seemingly limitless resources. For example, as of March 1999, Exxon spent more than $300 million in legal fees and appears willing to spend whatever it takes to litigate the matter through every possible level.44

Agelbert NOTE: More evidence that the so-called "day in court" that the Court System "guarantees" is a polite, but cruel, fiction. As above, MONEY, not justice or ethics, dictated the approach to REPRESENTATIVE (i.e. class action scattergun mass settlement). Even though Exxon made some noises about not wanting "certification" of classes for damage awards, in a mass settlement award, The CHIEF benefactor is the corporation being sued because its legal fees are much reduced AND its liability is GAURANTEED to be limited by the settlement. That is NOT justice.

And I find it absolutely insulting for an attorny to claim representative litigation is BETTER because a Corporation CANNOT BE EASILY BANKRUPTED by the "Race to the Courthouse" of many litigants. Say WHAT? So now, all of a sudden, the guilty party has to be PROTECTED if it is a large corporation, REGARDLESS of the damages? MORE PROOF of what our Court System is REALLY all about:

Representative litigation in a case of this magnitude may also have the advantage of preventing a race to the courthouse for a limited fund. Parties might fear that their interests will be impaired by other plaintiff's judgments. Exxon's company profits for the year of the spill exceeded $4 billion.45 While it is true that Exxon had tremendous economic strength, by September 1991,
252 private lawsuits were filed seeking a total of $59 billion.46 (

Agelbert NOTE: The counselor is concerned about all those lawsuits. Isn't that rich! Race to the Courthouse!!? Hello? You mean judges can't prioritize damages awards? You mean Courts cannot group lawsuits under one large umbrella? That's BS! I know they can! See the massive RIP OFF minuscule award to the Navajoes ($150,000) from Uranium mining.

NOW, all of a sudden, the "day in Court" for ANYONE who suffered damages that our COURT SYSTEM is SUPPOSEDLY BASED ON in order to provide JUSTICE on an INDIVIDUAL BASIS (, has to take second fiddle to CONCERN for bankrupting a GUILTY AS SIN corporation or a more agile plaintiff getting all the money than the late coming, but better deserving plaintiff!!? Is this guy for REAL?

People DIED, animals DIED, nature was contaminated and people and animals are STILL suffering and dying from this but the LAWYER now claims that a REPRESNTATIVE settlement is a "Better deal" for the PLAINTIFFS (LOL!).

Soberly, he pulls out the legal FACT that punitive damages are designed to punish, not destroy. Yes that is true. That's why Exxon lawyers sought to avoid "compensatory" damages like the plague and agreed to a "punitive" damages type settlement. But our crocodile tear crying counselor does not mention that minor detail until he calls it a "victory" for Exxon further down. So this is a GAME?  ??? It's about WINNERS AND LOSERS, not Ubi jus ibi remedium?    ???

At any rate, that is an ADMISSION that, though the lawyer doesn't want to go there  (,  even though people, animals and nature were DESTROYED, the COURT SYSTEM cannot asset strip a corporation to the last penny, if need be, to provide an equitable damages award.


Even an economic giant like Exxon could be slain and bankrupted by massive litigation.  ( ( Thus, the possibility of a race for the courthouse suggests that representative litigation is a better approach for plaintiffs in environmental disasters of this magnitude To this end, the certification of a mandatory punitive damages class was also appropriate. After all, punitive damages are designed to punish and not to destroy. Courts have found that excessive damages awards can be a violation of a defendant's due process rights. These constitutional concerns could have come into play if Exxon had suffered unlimited multiple punishments.

Agelbert NOTE: SURE... The old "Courts have found" TRICK. Violation of the defendant's "due process rights" is code speech for limiting a corporation's LIABILITY under LEGALESE color of law. WHO, EXACTLY, decides, boys and girls, what an "excessive damages award" IS, anyway?  (

RIGHT! The JUDGE, not the jury! So this baloney about "excessive damages award threat" being a logical and practical reason to go the representative litigation route is pure sophistry. I am certain a study of the stare decisis involving "excessive damages awards" is 100% about CORPORATE defendants getting coddled by the judge while the individual plaintiff gets the shaft. "Due Process", MY ARSE!  (

This ROT in or system goes back, once again , to the "limited liability" FICTION so loved by fascists the world over. So we have a logical train of thought here that claims Exxon has lots of money so it is prudent and practical to do representative litigation even though our legal system is "based on individual litigation". That is followed by the more "prudence" about individuals not having the money to go at it individually and the, really ridiculous, rationale that some individuals might have such "small" damages that they wouldn't "bother" to sue because the legal costs won't make it "worth their while".

WTF!? It's OBVIOUS that individuals in a damages lawsuit SHOULD have ALL legal costs paid by the losing party! Exxon was GUILTY from day one. The only thing to discuss was the damages, period. It should have been ASSUMED that all the plaintiffs' legal fees would be the responsibility of Exxon. But that's not how our DYSFUNCTIONAL COURT SYSTEM "works". So this lawyer is doing some "practical and prudent" pretzel logic to "justify" representative class action even though it A) will reduce the per person damages and B) the legal costs to Exxon while not helping the plaintiffs with THEIR legal costs AT ALL!   >:(

Snippet 6:

Unlike its resistance to the certification of plaintiffs' classes for compensatory damages, Exxon pursued and supported class certification for punitive damages. Exxon scored a big victory by getting a non-opt-out mandatory class for punitive damages. Thus, there would be only one trial for punitive damages to defend and no possibility for multiple punishments. This would reduce Exxon's litigation expenses and, more importantly, limit their exposure to punitive damages.

Agelbert NOTE: So Exxon pulled the fast one on the plaintiffs by getting "punitive", rather than "compensatory" damages. See what the counselor said about "punitive" awards are to punish, not to destroy according to the law. Ethics free Exxon and its ethics free lawyers KNOW how the Court System "works". So it goes.  (

To be continued:  8)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 31, 2014, 12:10:25 am
"How could we ever have imagined that the companies could turn water into sickness?” says Criollo, now 60. “When the drilling started, the oil stuck to our bodies. We cooked with poisoned water. Our children drank from the river. We were told it was safe.”

Meet the Amazon Tribespeople Who Beat Chevron in Court  (—but Are Still Fighting for Clean Water

With the judgment in their favor tied up in a New York courtroom, (
indigenous residents of Ecuador's oil-polluted rainforest are going back to basics.

Excellent photos and informative article on one more place and PEOPLE the fossil fuelers have DESPOILED for profit over planet at link below. These brave people ARE NOT waiting for lawyers. They know how that "works". They also have learned the hard lesson that oil companies are always trying to keep them dependent to the oil companies.

What they wanted was clean water. And they wanted to control it at the source. They told Anderson they were tired of being dependent on the duplicitous oil firms, which ran their communities as part reservation, part company town.  >:(
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 05, 2014, 02:21:56 pm
Wednesday, November 5, 2014

The new GOP Senate is already gearing up to cause climate mayhem
Ben Adler, November 5, 2014 (Grist)

“…[Republicans] biggest win by far was taking control of the U.S. Senate…This is not good news for the climate. The party that controls the majority and the committee chairmanships controls the agenda. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will now be the majority leader. McConnell deflects questions about whether he accepts climate science by saying he isn’t a scientist and citing climate-denying conservative pundit George Will. But he is clear about where he stands on fossil fuels, especially coal…Attacking President Obama for not sharing his passion for burning carbon was central to McConnell’s reelection campaign…Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska takes the gavel [of the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee]. Leading climate denier James Inhofe of Oklahoma will be taking over the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and fellow denier Ted Cruz (R-Texas) will be chairing the Committee on Science and Technology…The Republicans have two top energy-related demands: stop EPA from regulating CO2 and approve the Keystone XL pipeline…

Read more stomach turning proof of ( (see below  :() at link:

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 20, 2014, 03:09:52 pm


Investigation Exposes Revolving Door Between Fossil Fuel Lobbyists and Politicians 

Anastasia Pantsios | November 20, 2014

There was much speculation about Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu‘s motivation  ;)   :evil4:  for pushing the first full Senate vote this week on approving the Keystone XL pipeline. Some revolved around her trying to improve her chances in the Dec. 6 Senate runoff against Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy (neither candidate got a majority on Nov. 4). Others say she’s likely to lose anyway and that her grandstanding was directed at oil and gas companies that might provide a lucrative landing spot for her after she leaves the Senate in January.


Politicians and government staff become lobbyists and vice versa, and this new report follows their trails. Image credit: DeSmogBlog/Republic Report

That latter speculation isn’t idle, as a new report from DeSmogBlog and Republic Report indicates. Natural Gas Exports: Washington’s Revolving Door Fuels Climate Threat lays out how corporate lobbyists swap roles with politicians and government officials constantly, leading to excessive influence by corporations on lawmakers, the Obama administration and federal agencies. It describes how this revolving door eased the way for Big Oil to land four permits for liquified natural gas (LNG) export facilities from the Obama administration since 2012. And while the report, the first salvo in an ongoing investigation of what it calls “the LNG exports influence peddling machine,” looks specifically at LNG export facilities, its conclusions could be applied to the entire machinery of climate denier influence in Washington DC.

“The 2014 U.S. congressional midterm elections are now complete, and the Republican Party controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate,” says the report. “Some have forecasted that this could have catastrophic impacts for progress on climate change and environmental protection in general. But below the radar in Washington DC—little noticed by the media or public—a major change on energy policy has already been long in the making. Corporate lobbyists have helped to engineer a transformative shift with little scrutiny or meaningful debate: plans to extract U.S. natural gas and export the gas overseas to more lucrative markets. This shift—if fully realized—will continue to transition the U.S. into a resource colony, where our communities, homes, air and water are exploited and polluted so that large multinational corporations can pursue ever-higher profits by selling U.S. fossil fuels abroad.”

Four permits for LNG export facilities have already been approved, with many more in the pipeline. To feed these facilities and as domestic gas prices rise as a result of export, there will likely be increased pressure to expand fracking dramatically.

“Big oil and gas companies have engineered  ( this policy outcome through shrewd hiring of Washington insider lobbyists and public relations professionals: Obama and Bush Administration veterans, as well as former Capitol Hill staffers, who have moved through Washington’s revolving door to high-paying influence peddling jobs,” the report authors write.

They go on to enumerate the officials who formerly served both administrations or as congressional staffers, then moved on to new jobs representing LNG companies where they now lobby their former colleagues. Conversely, the report calls out former fossil fuel industry lobbyists who are now elected officials chairing key congressional committees. It describes how many of those officials and lobbyists work specifically within the Democratic Party, often working with those who give lip service to addressing climate change while working behind the scenes to further the interests of fossil fuel companies.”Natural gas interests and the LNG lobby have in fact gone on a hiring spree targeting Democratic officials and those close to the administration,” they say.

The report includes an endless stream of revealing nuggets like this one: “When lawmakers convened for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in July 2014, they were greeted with packets reminding them of the event’s sponsors: Cheniere119 (, the LNG firm that was the first to win an export license from the federal government, and ANGA  (, the lobbying association pushing for more exports.”

These influence peddlers have greased the regulatory process that goes through the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), streamlining it with inadequate attention to citizen concerns about community safety, health and climate impacts, the report says. It cites Dominion’s Cove Point facility in Maryland as an example. The proposed and now approved LNG export facility led to a wave of organizing, public testimony, protests and rallies by citizen and environmental advocacy groups like Calvert Citizens for a Health Community and Chesapeake Climate Action Network, charging FERC with ignoring their input in the rush to approve it. The report names former Democratic Congressman Lewis F. Payne, Jr. of Virginia and three former congressional staff members who lobbied for Dominion on behalf of Cove Point.

While activists said their input on Dominion’s Cove Point LNG export facility was being ignored  :(, lobbyists for Dominion  ( were pushing to speed up the approval process. Photo Credit: Chesapeake Climate Action Network

Meanwhile, a bill was introduced in Congress called H.R. 6, which would have required the DOE to speed up the approval process for LNG export facilities.  ( The report explains that two staff members of the House committee hearing the bill were former LNG lobbyists and that among the 57 corporate or corporate-backed entities lobbying for it were “Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Anadarko, Statoil, Eastman Chemical, FirstEnergy Corp, General Electric, Halliburton, Dominion Resources, Dow Chemical, Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, Sempra Energy, Marathon Oil and BP. (” The bill passed the House but not the Senate.  ;D

“Unfortunately, as lobbying and influence peddling heats up in Washington and elsewhere, so too does the planet,” report authors Lee Fang of Republic Report and Steve Horn of DeSmogBlog conclude. “Relentless fracking and opening the export floodgates with U.S.—harvested shale gas can only make the planet hotter still.”

Agelbert Comment:
The Fascist Fossil Fuel Government is a corporate creation straight from the unethical and predatory sociopathic concept of "LIMITED LIABILITY". In the physical world of cause and effect, as in the biosphere, there is NO SUCH THING as "limited liability". In nature, what goes around ALWAYS comes around. The Con artists just want we-the-people to pay for the pollution and consequent damge form climate change that THEY should be paying.

It is the criminal Homo SAPS among us that have attempted to stuff the  "limited liability" illogic down our collective throats. Limited liability is a MYTH. The biosphere is NOT impressed.

The question is, are YOU going to let the psychopaths make ALL of us pay or are we-the-people going to make the psychopaths that did the crime, PAY THE FINE AND DO THE TIME?!!!(

The Exxon Valdez PITTANCE of a settlement: PROOF we have a Fascist Fossil Fuel Government AND the irreparably DYSFUNCTIONAL Court System is its HANDMAIDEN (
TINA to a Low Carbon Economy (
More Proof that Mens Rea is the DEFAULT criminal position of polluters (


Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 23, 2014, 01:46:05 pm

Sign the pledge: Don't buy these Koch products

Rachel Colyer

Koch industries and its subsidiaries are expansive—their holdings include everything from gas stations to pipelines, paper products for everyday use, greeting cards, chemicals used to make materials, and the fabric that makes your clothing.  :o   >:(

With an interest in almost everything and status as the number two privately held company in the country–behind Cargill—Koch industries is a behemoth that is hard to avoid.

But knowledge is power and your dollar is your vote. We can become informed purchasers and refuse to support their political agenda by refusing to purchase their wares.

The internet is a wonderful place, full of handy resources. Start by memorizing and avoiding the brand logos listed, which are commonly found throughout our daily lives. Download the Buycott app on your phone and use it while you shop. Buycott has an interesting connection to the netroots you can read about here.

Do some research. Visit Koch industries, Invista, and Georgia-Pacific to see their broad range of products for home, business, construction, clothing manufacturing, farming materials, and chemical additives. They are into almost everything—including fiber optics!

If you are in charge of ordering office supplies for your business, construction materials for your job site, or products for events, catering, or restaurants—avoid buying from Georgia-Pacific and its smaller subsidiaries.

Use your purchasing power to stop adding to the Koch empire, avoid the following products as much as you can. Please sign the pledge to not buy commonly available Koch products.


List of familiar Koch products and brands:
 -American Greetings** (took heavy Koch investment, upwards of $200 million)
 -Angel Soft
 -Angel Soft Ultra
 -Brawny paper towels
 -Dixie products
 -Insulair cups
 -Mardis Gras napkins
 -Perfect Touch cups, paper products
 -Quilted Northern
 -Sparkle paper towels
 -Vanity Fair napkins & paper towels
 -Zee Napkins

-Georgia-Pacific Office products
 -Spectrum paper
 -Georgia-Pacific's enMotion paper towel dispenser
 -Georgia-Pacific's engineered lumber

-INVISTA’s PET polymer is used in oxygen-sensitive packaging for food and beverages.
-ADI-PURE® Adipic Acid
-ANTRON® Carpet Fiber
-C12™ Intermediates
-COOLMAX® Fabric
-CORDURA® Fabric
-DACRON® Fiberfill
-DYTEK® Idea Intermediates
-FLEXISOLV® Solvent Solutions
-LYCRA® Fiber
-LYCRA HyFit® Fiber
-OXYCLEAR® Barrier Resin
-SENZAA™ Additive
-SUPPLEX® Fabric
-TACTEL® Fiber
-TECGEN® Garments
-TERATE® Polyols
-TERATHANE® Polyether Glycol
-TERRIN™ Polyols
-TORZEN® PA66 Resin

Koch Fertilizer Company's AGROTAIN® nitrogen stabilizer fertilizer products are used around the world to improve nitrogen efficiency and enhance crop productions.

If you use building materials, be sure to check out the extensive list of Georgia-Pacific building products—including their product app. 

*Disclaimer: The list is a work in progress, we are striving to keep it updated and accurate, please post corrections or additions with citations in the comments.

**Disclaimer: Note that some of these products are made in union facilities by union members. We are working to determine which those are, so you can make your best informed decisions.*

Please sign the pledge to not buy commonly available Koch products.

H/T to users kathybbb, ATexican, PeteInTX, BDA in VA, Melanie in IA, TheNewDeal00, Truth Told Here, workinguy, and geebeebee who've all posted similar information.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 23, 2014, 02:41:16 pm
 ::)To be filed under a TREMEDOUS CAPACITY FOR THE OBVIOUS about the modus operandi of the  crooked, thieving, larcenous, low down, rigged, monopolistic, predatory, conscience free, polluting, etc. CESSPOOL of modern Capitalism...   :P

When a Bank Owns 100 Oil Tankers, It Can Mess With the Price of Gas  >:(

A two-year Senate investigation of the financial sector has found that banks can meddle with the economy in new and frightening ways.

The investigation was led by Carl Levin, D-Mich., and looked specifically at the impact of investments on the prices of certain commodities—things like oil and uranium.

Deregulation made it possible for firms such as Goldman Sachs to outright buy commodities and commodity suppliers. For instance, Goldman owns a coal mine in Colombia. And that fleet of 100 oil tankers? It belonged at one time to Morgan Stanley, which also held 55 million barrels of oil storage. JPMorgan Chase, according to The New York Times, once owned 31 power plants.

These are some of the same institutions that profit from your credit card debt when the price of oil goes up.

There are myriad other conflicts of interest, and general vulnerabilities besides.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 26, 2014, 03:12:03 pm
Agelbert NOTE: An EXCELLENT, APTLY DESCRIPTIVE AND ACCURATE Comment  ( on the latest Fossil Fuel "effort"   ( to use the FASCIST COURT SYSTEM to pillage the planet.

Andrew W Johnson   ( ·  Top Commenter · Colorado State University

H. Sterling Burnett   ( - you are exactly what's wrong with conservatives today. You are so short-sighted you can't see past your brown nose up the Koch brothers' asses.

Anyone who listens to anything the Heartland Institute says about anything is an idiot and cannot be trusted. We are trying to protect our clean air and clean water in Colorado and around the world, you know, so we can continue living. (

All you care about is putting more money into your and your friend's pockets without a care for the future of all life on Earth - which includes your own family. You are a Koch brothers supporter which means you are anti-environment, anti-renewable energy, and you use false science to "prove" you position.  (

So, every so-called fact and quote in this article can't be trusted just like you. (

Stay out of Colorado and Colorado politics.  (

Heartland Institute (otherwise known as the Koch F ARTland Bu lls hit factory  (

Colorado’s Renewable Energy Mandate Constitutionality Challenged (

( Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. (PILED HIGHER AND DEEPER!) worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis for 18 years    (


Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 28, 2014, 03:00:24 pm
Why Aren’t Rural Electric Cooperatives Champions of Local Clean Power?

 John Farrell 
 November 28, 2014

When it comes to ownership, there are few better structures for keeping a community’s wealth local than a cooperative. So why is it that America’s rural electric cooperatives are tethered to dirty, old coal-fired power plants instead of local-wealth generating renewable power?

There are a lot of answers to this question, but it might start with this: electric cooperatives aren’t quite like other cooperatives.

The Seven Slipping Cooperative Principles

Cooperatives around the world adhere to the “Seven Cooperative Principles,” but electric cooperatives (at least in the United States) fail on several of these principles.

1.Voluntary and open membership. Nope. If you want electric service in cooperative territory, you sign with the cooperative. While it’s no different than rules for other types of utilities in the 30 states that grant utilities a monopoly service territory, it violates the principles of cooperatives.

2.Democratic control (one member, one vote). Not always. Some electric cooperatives award one vote per meter, and some customers (e.g. farmers, industry) have more than one meter. Furthermore, many cooperatives filter potential board candidates with “nominating committees.” And look, here’s a board election with no opposition!There’s also a big gap between cooperative member support for (paying more for) renewable energy and cooperative behavior. This 2013 survey in Minnesota, for example, shows little separation between urban and rural areas (where cooperatives are dominant) in support for renewable energy, yet cooperatives opposed every bill favoring clean energy in the 2013 legislative session.

3.Members control the capital of the cooperative.

4.Cooperatives maintain their autonomy and independence even if they enter into agreements with other entities. Questionable. Many cooperatives sign 40- or even 50-year purchase contracts with power suppliers to supply 95% of their entire sales, mostly from coal-fired power plants. Standard and Poor’s explains this in an evaluation of a Seminole Electric in Florida, a generation & transmission cooperative that sells to rural cooperatives. In their words, one of the utility’s credit strengths is, “A captive retail market and the ability to set rates through take-and-pay, all-requirements wholesale power agreements with nine of 10 members through 2045.”

5.Cooperatives provide educational opportunities to their members and the public on the benefits of cooperatives. Questionable. If you read rural electric cooperative newsletters, you’ll hear a lot about climate change but you’ll often find the phrase in quotes

6.Cooperatives work best when cooperating with other cooperatives. Questionable, refer to #4. Some of these power suppliers are “co-ops of co-ops,” but these long-term contracts have tethered the economic fortunes of cooperative members to the vagaries of the coal market (see below). More than any other type of utility (public or investor-owned), rural electric cooperatives are reliant on coal for their electricity fuel. The average U.S. utility is 38% coal-fired power.

rural electric cooperatives reliant on coal  >:( - public citizen coal prices 2000-11.001


7.Cooperatives work for sustainable development of their community. Not enough. Most cooperatives rely heavily on imported power purchased on long-term contracts with the goal of cheap power, but that ironically leave them at the mercy of unfettered price increases. They also have missed an enormous economic development opportunity from renewable energy. For example:Renewable energy provides significant economic impacts ($1 million per megawatt of wind, $250,000 per megawatt for solar) with multipliers for local (i.e. cooperative) ownership (up to 3.5 times more local economic impact, and twice as many jobs).
Wind and solar provide more jobs per megawatt of power capacity, as well. RE-fossil-jobs-per-MW

Finally, rural electric cooperatives have organized a 1 million comment campaign against EPA regulations of carbon pollution from power plants. Hardly a commitment to “sustainable development.”

How Can Cooperatives Change?

Restoring their 7 principles could do a lot. Improving their structure so that the cooperative directors reflect member opinion on renewable energy would restore the principle of democratic control. Avoiding ridiculously long power purchase contracts would provide local cooperatives with real autonomy and control of their energy costs and options. Broadening their focus on economic development beyond cheap power to include renewable energy would make “sustainable development” much more realistic.

Can it happen? It already has, in Iowa and on Kaua’i, and there are more tools that ever at their disposal. But as with electrification, no one will do it unless they do it themselves.

This piece originally appeared on For timely updates, follow John Farrell on Twitter or get the Democratic Energy weekly update.


A. G. Gelbert   
 November 28, 2014 

Excellent article! Thank you.

I would add that the corporate (greed is good and so is profit over planet) 'business' model has infiltrated cooperatives.

We have a grave situation where our environment AND OUR DEMOCRACY have both been degraded to a mere caricature (for propaganda purposes - see lipstick on a predator pig) to keep we-the-people in our state of ignorance about our 24/7 fascist fleecing.

Greed is bad. It's a cancer on society and the biosphere.

We either change the way we deal with each other and the other life forms that inhabit this planet in order to survive and thrive or we continue our suicidal and psychopathic path of conscience free conquest and mendacious accounting tricks criminally contrived to convince logic challenged economists that "creative destruction" is not an oxymoron.

Don't expect help from our Corrupt and irreparable Court System; it's bought and paid for by the 'greed is good' corporate+government (see the definition of Fascism) elite.

You don't believe me? You think this is hysterical hyperbole?

Read on:

The Corporate Business Model is Psychopathic (ONE MINUTE):

All about Fracking LEGAL chemical POISONS (3 minutes 31 seconds):

Fossil Fuel Fascism in Action (3 minute lesson on our Orwellian world):

Fossil Fuel Fascist Jolly Roger "business" model (8 minutes):

Fossil fuel Government 2 minute Video Clip from "The Age of Stupid" Video:

FDR on Trickle Down "Economics"

Here's a modern example of what happens when you trust the Court System to do what they are supposed to. There is NO Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium any more in the USA when it comes to environmental damage that brings sickness and death to people and other life forms:

The Exxon Valdez PITTANCE of a settlement: PROOF we have a Fascist Fossil Fuel Government AND the irreparably DYSFUNCTIONAL Court System is its HANDMAIDEN

How about Corporate control of what you eat by manipulation of our "LAWS"? See Big Ag Fascist Heaven below:

Fascist Big Ag uses Food Disparagement Law and the Patriot Act to threaten Truth tellers!

Read what this giant polluter and OWNER of most of the fracking machinery says about how to 'handle' environmental legislation:
Schlumberger N.V. (SLB): The BIG OIL Planet Polluter you never heard of

Yes, the plutocratic marriage of corporate and government power over the Court System has been there for quite some time. But now our survival is threatened by this unsustainable paradigm of the worship of Conquest:

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. on what the LAW is ALL ABOUT

In any LAW dictionary you will learn that the term "Legal" is the antithesis of the term "Equitable". Look it up if you do not believe me.

 The Lady Justice Legal Scales mean the OPPOSITE of what you think they mean

Don't count on our Court System to defend Americans from Fascism - Here's why the solution to Corporate Profit over Planet is EX CURIA

Excellent Comment in response to an Anonymous fossil fueler that pooh pooed renewable energy benefits that John Farrell touted in the above Renewable Energy World article:


John Ihle     (

 November 29, 2014 

Anon, the hundreds of millions of dollars/year that are exported out of communities and into neighboring states and provinces may be or are better spent to create local jobs. When you spend more money locally some of that money benefits local stores and businesses and in fact create or support indirect jobs in addition to direct jobs.

Also, local taxes increase (which otherwise you're paying to other states). I know a lot of not wealthy people that would support renewable energy even if their rates rise, depending upon how far they rise (if they rise). It depends how those polls are worded. They've done polling in my state which supports my statements (including a majority of ratepayers would pay some percentage more for electricity for cleaner energy that has more local content) as polling in your area may support your statements (maybe?) and you have no crystal ball to suggest what utilities will "move to" or how lower cost renewables including distributed generation will impact utility business models vs transmission and long distance generation (when you can do it yourself for cheaper).

Renewables keep dropping in cost while fossil fuels continue to rise. Subsidies are doing exactly what they're supposed to do. They are helping to bring the cost of renewables down. They are relatively clean, wind and solar have no emissions (which is important to many) other than those related to manufacturing, lubricants used and perhaps decommissioning which is or may be negligible.

I am a member of an electric cooperative.
After reading the article you apparently  ;) missed some points  ;D. Electric cooperative business models have morphed from those days which the members controlled them  (  Probably through member apathy, or maybe the business of our lives most members don't pay attention to cooperative business matters or perhaps the G&T's as well as some local cooperative managers don't want us to know that much (because we "interfere"  ;)  in a very complicated industry) (

Different things matter to different people and obviously cost of electricity is a big one but it may not be the biggest one. I think it depends on certain important factors. However, it does no one good to make decisions based on erroneous information generated by G&T's and/or other associations that don't necessarily serve the better interests of the local members. Each cooperative should serve the better interests of their members and those members should be making decisions cooperatively. That's a cooperative.  ( One thing that has bothered me is how "parent" G&T "non profit" for profit (sounds like an oxymoron  ;D)  businesses make several hundred million investments and billion dollar investments (with Wall Street) for the good of their member cooperatives. They are dubious investments, ie for the good of their members (, to saddle with debt (through long distance transmission and generation investment) often 30 years or more, at a time when the cost of DG and clean energy is coming down and the local benefits along with participation was/is totally ignored.  >:(

And that is exactly what happened with my local cooperative and the G&T who serves us with locked in contracts which a small board approved ( without properly informing to their members. (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 10, 2014, 04:04:36 pm
Comment just posted at Renewable Energy World

 A. G. Gelbert   
 December 10, 2014 

I must say that absolutely ANY comment that focuses on the alleged LACK of cost effectiveness of PV, CSP or the latest CPV type technology when compared to the horrendously costly fossil fuels and nuclear power is the height of hypocrisy.

Where are all these "concerned citizens" so upset about wasted taxpayer money when this kind of money is HANDED out as a so called loan?

Department of Energy Issues Final $12.5 Billion Advanced Nuclear Energy Loan Guarantee Solicitation December 10, 2014 - 9:01am UNQUOTE

WHERE are those claiming the U.S. Government should not be picking winners and losers in future applications of technology when the Chief Scientist of British Petroleum gets named to THE key position in the USA for determining what technology will get the lion's share of we-the-people's money?

WASHINGTON – Dr. Ellen Williams was confirmed by the United States Senate on Monday, December 8, 2014 as the Director of the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E). UNQUOTE

How believable is our government's "All the Above" statement about developing competing efficient energy technologies that will favor Renewable Energy in the light of billion dollar "loans" for nuclear power?

“With $40 billion of loan guarantee authority available to advance our all-of-the-above energy strategy...

Authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects Solicitation would provide loan guarantees to support the construction of innovative nuclear energy and front-end nuclear projects in the U.S. that reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions.

While any project that meets the eligibility requirements may apply, the Department has identified four key technology areas of interest in the solicitation: advanced nuclear reactors, small modular reactors, uprates and upgrades at existing facilities, and front-end nuclear projects. UNQUOTE

How believable is our government's "All the Above" statement about developing competing efficient energy technologies that will favor Renewable Energy in the light of the naming of a fossil fuel fossil to spearhead advanced energy technology?

“ARPA-E is central to the Department’s advancement of energy technology innovation, and Ellen Williams will provide outstanding leadership based upon her combination of world class research in condensed matter physics and insight into how technology impacts the energy marketplace,” said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. UNQUOTE

Is the above statement by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz believable? NO! Why? Because Dr, Ellen Williams was at the helm of BP when the Gulf of Mexico oil well disaster occurred. As chief scientist she was in the key position to know exactly what was happening and had the knowledge with a doctorate in Chemistry to force BP to prevent all the ensuing damage from hydrocarbons and VOCs.

We know she did next to nothing. Was she coerced to keep quiet? We will never know. She has not said.

And THAT is the kind of "leader" which kowtows for fossil fuels, even in the face of massive pollution, that we have in charge of the "all the above" disingenuous US Government policy claiming to be even handed with Renewable Energy.

Prior to joining the Department, Dr. Williams was the Chief Scientist for BP, a position she has held since 2010. UNQUOTE

NOTE: The Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in Gulf of Mexico BEGAN on April 20, 2010 and lasted for several months.

The lack of dollars and sense perspective and common sense cost benefit analysis of the critics of Renewable Energy when compared to fossil fuels and Nuclear power, particularly in view of the FACT that the U.S. Government continues its over half century of choosing nuclear power and fossil fuels as the winners by throwing billions of taxpayer money at them while making comparatively tiny, token investments in Renewable Energy, is breathtaking, deplorable and despicably mendacious.

I urge the editors of Renewable Energy World to monitor as closely as possible the actions of Dr. Ellen Williams as the Director of the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E).

This is a sad day for Renewable Energy in America.

I firmly believe she is a dirty energy status quo defender masquerading as a "new energy technologies" advocate.

What’s Really at Stake in the Florida Solar Battle?

Renewable Energy World Conference and Expo opens in the sunshine state just as the state takes issue with distributed solar power.

 Lisa Wood, Contributing Editor 
 December 07, 2014  |  40 Comments
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 11, 2014, 02:48:53 pm
ANOTHER fossil fuel Stalking Horse placed in a key position to FAVOR fossil fuel when handing out we-the-people's money.  >:(

How do I know? This fine fellow was instrumental in the destruction of incentives for Renewable Energy in the 1980's. He's back! Along with the MANIPULATED massive drop in the price of crude oil, every aspect of the fossil fuel industry's "policy" in the 1980's to strangle Renewable Energy is now in place.

I don't think this skullduggery will work this time because the raison d'etre for Renewable Energy is mainly that it is sustainable, not whether it appears to cost more up front. But that doesn't mean the fossil fuel dinosaurs won't give it the old college try; they have a century of 'crime pays' success behind them in buying politicians to fleece us in order for them to continue their irrational and suicidal greedfest of profit over the planet. 

What you need to KNOW about Hezir:

In 1979, he became a senior budget examiner for energy technology
programs. In 1982, he joined the Corporate Planning Department of Exxon Research and Engineering Company, responsible for the development of technology forecasts used in corporate business plans.  (

After returning to OMB in 1983, Mr. Hezir was chief of the Non-Nuclear Energy Branch,
responsible for energy technology R&D, conservation, and energy regulatory programs.
From 1986 to 1992, he served as the OMB Deputy Associate Director for Energy and
Science, managing a 25 person division with responsibility for budgetary, regulatory,
legislative, and policy development activities of the Department of Energy, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Tennessee
Valley Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Smithsonian Institution.

He also represented OMB in developing government-wide science and technology policy

Mr. Hezir received the President’s Outstanding Federal Executive Award in

President Bush gave him that award...

Now for the BOILERPLATE press release that makes him appear to be pro renewable energy because of some MIT work on the "Future of Solar Energy". Right. Mr. Hezir wants to make SURE the money for solar energy technology is in the future, not the present.

December 4, 2014 - 10:21am

Joseph Hezir Confirmed as Chief Financial Officer

WASHINGTON – Joseph Hezir was confirmed by the Senate on December 4, 2014 as the Department of Energy’s Chief Financial Officer.

“Joe’s experience in the energy, environmental and budgetary realms and his strategic approach to challenges make him a great fit as Chief Financial Officer for the agency,” said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. “I look forward to working with him as CFO and I thank the Senate for approving his nomination.”

As Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Hezir will work to assure the effective management and financial integrity of Department of Energy. He will help to implement and monitor Department-wide policies and systems in the areas of budget administration, program analysis and evaluation, finance and accounting, internal controls, corporate financial systems, and strategic planning.

Prior to joining the Department of Energy, Mr. Hezir worked as a Research Engineer and Executive Director of The Future of Solar Energy Study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Energy Initiative. He was the Vice President and Managing Partner of EOP Group, Inc. and Executive Vice President of EOP Education, LLC and EOP Foundation, Inc.  Mr. Hezir also held various roles at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Exxon Research and Engineering Company, the President’s Reorganization Project, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and was an advisor to a number of public policy and public service organizations.

Mr. Hezir co-authored two books about government budget and regulation published by the EOP Foundation: Understanding the Budget of the United States Government and Understanding the Regulatory Policy of the United States Government. He also received the President’s Outstanding Federal Executive Award in 1989. Mr. Hezir attended Carnegie Mellon University, where he received a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and an M.S. from the Heinz School of Public Policy.

I urge the editors of Renewable Energy World to watch carefully the allocation of government funds for energy technology that, as Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Hezir will initiate. I am certain his agenda is to preserve the welfare queen fossil fuel favoring status quo.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 17, 2014, 08:13:36 pm
It must be the 17th. (  ( (


Swift Energy Company SFY 4.07 +1.09 (36.58%) 163.18M
Swift Energy Company is engaged in developing, exploring, acquiring, and operating oil and natural gas properties, with a focus on oil and natural gas reserves in Texas as well as onshore and in the inland waters of Louisiana.
Energy XXI Ltd EXXI 3.23 +0.63 (24.23%) 292.47M
Energy XXI Ltd, formerly Energy XXI (Bermuda) Limited, is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company with operations focused in the United States Gulf Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. The Company is engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development and operation of oil and natural gas properties onshore in Louisiana and Texas and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico

 Comstock Resources Inc CRK 6.85 +1.31 (23.65%) 279.00M

Comstock Resources Inc (Comstock) is engaged in the acquisition, development, production and exploration of oil and natural gas. The Company’s oil and gas operations are concentrated in East Texas/North Louisiana, South Texas and West Texas.

Approach Resources Inc. AREX 5.69 +1.01 (21.58%) 188.09M
Approach Resources Inc., is an independent energy company engaged in the exploration, development, production and acquisition of oil and gas properties. The Company focuses on oil and gas reserves in oil shale and tight gas sands in the Midland Basin of the greater Permian Basin in West Texas, where it leases approximately 148,000 net acres. The Company’s drilling targets include the Clearfork, Wolfcamp shale, Canyon Sands, Strawn and Ellenburger zones. It refers to the Clearfork and Wolfcamp zones together as the Wolffork, and its development project in the Permian Basin as Project Pangea, which includes the northwestern portion of Project Pangea that it refers to as Pangea West. As of December 31, 2012, it owned and operated 594 producing oil and gas wells in the Permian Basin, and had an estimated 2,983 identified drilling and recompletion locations, of which 359 were proved.

SM Energy Co SM 38.22 +6.66  ( ( 2.45B
SM Energy Company (SM Energy) is an independent energy company. The Company is engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (referred to as oil, gas, and NGLs) in onshore North America. The Company’s operations are focused on five operating areas in the onshore United States.

Bottom Feeding BONANZA!

Dumb money? (
Not if you understand the PLAN by the fossil fuel FASCISTS. Don't get suckered by these stocks. Let's turn this insider scam to corner the enrgy market into a path to BANKRUPTCY for fossil fuelers! These dinosaurs think they are smaht! Prove them wrong. Make them LOSE their ASS instead of letting them eat our energy lunch! (

What IS IT about the 17th?
  Whatever it is, I think our Fossil Fuel Fascist GOONS have picked up on it (see fracking quakes and MH17 downed on the 17 anniversary of said airline on July 17, 2014  (

August 17th, 1959, the area just west of Yellowstone National Park experienced an earthquake measuring 7.5 on the Richter scale.  ( (

Oct. 17, 1989, Loma Prieta earthquake.
January 17th 1995, Kobe earthquake.  (

Mar 17, 2014 KTLA Anchors dive under the NEWS DESK while a 4.4 Earthquake rumbles through Los Angeles.

April 17, 2014 3-4pm Central time there were two back to back SURFACE earthquakes at dormant Volcanoes in Nevada.

July 17, 2014: Kansas Shaken By M3.6 Earthquake: More Fracking Quakes.

Yeah, fossil fuel fascists like to use 666 and 11 to "send messages" too.  ;)  I suggest we tell them to GO AHEAD, MAKE OUR DAY!  (

Robert F. Kennedy Jr: In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other.

And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves.

If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 18, 2014, 06:50:01 pm
The Military Industrial Complex has been DOING what it DOES to SUPPRESS accurate scientific studies that endanger corporate profits for a LONG TIME.

From using CREDENTIALED bought and paid for scientists to distort studies and produce innocuos "peer reviewed" papers on the "SAFETY" of ASBESTOS (Mellon Institute), TOBACCO, Tetra Ethyl LEAD, FLUORIDATION of Water (Mellon Institute) and FRACKING (this is a tiny list of the "scientific" defenses of horribly damaging industrial pollutants and technology we have been assaulted with for about a century) to the destruction of the careers of scientists who have gone public with the truth, this profit over people and planet fascist modus operandi continues to this day.

If we do not impose ethical behavior on our scientific community and MIC, we are dooming future generations to an unsustainably degraded biosphere and corporate dictatorship. IOW, lack of ethical behavior will cause our species to go extinct.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 21, 2014, 05:23:49 pm
Nice video!  (
The REAL real world makes an inroad into the  "real world" of Zero Hedge, TBP, Nicole Foss, Ilargi, Gail Tverberg, Charles Hall, SLB (stock symbol) and the local Fracking defenders at the DD.  (

Renewable energy= (                                ( Fuelers
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 03, 2015, 08:45:53 pm
More Evidence that the Fossil Fuel Industry in general, and the Frackers in particular, are involved in a market cornering "cheap" oil price HEAD FAKE.

( (

If energy stock raters weren't convinced that dirty energy producers will be successful in their conspiracy to recapture market share, said raters would be UPGRADING Renewable Energy and DOWNGRADING Polluting Energy Stocks.

But the opposite is the case.

Exxon Mobil Co. (NYSE:XOM) was upgraded by analysts at BMO Capital Markets from an "underperform" rating to a "market perform" rating on Tuesday. Previous closing price of $92.83. The stock has an average rating of “Hold” and a consensus target price of $101.55.

Two research analysts have rated the stock with a sell rating, eleven have assigned a hold rating and six have given a buy rating to the company.

Halliburton Company (NYSE:HAL) was upgraded by analysts at RBC Capital from a "sector perform" rating to an "outperform" rating on Tuesday. Previous closing price of $39.49. This rating was viewed 984 times.

Halliburton Company (NYSE:HAL) opened at 40.00 on Tuesday (December 30, 2014). Halliburton Company has a one year low of $37.21 and a one year high of $74.33. The stock’s 50-day moving average is $43.91 and its 200-day moving average is $59.81. The company has a market cap of $33.898 billion and a P/E ratio of 9.99.

Halliburton Company also saw a significant decline in short interest during the month of December. As of December 15th, there was short interest totaling 24,555,422 shares, a decline of 18.3% from the November 28th total of 30,068,632 shares. Currently, 2.9% of the shares of the stock are sold short. Based on an average trading volume of 32,742,507 shares, the short-interest ratio is currently 0.7 days.

Seven research analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating, twenty-three have issued a buy rating and one has assigned a strong buy rating to the company.
The stock has a consensus rating of “Buy” and an average target price of $68.17.

The above information was obtained at the following link:

So what do these Research Analysts know that they aren't telling us?   (  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2015, 03:19:09 pm
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2015, 06:31:10 pm
How Fossil Fuel Fascists "DO THE MATH" that makes their poison "competitive".   
It shows that with rising costs for hard-to-reach reserves, and falling coal and oil prices, generous public subsidies are propping up fossil fuel exploration which would otherwise be deemed uneconomic.

The worst villain is, not surprisingly, the U.S. (
which splashed out $5.1 billion annually in subsidies for fossil fuel exploration in 2013—ironically  ;) almost double the level in 2009 when the G20 pledged to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.   (

Although President Obama has proposed to cut subsidies, the oil-washed Congress has failed to pass any subsidy cuts.  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 27, 2015, 09:14:25 pm
Coal industry chemicals and waste “have tainted hundreds of waterways and groundwater supplies, spoiling private wells, shutting down fishing and rendering streams virtually lifeless,” the Associated Press reports.

And here’s the damning detail from this important AP investigation: “Because these contaminants are released gradually and in some cases not tracked or regulated, they attract much less attention than a massive spill such as the recent one in West Virginia.”

West Virginia: First State to Repeal Renewable Portolio Standard! News

Congratulations, ALEC and Koch Brothers - your hard work is starting to pay off.  ( (

West Virginia is the first state to completely repeal its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) - its incentives for renewable energy. 

The state Senate voted unanimously for repeal and the House passed the bill, 95-4 (all four are Democrats). They discussed it for about an hour before the vote.

 Enacted in 2009, the RPS requires utilities with over 30,000 residential customers to get 25% of electricity from renewables by 2025, with as much as 10% from natural gas.

It would have been phased in, reaching:
•10% renewables from 2015-2019
•15% from 2020-2024
•25% by January 1st 2025

While utilities no longer need to worry about adding renewable energy, the House bill keeps net-metering for individuals and businesses that choose to install solar. We'll see if it remains in the final legislation.

"I rise to oppose repeal of this bill," said Nancy Guthrie (D-Kanawha), one of the four Democrats that voted NO. "For the life of me, what I can't understand is why this body wants to make a name for itself," she said during the brief debate, reports WOWK TV. 

"We are running out of coal, it's that simple. We are going to wear coal around our neck like a yoke that will drag all of us down. This is just political theater, this piece of legislation," she said.

Gary Howell (R-Mineral) retorted that coal is a "diamond necklace hanging around the neck of West Virginia."    (

Another legislator, Randy Smith (R-Preston), who is also a coal miner, said he ran for public office specifically to repeal the RPS.  ;)

In the Senate, Minority Leader Jeff Kessler (D-Marshall) offered an amendment asking a study of the economic and job impact of the RPS. It was rejected. 

Mountaintop Removal Mining (  (

Other than North Carolina, West Virginia is the only southeastern state with an RPS - Virginia's is voluntary. Yes, coal rules in West Virginia, even though its residents suffer under an industry that doesn't care about their health or the environment. 

ALEC and Americans for Prosperity are working hard across the states to eliminate support for renewable energy.  (  Last year, Ohio voted to freeze its RPS, which has already resulted in wind and solar companies leaving the state.

Read our article, West Virginia, Where Solar Growth Would Help.

South Carolina Approves Net-Metering

Late last year, South Carolina became the 44th state to institute solar net-metering, and unlike many states, people will be paid at the full retail rate when they send excess electricity to the grid.

 "We can expect that public support for local solar power will gain more traction as customers are fairly compensated for the power they generate," Hamilton Davis of the Coastal Conservation League told The State. Environmental groups negotiated for the policy, which keeps the retail rate in place for 10 years. Also, utilities can't lobby for any fixed solar charges until 2021.

 Additionally, the state will allow third party solar leasing, one of the few in the Deep South. 

Read more about the bill:


Agelbert NOTE: This is scientific evidence that the bought and paid for politicians of West Virginia are helping the biosphere naturally deselect Homo SAPS. It's wonderful to be able to watch natural selection doing what it does (i.e. SUBTRACTING faulty genetic material  ;D). I hope they enjoy the ride.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 02, 2015, 11:48:15 pm
The Fossil Fuel Government OWNED UNLAWFUL COURT SYSTEM just passed the lion's share of the bill to clean up New Jersey Pollution (caused by EXXON) to WE-THE-PEOPLE. It 's the EXXON Valdez law suit PITTANCE award all over again. ( (

A long-fought legal battle to recover $8.9 billion in damages from Exxon Mobil Corporation for the contamination and loss of use of more than 1,500 acres of wetlands, marshes, meadows and waters in northern New Jersey has been quietly settled by the state for around $250 million.
The lawsuits, filed by the State Department of Environmental Protection in 2004, had been litigated by the administrations of four New Jersey governors, finally advancing last year to trial. By then, Exxon’s liability was no longer in dispute; the only issue was how much it would pay in damages.


Exxon did contribute $500,000 to the Republican Governors Association in May 2014, when Mr. Christie was serving a one-year term as its chairman; the company has contributed annually to the group since at least 2008, records show.


A spokesman for Mr. Christie referred questions about the settlement to the attorney general’s office. A spokesman for the acting attorney general, John J. Hoffman, said on Thursday that the office had no comment, as was its practice with pending litigation. Exxon also declined to comment on the settlement.

Democracy? Constitutional Law? A Court System that defends the right to health and well being of American Citizens? (



Fri Feb 27, 2015 at 06:46 PM PST.

Christie Settles $9 Billion NJ Pollution Case Against Exxon for $250 Million


Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 08, 2015, 07:07:50 pm
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 27, 2015, 08:49:42 pm

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 28, 2015, 08:34:05 pm
Net primary production—the biomass that plants make from photosynthesis every day, all over the world—is the basis of all wealth and food security. It underwrites all other human and animal activity.

Could Fracking Spark a Modern-Day Dust Bowl?  (

Tim Radford, Climate News Network | April 28, 2015 11:25 am
Oil wells and natural gas may have made individual Americans rich, but they have impoverished the great plains of North America, according to new research.   (

A farmer and his sons struggle through a dust storm in 1930s Oklahoma. Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture via Flickr

Fossil fuel prospectors have sunk 50,000 new wells a year since 2000 in three Canadian provinces and 11 U.S. states, and have damaged the foundation of all economic growth: net primary production—otherwise known as biomass, or vegetation.

Brady Allred, assistant professor of rangeland ecology at the University of Montana’s College of Forestry and Conservation, and colleagues write in the journal Science that they combined years of high-resolution satellite data with information from industry and public records to track the impact of oil drilling on natural and crop growth.

They conclude that the vegetation lost or removed by the expansion of the oil and gas business between 2000 and 2012 added up to 10 million tonnes of dry vegetation, or 4.5 million tonnes of carbon that otherwise would have been removed from the atmosphere.

Loss of fodder

Put another way, this loss amounted to the equivalent of fodder for five million cattle for one month from the rangelands, and 120 million bushels of wheat from the croplands. This wheat equivalent, they point out, adds up to the equivalent of 13 percent of the wheat exported by the U.S. in 2013.

Net primary production—the biomass that plants make from photosynthesis every day, all over the world—is the basis of all wealth and food security. It underwrites all other human and animal activity.

Human wealth depends ultimately on what grows in the ground, or what can be dug from the ground, and most of the latter—such as coal, oil and peat—was once stuff that grew in the ground.

The same net primary production is the basis of what economists sometimes call ecosystem services on which all civilisation depends: the natural replenishment of the water supply, pollination of crops, provision of natural nitrogen fertilizers, and the renewal of natural habitat for wild things.

And what worries the conservation scientists is that this loss of net primary production is likely to be “long-lasting and potentially permanent, as recovery or reclamation of previously drilled land has not kept pace with accelerated drilling.”

“This is not surprising because current reclamation practices vary by land ownership and governing body, target only limited portions of the energy landscape, require substantial funding and implementation commitments, and are often not initiated until the end life of a well.”

They say that the land actually taken up by wells, roads and storage facilities just between 2000 and 2012 is about 3 million hectares. This is the land area equivalent to three Yellowstone National Parks.

The hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” used to extract oil and gas is between 8,000 cubic meters and 50,000 cubic meters per well, which means that the total quantity of water squirted into the ground at high pressure during the 12 years to 2012 could exceed 33,900 million cubic meters. At least half of this was used in areas already defined as “water-stressed.”

New wells

The researchers considered the drilling of new wells in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in Canada, and in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming in the U.S.

Although there is legislation, it is limited to lands subject to federal jurisdiction, and 90 percent of all drilling infrastructure is now on privately-owned land—at least, in the U.S.

A tanker drives past a flaring oil well in North Dakota. Photo credit: Tim Evanson via Wikimedia Commons

The study’s authors want decision-makers to confront the challenges of this kind of ecological disruption. There are lessons from history in all this, they warn.

“In the early 20th century, rapid agricultural expansion and widespread displacement of native vegetation reduced the resilience of the region to drought, ultimately contributing to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s,” they write.

“It took catastrophic disruption of livelihoods and economies to trigger policy reforms that addressed environmental and social risks of land-use change.”

Agelbert NOTE: You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. As those CONSEQUENCES arrive, expect the fossil fuelers to make SURE WE-THE-PEOPLE PAY for consequences of their biosphere trashing, profit over planet CRIME. Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 02, 2015, 05:04:21 pm

Captivating Video Shows True Cost of Offshore Oil Drilling

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 02, 2015, 05:33:16 pm
Earthquake Drills are now part of Oklahoma school routine. Guess why?

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 05, 2015, 05:32:56 pm
Texas Passes Ban on Fracking Bans (Yes, You Read that Right)
( (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 07, 2015, 07:00:52 pm
Understanding Fossil Fueler Speak

Whenever a fossil fueler claims they are "saving the planet" (see MKing and friends    (, what they mean is that they are SAVING THEIR ASSES in order to keep the profit over planet,  suicidal, dirty energy gravy train going.

Whenever a fossil fueler claims they want to "cut wasteful energy subsidies", what they mean is that they want to CUT the RENEWABLE ENERGY tiny subsidies and leave the giant dirty energy visible AND INVISBLE "subsidies" (THEFT from we-the-people on behalf of fossil fuel welfare queens for the last 100 years or so  ( ON BEHALF OF the Fossil Fuel Welfare Queens.

Here is a snippet of a bill now before Congress designed to "save the planet" (see above) and "Cut wasteful energy subsidies" (see above).


1st Session
H. R. 1901

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout and repeal the credit for electricity produced from certain renewable resources, to reduce the corporate income tax, and for other purposes.


April 21, 2015

Mr. Marchant (for himself, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Perry, Mr. Flores, Mr. Shuster, and Mr. Scalise) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means


To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout and repeal the credit for electricity produced from certain renewable resources, to reduce the corporate income tax, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “PTC Elimination Act”.

SEC. 2. Phaseout and repeal of credit for electricity produced from certain renewable resources.    (

(a) Reduction of credit and phaseout amounts.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 45(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (2).

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 45(e)(2) of such Code is amended—

(A) by striking “the inflation adjustment factor and” in subparagraph (A), and

(B) by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).

(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to electricity, and refined coal  ;), produced and sold after December 31, 2015. ( (  (


Agelbert NOTE: The EFFECTIVE DATE ENSURES that all future investment SCHEDULED RIGHT NOW (these things have one two and up to three year lead times) are CANCELLED in order to STRANGLE more renewable energy investment for AT LEAST the next three years while maintaining the TOTALLY UNNECESSARY fossil fuel subsidy THEFT. THAT is how they did it in Reagan's day. THAT is how they keep trying to DESTROY RENEWABLE ENERGY TODAY.

MKing supports this bill. Most people who lack empathy for their fellow earthlings do as well. This is why:
Did you know JFK wanted to repeal the Oil Depletion allowance? The "depletion" (LOL!) allowance is still there...
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 08, 2015, 04:09:30 pm
Are We Sunk? The Electric Utility’s Titanic Problem  ;D

 John Farrell 
 May 06, 2015  |  14 Comments 

In my recent report on the utility business model of the future, I laid out 5 pillars of a democratic energy system. It’s hard not to notice the contrast between this vision of the future and the 15-year business plan laid out by Xcel Energy in Minnesota, the incumbent monopoly serving about half the state’s electric customers. Like those of its peers, it’s a plan that attempts to straddle the inevitable transition toward clean energy while keeping its existing centralized power system running for as long as possible.

This inconsistency gave me the sudden image of the “Titanic,” engines thundering, smokestacks spewing, rushing toward the iceberg of financial insolvency and climate catastrophe. We’re all aboard this ship, short of life rafts and about to test whether it’s truly unsinkable.

The impending titanic impact (pardon the pun) mirrors the original naval disaster in other disturbing ways. For one, the electricity system fascination with large scale systems (like huge nuclear power plants) without making enough alternative “life boats” (like distributed solar). For another, the notion that a large ship or a large utility are both too big to fail.

But today’s electricity system differs from this ill-fated ship in one key respect: we still have the power to avoid the collision.

Too Many Years of Incremental Change

Even though most electric customers see themselves as helpless steerage passengers, the truth is that we’re in a time of tremendous opportunity to turn the ship or, failing that, set sail on some new life boats.

We’re at this moment for two reasons. First, the original rules of the electric system, made by legislatures and enforced by Public Utilities Commissions, set a course toward affordable and reliable electric service, whatever the (environmental and equity) cost. Over time it became clear that affordable and reliable were insufficient principles for organizing an electricity system with better technologies for energy efficiency and distributed renewable energy. But when we tried to change the system, it became clear that utilities that can exercise market power can also exercise political power over the rules of the system to defend their fiefdom.

So instead of seizing the opportunities presented by new technology with a wholesale course correction, we’ve nudged the direction of the “unsinkable” monopoly vessel. Renewable portfolio standards have reduced emissions, but not enough to avert the climate crisis. Energy efficiency standards have reduced, but not eliminated, growth in electricity use. Nor, in leaving the incumbent utility largely in charge, has either policy sufficiently diversified control over the electric system.

For example, the Rocky Mountain Institute illustrates that building energy use could be halved by 2050, and yet Xcel Energy’s 15-year plan includes a demand forecast that increases energy consumption.

Xcel’s 40 percent renewable forecast by 2030 seems ambitious, except that the 2,400 megawatts of solar they propose by that year represents less solar than could be installed on residential and commercial rooftops, competitive with their electricity prices, by 2022.

And, like many others, Minnesota’s titanic utility has been reluctant to change course. Just last week the utility learned that they’ll be held responsible for massive cost overruns on a retrofit to their Monticello nuclear power plant (despite numerous advance warnings). This power plant — a legacy of a utility-centric, command-and-control electricity system — is largely incompatible with the shift toward a cleaner, more distributed electricity system.

And so we surge forward toward the iceberg of climate catastrophe and electric system insolvency, because too few of the passengers realize they actually have a choice.

Avoiding the Impact

Having been put behind the wheel of the utility system decades ago, the incumbent utility has been perfectly happy to maintain a system that is (unfairly) economically and politically rewarding. But the rise of distributed generation like solar and the plateauing of energy sales have made even utilities realize that this course is unsustainable. The problem is, they don’t even understand how to change. Over half of utilities participating in a recent industry survey said that they see an opportunity in distributed energy resources, but that they don’t know how to build a business around it.

The 21st century electric utility has to be substantially different from its predecessor. In a recent report, ILSR outlined 5 pillars of an energy democracy system that overlap and go beyond the “Utility 2.0″ conversation. These pillars illustrate the primary principles that should govern our electricity system.

Five Pillars of Energy Democracy


The incumbent utility  ( won’t implement this new course   , especially since the rules they operate under don’t encourage it. Instead, the rules have to change, which means that legislation and regulation has to change to enable this new route toward a more democratic energy system. Regulators in New York are Reforming the Energy Vision, envisioning a complete overhaul to make the ship nimble enough to avoid the economic and climate pitfalls ahead. They’re joined by regulators and legislators in other states — including Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, California, and Hawaii — trying to re-engineer the driving force in the utility system.

This is a big, substantive change. It threatens utilities used to monopoly control and monopoly profits. And because there’s plenty of evidence that the utility monopoly no longer makes sense, many utilities are now fighting back.

If the Ship Can’t Turn…

what happens if policy change can’t save us from the iceberg? Electric customers have some compelling alternatives.

For one, the cost of distributed renewable energy has fallen so sharply that many people are reducing their reliance on the electric utility.
The Rocky Mountain Institute suggests that as energy storage costs start to fall with mass adoption, there’s a real possibility for (wealthier) individuals and businesses to defect from the grid, i.e. commandeer the lifeboats.

More promising is the rise of collective action. In Boulder, CO, the city has opted to seize the ship, by orchestrating a city-driven takeover of the local energy system in order to deliver more clean, local power. In Minneapolis, MN, grassroots action has driven the electric and gas utilities into a clean energy partnership with the city under the intention of meeting the city’s climate and equity goals. Citizens in Santa Fe, New Mexico, are also asking how a city-owned utility could dramatically shift investment toward a more efficient and cleaner electricity system.

We built the electric system into a fleet of centralized, monopoly Titanics (
at a time when all we wanted was affordable and reliable power. But technology has radically changed the horizon. There are major obstacles ahead and electric utilities aren’t likely to act quickly enough to avoid them.

We shouldn’t expect them to, because they’ve never really been in charge.

To the extent that there is a “market” in electricity, it’s entirely the creation of public policy. We christened these Titanics and gave them the power to bring light and energy to our economy. And it’s time to wake up and walk up from steerage and get behind the wheel.

Agelbert NOTE: A revealing graph from the "Democratic" Governor's Association will guide you in understanding who has REALLY BEEN IN CHARGE of "public" policy in the USA for the last century or so.   (


A. G. Gelbert
 May 8, 2015 

John Farrell is RIGHT! The bottom line is that the "business model" world view of EVERYBODY needs to incorporate the REAL WORLD called environmental cause and effect.

IOW. the original rules of the electric system, made by legislatures and enforced by Public Utilities Commissions, that set a course toward "affordable' and "reliable" electric service, whatever the environmental and equity cost, were NOT "practical" or "profitable", as Mr. Wootton might claim. Those rules were a 20th century profit over planet pipe dream, compliments of the fossil fuel and nuclear power dirty energy industries, PERIOD.

It's time to leave the pseudo practical "do the math" LA LA LAND of exploitation without reflection that celebrates the egocentric and the suicidal stupidity that environmental costs can be offloaded onto the poor in general and the biosphere in particular.

John talks about democracy and distributed energy. I'm all for that. But this issue goes way beyond that. This is about a flaw in human thinking that must be corrected. Doing something because we CAN is not an excuse for doing it. Of course it's immoral to exploit without reflection. But it's also illogical, stupid and suicidal too!

So for you folks that like to be "practical" and oh so careful about rocking the status quo boat, I recommend you reassess your view of the Industrial (pollution) Revolution and the "miracle" of 20th century energy products.

We DID NOT have to "remain in the caves" to avoid using dirty energy, no matter what you victims of dirty energy brainwashing may believe.

But, of course, that is polluted water under the "bridge", so to speak.

We do not need a "NEW" business model for energy because we NEVER HAD ONE. What we need, as John Farrell says in so many words, is to plug the environmental and equity costs of energy production and use into our planning and thinking in order to avoid extinction.

Accuse me of hyperbole if you like. You are wrong.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley
"We can’t have a healthy business on a sick planet.” Ashley Orgain, manager of mission advocacy and outreach for Seventh Generation, Burlington, Vermont
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 18, 2015, 06:17:32 pm
Painting with a Broad Brush

The core responsibility assigned to governments in democracies is the public welfare, protecting the human birthright to basic needs: clean air, water, land, and a place to live, under equitable rules of access to all common property resources.

It is astonishing to discover that major political efforts in democracies can be turned to undermining the core purpose of government, destroying the factual basis for fair and effective protection of essential common property resources of all to feed the financial interests of a few. These efforts, limiting scientific research on environment, denying the validity of settled facts and natural laws, are a shameful dance, far below acceptable or reputable political behavior.

It can be treated not as a reasoned alternative, but scorned for what it is – simple thievery. —George M. Woodwell, WHRC founder

Can We Afford Not to Address Climate Change?
Dr. Philip B. Duffy
President & Executive Director
Woods Hole Research Center


Opponents of environmental protection argue that we ‘can’t afford’ to safeguard our health and that of the planet we live and depend on. The latest example  involves the EPA’s proposed regulation of existing coal-fired power plants, which a member of Congress (from a coal producing state) recently claimed would result in “electricity rate increases, reduced electrical reliability and other harmful effects.”

It seems so logical that regulation would increase costs that few people question the idea. But history shows that it’s often not true. For one thing, it’s wrong to focus narrowly on the purchase price of automobiles, electricity, or whatever is being regulated.

Pollution has real costs in terms of damage to the environment and to human health. (Because of this, polluting is a way of shifting costs onto others). For example, the Clean Air coalition estimated that fine particle pollution from existing coal plants caused nearly 13,200 deaths in 2010, plus 9,700 hospitalizations and more than 20,000 heart attacks, with a total monetized value for these adverse health impacts exceeding $100 billion per year ( . (I should add that these numbers used to be much higher but have been reduced by successful regulation of coal plants.)

But even if we focus exclusively on purchase prices, regulation can have surprisingly positive impacts.  ( Refrigerators provide an interesting example.

Excellent Article in the Woods Hole Research Center Newsletter revealing the thievery, duplicity and mendacity of the dirty energy producers and their political lackeys at link below:  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 18, 2015, 07:27:59 pm
Reality-based conspiracies  :(

(           (               (

Welcome to DYSTOPIA
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 21, 2015, 05:57:34 pm

Santa Barbara Oil Spill: Another Reminder of the Price of Fossil Fuels  :P

It's happened again. On Tuesday as much as 105,000 gallons of oil spilled near Santa Barbara, Calif., sending an estimated 21,000 gallons into the Pacific Ocean, creating an oil slick about 9 miles long in the Pacific Ocean and fouling major stretches of the beach. The crude leaked from a broken pipe and flowed into the Pacific via a culvert.

 The spill happened in the same area as an oil spill in 1969 that was the country's largest until the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989. Wildlife rescue teams and cleanup crews have spent the past two days responding to the spill.

 "Time and again we've seen oil foul our coasts, whether it's Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico or Santa Barbara," said the Center's Miyoko Sakash ita. "Oil spills are part of the ugly cost of fossil fuel development, made even worse by aging domestic infrastructure.  >:( It doesn't have to be this way and it shouldn't. We need to start aggressively moving away from fuel sources that are devastating for wildlife, people and our climate. If we don't, we risk continuing to see spills like we just saw in Santa Barbara."

Agelbert NOTE:
OF course, the profit over planet Modus Operandi ENSURES that we-the-people PAY for pollution costs IN ADDITION to "subsidizing" (see THEFT) dirty energy.  (


The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing 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! (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 01, 2015, 06:58:44 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Some may question why I posted this story here. Well, this is an example of a PITTANCE going to renewable energy (see PRETEND support  ;)) while the BIG MONEY from the taxpayers is going to more fossil fuel CRAP.  (  Particularly galling is how the fossil fuel natural gas crooks have infiltrated a corporation that has been championing renewable energy.   >:(

06/01/2015 01:47 PM     

California Families Get Free Solar Thanks to Cap-And-Trade News

1600 lower income families will be outfitted with solar by the end of next year thanks to California's cap-and-trade program. 

10% of the money raised in the program is funneled into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for projects that reduce greenhouse gases in the state or that improve the environment in low income neighborhoods.

 Non-profit GRID Alternatives, which is coordinating the solar installations, was awarded $14.7 million for the next two years. Local manufacturers donate the equipment, job-training programs provide the installers and homeowners either help with the installation or feed the crew.

California's cap-and-trade program, called the Western Climate Initiative now that Quebec and Ontario have joined - has raised $1.6 billion so far.


Since 2007, SunPower has donated about $2 million in  equipment and cash from its foundation to support GRID Alternatives' work. A new investment is for the group's new high school education program.   (

Besides donating solar panels, SunEdison is investing in GRID's programs that foster greater diversity in the solar industry. The company donated $1.2 million to launch the Women in Solar Initiative, and is following up with $5 million to expand that and launch the RISE initiative, which focuses on racial and ethnic diversity.   (

Read our article, How California Will Spend the $5 Billion a Year From Cap-and-Trade.

Natural Gas versus Renewables Still An Issue

 Last week, California approved a spanking new natural gas power plant
   ( to replace the old Carlsbad power plant built in the 1950s.  At $2.2 billion   (,  people are wondering why the state didn't install a whole lot more renewable energy instead.  (

The new plant is necessary   ( since the San Onofre nuclear plant closed in 2013. San Diego Gas & Electric, which is buying all the power, says natural gas is still needed to fill in gaps left by solar and wind energy.  (

 Also interesting is that NRG Energy is building the plant - the utility that's most involved in and committed to renewable energy in the US ( . And they were given the project without competing bids.  ;)

Message to San Diego Gas & Electric from We-the-People that KNOW how to add and subtract using BIOSPHERE MATH.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 02, 2015, 03:04:37 pm
3 Arrested in Denton As Oklahoma Joins Texas in Banning Fracking Bans

Agelbert NOTE: Don't miss the comments! (  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 09, 2015, 03:01:15 pm
Josh Fox Gets Kicked Off of Fox News While Exposing Misleading Coverage of EPA Fracking Report  >:(

Lee Ziesche, Solutions Grassroots | June 8, 2015 4:56 pm

Varney said he wouldn’t frack his own land in upstate New York because it’s in a “watershed” but promoted, on air, last week (while not letting Sandra Steingraber finish a sentence) that we should frack the rest of New York.

When Fox called him out on the hypocrisy and questioned Varney’s claim that he lit his tap water on fire, Varney became irate and told Josh, “The interview is over. You are outta here young man.”

“If you said to me earlier that you would not want fracking in your own neighborhood, it’s irresponsible for you to say on air that the rest of America should frack,” Fox can be heard saying to Varney as he’s being faded out.

Fox was on the program to address untrue headlines most of the mainstream media ran with claiming fracking was safe, following the release of a long-awaited U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on the practice.

In the report, the U.S. EPA publicly confirmed for the first time that fracking contaminates groundwater. However, the EPA’s press release led with the misleading headline saying that EPA has found no “widespread” evidence of water contamination.

As Fox explains on the show this is not the first time we’ve seen the EPA release a report where the science says one thing and then their PR department slaps on a press release that says something else.

“EPA went into Dimock and said to people ‘do not drink your water,’ in private letters and then in the press they came out and said well actually this water is safe,” Josh said on the show.

Watch and share as Fox takes on the misleading EPA report, Obama administration’s support of fracking and FOX host NIMBY:  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 11, 2015, 09:55:15 pm
A Magical Mystery Tour of American Austerity Politics 

Posted on Jun 10, 2015

By Laura Gottesdiener, TomDispatch

That Marathon paid residents to evacuate their homes in this predominantly white section of town, while refusing to do the same in the predominantly African American 48217, which sits closer to the refinery, strikes neither Lockridge and Parker nor their neighbors as a coincidence.   ( (

Agelbert NOTE: Corporate rule is Empathy Deficit behavior on STEROIDS.


The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information.

With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.

If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States.

There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 07, 2015, 11:18:48 pm
Oil Spills Whose Fault are They Anyway?  ???

Posted on June 13, 2015  by Timothy Jacobs   
By: Emily Williams

“It’s not your fault.”

In the movie Goodwill Hunting, Robin Williams repeats this line over and over to Matt Damon, helping him accept that the trauma he faced, in fact, wasn’t his fault.

I can’t help that that mantra crosses my mind every time I’m confronted with anther exploding oil train or of a child diagnosed with cancer next to a power plant. “It’s not your fault.”

Two weeks ago, a pipeline that was pumping crude oil from off-shore platforms to onshore facilities ruptured in Santa Barbara County, spilling over 100,000 gallons of crude oil onto the coastline and into the sea. The slick currently spans over 10 miles of previously pristine coastline. The only silver lining is that the spill didn’t occur in a more populated area.

Yet I am completely dependent on fossil fuels. A shameless alliance of government, big oil, and king coal has ensured that our infrastructure depends entirely upon coal, oil, and natural gas. These fuels heat our homes, power our cars, produce our plastics, and power the very computer I wrote this on.

But just because we are currently reliant on something doesn’t mean we should continue to be. Our society used to rely on DDT to protect our crops from pests. Yet once it was proven how toxic the substance was, we banned it, turning to alternatives. We now know that fossil fuel extraction and combustion is more toxic to our communities and environment than DDT. When we turn on our fossil-fuel powered light, we cast an ugly shadow.

At the other end of those power lines are horrendous human rights violations and irreversible environmental degradation. This spill is not an isolated incident. Exploding oil trains, oil spills, fracking-induced earthquakes, and coal slurry mud-slides have become a staple of nighttime news.

Coal alone is estimated to have over $300 billion[1]in external costs; that is $300 billion worth of costs that the companies force onto taxpayers and the environment. In three weeks this year, three oil trains derailed and exploded, and in the case of the West Virginia exploding train, the fire that engulfed 19 rail cars burned for three days[2].

Over 25 million Americans live within the “blast zone” along oil train routes[3]. But the fossil fuel assault has a global front as well—climate change. According to the Climate Vulnerability Monitor, already 400,000 people die per year as a result of climate change[4]. While this number is already too high, future generations can expect a much higher figure.

These impacts are not evenly distributed to those who are the most responsible for emissions. Fossil fuel extraction and combustion occurs mostly in or near communities of low socio-economic status–primarily communities of color. These communities are plagued with elevated rates of asthma, cardiovascular illness, and cancer, and have very little political power to fight the infrastructure. However, on the few occasions when this happens next door to the companies’ CEOs, suddenly there is an uproar. When a company wanted to install a fracking water tower on the land of Rex Tillerson—the CEO of Exxon Mobil—he fought it. Turns out Rex is only interested in fracking in other peoples’ back yards.

No matter our political inclinations, we all have to accept that these fuels are undermining the health, economy, and prosperity of our society.

So what’s the solution? Contrary to popular belief, we have the alternatives to actually transition away from fossil fuels and power our economy. Improving energy efficiency in buildings can cut 10% of emissions on its own[5]. Solar and wind are not only technically viable alternative fuels, but also financially feasible[6]. Germany, a country that lies at the same latitude as Alaska, and is covered in clouds for the majority of the year, already gets 30% of its energy from renewable sources[7].

It’s not our fault…entirely. The American public is being misled. While mainstream media debates are torn between the “skeptic” and scientist, alluding to the jury still being out, 97% of all climate scientists are in consensus that climate change is happening, the risk is great, and humans are the cause of it. How can this be? As it turns out, the fossil fuel industry pays big time for media campaigns to spread doubt and green-wash their businesses.

This “dark money” is extremely hard to trace, but what is known is that 140 fossil-fuel-financed foundations donated over $550 million to climate change denial campaigns[8]. For a more specific look, BP invests heavily in their PR campaign to recast themselves as “Beyond Petroleum”, while the company only invested $9 billion over the last decade in renewable technology development, compared to the $341 billion they spent in the same period on unconventional methods, such as fracking[9]. Comparing those figures to the $257 billion that was invested globally in 2011 in renewables, $9 is barely a drop in the ocean[10]. To top it all off, according to the IMF, the fossil fuel industry as a whole receives $10 million in subsidies per minute, accumulating to over $5 trillion annually.

In 1961, the Soviet Union announced it would send a man to the moon. Flexing its national muscle, the United States in a mere eight years went from zero to moon landing. Back on Earth, in that very same year, an oil rig off the coast of Santa Barbara suffered a blow-out and spewed over 3 million gallons of oil into the channel.

If the United States could so quickly develop the technology, political will, and finance to land a man on the moon, then we can transition to a low-carbon economy. This feat will require our society to rethink our priorities. We’ll need to stop subsidizing the industry that actively blocks alternatives and start holding the industry accountable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in their most recent report that to truly tackle the issue of climate change, we need investment to spur the renewable energy revolution. We could invest that annual $5 trillion of subsidies to finance research on renewable energy technology, rather than empowering an industry whose business model continues to fight the transition to a low-carbon economy.

It’s not our fault. We haven’t been given the opportunity to own our own power, to choose our own energy provider, or to be represented by a politician who hasn’t been bought out. But it will be our fault if we remain comfortably blind to the mass profiting from what can only be called institutionalized insanity.


[1]External Costs of Energy









Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 08, 2015, 06:33:28 pm
“They did everything they were supposed to do. They followed the rules,” Graham said in an interview. “They went through all the proper procedures.”

But after their celebrations on the night of Nov. 4, 2014, Denton residents woke up to the reality of Texas politics: the oil and gas industry had filed lawsuits against the measure and state lawmakers promptly announced they would overturn the democratically passed ban in Denton and ensure no other jurisdiction would pursue similar restrictions.

‘Don’t Frack With Denton’
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 11, 2015, 03:37:46 pm
10 Years Later: Fracking and the Halliburton Loophole  (

Wenonah Hauter | August 11, 2015 1:04 pm

This past Saturday, marked a notable 10th anniversary. But it was certainly nothing to celebrate. Ten years ago, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The giant energy bill included massive giveaways for the fossil fuel, nuclear and ethanol industries and provided only token incentives for renewables and improved energy efficiency. But the most infamous piece of the law was what is now commonly known as the “Halliburton Loophole,” an egregious regulatory exemption that ushered in the disastrous era of widespread oil and gas fracking that currently grips our nation.
Fracking—the extreme oil and gas extraction method that involves blasting millions of gallons of water mixed with toxic chemicals underground at enormous pressures to break apart subterranean rock—has exploded in the last decade. More than 270,000 wells have been fracked in 25 states throughout the nation. More than 10 million Americans live within a mile of a fracking site. This means that 10 million Americans—and truly many more—have been placed directly in harm’s way. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have connected fracking to serious human health effects, including cancer, asthma and birth defects.

For this we can thank the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the law that holds the Halliburton Loophole.
Named after Dick Cheney and the notorious corporation he led before becoming vice president, the law (championed by Cheney and disgraced Enron founder Kenneth Lay, among others) explicitly exempted fracking operations from key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. ( These exemptions from one of America’s most fundamental environmental protection laws provided the oil and gas industry the immunity it required to develop a highly polluting process on a grand national scale.  (

One of the most troubling repercussions is how fracking companies hide the contents of their toxic water and chemical solutions pumped into the ground. Contamination of underground drinking water sources from fracking fluids is a glaring threat to public health and safety. Yet even doctors responding to fracking-related health complaints can’t access data on what particular chemicals their patients may have been exposed to.

But the Halliburton Loophole wasn’t the only fracking enabler in the Energy Policy Act. The act granted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) sweeping new authority to supersede state and local decision-making with regard to the citing of fracked gas pipelines and infrastructure. It also shifted to FERC industry oversight and compliance responsibility for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, another key law. This was akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

As it stands, FERC is entirely unaccountable to public will. It is unaccountable to Congress and even the White House. Commissioners are appointed to five-year terms and can do as they please. Until a law reigning in FERC is passed, the commission will continue to act as a rubber-stamp for the fossil fuel industry.

Additionally, the Energy Policy Act repealed an important anti-monopoly law, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA). PUHCA safeguarded consumers from the overreach of the oil and gas industry and banks that did business with those companies. It prevented the formation of giant state and regional energy cartels that could manipulate energy costs, engage in profiteering and exert undue influence over political debate. The Energy Policy Act transferred most of this oversight to FERC. Since then, the largest American energy companies have grown significantly more powerful and spent almost a billion dollars on federal lobbying, according to

The 10th anniversary of the Energy Policy Act is indeed a sad occasion, but it provides us with a ripe opportunity to reexamine our nation’s disastrous policy of doubling-down on fossil fuels over the last decade, thanks to the extreme process of fracking. For the sake of countless Americans who are currently suffering health effects caused by fracking and the countless more who will suffer in the future, we must immediately curtail our dependence on oil and gas and turn decisively toward a truly clean, renewable energy future.

Agelbert NOTE:
As those of you that still possess  a modicum of reading comprehension will understand, the fossil fuel industry has ALWAYS been involved in DEGRADING OUR DEMOCRACY while they REFUSE to admit they are degrading the biosphere along the way.

A portion of the American populace, that doesn't want to face that fascist reality, continues to rationalize our "need" for this fossil fuel burning planetary plague with BALONEY about civilization, high energy density or, for those Empathy Deficit Disordered quislings that work for the planet polluters, having to pay for student loans or put food on the table.

Human society has always had Empathy Deficit Disordered people totally devoid of foresight. But only with the advent of the Industrial Revolution did these cause and effect challenged greedballs succeed in running our society. The fossil fuel industry actually believes it has a "you need us" gun to our heads. They've got power and they've got a gun. Although they are too blind, too greedy or just too stupid to see it, that gun has already gone off in their faces, as well as ours.

Let us hope that those of us that are still sane prevail.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 26, 2015, 07:11:32 pm
Truth from Thom Hartmann 

A business can operate at a profit, a break-even, or a loss. If the business is a sole proprietorship or a partnership (owned by one or a few people) and it loses more money than its assets are worth, the owners and the investors are personally responsible for the debts, which may exceed the amount they originally invested. A small-business owner could put up $10,000 of her own money to start a company, have it fail with $50,000 in debts, and be personally responsible for paying off that debt out of her own pocket.

But let's say you invest $10,000 in a limited-liability corporation, and the corporation runs up $50,000 in debts and then defaults on those debts. You would lose only your initial $10,000 investment. The remaining $40,000 wouldn't be your concern because the amount of your investment is the "limit of your liability," even if the corporation goes bankrupt, defaults in any other way, or causes millions of dollars in damage to the environment or even the deaths of people.

Who foots the bill? The creditors-the people to whom the corporation owes money-or the community that was devastated. The company took the goods or services from them, didn't pay, and leaves them with the bill, exactly as if you had put in a week's work and not gotten paid for it. Or it wreaks havoc and death and then simply shuts down, as so many asbestos companies have done recently.

"Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became People." (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 22, 2015, 09:18:10 pm
Sign Now: Prosecute Exxon For Deliberate Climate Denial

Prosecute Exxon: Newly revealed documents show that Exxon’s own scientists were aware of and studying the dangerous impacts of greenhouse gases in the 1970s and 1980s -- until Exxon’s leadership decided to shut down the research and promote climate denial instead, in order to protect the company’s unfathomably large profits.

The United States Department of Justice has the power to prosecute Exxon’s deliberate deception under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act - just as the DOJ did to the tobacco industry for knowingly lying about the dangers of cigarette smoking.

Source: "Exxon: The Road Not Taken," InsideClimate News.

Tell U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

Launch a RICO prosecution of Exxon and its fellow fossil-fuel companies for deliberate and malicious climate deception.

The headline says it all: “Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago.”

The Pulitzer-winning InsideClimate News is running a blockbuster series with incontrovertible evidence -- pulled from Exxon’s own archives -- that the oil giant’s top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse pollution, then led efforts to block solutions.  Documents show that Exxon’s own scientists were aware of and studying the dangerous impacts of greenhouse gases in the 1970s and 1980s -- until Exxon’s leadership decided to shut down the research and promote climate denial instead, in order to protect the company’s unfathomably large profits.

We’ve known for years that the oil industry finances the climate-denial network of politicians, think tanks, and right-wing media in order to protect their gargantuan profits, but now we have sufficient evidence of deliberate deceit to make a federal investigation happen.

Tell the DOJ: Prosecute Exxon's deliberate climate denial.

The United States Department of Justice has the power to prosecute Exxon’s deliberate deception under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act - just as DOJ sued the tobacco industry for knowingly lying about the dangers of cigarette smoking.

Even before these smoking-gun documents were released, climate hawks have been making calls for a RICO investigation of fossil-fueled climate denial:

•Three weeks ago, a group of top climate scientists called for an investigation, saying, “it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth's climate, before even more lasting damage is done.”

•Months earlier, climate hawk Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a former state Attorney General, called for a RICO investigation of Big Oil, saying, “I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have enough information to make that conclusion. Perhaps it’s all smoke and no fire. But there’s an awful lot of smoke.”

Thanks to the reporters at InsideClimate News, now we have smoking-gun documents found in public archives. And there’s certain to be more. It’s up to us to demand the U.S. government immediately launch an investigation that will lead to prosecution of Exxon’s deliberate and deadly climate denial.

Please add your voice to tell U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

“Launch a RICO prosecution of Exxon and its fellow fossil-fuel companies for deliberate and malicious climate deception.”

Your fellow climate hawk,

Brad Johnson
Climate Hawks Vote Political Director


“Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago,” InsideClimate News, September 16, 2015

Climate scientists’ letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren, September 1, 2015

“The fossil-fuel industry’s campaign to mislead the American people,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Washington Post, May 29, 2015
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 23, 2015, 02:28:06 am
Two Powerful Studies Expose Manipulation Of Climate “Debate”

September 17th, 2015 by Sandy Dechert

Two extensive studies released yesterday (September 16, 2015) reveal a long-term betrayal of the truth about climate by major US business identities. Make-believe corporate “persons” have knowingly undermined the health, safety, and even short-term survival of real humans and other living things.

One of the studies explores the metamorphosis of ExxonMobil to “the dark side” over the past 40 years.

The other implicates almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies, including Procter & Gam ble and Duke Energy, in obstructing climate change legislation.

Full, must read, article:
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 11, 2015, 12:32:28 am
10/07/2015 01:15 PM   
BP Settles for $20.8 Billion For Gulf Spill, Mostly A Tax Deduction (  ( News

Five years after BP's tragic Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf,  the US  Department of Justice (DOJ) settled out of court for $20.8 billion to resolve all charges related to natural resource damage and restoration.

 Before you get excited about the big charge, realize that most of it is being paid by taxpayers because ... BP can deduct $15.3 billion as a tax deduction! According to the IRS, it's an "ordinary cost of doing business." Just $5.5 billion is explicitly not deductible as a penalty under the Clean Water Act, notes US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG).  (

The settlement also allows BP to claim $5.35 billion as a tax windfall, nearly offsetting the cost of the Clean Water Act penalty, says PIRG. Adding further insult, BP gets to spread the payments over 18 years.

"This not only sends the wrong message, but it also hurts taxpayers by forcing us to shoulder the burden of BP's tax windfall in the form of higher taxes, cuts to public programs, and more national debt," explains Michelle Surka at PIRG. DOJ could have specified non-deductibility as part of the settlement, but it did not.  :evil4:
Dead Zone in the Gulf, 2014 (  (

"This resolution is strong and fitting," says Attorney General Loretta Lynch. "BP is receiving the punishment it deserves while also providing critical compensation to the damage to the Gulf region." The settlement - which must be approved by a federal court - is the largest ever in the US with a corporation. 


BP has already written off the $32 billion it spent for cleanup after the spill, with a tax windfall of $10 billion. The only charge DOJ specified as non-deductible is the $4.5 billion criminal settlement for the deaths of 11 oil rig workers and for misleading shareholders on how much oil it spilled. The company also agreed to $5.9 billion in settlements with the five Gulf states.

DOJ's case is separate from the class-action settlement between BP and the businesses and individuals affected by the spill. The company has tried hard to get away with paying it, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court - which denied BP's appeal in July.   

The Obama administration announced that $8.8 billion of the settlement will go into a Gulf Restoration Fund. $5 billion of it will be used to repair Louisiana's coastal wetlands. The rest will restore habitats and water quality. Hundreds of miles of shoreline was damaged and more than a million birds and other wildlife died, according to environmental groups.

"Every penny of this BP settlement ought to be going to recovering these badly damaged Gulf ecosystems, and BP ought to be paying a fine that really hurts, rather than an amount that will barely affect its balance sheet," says Miyoko Sakash ita of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Worse yet, the Obama administration has yet to implement significant reforms to make sure this never happens again."

Recent studies show ongoing harm from the spill, such as severe lung injuries that killed dolphins, near-record lows of Kemp's Ridley sea turtle nesting, chemical dispersants still impacting corals and a "bathtub ring" of oil still on the seafloor.

For 2014, BP reported $44.3 billion in profits.
Meanwhile, while it releases reports on climate change and calls for a carbon tax,
BP tops the list of companies obstructing Europe's action on climate change. It has strongly opposed even slightly higher prices for the EU's cap-and-trade program, and it is behind the weaker-than-expected renewable energy and efficiency goals in its climate pledge. 

Read more:
Website: ( (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 15, 2015, 07:18:09 pm
U.S., Alaska end quest for damages against Exxon over 1989 spill

WASHINGTON, Oct 15 (Reuters) - U.S. and Alaskan authorities have ended their efforts  (  ( to seek additional damages from Exxon Mobil Corp over the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill and the subsequent settlement, the Department of Justice said on Thursday.

The department said in a statement that it is "bringing to a close the federal and state judicial actions" against the company and opting not to recover more damages under the reopener provision of the 1991 settlement following the spill.

Alaska Attorney General Craig Richards said in the statement that although officials were not pursuing the additional damages, authorities will consider alternatives for dealing with lingering oil sites.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Bill Trott)

Agelbert NOTE: ALL the details on how LEGALESE (not to be confused with the term, "legalized" ( was used by Empathy Deficit Disordered Lawyers who WORKED (and who continue to this day to "WORK")  THE SYSTEM to absolve Exxonmobil of full accountability for this ECOCIDE  HERE. (

The DETAILS of the "AWARD"   ( HERE. (

Prosecute Exxon For Deliberate Climate Denial (

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on! (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 15, 2015, 10:04:08 pm
See Exxon officials LIE through their TEETH!

WATCH the first use of "oil dispersing" CRAP long before it was used in the 2011 BP rig explosion and spill. To these CRIMINALS, EVERYTHING is a "business opportunity".  ( (  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 29, 2015, 08:18:40 pm
Imagine If Exxon Had Told the Truth on Climate Change

Bill McKibben    (
| October 29, 2015 9:05 am

Like all proper scandals, the #Exxon knew revelations have begun to spin off new dramas and lines of inquiry. Presidential candidates have begun to call for Department of Justice investigations, and company spokesmen have begun to dig themselves deeper into the inevitable holes as they try to excuse the inexcusable.

(Worst idea: attack Pulitzer prize-winning reporters as “anti-oil and gas activists”)  ;D

As the latest expose installment from those hopeless radicals at the Los Angeles Times clearly shows,  Exxon made a conscious decision to adopt what a company public affairs officer called “the Exxon position.” It was simple: “Emphasize the uncertainty.” Even though they knew there was none.(

Someone else will have to decide if that deceit was technically illegal. Perhaps the rich and powerful have been drafting the laws for so long that Exxon will skate; I confess my confidence that the richest company in American history can be brought to justice is slight.

But quite aside from those questions about the future, let’s take a moment and just think about the past. About what might have happened differently if, in August of 1988, the “Exxon position” had been “tell the truth.”  ;D

That was a few months after NASA scientist James Hansen had told Congress the planet was heating and humans were the cause; it was amid the hottest American summer recorded to that point, with the Mississippi running so low that barges were stranded and the heat so bad that corn was withering in the fields. Imagine, amid all that, Exxon scientists had simply said: “Everything we know says Hansen is right; the planet’s in serious trouble.”

No one would, at that point, have blamed Exxon for causing the trouble—instead it would have been hailed for its forthrightness. It could have begun the task of finding alternatives to hydrocarbons, and the world could have done the same thing. This would not have been an easy job: the world was utterly dependent on coal, gas and oil. But it would have become our planet’s single-minded job. With Exxon—largest company on Earth, heir to the original oil baron, with tentacles reaching around the world—vouching for the science, there is no way we would have wasted 25 years in fruitless argument.

There’s no way, for instance, that Tim DeChristopher would have had to spend two years in jail, because it would have been obvious by the mid-2000s that the oil and gas leases he was blocking were absurd. Crystal Lameman and Melina Laboucan-Massimo and Clayton Thomas-Muller would not have had to spend their whole lives fighting tar sands mining in Alberta because no one would seriously have proposed digging up the dirtiest oil on the North American continent. Students would not have—as we speak—to be occupying administration buildings from Tasmania to Cambridge, because the fossil fuel companies would long since have become energy companies, and divesting from them would not be necessary.

More urgently, rapid development of renewables might well have kept half of Delhi’s children—2.5 million children—from developing irreversible lung damage.

The rapid spread of decentralized renewable technology might have kept oil and gas barons like the Koch Brothers from becoming, taken together, the richest man on Earth, and purchasing America’s democracy. The Earth’s oceans would be measurably less acidic—and we are, after all, an ocean planet.

Some climate change was unavoidable even by 1988—that’s about the moment when we were passing what now seems the critical 350 parts per million threshold for atmospheric CO2. And with the best will in the world it would have taken time to slow that trajectory; there’s never been an overnight fix. So we can’t say which of the various droughts and floods and famines might have been avoided. But because we wasted those critical decades, we’re now committed to far more warming than we needed to be—as one scientist after another has shown recently, our momentum has carried to us the point where stopping warming at even the disastrous 2C level may at this point be barely manageable if it’s manageable at all.

Of all the lies that Exxon leaders told about climate change, none may quite top the 1997 insistence that “it is highly unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are enacted now or 20 years from now.”

Exxon scientists knew that was wrong, and so did pretty much everyone else. If you could poll all the experts about to descend on Paris for UN climate talks and ask them what technology would be most useful in the fight against climate change, I’m pretty sure they’d say: a time machine that could take us back 20 years and give us those wasted decades.

And if you think it’s just scientists and environmentalists thinking this way, it’s actually almost anyone with a conscience. Here’s how the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News—Exxon’s hometown paper, the morning read of the oil patch— put it in an editorial last week:


“With profits to protect, Exxon provided climate-change doubters a bully pulpit they didn’t deserve and gave lawmakers the political cover to delay global action until long after the environmental damage had reached severe levels. That’s the inconvenient truth as we see it.”

Those years weren’t inconvenient for Exxon, of course. Year after year throughout the last two decades they’ve made more money than any company in the history of money. But poor people around the world are already paying for those profits, and every generation that follows us now will pay as well, because the “Exxon position” has helped take us over one tipping point after another. Their sins of emission, like so many other firms and individuals, are bad. But their sins of omission are truly inexcusable.   (

This op-ed first appeared in The Guardian. (

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on! (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 07, 2015, 05:23:24 pm (

Crude Sinks As Jobs Report Propels Dollar Even Higher


We have reached a point where one cannot accept one word from the government as being true.

This is the industry that was doing all the hiring and paying well.

We have Diner Roamer as an example of this total bullsh it. A disgrace. A dumbed down populace, and a lying government, what a combo.

When 2 and 2 = 4 again, it's going to be a real horror show. The country of  fiat paper castles and make believe economic numbers, and political leaders in a two party system that make upright citizens PUKE.  :-\

Yep. I fully expect the attorney general of New York to get the "caught with a call girl" treatment now that he wants to investigate the ExxonMobil decision to fund a climate change denial disinformation campaign despite having hard scientific knowledge that fossil fuels must remain in the ground in order to avoid a global warming catastrophe.    (

ExxonMobil will eventually go down by the weight of their own buy em' or bop em' track record of pis sing people off in addition to the fact that their product never really was competitive with clean energy in the real world of  energy return on investment.

But they will fight to their last fossil fuel government dollar. They are helping destroy everything vital to the biosphere and our place in it. If they aren't evil incarnate, I don't know what is.

I sincerely hope humans, like those guys above, survive the Big Oil Bastards.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 08, 2015, 04:55:02 pm
12/07/2015 03:31 PM     

Philippines Takes Landmark Case, Investigate 50 Fossil Companies for Role in Climate Change ( News

This might be the case we've been waiting for, as the first-ever investigation of the largest fossil fuel companies proceeds in the Philippines.   

In early 2016, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines will examine the biggest 50 fossil fuel companies for their part in causing climate change and the human rights violations that have resulted. 

"The response of the Philippines' Human Rights Commission to the petition signals a turning point in the struggle to avoid catastrophic climate change. It opens a critical new avenue of struggle against the fossil fuel companies driving destructive climate change," says Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International.



"This should hopefully inspire other human rights commissions around the world to take similar action. If I were a CEO of a fossil fuel company, I would be running scared. This is yet another indication that we are seeing the end of the fossil fuel era."

The petition maintains that "climate change interferes with our fundamental rights as human beings," hence, we demand accountability of those contributing to climate change." 

"This investigation is not just about how fossil fuel companies do business, but that they do business at all in the future. It's time we held to account those who are most responsible for the devastating effects of climate change," says Zelda Soriano of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

The petition was filed in September by Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Amnesty International, Union of Concerned Scientists and other organizations and 20 individuals, including survivors of the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan, which killed at least 6300 people - and displace 4.1 million - in the Philippines alone.

 It asks the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines to:
•officially put the companies on notice
•request companies' plans for how they intend to eliminate, remedy and prevent further damages
•recommend to the government how climate victims can be monitored and assisted through human rights policies. 

These companies have for too long been invincible and is it time for their social license and role in climate change be called out, says Greenpeace. "This is one step in a legal strategy of making sure those complicit in climate change are held accountable," Anna Abad at Greenpeace Southeast Asia told Reuters.

"The real life pain and agony of losing loved ones, homes, farms - almost everything - during strong typhoons, droughts, and other weather extremes, as well as the everyday struggle to live, to be safe, and to be able to cope with the adverse, slow onset impacts of climate change, are beyond numbers and words."

One petitioner says her family huddled in the attic while Manila was flooded during the 2009 typhoon. "We saw floating people, floating animals, floating coffins. We could not do anything, we could not help them. It was like watching a horror movie, she told Reuters.

Investigators know it will be an uphill climb to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for deaths and financial losses, but the issue isn't about winning or compensation right now. It will strengthen growing opposition to the fossil fuel industry, turning away investors - their biggest priority.

 Roberto Cadiz, a member of the Commission, told Reuters he feels duty bound to take the case because losses from extreme weather are mounting so rapidly and because efforts to curb emissions are moving too slowly. 

Petitioners say there are lots more to come.

 Meanwhile, more than 500 institutions representing $3.4 trillion in assets are divesting from fossil fuels, up $1 trillion since September, and 20 French cities (including Paris), Melbourne, Australia and Oslo, Norway. 

Read our article, "Teenagers Win on Climate Change in Washington State Court."
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 08, 2015, 06:10:28 pm

War & Climate Change: Jeremy Corbyn on the Brutal Quest for Oil & the Need for a Sustainable Planet: VIDEO
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 10, 2015, 04:11:57 pm
Doubtful we'd ever get the chance to vote for a Sanders, given the way our system works. The only two candidates that offer anything that seems the least bit sensible are Sanders on the liberal side, and Paul on the conservative side. There are things about each of them that would make me have to hold my nose while I pulled the lever to vote for either one, but I would consider it.

All the other candidates fill me with fear and loathing. Every one of them is a tool of the elites. So one of them is the only choice i expect to be given at the polls.

Well, maybe Trump is not a tool of the elites...but he is an elite, as much as he pretends to be a man of the people. He's in a special class of heightened fear and in, if he's elected, it's time to call Doug Casey and ask about condos in Uruguay.

You mean, how THEIR system works, right? If you still labor under the view that it is "our" system, you are woefully optimistic. OUR system, Eddie, does NOT work because it is dysfunctional by design.

Pondering the mere possibility that Trump is not a tool of the elite is 180 degrees out of phase. Trump is their representative and member in good standing.

And at the rate things are deteriorating, you soon will not have to hold your nose to "vote" (LOL!) for tweedledee or tweedledum.

Meanwhile, those fine credentialed University folks you and MKing so admire are doing what they do to preserve the fossil fuel government/Wall Street empathy deficit disordered SYSTEM that Trump represents.

Trump is an "independent" who is so "rational" that he gets offended at oceanic wind turbines because they  "ruin" the view for golfers at his Scottish golf course. Shame on him for pretending he is anything but an empathy deficit disordered demagogue.

All the noise he is making now is part of the campaign to KEEP COP21 OFF THE NEWS with hysteria about 'airab terrists' until next week. They started it in November. After COP21 is over, ALL OF A SUDDEN, Trump will start sounding quite conciliatory and the whole Muslim thing will not be mentioned again in the media until after Christmas shopping consumption has been boosted and some profits from stupid people buying stuff they don't need to feed a machine that kills other people and animals on the planet have been pocketed - sometime in early January 2016. It's all a murderous facade, Eddie.

Uruguay is nearly at 100% renewable energy so it is probably a good choice (until the fascist fossil fuel government decides to "make an example" of them by engaging in sabotage, bombing or some other excuse to terrorize them by branding them as "terrorist").    :P

Greenpeace Sting Exposes Academics Hired as Climate-Change Deniers

Posted on Dec 9, 2015

By Deirdre Fulton / Common Dreams

As climate change deniers face growing scrutiny and skepticism, a new undercover investigation by the environmental group Greenpeace shines new light on academics-for-hire, who are willing to accept secret payments from fossil fuel companies to sow doubt about global warming.

The sting operation publicized Tuesday involved two Greenpeace UK employees posing as representatives of oil and coal companies, and asking U.S. academics to write papers touting the benefits of rising carbon dioxide levels and the benefits of coal use in developing countries.

Professors from Penn State and Princeton University “agreed to write the reports and said they did not need to disclose the source of the funding,” according to reporting by Greenpeace Energydesk, a journalistic arm of the international environmental organization.

Energydesk reporters Lawrence Carter and Maeve McClenaghan continue:

Citing industry-funded documents—including testimony to state hearings and newspaper articles—Professor Frank Clemente of Penn State said: “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.”

Leading climate-sceptic academic, Professor William Happer, agreed to write a report for a Middle Eastern oil company on the benefits of CO2 and to allow the firm to keep the source of the funding secret.

Among the exposé‘s other findings:

- US coal giant Peabody Energy also paid tens of thousands of dollars to an academic who produced coal-friendly research and provided testimony at state and federal climate hearings, the amount of which was never revealed.

- The Donors Trust, an organization that has been described as the “dark money ATM” of the US conservative movement, confirmed in a taped conversation with an undercover reporter that it could anonymously channel money from a fictional Middle Eastern oil and gas company to U.S. climate septic organizations.

- Princeton professor William Happer laid out details of an unofficial peer review process run by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK climate skeptic think tank, and said he could ask to put an oil-funded report through a similar review process, after admitting that it would struggle to be published in an academic journal.

- A recent report by the GWPF that had been through the same unofficial peer review process, was promoted as “thoroughly peer-reviewed” by influential columnist Matt Ridley—a senior figure in the organization.

Happer, the Princeton professor, was invited to speak on Tuesday before the U.S. Senate at a ‘Data or Dogma’   ;) panel organized by GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz. Greenpeace investigator Jesse Coleman cornered him there to ask about the revelations.

Watch the video below: (at link)

Late last month, Happer—who has said “more CO2 would benefit the world”—appeared at a climate skeptic summit in Texas, Energydesk reports. There, he defended CO2 production saying: “Our breath is not that different from a power plant.” He went on to say, “If plants could vote, they would vote for coal.”

As Carter and McClenaghan point out, the Greenpeace investigation follows recent reports showing fossil fuel companies burying the truth about climate change, while funding spurious research to cast doubt on the scientific consensus and make it “difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust.” (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 28, 2015, 03:58:56 pm
Agelbert NOTE: The world's most in-your-face Welfare Queen Crooks and Liars, the Fossil Fuel Fascists, are a having a banner year at we-the-people's expense (as usual (   (

9 Gifts President Obama Gave Big Oil  ( 2015

Lukas Ross, Friends of the Earth | December 28, 2015 11:12 am



Big Oil has already received plenty of gifts this holiday season. Despite another year of record-breaking temperatures, the last 12 months have seen a wave of policy wins that could secure an oil drenched status quo for decades to come.

Agelbert rhetorical question: What is the reason the profit over planet "real world" (see Orwell) modus operandi continues to be aided and abetted by governments AND defended by fossil fuelers like Mking and Roamer?

WHY, despite clear revelations of their toxic activity and widespread calls to make these bastards stop their insane environmental degradation of the planet,


do they continue to get away with it AND even continue to be SUBSIDIZED( to DO IT!!!?  ???

Because the people that run the governments of human society who are running the biosphere into the Sixth Mass Extinction are those overwhelmingly responsible for the empathy deficit disordered profit over planet. Their "real world" is nothing but the routine fiction any criminal gang puts up to justify criminal behavior..

12/04/2015 12:12 PM     
Income Inequality = Climate Inequality, Says Oxfam News

In the US, one of the major themes in our presidential campaign is income inequality between the richest 1% and the rest of our citizens.  Not surprisingly, this theme also applies to climate change.

Oxfam's new report - released at COP21 - lays bare "climate-change inequality": the world's richest 1% are also the biggest polluters by far, producing 175 times the carbon emissions as people in the bottom 10% of income.

The richest 10% are responsible for half the world's emissions, while the poorest half - roughly 3.5 billion people - produce only 10% of all emissions.

Income inequality

And the poor are - and will - be most negatively affected by climate change. They can't move to safer ground or even insulate their homes the way rich people can. They tend to live in countries with the least capacity to adapt.

"Climate change and economic inequality are inextricably linked and together pose one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century," says Tim Gore of Oxfam.

Another report, "Carbon and Inequality: From Kyoto to Paris" comes to the same conclusion. "It is the rich Europeans, Americans and Chinese that emit the most carbon, while the emissions from the world's poorest citizens are falling. The richest 1% of Americans, Luxembourgers, Singaporeans and Saudis emit more than 200 tonnes of carbon per person per year; 2,000 times more than the poorest in Honduras, Rwanda or Malawi," says author French economist Thomas Piketty (who wrote the best seller, "Capital"). 

Both Oxfam and Pikkety conclude the rich should be held accountable for emissions, no matter where they live. 

Oxfam points out that the super rich in developing countries like China, India, Brazil and South Africa have
 high and rapidly rising emissions, but are still "behind" their advanced country counterparts .. and they will soon catch up. 

 Oxfam says:

"While the richest citizens can and should contribute as individuals to cutting their own emissions through lifestyle changes, wherever they live, they can't solve the climate crisis through voluntary action alone. Their choices are often constrained by the decisions of their governments in all sorts of areas, from energy to transport policy.

"Without question, a weak agreement in Paris is no more in their interests than it is in the interests of the poorest and least responsible. Increasingly members of the richest 10% are experiencing the impacts of climate change themselves, and are mobilizing to demand action from their governments.

"The only beneficiaries of inadequate climate action in Paris and beyond are a much smaller elite with vested interests in the continuation of a high carbon and deeply unequal global economy.

The number of billionaires with interests in fossil fuel activities has risen from 54 n 2010 to 88 in 2015, while the size of their combined personal fortunes has expanded by around 50% from over $200 billion to more than $300 billion."

Poor nations haven't caused the problem
but they are most vulnerable to it. They need help to adapt so their people can live.

And the world can't afford ANY more emissions, so developing countries must get assistance to leap frog to renewable energy instead of using coal. 

Accelerating natural disasters already impacts hundreds of millions of people a year. The Rockefeller Foundation estimates that $1 out of every $3 spent on development is lost to these recurring crises - a total $3.8 trillion worldwide. Resilient societies would suffer less and recover more quickly.

Nearly 634 million people live in risk-prone coastal areas and areas at risk from droughts and floods.

Read Oxfam's report, "Extreme Carbon Inequality": 

Talk that blames the poor people because they "have too many babies" is irresponsible, as well as being IRRELEVANT. But, it is a devilishly clever method for taking the spotlight off the real culprits, especially those biosphere math challenged criminals among the fossil fuel worshippers.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 29, 2015, 07:54:17 pm


I remember clearly the fight they put up to take lead out of gasoline, Yes LEAD.

Can you imagine 250 million vehicles on the road here 24/7 spitting out LEAD constantly.

They told everyone their cars would knock like hell and their engines would be toast after 10 thousand miles.

The real reason was the Benjamins, they didn't want to spend the dough on the advanced safer additives. Lead was just fine according to them. ::)

Yep. But it gets better.    ( When Prohibition came into effect (that was REALLY about Rockefeller's Benjamins too!), farmers could no longer grow their own fuel for their tractors. You see, ethanol, known in Brazil as E100 and used routinely to run internal combustion machines efficiently (only a slightly higher compression ratio is required) was IDEAL for high compression engines. Guess who needed fuel for those engines? The aviation industry! Tetra ethyl lead makes the witches brew of VOCS (mostly toxic volatile organic compounds) and various long chained hydrocarbons (i.e. gasoline) combust more evenly at a certain temperature. The very same result was ALREADY available from ethanol because it carries its own oxygen and is only one chemical compound. Ethanol has a HIGHER octane rating than gasoline.

As more powerful and bigger engines were invented AND aviation needed high compression engines for high altitude flying efficiency, Rockefeller and his pals at Dow Chemical (or Du Pont - I can't remember right now)scramble for something to goose gasoline with. They sure as Benjamins did not want to admit ethanol was the better fuel...

Well, Prohibition ended and America began the long march to prepare for war in the air with fighters and bombers that REQUIRED high compression engines. We-the-people were STUCK with tetra ethyl lead and a spurious propaganda campaign bad mouthing ethanol, when anybody that has ever been to a drag race KNOWS alcohol is IT for high compression engine dragsters.

Finally, TO THIS DAY, it is STILL LEGAL for gasoline powered aircraft to USE LEADED GASOLINE. It's called avgas. The 130 octane stuff I used fuel Piper Navajos with has a green die to differentiate it as the "good stuff" for high compression, high horsepower engines. So, if you live under the approach end of general aviation airport, you get a routine shower of lead for your kids to enjoy, complements of the fossil fuel government.  (

The laws on fuel as corrupted in this country that you CANNOT legally make ethanol for fuel UNLESS it has a REQUIRED percentage of gasoline added to it. The excuse is that it is a "safeguard" to make sure it is not sold as booze, as per the Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco portion of the fossil fuel government. But we know that is BALONEY. It's just one more hidden subsidy for the fossil fuel government profit over planet welfare queens.

As you said, it's all about the Benjamins.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 29, 2015, 08:02:16 pm
The laws on fuel as CORRUPTED in this country that you CANNOT legally make ethanol for fuel UNLESS it has a REQUIRED percentage of gasoline added to it. The excuse is that it is a "safeguard" to make sure it is not sold as booze, as per the Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco portion of the fossil fuel government. But we know that is BALONEY. It's just one more hidden subsidy for the fossil fuel government profit over planet welfare queens.

As you said, it's all about the Benjamins.

Amazing revelations in that posting Agelbert. Pains one to think these guys are still running the show.

I'm wondering when they're going to move on and take over the solar industry? Just like them, with their water boys in government, to start charging us to use the Sun?

Good point. There is ample evidence that they want to put bureaucratic fascist regulatory meter on solar power. It's really and old colonialist style modus operandi going back to the Dutch, English and Spanish Empires. The difference now is that we-the-people are the targets, not some native tribes.

As you know, the colonial MO was to prohibit finished industrial goods from being made in the colonies while the "mother" country imports all the raw materials from skins to make saddles with to ore for finished metal products to quality wood for furniture (and so on). The finished goods were then sold back to the people in the colonies for exorbitant prices.

It is mind boggling to think it was illegal to make a saddle in South America for centuries after the European invasion. It was just as hard (and illegal) to get mills going in the English colony we now know as the USA to make cloth from cotton and hemp. Making a clock in the colonies was very difficult because it was considered a "finished" industrial product. People actually made them with (illegally) wooden parts. The accuracy was, of course, not so great.

What does all this have to do with solar power? The LAW, like in colonial times, is used for the purpose of fleecing the people and defending the cartels (in this case as applied to solar energy). The power companies will push for, and win, the right to put giant solar farms here and there to centralize the energy. THAT will cost us because they will then have their typical duplicitous excuses for jacking up rates on a regular basis due "maintenance costs".     (

At the same time, local ordinances will make it increasingly expensive to get permits for panels on your property, require a NEW roof for your house if your roof is more than X amount of years old and other economic hurdles make it more and more expensive for your to just get started. THEN they will require some annual inspection by a "designated" ass hole that will charge a fee to "make sure" your solar panel setup is not afire hazard" (or an eye sore, or "violates" some ordinance, etc).

To add insult to injury, the LAND the power company gets to put massive solar farms on will be subsidized by we-the-people. WE will also NOT be able to deduct our solar maintenance costs from our taxes because we "aren't a business" while the power company profits from subsidies AND tax deductions on maintenance costs.

The only upside is that fossil fuels will FINALLY be gradually phased out as the overwhelming evidence of how in-your-face expensive they are in comparison to renewable energy continues to cause businesses and power companies to break ranks and abandon support for and investment in fossil fuel industry crooks.

Who knows? We might even survive all this colonial MO through clever "adaptation".  ;)

But it looks pretty hopeless right now.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 29, 2015, 08:03:29 pm
I agree very much that the utilities and bureaucrats will fight tooth and nail to control solar.  I'd recommend installing solar in parallel to the grid and use it to phase out critical appliances. Use it to power small DC deep freeze which could act as a form of storage with a little forethought.  Small system decoupled from grid  to power essentials can provide fast payback, avoid utility involvement and help start the distributed solar revolution which is needed.


One small correction. The solar revolution really started about three years ago when the cost of solar panels began dropping faster than Wile E. Coyote.  8)


Those were the days when the baloney was flying fast and furious from Stoneleigh and fossil fuel worshipping friends about renewable energy not amounting to a hill of energy beans (see: "drop in a bucket"). Many here thought she was an "energy expert". LOL!  Her predictions were all wrong. But she never owned up to her bad advice. So it goes. She sticks to her guns, even if they are pointed squarely at her face and are going off as we speak.

And the vertiginous drop in price of the Renewable Energy from Solar Power (that the fossil fuel shill Nicole Foss - Stoneleigh denied would ever happen) is ACCELERATING.

Solar Costs Will Fall Another 40% In 2 Years. Here’s Why. January 29th, 2015 by Giles Parkinson (   (

Meanwhile, there are developments at the Department of energy that bare watching.  8)

Dr. Cherry Murray Confirmed as Director of the Office of Science

December 11, 2015 - 3:04pm

WASHINGTON – Dr. Cherry Murray was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday, December 10, 2015 as the Director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.

“Dr. Murray will be an outstanding Director of the Office of Science, drawing upon her experience in academia as professor and dean of one of country’s leading universities of engineering and applied sciences, key R&D leadership roles in industry, and as former head of science and technology at one of the Department’s national laboratories, ” said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. “I thank the Senate for the approving her nomination and look forward to working closely with her as Director.”

As Director of the Office of Science, Dr. Murray will oversee research in the areas of advanced scientific computing, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, fusion energy sciences, high energy physics, and nuclear physics. She will have responsibility not only for supporting scientific research, but also for the development, construction, and operation of unique, open-access scientific user facilities. The Office of Science manages 10 of the Department’s 17 National Laboratories.

For the past year, Dr. Murray served as the Benjamin Peirce Professor of Technology and Public Policy and Professor of Physics at Harvard University.  Previously she was the Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University from 2009 to 2014.  Dr. Murray served as Principal Associate Director for Science and Technology at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 2007 to 2009 and as Deputy Director for Science and Technology from 2004 to 2007.

Dr. Murray held a number of positions at Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, formerly AT&T Bell Laboratories and previously Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. from 1978 to 2004.  She began as a Member of Technical Staff within the Physical Research Laboratory and eventually finished her tenure as Senior Vice President for Physical Sciences and Wireless Research.

Dr. Murray was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1999, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001, and the National Academy of Engineering in 2002. Dr. Murray was appointed to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling in 2010  ( She was also awarded the National Medal of Technology and Innovation by the White House in 2014 for contributions to the advancement of devices for telecommunications, the use of light for studying matter, and for leadership in the development of the STEM workforce in the United States.  Dr. Murray received a B.S. and a Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (

Agelbert NOTE: It is hoped that Dr. Murray, who has in the past  ( written some excellent pieces about future plentiful rooftop gardens and the potential for bountiful solar power to be used for sequestering excess CO2 from our atmosphere, has not been brought in as a stalking horse for the new "small reactor" nuclear power scam AND/OR another fossil fuel government excuse to keep burning fossil fuels through solar powered CO2 sequestering technology.  (

But I wouldn't put it past them.  :P

And as to Stoneleigh and anybody who thinks she is an "Energy expert", diner is served.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 29, 2015, 09:27:26 pm
Agelbert NOTE:
Here is MORE evidence that SHELL is gearing up for LNG BIG TIME, the biosphere and CO2 pollution be damned.  >:(

Fifteen New Inland Barges to Run Mostly on LNG   (

LNG-powered inland barge

December 28, 2015 by gCaptain
A total of 15 LNG-powered inland barges to be chartered by Shell for use in European waterways will be equipped with Wärtsilä dual-fuel main engines running primarily on liquified natural gas, the Finnish engine manufacturer announced Monday.

The 110-meter barges are being built for Belgium-based Plouvier Transportation and will be chartered by Shell Trading Rotterdam in support of its growing operations in the ARA (Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp) and Rhinetrack (Germany/Switzerland) regions.

The barges will each be equipped with a 6-cylinder Wärtsilä 20DF dual-fuel main engine operating mostly on LNG. Wärtsilä will also supply other propulsion equipment and its LNGPac fuel gas handling system.

“The specified requirements were for environmental compliance, reliability, fuel flexibility, low operational costs, and a proven concept,” Wärtsilä said in statement announcing the contract award. “The development of LNG as a cleaner fuel for shipping is supported by Shell, and these innovative new vessels represent an important endorsement of this support. They will also enhance the safety and efficiency performance of the company’s fleet.”

The ships’ hulls are under construction at the VEKA Shipyard CENTROMOST in Poland and final outfitting will be carried out at VEKA Shipyard Werkendam. Delivery of barges are expected to take place between late-2016 and mid- 2018.

Agelbert Comment: There is no doubt that this is all part of Shell's plan to profit from exploiting the ocean bottom with the giant Prelude FLNG monstrocity.


but there is more...

Shell has contracted STX Offshore & Shipbuilding to build a special bunker vessel to serve ships powered by liquefied natural gas (LNG). (

At the above link you will find happy talk cheerleading for LNG as a "cleaner" fuel for ships, TOTALLY ignoring CO2 pollution or the MASSIVE amount of energy it takes to process natural gas into LNG. So it goes.  :(
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 07, 2016, 09:12:40 pm
Record Year for VLCCs in Port of Rotterdam  (   (
VLCC tanker Genmar Vivtory

January 6, 2016 by gCaptain

The Port of Rotterdam has reported a record number of very large crude carriers in port in 2015 helped by growth in full oil supply in northwest Europe and Russian stockpiles flowing into the region.

The Port of Rotterdam Authority said Monday that in 2015, no fewer than 51 VLCCs called at the port to discharge and/or load fuel. That is 22 more VLCCs, ranging from 200,000 to 320,000 dwt, than in 2014 and 12 more than in the record year of 2012. In 2015, a total of around 28.3 billion liters of fuel oil was shipped from Rotterdam, the Port Authority said.

“The increase in the transport of fuel oil is due to a slight growth in its supply in the Northwest Europe region on the one hand,” says Ronald Backers, Business Intelligence Advisor for the Port of Rotterdam Authority. “The refineries here are operating at full capacity due to this year’s high margins.

In addition, Russia saw a large build-up of fuel oil stocks in 2014. At the beginning of 2015, this stock ‘flowed’ in the direction of Rotterdam and other ports. On the other hand, the demand for fuel oil is slightly lower. This is partly due to the introduction, in January 2015, of the requirement to use bunker fuel in the North and Baltic Seas with a maximum sulphur content of 0.5%. This was achieved by using Marine Gas Oil. All in all, this has led to a surplus of fuel oil, which had to be shifted to other markets. The market calls this a ‘supply push’.”  (  ( 

With last year’s 51 VLCCs, 283 of the world’s largest tankers visited Rotterdam in the last ten years. Two thirds of these discharged crude oil before leaving again with fuel oil, the Port Authority says.

“75% of the loading of the VLCCs takes place at the terminals in Rotterdam, 25% at the Caland Canal and Maasvlakte2 dolphins, Backers adds. “There is often a combination of both locations, with most of the loading taking place at a terminal and the loading being completed at the dolphins.”

The Port Authority says that average cargo volume of the mammoth tankers has increased over time by about 30,000 tonnes to 280,000 tonnes. The record in this field is still held by the TI Europe, which sailed with 353,000 tonnes of fuel oil in August 2013.

Incidentally, there was also a record number of Suezmax tankers (120,000-160,000 tonnes deadweight) in Rotterdam, the Port Authority also reported. With a total of 45, this was 4 higher than in 2014.

And, as NIGHT follows DAY, the pollution just keeps on ADDING UP. 

Map of oil spills listed in Table 1.

Table: Table 1A. Top 20 major oil spills from oil tankers since the Torrey Canyon in 1967, update as of 2012.

Oil Pollution in the Marine Environment I: Inputs, Big Spills, Small Spills, and Dribbles


Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 08, 2016, 07:49:34 pm
What fossil fuel companies knew and when they knew it

The fundamentals of global warming have been well established for generations. Fossil fuel companies have almost certainly been aware of the underlying climate science for decades.

As early as 1977, representatives from major fossil fuel companies attended dozens of congressional hearings in which the contribution of carbon emissions to the greenhouse effect was discussed. By 1981 at least one company (Exxon) was already considering the climate implications of a large fossil fuel extraction project.

In 1988, the issue moved beyond the scientific community and onto the national stage.


Full article:

The Climate Deception Dossiers (2015) (


Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2016, 07:32:30 pm

Schlumberger (SLB), as I said a year and a half ago, is in serious financial trouble. However, they DO NOT plan to accept responsibility for their pollution or their mistakes.  >:(

SLB, true to it's excellent corruption connections with the fossil fuel bought and paid for government, has had a GIANT merger with CAM PRE-APPROVED by the "Justice" Department. No sir, no risk of a monopoly here. LOL! Think about that, sports fans.

SLB has shed 22,000 jobs in the last year and has announced that it will lay off more people this year. It's stock is in the tank. It has lost BILLIONS! It's business model is threatened, not just by lower oil prices, but by pollution lawsuits and damage claims from people and various levels of government AND the coming carbon taxation AND the end of it's subsidy welfare queen gravy train.

So what does SLB do? It fires the "salt of the earth" employees that it had promised to take care of and be loyal to (and so on ;)) on the bottom of the rubber meats the road rig totem pole. AND it plans a merger with CAM to throw off the wages bus a bunch of middle mangers too! Of course this WILL constitute a reduction of competition and an IN YOUR FACE monopolistic practice. But SO WHAT? They've got the "Justice" Department in the fossil fuel government to "take care of the legal business" for them.  (

The fact is that SLB has its ass in a giant crack and is being BABIED to enable it to survive. Do you see where I'm going with this, sports fans? The Fossil fuelers and their pals in Houston love to talk about RESPONSIBILITY and COMPETITIVE energy prices and WELFARE WHINERS that MILK THE SYSTEM. Yet that is EXACTLY what the fossil fuel industry WEFARE QUEENS in Houston have DONE in this country from the word "oil find" to the present.  (

But more to the point, what SLB is doing is an attempt to manipulate the energy field they are in by merging for price "control"   ( with the "help" of some friends in the "Justice" Department.  (

This is IRRESPONSIBLE. They SHOULD NOT be allowed to merge and they SHOULD go bankrupt because of their incorrect management decisions and their failed business model (creating polluting messes wherever they go that generate damages claims). BUT THAT ISN'T HAPPENING! WHY NOT!!!? You won't get an answer from the trolls defending fossil fuels, who think all this crooked welfare queenery is fine and dandy "corporate fiduciary responsibility", when it is exactly the opposite.

Also, Conocophilips id up to no good. I mention them here because that is MORE interesting financial information: That corporation is planning on making a killing in DIRTY (Fracked) LNG profits within the next year. (

Do your part. HELP profit over planet fossil fuel industry WELFARE QUEENS GO BANKRUPT!  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 16, 2016, 03:41:19 pm
Agelbert NOTE: To be filed under SOCIAL ENGINEERING that is quite acceptable to those who claim they are "skeptical" of social engineering. (  What these Capitalist/Libertarian/Game Theorists REALLY mean by that is that they are SELECTIVELY skeptical.

You see, it's fine and dandy for we-the-people to Disproportionately Subsidize Polluting Predators 'R' US  ( but it's, uh, "financially unsound social engineering" ( (i.e. Socialism for everybody instead of just for the elite Welfare Queens  ;)) for government money to be used to help in feeding the poor, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, caring for the sick or other "financially unsound" examples of altruistic "nonsense" that "SUCCESSFUL Apex Predators" should nevah, evah, evah engage in...    (  (

01/15/2016 03:52 PM     

Little Known Fact: Renewable Energy Companies Pay Way More Than Fossil Firms to Lease Public Land News

When fossil fuel companies are allowed to lease our public lands to extract oil, gas and coal, they pay close to nothing for the privilege of disrupting our climate and destroying wildlife habitat.

But for renewable energy developers it's another story. They pay top dollar to put solar or wind arrays on public lands. 

For solar, costs per acre have a huge range. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) charges between $16.50 and $6,897 and rates rise each year, but oil and gas leases are set in stone at the bargain price of $1.50 per acre per year, according to Renewable Energy World.

"It's almost embarrassing what we charge," Dick Bouts, energy program analyst at BLM told Renewable Energy World. "It's certainly pocket change for these companies that will spend millions of dollars developing a lease to get it in production, and the rent is almost nothing."

And while solar and wind projects produce energy forever, once the oil and gas is pulled from the ground, it's gone.

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920   (

It all goes back to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, when Congress set the rates. Congress raised the fee from $1 per acre in the 1980s, but since then Congress has refused to act. Cattle and sheep ranchers can graze their animals on public lands for bargain prices for the same reason.

"Even if we were to try to do a rule making and try to raise the rate for oil and gas, BLM would get beat up so bad by the industry and by certain members of Congress," he told Renewable Energy World.

But Congress does allow BLM to set rates for renewable energy. These market rates rise every year and are based on population and GDP.
In addition to paying rent for the land, there are royalty fees. Oil and gas companies pay 12.5% of the value of what they extract, but various loopholes reduce it to more like 5%.
Solar pays a per-megawatt fee, and the bigger a project is, the price goes up for every megawatt of energy produced.
Fees are lowest for solar PV ($5,256 per MW), followed by concentrating solar without energy storage ($6,570 per MW) and are highest with energy storage ($7,884 per MW), reports Renewable Energy World.

The only other fee BLM is allowed to set rates is for oil and gas pipelines and transmission lines for renewables ( that run through federal land.

This is one more sweetheart deal that continues to subsidize fossil fuels at the expense of renewable energy.  >:( (

Agelbert NOTE: Please repeat after me, Fossil Fuels are NOT a REsource because the CANNOT be use more than ONCE. ONLY RENEWABLE ENERGY is a RESOURCE of energy. Fossil Fuels are a SOURCE of (polluting) Energy, NOT a RESOURCE. This corruption of the language to describe energy sources by the polluters is worthy of Machiavelli in general and Game Theory in particular.    (

There is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION (unless you are into game theory, of course ( for the POLLUTION of public lands and the HARM it does to wildlife for this ONE SHOT DEAL of sucking fossil fuels out of the ground while you kill every bit of wildlife that gets in your way!!!  (

And what do the fossil fuelers/game theory worshippers/SELECTIVE Skeptics of social engineering say to above? See below.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 20, 2016, 09:42:52 pm

California to investigate whether Exxon Mobil lied about climate-change risks   (

Exxon Mobil, which operates a refinery in Torrance, above, has issued statements denying news reports that it suppressed climate-change research.  ( ( (Christina House / For The Times)

Ivan Penn •Contact Reporter

January 20, 2016, 3:00 AM

California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris is investigating whether Exxon Mobil Corp. repeatedly lied to the public and its shareholders about the risk to its business from climate change — and whether such actions could amount to securities fraud and violations of environmental laws.

Harris' office is reviewing what Exxon Mobil knew about global warming and what the company told investors, a person close to the investigation said.

The move follows published reports, based on internal company documents, suggesting that during the 1980s and 1990s the company, then known as Exxon, used climate research as part of its planning and other business practices but simultaneously argued publicly that climate-change science was not clear cut.

Those documents were cited in stories by reporters for Columbia University Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship, published in partnership with the Los Angeles Times. The nonprofit InsideClimate News also published several stories based on the documents.

Shortly after the news reports, Harris' office launched the investigation in response to the findings, the person said. New York's attorney general also is investigating the oil company as a result of the published reports.

Special Report Investigation: How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change research (

Exxon Mobil did not respond to several requests for comment made by telephone and email. (

A spokesman for Harris declined to confirm the investigation.

U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu  (  (D-Torrance), who has called on federal authorities to investigate Exxon Mobil, praised Harris' decision.

Lieu said the investigation means that any damages won from Exxon Mobil could benefit Californians.  ;D

"I commend … Harris for taking this action," he said.   (

Lieu said he has sent letters to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission calling for federal investigations of securities fraud and violations of racketeering, consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, shareholder protection or other laws.

Lieu said he hopes the decision by Harris, representing a state with the eighth-largest economy in the world, will prompt other states and the Justice Department to investigate.

"I think this action will be taken very seriously by Exxon Mobil  (, " Lieu said.

Richard Keil, an Exxon Mobil spokesman, previously said that the company denies any wrongdoing in regard to the climate-change reports.

"We  ( unequivocally reject allegations that Exxon Mobil suppressed climate change research contained in media reports," Keil ( said  in a statement issued in response to the letters sent in October by Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord). Keil issued a statement with the same quote in early November when the New York investigation became public.


Exxon Mobil continues to face calls from several current and former U.S. lawmakers for criminal investigations based on the media reports. They include Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Al Gore.

It is unclear what approach Harris intends to take in California's investigation.

Harris' office is casting a wide net and looking at a variety of issues, according to the person familiar with the matter.

What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic (

Legal experts say the SEC requires that companies disclose the risks of climate change to their business operations but that the agency has taken almost no action to enforce it.

The moves by California and New York are seen as a step to fill that void.

Exxon Mobil already has received a subpoena for documents dating from 1977 from the office of Eric Schneiderman, New York's attorney general.

Schneiderman has at his disposal New York's Martin Act, a law that gives the state's attorney general broad power to prosecute companies for financial fraud.

Unlike federal securities law, the New York statute does not require the state to prove that a company intended to defraud   ( — only that it misrepresented relevant information or withheld it from investors.

The law applies to any company doing business in the state.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 25, 2016, 08:43:00 pm
6 Ways to Kick Fossil Fuel Money Out of Politics
Cassady Sharp, Greenpeace USA | January 25, 2016 2:46 pm

Last week marked the sixth anniversary of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which unleashed unlimited corporate spending on our elections. Thinking about the widespread impact of this ruling, it’s easy to get pretty down on the state of our democracy. In addition to the immediate wreckage Citizens United caused in our democracy, there was a simultaneous attack on voting rights, leaving people in this country with less access to the polls than in 1965.

Activists dressed as $100 bills representing “The Money” have a tug of war with activists as “The People” in front of the Supreme Court. Photo credit: Greenpeace / Robert Meyers

For instance, in this election cycle alone, employees from oil and gas companies have contributed nearly a million dollars on just three candidates, Sen. Ted Cruz, Gov. Jeb Bush and Sec. Hillary Clinton, respectively.

Yeah, that can be pretty disheartening.

The good news is the American people are not putting up with any of this. People from Florida to Washington are determined to build a democracy in which everyone has equal voice and can rest assured that their vote won’t be immediately squashed by corporate money.

The best part is they’re winning.

There is still a lot to be done to fix our democracy. Feast your eyes on these six beautiful reasons that solutions are possible.

6. In Tallahassee, Florida voters overwhelmingly supported a sweeping set of ethics and campaign finance laws in 2014. The reforms included the creation of an ethics board, public campaign financing and a lower cap on individual contributions to candidates.

5. A unanimous state court in Texas ruled that a voter ID law that discriminated against African-American and Hispanic voters was unconstitutional. This law had disenfranchised more than 500,000 voters.

4. Maine voters showed their support for clean elections by passing campaign finance reforms that would strengthen public financing for legislative and gubernatorial races, increase fines for violators of campaign finance laws and require groups to disclose political ad spending.

3. Meanwhile, voters in Seattle passed by a vote of 60 to 40 percent public financing of the city’s elections. This will initiate new system in which voters can distribute up to four $25 “democracy vouchers” to candidates. Who wouldn’t want a democracy voucher?

2. Hawaii typically has the lowest voter turnout nationwide. State legislators recently passed a much-needed bill that will allow residents to register and vote on the same day starting this year. This bill should increase voter participation with easier access to the polls.

1. If you listened to President Obama’s State of the Union address last week, you may have heard his tough talk on fixing democracy—“fixing our politics” to be exact. The White House reassured us this week that his strong rhetoric was not just lip service when officials said the president is seriously considering a “dark money” executive order that would require companies with government contracts to disclose their political contributions. If passed, the law would be a major step forward in increased transparency in political spending.

Now it’s time for the 2016 candidates to follow the lead of our current president by proposing real solutions to our broken, but fixable, democracy.

Send a letter today asking all the candidates to take the #fixdemocracy pledge.

Citizens United certainly damaged our democracy, but by working together and challenging our lawmakers across the country, we can fix it.   (

Agelbert Comment: Cancel all fossil fuel subsidies and cheap leases on government lands and outlaw flaring at both land and sea based oil rigs and fracking rigs. Then they will ALL go bankrupt. Then they will have NO MONEY to corrupt politicians with. It's really quite simple. They are welfare queens. Their "business model" cannot survive without their hand out gravy train and their externalized pollution piggery.

Then the ZIP CODE in Texas that is responsible for the MOST "campaign contributions" (percentage wise) on behalf of the fossil fuel industry (for the past several DECADES) will not be able to BUY our democracy on behalf of oligarchic profit over planet FASCISM.

2013 money - but that is the routine and continues to this day:

More oil and gas-related federal political donations have originated in Fort Worth 76102 this election cycle than in any other U.S. ZIP code.

But consider that there are about 43,000 ZIP codes in the United States, meaning this tiny plot of Texas turf packs some awfully concentrated political power. And that roughly quarter-million dollars from the 76102 ZIP code is an impressive slice of the overall $15.7 million in oil and gas-related money to so far this cycle pour into the coffers of federal-level politicians and political committees.

Epicenter of Oil & Gas Industry’s Political Influence Lies Deep in the Heart of Fort Worth, Texas  ( (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 26, 2016, 11:13:54 pm
Polarcus Sets Record With Largest Man-Made Moving Object On Earth  :P

January 25, 2016 by gCaptain


Polarcus Amani doing its seismic thing. They, OF COURSE, claim it is "environmentally sound" (and painted it GREEN for good measure!  ( ( ).

Dubai-based  ;) Polarcus is in the process of acquiring an ultra-wide 3D marine seismic project offshore Myanmar, and is breaking acquisition performance records with the largest man-made moving object on earth.

The company’s vessel, Polarcus Amani, is towing an in-sea configuration that measures 1.8km wide across the front ends. With each of the 10 streamers separated by 200m, the total area covered by the spread is 17.6

This is the largest in-sea configuration ever towed by a single seismic vessel as well as the largest man-made moving object on earth, according to Polarcus.

The company is delivering up to 190 per day, a production rate that is currently unrivalled in the seismic industry.

“Such industry leading operational efficiency in Myanmar by one of our right-sized 3D seismic vessels exemplifies Polarcus’ strategy to deliver fit-for-purpose geophysical solutions to our clients. We work closely with all clients to ensure both their efficiency and data quality objectives are met and exceeded,” Polarcus COO, Duncan Eley stated.

Writing by Nadeem (c) gCaptain

Agelbert NOTE: WHAT do these "environmentally sound" seismic vessels DO?        ( You will never guess.     (

To be filed under breathtakingly ORWELLIAN claims.  (

Polarcus Limited OSE: PLCS is an offshore geophysical company operating a fleet of seismic research vessels worldwide. The company describes itself as having a strong environmental focus that aims to decrease emissions to both sea and air.[1]  Polarcus vessels have received high energy efficiency and environmental performance ratings.[2][3]  (

Polarcus provides worldwide seismic data acquisition services and Multi-Client library data as well as seismic data imaging to help energy companies find oil and gas reserves offshore.     (  (

The company was founded in 2008 in Dubai, UAE.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 27, 2016, 03:31:52 pm
Polarcus Sets Record With Largest Man-Made Moving Object On Earth  :P

January 25, 2016 by gCaptain


Polarcus Amani doing its seismic thing. They, OF COURSE, claim it is "environmentally sound" (and painted it GREEN for good measure!  ( ( ).
( (

Agelbert NOTE: WHAT do these "environmentally sound" seismic vessels DO?  (  You will never guess.    (

To be filed under breathtakingly ORWELLIAN claims.  (

Polarcus Limited OSE: PLCS is an offshore geophysical company operating a fleet of seismic research vessels worldwide. The company describes itself as having a strong environmental focus that aims to decrease emissions to both sea and air.[1]  Polarcus vessels have received high energy efficiency and environmental performance ratings.[2][3]  (

Polarcus provides worldwide seismic data acquisition services and Multi-Client library data as well as seismic data imaging to help energy companies find oil and gas reserves offshore.    ( (

The company was founded in 2008 in Dubai, UAE. (

I laughed out loud (ruefully) when I read this.

But, as you point out, it IS painted green, so it MUST be "environmentally sound."

Yep. sneaky bastards, aren't they? They really do believe that PRoPI (profitable return on propaganda invested) trumps  ERoEI (which, when environmental costs and subsidy swag is figured in, is below 1:1 - i.e. they do NOT have viable business model or a competitive product). Unlike these profit over planet welfare queens, the reality based community of scientists have other views.

Here's some news from those reality based scientists that keep trying to point out the INSANITY of the BASTARDS in the M.i.C. (and their fossil fuel industry war profiteering, price shock engineering and massively polluting subsidiary  :  (

I may be the king of beasts but Homo SAPS own the title of King of Stupidity.

Doomsday Clock Stays at Three Minutes to Midnight: At the ‘Brink’ of Man-Made Apocalypse

With “utter dismay,” the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced Tuesday that the symbolic Doomsday Clock will hold at three minutes to midnight—at the “brink” of man-made apocalypse—because world leaders have failed to take the necessary steps to protect citizens from the grave threats of   nuclear war (  runaway climate change (

View various charts at link: (

“Three minutes (to midnight) is too close. Far too close,” reads the statement by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board.

The decision not to move the hands of the Doomsday Clock “is not good news,” it continues, “but an expression of dismay that world leaders continue to fail to focus their efforts and the world’s attention on reducing the extreme danger posed by nuclear weapons and climate change. When we call these dangers existential, that is exactly what we mean: They threaten the very existence of civilization and therefore should be the first order of business for leaders who care about their constituents and their countries.”

The Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 17 Nobel Laureates, ruled last year to move the clock forward from five minutes to midnight to three in response to the competing threats of “unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals.”

The board acknowledged some bright spots over the past year, namely the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris Climate Accord, but said that “they constitute only small bright spots in a darker world situation full of potential for catastrophe.”

The statement continues:

Even as the Iran agreement was hammered out, tensions between the U.S. and Russia rose to levels reminiscent of the worst periods of the Cold War. Conflict in Ukraine and Syria continued, accompanied by dangerous bluster and brinkmanship, with Turkey, a NATO member, shooting down a Russian warplane involved in Syria, the director of a state-run Russian news agency making statements about turning the U.S. to radioactive ash and NATO and Russia repositioning military assets and conducting significant exercises with them. Washington and Moscow continue to adhere to most existing nuclear arms control agreements, but the U.S., Russia and other nuclear weapons countries are engaged in programs to modernize their nuclear arsenals, suggesting that they plan to keep and maintain the readiness of their nuclear weapons for decades, at least—despite their pledges, codified in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to pursue nuclear disarmament.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, the presenters repeatedly called attention to U.S. President Barack Obama’s plan to modernize   ( the country’s nuclear arsenal.

“What message does this send to non-nuclear nations about our intention to build smaller, more useable weapons?” asked Lawrence Krauss, chair of the Board of Sponsors and foundation professor at the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics departments at Arizona State University. “There is no sane strategic use of nuclear weapons. We need to reduce our nuclear arsenal, not make a new generation of weapons.”

Further, the panel described the COP21 agreement as merely a “tentative success.”

Sivan Kartha, a member of the Board and senior scientist and climate change expert with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), said national pledges to reduce carbon emissions are “manifestly, unequivocally inadequate.”

“The voluntary pledges made in Paris to limit greenhouse gas emissions are insufficient to the task of averting drastic climate change,” he continued. “These incremental steps must somehow evolve into the fundamental change in world energy systems needed if climate change is to ultimately be arrested.”

Since the clock was first introduced in 1947, the hands have moved 22 times. As Rachel Bronson, executive director and publisher of the Bulletin, explained, the clock represents a “summary view of leading experts deeply engaged in the existential issues of our time.”

It has become a “universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability” and is a symbol of “how close we are to destroying our civilization with dangerous technologies of our own making,” the Bulletin states. Such dangers include nuclear weapons, “climate-changing technologies, emerging biotechnologies and cybertechnology that could inflict irrevocable harm, whether by intention, miscalculation or by accident, to our way of life and to the planet.”

The clock does not move every year. In fact, prior to 2015, the countdown hadn’t changed since 2012, when it ticked ahead one minute.

A broadcast of this year’s announcement can be viewed  here. (

Doomsday clock history video at the end of the above story. ( (

The M.I.C. and their FASCIST Fossil Fuel industry pals weigh in on the above news. SEE BELOW:
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 27, 2016, 10:19:30 pm
ExxonMobil: Global energy demand to grow by 25 percent by 2040  (

Staff Writers  January 27, 2016

Global energy demand is expected to grow by about 25 percent by 2040 ( , according to a recently published report from ExxonMobil.

The report projects that energy demand in the coming decades will be driven by China, India and other non-OECD countries while demand and emissions in the United States, Europe and other OECD nations are expected to decline, even as economic output grows.

“This is a significant increase, but would have been far higher (exceeding 110 percent) if we did not foresee steep improvements in energy efficiency across all demand sectors,” the report said.

Exxon expects China and India to account for almost half of projected global demand growth to 2040 while Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Thailand and Indonesia will account for about 30 percent of projected demand growth.

The report forecasts that global liquids output will rise to 112 million barrels a day in 2040, up from 93 million barrels per day in 2014, enough output to meet projected demand growth.

Natural gas liquid production is expected to expand “significantly” through 2040, with deepwater natural gas liquid production forecast to grow by about 70 percent from 2014 to 2040.

Oil is expected to remain the top energy source in the world to 2040, but the report said that there will be a “marked shift toward cleaner fuels, particularly natural gas.”

Unconventional oil and gas are projected to meet about one-fifth of the world’s energy needs by 2040.

“We expect that oil, natural gas and coal – the three fuels that together built the modern economy – will continue to meet almost 80 percent of the world’s energy needs through 2040,” the report said.

Global demand for oil and other liquids is projected to grow by about 20 percent from 2014 to 2040 while demand for natural gas is poised to rise by 50 percent during the same period.

“We expect 40 percent of the projected growth in global energy demand from 2014 to 2040 will be met by natural gas,” the report said.

Nuclear and renewable energy sources are likely to account for nearly 40 percent of global energy demand growth 2014 to 2040.

The majority of oil and gas exports through 2040 will likely go to the Asia Pacific region, where demand will outstrip local production growth.

North America is now on track become a net exporter around 2020 and the United States is expected to become a net liquids exporter around 2025, the report said.

Flat production growth and growing demand in the Asia Pacific region will boost that region’s net imports by more than 50 percent between 2014 and 2040.

“Europe is likely to remain the second-largest oil importing region, with imports meeting 75 percent of demand by 2040,” the report said.

Oil exports from the Middle East should continue to grow as production outpaces demand in the region, allowing the Middle East to remain the largest exporting region in the world.


Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 09, 2016, 02:48:16 pm

Fueling a Clean Transportation Future (2016)  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 12, 2016, 07:41:00 pm
Patrick Parenteau:  Supreme Court plays politics with the Clean Power Plan 

Feb. 11, 2016

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Patrick Parenteau, who is a professor of law and senior counsel at the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic at Vermont Law School.


In a move that stunned even the most seasoned court watchers, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court has blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan which seeks to reduce carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants. The unsigned order, without any explanation, puts a hold on the rule pending the outcome of proceedings currently underway in the D.C. Circuit, which had earlier denied a stay. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor voted against the stay.

This action is unprecedented in a number of ways.

The majority made none of the findings typically required to obtain a stay.

There is no analysis of the merits of any of petitioner’s claims.

There is no showing that the rule threatens any immediate harm to petitioners, especially given the long lead times EPA has built into the process.

There is no showing that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the petitioners, especially given the fact that most states are well into the process of developing implementation plans and those that do not want to submit a plan don’t have to.

There is no showing that the stay is in the public interest, especially given the warnings from the scientific community that time is fast running out to avoid catastrophic consequences of climate disruption.

Never before has the court interjected itself in a case with such high stakes that hasn’t even been fully briefed and argued before the lower court.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 17, 2016, 08:23:19 pm
Second Review of EPA’s Fracking Study Urges Revisions to Major Statements in Executive Summary
Wenonah Hauter | February 16, 2016 3:46 pm

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) independent Scientific Advisory Board Members of the Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel released today a second review of the U.S. EPA’s draft assessment saying that that they still have “concerns” regarding the clarity and adequacy of support for several findings presented in the EPA’s draft Assessment Report of the impacts of fracking on drinking water supplies in the U.S.

Ray Kemble of Dimock, Pennsylvania, holds a jug of discolored water from his well, contaminated by nearby fracking operations while standing outside of the U.S. EPA building in Washington, DC. Photo credit: Food & Water Watch

Ray Kemble of Dimock, Pennsylvania, holds a jug of discolored water from his well, contaminated by nearby fracking operations while standing outside of the U.S. EPA building in Washington, DC. Photo credit: Food & Water Watch

This second draft report is still very critical of the EPA’s top line claim of no “widespread, systemic impacts” on drinking water from fracking and urges the agency to revise the major statements of findings in the executive summary and elsewhere in the draft Assessment report to be more precise, and to clearly link these statements to evidence.

In its own words, the EPA SAB “is concerned that these major findings as presented within the executive summary are ambiguous and appear inconsistent with the observations, data, and levels of uncertainty presented and discussed in the body of the draft Assessment Report.”

We are confident that this tension between President Obama’s EPA and the EPA’s own independent advisory board of scientists is a direct consequence of political considerations trumping scientific evidence on fracking, which demonstrates many instances and avenues of water contamination and many areas of problems and harms.

It is encouraging to see the EPA’s Science Advisory Board once again highlighting concern with what was clearly a mis-titled and misleading draft report ( from the Obama Administration on fracking and drinking water. Now it’s time for action. It’s time for the administration to go back, clearly articulate the hazards its own studies have identified, and honestly address the inherent dangers of fracking we know to exist.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 18, 2016, 08:05:54 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Below please find a typical slap on the wrist for polluters in the USA. They literally DO get away with murder.   (

Two firms fined for 2014 Colorado vapor exposure death

Staff Writers  February 18, 2016   

Two oil field services firms   ( have been fined a combined $14,800 for violations tied to the 2014 death of an oil field worker.

According to the Denver Post, Colorado-based DJ Basin Transport will pay a $5,000 fine and Texas-based Gibson Energy LLC will pay a $14,800 fine after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited both firms for failing to provide a safe working environment.

The citations were related to an incident of fatal exposure to toxic vapors that killed 57 year old John McNulty in 2014.

According to a forensic pathology report seen by the Denver Post, McNulty was working on catwalk between tanks at an oil site in Weld County, Colorado when he become unresponsive for “unknown reason.”

Federal health officials determined that McNulty likely died after he inhaled toxic vapors as he was measuring storage tanks.

OSHA cited both firms for failing to develop and use gauging and sampling procedures that did not expose employees to an oxygen deficient atmosphere or to hydrocarbon gases and vapors, the Denver Post added.

Neither firm has commented on the matter.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 21, 2016, 03:34:30 pm
The Profit Over Planet PIGGERY continues. ( Instead of investing in platforms for wind turbines, they keep making platforms for oil and gas extraction. They just don't get it. (   :(

The new Marathon Oil Alba platform has been installed after being transported form Heerema’s Dutch fabrication yard to Equatorial Guinea.

Marathon Oil President and CEO, Lee Tillman   ( said: “we reached a major milestone in Equatorial Guinea with the successful installation of the jacket and topsides for the Alba field compression project,”

The new platform is part of the Houston based oil company’s ongoing expansion   (  ( the international sectors.

The climate is going to hell in a CO2 climate change hand basket.

But all the biosphere math challenged Oil Bastards from TEXAS  ( can say is:



Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 28, 2016, 07:35:17 pm
Text of Gov. Peter Shumlin’s speech to the Vermont Pension Investment Committee
Feb. 24, 2016, 10:11 am by VTD Editor

Editor’s note: This is the full text of Gov. Peter Shumlin’s presentation to the Vermont Pension Investment Committee on Feb. 23. Numbered footnotes appear at the bottom.

Good morning and thank you for inviting me to talk with VPIC about the urgent need for Vermont to divest from coal and ExxonMobil stocks.

I have called for Vermont to divest from ExxonMobil stocks. As Pulitzer-prize winning journalists have uncovered, ExxonMobil spent millions trying to persuade
 the American people not to support policies to fight climate change at the same
 time that their own internal research clearly indicated climate change was real.1

In the late 1990’s, as they designed their own offshore oil rigs to account for sea
 level rise, Mobil oil paid for advertisements telling the American people that
 climate science was uncertain and that the U.S. should not join other nations in a
 global climate agreement.2 Neva Rockefeller Goodwin, the great grand-daughter
 of ExxonMobil’s founder, donated her shares this year so that the proceeds could
 be used to support nonprofit work to fight global warming.3 After 15 years of
 failed shareholder engagement and meetings between the Rockefeller family and
 ExxonMobil to encourage diversification, she declared that “I lost faith in
 ExxonMobil’s future value.”4

Let’s be clear – If the Rockefellers cannot convince ExxonMobil to change,
 Vermont will not succeed in effecting change through shareholder engagement.

Rockefeller Goodwin wonders “[h]ow different things might be if Exxon and
 others had begun to pivot away from fossil fuels 34 years ago.” Instead, as “the
 enormity of the effects of its lies becomes more evident, ExxonMobil is positioned
 to supplant Big Tobacco as global Public Enemy No. 1.”5

She goes on to say what should be evident to all of us by now, “[t]his is not good for a company’s bottom line.”6

In testimony before the House and Senate Government Operations Committees
 last week, Vermont Law School Professor and former Public Service Board Chair
 Michael Dworkin discussed how ExxonMobil has significantly underperformed the
 S&P 500 over the last five years.7

Earlier this month several investment advisors indicated they were downgrading ExxonMobil to a sell or an underperform rating.8 Raymond James senior energy analyst Pavel Molchanov said even as the oil sector hopes for a recovery of value, “Exxon is probably the last oil stock you want.”9

For these reasons, we must divest from ExxonMobil and ensure we never
 buy another penny again

Divest from Coal

As you know, I have also called for Vermont to follow California’s lead and divest
 from corporations that derive 50 percent or more of their revenue from coal
 mining used to generate electricity, and put in a screen to ensure we never buy
 such assets again.10 Based on conversations my staff have had with the
 Treasurer’s Office, it is my understanding that out of the roughly $4 billion
 Vermont manages in pension funds, we have approximately $600 worth of stocks
 that fit this definition.

In the VPIC invitation letter to me you suggest that when it comes to divesting,
“[m]uch of the public discourse has been more about persuasion than a real
 assessment of the costs and benefits.” So for today, let’s put aside the fact that as
 a matter of moral responsibility, Vermont should not be invested in coal when our
 state is the tailpipe to the dirty energy choices made by states to our West. Let’s
 put aside the fact that coal is responsible for acid rain which has harmed our
 forests, and mercury pollution that puts poison into our fish such that pregnant
 women and children have to limit their consumption. Let’s put aside the fact that
 coal burning is a leading contributor to global warming that threatens the future
 of our planet. Let’s put aside the fact that Vermont is a leader in combatting
 climate change and together with California we can lead the country in making
 the right choices for our planet. Clearly those arguments have not persuaded this
 committee to-date to take action.

So today let’s discuss the facts about why I believe in addition to being bad moral,
 environmental, and health policy, it is straight forward bad economic policy for
 the State of Vermont to be invested in coal stocks:
 o Financial Institutions Agree, Coal is a Bad Investment – Recognizing that for
 the planet to have any chance to slow and reverse the trends of global
 warming, many large financial institutions are exiting the coal industry. In November of 2015, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley joined Citigroup, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs in pledging to “stop or scale back support for coal projects,” according to Bloomberg Business.11 In a statement Morgan Stanley said “[w]e will continue to shift our lending and capital-raising efforts toward cleaner and renewable sources of energy and reduce the proportion of our energy financing to coal mining and coal-fired power generation.”12

Wells Fargo stated that it “will continue to limit and reduce our credit exposure to the coal mining industry.”13 A new report from Citigroup delivers the news that if we are serious about meeting the agreed to climate target of 2 degrees Celsius then fossil fuel companies have stranded assets that have to stay in the ground totaling approximately $100 trillion, with coal companies accounting for more than half of that potential loss in value.14 Not the type of industry I would want my money invested in, or Vermont’s money invested in.

o Coal Use and Mining is on the Decline – In the mid-2000’s coal represented 50 percent of our nation’s power supply, today it accounts for only 35 percent according to the Energy Information Administration.15 That trend is likely to continue, because no new coal plants are being built. According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, for the entirety of 2015, a total of one new coal plant came online, producing a mere 3 megawatts of capacity. Compare that to 50 new natural gas plants totaling nearly 6,000 megawatts, or 69 wind farms totaling nearly 8,000 megawatts, or 248 solar plants totaling over 2,100 megawatts.16 The market has spoken and it’s divesting itself of coal.

As we use less coal for electric generation, coal mining both in the U.S. and
 globally is stalling. Reports from China indicate that based on lower demand,
 it plans to close over 4,000 coal mines. 17 In another blow to the industry, President Obama recently took strong action to halt new coal mining leases on public lands.18 According to the New York Times, “[t]he move represents a significant setback for the coal industry, effectively freezing new coal production on federal lands and sending a signal to energy markets that could turn investors away from an already reeling industry.”19 Perhaps it is not surprising then that CNN reports that the Dow Jones U.S. Coal Index, which captures the value of large coal corporations, “has lost a stunning 95 percent of its value since July 2011.”20

o Coal Companies are Failing – As a result of the decline in coal mining, coal
 electric generation, and coal financing outlined above, coal mining companies are failing. The second-largest coal company, Arch Coal, filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, and “Arch cited weakening demand for coal in filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.”21 That follows bankruptcy filings by other major coal companies such as Walter Energy, Alpha Natural Resources, and Patriot Coal.22

Let me spend just a minute talking about Alpha Natural Resources. Alpha purchased Massey Energy before going bankrupt, and Massey, if you recall, was headed by Don Blankenship, a CEO who was found guilty this past December of willfully conspiring to violate safety standards.23 Massey is the company found to have covered up safety violations related to the Upper Big Branch mine disaster that killed 29 coal miners in 2010.24 If you think this is an isolated incident, think again. An investigation by NPR in 2014 found 2,700 mine owners who collectively owe $70 million in outstanding fines for safety violations they have not paid, and who committed a total of 130,000
 violations and had nearly 4,000 worker injuries since their initial fines went unpaid.25 I want all of our friends in the Vermont labor community to remember that if we say no to divesting from coal, we are saying yes to the idea of investing your hard-earned dollars in mining companies that have not shown a high regard for the lives and welfare of their workers.

California saw the light. Their legislature passed a bill to divest from coal, Governor Jerry Brown signed it, and it had support from diverse stakeholders including the SEIU public employees union and the Insurance Commissioner.26 The Board of the California State Teachers Retirement System voted affirmatively to divest its holding from U.S. coal companies, and Investment Committee Chair Sharon Hendricks said of the decision “[w]e determined that given the financial state of the industry, the movement of the regulatory landscape and coal’s impact on the environment, its presence
 reflects a loss of value.”27

Vermont Has a Proud History of Using Divestment as a Positive Tool for Change

I know I don’t need to tell this committee that in each of the preceding three decades, Vermont has stepped up to use divestment, thoughtfully and cautiously, when other recourse for extraordinary societal challenges had been exhausted. We used divestment to get out of companies that did business with South Africa under Apartheid in the 1980’s, thanks to leadership from then-Senator Peter Welch and Governor Madeleine Kunin. Former Representative Don Hooper said that the year Nelson Mandela was released from jail he visited South Africa and asked business leaders there why Apartheid failed. The answer he got back was “Apartheid failed because all your little divestments in Madison, WI, Cambridge, MA, the state of Vermont…made South Africa an international pariah,” helping reduce capital and investment needed for economic growth.28

We used divestment, under the leadership of then-Treasurer Jim Douglas with
 support from the legislature, to get out of Big Tobacco in the 1990’s. We owned
 more than $21 million in tobacco stocks back in the late 1990’s, but somehow
 back then it was deemed prudent and within the fiduciary responsibility to get rid
 of all of them. Then-Treasurer Douglas confirmed with the Attorney General that
 divestiture does not violate the trustees’ fiduciary responsibility.29 According to
 Pensions and Investments which wrote about the divestment at the time, “[t]he
 Vermont funds have some of their tobacco investments in an index fund with
 Alliance Capital Management, but Alliance indicated it can create a tobacco-free
 index without a problem, Mr. Douglas said.”30 Today we hear the argument that
 we cannot possibly divest of $600 of coal stocks and get our fund managers to
 screen out coal, but back in the 1990’s Jim Douglas managed to divest of many
 millions in tobacco stocks and get fund managers to create a tobacco-free index
 screen without a problem.

We used divestment under the leadership of then-Treasurer Jeb Spaulding to get
 out of businesses operating in Sudan in 2007, after the tragic events in Darfur.
 Then-Treasurer Spaulding said: The Committee believed it would be prudent, from a fiduciary position, to refrain from owning securities in companies listed on the Sudan Divestment Task Force Highest Offenders list, because the value of our portfolio could suffer if we continue holding these securities while other investors take affirmative action to sell securities on the list. Personally, I hope that by joining with other institutional and individual investors, we can do our part to apply economic pressure on the Sudanese government and companies they do business with to get serious about ending the horrific atrocities still taking place in Darfur.31

I want to ask each of you here today, and I do not mean this to be rhetorical, please raise your hand if you believe Vermont should still own Big Tobacco

Please raise your hand if you think Vermont should not have divested from South Africa at a time when Nelson Mandela was languishing in prison?

Please raise your hand if you think Vermont should not have divested from Sudan while people were killed and starved to death?

Now please raise your hand, if you still think we should invest our money in the coal industry?

Divestment in Vermont has been a seldom-used, but necessary tool to confront major challenges and put us on the right side of history. I take issue with those who say it is a slippery slope. In our form of government, elected officials live on that slope – it’s called democracy. I take issue as well with those who view divestment as symbolic, or a meaningless gesture. If Vermont were going it alone, maybe it would be symbolic. But by divesting from coal and ExxonMobil we would be joining our $4 billion in assets with $3.4 trillion worldwide that has already committed to some type of fossil fuel divestment.32 That is not a meaningless amount of investment. That represents not just our friends in California, but also Europe’s largest insurance company, many religious and educational institutions, and many large municipal pension funds and national sovereign wealth funds around the world.

I know the argument to-date seems to be around the process for making this decision. However, it does not matter if the legislature passes a bill, or if VPIC decides to make the right decision. The process is not ultimately what this is about. It is about Vermont using our power as an investor to put pressure on coal companies economically, and to protect our pensioners from holding securities that have a bleak future. As the coal industry continues to suffer economically and harm our environment and our health, and as ExxonMobil continues to oppose changing its business model even at the urging of our own Treasurer, this committee can continue to delay and to study. Or this committee can take action. I believe the time has come to act on our values, and divest.  (

1 Amy Lieberman and Susan Rust, LA Times “Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations,” Dec. 31,
 2015, available at:
 3 Neva Rockefeller Goodwin, LA Times (published in Valley News), “Giving Up On ExxonMobil,” February 16, 2016,
 available at:
 11 Alex Nussbaum, Bloomberg Business, “Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley Join Banks Edging Away from Coal,”
November 30, 2015, available at:
 7 Michael Dworkin, Testimony before Vermont House and Senate Government Operations Committee, February
 19, 2016.
 8 Tom DeChristopher and Christine Wang, CNBC, “ExxonMobil Posts Earnings of 67 cents a share vs 63 cents
 estimate,” February 2, 2016, available at:
 10 Chris Megerian, LA Times, “California Pension Funds to Drop Coal-Mining Companies,” October 8, 2015, available
 12 Id.
 13 Id.
 14 Giles Parkinson, Renew Economy, “Citigroup Sees $100 Trillion of Stranded Assets if Paris Succeeds,” August 25,
 2015, available at:
 15 Rory Carroll, Reuters, “California Insurance Commissioner Calls for Coal Divestment,” Jan 25, 2016, available at:
 16 FERC Office of Energy Projects, Energy Infrastructure Update, December 2015, available at:
17 Daniel Cohan, The Hill “Plummeting Coal Use and Peaking Stockpiles,” February 17, 2016, available at:
 18 Coral Davenport, NY Times, “In Climate move, Obama Halts New Coal Mining Leases on Public Lands,” Jan 14,
 2016, available at:
 19 Id.
 20 Matt Egan, CNN Money “Wall Street Cuts Lending to Coal,” December 1, 2015, available at:
 21 Timothy Cama, The Hill, “Major coal mining company files for bankruptcy,” January 11, 2016, available at:
 22 Id.
 23 Bourree Lam, The Atlantic, “A Guilty Verdict in Don Blankenship’s Trial,” December 3, 2015, available at:; Clifford Krauss, NY
 Times, “Alpha Natural Resources, a Onetime Coal Giant, Files for Bankruptcy Protection,” August 3, 2015, available
 24 Id.
 25 Howard Berkes, NRP, “Fines Don’t Appear to Deter Mine Safety Violations,” November 16, 2014, available at:

 26 Rory Carroll, Reuters, “California Insurance Commissioner Calls for Coal Divestment,” January 25, 2016, available

 at:; Press Release,
“”Unions Add Voice In Support of California Thermal Coal Divestment,” June 12, 2015;
 27 Press Release, California State Teachers Retirement System, February 3, 2016, available at:

 28 Don Hooper, Written Testimony, Vermont Senate Government Operations Committee, February 11, 2016.
 29 Vineeta Anand, Pensions and Investments, “Funds Feeling Heat From Tobacco Investments,” April 28, 1997,
 available at:
 30 Id.
 31 Treasurer Jeb Spaulding, news release, February 20, 2007, available at:

32 Alex Nussbaum, Bloomberg, “Fossil Fuel Divestment Tops $3.4 Trillion Mark, Activists Say,” December 2, 2015,
 available at:
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 03, 2016, 01:03:03 am
The Party is OVER

Agelbert NOTE: Whereas I agree with Richard that the fossil fuel based energy "party" is definitely over, I believe his proposed method for transitioning to clean energy lacks teeth. He totally ignores the political power of entrenched dirty energy interests. They will NOT be convinced nicely on a "make profits from clean energy" argument, no matter how proven and admittedly valid it is, BECAUSE clean energy is mostly distributed energy which is difficult to game through price shocks and fabricated scarcity though convenient wars and war scares.   (

THAT is "real world" that the propagandists for the fossil fuel industry ALWAYS remind us of when we show, point by point, that renewable energy is actually cheaper than dirty energy above and beyond environmental considerations.

What the fossil fuelers WILL NOT SAY until you carefully destroy their "we are your loyal energy supplying servants doing it all for your own human civilization good and you owe us for it"    ( is that the fossil fuel industry's POWER in the market place is POLITICAL POWER, not competitive energy source power from "supply and demand".

This edifice of degraded democracy requires centralized political corruption, as well as gamed energy pricing (i. e. control of the energy spigot). Without this control, their "business model" collapses in a tsunami of bankruptcies and the abandonment of all their "help" by their friends in government who they can no longer buy. The "real world" also involves BOPPING, not just buying. But the fossil fuel industry relies on purchased friends in government to do that when gamed laws and regulations don't suffice.

That "real world" was always a clever, but ruthless, scam to market an uncompetitive dirty energy resource.

That is why I do not believe the transition to clean energy will be as painful as Richard Heinberg believes. However, he is right that fossil fuels, even with their "subsidy" swag, are no longer affordable simply because, besides the added expense of obtaining them, we can no longer "afford" (as if we ever could) to ignore the damage that burning them visits on our biosphere in general and Homo SAPS in particular. The "business model" of the fossil fuel industry, by definition, REQUIRES the rejection of any responsibility for the deleterious effect their product has on the perpetuation of the human species.

IOW, the "real world" of the fossil fuelers is a type of cherry picking insanity. They really do believe that they can industrially **** where everybody but them eats in a finite biosphere where EVERY pollutant reduces the viability of the biosphere that their "real world" REQUIRES in order for them to survive.

Basically, the fossil fuel industry is composed of thugs. Those thugs can continue to be murderous thugs as long as they can funnel a lot of money into their pockets and into the pockets of the governments they corrupt.

All we have to do is NOT "return to the caves", as the propagandist assholes will claim, but reduce our footprint to the bare necessities and continue to use more clean energy and less dirty energy. Then the money for the thugs will dry up as it is starting to do now. To clarify how that works, please understand that the fossil fuel industry relies on volume sales. Profits from volume sales operate on the margins. All you need is a 5% to 10% annual INCREASE (i.e. decrease in demand for fossil fuels) in demand destruction from renewable energy for a decade or so to destroy the fossil fuel empire.

Then the crooks they can no longer buy in government will "get the renewable energy religion".  ;)    ( That is why the fossil fuelers like the Koch Brothers are always trying to pre-empt the growth of (E.g. Electric vehicles and wind turbines) products that run on and/or generate Renewable Energy. The fossil fuel industry is far more fragile than the MKing's of this world will have you believe. They are fighting to keep their swag and protection racket going. It worked for the last 50 years.   (

But the annual DROP in volume sales is killing the fossil fuel industry    ( THAT is the REAL real world of clean energy thermodynamic efficiency overcoming the corrupt fabrication the fossil fuel industry has saddled us with for about a century. Let's hope it's not too late. (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 07, 2016, 08:23:10 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Is it the petroleum fumes in the air in Heinous Houston that makes the fossil fuelers there such greedy crooks? Only their hairdresser  (or mistress) knows.   ( 

At any rate, now that the profit over planet  'pickins' are getting rather slim, the fossil fuelers have begun to fight among themselves in their time honored Predators 'R' US fashion.  (      (

(   (

Court news: Ecuador workers sue Occident Petroleum in Houston for slice of settlement (read the complaint here)

Staff Writers February 29, 2016

A group of Ecuadorean workers is suing Occidental Petroleum for a slice of the nearly $1 billion asset seizure settlement the company won from Ecuador’s government earlier this year.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Occidental Petroleum and Occidental Exploration and Production in Houston last week, seeking class certification and damages of $265.4 million to be paid to over 300 workers.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas on Feburary 22 and has been assigned to Judge Lynn N. Hughes, according to court documents seen by PGN.

The lead plaintiff is represented by Michael David Sydow of the Houston-based Sydow Firm.


The plaintiffs claim that Occidental failed to redistribute 15 percent of its annual profits to its employees as mandated by Ecuadorian law.

The damages amount is tied to a $980 million settlement Occidental won in January after the Ecuadorean government seized an Occidental field in 2006 ( Courthouse News Service, (

According to Occidental’s website, the company no longer operates in Ecuador.  (

Ecuador seized Block 15 from Occidental in 2006 claiming that the company sold the asset to China’s Andes Petroleum without government approval.

The World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes had initially awarded Occidental a $1.77 billion award in 2012 but cut the award by 40 percent in November 2015, Reuters said.

The World Bank said the award was cut to reflect Occidental’s sale of Block 15 to Andes Petroleum. 

Ecuadorean Attorney General Diego Garcia told Reuters in January that Ecuador will pay the $980 million settlement by April of this year, although it remains opposed to the committee’s decision.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 07, 2016, 08:55:41 pm
Two former Houston supply firm execs plead guilty to international kick back scheme

Staff Writers March 2, 2016

Two former executives at a Houston-based supply firm pleaded guilty Friday to fraud charges for their role in a kick back scheme tied to oil projects in Latin America.

The U.S. Department of Justice said Franklin Marsan, 51, and Eduardo Betancourt, 48, both of Spring, Texas, each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

According to the plea agreements, Marsan and Betancourt worked for a Texas-based supply company that paid third-party sales agents to promote and sell its products to customers outside the United States.

Marsan   ( and Betancourt   ( ran the company’s Latin American operations from offices located in Houston.

As part of their guilty pleas, Marsan and Betancourt admitted that, from at least 2008 until at least March 2011, they received kickbacks from commissions the third-party sales agents earned for sales in several Latin American countries.

Marsan and Betancourt admitted that they received kickbacks totaling at least $150,000, mostly in cash, and that they “actively concealed” the payments from the company.

(  (

Agelbert NOTE: Yes, of course I'm certain that these fellows were not aware of the fun and games said supply firm used in their dial-a-price marketing to certain places in Latin America... They were just "bad apples"... And, they certainly aren't "taking the fall" in order to prevent public disclosure of the SOP price massaging and kickback practices of U.S. based corporations when dealing with Latin America. My daddy worked for one after he retired from the U.S Army. He traveled all over south America selling the SAME industrial products for a fascinating array of DIFFERENT prices. That was in 1965. I imagine that's all been corrected by now, of course...   (

Both men will be sentenced on July 1, 2016, by U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon of the Southern District of Texas, who accepted also accepted their plea agreements last Friday.

As part of their plea agreements, Marsan and Betancourt agreed to pay restitution to their former employer.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 09, 2016, 08:26:58 pm
Shell faces new Nigeria spill lawsuits in UK

Staff Writers March 3, 2016

A U.K court ruled on Wednesday that two groups of Nigerian villagers can pursue lawsuits against Royal Dutch Shell for alleged damages caused by oil spills in the Niger Delta region.

According to the BBC, the Technology and Construction Court found that the claimants can pursue cases against Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC) and its parent company in the UK.

Shell has not commented on the ruling.

The two separate actions are being brought by the Bille and Ogale communities who are being represented by UK-based Leigh Day.

In a statement, Leigh Day said the clean up costs for both communities could “run into several hundred million pounds.”

“The claims from the thousands of individuals affected by this pollution, could run into tens of millions of pounds given the impact on these communities,” Leigh Day added.

Leigh Day confirmed on Wednesday that formal legal proceedings will now move forward against Royal Dutch Shell and the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria in the High Court in London.

Shell told CNBC that it believes that the cases should be heard in Nigeria.  (

The Ogale community claims that Shell has not followed the recommendations of a 2011 report from the United Nations Environmental Program that found emergency measures should be undertaken to provide residents with clean water.  (

The report found at least 10 Ogoni communities where drinking water “contaminated with high levels of hydrocarbons,” with residents in the Nisisioken Ogale community drinking water from wells contaminated with benzene at levels “over 900 times above World Health Organization guidelines.”

The Bille community alleges that oil spilling out of the Nembe Creek 30” Trunkline since the replacement of the pipeline’s Bille section in 2010 has damaged 13,200 hectares of mangroves.

Shell refuted the allegations, telling CNBC that the company’s Nigerian subsidiary had “initiated action” to address the recommendations made in the United Nations report.  (

“In mid-2015 SPDC JV, along with the government, UNEP and representatives of the Ogoni community, agreed to an 18-month roadmap to fast-track the environmental clean-up and remediation of Ogoniland which includes a governance framework,” Shell added.

No further hearing dates have been set for the two cases yet.

Shell has long contended with pipeline spills in the Niger Delta region that it has said were caused by sabotage or thieves breaking into the pipelines to steal oil.  (

Managing Director of Shell Nigeria Mutiu Sunmonu said in August 2011 that the company has “always accepted responsibility for paying compensation when [spills] occur as a result of operational failure.”  (

“Even when, as is true in the great majority of cases, spills are caused by illegal activity such as sabotage or theft, we are also committed to cleaning up spilt  oil and restoring the surrounding land,” Sunmonu added. 


Leigh Day also represented the Bodo community of Nigeria who reached an $83 million settlement with Shell in January 2015 for two 2008 pipeline spills.  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 09, 2016, 09:09:13 pm

Aubrey McClendon’s Legacy Serves as Another Warning That the Age of Oil Barons Must End
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 15, 2016, 08:37:57 pm
One dead after Green Canyon platform accident in Gulf of Mexico

Nicolas Torres March 14, 2016

Platform A at Green Canyon Block 18. Image courtesy of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is investigating a platform accident in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico that left one worker dead.

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) said an offshore worker was fatally injured on Friday while working on Platform A at the Green Canyon Block 18 in the Gulf of Mexico, 150 miles south of New Orleans.
Further details about the accident have not been disclosed yet.

There was no pollution
  ( ( or additional injuries reported.
The platform’s operator, Whistler Energy II, has suspended all drilling operations at the platform and operations will remain suspended until the BSEE grants approval to restart drilling.

However, because the rig has a separate production deck, production will be allowed to continue.   (

The BSEE said its investigators are actively engaging with the operator and will investigate the incident.

As weather permits, BSEE inspectors and investigators will visit the location.

According to Whistler Energy, the GC 18 platform was originally set in 1987 and is rated at 30,000 barrels of oil per day.

The platform is a 30-slot, 25,000-ton structure located in 760 ft of water, 79 miles south of Port of Fourchon.

Agelbert NOTE: No pollution may have been connected to the accident, but the FLARING REQUIRED to get up to 30,000 barrels of oil per day 24/7 spews MASSIVE toxic gases pollution.


Ask a fossil fueler to explain to you what the WATER CURTAIN is and WHY they invented it. HINT: If they didn't have it, their would be a lot more sick and cancer stricken "salt of the earth" workers on those platforms than there are now from TOXIC, CARCINOGENIC flared gases (you know, those gases the fossil fuelers claim can be flared without endangering your health or that of the biosphere...).


"The Water Curtain® is the original Rig Cooling system designed to provide a protective "curtain," or barrier of water between high risk flaring systems and valuable personnel, equipment and facilities."   (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 17, 2016, 08:50:33 pm
The documentary he Koch Brothers Don't want you to see

The Kochs control one to two million acres of tar sands in Alberta, Canada, worth tens of billions of dollars. But climate scientists say up to 240 billion tons of carbon would be released into the atmosphere if the oil sands are developed.

Meanwhile, the Kochs’ are waging well-financed campaigns to deny climate change and using their wealth to get conservatives elected to office to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and further their corporate interests.


"The Koch Brothers fortune was made refining Canadian Oil."(
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 22, 2016, 10:44:06 pm
The Oilman Who Loved Dictators, or How Texaco Supported Fascism

Posted on Mar 21, 2016


No corporations have been more aggressive in forging their own foreign policies than the big oil companies. With operations spanning the world, they—and not the governments who weakly try to tax or regulate them—largely decide whom they do business with and how. In its quest for oil in the anarchic Niger Delta, according to journalist Steve Coll, ExxonMobil, for example, gave boats to the Nigerian navy, and recruited and supplied part of the country’s army, while local police sported the company’s red flying horse logo on their uniforms.


Jane Mayer’s new book, Dark Money, on how the brothers and oil magnates Charles and David Koch spent hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the Republican Party and America’s democratic politics, offers a vivid account of the way their father Fred launched the energy business they would inherit.  It was a classic case of not letting “attachments” stand in the way of gain.  Fred happily set up oil installations for Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin before the United States recognized the Soviet Union in 1933, and then helped Adolf Hitler build one of Nazi Germany’s largest oil refineries that would later supply fuel to its air force, the Luftwaffe.


His unsavory tale is now part of the historical record, thanks to Mayer.  That of another American oil tycoon of the 1930s, who quietly lent a helping hand to a different grim dictator, has, however, gone almost unnoticed.  In our world where the big oil outfits have become powerful forces and his company, Texaco, became part of the oil giant Chevron, it’s an instructive tale.  He helped determine the course of a war that would shape our world for decades to come.

Flying the Skull and Crossbones Atop an Empire of Oil
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 23, 2016, 03:48:51 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Another example of "responsible behavior" by a proud, prudent, hard working corporation of the fossil Fuel Industry (i. e. the old Chapter 11 TRICK)...


Venoco files for bankruptcy a year after California spill

Nicolas Torres  March 23, 2016   

Colorado-based private upstream Venoco has become the latest firm to file for bankruptcy protection, citing continued financial strain stemming from a 2015 pipeline spill in California.

The company said Friday that it has reached an agreement with its senior lenders to reduce its debt load  ( and restructure its balance sheet.

Venoco cited low oil prices and the shutdown of Line 901 following a May 2015 oil spill in Santa Barbara as “serious problems” for the firm. (

According to a court filing seen by Bloomberg, the shutdown also halted production at the company’s South Elwood Field located about two miles off the coast of Santa Barbara.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said last month that preliminary findings indicate the spill was most likely caused by external pipeline corrosion.

The 48,000 barrel per day Line 901, operated by Plains All American, has been shutdown since the spill along with the nearby Line 903.

Venoco did not disclose the financial impact of the pipeline shutdowns.   (

“It is unfortunate that a third party pipeline spill has impacted Venoco, but this process  ( will make it stronger and ensure its continued contributions to the Santa Barbara County community,” Venoco founder Tim Marquez.

Under the terms of the agreement, the company’s senior lenders have agreed to support a restructuring transaction that will eliminate about $1 billion of debt from Venoco’s balance sheet.

To facilitate the restructuring, Venoco filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on March 18.

The company expects to maintain all operations during the restructuring process.    (

“While we continue to be in a strong cash position, the declining price of oil and the ongoing closure of Plains All American pipeline 901 continue to be serious problems. With this agreement, Venoco will be in a much stronger position to withstand these challenges and others that may follow,” Venoco CEO Mark DePuy  ( said.

The company said it has sufficient liquidity to continue its normal oil and gas activities and meet its ongoing financial and regulatory obligations.

Venoco expects existing liquidity and generated cash from ongoing operations will be used to support the company during the restructuring process once it receives approval from the Bankruptcy Court.

Marquez will remain executive chairman during the restructuring process and has been retained to “provide leadership and strategic counsel” to the firm after the restructuring is complete.

Would you like to learn a thing or two about how the oil industry operates in California?  ( Would you like to know why those anti-monopoly laws passed in 1911 (and ignored by Reagan in order to look the other way while 2,000 plus oil industry mergers took place in the 1980s) were called "anti-trust" and not called "anti-corporate monopoly" laws?

Please watch this video:

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 23, 2016, 04:14:59 pm
Agelbert NOTE: As you know if you haven't been living under a rock for the past year, SHELL lost a lot of money DUE DIRECTLY to decisions by MANAGEMENT, not just due to the cratering crude oil prices. The appropriate response to MISMANAGEMENT (see fiduciary obligations often brought up by fossil fuelers as a "justification/obligation" for their profit over planet MO) for stockholders with controlling interest in the board of directors is to reduce compensation or demote or fire give the CEO a raise, obviously.

  Shell CEO wins bigger 2015 pay package  (

Staff Writers  March 21, 2016   

Shell CEO Ben van Beurden saw his annual bonus climb about 6 percent in 2015 despite weak oil prices.

According to the Evening Standard, van Beurden’s bonus ticked up 6 percent to $3.83 million (£2.7 million) in 2015 from the previous year while his basic pay package climbed to $1.62 million.

In its annual report, Shell said that van Beurden’s basic salary grew 2.1 percent year-over-year while employee salaries climbed 3.7 percent from 2014 levels.

The annual report also noted that annual employee bonuses fell 17 percent from year ago levels.

Van Beurden earned a total pay package of about $26 million in 2014 when he was appointed CEO, but that package was impacted by tax benefits and other payments tied to his promotion.

The pay bump comes despite over a year of weak oil prices and Shell’s disappointing Arctic exploration campaign.

Last year, van Buerden guided Shell through its $70 billion merger with BG Group that was officially completed in February.

In an op-ed published by The Times when the deal closed, van Beurden said the merger is expected to “provide a strong injection to our operating cashflow” despite tough market condition.

Van Buerden’s 2015 pay package was dwarfed by the $20 million pay package BP CEO Bob Dudley took home last year.

According to Reuters, Dudley saw his pay jump by nearly 20 percent in 2015 despite BP falling to a $6.5 billion loss for the full year.

Shell’s fourth quarter 2015 current cost of supplies (CCS) earnings fell to $1.84 billion, a 56 percent drop compared to the same quarter last year, while full year 2015 CCS earnings fell 80 percent year-over-year to $3.84 billion.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 23, 2016, 07:21:09 pm

  ( Global Warming’s Terrifying New Chemistry   (

Our leaders thought fracking would save our climate. They were wrong. Very wrong.

By Bill McKibben

Howarth and Ingraffea  ( began producing a series of papers claiming that if even a small percentage of the methane leaked—maybe as little as 3 percent—then fracked gas would do more climate damage than coal. And their preliminary data showed that leak rates could be at least that high: that somewhere between 3.6 and 7.9 percent of methane gas from shale-drilling operations actually escapes into the atmosphere.

To say that no one in power wanted to hear this would be an understatement ( The two scientists were roundly attacked ( by the industry; one trade group   ( called their study the “Ivory Tower’s latest fact-free assault on shale gas exploration.” Most of the energy establishment joined in. An MIT team, for instance, had just finished an industry-funded  ;D report that found “the environmental impacts of shale development are challenging but manageable”   (; one of its lead authors, the ur-establishment energy expert Henry Jacoby  (, described the Cornell research as “very weak.” One of its other authors, Ernest Moniz (, would soon become the US secretary of energy; in his nomination hearings in 2013, he lauded the “stunning increase” in natural gas as a “revolution” and pledged to increase its use domestically. (

The trouble for the fracking establishment  ( was that new research kept backing up Howarth and Ingraffea. In January 2013, for instance, aerial overflights of fracking basins in Utah found leak rates as high as 9 percent. “We were expecting to see high methane levels, but I don’t think anybody really comprehended the true magnitude of what we would see,” said the study’s director. But such work was always piecemeal, one area at a time, while other studies—often conducted with industry-supplied data—came up with lower numbers.

* * *

That’s why last month’s Harvard study came as such a shock. It used satellite data from across the country over a span of more than a decade to demonstrate that US methane emissions had spiked 30 percent since 2002.(

The EPA had been insisting throughout that period that methane emissions were actually falling, but it was clearly wrong—on a massive scale. In fact, emissions “are substantially higher than we’ve understood,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted in early March.

The Harvard study wasn’t designed to show why US methane emissions were growing—in other parts of the world, as new research makes clear, cattle and wetlands seem to be causing emissions to accelerate. But the spike that the satellites recorded coincided almost perfectly with the era when fracking went big-time.

To make matters worse, during the same decade, experts had become steadily more worried about the effects of methane in any quantity on the atmosphere.

Everyone agrees that, molecule for molecule, methane traps far more heat than CO2—but exactly how much wasn’t clear. One reason the EPA estimates of America’s greenhouse-gas emissions showed such improvement was because the agency, following standard procedures, was assigning a low value to methane   (   ( and measuring its impact over a 100-year period. But a methane molecule lasts only a couple of decades in the air, compared with centuries for CO2. That’s good news, in that methane’s effects are transient—and very bad news because that transient but intense effect happens right now, when we’re breaking the back of the planet’s climate.

The EPA’s old chemistry and 100-year time frame assigned methane a heating value of 28 to 36 times that of carbon dioxide; a more accurate figure, says Howarth, is between 86 and 105 times the potency of CO2 over the next decade or two.

If you combine Howarth’s estimates of leakage rates and the new standard values for the heat-trapping potential of methane, then the picture of America’s total greenhouse-gas emissions over the last 15 years looks very different: Instead of peaking in 2007 and then trending downward, as the EPA has maintained, our combined emissions of methane and carbon dioxide have gone steadily and sharply up during the Obama years, Howarth says.

We closed coal plants and opened methane leaks, and the result is that things have gotten worse.

Full article
with irrefutable hard scientific data (that the liars and crooks working for the fossil fuel industry will, of course, rush to try to deny with mendacious propaganda  (


Please pass this on ( These dirty stinking fossil fuel industry crooks, their front men in government, their bought and paid for scientists and their propagandist scum need to be held accountable for degrading our biosphere AND our democracy.   (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 24, 2016, 04:08:36 pm
03/23/2016 03:10 PM     

( Mass Protests In April, May in US and Around the World
( News

This spring, huge rallies and protests are planned around the world against fossil fuels and to restore Democracy in the US.

On April 16-18, Democracy Awakening takes place in Washington DC.

We can't protect the environment without democracy, and environmental groups are joining with activists across the social spectrum to preserve our voice, such as labor, students and civil rights advocates.

"Corporate interests are holding our democracy hostage   ( Voter suppression is running rampant   (, fossil fuel money is warping our electoral process and now (, leaders in Congress are even blocking fair consideration of a Supreme Court nominee ( ," says Rachel Rye Butler of Greenpeace.

Democracy Awakening is about: 

•Restoring Voting rights by stopping voter suppression.

This is the first presidential election where state voter suppression laws are in force, making it much harder for students, minorities and older people to vote.

In Texas, for example, a special state-issued ID is required to vote, a drivers license or a student ID won't work. In North Carolina and Wisconsin, university students can't vote if their families live elsewhere, and so many campus voting places have been eliminated that it can take hours to even find a place to vote.
•Getting Money Out of politics through campaign finance reform, transparency and overturning Citizens United

Without fossil fuel interests ( knocking on every Congressperson's door, a renewable energy economy is within our reach, for example.

They are calling for:

•Voting Rights Advancement Act: to restore and increase protection against voting discrimination.

•Voter Empowerment Act: to modernize voter registration and ensure equal access to voting for all.

•Democracy For All Amendment: would overturn Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and limit influence of money in politics.

•Government By the People Act/Fair Elections Now Act: would amplify small contributions from everyday Americans.

May 4-15, Break Free From Fossil Fuels

People are mobilizing across the world to demand a rapid transition to renewable energy, and an end to taking fossil fuels out of the ground.

Globally coordinated mass actions are planned in the UK, Germany, Spain, Turkey, Israel, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Philippines Nigeria, South Africa, Canada and across the US.

They plan to occupy major fossil fuel sites, such as the largest coal mine in South Wales, where another may be built next door.

In the US, there will be "mass trespass at fracking sites", blockades at oil refineries and trains carrying oil.

The goal is to disrupt the power of the fossil fuel industry through "a series of peaceful, escalating actions...targeting the world's most dangerous and unnecessary fossil fuel projects," says organizer

"The fossil fuel industry faces an unprecedented crisis - from collapsing prices, a new global climate deal, and an ever-growing movement calling for change.  (

We have never had a better chance in history to break free from fossil fuels and build a just transition to clean and renewable energy," they say.

"There are no major economic or technical barriers to a future supported by renewable energy. Any new infrastructure built to support fossil fuel expansion, such as coal mines, power plants, oil rigs and export terminals will be a waste of money and further lock us into a path to irreversible climate change," states Arif Fiyanto, Coal Campaigner at Greenpeace Indonesia. (

Agelbert NOTE: Yes, the goons for the fossil fuel industry in the USA and abroad will be waiting for the protesters defending democracy and demanding the end of profit over planet. Yes, the "authorities", the media and the police will ensure the responsible citizens of this world present will be demonized, brutalized, tased, shot at and, when they aren't arrested, even murdered.

AND THAT VIOLENCE will spell the final doom of the fossil fuel fascist pigs EVERYWHERE. Of course the bought and paid for media will do their damnedest to prevent those who died from being given martyr status. They will fail.

And for those of you clever bastards working for the fossil fuel industry that think your fascist intimidation tactics will work (as usual), let me remind you that the people you have hired to do your murder and mayhem will overreach in their violence. If you think you can "damage control" the fallout from the violence your goons love to dish out, you are going to be very disappointed. All those thousands of fossil fuel industry employees just fired and police with families experiencing the health downsides of petroleum pollution are not going to remain "loyal" to the profit over planet "business model".

Everyday people will WELCOME severe energy disruption and rolling black outs just to see the end of subsidy swag and the pollution buck passing from the fossil fuel fascists jumping on the Chapter 11 "bankruptcy" wagon.

The people finally KNOW that the fossil fuel industry Modus Operandi has NEVER been abut providing low priced energy and has ALWAYS been about competitor destruction through government corruption based monopoly price control.

The fossil fuel industry has lost the support of the people. When that happens to any industry or government, no matter how effective its police state tactics are, it FALLS. The quislings in government, Wall Street and Main Street will rush to the support of the fossil fuel profit over planet "business model", but they will not be able to prevent the FALL of the fossil fuel industry/GOVERNMENT. 


TWO historical examples of what is about to happen: 

Truman wasn't the only president that pushed the use of nuclear weapons. Eisenhower wanted to nuke North Korea in the 1950s and Nixon wanted to nuke North Korea in 1969 as a "scare the commies" tactic to end the Viet Nam War. Eisenhower telegraphed his intent with a nukes=bullets speech that caused such an uproar he had to hastily shelve his "nuke bullets" (as you can see he, really did not believe the bomb was such an "awful thing" as he claimed). Nixon was convinced by the MASSES of people around the White House and across the country demanding an end to the Viet Nam War that he would be run out of office if he executed his nuke barbarity (I will provide documented evidence of what I just said to anyone interested.  ;D).

The fossil fuel industry, a business that became powerful and influential through corruption and violence, with a stranglehold on governments all over the world, is about to learn a lesson (see: French Revolution times 1000).

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 26, 2016, 02:28:07 pm

SEC Forces Exxon to Bring Climate-Friendly Accounting to Shareholder Vote

As You Sow | March 25, 2016 12:37 pm


In a key win  (,
the Oakland-based non-profit advocacy group, As You Sow defeated ExxonMobil’s attempt to suppress an innovative, first of its kind shareholder resolution. The resolution asks Exxon to report its energy resources in an energy-neutral metric—BTUs—in addition to the traditional “barrels of oil equivalent” standard.

Establishing a climate-friendly measure of energy reserves is a key step in incentivizing management, and the market, to support the transition to a clean energy economy.

Agelbert COMMENT: The fossil fuel industry, a business that became powerful and influential through corruption and violence, with a stranglehold on governments all over the world, is about to learn a lesson.

A "barrel of oil" is a polluting energy resource, NOT an energy resource.

The BTU standard should REQUIRE that the BTUs needed to bio-remediate the pollution produced by each barrel of oil be SUBTRACTED from that energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) of said barrel of oil.

The fossil fuel industry's "business model" is not profitable when all the energy math is done. They know that. That is why do everything they can to corrupt government officials.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 26, 2016, 03:31:25 pm
Mark Ruffalo and Annie Leonard: We Must Rebuild Our Democracy

Annie Leonard and Mark Ruffalo | March 25, 2016 8:23 am


2016 will be the first American presidential election since 1965 with major new voting restrictions—photo identification requirements, cuts to early voting and the elimination of same day voting registration are just a few of the roadblocks thrown up by special interests in 15 states.

Not only that, but once voters overcome these obstacles to actually vote, the candidates they have to choose from will be largely self-selected from the economic elites  (, looking out for banks like Goldman Sachs instead of everyday people.

Rather than a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we have a government of super-PACs and dark money, by the 1% and for corporate interests.  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 27, 2016, 04:35:57 pm
Rockefeller Fund Votes to Divest, Knocks Exxon


The Rockefeller Family Fund will divest from fossil fuels and ditch its holdings of Exxon Mobil, citing the oil giant’s "morally reprehensible” stance on climate change issues. John D. Rockefeller, the fund’s founding father, made his fortune on Exxon’s predecessor, Standard Oil, but spokespeople for Rockefeller stated,

"There is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons."  (
Fossil-fuel investments make up about 6 percent of the Rockefeller Family Fund’s $130 million endowment.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 27, 2016, 05:58:00 pm

Protesters against a Vermont Gas natural gas pipeline hold a banner in front of the building that houses the Department of Public Service and Public Service Board on Montpelier’s State Street. Photo by C.B. Hall/VTDigger

Public  (  Service  ( Board ( considers barring public from Vermont Gas ( eminent domain hearings

Mar. 26, 2016, 5:24 am by Mike Polhamus

The Vermont Public Service Board is considering whether to bar the public from attending eminent domain hearings for a controversial gas pipeline.

The board has asked participants in the Vermont Gas Systems hearings for comment by March 31.

Protesters have interrupted eminent domain proceedings, the March 17 court order says, “by shouting, singing loudly, and leaving their seats to crowd the physical space around many of the parties and the court reporter.”

Law enforcement officials have expressed doubt over whether they can prevent protesters from disrupting future hearings.  ;D

The board’s request for comment was issued in part out of concern for the safety of participants and others who may be in attendance at the hearings.

Jim Dumont, an attorney for several of the private landowners, wrote in a response to the board’s order that it is wrong for the board to treat peaceful protesters as a threat to public safety.

“One may disagree with the protesters’ views on the efficacy or style of their protests, but I think it ill serves reasonable public debate about this terribly important subject to suggest that their actions have been tainted by threats of violence,” Dumont wrote.

Dumont told the board to do whatever they consider necessary to maintain order during the proceedings, but said it would be inappropriate to exclude the public. That would go against the First Amendment, the Vermont Constitution, and Vermont’s open meetings laws, he said.

“Any member of the public who disrupts the proceedings can be removed by law enforcement,” he said. “There is no legitimate reason to exclude members of the public who do not disrupt the proceedings.”

One of the protesters said he plans to continue agitating against the pipeline as long as he is able.
“If there are more eminent domain hearings, there will be protests,” said Alex Porlman, an organizer with the anti-pipeline group Rising Tide Vermont.

“The eminent domain process is structured so that the company is always going to win ( at the end of the day,” he said.
“It’s just the most egregious example of the state working with the company to pave the way for the pipeline. It’s worth fighting against, and we’ll definitely keep doing so.”(

Vermont Gas
spokeswoman Beth Parent said she couldn’t comment on the company’s response to the board’s order because it has not yet been submitted.

Protesters have forestalled several attempts by the Public Service Board to conduct hearings on eminent domain proceedings against landowners across whose property Vermont Gas would bury the pipeline. Protesters have also prevented multiple attempts by appraisers to valuate the land.  ;D

Vermont Gas has built an 11 mile a loop between Colchester to Williston, which is part of the 41-mile project. When complete it will extend to Middlebury.

The company has negotiated agreements from 98 percent of landowners to build a pipeline through Addison County.


Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 01, 2016, 10:12:24 pm
Agelbert NOTE: The old Chapter 11 Bankruptcy SCAM (Expect the Fossil Fuel Corporations, who have always yammered about being "responsible" to shaft ALL their non-executive employees  as they go the way of the Dodo Bird).

These fossil fuel Corporate crooks and liars are always yammering about "responsibility and hard work". But when things get a little tight, they throw their non-executive employees in the street and do the old Chapter 11 trick to weasel their way out of debts, retirement obligations and health care.

And they DO all this "limited liability" = BREACH OF CONTRACT with the full legalese approval of a bought and paid Bankruptcy Court Judge while the executives rob the corporation blind with golden parachutes. AND, our "Justice" Department just says it's all part of the "limited liability" way of our grand and glorious "democratic system"...

So much for the "sanctity of contracts" that the fossil fuel corporations in general, and all the conservatives in particular, solemnly claim is part of our system.

These Corporations Have Raped the Land and Robbed the People

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 03, 2016, 08:44:49 pm
Agelbert NOTE: GUESS what buyer our shale gas polluting pigs have found? These criminals will not stop until somebody STOPS them!   (

U.S. Taps India as Asia’s Debut Buyer of American Shale Gas  :P

April 1, 2016 by Bloomberg
LNG carrier Asia Vision. Photo credit: Chevron

By Debjit Chakraborty, Anna Shiryaevskaya and Harry R. Weber

(Bloomberg) — Gail India Ltd. bought the second shipment of liquefied natural gas from Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass plant in Louisiana in a deal that makes it the first Asian importer of U.S. shale gas.

The nation’s biggest supplier will receive the cargo, bought on spot basis, at the Dabhol import terminal on the country’s west coast by mid-April, Vandana Chanana, a company spokeswoman, said Friday by e-mail. Faith Parker, a spokeswoman at Cheniere in Houston, didn’t immediately respond to a voice mail left outside office hours and an e-mail sent Friday morning.

The deal marks the beginning of U.S. LNG exports into the world’s biggest importing region of the super-chilled fuel, just as regional producers from Australia to Papua New Guinea ramp up supplies. India last year overtook South Korea as the world’s second-biggest importer of the fuel on a spot and short-term basis as buyers took advantage of a slump in prices brought on by the crash in crude oil and an oversupply.

“This is the first and definitely will not be the last shipment to go to India from the U.S. Gulf Coast,” Chris Rumley, a senior LNG and natural gas consultant at Poten & Partners, said by telephone from Houston on Friday. “There is terminal capacity in India and if the price is competitive against alternative fuels, then there’s a market there for it.”

Higher Price

The delivered price of the cargo is about $5 per million British thermal units, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. Chanana declined to comment on commercial terms.

That’s higher than the $4.30 per million British thermal units now paid by customers in northeast Asia for spot cargoes, according to assessments by the World Gas Intelligence publication. Prices crashed 78 percent from the peak in February 2014.

The price slump supported demand for spot cargoes in India. Imports rose 45 percent to 9.7 million tons in 2015, the biggest increase in spot and short-term traded volumes last year, according to the International Group of LNG importers annual report published this week. India imported a total of 14.6 million tons of LNG last year, unchanged from a year earlier, according to the group.

Tanker Route

The Clean Ocean LNG tanker left Sabine Pass on March 15 after loading the second export cargo from the terminal. It’s sailing toward South Africa, according to ship-tracking data on Friday.

Some analysts had expected the vessel to go elsewhere, perhaps to South America because of demand there for the power-plant fuel and because of the content of the gas Cheniere was producing.

“We initially thought when it left it would be Rio or Kuwait, because of there being hotter gas, meaning higher ethane and C+ content, in the tanks when they started to liquefy,” Jason Lord, LNG analyst for energy data provider Genscape Inc., said by telephone from Boulder, Colorado. “Their regas facilities and grid tend to be able to handle that better in the Atlantic basin. Potentially, this one in India can handle that.”

The first batch of LNG from the Cheniere terminal was shipped to Brazil in February, marking the start of U.S. shale gas exports. The third cargo on the GasLog Salem is also set to go to Brazil, while the destination of the fourth shipment on the Energy Atlantic is still unclear, according to the ship-tracking data.

Eight Cargoes

Cheniere plans to ship as many as eight cargoes of LNG from its Sabine Pass project by May, the Houston-based company said in a February notice to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Cheniere’s initial exports are commissioning cargoes as part of the startup process to ensure the terminal is fully operational. Once that’s complete, Cheniere will need regulatory approval to operate the terminal commercially.

Gail India has agreed to buy 3.5 million metric tons of LNG a year for two decades from Sabine Pass. It has also booked 2.3 million tons a year capacity in the Cove Point LNG liquefaction terminal in Maryland. The shipments are expected to start in 2017 or 2018.

Gail will import around 6 million metric tons of gas from the U.S. from 2018, India’s Oil Minister Dharmendra Pradhan said in an interview in New Delhi on March 28.

–With assistance from Naureen S. Malik.

© 2016 Bloomberg L.P


Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 04, 2016, 03:07:22 pm

The Big Coal Bailout of 2016   (

Carl Pope | March 31, 2016 9:20 am


Finally, in February 2015, the Administration moved, proposing a “Power Plus” plan to help protect miner’s pensions, health care and the economic based on coal dependent communities. (It also moved in the same month to reform royalty abuses).

But, of course, by this time such aid required Congressional appropriations. Bankruptcy courts had already let Patriot and other companies dump their pension and health care obligations. The same Republican leaders who blasted Obama for making war on coal denounced the new plan. Leading the charge? Kentucky Senator and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who made it clear that his hostility towards the United Mines Workers trumped whatever concern he might have had for Kentucky coal miners. In December, McConnell personally blocked efforts to include community and pension rescue efforts in the budget deal Republicans cut with Obama.

Here there is a partisan difference. Democrats who are waging “War on Coal” favor keeping the promise America made to coal miners. Hilary Clinton has strongly advocated help for the workers and communities.

How do conservatives justify this stand? By calling any effort to ensure that miners get the pensions they earned yes, “a bailout.” But conservative attacks on such efforts to protect pensions simply don’t mention the shenanigans by which companies like Peabody got rid of their debts. These are actually worse than bailouts. In a bailout the calculation is that a healthy enterprise emerges. But there is no prospect in these cases that Patriot, Arch or Shortly Peabody is going to bounce back.

These are give-aways.  ( What is hard to calculate is how big and costly they are.

The UMW Pension fund, for example, protects more than 100,000 coal miners and former miners. It has $3.8 billion in assets, but must pay out about $600 million a year—so if it goes bankrupt, (ignoring the likely collateral damage to the whole U.S. pension insurance system) over a decade $6 billion could be transferred from the coal industry to the public—12 Solydras!

How much are the reclamation costs being forgiven? Well, an earlier generation of mining reclamation costs are now estimated to cost $17 billion—34 Solyndras.

And the pending defaults on self-bonded mining costs seem likely to run another $2.7 billion. So the total give-aways to coal companies as they race towards bankruptcy seems to be over $25 billion—almost 50 Solyndras.

That’s quite a bailout—the GM bailout cost taxpayers only $11.2 billion, less than half as much and the taxpayers got a healthy GM out of the deal—we get nothing from coal give-aways.

So the next time some economist earnestly lectures you on the need to avoid subsidizing clean energy, or a Republican says government shouldn’t pick winners and losers, ask them to show you where—and how loudly—they denounced the Big Coal Bailout of 2016.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 04, 2016, 03:38:21 pm
How Much Money Has Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Taken From the Fossil Fuel Industry?  ???

Democracy Now! | April 4, 2016 11:18 am

According to a new report by Greenpeace, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the super PAC supporting her have received $138,400 from fossil fuel lobbyists and $1,327,210 from bundlers, totaling more than $4.5 million from lobbyists, bundlers and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry  ( Clinton maintains that she’s received only about $330,000 from individuals who work for fossil fuel companies—about 0.2 percent of the total raised by her campaign.  (

We speak with Charlie Cray, research specialist for Greenpeace and lead researcher on the fossil fuel lobbyists’ contributions to the Clinton campaign, as well as Eva Resnick-Day, a democracy organizer for Greenpeace who confronted Clinton at a rally.

Watch here:

With the Wisconsin primary just a day away, Democratic presidential challengers Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders sparred over the weekend over whether fossil fuel lobbyists are funding Clinton’s campaign. The dispute took center stage after video emerged of Greenpeace activist Eva Resnick-Day questioning Clinton at a campaign rally at the State University of New York in Purchase on Thursday. Resnick-Day has been working on a Greenpeace campaign to get candidates to take a pledge rejecting future donations from oil, gas and coal lobbyists, and executives.

“These lobbyists are people whose job it is to make connections with Senator Clinton to influence her policy going forward. And giving her money in the campaign, they’re clearly trying to find influence,” says Resnick-Day. “I don’t think that that is how democracy should work.”

We speak with Resnick-Day, the democracy organizer for Greenpeace who confronted Clinton.

Watch here:

Agelbert NOTE: Senator Sanders says below, what Hillary Clinton NEVER will say or even admit.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 06, 2016, 04:20:17 pm

SandRidge Energy, with $3.6 billion debt, flags bankruptcy risk

Nicolas Torres April 4, 2016

Oklahoma-based SandRidge Energy confirmed on Wednesday that it has hired advisers to evaluate potential restructuring options.

SandRidge said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it has engaged advisers to evaluate strategic alternatives that could include restructuring, refinancing of existing debt through a private restructuring or reogranizaiton under Chapter 11.

“As a result of these uncertainties and the likelihood of a restructuring or reorganization, management has concluded that there is substantial doubt regarding the company’s ability to continue as a going concern as it is currently structured,” SandRidge said.

SandRidge’s total debt stood at $3.6 billion as of December 31.
The company also had $11 million in outstanding letters of credit as of December 31 and preferred stock outstanding with an aggregate liquidation preference of $542 million.

The company said its “substantial level of indebtedness” and dividends tied to its outstanding preferred stock increase the possibility that it may be unable to generate enough cash to make principal, interest or divided payments.

SandRidge added that the inclusion of a statement in its full year consolidated financial statements citing the firm’s “substantial doubt” about its ability to remain a going concern could result in a default under the terms of its senior secured revolving credit facility.

If SandRidge  ( does not obtain a waiver for that covenant within 30 calendar days its senior credit facility lenders will be able to accelerate maturity of the debt.

“These defaults create additional uncertainty associated with the company’s ability to repay its outstanding long-term debt obligations as they become due and further reinforces the substantial doubt over the company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” SandRidge said.

The company elected to take a 30 day grace period last month to defer making $21.7 million in interest payments that were due February 16.

SandRidge said it had sufficient liquidity to make the payments but chose to use the grace period to continue its “ongoing discussions with stakeholders.”

The New York Stock Exchange delisted shares of SandRidge in late January after the stock’s price stayed below $1 per share for more than seven months.

SandRidge booked a fourth quarter 2015 adjusted EBITDA of$79 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, down from $239 million in the fourth quarter of 2014.
Full year adjusted EBITDA for 2015 was $589 million, down from $873 million in 2014.

SandRidge is also dealing with a class action lawsuit filed earlier this month against the firm, SandRidge’s former CEO Tom Ward and Oklahoma-based Chesapeake Energy.

The lawsuit, filed by Dallas-based law firm Burns Charest in an Oklahoma federal court, alleges that the “defendants violated federal antitrust laws by rigging bids and limiting competition for oil and gas leases in northwest Oklahoma.”

The defendants listed in the suit have not commented on the matter.  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 06, 2016, 10:13:06 pm
Oil and Gas Companies   (  ( Stiff 29,000 Workers Out of $40 Million

America's fracking boom promised big paychecks, but thousands of workers were exploited, the Labor Department says.

By Alan Neuhauser April 4, 2016, at 12:30 p.m.

Like beacons in the night, the flares burning over America's oil and gas fields drew tens of thousands of workers over the past decade, promising big paydays and new pickup trucks, even for those who had just graduated high school.

But in an industry sector recently plagued by plunging oil prices that have forced thousands of rigs to go idle, many of those workers have been feeling even more financial pain, having been forced to wait for their full paychecks.

More than 29,000 oil and gas employees have been stiffed over $40 million in back wages, according to findings from more than 1,100 investigations launched since 2012 by the Labor Department.

Despite booming industry profits and record oil and gas output – which together rejuvenated the country's economy and transformed the U.S. into the world's top oil and gas producer in 2014 and 2015 – companies misclassified their workers and failed to pay them required overtime, even as they put in long workdays in often dangerous conditions.

"We continue to find unacceptably high numbers of violations in the oil and gas (  industry," Betty Campbell, regional administrator for the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division in the Southwest, said in a statement.

The most recent violations were announced last month, when more than 2,500 employees for four companies – Jet Specialties, Frank's International, Viking Onshore Drilling and Stream-Flo USA – were found to be owed $1.6 million in back wages.  >:(

Violations ranged from failing to pay production bonuses to wrongly  ;) considering employees as "exempt" from overtime requirements, paying them flat salaries regardless of how many hours they worked.

The specific investigations of Frank's International and Stream-Flo USA began in the Northeast, and ultimately encompassed employees from Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Wyoming, the Labor Department said. Employers who violate the law in their pay practices harm workers, their families and law-abiding industry employers," Campbell said.

The Wage and Hour Division's inquiries into the energy industry began in the agency's Northeast regional offices in Pennsylvania. The state, sitting atop the Marcellus Shale formation, was one of the country's biggest fracking hubs, and jobs nationwide eventually surged past 191,000 on the extraction side alone by the end of 2012, not including service companies and other related sectors. By comparison, there were around 179,000 such employees last month.

Investigators soon discovered the sector was rife with wage problems.

"Investigations in the [Northeast] region in 2012 revealed that the violations were widespread," says Robin Mallett, a Wage and Hour Division district director in Houston, whose office led two of the most recent investigations in March. The initiative rapidly spread west, involving offices in Chicago and Texas.

Mallett stopped short of saying whether the violations were systemic. But jobs were often not nearly as lucratively as they seemed, she says.

"Even though they have a reputation, the industry, for paying high wages," Mallett says, "sometimes the economic reality of it is the workers are receiving these hefty paychecks simply because of the sheer number of hours that they're working – really it was not that high a rate of pay."

Agelbert NOTE: If the above surprises you, then you do not understand the "philosopy" of life of the Predators 'R' US crowd that run the fossil fuel corporations. Their "business model" REQUIRES that they "externalize" pollution costs to the population and biosphere while they fleece the same population through "subsidy" swag and various bought and paid for tax fraud loopholes.

IOW, they make money because they CHEAT. (

There is NO WAY that Fracking OR ocean rigs could have EVER made money if they were not able to flare all those toxic gases into the atmosphere and had to capture and process them.

(   (

These psychopaths will OBVIOUSLY not hesitate to SHAFT their "salt of the earth" employees ( the INSTANT anything gets in the way of the SWAG for the management.

You are seeing JUST THE TIP OF A MASSIVE "iceberg" turd defined as the Corporate Tyranny of Big Oil.    ( (

We need fossil fuel corporations like a HOLE IN THE HEAD. As long as they have a nickel, they will spend it to crap all over the people and the planet. Ethical business practices are a JOKE to them.   ( The sooner all fossil fuel corporate polluting pigs get selected out of human civilization, the BETTER!  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 15, 2016, 11:19:17 pm
The only way DESTRUCTION (i.e. pollution catastrophe) can "creative" (i.e. profit over planet)     ( is if you can FRAUDULENLY "legally" DEDUCT IT from your Tax Liability so that WE-the-PEOPLE PAY for MOST OF THE POLLUTION CLEANUP COSTS.

Deepwater Horizon future tax deduction (

Report: BP can deduct majority of Deepwater Horizon settlement

Staff Writers April 12, 2016

BP may be able to deduct the majority of the record-setting $20 billion settlement it reached for claims tied to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident.

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy group, said Tuesday that BP may be able to claim up to $15.3 billion of the settlement as a tax deduction.

While corporations are not able to deduct penalties or fines paid to the government penalties only account for a small portion of the settlement.

BP will pay a Clean Water Act penalty of $5.5 billion plus interest.

The company will pay $8.1 billion in natural resource damages and up to an additional $700 million to address injuries to natural resources that are presently unknown, according to a statement released by the DOJ late last month.

BP will also pay $600 million for other claims, including claims under the False Claims Act, royalties and reimbursement of natural resource damage assessment costs and other expenses tied to the accident.

The settlement will be paid out over the course of 16 years.

The deal was approved by a federal judge on Monday and will also allow for the implementation of a related settlement of economic damage claims for five Gulf states and local governments.

The five states included in the settlement are Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

According to BP’s 2015 annual report, the company has taken a cumulative pre-tax income statement charge of $55.5 billion as a result of the incident. (  (

That sum excludes amounts that BP said were not “possible to measure reliably at this time.”    (

The settlement is the single largest settlement the DOJ has ever reached with a single entity.

The deal resolves all of the government’s civil claims against BP related to the April 2010 Macondo well blowout that caused the largest oil spill in U.S. history and killed 11 people.

Agelbert  ( NOTE: The fossil fuel government strikes AGAIN:

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 15, 2016, 11:47:09 pm

We Can't Afford The Fossil Fuel Industry

&&Apr. 14, 2016 2:38 pm

By Thom Hartmann

We're constantly told that we can't afford to enact the bold climate solutions necessary to make the switch to 100 percent renewable energy.
But, the people who say such things often leave out the hefty price that taxpayers are already paying to cover the cost of dirty fossil fuel energy.

In addition to the twenty-or-so billion dollars that oil and gas companies receive in direct subsidies from the government,
they rake in billions more in bailouts in the form of tax write-offs, subsidized clean up costs, and mandated customer fees.

Last week alone there were two glaring examples of fossil fuels company bailouts that stuck taxpayers with the bill, even though they never got a vote.

First, utility customers in Ohio learned that they would be stuck paying billions in fees to prop up aging coal and nuclear plants in their state.

Then, Gulf Coast residents learned that BP will be permitted to write off $15.3 billion dollars of the settlement resulting from the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill.

In both cases, the fossil fuel industry benefited from billions of dollars in subsidies on the front end, only to ask for another hand out when their failure to update plants or install appropriate safety mechanisms got them into trouble. And, they are both perfect examples of why people claim that oil and gas are still cheaper than clean energy.

If you never include the external costs or the numerous taxpayer-funded bailouts, it is easy to make fossil fuels appear cheaper than the alternative.

If oil and gas actually had to compete on a level playing field, no one would consider pollution, oil spills, and fracking earthquakes reasonable side effects of energy production.

If we want solar, wind, and other renewable sources to flourish in our nation, all we have to do is stop the massive subsidies that perpetuate our addiction to fossil fuels. (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 23, 2016, 07:31:27 pm
  April 20, 2016

Why BP's $20 Billion Settlement is Business as Usual ( in the Gulf of Mexico

Antonia Juhasz analyses the lasting devastation from the spill in the Gulf and the renewed commitments to offshore drilling   (  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 26, 2016, 10:49:42 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Below please find a line of doubletalk and science free bullshit that is typical of the fossil fuel industry influence over the U.S. government. This "study" is the fig leaf that the fossil fuelers will now use to cut corners on their rig structure and flood the arctic with rigs considered "safe".

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

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

Have a nice day.

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

April 25, 2016 by gCaptain 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 02, 2016, 02:46:00 pm

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

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

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

Nanette Barragán

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

Isadore Hall III

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

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

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

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

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

( If you know anyone who lives in California’s 44th Congressional district, please send this to them and ask them to pass it on to their friends and neighbors. (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 05, 2016, 03:53:03 pm

Groups Sue  ( EPA  ( Demanding Stricter Fracking Waste Rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background   ( (   ( 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

What really Happened at the EPA ( 

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

agelbert > frackugee: 

Well said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 13, 2016, 08:49:32 pm
The arsonists of Fort McMurray have a name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:39 video (at story link)

Alberta wildfires: key facts and figures in a historic disaster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Twitter: @Martin_Lukacs
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 18, 2016, 03:52:35 pm



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

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


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

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

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

05/16/2016 04:03 PM   

Fossil-Heavy Energy & Water Appropriations Bill Passes Senate News

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly What's Intended (

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


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

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


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

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

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

Some Details   (

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

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

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

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

The bill now goes to the House for a vote. 

Read the White House statement on the appropriations bill:
Website: ( (

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody that thinks we are in a repeat of the 1980's doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 18, 2016, 06:00:36 pm
Agelbert NOTE: A fossil fuel industry propagandist using the MKing handle he WON'T use his NAME   ( made an interesting claim recently. He said that he spoke to the governor of North Dakota.

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

I rather doubt that.

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

Quote from: agelbert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And YOU do that because you don't have an argument.
So you have a degree. SO WHAT? There are scores of engineers and scientists that have one that lie for money on a daily basis. You are one of them.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 18, 2016, 07:43:43 pm
Agelbert NOTE: This article is a little over two monts old. But the information is instructive in showing HOW the crude oil "supply" is gamed DOWN to engineer ( a higher price based on, "Fundamentals" of demand. So, when you look at those EIA numbers MKing likes to trot out to defend "fundamentals" of supply and demand, take a grain of salt to the "prudent case for future fossil fuel industry recovery through higher prices" BULLSHIT. 

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

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/09/2016


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Some other comparisons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kemp's conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

"Hitting peak oil will come faster than any of us think. But don't blame dwindling supply — it's all about disappearing demand" Amory Lovins
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 23, 2016, 10:54:15 pm
Exxon Developed Low Emissions Technology, Lobbied Against It (

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 24, 2016, 07:19:42 pm
Big Oil Could Have Put A Dent In CO2 Emissions In 1970s - But Did Nothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 25, 2016, 06:19:30 pm

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


Campaigners urge Germany to stop financing coal projects abroad

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

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

Read the Reuters article in English  here. (

SWEPT UNDER THE RUG: How G7 Nations Conceal Public Financing for Coal Around the World (

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

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

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

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

Find more information in CLEW's factsheets EEG reform 2016 – switching to auctions for renewables (  and Defining features of the Renewable Energy Act. (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 25, 2016, 07:54:53 pm
Headlines that Evidence the Fossil Fuel Industry Consistent LACK of Ethics: 

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

ExxonMobil tried to censor climate scientists to Congress during Bush era

Shell CEO warns renewables shift could spell end if too swift   ( (

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

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

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 30, 2016, 07:33:19 pm

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

Posted on May 28, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading. (

—Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 01, 2016, 02:52:52 pm
It’s Time to Break Saudi’s Oil Monopoly and Embrace Clean Transportation

Carl Pope | May 31, 2016 9:15 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 02, 2016, 09:30:59 pm
Sanders Touts Fracking Ban as Clinton Pushes Renewables Plan Just Days Before California Primary

Lorraine Chow | June 2, 2016 1:25 pm

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


Bernie Sanders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sierra Club has not endorsed a presidential candidate.

Comment Thread:

agelbert  • 7 hours ago 

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton is Trump in drag.
3 △  ▽ 

Rob Brown > agelbert  • 7 hours ago 


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

agelbert > Rob Brown  • 6 hours ago 

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

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


agelbert  • 5 hours ago 

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

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

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

Cummulative subsidies pie chart:
1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 6 hours ago 

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

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

Reflections From Below The Fossil Subsidy Iceberg
1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 6 hours ago 

01/30/2015 12:47 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fossil Fuel Subsidies US 

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

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

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

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


see more

1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 6 hours ago 

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Ritter served as Colorado’s 41st governor. He is currently the director of the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University.
1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 6 hours ago 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 6 hours ago 

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

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

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

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

agelbert  • 7 hours ago 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 7 hours ago 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IEA position on subsidies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

agelbert  • 7 hours ago 

Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S

What is a fossil fuel subsidy?

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

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

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below
1 △  ▽ 

agelbert  • 5 hours ago 

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

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

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

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

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

IR (infrared) is longwave radiation.

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

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

agelbert > agelbert  • 5 hours ago 

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

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

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

agelbert > agelbert  • 16 minutes ago 

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

Here are the links the data came from:

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




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


6 .
1 △  ▽ 

karen orlando
  • 6 hours ago 

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

agelbert > karen orlando  • 5 hours ago 

Talk is cheap. The WALK provides incriminating evidence.

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

Posted on May 28, 2016


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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 04, 2016, 08:28:42 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for taking action,

Emily Wurth
 Water Program Director
 Food & Water Watch

Emily Wurth,Food& Water Watch
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 05, 2016, 07:28:54 pm
The PERFIDY of the Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government


EIA  Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power Friendly Charts Consistently Low Ball Renewable Energy

These charts by the fossil fuel friendly EIA severely understate the Renewable energy share of U.S. energy consumption BECAUSE they ONLY measure REPORTED energy use, not NEGAWATTS (off grid, non-metered and efficiency based energy demand destruction). The Rocky Mountain Institute has reported that over one third of all global rural electrical production is now Renewable Energy based.

So, why do I present these charts? Because even the EIA cannot disguise how Renewable Energy is taking market share away from the fossil fuel industry (although they do their level best to try).

Notice the change from 2012 through 2015 and you will see evidence of the Renewable Energy caused fossil fuel demand destruction. This is also the main cause of the persistently low price of oil and gas driving, at last count, over 60 oil and gas polluters into bankruptcy.
( (

AS you can see, our loyal servants in the EIA were magnanimous enough to admit ONE PERCENT increase for Renewable Energy for 2012 through 2015. Not only is that a bad joke, but excluding coal, it is downright embarrassingly defensive of the polluters from the fossil fuel AND nuclear power industries. WHY?

despite the MASSIVE economic disruptions during that time and the MASSIVE increase in Renewable energy capacity during that time period, let us ass-u-me, as the charts claim, that the total energy consumption increased 2.7 quadrillion btu from 2012 through 2015. They drop 2% off of coal but, despite  some closings of nuclear power plants, ADD a percent to nuclear power! But it gets better.

Second, they REFUSE to lower the percentage for Petroleum while adding 2 percent to fossil "natural" (i.e. FRACKED) gas. The disclaimer about "the sum of components not adding to 100%", even though in the 2015 chart they DO add up, is ridiculous.  They don't even update their boilerplate. These people have no shame.

Third, they have the unadulterated brass to claim, not just that there was a ONE PERCENT ONLY increase in the Renewable Energy share of consumption rom 2012 through 2015, but that WIND POWER added a mere 2 percent of the Renewable energy mix in FOUR YEARS!

Now take a look at 2014's fossil fuel and nuclear power friendly EIA chart next to the 2015 chart. They are DESPERATE to hide the massive increase in Renewables.

( (

2015 was a banner year for BOTH wind and solar power. 2015 saw massive demand destruction for fossil fuels causing over 60 oil and gas bankruptcies and cratering price of fossil fuels. Renewable energy use INCREASED while USE of fossil fuels due to a depressed economy and added Renewable infrastructure, DECREASED.

YET, according to our EIA bean counters, there was NO INCREASE in the Renewable energy SHARE of consumption OR A DECREASE in the oil and gas energy share from 2014 to 2015! To make it look good, they took one percent away from petroleum and handed it to "natural" FRACKED gas. LOL!  Renewable Energy consumption is allegedly STILL only 10% after a BANNER YEAR!


The EIA admits, inaccurately (remember they count only REPORTED energy from utilities, not negawatts), that 0.1 quadrillion Btu of Renewable Energy  was added. Point one quadrillion Btu DOES NOT CUT IT for a banner year in both wind and solar. They give solar a mere  2% increase and give wind, which REALLY jumped in 2015, a mere ONE PERCENT increase in the Renewable Energy mix.


The PRICE of oil and gas is not low because we are "consuming them at the same percentage"; it's low because we are consuming them at a LOWER percentage. The oil and gas pigs are not known for charitable gestures.

The PRICE of Renewable Energy infrastructure is coming down from mass production and installation. The ratio of Renewable energy installation to fossil fuel based infrastructure new installation in 2015 (which has continued into this year) is 70 to one. 

When the EV market takes off in 2017, the end will come quickly for the fossil fuel industry because they cannot make a profit when over 50% of the refinery product is for transportation fuels they cannot sell. And even without the loss of the polluting fuels product profit, the fossil fuel industry would self destruct without all their subsidy swag. But the EIA plays dumb about the all the pollution costs that we-the-people are paying.

Renewable energy is easily already over 25% of total Energy consumption in the U.S.,
though the EIA will never admit it until they "revise" the data a couple of decades from now.  ;)

Renewable Energy Growth Blows EIA Forecasts Out of the Water, Again

by Ben Jervey, originally published by DeSmog Blog | Mar 14, 2016

EIA 2040 Forecast Understates Renewables, Policy, Contingencies
April 20th, 2015 by Sandy Dechert


So far more possibilities exist than those indicated by the narrow range of assumptions that EIA has included in this latest assessment. Respected voices are saying that America can, and should, get 100% of its energy from renewables by 2050, that 80% would be good enough, or 100% by 2100, or that 50% is attainable in the next 35 years, and so on. EIA’s limited focus can support none of these.

The organization claims in Figure 4 to cover “scenarios that encompass a wide range of future crude oil price paths.” Great to have such a diverse oil perspective, but the exploration of renewable and other scenarios seems puny by comparison.

EIA responds that it never told a lie, fudged the stats or gamed the predicted numbers to favor fossil fuels and low ball Renewable Energy.

Turning to projections, some critics have argued that EIA's recent AEO Reference case projections have consistently understated the adoption of wind and solar power.

A review of past performance of EIA's projections does not offer much support for this argument, particularly when it is recognized that AEO Reference case projections deliberately incorporate existing laws and regulations that are in effect at the time the Reference case projections are developed and do not attempt to forecast future policy decisions.

Don't you just love that "does not offer much support for this argument"  pseudo erudite exercise in dismissive type fallacious debating techniques? Do all these fossil fuel tools go to the same school of double talk sophistry?

The above defense is ludicrous in the light of the FACT that their projections for fossil fuel use and nuclear power have CONSISTENTLY IGNORED the ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS (that the EPA has danced around and refused to try to enforce or over 30 years, even though they ARE on the books) that militate for a REDUCTION in the energy market share of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

NOT ONE closing of nuclear power plants was predicted by the EIA. Even the now vertiginous descent in coal use was NOT even remotely foreseen by these dirty energy defending tools, never mind the current descent in the demand for oil and gas (that they CONTINUE to low ball).

And now they want to talk about legislation as the "logical" basis for their grossly inaccurate Renewable Energy projections?   

The EIA can come up with all sorts of hemming and hawing excuses about inconsistent application of laws favoring Renewables, as if that had beans to do with the ACTUAL Renewables track record of their installation and use (which is what unbiased energy experts use to project future use and market share), but give fossil fuels and nuclear power the most rosy energy use projection scenario as the "prudent" and "most realistic" outlook...   

But the last paragraph in their response PLAINLY states WHO they are going to defend in their cherry picking energy bean counting (hint - dirty energy producers = industry stakeholders):

EIA continues to work with industry stakeholders to ensure its assumptions and analytic methodologies provide accurate data and appropriate projections for wind, solar, and other renewables. A more extensive review of EIA's data and projections for wind and solar technologies is available in a recent EIA report, Wind and Solar Data and Projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration: Past Performance and Ongoing Enhancements.

Principal contributors: Chris Namovicz


Now you know why certain fossil fuelers love to quote the "reliability" of the energy use stats and projections from the EIA.

Have a nice day.

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on! (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 06, 2016, 02:40:50 pm
( Thank you James Cromwell and John “J.G.” Hertzler of Star Trek fame and 17 area residents. These fine people know that there isn't any way we can live long and prosper if we keep burning fossil fuels. (

Star Trek Actors Arrested, Call on Gov. Cuomo to Boldly Go Beyond Fossil Fuels

Sandra Steingraber | June 6, 2016 12:52 pm

Early this morning on a hillside above Seneca Lake, actors James Cromwell and John “J.G.” Hertzler of Star Trek fame joined 17 area residents in an act of civil disobedience that is part of an ongoing citizen campaign against salt cavern gas storage.

While blockading the main entrance to the Crestwood compressor station, the two actors urged Gov. Cuomo to stand up to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for green-lighting an expansion of this fracked gas infrastructure project against overwhelming local opposition and for undermining the governor’s own stated commitment to a rapid transition to renewable energy.

Starting at 6:45 a.m. and continuing until their arrests by Schuyler County deputies shortly before 7:30 a.m., the protesters blocked all traffic from leaving and entering the facility, including two Crestwood tanker trucks. All 19 were transported to the Schuyler County sheriff’s department, charged with disorderly conduct, ticketed and released.

“The prettiest place I’ve ever seen is right here: the Finger Lakes region of New York … Governor Cuomo, we, the people, do not want to see these pristine lakes turned into cheap, contaminated, industrialized storage facilities for Crestwood and Con Ed. Stand with us, Governor!,” John Hertzler, 66, who played Klingon General Martok on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, said.

“Defend your own program for getting New York State off of fossil fuels and transitioned to renewable energy. FERC—the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission—seeks to keep us chained to the energy of the past and, in so doing, threatens our water, our lands, our safety and the very climate of this, our planet. Boldly go with us, Governor Cuomo, into a renewable energy future.”

Hertzler lives in the Finger Lakes region with his family in the town of Ulysses where he serves on the town board.

James Cromwell, 76, who played Zefram Cochrane in Star Trek: First Contact and who was nominated for an Academy Award for his role as Farmer Arthur Hoggett in Babe, called on New Yorkers to join the We Are Seneca Lake movement.

“FERC-approved fracked gas infrastructure projects are taking over our entire state—from the crumbly salt caverns of Seneca Lake, where the gas will be stored, to the pipelines and compressor stations that devastate our farmlands, wetlands and maple groves, all the way to the burner tips of the natural gas-fired power plants that are planned for downstate,” he said. “
With all of New York under attack by the fossil fuel industry and by the rogue agency called FERC, all New Yorkers now need to stand up, stand together and say no.”

Photo credit: We Are Seneca Lake

Referencing the films in which the two have appeared, protesters held banners and signs that read, “We Are Seneca Lake, Babe/And We Will Not Be FERC-ed” and “Trekkies Against Crestwood-Con Ed Boldly Going Toward Renewables.”

The total number of arrests in the 20-month-old We Are Seneca Lake civil disobedience campaign now stands at 604.

Crestwood’s methane gas storage expansion project was originally approved by FERC in October 2014 in the face of broad public opposition and unresolved questions about geological instabilities, fault lines and possible salinization of Seneca Lake, which serves as a source of drinking water for 100,000 people. In spite of near-unanimous citizen opposition, FERC’s last-minute permit extension on May 16 gave Crestwood’s Arlington subsidiary another two years to build out its natural gas storage facility.

Salt cavern storage accounts for only seven percent of total underground storage of natural gas in the U.S. but, since 1972, is responsible for 100 percent of the catastrophic accidents that has resulted in loss of life.

Crestwood also seeks to store two other products of fracking in Seneca Lake salt caverns—propane and butane (so-called Liquefied Petroleum Gases, LPG)—for which it is awaiting a decision by Gov. Cuomo’s Department of Environmental Conservation.

John Hertzler. Photo credit: We Are Seneca Lake

James Cromwell. Photo credit: We Are Seneca Lake (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 08, 2016, 07:26:36 pm
EIA talks construction cost, never mind what happens after it is built and DOES what it is DESIGNED to DO (i.e. GENERATE energy).  (

EIA: Constructing  ;) a natural gas plant is cheaper than other options

By Robert Walton | June 7, 2016


•The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently began collecting data on the cost to construct electric power generators, showing gas capacity to be the cheapest widely-used generation  ( and wind ( to be the least-expensive renewable resource.  ;)

•In 2013, the first year for which the agency collected data, natural gas generation on a capacity-weighted basis averaged $965/kW  ( , compared with $1,895/kW for wind and $3,705/kW for solar.

•More than 7,400 MW of gas capacity was added that year, compared with 2,600 MW of solar and 860 MW of wind.

Agelbert NOTE: Doesn't that sound so nice and objective? That sweet talk about wind being the Cheapest Renewable Energy source is the set up for the sucker punch chart they rigged showing the "natural" gas power plants as MUCH "cheaper".  And WTF is the idea of limiting the COST of infrastructure to the initial construction costs? HELLO? Power Plants operate for at least THIRTY YEARS! It's BOLD FACED mendacity and disingenuous duplicity to claim one system is "cheaper" than another just from initial construction costs! Talk about PICKING WINNERS by excluding pollution costs after operation begins!  (

And, by the way, it's 2016. What's with  the 2013 stats (2014 and 2015 were BOTH BANNER YEARS for wind that saw construction costs GO DOWN!) to try to make Gas Power Plants look good?

Then they have the brass to publish a ridiculous cost comparison chart excluding fossil fuel pollution costs!  (

The "capacity" talk is a deliberate conflation of construction costs with generation costs to pull the wool over your eyes. The EIA  ( has no shame.  ANY study of capacity for ANY Renewable energy source in general, and wind in particular, evidences VAST more energy capacity than fossil fuel power plants BECAUSE the fuel is FREE.

What these fossil fuel friendly bastards in the EIA are doing here is going back to "high energy density" of hydrocarbons to justify a gamed "capacity".

In a sane world, the INSTANT you talk about energy density, you MUST talk about polluting products COSTS. If you don't, then you are cherry picking fossil fuels as WINNERS, PERIOD. (

HERE'S what the fossil fuel friendly EIA does not want YOU to know:

Wind energy is now as cheap as natural gas, and solar is getting close
And it's only getting cheaper.

BEC CREW  7 OCT 2015

Wind power is now comparable in price to fossil fuels, and solar is well on its way, according to a new report that confirms earlier predictions that renewables aren't just the best option for the environment - they’re unequivocally the smartest long-term investment you can make on energy.

The report, by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, found that in the second half of 2015, the global average cost of onshore wind energy will be $83 per megawatt-hour of electricity (which is down $2 from the first half of the year), and for thin film solar photovoltaics, the cost is $122 per megawatt-hour (down $7 in the past six months).

Natural Gas Health and Environmental Hazards

Natural gas power plants are significant air pollution sources, releasing hazardous air pollutants, global warming pollution and fine particulate matter.

Natural gas is worse than coal for global warming

While the smokestack emissions from gas-burning power plants are lower than coal, gas is worse because of the leakage from the wells to the pipelines and compressor stations to the end-uses -- since methane (the principle component of natural gas) is far more potent at heating the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (which is produced when coal or gas are burned).

The newest science on methane's global warming potential shows that it's far more potent than previously thought:
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 09, 2016, 05:55:26 pm
Sierra Club Endorses Hillary Clinton

Allison Chin, Sierra Club | June 9, 2016 12:34 pm (

Agelbert COMMENT: Thank you Sierra Club, for paving the way for Hillary Clinton to remove any and all barriers to Fracking in the USA and the world, as she did during her tenure as Secretary of State.

We are also pleased that Victoria Nuland is President Hillary Clinton's pick for Secretary of State.

Thank you Sierra Club, for ensuring a huge increase in the price of fossil fuels (i.e. price shock bonanza!) from the war tensions that Victoria Nuland, neocon State Department queen of the "let's go to war with Russia" group will joyfully generate.

We are ready, willing and able to patriotically and in altruistic fashion (OF COURSE!), work arm in arm with the Clinton Administration to provide peace, prosperity and lots of cheap, clean energy to the world for the welfare of all humanity.


Your Loyal Servants and Political Campaign Friends from Exxon, Schlumberger, Halliburton, etc. (you get the idea).

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 13, 2016, 07:49:50 pm

For those who can still add and subtract, the following FACTS about fossil fuel ERoEI thermodynamic efficiency (That is, the Fossil fuel ERoEI math, that Gail Tverberg and at least 54% of the Renewable Energy survey participants swear by, including Palloy, DELIBERATELY IGNORES THE FACT that, in the real world of the science of thermodynamics, Energy RETURN MINUS WASTE HEAT EQUALS work (as defined by physics) )  reveal the error of assuming fossil fuels have a higher ERoEI than Renewable Energy technologies.

The fossil fuel industry originated disingenuous trick is to FIRST hammer the "high energy density" (excluding waste heat, of course) Hess Law based thermodynamics into us while avoiding discussions of waste heat like the plague. When they have established the FALSE MEME that fossil fuels have a "higher energy density" than Renewable Energy technologies, they cleverly create a false equivalence between the cherry picked "higher" fossil fuels ERoEI and "higher" MONETARY Profits.  (

Massive Fossil Fuel Industry Welfare Queen Subsides, COSTS to we-the-people, which are TOTALLY UNRELATED to ERoEI thermodynamics, ALWAYS make it to the "higher" MONETARY profits happy talk.  ;)

However, the SCC (social Cost of Carbon), like waste heat thermodynamics, never gets included in the fossil fuel ERoEI happy talk OR the false equivalence "higher" MONETARY Profits fossil fuel happy talk, even though ALL MONETARY INVESTMENT DECISIONS, on which energy sources to use, are based on ALL COSTS.

HELLO? Is anybody there?

If we are going to talk about how much MONEY to invest in an energy source, based on how much MONEY it will cost to DO THAT, and how much MONEY we can get in a RETURN on our IVESTMENT, it is customary (if you aren't Gail Tverberg doing the ( bidding of the fossil fuel industry) to SUBTRACT all the COSTS of said energy source.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 13, 2016, 11:52:41 pm
AG: Energy RETURN EQUALS work (as defined by physics) MINUS WASTE HEAT)

Wrong again.   :emthdown:
Waste Heat is what it says it is - waste, it doesn't do work by definition.

Instead of wasting electrons on this load of crap, you should learn some Physics first.

Palloy reaches for some of these, AGAIN:

I apologize for the confusing statement about waste heat. I was trying to say ENERGY RETURN should EXCLUDE WASTE HEAT because WASTE HEAT doesn't contribute to Energy Return, but it came out a bit mangled. I suppose you will want me to study English too. ::)

So, let me fix the phrase so you can understand it: Energy RETURN MINUS WASTE HEAT EQUALS work (as defined by physics).

The old "dismissal" type fallacious argument technique, complete with aspersions to the opponent's level of intelligence and education is really tired, but thanks for the great laugh, Palloy.   

Here's to waste heat electrons   ( (

And as to your laughable claim to know what you are talking about, you just exposed yourself as being an abysmally, and embarrassingly, ignorant example of one BESOTTED (your adjective for me is far more applicable to you  ;D) with fossil fuel love. 

What you just said about WASTE HEAT is RIDICULOUS!

WHY? Because, although it is true that WORK excludes WASTE HEAT because WASTE HEAT DOESN'T DO WORK, ENERGY RETURN, as calculated by the fossil fuel industry cherry pickers, ASSUMES that WASTE HEAT CONTRIBUTES to the "HIGH" ENERGY DENSITY. You are trying to talk your way around that.   (

It's just MORE science challenged BULLSHIT from Palloy, the biosphere math challenged mathematician.  (

How stupid can you be to claim WASTE HEAT isn't figured in the ENERGY in ALL the enthalpy of formation tables known to thermodynamics?

ALL HEAT is ENERGY. THAT is where the fossil fuel ERoEI MATH gets it's BASIC DATA. 

ONLY when it cannot do MECHANICAL WORK is it CLASSIFIED as "WASTE", you ignorant, double talking fossil fueler.
When you figure out how Hess's Law works, THEN you can make some intelligent remarks about physics in general and thermodynamics in particular, instead of displaying your abysmal ignorance of science side by side with your brain dead bias for fossil fuels.

I have met some stubborn, hide bound, recalcitrant sophists in my day, but you take the prize for STRAW GRASPING DENIAL of reality.

Have a nice day.

THE FACTS Palloy wants to pretend do not exist:

If we are going to talk about how much MONEY to invest in an energy source, based on how much MONEY it will cost to DO THAT, and how much MONEY we can get in a RETURN on our INVESTMENT, it is customary (if you aren't Gail Tverberg or PALLOY doing the ( bidding of the fossil fuel industry) to SUBTRACT all the COSTS of said energy source.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 15, 2016, 06:26:43 pm
AG: What you just said about WASTE HEAT is RIDICULOUS! WHY, because, although it is true that WORK excludes WASTE HEAT because WASTE HEAT DOESN'T DO WORK, ENERGY RETURN, as calculated by the fossil fuel industry cherry pickers, ASSUMES that WASTE HEAT CONTRIBUTES the ENERGY DENSITY. You are trying to talk your way around that.

I'll try and decipher what you mean by that garbled nonsense.  Then you might learn something.

Energy Density is how much Energy a fuel contains per unit of Volume or Mass.  In the case of FFs, you extract that Energy by burning the fuel, producing Heat Energy.  After that, what you do with the energy is up to you - no doubt some of it will be wasted, and some will do work.  But Energy Density is a feature that the fuel has BEFORE it is burned, when there is no waste. 

The percentage of Energy that ends up doing useful Work via an engine, is called the engine's Efficiency.  An engine doesn't have to be a FF-to-mechanical engine - a solar panel is a sunlight-to-electricity engine.

The problem of both FFs and solar panels (and every other kind of engine) is that the engine's manufacture itself takes Energy.  So in an increasingly energy-constrained world, building NEW engines is not a solution, even if they are more efficient.  This is NOT an argument in favour of FFs.

Got it now?

That you are as arrogantly insulting as ever is what I get from your post. You are the one that doesn't get the fossil fuel favoring "high" energy density con. I'll try again for the benefit of readers here.


Palloy:  This is NOT an argument in favour of FFs.

Yes it is. You cannot arrive at efficiency assumptions without FIRST starting out with an energy density figure. THOSE energy density calculations FAVOR fossil fuels because the false equivalence between gross high energy density and  "high" Fossil Fuels ERoEI is peddled by the fossil fuel industry.

Although the subject of engine design is appropriate BECAUSE our entire civilization routinely replaces most engines manufactured in a 20 year cycle, there are more significant factors at play here. Your claim that the high thermal processes required by industry requires fossil fuels ignores the fact that electric arc furnaces can be powered quite well by electricity, at least the last time I checked. There is nothing in industry that beats electric arc furnaces at rapid heat increase and easily controllable temperatures for smelting metal alloys. PV and wind can supply that electricity quite well. No combustion is required to make PV and wind infrastructure, even though we stupidly still do a lot of that, to the joy of the fossil fuel industry. But that is a political/corporate issue, not one that has beans to do with thermodynamics or energy density.

I am referring to the fact that enthalpy values are based on scientific measurements of EXTERNAL combustion, not INTERNAL combustion.         

Energy density is a function of the total amount of energy in a chemical compound that will be released when combusted.  You are the one that does not get Hess's Law flaws.

Hess's Law is used to determine, in energy units per mass units, the thermodynamic release (for exothermic reactions) or absorption (for endothermic reactions) of energy in the form of heat energy (enthalpy).


Hess's Law DOES NOT differentiate between WASTE HEAT ENERGY and USEFUL HEAT ENERGY. The Hess Law ASSUMPTION that the total CHANGE in ENTHALPY (sum=Σ of changes=Δ  in enthalpy=H°f in intermediate reactions= Σ ΔH°f )  can be used to arrive at an enthalpy value ASSUMES that WASTE HEAT  is USEFUL HEAT.

Yes, HEAT IS a form of energy. But Hess's Law LOWBALLS the enthalpy of LOW WASTE HEAT biofuels like ETHANOL because they have LESS waste heat than hydrocarbons.

In a sane world of thermodynamics calculations on chemical compound combustion, the WASTE HEAT should be SUBTRACTED from the figure arrived at using Hess's Law.

BUT, it is NOT subtracted. Therefore, oxidized (i.e. combusted) compounds with LOW waste heat like ETHANOL appear ERRONEOUSLY to have LOWER enthalpy values than compounds with HIGH waste heat (i.e. ALL HYDROCARBONS - i.e. fossil fuels). This Hess Law ERROR is reflected in the published tables in chemistry texts for the Enthalpy of Combustion of chemical reactants AND makes its way to ERoEI values.

The following table is factual, though the reasonable facsimile of Agelbert  ;D saying "NO WAY" is also accurate.  (


If we used fossil fuels exclusively to boil water, the above table is accurate BECAUSE the "work" of boiling water (or running a steam engine) makes them the winners.

But if you combust the above compounds in the above table in an INTERNAL combustion engine, ETHANOL is the WINNER. You cannot understand that, for some reason.

As to the energy density of PV and Wind, they are far and away above that of fossil fuels and even ethanol, regardless of what you wish to believe.

In closing, I recommend your "erudite mathematical highness" to be sure and tell Richard Heinberg he does not "get it" and needs to go study physics.

How We Get to a 100% Renewable Energy Future

Richard Heinberg | June 15, 2016 12:20 pm

I spent the last year working with co-author David Fridley and Post Carbon Institute staff on a just-published book, Our Renewable Future. The process was a pleasure: everyone involved (including the twenty or so experts we interviewed or consulted) was delightful to work with and I personally learned an enormous amount along the way. But we also encountered a prickly challenge in striking a tone that would inform but not alienate the book’s potential audience.

As just about everyone knows, there are gaping chasms separating the worldviews of fossil fuel promoters, nuclear power advocates and renewable energy supporters. But crucially, even among those who disdain fossils and nukes, there is a seemingly unbridgeable gulf between those who say that solar and wind power have unstoppable momentum and will eventually bring with them lower energy prices and millions of jobs and those who say these intermittent energy sources are inherently incapable of sustaining modern industrial societies and can make headway only with massive government subsidies.

We didn’t set out to support or undermine either of the latter two messages. Instead, we wanted to see for ourselves what renewable energy sources are capable of doing and how the transition toward them is going. We did start with two assumptions of our own (based on prior research and analysis), about which we are perfectly frank: one way or another fossil fuels are on their way out and nuclear power is not a realistic substitute. That leaves renewable solar and wind, for better or worse, as society’s primary future energy sources.

In our work on this project, we used only the best publicly available data and we explored as much of the relevant peer-reviewed literature as we could identify. But that required sorting and evaluation: Which data are important? And which studies are more credible and useful? Some researchers claim that solar PV electricity has an energy return on the energy invested in producing it (EROEI) of about 20:1, roughly on par with electricity from some fossil sources, while others peg that return figure at less than 3:1.

This wide divergence in results of course has enormous implications for the ultimate economic viability of solar technology. Some studies say a full transition to renewable energy will be cheap and easy, while others say it will be extremely difficult or practically impossible. We tried to get at the assumptions that give rise to these competing claims, assertions and findings, and that lead either to renewables euphoria or gloom. We wanted to judge for ourselves whether those assumptions are realistic.

That’s not the same as simply seeking a middle ground between optimism and pessimism. Renewable energy is a complicated subject and a fact-based, robust assessment of it should be honest and informative; its aim should be to start new and deeper conversations, not merely to shout down either criticism or boosterism.

Unfortunately, the debate is already quite polarized and politicized. As a result, realism and nuance may not have much of a constituency.

This is especially the case because our ultimate conclusion was that, while renewable energy can indeed power industrial societies, there is probably no credible future scenario in which humanity will maintain current levels of energy use (on either a per capita or total basis). Therefore current levels of resource extraction, industrial production and consumption are unlikely to be sustained—much less can they perpetually grow. Further, getting to an optimal all-renewable energy future will require hard work, investment, adaptation and innovation on a nearly unprecedented scale. We will be changing more than our energy sources; we’ll be transforming both the ways we use energy and the amounts we use. Our ultimate success will depend on our ability to dramatically reduce energy demand in industrialized nations, shorten supply chains, electrify as much usage as possible and adapt to economic stasis at a lower overall level of energy and materials throughput. Absent widespread informed popular support, the political roadblocks (
to such a project  will be overwhelming.

That’s not what most people want to hear. And therefore, frankly, we need some help getting this analysis out to the sorts of people who might benefit from it. Post Carbon Institute’s communications and media outreach capabilities are limited. Meanwhile the need for the energy transition is urgent and the longer it is delayed, the less desirable the outcome will be. It is no exaggeration to say that the transition from climate-damaging and depleting fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is the central cause of our times. And it will demand action from each and every one of us.

You can help by visiting the Our Renewable Future website (, familiarizing yourself with the issue, sharing your thoughts and spreading the word with friends, family, colleagues and allies. (

Rob Brown: Great column. To have a future, humanity has to embrace renewable energy. We may never get to 100% renewables but, unless targets are set, progress will not be made. A number of countries have reached the 50%+ barrier on renewable power. These countries have been steadily reducing CO2 emissions and other types of pollution for decades. Sweden is a good example. (
agelbert > Rob Brown

"To have a future, humanity has to embrace renewable energy. "

Exactly right.  (

And Amory Lovins has shown how to do that. The Post Carbon Institute's insistence that a 100% Renewable Energy powered civilization, in order to be sustainable, requires a lower energy use is true. BUT, their attempt to equate a lower total energy use to an obligatory lower standard of living is flawed because, as Amory Lovins painstakingly proves in his peer reviewed work titled Reinventing Fire, Renewable Energy plus energy use efficiency improvements can shave over 80% of current energy demand off of our civilization without any lowering of our standard of living.

Richard Heinberg portrays this 'type of energy use' argument as two sides of a polarized, and irrational, debate. It's not. Those defending unsustainable dirty energy have conclusively been proven to be, not just wrong, but an existential threat to our biosphere.

Richard Heinberg fails to point out the fact that political roadblocks to 100% Renewable energy have zero basis in science, both from an energy density happy talk for fossil fuels point of view, and climate cause and effect. It is those vested interests in a dirty energy status quo who don't want to hear the facts, not those advocating a 100% Renewable Erengy transition.

This is not, as Heinberg claims, about what "people want to hear" about the transition to Renewable Energy. This is about, as he points out without sufficient emphasis, the FACT that any dirty energy scenario is not optional to a 100% Renewable energy scenario, PERIOD.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 15, 2016, 10:36:42 pm
AG: Hess's Law DOES NOT differentiate between WASTE HEAT ENERGY and USEFUL HEAT ENERGY.

True.   (  (  (

As I said before:
Palloy: Energy Density is how much Energy a fuel contains per unit of Volume or Mass.  In the case of FFs, you extract that Energy by burning the fuel, producing Heat Energy.  After that, what you do with the energy is up to you - no doubt some of it will be wasted, and some will do work.  But Energy Density is a feature that the fuel has BEFORE it is burned, when there is no waste.

There is definitely no inefficiency in Hess's Law - Thermodynamics wouldn't work if there was.
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O (steam) + energy
∆H: -74.81 + 0 = -393.5 + 2*( -241.8 ) + X
X = 393.5 + 2*241.8 - 74.81
X = 802.29 kJ/mol

A mol of Methane has a Mass of (12 + 4*1) = 16 grams
So Methane has an Energy Density of 50.143 kJ/gram
This differs from your quoted figure of 55.496 kJ/gram because that assumes burning Methane produces liquid water, not Steam (they have different ∆H: -241.8 and -285.8 ).  If liquid water remained in the furnace, it would eventually flood the reaction, so the furnace output (not the boiler) MUST be steam.  The difference between your figure and the correct one is the energy it takes to turn the liquid H2O to steam.
Isn't Hess's Law neat?

AG: But Hess's Law LOWBALLS the enthalpy of LOW WASTE HEAT biofuels like ETHANOL because they have LESS waste heat than hydrocarbons.

In a sane world of thermodynamics calculations on chemical compound combustion, the WASTE HEAT should be SUBTRACTED from the figure arrived at using Hess's Law.

No, that is wrong. (

Hess's Law describes the chemical reaction - it doesn't say anything about what you are going to do with the heat after you've got it.

OK, so now you have your heat, 50.143 kJ/gram of Methane, what are you going to do with it? - boil water to produce steam.  Try as you might, that process is going to be less than 100% efficient because some heat will always be lost through the walls of the boiler to the atmosphere.  That Energy is Waste Heat, but it is NOT the fault of Hess's Law, it is the fault of the boiler's efficiency (an engine).

Then you are going to take that steam and run it through a steam turbine (maybe several in cascade).  That is another engine and it will have an efficiency of less than 100%.

Then you are going to take the Energy of the spinning shaft and couple it to an electrical generator, another engine, again with an efficiency of less than 100%.

So the complete process is:
(Mass of Methane * Energy Density) = Fuel Energy
and Fuel Energy * efficiency of boiler * efficiency of turbine * efficiency of generator = Electrical Energy
and (Electrical Energy / Fuel Energy) is the efficiency of the whole system.

Now the amount of Methane entering the system is known, and the amount of electrical energy leaving the system is known, so the efficiency of the whole system is known, and that is what is used in ERoEI calculations.

I can't see what your problem is, except that your 55.496 figure is wrong, it should be 50.143.
Hess's Law and its table of ∆H values is 100% correct and is nothing to do with waste.

Don't you ever get tired of thumbs down? Talk about wasting electrons.

What, exactly, is your problem with the enthalpy of COMBUSTION table I just gave you?


My math comes from published tables. If you have a problem with them, argue with wikipeda, not me.

You can rant and rave about efficiency and there allegedly not being any "inefficiencies" in Hess's Law until the cows come home, but I never said beans about the Hess Law "inefficiencies". I merely stated that the experimental basis for obtaining the energy density values, WHEN THEY CAN OBTAIN THEM (which is simply impossible in some cases), is through measurement of EXTERNAL combustion.

What part of that is too difficult for you to understand?

Every time the subject of the higher ERoEI of ethanol than other hydrocarbons comes up, you have spasms of uncontrollable twitching, for some reason.

You have often gone into great detail about how much of this, that and the other is fossil fuel based to deny the cost effectiveness of SEVERAL Renewable Energy technologies, not just ethanol and other biofuels.

YET, when I point out peer reviewed studies  that prove ethanol beats hydrocarbon fuels, you pull out your down thumb smiley. LOL!

Hess's Law had its place in contributing to the Law of Conservation of Energy, but it is an inappropriate method of basing the start of ERoEI calculations. Even wikipeda agrees that ERoEI calculation should ONLY INCLUDE USEFUL ENERGY. Gross Energy density values include potentially useful and potentially useless energy known as waste. Deny it all you wish, but those are the thermodynamic facts.

In physics, energy economics, and ecological energetics, energy returned on energy invested (EROEI or ERoEI); or energy return on investment (EROI), is the ratio of the amount of usable energy delivered from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy used to obtain that energy resource.[1][2] It is a distinct measure from energy efficiency as it does not measure the primary energy inputs to the system, only usable energy.

A fuel or energy must have an EROEI ratio of at least 3:1 to be considered viable as a prominent fuel or energy source.[3][4]

The irony of the above quote is that wikipeda then proceeds to post all the Charles Hall fossil fuel and nuclear power happy talk ERoEI charts.

But, to their credit, they do admit that ERoEI calculations have no actual standard rigorous and required inputs. Therefore, ERoEI math is a fossil fuel industry cherry picking paradise.


Measuring the EROEI of a single physical process is unambiguous, but there is no agreed-upon standard on which activities should be included in measuring the EROEI of an economic process. In addition, the form of energy of the input can be completely different from the output. For example, energy in the form of coal could be used in the production of ethanol. This might have an EROEI of less than one, but could still be desirable due to the benefits of liquid fuels.

How deep should the probing in the supply chain of the tools being used to generate energy go? For example, if steel is being used to drill for oil or construct a nuclear power plant, should the energy input of the steel be taken into account, should the energy input into building the factory being used to construct the steel be taken into account and amortized? Should the energy input of the roads which are used to ferry the goods be taken into account? What about the energy used to cook the steelworker's breakfasts? These are complex questions evading simple answers.[28] A full accounting would require considerations of opportunity costs and comparing total energy expenditures in the presence and absence of this economic activity.

However, when comparing two energy sources a standard practice for the supply chain energy input can be adopted. For example, consider the steel, but don't consider the energy invested in factories deeper than the first level in the supply chain.

Energy return on energy invested does not take into account the factor of time. Energy invested in creating a solar panel may have consumed energy from a high power source like coal, but the return happens very slowly, i.e. over many years. If energy is increasing in relative value this should favour delayed returns. Some believe this means the EROEI measure should be refined further.

Conventional economic analysis has no formal accounting rules for the consideration of waste products that are created in the production of the ultimate output. For example, differing economic and energy values placed on the waste products generated in the production of ethanol makes the calculation of this fuel's true EROEI extremely difficult.

They also break down the three prominent ERoEI calculations, while ignoring the fact that the Charles Hall type SUNY "studies", whether they allegedly  ;) use 'point of use' or 'extended' (FORGET 'societal' - the dirty energy corporations don't DO 'societal') exclude inconvenient costs and include gamed dirty energy subsidies that artificially give fossil fuel and nuclear power "high" ERoEI and lowball Renewable Eenrgy ERoEI.

There are three prominent expanded EROEI calculations, they are point of use, extended and societal. Point of Use EROEI expands the calculation to include the cost of refining and transporting the fuel during the refining process. Since this expands the bounds of the calculation to include more production process EROEI will decrease.[21]

Extended EROEI includes point of use expansions as well as including the cost of creating the infrastructure needed for transportation of the energy or fuel once refined.[30]

Societal EROI is a sum of all the EROEIs of all the fuels used in a society or nation. A societal EROI has never been calculated and researchers believe it may currently be impossible to know all variables necessary to complete the calculation, but attempted estimates have been made for some nations. (

Things were simpler in the middle of the 19th Century

Hess's Law of the constant summation of heat was obviously a special case of the law of the conservation of energy, which had not yet been formally stated.

But that was then. NOW the polluters use Hess's Law to our detriment and their profit.
The REALITY of WASTE HEAT in fuels for internal combustion engines, as well as the ENERGY REQUIRED to ameliorate the POLLUTION those fuels produce when combusted, is excluded. This convenient fiction distorts the value of selected energy sources, resulting in the use of NEGATIVE ERoEI, inefficient and polluting, hydrocarbon fuels to run industrial civilization.

In the REAL world we live in called the biosphere, this is unsustainable because the balance of energy radiated to space versus that received from the sun is altered towards life destroying heat.

It IS a closed system. ALL factors must be computed. Hess's Law is an ABERRATION of the Law of Conservation of Energy because it reduces the concept of "energy" to heat, whether or not it is waste (i.e. USELESS for work and damaging to the biosphere) heat.

TODAY, Hess's Law is used BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY and the CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY to arbitrarily to exclude inconvenient thermodynamic FACTS in order to downplay the value of Renewable energy based technologies that produce fuels, textiles, plastics, medicines, etc.

Hess's Law, because it is the most basic enthalpy step to obtain energy density values for chemical compounds that are subsequently used in Energy Return on Energy Density (ERoEI) calculations, has helped the Fossil Fuel Industry Perpetuate the following MYTH: It Takes More Energy to ­Produce Ethanol than You Get from It! (

Most ethanol research over the past 25 years has been on the topic of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). Public discussion has been dominated by the American Petroleum Institute’s aggressive distribution of the work of Cornell professor David Pimentel ( and his numerous, deeply flawed studies. Pimentel stands virtually alone in portraying alcohol as having a negative EROEI—producing less energy than is used in its production.

In fact, it’s oil that has a negative EROEI. ( Because oil is both the raw material and the energy source for production of gasoline, it comes out to about 20% negative.

That’s just common sense; some of the oil is itself used up in the process of refining and delivering it (from the Persian Gulf, a distance of 11,000 miles in tanker travel).

The most exhaustive study on ethanol’s EROEI, by Isaias de Carvalho Macedo, shows an alcohol energy return of more than eight units of output for every unit of input—and this study accounts for everything right down to smelting the ore to make the steel for tractors.

But perhaps more important than ERoEI is the energy return on fossil fuel input. Using this criterion, the energy returned from alcohol fuel per fossil energy input is much higher. In a system that supplies almost all of its energy from biomass, the ratio of return could be positive by hundreds to one.

Put your DOWN THUMB out there all you want, Palloy. You are wrong about high ERoEI for fossil fuels and low ERoEI for Renewable energy..
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 16, 2016, 09:52:02 pm
I am having some difficulties with Hess Law calculations. Even though I have performed them repeatedly, I get values that are inaccurate. Therefore, I must be doing something wrong. These calculations deal with the combustion of Hydrogen gas versus the combustion of the hydrocarbon methane. Since the water gas product, in a standard atmosphere, immediately goes to its lower energy state of a liquid, I am using the liquid water enthalpy value in both reactions.

I would appreciate the use of your Columbia University graduated Chemist brain.

This is what I have calculated:

Combusting the common hydrocarbon CH4 gas (methane), we get CO2 plus water. According to the Standard Enthalpy of Formation table, CH4 has a value of -74.81  kJ/mol, CO2 −393.509 kJ/mol and water (liquid) −285.8 kJ/mol.

CH4 + 2(O2) --> CO2 + 2(H2O) The enthalpy of the reactants is subtracted from the enthalpy of the products after accounting for the molar quantities.

The enthalpy of the reactants equals ONE mole of CH4 (ignoring the two moles of O2 gas because, according to Hess Law convention, elements in their standard state have an ARBITRARY VALUE OF ZERO) =  -74.81 kJ

The enthalpy of the products equals One mole of CO2 + TWO moles of H2O = 965.509 kJ.

−393.509 kJ + [2(-285.8 kJ) MINUS [(-74.81 kJ) + (2 (ZERO))] = -890.299 kJ/mole

That was pretty straightforward. :icon_sunny: Now for the combustion of hydrogen gas.

In the following reaction (Thermochemical Properties of selected substances at 298 degrees Kelvin and 1 atmosphere of pressure.), oxygen gas + hydrogen gas = water gas. WATER gas has an enthalpy of formation of −241.818 kJ/mol.

That means that an Exothemic (energy releasing reaction) sent out (a certain amount of) kJ/mole of ENERGY from two gases.

When hydrogen gas combusts with oxygen gas, we get water gas, which quickly turns into to liquid in a standard atmosphere.

2(H2) + O2 --> 2(H2O) The enthalpy of the reactants is subtracted from the enthalpy of the products after accounting for the molar quantities.

The total enthalpy of the reactants is, according to Hess's Law, ZERO.

The enthalpy of the products equals one mole of water (liquid) −285.8 kJ/mole.

-285kj - [(2 times ZERO) + ZERO] =  −285.8 kJ/mole

So, it appears that burning methane releases (890.299 kJ minus 285.8 kJ) 679.709 kJ/mole (about 76%) MORE ENERGY than burning hydrogen. This is inaccurate.  :(  :emthdown:

I did some checking and the more accurate figure for the energy given off by the combustion of one mole of methane is 802 kJ.


"Since there are 500 moles of hydrogen gas in a kilogram, this means that burning a kilogram of hydrogen gas releases 500 times as much energy, or 121 MJ (million joules), assuming that the water comes out as a gas, as is usually the case in a combustion process."

"The energy given off by the combustion of one mole of methane turns out to be 802 kJ. The combustion of one kilogram of methane releases 50 MJ. Heavier hydrocarbons generally yield more energy per mole, but approximately the same energy on a per-kilogram basis. Gasoline, a mixture of hexane, heptane, octane, and various other hydrocarbons, yields about 44 MJ per kilogram." (

NASA preferred Hydrogen over methane in their main space shuttle tank for a no bullshit thermodynamic higher energy release per unit mass reason. Yes, I know the fossil fuel industry peddles the "hydrogen is just an energy carrier, not a source" baloney 24/7. Bad mouthing Hydrogen as an energy source is right behind ethanol in the  fossil fuel propaganda fun and games.  :evil4:  But somehow they couldn't convince NASA of that  ;). 

So, what am I doing wrong that I can't make Hess's Law math come out right for the chemical reaction of hydrogen gas with oxygen gas?

(          (         ???         (

For each bond you break through oxidation, burning H2 gas gives you more energy back than each bond you break in the oxidation of methane.  The bond energy for  H-H is 432 Kj/mole.  The bond energy for the C-H bond in Methane (and all the single bonded alkanes +/- a bit) is 410 Kj/mole.  So for an equal number of moles of H2, you have more energy stored in the Hydrogen than the methane.  However, in the Gas phase, methane is more energy dense than hydrogen, because each molecule has 4 C-H bonds to break, whereas each molecule of H2 only has one bond to break.  So it is almost 4X less efficient a store of energy in the gas phase, even though each individual bond holds greater energy.

This changes if you liquify the gas though.  In this case, an equal amount of liquid hydrogen to liquid methane would contain more energy and release it on oxidation.  For space applications, it is not that energy consumptive to keep these gases liquified, because space itself is so cold.  On earth, this is a much bigger problem.  So NASA for space uses Hydrogen, but on earth generally methane works better with a higher energy density in the gas phase.

Liquid Alkanes (basically pentane and up at normal earth temps) pack a lot more punch than both hydrogen and methane by volume, because they are liquid at normal earth temps.  To keep Hydrogen gas liquified at earth surface temps would itself expend tremendous energy, so it is not a practical alternative on earth.

You can't just apply Hess' Law without dealing with the Phase Change problems here between Liquids and Gases.


Note: This assumes both Hydrogen Gas and Methane Gas operate according to the combined gas laws PV=nRT.  Both gases do operate very closely to that law except at very low temps or very high pressures.


Although a certain member of the peanut gallery will vociferously disagree (and hurl ridicule and ad hominem  arrogant insults along with bullshit about Hess Law "beauty") at what I am about to say, you have confirmed my view that Hess's Law belongs in the dust bin of thermodynamics history.

When Hess's Law was formulated, bond energies were not known. It was not until many, many years later that Linus Pauling's table of electronegativity was published. This aided in the knowledge of chemical reactions in regard to the positioning of molecular bonds between adjacent reactants and atomic orbitals in what physical chemistry now knows about the energy required to break bonds and the energy released (in exothermic reactions) when they are reformed.

As you pointed out in so many words, Bond energies, not Hess's Law, is the only accurate way, when gas phase changes are involved, to calculate energy density AND how much energy is released in a chemical reaction.

The following graphic illustrates the bond energy values, NOT AVAILABLE when using Hess's Law, whether phase changes are involved or not, that accurately reflect the high energy density of H2


Although you mentioned that in certain states, methane is more energy dense that hydrogen, as a rule, that's a technicality that doesn't justify methane over hydrogen. For example, a very long chained hydrocarbon is much more energy dense than a short chained one.


HOWEVER, the refining process, using a massive amount of heat, probably a greater amount than that required to keep hydrogen cool prior to combustion, produces short chains and VOCs at the top of the cracking tower.

BEFORE you get to the point where those short chains are massaged chemically and thermally to get long chains so your internal combustion engine will actually run, you have gone through one hell of a lot of energy per unit mass. This makes the CH4 (and every other hydrocarbon liquid or gas) perceived advantage in energy density at certain gaseous states as insufficient to prefer it to Hydrogen gas as an energy source, regardless of the energy required to keep hydrogen gas at a low temperature.

Hess's Law confuses this issue, not just in regard to gases involving phase changes, but in arbitrarily assigning ZERO enthalpy of formation values to ALL elements in their ground state, be they gas or liquid. This fails to account for, among other things, catalytic energy of activation lowering action based on element or compound electronegativity differences, to the unwarranted perceived advantage of fossil fuels.


We KNOW the bond energies. We DON'T NEED Hess's Law any more to estimate energy density. As you pointed out, energy density varies by temperature and pressure. As I point out very often, the fossil fuel industry people peddle the energy density data according to Hess's Law without absolutely any regard for the vast amount of energy they expend to package their product. They will ENDLESSLY go into detail about all the energy difficulties of packaging hydrogen for combustion, but are silent as DEATH about the much greater energy expended to prepare gasoline or methane for the market.

I know you and I disagree on this. You often mention the high energy density of fossil fuels as the reason we still use them instead of a hydrogen plus solar plus wind EV run world. I simply ask you to remember the energy cost of packaging fossil fuels in addition to the energy cost of cleaning up after the pollution they expel. Hydrogen has always been more efficient in energy and cheaper in dollars, if fossil fuels were not subsidized.

One more thing that Hess's Law does not account for, but bond energies (with some detailed internal combustion physical chemistry) do account for, is the energy density of oxygen carrying fuels like ethanol. Measurements based on external combustion ignore some thermodynamic realities that molecular electronegativity evidence. When you are oxidizing a substance through combustion, the efficiency of that reaction is contingent on the availability of oxygen. Nobody wants to talk about that elephant in the fossil fuel energy density room (except for maybe Palloy with a thumb down following ridicule and huffing and puffing  ;)).

There is simply NO WAY for a hydrocarbon to combust as efficiently and cleanly as an oxygen carrying fuel like ethanol in an atmosphere of 21 to 23% oxygen. As you know, the formation of incomplete combustion products in a combustion chamber is caused by the lack of sufficient oxygen reactant.

Gasoline never even releases, in the time it has to combust in the chamber, all of its energy density that SHOULD BE USEFUL ENERGY, never mind the waste heat, because of the lack of oxygen. Incomplete combustion is the NORM in gasoline. YET, Charles Hall deliberately ignored that in his ERoEI calculations with his erroneous assumption of complete combustion. Simply put, that was thermodynamic mendacity to make gasoline look better than ethanol.   

That is one of the reasons that it is CRAP compared with ethanol. The other reason is that ethanol complete combustion reduces waste heat and engine friction. 

Although I have never been able to convince you of the superiority of ethanol over gasoline or diesel, I hope that you consider agreeing with me that bond energy math is preferable to Hess's Law in computing energy density in elements and chemical compounds in a standard atmosphere, as well as the only truly accurate way to measure energy release in exothermic reactions and energy absorption in endothermic reactions.       

Bond Enthalpies, NOT Hess's Law, should be the gold standard used to base ALL assumptions about energy density in chemical compounds and elements:


If you don't agree, that's okay. Thanks again for the info.   (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 18, 2016, 06:42:31 pm
The Unfractured Future

Hear Native American leaders wisdom about fracking and why it must be banned. It is nothing less than a system that is going to pollute the veins of Mother Earth.

We hear Senator James Inhofe (R- OK) ( enthusiastically declare that there is enough natural gas to supply our needs for the next 35 years in the Marcellus Shale (NY- PA).

The film then directs our attention to the following: It's about our needs vs. our children's future.

Where is the long term thinking and responsible leadership? ??? (

"Regulations and fines do not protect the environment. There is no way to undo the harm hydro fracking will cause" says Oren Lyons, faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation. "When you sit and you counsel for the welfare of the people, think not of yourself, nor of your family, nor even your generation. Make decisions on behalf of the 7th generation coming... you have to defend and protect them so that they may enjoy what you enjoy today."

--Bibi Farber

This video was made by "Reel Change for Nonprofits" participants Tracy Basile and Scott Halfmann of WESPAC and Friends of Turtle Island.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 22, 2016, 08:35:55 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Eclipsed By Pollution’s Cost

 A common refrain of those advocating against climate action has been that the economic benefits of the fossil fuel industry outweigh the costs of switching to clean energy.

A new working paper out of Cambridge provides some numbers to show that this is not an even remotely legitimate claim. Researchers compared how much the top 20 fossil fuel companies profited between 2008 and 2012 with the social cost of the carbon emissions in their reserves. (At Vox, Dave Roberts goes into a little detail on the paper and explaining the social cost of carbon, for those who’d like a refresher.)

The results of the analysis show that: "For all companies and all years, the economic cost to society of their CO2 emissions was greater than their after-tax profit, with the single exception of Exxon Mobil in 2008.” So if companies had to pay to clean up their carbon emissions, instead of foisting that expense on the public, none of them would be making any money.

For coal companies, every dollar of revenue translated to somewhere between $2 and $9 in climate costs borne by society. This means that if the world ever gets around to putting a price on carbon that accurately reflects the social costs, it’s doubtful that any fossil fuel company could stay in business without making some major changes.

Despite their current earnings, this tells us that fossil fuel companies aren’t a net positive economic force on the planet, undercutting the popular denier excuse for inaction.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t make them any less of a source of income  (  (  for those with "vested interest in carbon dioxide emissions” ( who are eager to tell us all about how “Fossil Fuels Will Save The World (Really).”  (   ( (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 25, 2016, 02:09:45 pm
Agelbert NOTE: So much for the USA National Sovereignty based  Keystone XL Rejection.  >:(  The lawyer lackeys for the corporate crooks are using NAFTA to bypass national sovereignty as if it was not there.   (

TransCanada Files NAFTA ( Suit Demanding More Than $15 Billion for Keystone XL Rejection

Michael Brune | June 25, 2016 10:16 am

On June 24, foreign oil company TransCanada filed a lawsuit against the U.S. under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, arguing that the U.S. rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline violated NAFTA’s broad rights for foreign investors by thwarting the company’s “expectations.” As compensation, TransCanada is demanding more than $15 billion from U.S. taxpayers.

TransCanada’s case will be heard in a private tribunal of three lawyers who are not accountable to any domestic legal system, thanks to NAFTA’s “investor-state” system, which is also included in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The controversial TPP would empower thousands of additional corporations, including major polluters, to follow TransCanada’s example and use this private tribunal system to challenge U.S. climate and environmental policies.

TransCanada’s Request for Arbitration follows the Notice of Intent to submit a claim to arbitration that it filed on Jan. 6.

TransCanada’s attempt to make American taxpayers hand over more than $15 billion because the company’s dirty Keystone XL pipeline was rejected shows exactly why NAFTA was wrong and why the even more dangerous and far-reaching Trans-Pacific Partnership must be stopped in its tracks.

The TPP would empower thousands of new firms operating in the U.S, including major polluters, to follow in TransCanada’s footsteps and undermine our critical climate safeguards in private trade tribunals.

Today, we have a prime example of how polluter-friendly trade deals threaten our efforts to tackle the climate crisis, spotlighting the need for a new model of trade model that supports rather than undermines climate action. We urge our members of Congress to learn from this historic moment and commit to reject the TPP.

Here’s more information on the TPP:

Environmental opposition to the TPP is mounting. Earlier in June, more than 450 environmental, landowner, Indigenous rights, and allied organizations sent a letter to Congress warning that pending trade deals like the TPP threaten efforts to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Read the Sierra Club’s report on how the TPP would roughly double the number of corporations that could follow TransCanada’s example and challenge U.S. safeguards in private, unaccountable tribunals.


The corporations that would gain this ability include hundreds of foreign-owned fossil fuel firms, such as the U.S. subsidiaries of BHP Billiton, one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters and one of the U.S.’s largest foreign investors in fracking and offshore drilling.

The TPP would nearly double the number of foreign fracking firms that could challenge new U.S. fracking restrictions in private tribunals.

The deal also would enable oil and gas corporations with nearly 1 million acres’ worth of U.S. offshore drilling leases to use this private tribunal system to try to undermine new restrictions on offshore drilling. (

No prior U.S. trade deal has granted such broad rights to corporations with such broad interests in maintaining U.S. fossil fuel dependency.

We do not have to let these crooks get away with this THEFT under the color of law.


Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 27, 2016, 06:39:18 pm

U.S. states, Rockefellers clash with U.S. House panel on Exxon climate probes

Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:20pm EDT HOUSTON  |  By Terry Wade

With a number of U.S. states proceeding with investigations of Exxon Mobil Corp's (XOM.N) record on climate change, the attorney general of Massachusetts and investment funds of the Rockefeller family on Friday told a Congressional committee it lacked powers to oversee those probes.

The pushback is the latest chapter in a high-stakes fight between the world's largest publicly traded oil company and a coalition of state attorneys general who have said they would go after Exxon to try and force action to tackle climate change.

The House Committee ( on Science, Space and Technology ( last week reiterated demands(  that state attorneys general hand over any records of consultations the prosecutors had with ]outside environmental groups before their probes were opened.


Republicans on the committee have said about 20 state officials overreached when they jointly said in March they would participate in inquiries into whether Exxon executives misled the public by contradicting research from company scientists that spelled out the threats of climate change.
State officials have said the committee has no right to get involved.  (

"The Committee lacks authority to interfere with an investigation by the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office into possible violations of Massachusetts law by ExxonMobil,"
said a letter to the committee from the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey that was seen by Reuters.
In another letter to the House panel seen by Reuters, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund, two investment funds that have been critical of fossil fuels linked to climate change, said the committee's request "imperiled the funds' First Amendment rights" and said "Congress's investigatory power is not unlimited."

Last week, Exxon asked a federal court to throw out a subpoena that would force it to hand over decades of documents on climate change to Healey's office.
Both sides in the standoff have sought to use the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom speech and freedom of assembly, among other protections, to press their cases.

The House committee has complained the inquiries risk stifling free speech and scientific inquiry, and that state officials were coordinating with special interest groups.

Exxon , which declined to comment on Friday, has repeatedly said that it has acknowledged the reality of climate change for years and communicated this to investors. (



Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 05, 2016, 02:38:59 pm
Although Mr. Farage has said some hard truths from time to time, I cannot accept the "National sovereignty" excuse he gave for pushing BREXIT BECAUSE he is a global warming DENIER.

IOW, he WANTS MORE fossil fuel AND nuclear power "investment" and LESS "regulation" from EU environmental standards requiring LESS emissions.

He is, therefore, incapable of doing the right thing for future generations. EVERY OTHER ISSUE is subordinate to the issue of CO2 pollution and the sixth mass extinction it has triggered.

Nigel Blowhard Farage  ( does not understand that

Besides being a climate change denier, NF has a lot of other despicable opinions and traits.  He's a xenophobe and a capitalist to begin with.

However, he did serve as a good Monkey Wrench messing up the works in the EU, which is a good thing.  The EU is just Nazism with Window Dressing.  I just finished an article on this topic for next week's Sunday Brunch on the Diner.

Besides that, NF is funny, in an In Your Face sort of way.  He regularly pitched some fabulous insults at the rest of the Clowns & Jokers in the EU Parliament.  (


Yup. The whole BREXIT thing is just a turf battle between two elite empathy deficit disordered fascist groups.

You may disagree, but the EU fascists have more CFS (Common F'n Sense) than the British fascists.

Time to leverage the Brexit into a nice oil company lobbyist position.

Eddie has the picture of what BREXIT is ALL ABOUT for the British oligarchs.  ( (  (

Nigel Farage is, like those he backs, a suicidal, dirty energy supporting greed ball pushing "national sovereignty" bullshit while endangering future generations with his actions.

I'm sure he and his pals find it very amusing.  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 27, 2016, 09:38:10 pm
Agelbert NOTE: To be filed in the "Just what we did NOT need" category (Giant Gas Discovery)  >:(.

Giant Gas Discovery Made By International Team
Published at 04:35PM - 26/07/16
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) announced it has discovered “large deposits of potentially producible gas hydrate” in the Indian Ocean, in a partnership with the government of India and Japan.

According to the USGS, this discovery of highly enriched accumulations of natural gas hydrate in the Bay of Bengal is the first of its kind in the Indian Ocean with the potential to be producible.

“Advanced like the Bay of Bengal discovery will help unlock the global energy resource potential of gas hydrates as well as help define the technology needed to safely produce them”, said Walter Guidroz, USGS Energy Resources Programme coordinator.
Giant Gas Discovery Made By International Team (

“The USGS is proud  ( to have played a key role on this project in collaboration with our international partner, the Indian government,” he added.

USGS Scientists Dr. William Waite (Right) and Dr. Pamela Swarzenski (picture of two brain dead scientists at article link)

The international team responsible for the finding was led by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) of India on behalf of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas India, in cooperation with the USGS, the Japanese Drilling Company and the Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC).

The scientists involved conducted ocean drilling, conventional sediment coring, pressure coring, downhole logging and analytical activities to assess the geological occurrence, regional context and features of the deposits.

Scientists Analyse Energy Potential in Gas Hydrates

“The results from this expedition mark a critical step forward to understanding the energy resource potential of gas hydrates,” USGS Senior Scientist Tim Collet, who participated in the programme, said.

“The discovery is what we believe to be several of the largest and most concentrated gas hydrate accumulations yet found in the world will yield the geologic and engineering data needed to better understand the geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrate in nature and to assess the technologies needed to safely produce gas hydrates,” he added.

The research expedition – Indian National Gas Hydrate Program Expedition 02 – is the second joint exploration for gas hydrate potential in the Indian Ocean.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 30, 2016, 10:23:52 pm
Wolf Richter has an article up about the numbers here.  We're already at 100 BKs of major companies halfway through the year, set to surpass the record of 180 in 2009.  More to come after that in 2017.


Well, the important thing to understand about fossil fuel corporations in general, and oil and gas majors in particular, is that they LIE to EVERYBODY, even the bankruptcy courts that BABY them back to life when there is NO REASON to allow them to restructure. MOST of the bankruptcies in Texas that have been allowed to limp along on chapter 11 were based on $65 a barrel or MORE prices materializing in 2016. It HASN'T happened.

Now imagine if a solar panel, wind turbine or EV corporation was bleeding the same way. Renewable energy providers would NOT be given a snowball's chance in hell by bankruptcy courts or Wall Street of obtaining a Chapter 11 restructuring.

I turn blue in the face just thinking about how much THEFT is going on 24/7 by these oil and gas bastards. For example, that giant loss that Exxon just posted is probably about HALF what they ACTUALLY are bleeding.

IOW, what we are seeing is MUCH WORSE than the reality. AND it has BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER TWO YEARS!

What we find out is about two years behind and thoroughly watered down.  (

The incredible accounting jabberwoky the fossil fuel pigs make up as they go along involves 24/7 TOTAL MENS REA.

They need to be destroyed for the good of humanity.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 31, 2016, 07:07:56 pm

The incredible accounting jabberwoky the fossil fuel pigs make up as they go along involves 24/7 TOTAL MENS REA.

They need to be destroyed for the good of humanity.

In the end, the REAL MATH cannot be falsified by accounting gimmicks.  They're at the wall now AG. Consumers cannot afford to retire the debts they accumulate.  Banks will take the losses, their losses absorbed by Central Banks, then finally they will go **** Up.  Unless the Ferengi arrive with Starship Freighters loaded with Gold Pressed Latinum and Dilithium Crystals, there is nobody left after the CBs to pick up the tab.  PAHHTY IS OVAH, the band stops playing and the beer has run out.


Down goes the Titanic.

Have a little patience.  It's coming.


From your lips to God's ears.  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 01, 2016, 04:10:59 pm
RE,  The model has oil going to $20 per barrel by 2019 with a well defined curve, if you really knew that you would buy any dips below min sell before median.  Then reverse positions and short sell any significant dips above median.  You'd lose some but if your model held you'd win more.

This explanation excludes the pertinent fact that when you SHORT a commodity, the upside is limited and the down side is unlimited. The 'market jitters' are far more applicable than supply and demand in dealing with the price of crude BECAUSE market manipulation speculation and war scares have a FAR greater effect on the price rigging of this polluting fossil fuel crap.

Consequently, shorting oil is NOT a sure winner, even if the demand destruction going on could be accurately predicted to destroy the oil and gas producing pigs.

... I certainly haven't gone into a cocoon and become a peak oil denier, ... 

Peak oil is irrelevant; demand Destruction of fossil fuels is. The USGS just found a giant gas deposit near India. There is a multi-billion barrel crude oil find off of the Falklands that has barely begun to be tapped, Another fairly large find was made near Norway. AND, GDP is rising in industrialized countries while energy demand is stable or dropping, putting the lie to the old talking point from Gail Tverberg and fossil fuel friends that GDP is a function of energy use.

... , nor am I looking to pick a bullshit internet napalm war.

I disagree. Your expressed umbrage at having your views challenged is the basic ingredient of an internet food fight.

Your basic view of the future of fossil fuels is flawed due to your lack of objectivity in regard to their actual costs to society.


The following method of obtaining CH4 has far more future than anything the oil and gas industry polluters 'R' US puts out.

Heartland biogas digester makes CH4 from rejected produce and cow poop

"Hitting peak oil will come faster than any of us think. But don't blame dwindling supply — it's all about disappearing demand" Amory Lovins
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 03, 2016, 08:46:55 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Please observe the brave activists hanging from the bridge.

WATCH: Shell Icebreaker Threads Bridge Hanger’s Barricade

July 31, 2015 by Reuters

Reuters By Shelby Sebens

PORTLAND, Ore., July 30 (Reuters) – An icebreaking vessel key to Royal Dutch Shell’s plans to drill for oil in the Arctic departed Portland, Oregon, late on Thursday, navigating between a narrow gap of environmental activists dangling from a bridge after a two-day human blockade.

Several Greenpeace activists appeared to bow to orders from police to lower themselves into watercraft in the Willamette River after spending more than 40 hours suspended from a bridge as temperatures soared over 100 F (30 C).

The Fennica threaded a narrow gap under St. John’s bridge just before 6 p.m. local time (0100 GMT) while several of 13 original activists remained dangling in air, backed by dozens of kayaks in the river and onlookers in a nearby park who cheered their cause.

Here’s some video from the scene (warning: language  (

( aims to return to the Arctic for the first time since 2012, when it experienced a series of mishaps including the grounding of an oil rig.

It is not allowed to start drilling without the Fennica, which is carrying emergency equipment that would cap any blown-out well, and the drilling season ends in October, when sea ice forms.

Greenpeace says Arctic drilling could be damaging to populations of whales, polar bears and walrus in the event of an oil spill.

Earlier this month, Shell crew on the Fennica icebreaker found a 39-inch (1 meter) gash in the hull, possibly caused by an uncharted shoal, and sent it to Portland for repairs.

The icebreaker’s departure on Thursday triggered a chaotic waterborne tussle between law enforcement boats and obstinate activist kayakers who took to the river again after originally being moved to the side by police using loudspeakers.

Police boats made waves that tossed some kayakers overboard and police dragged them into boats.

At least two activists were arrested, Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Steve Alexander said. Earlier, two activists were issued police citations, Greenpeace said.

The activists are the latest group to stage demonstrations over the past three months, seeking to disrupt Shell ships from heading north from Pacific Northwest port areas.

On Thursday morning, they successfully forced the Fennica to return to a dry dock.  (

The icebreaker stalled ;D when it neared the bridge on the Willamette, which leads to the Pacific Ocean, met by protesters waving large red and yellow banners, at times chanting
“(  No.”
“When that ship turned, that was history   (  (,” kayaker Michael Foster told Reuters.

Shell spokesman Curtis Smith ( said the company respects the rights of individuals to protest but added “the staging of protesters in Portland was not safe nor was it lawful.”  (

As the protests stretched into the afternoon, a U.S. judge (  in Alaska held Greenpeace in contempt and ordered it to pay fines of $2,500 per hour if the protest continued, with fines increasing daily to a rolling $10,000 per hour after Aug. 2.

It was not immediately known how much Greenpeace would have to pay in fines, nor if its members planned new protests.

“While we respect the courts, we also respect the increasingly urgent science that tells us Arctic oil needs to stay underground,” Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard said in a statement. (Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington and Eric M. Johnson in Seattle; Editing by Eric M. Johnson, Sandra Maler and Ken Wills)

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 07, 2016, 08:17:57 pm
MORE oil discovered!      (

Agelbert NOTE::Ocean Valiant (WHERE do they get these names? - are all fossil fuelers victims of illusions of grandeur? ???) Oil Drilling Facility shown above finds 2 Billion barrels and promptly plugs the well for OBVIOUS market price reasons. ( (

But don't think these biosphere math challenged oil and gas pigs aren't planning to access that crap later on. They simply cannot wrap their heads around the well established scientific consensus that there are a LOT of fossil fuels that cannot be burned without catastrophic consequences. The following graphic is beyond their cognitive grasp:
WHY can't they get the above through their thick heads? ???


Forget Peal Oil; Peak DEMAND for Oil is now in the rear view mirror BECAUSE the oil and gas pigs have better technology to find fossil fuels coupled with the accelerating demand destruction due to Renewable Energy infrastructure, increased efficiency AND cratering world economies. Amory Lovins predicted all this several years ago.   
"Hitting peak oil will come faster than any of us think. But don't blame dwindling supply — it's all about disappearing demand" Amory Lovins

Premier Finds Oil in Bagpuss Well  :P

Published at 08:12AM - 05/08/16

Premier Oil announced today it has found oil in the Bagpuss prospect, located in the UK sector of the North Sea.

According to the company, the discovery proved “a significant volume of oil in place”.

“We will now work with our partners to carry out a full analysis of the hydrocarbons and reservoir encountered to ascertain whether commerciality can be explained,” Premier Oil Director of Exploration and North Sea, Robin Allan, said.

The 13/25-1 well targeting the Bagpuss prospect on the Halibut Horst in the Outer Moray Firth reached a total depth of 1,532 feet in granite basement, Premier explained in a statement.

Overall, the well encountered 41 feet of hydrocarbon-bearing sands within a 68 feet hydrocarbon column, which is in line with pre-drill estimates, Premier added.

The sands have between 25% and 33% porosity and indications are that the oil is heavy. The well is now being plugged and abandoned.

According to a previous report by North Sea Energy, Bagpuss operations started on July 14th and the well was spud on July 18th.

Bagpuss and Blofeld Could Contain 2bn Oil Barrels

The well was drilled by Diamond Offshore’s Ocean Valiant drilling facility, which had previously worked on the Solan development, located west of Shetland.

The joint venture (JV) partners in the prospect are Maersk Oil UK (25%), North Sea Energy (15%), Premier Oil (40.1%, operator), EnCounter Oil (13.27%) and Groliffe (6.63%).

According to a previous statement by North Sea Energy, the cost of drilling the Bagpuss prospect are 100% funded through a farm-in agreement with Maersk and are 50% of North Sea Energy’s costs of a Bagpuss subsequent well, should one be drilled.

An analysis by Premier Oil on previous tests on the discovery suggested that Bagpuss and the nearby Blofeld heavy oil prospects together could contain up to 2 billion barrels of oil in place.

According to analysts at Wood Mackenzie (, this could imply the opening of a new play. ( (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 08, 2016, 07:34:21 pm
Got a couple of politically incorrect issues here AG....

1) All this talk of drillin' for oil & then pluggin' the hole ! mmm mmmmmm
This might get some diners a little excited and cause some blow back my good man.

2) That cartoon of Anu the great  big 9ft. white lizard god of the J.W.'s may be offensive.
It's best we watch this type of humor in the future.

Carry on.  (


I would say those are, not just incisive and brilliant, but also 100% accurate observations on your part.  (  (

You and I share a rather unique ability get people's drawers in a bunch. ( It's a skill that we aquired through frequent contact with non-intelligent, though devilishly clever and hopelessly crooked, life forms normally classified as members of Homo Sapdom.

We straight shooters aren't real popular, but you must admit we have a lot of fun telling it like it IS.   (

Agelbert is shown below asking himself a philosophical question:

What is it about reality that bothers crooks and liars so much? ???  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 08, 2016, 09:21:42 pm
There are 3 things in life that are 100% accurate.
1) Death
2) Taxes
3) Chickens always come home to roost. We are gonna' have us a very messy hen house ....

I just heard, I'm not sure if it was on your newz channel or not that BMW will no longer be making fossil fuel car within the next 5 years.

It may have been on the Real Verbz you tube channel. That channel deals with electro magnetic propulsion.

The mans name is Jason Verbelli & he has an amazing channel.

By the time mankind is done with the oil industry & all their chicanery we'll be lucky if they'll be a can of WD-40 on Wal-mart shelves to buy.

Old man Porsche had patents on electric vehicles in like 1901. Are you kidding me ?

This circle jerk has gone on long enuf! What a waste of time & money. Who gives a rats ass about variable valve timing.

You can put a used washing machine motor in an old V Dub Beetle, power it with nickle iron batteries & be down the road for less than 5 g's.

Yes, Germany (and Daimler - BMW too) is going to ban the manufacture of internal combustion powered cars after 2020 or 2025, depending on how much blowback from the auto manufacturers they get.

Of course the fossil fuel lobby is fighting this tooth and nail. Let us hope that common sense prevails over polluter stupidity.

And yeah, electrics were a big deal in New York in the year 1900. Rockefeller took advantage of the low level of battery technology back then. 

NOW, battery technology makes gasoline guzzlers look totally stupid and inefficient for general transportation on the roads, on the farms and even on ships.

Aircraft will take a little longer, but they can be powered, as a certain 15 year old giant drone now is, by hydrogen. Also, jet engine biofuel from algae is now being used by some airliners.

The gaming of all things energy by the oil and gas crooks has been going on for over a century. From the 19th century post-Civil War tax on alcohol that gave Rockefeller his start, BEFORE cars, to Prohibition that destroyed the ethanol competition, DESPITE it being a superior fuel, followed by wave after wave of TOTALLY unjustified "subsidies" and land lease giveaways, we-the-people have been robbed blind.


It's TIME that we-the-people listened to other species in the biosphere and told the fossil fueler crooks what they can DO with their polluting CRAP.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 10, 2016, 09:01:28 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Perhaps this Transocean Rig was given an inappropriate name. Hubris has a way of catching up on people with illusions of grandeur. 

Transocean Rig Runs Aground

Published at 11:53AM - 08/08/16

Attention all rig crewmembers: I think we just found England.  (

The Transocean-owned semi-submersible drilling rig Transocean Winner  ( has reportedly run aground in the UK after being struck by a severe storm.

According to the BBC, the 17,000 tonne rig was blown ashore on the Western Isles while under tow west of Lewis.

“Transocean and ALP Marine have established their emergency response rooms, SMIT salvage has been mobilised to deal with the incident,” the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) was quoted as saying.

Transocean Rig Runs Aground

The rig detached from its tug boat overnight before running aground at the beach of Dalmore, Carloway.

The rig had remained in contact with the tug Alp Forward, but was unable to make headway with the tow.

Earlier today, the master of the tug reported the tow line had parted and was unable to reconnect due to severe weather.

In the meantime, the MCA deployed emergency vessels from Orkney on Sunday to assist.

“The MCA’s counter pollution branch and Secretary Of State’s Representative for Salvage and Intervention (SOSREP) are monitoring the situation. Local authority and Marine Scotland have been notified,” the MCA was quoted as saying.

Transocean Winner Hit by Storm  (

According to the Stornoway Coastguard, there were no personnel on board and no risk to life. However, access to the beach has been blocked.

The semi-submersible was being towed from Norway to Malta and had recently ended a contract with Marathon Oil in the Norwegian North Sea.

The incident follows weather warnings put in place for much of the north of the UK as the country was hit by winds of up to 70 miles per hour.

Transocean Winner is a GVA 4000-design rig built in 1983 in Gothenburg, Sweden, and upgraded in 2006.

The facility was contracted early this year to work in the Norwegian North Sea for Det norske, at the Volund oil and gas field.

A pictorial metaphor: The future of the fossil fuel industry.  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 11, 2016, 03:52:07 pm
The REAL World of POLLUTION & CORRUPTION Since Spindletop in Images & Numbers















Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 11, 2016, 09:43:23 pm

Massachusetts AG defends climate investigation against Exxon
By Timothy Cama - 08/08/16 05:25 PM EDT

Massachusetts’s attorney general is fighting Exxon Mobil Corp.’s attempts to have a Texas court block its climate change investigation into the oil giant.

Maura Healey (D), the state’s top lawyer, filed a pair of briefs late Monday in the Texas federal court where Exxon sued to stop Healey’s wide-ranging demand for documents related to its stance on climate change going back to the 1970s.

Healey believes Exxon might have violated state law and committed fraud by understating the company’s research into global warming and trying to sow public doubt about the role of fossil fuels in climate change. She sent her civil investigative demand — similar to a subpoena — earlier this year.

Now Healey is accusing Exxon of “forum-shopping,” or trying to get a Texas court to intervene in a matter that should be handled in Massachusetts.

“This court should reject Exxon’s transparent attempt at forum-shopping and dismiss this case,” Douglas Cawley, who is representing Healey’s office, wrote in a brief with the federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

“Exxon has challenged the validity of the [demand] in Massachusetts state court and will have a full and fair opportunity to press its claims there,” he said. “Notwithstanding that fact, Exxon also elected to file a nearly identical suit in this court and asks the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Attorney General Healey — despite the fact that all relevant events alleged in the complaint occurred in Massachusetts or New York and no relevant events occurred in Texas.”

Healey also filed a brief opposing Exxon’s attempt in the Texas court to get a preliminary injunction against the investigative demand while the litigation is ongoing.

The court, Cawley wrote in the brief, “need not reach Exxon’s preliminary injunction motion because it should dismiss Exxon’s suit for lack of personal jurisdiction over Attorney General Healey, as well as on the other grounds set forth in her motion to dismiss.”

Healey and her colleagues in New York, California and the Virgin Islands have launched investigations into Exxon’s stance on climate.

Healey agreed last month to hold off on enforcing her investigative demand while Texas challenges it in court, a standard practice in similar cases.



Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 19, 2016, 04:21:48 pm

Deepwater Mexico: Exxon, Chevron & Hess Bid To Drill Oil

August 18, 2016 by Bloomberg
A general view of the Tonal sea platform oil rig for Mexican oil company PEMEX, located 65 miles northeast of Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche in the Gulf of Mexico, on Thursday, Oct. 7, 2010. Pemex is Latin AmericaÕs biggest oil producer. Photographer: Susana Gonzalez/Bloomberg

by Adam Williams (Bloomberg) Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Hess Corp. have agreed to bid together for rights to drill for crude in Mexico’s deepwater oil areas, according to a person with direct knowledge of the plans.

The three U.S.-based producers have reached a Joint Operating Agreement   (, which allows the consortium  ( bid to produce oil in the 10 areas up for auction on Dec. 5, according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the information isn’t public. A Joint Operating Agreement is a contract  ;) that establishes the role and obligation of each company in the accord, and designates the party that will act as the operator of a production area should it be awarded in the auction. (

Mexico hopes to raise $44 billion in its first-ever sale of deepwater drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico, located in the Perdido area near the maritime border with the U.S. and in the southern Gulf’s Cuenca Salina. Seventy-six percent of the country’s prospective oil resources are located offshore in deep waters, according to Energy Minister Pedro Joaquin Coldwell.

PEMEX Offshore Platforms DOING what the DO (

The country approved final legislation in 2014 to allow foreign crude producers to operate in Mexico for the first time since 1938, in an effort to reverse an 11-year decline in production. The Dec. 5 auction has been lauded by the government as the most likely to attract large foreign oil operators that possess the expertise and capital to produce crude miles below the surface of the Gulf, which Pemex has been unable to exploit because it lacks the technology to do so.

All of the 26 companies that qualified to bid in the auction, including Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Statoil ASA, and BP Plc, are expected to sign similar agreements because the government’s capital requirements for bidding are considered too large for individual producers to do so alone. Petroleos Mexicanos, the country’s state-owned oil company, announced in May that they were in talks with Exxon, Chevron and Total SA to sign agreements of mutual interest to consider the possibility of bidding together in the deepwater round.

A Joint Operating Agreement can be dissolved if one of the companies withdraws its intention to participate in the contract, and the companies may opt not to bid even if the consortium is still in place.

A Chevron spokesperson said that the company could not comment on “speculation.” Hess spokesmen didn’t immediately respond to calls and e-mails after normal business hours. Exxon would not comment on the proceedings, according to a press official at the company’s Mexico offices.

©2016 Bloomberg News

Agelbert NOTE: As usual, the price of oil goes up, as it has done in the last three or for days, NOT because of supply and demand, but because of SPECULATION by traders that count on their pals in fossil fuel corrupted governments to give them a profit over people and planet HAND OUT.

In addition to the totally RIGGED bidding for oil drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico, speculation is being fueled by a tanker swarm headed for the USA to "take advantage of" some MORE WELFARE QUEEN CRAP on behalf of the fossil fuel industry corrupt and unsustainable "business model".

Oil Traders Rush To Dispatch Tankers To U.S. Ports

By Reuters on Aug 18, 2016 02:12 pm


By Catherine Ngai (Reuters) A rare opening of an export window for crude moving from the U.S. Gulf to Western Europe has caused a flurry of interest among oil traders, with at least two securing vessels.

On Tuesday, global marker Brent’s premium traded to as much as $2.50 a barrel over U.S. crude futures, the most since late February.  ;)

"Supply and Demand", MY ASS!   (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 24, 2016, 02:39:25 pm
Agelbert NOTE: I am posting a link to this article, but not because of the minor environmental damage caused by a fossil fuel corporation, while the State Government does everything it can to exonerate them.

I am posting a link to this article because the comments clearly show that responsible, intelligent, caring people are not fooled by this pretense of governmental environmental defense.

Of course, in addition to the responsible voices, perfidious cheerleaders for the polluting energy "real world" always weigh in using cherry picked hyperbole to try to link the environmental damage to Renewable Energy infrastructure or downplay the (SEE: "tempest in a teapot"  and "get over it" typical fossil fueler type mocking) the danger to society of this 24/7 corruption of Government by Oil & Gas corporations. The people that peddle this propaganda are a danger to themselves and future generations. They pretend to care, but they don't care about anything but the money in their bank account.


State: Vermont Gas likely won’t face fines for killing flowers  (

Aug. 23, 2016, 8:43 pm by Mike Polhamus 5 Comments

The company’s contractors destroyed 77 of what are called harsh sunflowers while cutting other vegetation July 18. Contractors had considered moving the plants but tried instead to drill horizontally beneath them for the pipeline. The flowers died during preparations for the drilling.

UP votes left of DOWN votes

Annette Smith   (
This is what Shumlin’s government does about bats killed by wind turbines, too. Sure, let ’em die, and from the ANR perspective it appears that the more killed the better because for every bat killed, the wind developers have to pay into a fund that deals with bats in people’s homes. This administration can’t be out of office soon enough, our state’s democracy and environment are a shambles thanks to the blind support for build build build.
7 | -1 

Rich Lachapelle  (
They will grow back… The demise of a few plants, endangered or not is part of the price we all pay for an energy distribution infrastructure that benefits thousands of people. Municipalities host sewage treatment facilities for the public good and occasionally these facilities allow raw sewage to enter public waterways. How many times does this scenario result in fines? In the scheme of things, with Vermont’s junkie apocalypse, our world war with radical islam, and the climate armageddon, a few dead flowers is but a tempest in a teapot. Get over it.
0 | -1 

Barbie Alsop
Given that Vermont Gas is also willy-nilly insistent on going through wetlands that house an endangered bird in Geprags Park in Hinesburg, I suggest this behavior is the norm, not a singular mistake, and the Vermont Gas thinks that if it owns up after the damage is done, it will avoid penalties. As the saying goes, it’s always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, and this is the modus operandi of VG in this ill-advised pipeline. It was required to have all its permits in place before starting to build out, an it did so by misleading the regulators about the protected land and birds in Geprags. But the state’s regulators just casually allow it to continue, rather than penalizing a corporation that has no interest in doing anything other than make money before we finally see the light, and ban fossil fuels.
12 | -2 

Kate Porter
“Vermont Gas appears not to have profited off the plants’ destruction, Porter said.”
How absurd. They’re profitting off of the whole enterprise. That’s why they’re there. That’s what they do. That’s the name of the game. Make them pay, they can, they should, and it will give them some incentive to be more responsible in the future. Don’t go belly up, they’re big boys, they can handle it.
9 | -2

Kate Porter

Many don’t realize it but all of life on this planet is in crisis due to epic species extinction. How epic? Oh, about 65 Million years worth of epic, that was earth’s last big extinction event. We are losing species at a rate of a minimum of 1000 times the natural rate of extinction. Why is this important? Life requires ecosystems, ecosystems only stay stable when they are in balance, when one thing goes out of whack it affects other things. We are changing the balance, sooner or later are going to feel it. Things will change. In the meantime we make all other life pay for our blunders and our insatiable desire for more of everything including energy. All of life deserves our utmost respect. We are horribly arrogant, and cruisin for a bruisin.
10 | -4 
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 25, 2016, 03:21:54 pm
Water Is Life, Oil Is Death: The People vs. the Bakken Pipeline in Iowa and the Dakotas

Posted on Aug 22, 2016

By Paul Street
People opposing the Dakota Access pipeline project, also known as the Bakken pipeline, rally in Des Moines, Iowa. (Barbara Rodriguez / AP)

The American version of democracy focuses on elections and candidates. As the venerable left intellectual Noam Chomsky observed in June, “Citizenship means every four years you put a mark somewhere and you go home and let other guys run the world. It’s a very destructive ideology … a way of making people passive, submissive objects.” Chomsky added that we “ought to teach kids that elections take place, but that’s not [all of] politics.” There’s also the more urgent and serious politics of popular social movements and direct action beneath and beyond the election cycle.

We might refine Chomsky’s maxim to read “and let rich guys run the world into the ground” or “let rich guys ruin the world.” With anthropogenic (really “capitalogenic”) global warming, the nation and world’s corporate and financial oligarchs are bringing the planet to the brink of an epic ecosystem collapse.

We might also put some meat on the bones of Chomsky’s pedagogical advice by “teach[ing] kids” about the people’s politics being practiced in the upper Midwest and northern Great Plains by citizen activists fighting to help avert ecological calamity by blocking construction of what North Dakota Sioux leader David Archambault II calls “a black snake” of “greed.” The snake in question is the planet-baking Dakota Access/Bakken pipeline, what Iowa activists call “The Next Keystone XL.”

While Iowa Berned, Dakota Access Worked Behind the Scenes  (  (   (

As progressives flocked to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ impressive rallies in Iowa over the past year, the Texas-based company Dakota Access LLC, a division of the ecocidal corporation Energy Transfer Partners LP, moved methodically ahead with its plan to build the Bakken pipeline. This $3.8 billion, 1,134-mile project would carry 540,000 barrels of primarily fracked crude oil from North Dakota’s “Bakken oil patch” daily on a diagonal course through sacred North Dakota Sioux tribal sites and burial grounds, South Dakota, Iowa, the Missouri and Mississippi rivers and many other major waterways, to Patoka, Ill. It would link with another pipeline that will transport the black gold to terminals and refineries along the Gulf of Mexico for export to the global market.

In March, five weeks after Sanders essentially tied Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucus, the corporate-captive Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) approved the giant Iowa portion of the project, granting Dakota Access eminent domain across the entire route through 18 counties—the last major administrative hurdle for the project. The “regulatory” boards in the other three states had already signed off. There was still some slim hope that the Army Corps of Engineers could be persuaded to block the project. That hope was dashed July 25. 

Dakota Access construction crews have begun moving dirt and tearing up farmers’ crops along the pipeline’s projected path. Pipeline workers with out-of-state license plates are showing up in hotels, motels and camps—and on dating sites like “Plenty of Fish”—along the route. Construction began in South Dakota, North Dakota and Illinois in May. Pipe has been laid in Lee County in Iowa’s southeast corner and Lyon County in the northwest. Last week, a pipeline trench crossed the popular Chichaqua Valley Trail in central Iowa. A young woman from central Iowa reports that a local dating website is “swarming” with out-of-state pipeline workers staying in campsites and elsewhere.

Dakota Access first applied to the IUB for a pipeline permit in the fall of 2014, just before Sanders’ first visit to Iowa. Slowly but surely, as media-driven popular excitement over the largely Iowa-focused presidential contest built last year, the company quietly pressed ahead with a public relations offensive (with a strong emphasis on “jobs for Iowans”) against the opposition of environmentalists and concerned citizens. There was only one formal IUB public hearing, and it lasted just one day. The opponents of the pipeline represented a cross-section of Iowans. The proponents were almost entirely from construction unions, many from out of state. Opponents who attended multiple “informational meetings” staged by Dakota Access reported numerous blatant inconsistencies, contradictions and lies in the “facts” presented by the company. While the state dived further into the quadrennial caucus commotion, Dakota Access moved the pipeline through the required administrative and public relations hoops under the media-politics radar.

The stakes are high in the fight against the project. “If the Bakken Pipeline is built,” the progressive lobbying organization Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (CCI) notes, “it would seriously harm Iowa’s already impaired water quality, threaten the integrity of the fertile farmland of thousands of everyday Iowans, and contribute to our dependence on fossil fuels. This steers us away from developing renewable energy infrastructure and curbing the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.” CCI is part of a broad statewide anti-Bakken group called the Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition (BPRC) that includes more than 30 organizations. BPRC is engaged in the difficult work of grass-roots politics and direct action—both legal and extra-legal—beneath and beyond the major-party and candidate-centered presidential election extravaganzas that take early root in Iowa (thanks to its first-in-the-nation caucuses) every four years.

A Fake ‘Public Utility’

The IUB’s decision in March was rich with Orwellian irony. Iowa law forbids the condemning of agricultural land for private development. It is true, as Dakota Access argues, that the law excludes utilities under the jurisdiction of the IUB from the private development limitation. And that includes pipelines if they serve a “public purpose.” But this pipeline would simply transport oil through Iowa and therefore serve no discernible public good for the state and, in fact, promises to do considerable harm to the state’s environmental and financial health. Opponents rightly point out that like all pipelines, it will eventually spill, and Dakota Access LLC will leave Iowa holding the bag for the cleanup.

Like something out of Kafka, the IUB will have no power to enforce any kind of public regulations whatsoever on the operators of the private interstate pipeline they approved as a “public utility.” 

The IUB’s decision was another example among many that Iowa is up for sale to big business under the right-wing administration of Republican Gov. Terry Branstad.

The giant Canadian pipeline company Enbridge and Marathon Petroleum are impressed by Dakota Access’ success in gaining the approval of “regulators.” The two corporations recently put up $2 billion ($1.5 billion from Enbridge and $500,000 from Marathon) to purchase 49 percent of the Bakken pipeline. A likely consequence if the project is completed is that Canadian tar-sands oil will flow through the pipeline—and Iowa—toward the Gulf Coast. That oil is one of the most carbon-rich, planet-cooking fossil fuels on earth. Dire environmental concern about the mining of Canadian tar sands oil was the main reason climate activists like Bill McKibben engaged in high-profile protests of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline—a leading news story a few years ago.

Read the other two pages of this three page article at link below:

Agelbert NOTE: The concentration of Mens Rea Criminal Corporate Corruption of the Federal and many State Governments in the USA (and the world, for that matter) based in TEXAS is evidence that the Nietzsche style Empathy Deficit Disordered Territorial Imperative is an integral part of the MORALLY BANKRUPT Texan culture and world view. TEXANS, of all people on the planet, are the greatest threat to the biosphere that humanity has ever faced.

One way or the other, the TEXAN Oil & Gas worshipping culture will soon end.

TEXAN has his morning coffee


The Fossil Fuelers in general, and TEXANS IN PARTICULAR,    DID THE 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!  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 27, 2016, 02:21:02 pm

Polluting Dogs ( Have Their Day: Clean Power Plan Arguments Begin
 Oral arguments on the legality of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) begin today, kicking off a series of arguments, appeals and apparently, advertisements. And regardless of how these judges (six appointed by Ds, four by Rs) rule in the D.C. District Court, a West Virginia vs EPA Supreme Court showdown is nearly a sure thing. 
 So here’s a run-down of preliminary coverage. Two GOP-appointed EPA administrators penned an op-ed for the NY Times that explains Why Obama is right on clean energy. Their main point is that the CPP is in line with 45 years of the federal government’s power to set standards that states find ways to meet. Also at NYT is an explainer about why the clerical error that stipulates that the EPA can’t regulate something twice (think double jeopardy) has bearing on the ruling. But one expert was quoted saying such an interpretation is not likely to be endorsed by the court, as it is “like exempting restaurants from food handling requirements because they are subject to the fire code.”
Law professor Alice Kaswan explains in The Hill that aside from the climate benefits, “the rule could prevent 3,600 premature deaths, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work and school days each year, leading to air quality-related economic benefits of at least $11 to $28 billion by 2030.”

But you wouldn’t hear that from the WSJ, who offered up about a third of yesterday’s opinion page for attacks on the CPP, with an editorial as well as an op-ed by lawyers Rivkin and Grossman. Both pieces clutch their pearls and stick to tired talking points. Even their rhetoric remains the same, as this week’s editorial headline, The ‘Clean Power’ Putsch, echoes one published last year when they dubbed it the Climate-Change Putsch. (They have yet to fully break Godwin’s law and refer in name to Hitler’s failed Beer Hall Putsch, so cheers to that...)
 The fossil fuel industry’s full court press extends beyond the WSJ. The “clean coal” lobby has taken the unusual (but not unprecedented) approach of running fear-mongering radio ads about how the life and climate-saving CPP will render legislators incapable of protecting their constituents (apparently “constituents” means fossil fuel companies). This hyperbolic ad sounds like a parody of melodramatic movie trailers, made complete by the video version that literally shows the constitution burning. That bit of over-the-top imagery is based on a quote from Peabody Energy’s lawyer Lawrence Tribe, but as PoliticoPro’s coverage explains, the ad flirts with rules prohibiting lawyers communicating with judges outside the courtroom. Using of one of the lawyer’s quotes is, if nothing else, “highly unprofessional,” according to an ethics lawyer from the George W. Bush administration.
 Whether or not the judges will be persuaded remains to be seen. Since recent reporting shows most of the states suing over the plan being too burdensome are nevertheless already on track to meet its targets, challengers have an uphill battle. But unfortunately, even if the plan goes ahead, we’ll still need more emission reductions to meet the Paris goals, as evidenced by another new study. (
 By striking the plan down then, we’d be even further from climate safety. So this courtroom drama is truly courting disaster.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 29, 2016, 06:59:26 pm
For those who labor under the view that the reversal of fortunes for Renewable Energy in the early 1980s was just ignorance, supply and demand and big oil wasn't INSTRUMENTAL in bringing it about.

Oh, and about NON-HYDRO renewable energy being THROTTLED shortly after the technology was proven competitive with fossil fuels. You mean you DIDN"T KNOW there was SIGNIFICANT PROMISING  RENEWABLE ENERGY NON-HYDRO COST COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY BEFORE 1980? ???

I understand that the media BURIED the FACT that IT HAPPENED TO WIND TURBINE TECHNOLOGY shortly after 1980 when Carter left office!



The GREATEST PENETRATION OF PURE HYDRO renewable energy in the USA was in 1940.
Over 1500 hydroelectric facilities produce about one third of the United States' electrical energy. (

It was ALL DOWN HILL FOR HYDRO AS A PERCENTAGE of electrical energy generated FROM THEN ON.

The NEW CSP, wind turbine and, to a lesser but still important extent PV technologies, were being assiduously developed during the late 1970s.

Power companies closed ranks AGAINST that technology. Even places WITHOUT electricity like a Navajo Reservation in New Mexico triggered angry letters from the utility to NASA to STOP putting solar panels for water pumping there because it COULD "force electrical rates DOWN IN THE FUTURE".  NASA STOPPED but Carter kept pushing until 1980.          GET IT? ???  ;)


Check THIS out:



Westinghouse uprated version, the Mod-0A. Four Mod-0A protototypes were installed (Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Hawaii & Rhode Island).

When do you think the above pictures were taken, dear readers? Would you believe THIRTY EIGHT YEARS AGO!!?  (

Wind Energy Comes of Age

By Paul Gipe

Pag 103

After the moon landings, the space program began winding down, and with it the space agency.

NASA was scrambling to redefine itself, to find new "missions," when opportunity struck in the form of the oil embargo.

What began as mere tinkering by researchers at the agency's Lewis research center near Sandusky, Ohio quickly evolved into the most costly wind energy R&D program in the world.

NASA began translating all known documents on wind energy worldwide.
They consulted with Hutter and Putnam and studied the operation of Juul's machine at Gedser. In the end they started down a path blazed years before by Putnam. The result, the Mod-0, resembled neither Hutter's lightweight, flexible, downwind design nor Juul's rigid thee bladed upwind design. NASA's Mod-0 incorproated none of the lessons of Europe, while abandoning Putnam's most significant design element, his hinged blades.

Westinghouse, the contractor on the Mod-0, was subsequently hired to build an uprated version, the Mod-0A, for extended field tests. Four Mod-0A prototypes were installed (Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Hawaii & Rhode Island).

All were scraped when none of the host utilities wanted to assume maintenance of the turbines. (

The book goes on to explain, in detail, how various R&D goals of a high MTBF "couldn't seem to be achieved" in order for these machines to be considered "reliable".   (

They could build rockets to the moon, supersonic aircraft, high speed jet turbines with micrometer tolerances but making gears, housings and transmissions for a glacially slow giant propeller to generate electricity was just "too hard".

If you believe that, I have time shares in a black hole at the core of the milky way to sell you cheap. (

Call 1-800-BIG OIL for your time share reservations. (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 30, 2016, 01:07:21 pm
For those who labor under the view that the reversal of fortunes for Renewable Energy in the early 1980s was just ignorance, supply and demand and big oil wasn't INSTRUMENTAL in bringing it about.

Oh, and about NON-HYDRO renewable energy being THROTTLED shortly after the technology was proven competitive with fossil fuels. You mean you DIDN"T KNOW there was SIGNIFICANT PROMISING  RENEWABLE ENERGY NON-HYDRO COST COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY BEFORE 1980? ???

I understand that the media BURIED the FACT that IT HAPPENED TO WIND TURBINE TECHNOLOGY shortly after 1980 when Carter left office!

Maybe I missed a class, AG, but I thought it was pretty clear that Reagan tilted US energy policy firmly towards oil within 30 seconds of taking office. I particularly remember the celebrated removal of the solar panels from the White House. A symbolic act if ever there was one.

Most people still take the knee at an image of St. Reagan, whereas I've seen him as a fraud and charlatan since he was elected. But then I've been out of step with this culture since 1979.

Agreed. However, the push back from the fossil Fuel Industry actually began during the Carter Administration, as the NASA documents evidence. Reagan was a tool, as well as a dangerous fool.

Most people still take the knee at an image of St. Reagan, whereas I've seen him as a fraud and charlatan since he was elected. But then I've been out of step with this culture since 1979.

Russians think Stalin was a great man now, in large part, even though he killed 60 million people. Go figure. History is written by the victors ignorant-ass survivors.

Reagan did much to put us in the **** we're in today, as far as the US economy. Bush Jr. put us where we are in terms of war and the bankruptcy that goes with that. Whatever blame Obama deserves (which is not zero), he didn't set the wheels in motion on any of it.

While it is true that the historical narrative is routinely distorted to sanitize the mens rea reality behind empathy deficit disordered national actions on behalf of a greedy, corrupt and murderous elite, more and more people today understand that the happy talk and flag waving bullshit is just that.

For example, the role the U.S. played in doing absolutely everything possible to destroy Russia from the moment it attempted (but failed miserably, thanks to U.S. efforts) to embrace socialism, is documented. These efforts, to a significant degree (that you refuse to recognize), polarized the Russians into a paranoid dictatorship which wreaked havoc on its citizens.

Would Stalin have been as ruthless if WE had treated Russia with respect and not tried to undermine them at every turn? I doubt it.

As to the "victors" writing history, there will be no victors in a polluted and dying biosphere, regardless of the happy talk and other assorted myth making by mendacious and duplicitous historians.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 30, 2016, 02:25:29 pm
Would Stalin have been as ruthless if WE had treated Russia with respect and not tried to undermine them at every turn? I doubt it.

No disrespect, but I think you are almost as ignorant about Stalin as the average Russian.

From the moment Lenin died (1924), Stalin ruthlessly consolidated his power, even going to great lengths to hunt down and exterminate people who were heroes of the Marxist revolution.

He hunted Leon Trotsky for FIFTEEN YEARS, and had him killed by one of his agents, who took more than year to build a false persona that allowed him to get Trotsky into a situation where he was vulnerable. 

If that us what you consider no disrespect, I shudder to think of what you consider gratuitous disrespect   (

YOU were the one who brought up Stalin in a discussion about Reagan. I normally consider that type of diversionary discourse as an attempt at establishing a false equivalence, but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and see how you would respond to historically valid cause and effect.

When comparing Reagan with Stalin, the issue is not Trotsky. The issue is U.S. belligerent and unnecessary involvement. If I was to go into some DETAILS about what our intelligence services have done ROUTINELY for over 70 years, the Trotsky set up would look like a Sunday School Picnic. But I see I am wasting my time trying to enlighten you on what the US actually did to stimulate the paranoia and police state in Russia.

Have a nice day.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 08, 2016, 12:57:41 pm
Agelbert NOTE: To be filed in the WTF!!??? file of exactly what we need to accelerate our path to extinction.  (


World-Class Oil Discovery Made Offshore Alaska

Published at 10:20AM - 05/10/16


A Texas(  oil company ( announced it has made a large-scale oil discovery offshore Alaska.

According to Caelus Energy Alaska  (  (  ( , the finding could amount to 6 billion barrels of light oil in the Arctic Oceans of Smith Bay.

“It has the size and scale to play a meaningful role in sustaining the Alaskan oil business over the next three or four decades,” Chief Operating Officer Jim Musselman, said.

US Firm Makes World-Class ( Oil Find Offshore Alaska

According to Caelus, if estimates prove to be true, this “world class” oil discovery could be one of the largest ever in Alaska.

The development could deliver 200,000 barrels per day (bpd) of light oil to the trans-Alaska pipeline, the company explained.

As well as this, such a discovery could increase volume and reduce the average viscosity of oil, which would help extend its viability, the company added.

The discovery is based on 126 square miles of three-dimensional seismic data and two wells drilled this year from ice pads.

Smith Bay Could Hold 10 Bn Barrels

The company did not conduct flow tests to verify the well’s capabilities “due to seasonal time constraints”, but “extensive sidewall coring and subsequent lab analyses confirm the presence of reservoir-quality sandstones containing oil,” Caelus explained in a statement.

Another appraisal well and seismic work is planned to improve estimates of the oil in place, with hopes that the Smith Bay complex could hold a total of 10 billion barrels of oil.

According to Sullivan, it will be years before the discovery starts production, with the next appraisal well planned for 2018.

If everything goes according to plan, the CEO explained, oil could flow to the trans-Alaska pipeline in 2022.

Meanwhile, Caelus is assessing options for a drilling platform.

Caelus Energy Alaska Smith Bay has a 75% ownership in the state leases at Smith bay, while NordAq Energy Inc. holds a 17.5% interest and L71 Resources a 7.5% interest.

Agelbert NOTE: Thank you, brain dead, evolutionary dead end Texan oil companies for the lion's share of the profit over planet pollution that will rid the planet of homo sapdom. The wages of sin are death. Payday is coming, Amen.

If fossil fuelers had another brain, it would be lonesome.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 12, 2016, 02:26:12 pm
The Union of Concerned Scientists
Science for a healthy planet and safer world

October 6, 2016

New Study Ranks Eight Major Fossil Fuel Companies on Their Climate Change Actions

ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell and Others Assessed on 30 Metrics, Including Statements on Climate Science, Support for Climate Deception and Disclosure of Climate Risks

WASHINGTON (October 6, 2016)—An in-depth analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) of eight leading fossil fuel companies found significant variations in how they are addressing global warming, but none has made a clean break from disinformation on climate science and policy. Likewise, none is adequately planning for a world free from carbon pollution, as laid out by the international climate agreement expected to take effect this year.

The “Climate Accountability Scorecard: Ranking Major Fossil Fuel Companies on Deception, Disclosure, and Climate Action” used 30 metrics to examine Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, CONSOL Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy and Royal Dutch Shell. The top score, “advanced,” reflected best practices. “Egregious” was the lowest score, indicating a corporation was acting very irresponsibly. No company scored better than the others in all categories, and several were relative leaders in some areas and laggards in others.

“Across the board, these eight companies continue to disparage the science and undermine the urgency of action—either directly or through the trade associations and industry groups they support,” said Kathy Mulvey, lead author of the report and Climate Accountability Campaign manager at UCS.

“In the wake of numerous exposés that revealed companies’ records of working to deceive the public about global warming, many of the companies now insist that they no longer promote denial and accept the reality of climate change. This study belies those claims.”

The analysis revealed:
Only two of the eight companies (BP and Shell) consistently affirm in their direct public statements the legitimacy of climate science and the consequential need for swift and deep reductions in fossil fuel emissions. Shell received a score of “advanced;” BP scored “good.” At the opposite end of the spectrum, ExxonMobil scored “egregious” for its climate science statements after CEO Rex Tillerson cast doubt on the accuracy and competency of climate models as recently as this year.

All eight companies ( belong to key trade associations or industry groups that spread disinformation and seek to block climate action. All five oil companies in the study are members of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), a trade group that used misleading claims and scare tactics as part of a multi-million dollar campaign to block key provisions of a clean energy bill enacted in California.

Yet several of these companies have proven that they can distance themselves from industry groups that misrepresent climate science. BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell have left the American Legislative Exchange Council, with Shell stating that it disagreed with the lobby group’s climate denial and opposition to climate action.

Only half of the companies have begun to disclose climate risks to investors. Four companies scored “fair” (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and CONSOL Energy) and four companies scored “poor” (Arch Coal, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy and Shell).

Two companies were found to be “good” (BP and ConocoPhillips) in supporting fair and effective climate policies, a category that takes into consideration companies’ disclosure, policies, and oversight related to political spending in general.Three companies were “fair” and three “poor” (Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy, and Peabody Energy).

Seven out of eight companies have not begun to plan for a world free from carbon pollution, even since countries worldwide committed to ambitious targets to reduce emissions in the international climate agreement reached in Paris last December. Shell received a “fair” ranking; all other companies ranked “poor” (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil) or “egregious” (Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy and Peabody Energy).

The study comes at a time when fossil fuel companies are facing increased scrutiny and pressure. At least two state attorneys general are investigating whether ExxonMobil intentionally misled its shareholders and the public about the threat of climate change, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating how the company has valued its oil reserves in anticipation of potential carbon emission cuts. Meanwhile, shareholders at five of the eight companies filed resolutions related to climate change this year.

“Now that the nations of the world have committed to address climate change, investors and policy makers need information about how all companies are reducing their climate impacts and managing their climate risks—including the physical, regulatory, and market risks that climate change poses to their businesses,” said Paul Dickinson, Co-founder and Executive Chair of CDP.  “Reports and analyses such as this one are a vital resource for decision makers, including the senior leadership of major fossil fuel companies.”

In addition to calling for disclosure of climate risks that could affect companies’ bottom lines, investors also want to know whether companies continue to fund climate disinformation. The report highlights just how much further these companies need to go to disavow their decades-long efforts to confuse the public about the realities and risks of climate change and block policies to address it—work that continues today. Since 1988—after major fossil fuel companies unequivocally should have known about the risks of their products—more than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released into the atmosphere. The products of the eight companies analyzed are responsible for nearly 15 percent of industrial carbon emissions since 1850.

“It’s time for these major corporations to steer their companies and trade groups away from denying climate change and toward engaging constructively in policy discussions,” said Mulvey. “To evolve as energy companies, they must align their businesses with the Paris Agreement goals and help keep the global temperature increase well below two degrees Celsius.”

The report calls on major fossil fuel producers to accept their role in contributing to the problem of climate change and take action in several areas:

Stop spreading or supporting the spread of disinformation on climate science and policy:
The corporations should leave groups that spread disinformation or publicly distance themselves from those groups’ climate-related positions.

Fully disclose climate risks:
The corporations should disclose how climate change is putting at risk their infrastructure, reserve assets and future profits.

Plan for a world free from carbon pollution: The corporations should align their business models with a carbon-constrained world consistent with the international climate agreement’s goal of keeping the globe’s average temperature well below a 2 degrees Celsius increase above pre-industrial levels.

Support fair and effective climate policies: The corporations should consistently and actively advocate for fair and effective state, federal and international policies to reduce global warming.

Pay their share of climate costs.
No fossil fuel company has even begun to pay its share of the costs of climate damages and adaptation, so the report did not assess company performance or make specific recommendations in this area.   

The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 14, 2016, 07:58:12 pm
Global Energy News | Mon Nov 14, 2016 | 4:49am EST

Trump looking at fast ways to quit global climate deal: source 

By Valerie Volcovici and Alister Doyle | WASHINGTON/MARRAKESH, Morocco

President-elect Donald Trump is seeking quick ways to withdraw the United States from a global accord to combat climate change, a source on his transition team said, defying broad global backing for the plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Since Trump's election victory on Tuesday, governments ranging from China to small island states have reaffirmed support for the 2015 Paris agreement during climate talks involving 200 nations set to run until Friday in Marrakesh, Morocco.

Trump has called global warming a hoax and has promised to quit the Paris Agreement, which was strongly supported by outgoing Democratic U.S. President Barack Obama.

Trump's advisers are considering ways to bypass a theoretical four-year procedure for leaving the accord, according to the source, who works on Trump's transition team for international energy and climate policy.

"It was reckless for the Paris agreement to enter into force before the election" on Tuesday, the source told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Paris accord won enough backing for entry into force on Nov. 4, four days before the election.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday in New Zealand the Obama administration would do everything it could to implement the Paris accord before Trump takes office.  ;D

The accord says in its Article 28 that any country wanting to pull out after signing on has to wait four years. In theory, the earliest date for withdrawal would be Nov. 4, 2020, around the time of the next U.S. presidential election.

The source said the future Trump administration is weighing alternatives to accelerate the pull-out: sending a letter withdrawing from the 1992 international framework accord that is the parent treaty of the Paris Agreement; voiding U.S. involvement in both in a year's time; or issuing a presidential order simply deleting the U.S. signature from the Paris accord.
Withdrawing from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would be controversial, partly because it was signed by former Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and approved by the U.S. Senate. The action also could antagonize many other countries. [L8N1DB41L]

The UNFCCC sets a goal of avoiding "dangerous" man-made damage to the climate to avert more heat waves, downpours, floods, extinctions of animals and plants and rising sea levels.

The 2015 Paris Agreement is much more explicit, seeking to phase out net greenhouse gas emissions by the second half of the century and limit global warming to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.

Many nations have expressed hope that the United States will stay. But the host of the current round of climate negotiations, Morocco, said the pact that seeks to phase out greenhouse gases in the second half of the century was strong enough to survive a pullout.
One party deciding to withdraw would not call the agreement into question, Foreign Minister Salaheddine Mezouar told a news conference.

In Beijing on Monday, the foreign ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, told a regular news briefing that China would like to continue working with all countries, including the United States, in the global fight against climate change.

The agreement was reached by almost 200 nations in December and, as of Saturday, has been formally ratified by 109 representing 76 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, including the United States with 18 percent.

The accord seeks to limit rising temperatures that have been linked to increasing economic damage from desertification, extinctions of animals and plants, heat waves, floods and rising sea levels.

U.N. climate chief Patricia Espinosa declined to comment on the Trump source's remarks to Reuters.
"The Paris Agreement carries an enormous amount of weight and credibility," Espinosa told a news conference.

She said the United Nations hoped for a strong and constructive relationship with Trump.

The Trump source said the president-elect's transition team is aware of the likely international backlash but said Republicans in the U.S. Congress have given ample warning that a Republican administration would take action to reverse course.

"The Republican Party ( on multiple occasions has sent signals to the international community signaling that it doesn't agree with the pact. We've gone out of our way to give notice," the source said.

The source blamed Obama for joining up by an executive order, without getting approval from the U.S. Senate.

"There wouldn't be this diplomatic fallout on the broader international agenda if Obama hadn't rushed the adoption," the source said.

(Reporting by Valerie Volcovici in Washington and Alister Doyle in Morocco; Additional reporting by Sue-Lin Wong in Beijing; Editing by John Stonestreet and Clarence Fernandez)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 19, 2016, 09:37:20 pm
NZ receives ‘Fossil of the Day’ ( at UN climate conference

Thursday, 17 November 2016, 10:23 am

Press Release: New Zealand Youth Delegation   

New Zealand receives ‘Fossil of the Day’ award at United Nations climate change conference

New Zealand has been awarded the notorious ‘Fossil of the Day’ award at the 22nd annual United Nations climate change conference for showing hypocrisy towards fossil fuel subsidy reforms. New Zealand was exposed in its support of the oil and gas industries despite having ratified the Paris Agreement, under which goals have been set which would require at least 80% of fossil fuels needing to remain unburned globally.

“This afternoon, Climate Change Ambassador Mark Sinclair chaired a side event on the need to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and will likely encourage other countries to remove those subsidies.  At the same time, the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise website advertises the exciting oil and gas exploration prospects that are available in our country, stating the Government's aim to increase the value of New Zealand petroleum tenfold a year by 2025,” Alex Johnston, member of New Zealand Youth Delegation and Fossil Free UoA explains.

New Zealand is a founding member and champion of the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform (, a group whose aim is to eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. New Zealand’s policies have been reviewed by Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), who found that they do not have any inefficient subsidies encouraging wasteful consumption of fossil fuels.

However, the quote from the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise website makes the hypocrisy of the country’s presence in such a group clear.

“Not only is the New Zealand government hoping to increase the value of petroleum exports in the future (’re already providing tax breaks and funding the scientific research that is needed by these industries before they will commit to exploration in New Zealand waters.”

The support provided by the government to the oil and gas industries amounted to $46 million NZD in 2012/2013 as identified by WWF New Zealand.

© Scoop Media

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 01, 2016, 04:46:46 pm
Trump Watch | Nov. 30, 2016 11:54AM EST

Two More Trump Cabinet Picks Value 'Fossil Fuel Profits Above All Else'

Climate Nexus

Agelbert NOTE: The Cabinet Picks for the Trailer Trash Trump Administration all have one thing in common, the same meter reading (SEE BELOW) in regard to the biosphere and the health and welfare of future generations.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 02, 2016, 03:03:37 pm
From Fracking Enthusiast to Exxon CEO: Trump's Latest Picks

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 07, 2016, 07:37:51 pm
Trump Watch| Dec. 07, 2016 04:09PM EST

Trump Picks Scott Pruitt,  (  'Puppet of the Fossil Fuel Industry,'  ( to Head EPA

Lorraine Chow

(          (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 08, 2016, 01:09:07 pm
Scott Pruitt  ( is anti immigration, antiObamacare and anti criminal justice reform—and he doesn't believe in the idea of human-made climate change.

After weeks of speculation, the president-elect has decided who will head the EPA. His name is Scott Pruitt. As Oklahoma attorney general since 2010, Pruitt has been staunchly anti-EPA: He’s been involved in at least nine lawsuits with the federal agency, often challenging its power over state governments.

Like the majority of President-elect Donald Trump’s staff picks, Pruitt does not agree with the science behind climate change. In May, he wrote for the National Review that the global warming debate “is far from settled”—even though 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate change is real and that humans are behind it.

Now, as head of the EPA, Pruitt will have the power to enforce—or, rather, not—the federal regulations created by the agency that are meant to protect the health of the planet and its inhabitants. Policies like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act will be under his control. So will the agency's environmental justice program, which arguably already exhibits a lack of concern for environmental discrimination, according to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Pruitt has also argued that the EPA oversteps its duties, so he will likely minimize the agency's involvement in state decisions, granting states the power to pollute and emit carbon as they desire. This aligns with Trump's plan to revive the coal industry, reduce regulation and ignore the climate catastrophe. Trump can't take these actions alone—he needs the support of the EPA, which he has now ensured.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 08, 2016, 02:30:58 pm

With EPA Admin Pick
, Trump Says to Polluters: Do It Pruitt. (
 In the struggle between polluters and the people, polluters have long had an ally in Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Given their campaign contributions, even though he couldn’t run for re-election, “ally” might not be a strong enough word. As RL Miller of Climate Hawks put it, “Pruitt is simply a blunt tool of the fossil fuel industry.”
When polluters needed someone to sue the EPA to keep the Clean Power Plan from regulating their products, Pruitt was there. When ExxonMobil needed defending from the #ExxonKnew investigations, Pruitt was there. When Devon Energy needed someone to put their name on a letter the company wrote to the EPA alleging federal regulators were overestimating pollution from energy companies, Pruitt was there.
 Now these polluters ( won’t even have to go through the trouble of passing off their opinion as Pruitt’s. They’ll be able to call him directly, as he has reportedly been tapped by Trump to be EPA administrator.
 The phrase “fox guarding the henhouse” has been tossed around a lot lately, but is now more applicable than ever. Pruitt was not only at the center of the New York Times’ investigation that discovered a "unprecedented, secretive alliance" between the fossil fuel industry and Republican Attorneys General ( but is also a foe of the Humane Society of the United States.
 Yes, the man responsible for protecting animals and the environment in the Trump administration has harassed and criticized the most well-known animal-protecting charity in America, where people go to adopt puppies and help kitties find a home. Pruitt antagonized the group to the point that his predecessor, former Oklahoma AG Drew Edmondson, sued Pruitt on behalf of the Humane Society.
 Hopefully Congress can be persuaded to refuse his confirmation and force Trump to choose someone who at least pretends to prioritize people and the planet over fossil fuel profits.
 If not, history books will likely have a short answer to the question of how the EPA became a blunt tool of the fossil fuel industry: Pruitt was there.   (

Like an exploding oil pipeline, they’ll say, during his tenure at the EPA, Scott Pruitt up.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 09, 2016, 08:30:14 pm

Fear and Loathing at Koch-Funded Trump “Shadow Transition Team” Event

Science gives way to science fiction at an ominous meeting of fossil fuel elites  ( ( ( (

By Philip Newell
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 13, 2016, 06:23:08 pm
December 12, 2016

Trump Pick of ExxonMobil CEO for Secretary of State Would Lead to Corruption and Cronyism

Janet Redman of Oil Change International says we should feel no relief if Rex Tillerson were to divest all his shares and no longer head ExxonMobil.

Will Trump Scrap NASA’s Climate Research Mission?

Posted on Dec 12, 2016

By Andrew Revkin / ProPublica

Agelbert NOTE:
In regard to the above question, see wild bears and their habits in the woods...

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 16, 2016, 09:34:38 pm
Why Trump's Win is Koch Coup of Our Democracy

Published on Dec 15, 2016

Thom talks with America's Lawyer Mike Papantonio about Republican the latest Republican skulduggery in North Carolina, Big Oil taking over our government, and the ongoing Koch coup of our democracy.

Later on in the program, Thom talks with Kymone Freeman of We Act Radio and Angela Morabito of about the Republican war on the New Deal, the coming crackdown on climate science, and how Portland is taking a stand against outrageous CEO pay.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 17, 2016, 04:16:00 pm
Gov. Brown to ( Trump: ( 'We’ve got Scientists, We’ve Got Lawyers and We’re Ready to Fight' ( (

FULL ARTICLE with added video:
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 22, 2016, 06:27:58 pm
Finally, The REAL REASON Why Trump Picked Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson AND Why He's Taking a 99% PAY CUT  ;)   (

Published on Dec 16, 2016

This Exclusive Report FINALLY Explains the mystery surrounding WHY Trump Picked the filthy-rich CEO of Exxon Mobile Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State.

He certainly is not a household name and most American's have never heard of him. Trump who has been selecting mostly loyalists, didn't even know Tillerson previously.

Rachel Maddow explains just how Tillerson made it on Trump's radar and also why Tillerson, who's never worked anywhere but Exxon, would take a job that's offering a 99% PAY DECREASE.

This is an extremely tangled web which only Rachel could properly navigate through. It's FASCINATING information that everyone should be aware of. Great Reporting.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 23, 2016, 08:22:44 pm


December 23, 2016

Canadian PM Trudeau Signals He'll Work with Trump to Restart Keystone XL  :P  >:(

DeSmog Blog's Steve Horn says the move would be an environmental and ecological disaster

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 03, 2017, 01:37:19 pm
January 3, 2017

Oil, Arms and Militant Wahhabism is the Basis of US-Saudi Relationship (1/2)

Medea Benjamin and Paul Jay examine how 115 billion dollars in recent US arms sales and a dictatorship that helps dominate the oil rich region is the reason for the lasting "friendship"
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 04, 2017, 02:58:36 pm
Agelbert translation of the following news: Exxon Mobil, Tillerson agree to sell we-the-people the Brooklyn Bridge. (


Wed Jan 4, 2017 | 11:39am EST

Exxon Mobil, Tillerson agree to cut all ties ( (



The NEW Exxon US Foreign Policy: Today the USA, tomorrow DA WOID!  (


Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 05, 2017, 09:53:44 pm
January 4, 2017

Oil, Arms and Militant Wahhabism is the Basis of US-Saudi Relationship (2/2)

Medea Benjamin and Paul Jay discuss how Trump and Pence will look for ways to weaken Iran by abrogating the nuclear deal, reimposing sanctions, and a possible military attack all in alliance with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 12, 2017, 01:48:36 pm
Tillerson Confirmation Hearings: USA! USA! Oil good! Climate Change ho-hum...

I listened to and watched nearly 4 HOURS of the C-SPAN Tillerson Confirmation Hearings. Our Senators mostly live in an alternate universe where flag waving propaganda about how the US giving aid to all those corrupt countries that abuse our infinite kindness and good intentions is so sad and we have so many enemies and we have to stop terrorism and, interspersed with the occasional concern about whether Tillerson will go after Russia even if Exxon has control of land in Russia the size of Wyoming is, some mild climate change concerns. It's great gallows humor if you like that sort of thing.  :P

Tillerson must have trained fossil fuel industry propagandists liars on public discourse!  ( I've gotta admit, the guy dances with the best liars around. His body language when Chad came up was the give away that he was nervous. They didn't press him on that DELIBERATE interference against US policy to GUARANTEE Exxon/Chad Dictator sponsored CORRUPTION and Resource theft (of course  ;)).

All that said, he WILL help keep the crazies in Congress from trying to nuke Russia in order to enable the fossil fuel industry corrupted US Government to finish the destructive degradation of the biosphere...

But, hey, it will take longer to overheat than to die from being nuked, right?

Count your blessings, fellow Homo SAPS!   ( (

Finally, The REAL REASON Why Trump Picked Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson AND Why He's Taking a 99% PAY CUT  ;)   (

Published on Dec 16, 2016

This Exclusive Report FINALLY Explains the mystery surrounding WHY Trump Picked the filthy-rich CEO of Exxon Mobile Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State.

He certainly is not a household name and most American's have never heard of him. Trump who has been selecting mostly loyalists, didn't even know Tillerson previously.

Rachel Maddow explains just how Tillerson made it on Trump's radar and also why Tillerson, who's never worked anywhere but Exxon, would take a job that's offering a 99% PAY DECREASE.

This is an extremely tangled web which only Rachel could properly navigate through. It's FASCINATING information that everyone should be aware of. Great Reporting.

Agelbert NOTE: Unfortunately, since I posted this on my forum back in December 22, the above video has been, uh, made unavailable due to copyright and third party and (you get the idea). (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 12, 2017, 02:00:33 pm
Tillerson Confirmation Hearings: USA! USA! Oil good! Climate Change ho-hum...

I listened to and watched nearly 4 HOURS of the C-SPAN Tillerson Confirmation Hearings. Our Senators mostly live in an alternate universe where flag waving propaganda about how the US giving aid to all those corrupt countries that abuse our infinite kindness and good intentions is so sad and we have so many enemies and we have to stop terrorism and, interspersed with the occasional concern about whether Tillerson will go after Russia even if Exxon has control of land in Russia the size of Wyoming is, some mild climate change concerns. It's great gallows humor if you like that sort of thing.  :P

Tillerson must have trained Mking on public discourse!  :evil4: I've gotta admit, the guy dances with the best liars around. His body language when Chad came up was the give away that he was nervous. They didn't press him on that DELIBERATE interference against US policy to GUARANTEE Exxon/Chad Dictator sponsored CORRUPTION and Resource theft (of course  ;))).

All that said, he WILL help keep the crazies in Congress from trying to nuke Russia in order to enable the fossil fuel industry corrupted US Government to finish the destructive degradation of the biosphere...

But, hey, it will take longer to overheat than to die from being nuked, right?

Count your blessings, fellow Homo SAPS!   ( (

Finally, The REAL REASON Why Trump Picked Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson AND Why He's Taking a 99% PAY CUT  ;)   (

Published on Dec 16, 2016

This Exclusive Report FINALLY Explains the mystery surrounding WHY Trump Picked the filthy-rich CEO of Exxon Mobile Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State.

He certainly is not a household name and most American's have never heard of him. Trump who has been selecting mostly loyalists, didn't even know Tillerson previously.

Rachel Maddow explains just how Tillerson made it on Trump's radar and also why Tillerson, who's never worked anywhere but Exxon, would take a job that's offering a 99% PAY DECREASE.

This is an extremely tangled web which only Rachel could properly navigate through. It's FASCINATING information that everyone should be aware of. Great Reporting.

Agelbert NOTE: Unfortunately, since I posted this on my forum back in December 22, the above video has been, uh, made unavailable due to copyright and third party and (you get the idea). (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 12, 2017, 05:21:21 pm

January 12, 2017

Tillerson ( Would Conduct U.S. Foreign Policy on Behalf of Oil and Natural Gas Interests 

The Former ExxonMobil CEO has failed to demonstrate he would recuse himself from decisions that would affect his former employer, and he also does not grasp the urgency of climate change, says Jamie Henn and Antonia Juhasz  (


Jamie Henn is a co-founder and strategy and communications director of, an international climate. He has helped lead's fight against the Keystone XL pipeline, their work supporting the growing fossil fuel divestment campaign, and their past international days of climate action, which have brought together more than 20,000 demonstrations in over 182 countries around the world. He recently coordinated communications efforts for the recent People's Climate March, which brought over 400,000 people to the streets of New York City and garnered over 6,000 news articles and front pages worldwide. He is a graduate of Middlebury College in Vermont, a regular contributor to news outlets such as MSNBC, Huffington Post, and the Progressive, and the co-author of Fight Global Warming Now.

Antonia Juhasz is a leading energy analyst, author, and investigative journalist specializing in oil. An award-winning writer, her articles appear in Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Harper's Magazine, The Atlantic, among others. Juhasz is the author of three books: Black Tide (2011), The Tyranny of Oil (2008), and The Bush Agenda (2006).

Video transcript

KIM BROWN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Kim Brown in Baltimore.

   Former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson is testifying in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday for his appointment as Secretary of State.

   Now, Tillerson spent over 40 years at ExxonMobil and has never served in public office before. Controversial issues around Tillerson's appointment include his position on climate change and on his relationship with Russia. During his opening statement Tillerson addressed Russia, an issue about which many Republicans have expressed concern.

(video clip)
TILLERSON: Russia today poses a danger, but it is not unpredictable in advancing its own interest. It has invaded the Ukraine, including the taking of Crimea. It supported Syrian forces that brutally violates the laws of war. Our NATO allies are right to be alarmed at a resurgent Russia.
(end video clip)

KIM BROWN: Also, sporadic protests broke out during the hearing which protesters raised ExxonMobil's record on derailing climate change negotiations.

PROTESTERS: (chanting) Hey hey, ho ho! Tillerson has got to go! Hey hey, ho ho! Tillerson has got to go!

KIM BROWN: Joining us to talk about the Tillerson hearings are Antonia Juhasz and Jamie Henn.

   Antonia is a leading energy analyst. She's also an author and investigative journalist specializing in oil. She's also an award-winning writer. Her articles appear in Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Harper's, The Atlantic and more.

   Jamie is the Communications Director and the Co-founder of, which is one of the main grassroots climate movements fighting for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you, Antonia and Jamie, for joining us today.

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Thanks for having us.

JAMIE HENN: Good to be with you.

KIM BROWN: Antonia, let's start with you because, as mentioned in my introduction, Russia has been one of the main issues during this hearing and you recently wrote an in-depth analysis for In These Times in which you take a close look at Tillerson's connections to Russia. So tell us a little bit about these connections and how they could influence U.S. foreign policy towards Russia.

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah, absolutely. And the article is actually a broad scope piece, it's 5,000 words that goes into many of the reasons why I believe and the title is that "Rex Tillerson Could Be America's Most Dangerous Secretary of State."

Look, Russia is a good example because it demonstrates Exxon's commitment to oil above any and all other concerns. And so Tillerson negotiated deals with Russia whereby ExxonMobil now has five times more holdings in Russia than it does in the United States, and the United States are its second largest holdings. And a large chunk of those holdings are in the Russian Arctic. And this was a huge big deal for Tillerson to sign these agreements with Rosneft the Russian state-controlled oil company. And that was because Tillerson, who'd just retired from Exxon, is leaving the company in worse shape than he found it. And one of the things that he needs to prop it up is access to more oil and he got that oil in Russia. But then President Obama put in place sanctions against Russia for the incursion in Crimea and those sanctions make it impossible for Exxon to take advantage of a lot of those Russian operations.

And those operations are problematic for a lot of reasons, one of which is they're in the Russian Arctic. And, in the United States, President Obama put in place a virtual ban on drilling in most of the U.S. Arctic, or a full ban on drilling in most of the U.S. Arctic, and the Canadians put in place a full ban on drilling in the Arctic. Because this is an area that pretty much everyone can agree, if we're going to start keeping oil in the ground a good place to do it is in one of the most treacherous, difficult to get to environments in the world where communities that live around the Arctic are deeply dependent on the resources they get from it. But this is an area where Tillerson is eager to get drilling and to get access to resources, and to get access to those resources he's formed a very firm partnership with the Russians. And, of course, as you say, many Republicans, in particular, have extreme problems with that relationship.

KIM BROWN: Jamie, today Tillerson deflected any concerns that he would go after anyone currently working for the State Department that had been involved in climate change or gender equity programs and discussions. But talk about the case against Exxon, on their previous science-based knowledge of the effects of their oil and gas activities on extreme climate change and what role Tillerson played.

JAMIE HENN: Sure. Well, it's good to see Senator Tim Kaine and others today really begin to grill Rex Tillerson about Exxon's history of climate denial. Last year, reports came out that Exxon scientists knew about climate change since the 1970s, but then CEOs at the company went on to cover up the truth and fund front groups that were spreading misinformation. And that practice was really in place during the 1990s but it continued under Tillerson.

Tillerson has said some things about climate change, saying he acknowledges the threat but continued to fund front groups like The American Petroleum Institute, ALEC and others who are spreading misinformation. When he was grilled on that, Tillerson basically said, "I can't talk about it. I refuse to because I no longer work at ExxonMobil."

This is a guy whose only job in his adult life has been working at Exxon. He was there for over 41 years. He was there as of only a couple of weeks ago. For him to not talk about the company's track record of spreading misinformation, the role that it played in delaying climate change and the role that it continues to play in blocking progress is really problematic.

So I think that now, Rex, yes, he said that climate change is real. He's still spreading the same misinformation and doubt and delay that Exxon has been doing for years and it's another reason why he's not qualified to be Secretary of State.

KIM BROWN: Antonia, Rex Tillerson or T-Rex as his friends call him, is reportedly worth over $400 million. So why do you think he wants the job of Secretary of State? It really doesn't pay as good as CEO.

ANTONIA JUHASZ: It's an excellent question that I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to answer. He is right now ranked as one of the most powerful men in the world by Forbes. And he ranks significantly higher on that list than does President Obama, and our current Secretary of State doesn't even appear on the list. So why would he want this job?

One is the problem that I posed at the beginning which is, as Jamie said, Rex Tillerson has worked at ExxonMobil his entire adult life, as have most executives there. The company is often referred to by those who work there as "Mother Exxon". They have a tight connection to this company, it's described often by executives of other companies as a cult. It's very insular and they have a deep belief in the success of Exxon and their ties to it.

And when Tillerson was being grilled in this hearing, by the way, he had a very difficult time deviating when asked about things. For example, "Is there any country in the world you wouldn't work with because of its human rights record, when you were CEO of Exxon?" The only answers he could give were business-based answers. Because ExxonMobil has worked with just about every dictator in the world and still does.

But he's very tied to this company, and I think one of the answers to your question is that he faced force retirement this year. He turns 65 in March, he was going to have to retire in March, instead he retired in January. Also, he has business he wants to still see accomplished. He doesn't want to leave Exxon, I believe, in worse shape than when he found it, which is where it is right now. He has financial ties to the company. They worked out a deal where he wouldn't be able to invest in Exxon for 10 years. But 10 years in the life of an oil company is a short amount of time. So that means that in 10 years he's fully allowed to put his wealth back into Exxon. And, as you say, he's getting this big $180 million payout.

   The Bush administration, which Exxon has deep ties to, has come out in full force in support of Rex Tillerson. George Bush, himself, contacted Senator Corker, who's the head of the Confirmation Committee. We've had Dick Cheney, we've had Condoleeza Rice, we've had Gates, we've had Hadley -- they've all come out and said, "Tillerson needs this job." That's deeply worrying. And what it says to me is that the Republican establishment and, in particular, the Republican oil establishment, doesn't trust Donald Trump.

And I think that Rex Tillerson is going to be their man in charge. And that he'll be there to make sure that Trump does what needs to be done from this perspective. And we've seen what the combination of Bush administration plus oil interests, or Bush administration and oil interests, has done to the world and in the world. And, of course, the Iraq War, which we're still suffering the consequences of, and of which ExxonMobil was one of the biggest victors, is one of those clear outcomes. The Bush administration had Iran next in its sights, as does the Trump administration -- and that makes me deeply concerned about what the agenda of Rex Tillerson will be if he gets confirmed as Secretary of State.

KIM BROWN: Jamie, under ethics rules, he will probably have divest of his millions of dollars of stock in ExxonMobil. So do you think there will still be a conflict of interest with the oil lobby interest if he gets the job?

JAMIE HENN: Yeah, most definitely. I will say when we started the fossil fuel divestment campaign, we never quite pictured the CEO of ExxonMobil divesting from his own company. But, obviously, it doesn't actually help us in any way.

It was interesting at the hearing, when Tillerson was pushed this morning about whether or not after a year, where he's prevented from directly being in contact with Exxon and collaborating with them in any way, if he'd continue to separate that and recuse himself from decisions that affect ExxonMobil, he refused to say so. And, in a way, it would be impossible for him to do so. Exxon has tentacles all over the world, as Antonia said, they're wrapped up in foreign policy from war in the Middle East to the work that they've done in Africa to human rights violations in Indonesia -- this is a company that operates around the world often, working with brutal dictatorships to get at their resources.

So the idea that the Secretary of State could somehow separate that agenda from the agenda of this company is just unbelievable -- especially when you take into account Tillerson's long history at ExxonMobil, and as Antonia said, the way that the company infuses this ideology of the way that the world should work.

You know, Steve Cole's long book on Exxon, the definitive history of the company was called "Private Empire" for a reason. This is a company that sees itself as above the law. Their previous CEO Lee Raymond(?) said very explicitly that they don't see themselves as an American company, but they see themselves as representing the interest of ExxonMobil and ExxonMobil alone. So there's no evidence that Tillerson would do anything else when he was Secretary of State. And when it comes to the climate that's incredibly damaging.

He had a chance today to try and assure Democratic senators, to try and assure the public that some of the rhetoric that Exxon has put out on climate change, saying it's a threat, saying action needs to take place, wasn't just icing on the cake or window dressing or greenwash, but was something serious that the company was taking into account. He did the opposite. He basically said, "My views are different than ExxonMobil's. I have some concerns but I'm not sure if human activity is causing climate change. I don't know what the impacts are going to be." If anything, he went more back into climate denial than the company had been previously talking about.

So this is all incredibly concerning and, again, I think it reinforces the role that Exxon has played for a long time, which is continuing to spread misinformation, continuing to sow doubt in the public. And that's especially egregious considering how long they've known about climate change and how long they've been very clear that their product is at the root of this crisis, just like cigarettes were causing cancer. This is going to come back and have serious consequences this company in the future if Senators can continue to do their job and really push Tillerson the rest of today and, hopefully into the future, on the connections between what Exxon knew about climate change and the way that they continue to lie to the American people about the crisis.

KIM BROWN: So, Jamie, in the Tillerson hearing today, on Wednesday, he said that he supported a carbon tax as a solution to climate change. But it was about his role if he were to get the job as Secretary of State. So does this surprise you? And what would you have liked the Senators to have asked him vis-à-vis the legal case against Exxon led by the Attorney General from New York State, Eric Schneiderman, over what Exxon knew and whether it properly disclosed the risk of climate change to shareholders and investors and to the public at large?

JAMIE HENN: Well, I think the Senate needs to do a much better job of really grilling Tillerson and the company. I mean, we should get the new CEO of ExxonMobil in front of a senate committee. We've long said that Exxon and Rex Tillerson, in particular, deserve a federal investigation, not a congressional appointment or a cabinet appointment.

So, no, we need to see much more of an interrogation of this company and what's taking place. That said, when it comes to the carbon price and Exxon's supposed leadership on this issue, it's important to actually look at the record. Exxon only came out in favor of a carbon price when the Cap and Trade Bill looked like it was going to move through the Senate during Obama's first term. They did so, in order to get a seat at the table so that they could weaken the Cap and Trade legislation. And, in fact, they put forward a carbon price very explicitly as a contrast to Cap and Trade to help undermine the potential of that legislation to move forward.

As Antonio's written about and pointed out well, ExxonMobil's core business right now is, especially in the United States, natural gas, fracking and light crude that's they've always been in. And a very low price on carbon would actually help ExxonMobil by driving coal out of the market, replacing it with natural gas, but not making a price on carbon too high so that Exxon's business actually suffered.

So as usual, this is a plan to help ExxonMobil, it is not a serious plan to address climate change. And that's the real worry with someone like Tillerson who admits climate change is real, but then proposes these false solutions that would actually only get us further into the crisis.

KIM BROWN: Antonia, Hillary Clinton came under fire for promoting fracking abroad while she was Secretary of State under President Barack Obama and helping to push through Mexican offshore oil drilling opening it up for U.S. drilling companies. So how do you think his role as Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, that is, will affect U.S. interests at home and abroad and will it just be more of the same?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: I'm unable to articulate the difference between Rex Tillerson and Hillary Clinton. So, you know, Clinton did have ties with the oil industry and did perpetuate a fracking model and did work to see fracking open up in countries abroad. Rex Tillerson's only mindset is oil and natural gas. And there is a quote that I have in my article from a vice-president at ExxonMobil in 2008 under Tillerson, and he said in a hearing before Congress about the pursuit of alternative energy, he said, "The pursuit of alternative energy should not, in any way, dissuade from or interrupt or disrupt the pursuit of oil and gas." And I think that you can basically fill in any concept that we would expect of a just Secretary of State and fill in alternative energy with that phrase. So the pursuit of peace, the pursuit of human rights, the pursuit of equality -- and oil and gas really just have to take precedent.

And I think that that is the mindset of Rex Tillerson, and I think in the questions during the hearing this also came out. I think he was asked, for example, about sanctions. And the first thing he had to say about sanctions was, "Well, sanctions are bad for U.S. business." And I believe it was Senator Menendez who was doing the questioning and he said, "Well, actually, the sanctions, the objective is a foreign policy objective, a human rights objective." And he said, "Well, you know, it may have those other objectives," Tillerson said, "But it does hurt U.S. business." And his framework and his answer to almost every single question was through the eyes of a CEO, which is who he is and what he had been doing until 11 days ago. And the CEO of the world's largest oil company and the oldest major oil company, as well, because, of course, ExxonMobil is the direct descendant and largest descendant of Standard Oil.

And I interviewed, in this article, a human rights lawyer who is the lawyer who's been fighting a case in which Rex Tillerson is named. And Tillerson is named in this case which alleges that the Indonesian military turned into private security under the employ of ExxonMobil engaged in serious human rights abuses including murder, including torture, including sexual assault and that this took place from 2000 to 2004. And the complaint names Rex Tillerson in his role as President of ExxonMobil within that suit. And I don't know what's going to happen with that case or what Rex Tillerson may or may not be charged with.

I do think the fact that the company, however, does not argue that the human rights abuses did not occur; rather argues that the company should not be liable for them. And the fact that ExxonMobil under Tillerson continues to work with Angola and Equatorial Guinea, all around the world, shows us that there is one objective -- and that is oil and natural gas. And that that objective is deeply problematic right now for a number of reasons, just one of which is that most scientists in the world agree that at least 80% of fossil fuels need to stay in the ground if we're going to avert the worst of climate catastrophe.

And Rex Tillerson, when he talks about climate change, uses very particular language.  (  (  He talks about risk -- the risks of climate change. And that puts climate change as a problem into the future. ( It ignores the fact that some 400,000 people a year are already estimated to be dying right now because of climate change. So if his full agenda -- and one that I believe he thinks is certainly good for business, and maybe even good for the United States -- is the pursuit of oil and gas that that will make the deals that Hillary Clinton made look like small change when you add, not only that oil and natural gas will be the full agenda of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, but then he'll be the Secretary of State for Donald Trump's presidency, those two things in combination... oh, and with Bolton as his Undersecretary of State, that should make us all very concerned.    ( 

KIM BROWN: Indeed. That's Antonia Juhasz a leading energy analyst, also investigative journalist and author. We've also been joined with Jamie Henn, Communications Director and Co-Founder of We've been discussing the Senate Confirmation Hearings of former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson and his bid to be confirmed as the next Secretary of State under President-elect Donald Trump. Thank you both for joining us.


JAMIE HENN: Thanks a lot.

KIM BROWN: And thank you for watching The Real News Network.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 17, 2017, 02:21:02 pm

January 11, 2017

WASHINGTON - Today, Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D | Los Angeles County) issued the following statement on the confirmation hearing of Rex Tillerson, former CEO of ExxonMobil, to serve as the next U.S. Secretary of State:


GREAT Comments!  (

Jan 13 · 07:05:54 PM
Sorry….there are just too many different things flying about to pin down to just one item…knew what?

Milkmaid  PRESSmUP

Jan 13 · 09:24:45 PM 
I'm thinking 1)