Renewable Revolution

Energy => Fossil Fuel Folly => Topic started by: AGelbert on October 02, 2014, 12:01:48 am

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 02, 2014, 12:01:48 am

Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 03:06 PM PDT.

Koch brothers freak out in response to Rolling Stone expose

by Joan McCarter

David Koch, not holding up well under scrutiny.  (

Tim Dickinson's  ( fantastic expose of the Koch brothers in the latest issue of Rolling Stone has gotten plenty of attention. For very good reason: it's a well-sourced, deep dive into the very toxic—literally toxic—  ( that earned the Kochs enough money to buy up an entire political party. That and the wrongful death judgement, six felony and numerous misdemeanor convictions, the tens of millions of dollars in fines, and the trading with Iran are all included in the story, well worth your time.
No one has given it more attention, it seems, than the notoriously thin-skinned Kochs. In typical Koch fashion, they don't argue the facts of Dickinson's story. They attack Dickinson, who responds here. Here's the nut of his detailed response.

Koch, in particular, takes umbrage with my reporting practices.
For the record: In the weeks prior to publication, beginning September 4th, Rolling Stone attempted to engage Koch Industries in a robust discussion of the issues raised in our reporting. Rolling Stone requested to interview CEO Charles Koch about his company's philosophy of Market Based Management; Ilia Bouchouev, who heads Koch's derivatives trading operations, about the company's trading practices; and top Koch lawyer Mark Holden about the company's significant legal and regulatory history.

The requests to speak to Charles Koch and Bouchouev were simply ignored. Ultimately, only Holden responded on the record, only via e-mail and only after Holden baselessly insinuated that I had been given an "opposition research" document dump from the liberal activist David Brock. (This is false.) From my perspective as a reporter, Koch Industries is the most hostile and paranoid organization I've ever engaged with—and I've reported on Fox News  ;D. In a breach of ethics, Koch has also chosen to publish email correspondence characterizing the content of a telephone conversation that was, by Koch's own insistence, strictly off the record. […]

n the main, the Koch responses attempt to re-litigate closed cases — incidents where judges, juries, and, in one case, a Senate Select Committee, have already had a final say. They only muddy waters that have been clarified by a considered legal process.

Dickinson then provides an exhaustive, 14-point taken down of each of the Kochs' complaints about his story, including every instance in which the Kochs do not actually dispute the facts that he has reported, but attempt to obfuscate them and whine about that fact that he reported them. They also don't acknowledge that Dickinson attempted to give them the opportunity to talk to him about his story while reporting, but they refused.

The Kochs clearly do not stand up well to close scrutiny, and clearly are not prepared for it. For some reason, probably because they're richer than god, they seem to assume that they should be able to swoop into our political system and attempt to buy it without being subject to close examination.

That attitude, along with their long history of abusing people, the environment, and the political system, is doing them no favors. They've made themselves the subject of this election, and if Democrats hold the Senate, it will largely be because the Kochs have made themselves such good enemies.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 17, 2014, 10:50:37 pm
10/17/2014 04:08 PM     
How Big Coal   ( & Big Oil  ( Control Elections News

We didn't hear "war on typewriters" when the industry disappeared as the Internet emerged, and we aren't hearing "war on newspapers" even though thousands of journalists have been laid off.

 But coal is a different story. Even though the industry supplies just 0.6% of Kentucky's jobs, both the Democrat and Republican Senate candidates are falling over themselves on who can defend it the most.

 Coal isn't under attack because of impending EPA regulations as both Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes and Republican incumbent Mitch McConnell would have us believe. Thousands of workers have been laid off in recent years because of automated production and because production as a whole is down - cheaper, abundant natural gas is taking its place.

Only 11,885 people work for coal companies in Kentucky, down from 75,000 in the 1940s. While the industry fights back against regulations that would protect workers' health, locals love it when they donate money for schools and other public services. And some rural areas of the state do still rely on coal for employment, reports InsideClimate News.

Mountaintop Removal Mining requires many fewer workers:

 Instead of telling the truth about all this, and pointing to clean, renewable energy as a future job engine, the candidates and out-of-state donors stoke the coal card.

How about saying, We can be like Massachusetts which will soon have 100,000 clean energy jobs?

The Kentucky Opportunity Coalition (tied to Karl Rove), for example, spent $750,000 on a 12-week digital ad campaign "to educate Kentuckians on the disastrous policies of the Obama Administration when it comes to the Commonwealth's coal-based economy, reports InsideClimate News.

As usual, we have to look to where the money comes from. Most of McConnell's contributions come from the Koch Bros, the fossil fuel industry and investors in coal plants.

Read our article, While Feds Fund Coal Miner Re-Training, Conservatives Lie in Ads.

Chevron Buys An Election

Meanwhile in Richmond, California, Chevron is hard at work on the local level, making sure the mayor and council members don't regulate its massive refinery there.

 It started in 2012, when an explosion at the refinery sent 15,000 people to the hospital as chemicals spewed into the air. The city sued and has been putting the clamps on the plant.

 In response, Chevron is spending about $3 million in this tiny election to get the "right"  ;D mayor and city council members elected  ( It's spent over $1 million on the mayor's race alone, in contrast to the opponent's $22,000. Most disgusting is Chevron's "Richmond Standard" website - a "community news service" that produces propaganda that puts Chevron and its candidates in a positive light, while demonizing the others. 

Thanks to the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, ( corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money in federal and local elections.

 But the fossil fuel industry has been rigging the system for a long time. Just since 2008, the oil industry spent over $1.1 billion - $961 million to lobby Congress and $146 million on campaign contributions - enough for each member of Congress to get $2 million, according to Fuels America.

Learn how a student exposed Chevron:(at link below)
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 31, 2014, 02:08:54 pm
More Proof that Mens Rea is the DEFAULT position of polluters while our DYSFUNCTIONAL COURT SYSTEM (unless you are a fascist polluter, of course! )  pretends otherwise.  >:(


Secret Tape Exposes Fracking Industry Playing Dirty (

Right-wing public relations consultant/astroturf king Richard Berman probably wasn’t very happy when he saw yesterday’s New York Times. Like the now infamous American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Berman’s success depends in large part on anonymity. He is known for his use of what’s called “astroturf” groups—organizations that appear to be community or citizen advocacy groups with names like “Center for Consumer Freedom” but are really shell groups for untraceable corporate donations—to attack labor unions, environmental laws, attempts to regulate the food industry and anti-smoking measures. Lately, he’s been a conduit for fossil fuel interests with his Big Green Radicals campaign, based on the mockery and personal destruction of those who advocate for the environment.

But one industry executive had enough. The anonymous executive leaked a tape to the New York Times of a June event in Colorado Springs at which Berman and Jack Hubbard, a vice president at Berman & Company, were soliciting money from oil and gas executives for the Big Green Radicals effort, telling them that they needed to exploit fear, greed and anger, and to stoke resentment against environmentally-minded celebrities. The executive told the New York Times the presentation left a bad taste in his mouth.

Last spring, that campaign placed billboards in a pair of states where the explosive growth of fracking has raised community opposition and demands for more regulation or banning the process altogether—Pennsylvania and Colorado. They mocked celebrities who had records of environmental advocacy such as Lady Gaga, Yoko Ono and Robert Redford. “Demands green living. Flies on private jets,” said the Redford Billboard.” “Would you take energy advice from a woman who wears a meat dress?” said the Lady Gaga billboard. The head-scratching billboard featuring Yoko Ono said, “Would you take energy advice from a woman who broke up the Beatles?”

At the secretly taped presentation, Berman and Hubbard laid out their strategy of playing dirty, saying “You can win ugly or lose pretty.”

Winning ugly is what he specializes in. The BigGreenRadicals website attacks big environmental groups like the Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch and the Natural Resources Defense Council, saying these organizations “have morphed into multi-million dollar lobbying machines that use questionable tactics to scare the American public and policymakers into supporting unnecessary and unreasonable policies.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Agelbert NOTE: See Orwell. ( Also, DON'T hold your breath waiting for some law firm to sue these villains for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, libel, conspiracy to defame and libel in the service of profit at the expense of human health from polluting fossil fuel corporations, conspiracy to degrade democracy through mendacious propaganda, misuse of media, violation of truth in advertising (and so on, etc.). THAT is NOT what LAWYERS are PAID to DO in the HANDMAIDEN of FASCISM called the Court System. Get it? ( Don't worry, if you don't GET IT now, you soon will...   (

Full article here:

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on November 08, 2014, 02:57:11 pm
Agelbert NOTE: The fossil Fuelers DOING WHAT THEY DO --> see Orwell, Karl Rove tactics and also pots and kettles, etc.   


11/07/2014 02:53 PM     
Conservatives Take Aim at Wind Production Tax Credit, Once Again  >:( News

Republicans are moving quickly on their first agenda items, starting with ensuring the Production Tax Credit (PTC) - so critical to the wind industry - doesn't get renewed.

The industry is simply too successful and they ( want it to go away, as well as state Renewable Portfolio Standards that support it.
 After Republicans filibustered a bill this spring, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised to get it to the floor after the midterm elections, and he plans to introduce a Tax-Extenders bill next week, which includes the PTC.   

After its strongest year ever in 2012 with 13.2 gigawatts (GW) installed, the US wind industry struggled through 2013 after the PTC expired - with a mere 2.8 GW of projects. 

"Efforts to renew these incentives are being blocked by Republicans in Congress," says Reid. "Letting these critical incentives expire is not an option. Tax incentives level the playing field for energy, they help make renewables more affordable for consumers and more attractive to investors."

 But that goes against fossil fuel interests, who say the exact opposite: The wind tax credit "restricts access to affordable energy" and "hides the true cost of wind power." (  (

Conservatives line up against the PTC

Using the headline, Nationwide Coalition Urges Congress to End Wind Welfare   ;)  ;D, 66 organizations ( sent a letter to Republican leaders of both houses, making it clear the PTC should not be renewed. It is signed by groups like Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, Club for Growth, Heritage Action for America and Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Agelbert NOTE: 66 Organizations? I think they left out one "6".  ;D  But then "666" would have been a bit obvious...  (

Here's an excerpt: Agelbert NOTE: Grab your barf bag before reading.  ;D

 "The PTC is a key part of President Obama and Majority Leader Reid's attack on affordable energy from natural gas, coal, and nuclear."   (

 "Rejecting efforts to extend the PTC is a meaningful way  ( for this Congress to oppose the President's climate plan.

 "Extending the PTC restricts Americans' access to affordable and reliable energy.  ( The PTC harms Americans in two important ways: it hides the true cost of wind power and encourages states to keep expensive wind power mandates. This makes it easier for the President to promote his restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants because the PTC hides the true costs from ratepayers.   (

The PTC enables wind operators to use the tax code to engage in predatory pricing  ( against reliable  ( and affordable ( nuclear, coal, and natural gas power plants.  (  The PTC is such a large subsidy that industrial wind facilities can actually pay the electrical grid to take their electricity and still make money. This predatory pricing is designed to drive nuclear, coal, and natural gas generators out of business and it is only profitable because of the PTC."  (


PTC Extension

Harry Reid wants the PTC renewed retroactively and is proposing a 2-year extension.

 As many of you know, the PTC has been on-again, off-again, providing an uncertain climate for growth of the wind industry.   

As part of the "fiscal cliff" deal, the PTC was renewed for 2013, and now the industry is struggling to get it through yet again.

 Luckily, in the last go-round, the rules were changed so that projects just had to be started - not finished - by the end of 2013, opening a bigger window for new projects. Recently, the IRS helped by giving some more room for the industry to qualify for the credit.

Without the PTC, the US Energy Information Administration expects growth will slow significantly again after 2016, when current projects are finished.

And that's exactly what fossil fuel interests want!

Thanks to the wind PTC, the US is one of the largest, fastest growing wind markets, employing some 80,000 Americans in businesses that manufacture 70% of components in the US.

Prices for wind energy have dropped substantially and are the same or even lower than fossil fuels now in most cases!

It's laughable that fossil fuel advocates call the PTC "welfare," even as they continue fighting to keep their century-long tax credits. Because the US doesn't have an energy policy, the tax code has been used to spur growth in all kinds of energy, but most extravagantly, oil, coal, gas and nuclear ... not wind and other renewables.

In the same fiscal cliff deal that renewed the PTC, fossil fuel industries retained their tax advantages, amounting to $46 billion over the next 10 years. The wind PTC would cost $18 billion if it remained in place during that time.

Wind now supplies 5% of our electricity with 61 GW installed, expected to 9% by 2020. It provides almost 30% of  Iowa's electricity and South Dakota is close behind.

To level the playing field with conventional energy, Obama's Science Advisors recommend broadening the PTC to include all forms of renewable energy and keeping it place for 5-10 years.

Chokecherry is an Example

As an example of the kinds of projects the PTC supports, the largest wind project in the world was recently approved for Wyoming - the 3 gigawatt Chokecherry/ Sierra Madre wind project, where 1000 turbines will be spread across 220,000 acres of land.

Wind Farm Chokecherry Wyoming

Sited in one of windiest places in the US, the $5 billion project will supply electricity to 1 million homes - creating 1000 jobs during construction. It is one of the projects President Obama expedited as part of his "We Can't Wait" (for Congress) initiative. 

Because of the size of the project and the strong wind resources, the project is viable without the PTC, but with it, electricity will be cheaper for utilities and their customers, says the developer. That's an exception to the rule, he says, most projects still need the tax credit to be viable.

Here's the full letter:

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 08, 2014, 10:23:29 pm
Energy Firms ( in Secretive Alliance
With Attorneys General  (



“Attorneys general in at least a dozen states are working with energy companies and other corporate interests, which in turn are providing them with record amounts of money for their political campaigns, including at least $16 million this year … never before have attorneys general joined on this scale with corporate interests to challenge Washington and file lawsuits in federal court.  (

Out of public view, corporate representatives and attorneys general are coordinating legal strategy and other efforts to fight federal regulations…” (

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 08, 2014, 11:05:24 pm
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

Orlando --  My friends in Florida often ask me why their state doesn’t use more solar energy. I used to say, “It’s coming.” But that may no longer be the right answer.

Pro-solar groups see hard times ahead in the sunshine state, at least for the kind of solar my friends are talking about -- solar panels on homes and business rooftops.   

Their worry stems from a vote taken in late November by the Florida Public Service Commission to end a solar rebate program after 2015.

Losing the rebate program, itself, isn’t the real problem. The rebate isn’t as important as it once was, given the dramatic drop in solar costs, according to Mike Antheil, director of advocacy, Florida Solar Energy Industries Association.

More alarming is what solar advocates fear may follow; they question the motivation for the vote and see it as an opening salvo to bring down distributed solar.

The commission said the rebate program was just too expensive and too few benefited from it.

“We in the solar industry feel pretty confident that is not the real reason,” said Mike Antheil, director of advocacy, Florida Solar Energy Industries Association. “We think it boils down to the simplest answer is usually the right one. The simplest answer is that the people who sell us our electricity are understandably motivated to be sure we don’t produce our own electricity.”

Antheil and other solar advocates see the commission siding with utilities and against distributed generation. It could also be described as the battle between local energy and central generation. Utilities have a financial incentive to build central generation — solar or otherwise — since they can earn a return on the investment. They do not earn a return on distributed solar panels consumers put on their roofs. In fact, the panels rob the utility of electricity sales.

If the utilities dominate solar, Florida is unlikely to develop the kind of democratic grid emerging elsewhere, one where consumers own and control their energy. More likely, solar will come in the form of central plants built by utilities.

Florida regulators aren’t sure the democratic grid is the most cost-effective way to go; the commission chairman indicated he prefers the more conventional approach where utilities socialize costs among their customers. He describe the two sides of the market as supply side (utility solar) or demand side (customer-owned solar).

“I think there is a need for solar. I'm not sure — I'm not convinced that the need for solar is a demand-side need. Maybe a supply-side need. I mean, maybe the supply-side need may be a better way of handling that need. When you have it on the supply side, you don't have to have $30,000 in your pocket to put it on your roof,” said Art Graham, PSC chairman, according to a transcript of the November 25 meeting.

Fair enough, but are the only two choices a $30,000 bill to the homeowner for solar panels or utility market control? Policies in other states would indicate otherwise. Power purchase agreements, innovative financing and leasing all have emerged as options to make solar affordable to the homeowner or small business.

Further, is it a good idea to place the burden for solar costs on the utility ratepayer when a private market exists that wants to take up the banner?

“We are trying to shift the burden away from the ratepayers,” said FlaSEIA’s Antheil. “As a ratepayer, I have to pay for the new nuclear facility, the new coal and natural facility. I have to pay for industrial scale solar, if they choose to do that. But the solar market wants to shift that investment burden away. That’s why an incentive for a demand-side program, a residential program is so beneficial.”

Even an incentive of just five percent of the total cost of the installed system, would spur the private market to come to the table with the other 95 percent, he said. “That’s a deal for the ratepayer.”

What else could help reduce solar costs for the consumer? Better financing options and property tax exemptions for homeowners and commercial properties with solar, he said. Antheil also suggested that the state look more carefully at the true value of solar beyond just energy production, such as its ability to improve grid stability and decrease line loss.

Most of all, he said, the state needs to keep intact its rules that allow net metering — which gives the home or business the ability to gain credit for selling solar power back to the grid.

And therein lies the biggest worry among solar advocates in Florida.

“I think there is a clear threat and danger to net metering,” said Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE). “You see them laying the ground work for this.”

He fears the state will try to impose a standby charge or adjust the rate to weaken net metering, the cornerstone of the distributed generation market in Florida.

Others take a less gloomy view of events in the sunshine state. Justin Hoysradt, Vote Solar’s regional manager Florida, says that he is “cautiously optimistic.” He pointed out that the commission has announced that it will hold an undocketed workshop (date yet to be set) to discuss future solar policy.  “The workshop is a signal that the commission recognizes that solar is an important part of Florida’s portfolio,” he said.

Solar advocates are working to galvanize support in preparation. SACE released a poll Friday showing strong bipartisan backing for solar in Florida. By almost a five to one margin respondents said they were more likely to vote for a legislator who expands the availability of solar. The poll of 600 registered voters in Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Pensacola and Tampa, also found that over two thirds of those surveyed support the state’s current net metering law; specifically 67 percent of Republicans, 77 percent of Independents and 73 percent of Democrats.

Smith said that activists plan to use the public backing to launch a strong campaign to protect net metering, first by elevating public awareness, next by seeking legislative support and finally pursuing a ballot measure in 2016, if needed.

Meanwhile, the state may be a little red in the face (and not from sunburn). The PSC actions have captured the attention of the national media. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow gave Florida a talking to on her show. “In the sunshine state they have decided they are against the sun,”   >:( Maddow said.

Hyperbole? Maybe. We’ll see in the coming weeks as the PSC releases its written decision and proceeds with its solar workshop.

William Fitch III   
 December 7, 2014 


Demand destruction, keep it simple...   (

The answer for the population is to do solar anyway, no matter what the politicians do.
The cost is low enough now whether incentives are there or not.
FORCE them to deal with distributed generation by installing it, even if net metering goes away. Leave them no choice...


D SolarCat   
 December 7, 2014 

I am a long time solar evangelist stuck in the nightmare that is FL, where radical Republicans are stiff-arming the fastest growing industry on earth, all for the sake of greed and wild-eyed, misguided & dangerous ideology. And while I don't know how ... I know that one day soon the dam will burst and solar will grow in FL due to the fact that there is just too much $$ being made, opportunity and jobs being created in the States and countries currently encouraging solar. Vile & hypocritical Republicans AGAIN kill jobs, exhibit horrible strategic judgement and literally risk the habitability of earth for future generations in order to stay pure in their conservative dogma .... let the planet and everyone on it be damned!

sean o   
 December 8, 2014 

I concur with Fitch. Install solar and lots of it. It is like voting for distributed grid. :) The more people who have some installed, even 1, the less they can do about it politically to prevent it. Those are their votes to stay in office.

William Fitch III  
 December 8, 2014 


Just one more thought here; what the pro solar groups should MOST watch out for is not the elimination of "perks" but the implementation of "solar penalties".
This is/will be where the game shifts to. Think of this route as the expression of the typical "double down" which has characterized the whole radical red agenda in all areas...


Lance Christhelm 

 December 8, 2014 

This is a pretty sad, uninformed debate, right to the top - "When you have it on the supply side (utility scale generation), you don't have to have $30,000 in your pocket to put it on your roof” -- blink blink -- SolarCity does it with no liens, zero cost, on qualified homes, with credit over 680. So clearly this is an ignorant "Alan Colmes" puppet surrounded by carnivorous neocons looking to drink another 2 decades' worth of blood out of homeowners' energy costs

...ironic part of this debate is, it's mostly moot anyway, because in a century or 2, FL is going to be seafloor. This debate is the internal monologue of a suicidal man on his penultimate day alive, about whether or not to even eat lunch at all

Azu Nwadei   
 December 8, 2014 

Reading this you would think that there are no modular home pv systems. You do not need to invest $30,000 up front. You can break it up into 3 or 4 chunks.

  A. G. Gelbert 
 December 8, 2014 

Bill Fitch is right.

I want to add a bit of fossil fuel history of "doing what they do" to penalize people that want to generate their own energy.

1. In the 1930s solar water heaters were all the rage in Florida. Read what happened to that no-brainer use of solar power. I am not providing links. Just do a Google search and your eyes will be opened. While you are at it, ask yourself why solar panels were not developed until we needed them on space craft even though the principle was understood (Einstein won a Nobel Prize for explaining it) in the early 20th century. And when we DID develop the solar panel technology, we could spend billions of the people's money (not private enterprise's, money) on manufacturing nuclear power plants but, for some strange reason, we couldn't do that to perfect and mass produce solar panels in the 1970's.

And even in the 1970's there is a documented case of a utility, that DID NOT serve the Navajo Indian town under discussion even though it was in their area, complaining to NASA (who had installed solar panels to provide power for some infrastructure) that solar power would 'force" them to lower fossil fuel generated electricity prices and undermine their profit margin.

NASA stopped the plan to install solar panels in all unserviced areas in the USA because of that. And you KNOW those areas were not serviced because the utilities claimed (and continue to claim disingenuously) that it was "too costly" to run transmission lines into those areas.

They lied. It is simply not logical to complain about an area you do NOT service within your customer base geographic location unless you are not telling the truth about your reasons for not servicing those areas.

People say I am into hyperbole about the fossil fuelers and their accustomed criminal behavior. They claim those fine fellows are just trying to be "competitive" and "make a profit". If that means monopoly price control and profit over poor people (see areas they won't service and won't let anybody else service either) and profit over planet fossil fuel use when Renewable Energy is more cost efficient , then that unethical, unsustainable and just plain stupid "business as usual" model has to go, period.

2. Until recently, in Puerto Rico, an island that has, like Hawaii but without geothermal, vast solar, wind, and unlike Hawaii, the best ocean current renewable energy resource in the world, it was ILLEGAL to generate your own energy. That's right, you HAD to get your electrical power from the government owned utility.

Now where do you suppose that law came from? It came from the captive market, price control monopoly tactics the fossil fuelers are now pushing harder and harder in Florida. The Puerto Rican utility (used to be called "Fuentes Fluviales" due to the use of some hydro power but now called "Autoridad de Energia Electrica") gets a portion of its power from dams but most of it has always been from fossil fuel power plants. You could partially get around that with solar water heaters that did not directly generate electricity but you could NOT put solar panels or wind generators on your property. That has changed but still, and illogically, fossil fuel power still holds sway there. The bought and paid for politicians have passed laws to destroy sections of biomes for the installment of an LNG port and pipelines through tropical rain forests.

The fossil fuelers never stop 'doing what they do'. The Puerto Ricans are waking up rather slowly to this suicidal reality which is destroying their environment.

Expect the fossil fuelers in Florida and elsewhere to continue to buy politicians that lack ethics and common sense in order to put back door penalties on citizens who contribute to the Demand Destruction of purchased electrical energy from the Profit over Planet utilities.

HOW? By making up building codes that designate electrical power installations with solar panels and/or wind generators as fire hazards or some other special code category that "requires" a special permit, an annual "inspection" by the utility (which charges a "reasonable" fee, of course - LOL!) and so on. Bureaucrats can be quite imaginative at inventing ways to fleece you while babying their fossil fuel friends.

In short, they invent, out of whole cloth, all kinds of costly obstacles to keep we-the-people form profiting from Renewable Energy in order to preserve the profit over people and planet polluting thievery.

Do your part. Spread the word about this mens rea modus operandi of the utilities. The more people know, the harder it will be for these criminals to buy your politicians. We can't make them acquire a conscience but we CAN make bribing our elected officials too costly for them.

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 16, 2014, 10:14:51 pm (

That was the plan back in 1980. It worked.  :( The Dirty energy profit over planet polluters are one DIRTY trick ponies.  (

They   (  just DO what they (   (

I don't think it will work this time BECAUSE:

1) Many people are on to the fossil fuel FLEECE THE PEOPLE for PROFIT MO with a 100 year track record.

2) The Orwellian Media will not be able to downplay the environmental EFFECTS ((   ( ( ( 
( ( ( of fossil fuel and nuclear power DIRTY energy.

Fuel Costs

Petroleum products raise environmental red flags even before they are burned. Extracting them from the earth is an energy-intensive process that can damage local ecosystems. Shipping fuels can also consume a lot of energy, and creates an occasional environmental disaster such as an oil spill. As world demand rises, and unconventional fuel sources, such as oil sands, become more economically viable, the ecological impacts of petroleum extraction might also increase dramatically. That’s one more reason why fuel efficiency is so important.

Air Quality

Vehicles are America’s biggest air quality compromisers, producing about one-third of all U.S. air pollution. The smog, carbon monoxide, and other toxins emitted by vehicles are especially troubling because they leave tailpipes at street level, where humans breathe the polluted air directly into their lungs. That can make auto emissions an even more immediate health concern than toxins emitted high in the sky by industrial smokestacks. (

But they will try  (

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: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 28, 2014, 06:29:38 pm
To be watched in the sequence given below. If a clip starts in the middle, please stop and take it back to the beginning of each short clip for the full impact of what we are dealing with when we mistakenly believe certain people can be reasoned with. (  (one minute) (  (17 seconds) (  (one minute) (  (one minute) (  Six minutes on the Industrial (ruthlessness = "virtue") Psychopath

Where a lot of people are dying in "accidents", you will probably find a psychopath, or 100, setting up the "equation" for said "Accidents". (

North Dakota reported the highest incidence ofwork-related fatalities ...

Oil boom and fracking cause spike in energy industry workplace deaths
Vehicle-related incidents one of key risks  ;)  :evil4:

Agelbert NOTE: The article DOES NOT say what the slightly less than HALF of the FRACKING NON vehicle driving fatalities was caused by...

I wonder why the FOCUS on driving just because it is slightly over half. Were the non-driving deaths from chewing guar gum lubricating fluid thickener?  ( Only the MKing Fracker Bosses know.

And they aren't telling. It's all those silly OSHA regulations that get in the way of BIDNESS and PROFIT. Where there is SMOKE, there is PSYCHOPATHIC FIRE! (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 02, 2015, 04:32:32 pm
What Does $60 Oil Mean for the Biofuel Industry?   ???

Oil prices in the 60s — what does that mean for the global economy, energy markets, and alternative fuels in the short-term and long-term?

Brian Donovan   
 January 2, 2015 

Oil is cheap because of dumping, and all other energy sources should sue the gov to put a tariff on it.

Oil is cheap because the govs give fossils massive breaks. Again that goes against the trade agreements the USA has signed.

Put a tax on fossils, or the fossils industry will dump, as they have done everything the renewable industry looked serious. Then wait a year or tow for all the renewable plans to die, and raise the price again. How many times will we fall for this?

A. G. Gelbert 
January 2, 2015 

Brian Donovan is 100% RIGHT!

I was there in the 1980's and watched Big Oil STRANGLE Renewable Energy. They are trying to do it again.

And as to game theory, that is one of the most logic free exercises in evolutionary dead end predator thinking (see Wall Street creative destruction) that our country has ever been cursed with. The RAND corporation, where this gem of "mathematical" justification for conscience free behavior was hatched, is no friend of the people. Game Theory is based on the rather convenient predatory wishful thinking that, in nature, cooperation is merely a tool to be used ONLY for the purpose of making some alliance with a competitor that you hope to crush. Game theory is all about crushing, stomping and destroying the competition in a thoroughly WARPED (see Spencer) interpretation of the "survival of the fittest" meme.

Darwin himself said that altruistic, caring and cooperative behavior are evolutionary advantages, not tools of guile for predatory victories:

All this "apex predator" business is not a reflection of how most of nature works.

Even a brief look at the trophic pyramid shows you that the living biomass of the (100% NON-predatory) base of the pyramid ,which underlies all of the consumers (plant eaters) and tropic levels above (of which a portion are predators.) is at least 10 times larger than all the biomass above. That is, the overwhelming majority of successful life forms on this planet are autotrophic ( many of them photosynthetic). And that is thermodynamically necessary because energy is lost as each trophic level above eats from the one below. That is the REAL math that proves Game Theory is certainly not based on the real world.

Autotrophs are not predators. Game theory is based on the mistaken premise that ALL LIFE is in a competitive struggle of predation. The sun is not prey. Most life is cooperative as now has been discovered through scientific study of multiple combinations of three (and more) way symbiotic cooperation between radically different species.

Therefore game theory is a fascist farce, as is the ridiculously narrow field of economics that ignores the SCC (social cost of carbon) when computing the "profitability" and "competiveness" of fossil fuels in our "market dynamics" (another product of "everyone is a predator or a prey" Game Theory Bankrupt logic).

Those of you who doubt that the fossil fuel industry is gaming the price of oil in order to recapture market share from Renewable Energy, ask yourself this question:

If supply and demand or "market dynamics" had anything whatsoever to do with the price of oil tanking, then the Demand Destruction from Renewable Energy (and other factors listed in the article) would argue for a shift in the investment strategy of big oil from spending 100's of millions a year on new exploration of oil and gas to Renewable Energy research and development and installation. Also, Oil Tanker stocks would tank as big oil began to move away from the transport of massive amounts of crude.

But, they are doing EXACTLY THE REVERSE! Big oil is doubling down on oil and gas exploration. In the last month there has been a bottom feeding bonanza going in in stocks of oil tanker corporations and oil and gas exploration corporations.

The only logical explanation is that big oil expects a massive rise in the price of oil sometime SOON in the future, regardless of the $70 2017 futures contracts you mentioned in your article. There are other derivative bets that hide this market cornering skullduggery by big oil from "the markets".

Here's a small sample of the "illogical" bottom feeding going on that, on the surface, makes no sense from everything you wrote about game theory, markets and supply and demand. It ONLY makes sense if a coordinated effort to recapture market share through a price war is what is ACTUALLY going on.

Bottom Feeding Bonanza;


December 17, 2014

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 +(21.10%) 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.

December 19, 2014

Basic Energy Services BAS 8.07 +1.71 (26.89%) Market Cap 317.99M

Basic Energy Services, Inc., provides a range of well site services to oil and natural gas drilling and producing companies, including completion and remedial services, fluid services, well servicing and contract drilling. The Company’s operations are managed regionally and are concentrated in the United States onshore oil and natural gas producing regions located in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Montana, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. The Company’s segments include Completion and Remedial Services, Fluid Services, Well Servicing, and Contract Drilling. In April 2014, Basic Energy Services Inc sold its four inland barge workover rigs, and related equipment. In September 2014, Basic Energy Services Inc completes acquisition of Pioneer Fishing and Rental, a division of Pioneer Energy Services.


Market "dynamics"? I don't think so. Try Big Oil HISTORY of market cornering skullduggery for the past century or so.  >:(
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 12, 2015, 08:10:12 pm
You want us doing race track patterns for HOW LONG!!!!? Can I tell my wife how long we will be away? Right. I didn't think so.

You all saw the market and fossil fuel based energy tank along with the price of crude AGAIN today. What you didn't see was MORE PROOF that big oil does not plan to "go away". They plan to burn/sell every gallon of the fossil fuels they have access to. So what do they do if the price isn't "right"? They STORE IT here, there and everywhere they can until their low price HEAD FAKE is over and they have recaptured their lost market share (see price war to kill renewable energy). (

Do you know what costs to store crude in a giant oil tanker ship? A LOT! It runs about $25,000 a DAY!  :o But big oil doesn't want to keep selling oil cheap. They want to address the demand destruction going on by artificially CUTTING the supply. This hanky panky is accomplished by renting oil tankers and keeping them away from  land for weeks or months at time ( they did in the 1970's - they had oil tankers doing race track patterns in the middle of the Atlantic until the prices went to the moon! - Google it! - Note: Oil tankers are unstable in open ocean when they are not under way. They have to keep moving. So, if they don't want to go anywhere for a few days or weeks or months, they do race track patterns.)

TOP Gainers                  (% price change)  Last Trade  Change            Mkt Cap

Frontline Ltd.  FRO                (17.51%)        4.63          +0.69                2.84B 

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Shares of the world's largest oil tanker shipping company Frontline  (FRO) surged 18.74% to $4.68 in morning trading Monday after a Bloomberg report late last week that plunging oil prices could stimulate demand for oil tankers to store cargoes. (

The next time a fossil fueler talks NONSENSE about "supply and demand", tell him to stick his game theory bullshit where the sun don't shine!  (

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 23, 2015, 07:09:59 pm
01/23/2015 02:22 PM     
Wow! Europe's Renewable Energy Associations Dominated By Fossil Interests
( News

Europe has been the most aggressive, reliable advocate on addressing climate change and moving to renewable energy, but now, even the motives of their trade associations have to be questioned.

The Guardian reports that Europe's major solar and wind associations have been taken over by fossil fuel companies and utilities that want to slow down renewable energy growth. 

Full article here:  (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 30, 2015, 05:52:41 pm
One Man Working Behind-the-Scenes to Halt Oklahoma Wind Energy

 Matt Kasper 
 March 30, 2015

Oklahoma has quietly become the 4th largest wind producing state in America after jumping several states in the rankings over the past few years. The panhandle and the northeastern part of the state have been seen as promising areas for further development, with strong winds and nearby transmission lines that enable cheap, clean electricity. 

However, that was before one wealthy and influential landowner started spending big to single-handedly organize a campaign to halt future wind development. 

Frank Robson (, a multi-millionaire real estate developer, entered the wind energy debate last year when he found out a wind farm was planned near his ranch in Centralia, Okla. In those initial conversations, Robson was using the rhetoric of “NIMBYism” (not-in-my-back-yard). “Most people don’t move to the country to have an industrial unit right next to their house. How would you like to have a 495-foot turbine that goes whoosh, whoosh, whoosh, whoosh, and never shuts down?” Robson told the local NPR affiliate. Never mind that most farmers and ranchers like wind turbines just fine, along with the drought-resistant cash flow that they produce on 20- to 25-year contracts.

Robson’s efforts to push back against wind energy developments in Oklahoma led him to hire lobbyists. One firm hired, FKG Consulting  (, is the largest lobbying firm in the state. FKG Consulting supplied Robson with a small army of consultants including a pollster, and devised a strategy that has transformed Robson’s image from angry wealthy landowner to tax consumer advocate. Robson’s consultants transformed his message by halting the NIMBY talk, and devised a plan to go after tax incentives that support wind; a cause polling showed would be more compelling to the public. Robson has also hired a local marketing expert, who then started a group called “Wind Waste,”   ( (  to pull the incentives that wind energy receives in the state out of context.  (

FKG Consulting also represents multiple national and international clients in Oklahoma that have publically expressed a commitment to support renewable energy and/or sustainability development. Among them are Amazon, 3M, and Ernst & Young.

Additionally, since Robson has become more interested in ending any wind energy future for all of Oklahoma, he has stepped up his political giving; half of his recorded contributions to elected officials have come since 2014.

Frank Robson Wind Oklahoma (picture at link).

Robson’s work  ( and money seemed to be paying off, when Sen. President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman authored a measure last year that would have placed a moratorium on wind development in northeastern Oklahoma.  The bill was then run by then state senate energy chair, Cliff Branan, who received $4,500 in political contributions about a month-and-a-half after the bill began making its way through the senate in 2014. When the bill stalled, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) took up the endeavor at the request of Mr. Bingman and is currently considering restrictive new standards for wind farm locations.

In addition to the OCC’s deliberations, the Oklahoma Senate recently unanimously passed two bills to limit wind energy tax incentives. SB 498 and SB 501, authored by Sen. Mike Mazzei, target separate wind energy incentives: a tax exemption for manufacturing used by wind companies; and an annual decrease for zero-emission tax credits over five years. Mazzei has said these bills are necessary because the state is facing a $600 million budget gap. Robson used similar language in an op-ed last month – a change in talking points, for someone who got involved because of concerns about wind turbines in the view of his ranch.

Both bills have had their two required public readings, and were referred to Oklahoma’s House Appropriations and Budget Committee on March 17.

Ties to Wal-Mart

Robson is the brother-in-law to the late Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart. The irony is that Wal-Mart has announced plans to go 100% renewable by 2030. Oklahoma wind energy will likely need to play a role in Wal-Mart’s impressive endeavor, since several of its distribution centers are located in the state.

Oklahoma’s History of Support for Wind Energy

While Robson tries to fight the development of wind in his state, the state has long supported this industry. This support has resulted in other major employers such as Google moving into the state because of its favorable environment for power purchase agreements. And despite Robson’s claims to the contrary, wind has contributed to the health of the state’s economy, with jobs and tax revenues.

In 2012, a large Google data center in Pryor, Oklahoma entered into an agreement with the Grand River Dam Authority to procure wind energy. Both Oklahoma University (OU) and Oklahoma State University (OSU) have made historic wind energy agreements as well. OU signed an agreement with Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (OG&E) to purchase 100% of its OG&E supplied electricity from renewable energy sources. And a majority of OSU’s electricity comes from wind energy provided by OG&E.

The state added 648 megawatts of wind capacity last year  ( , for a total of 3,782 megawatts, passing both Oregon and Illinois in the rankings. Another 2,000 megawatts is expected to come online in the near future, as wind farms start to begin construction in the panhandle and northeastern part of the state.

The Oklahoma wind industry now contributes significantly to record-breaking generating outputs in the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), an area that includes Oklahoma, along with Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. In fact, SPP wind set a record earlier this year with 7,625 megawatts of wind generation – enough to power 6 million homes. Furthermore, wind in the SPP saves customers $1.2 billion each year due to avoided coal and natural gas fuel costs, in addition to water savings.

The progress in Oklahoma is a major factor to wind energy’s nearing cost-parity, the point when it can compete with fossil fuels without federal incentives. But because Robson does not want to see wind turbines while on his ranch, that momentum is in serious jeopardy.

Thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Oklahoma are in peril, along with millions of dollars in future land lease payments and private investments – dollars and jobs that would likely move to Colorado, Kansas, or Texas, if Oklahoma eliminates its current smart public policies that support wind energy.

Agelbert NOTE: Wind energy’s cost-parity, the point when it can compete with fossil fuels without federal incentives, is the REAL reason that the fossil fuelers are going all out to stop this Renewable energy that threatens the centralized energy "business model"   ( of the fossil fuelers.

In fact, Wind Energy passed that point over three years ago!
(  ( The reason it is not apparent is that it is MASKED BY ALL THE MASSIVE VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE FOSSIL FUEL "SUBSIDIES" (welfare queen handouts on the taxpayer dime) that make wind energy subsides look like PEANUTS.

The hypocrisy of these bastards is breathtaking.  ( Those are the very people that claim they "just want the most competitive energy product for everybody" (

Renewable energy= (                                ( Fuelers
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on April 01, 2015, 02:30:50 pm
ANOTHER fossil fuel fascsist (THEY  ( are commoinly identified by the the meter reading above ) DOING WHAT PROFIT OVER PLANET RICH PIGS DO...
Harold Hamm  ( (MKing's hero  ;D) is pictured above. Any similarity with his surname, a ham and his face is purely coincidental.  ;D

Oil and Gas Billionaire Pressured Oklahoma Scientist to Ignore Fracking-Earthquake Link
Anastasia Pantsios | April 1, 2015 9:34 am


Hillary Clinton’s emails aren’t the only ones making news, at least not in Oklahoma.

A trove of emails were released by the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS), which regulates the state’s oil and gas industries, in response to public records requests from news outlets such as Bloomberg and EnergyWire.

They appear to reveal that oil and gas billionaire Harold Hamm, known as the founding father of the U.S. fracking boom  (, inserted himself into the conversation about whether fracking was causing a dramatic upsurge in earthquakes in the state. (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on April 25, 2015, 06:22:22 pm
Bernard Eastlund's discoveries, are innovative applications of the work of Tesla and Faraday. His plans to provide power on any spot on the planet, to modify weather and eliminate drought, floods and hurricanes was usurped by the US military to make a death ray.  >:(

The HAARP facility in Gakona, Alaska has shut down pending its transfer to a different contractor working for DARPA. The official statement reads:

HAARP was shut down in early May 2013, awaiting a change between contractors who operate the facility. According to HAARP program manager James Keeney, "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is expected on site as a client to finish up some research in fall 2013 and winter 2014." The temporary shutdown was described as being due to "a contractor regime change." The Alaska Native corporation Ahtna, Incorporated is reportedly in talks to take over the facility administration contract from Marsh Creek, LLC.

Supporters of the HAARP program now say that claims of crazy weather patterns, earthquakes and mental illness can no longer be blamed on the operation of this remote facility because it is "off-line".

 It is a fact that the HAARP facility in Gakona was only a public relations facade which distracted from the larger facility near Fairbanks and the many other "ionospheric heaters" located around the country -- and the world -- that no longer use dipole antennae farms and receive their funding as "black projects", exempt from public scrutiny or review.

 We featured such a facility in China in a recent story on viewzone. The new antennae designs are apparently more efficient at the high frequencies which the "heaters" utilize.

Introduction to H.A.A.R.P.

by Dan Eden

Many articles have been written about HAARP. What this author wishes to make clear is that he believes HAARP was not the actual facility designed to be used as a military system but a "front" or "red herring" facility which allows the authorities to deny important questions about its purpose and operation and which conducted basic research with its limited power of about 3MW.

 The real facility is located in Poker Flats, North of Fairbanks, Alaska. Please read the Congressional Executive Summary which is provided here in unedited form for the truth.

Some background on HAARP & How it works

 Albert Einstein's theories of relativity and the development of atomic energy are seen as the pinnacles of Twentieth Century technology. Like most innovative applications of newly discovered laws of physics, the benefit that they afford the common citizen is often usurped by the sinister need of the military to kill each other or ruin the environment -- all in the name of security.  :evil4:

Bernard Eastlund's discoveries, are innovative applications of the work of Tesla and Faraday. His plans to provide power on any spot on the planet, to modify weather and eliminate drought, floods and hurricanes was usurped by the US military to make a death ray.

 Bernard Eastlund is a very private man and a physicist with a small company in Houston. In the mid-80's, Eastlund invented and patented a technology that will will reshape our lives, for better or for worse, whether we like it or not.

 A few years ago, ViewZone ran a photograph that was sent to us for identification (see Unusual Photographs). We received many wild explanations, from underground alien bases to ancient city streets. But a handful of anonymous e-mails were consistent. These described the long, parallel, perfectly straight lines as part of an antenna complex used to communicate with submerged submarines. These same e-mails spoke of "death rays" that could blast distant locations with lethal electromagnetic radiation.

 The photograph was eventually believed to be an ELF (an acronym for Extremely Low Frequency) antenna installation, designed for submarine communication. There is one almost identical to the photograph in Michigan. Since our anonymous informants seemed to be so knowledgeable, we were curious about their claims of a "death ray" installation located somewhere in Alaska. Our informants directed our attention to something called HAARP (High Frequency Active Aurora Ionospheric Research Program).

 HAARP is a military project based on Eastlund's discoveries. It is a difficult program to discuss technically with non-scientists and, as such, it has eluded the spotlight of the popular press. But for years now, conspiracy web sites and some credible scientific publications have questioned what's going on and how messing with the ionosphere could be hurting the environment.

 To make matters worse, HAARP has been maintained partially as a clandestine project, operated by the US Navy. The information that is made available to the public is carefully worded to make HAARP appear as a bland, harmless, unclassified, atmospheric research facility.

 This public image is maintained, in part, through a website (Note: It appears they have taken the web site "off-line" also!), complete with a reassuring, updated, digital photograph, showing dozens of motionless aluminum dipole antennae at their remote Alaskan base. Public statements speak about "better understanding the ionosphere," a layer of Earth's atmosphere about 60-90 Km. high.

 They are polite when questioned, but stick to their "harmless research" stories, despite contradictions in the press and in publicly available documents. In preparation for this article, ViewZone contacted HAARP. Not only did they deny that the facility was doing military work, but they also diminished the work of Dr. Eastlund, implying that he knew very little about his own discovery. (In contrast to now admitting that they do DARPA work.)

 Eventually everyone will know about Bernard Eastlund and his work. It will someday be taught in schools. His technology will impact every living thing. But this will have to wait for the military, who own his valuable patents, to release Eastlund's work for humane applications. For the time being, this work is buried in the secretive work of HAARP.

 To completely understand Eastlund's work, you must first understand how and why HAARP works. This is not an easy task. But we'll try to keep it simple.

Posted 16th February 2014 by Sagar

Labels: सूचना प्रविधि (

Agelbert NOTE: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a federal agency focused on the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere.

BUT FOR SOME INTERESTING REASON, H.A.A.R.P is run by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Defense  (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on April 25, 2015, 07:01:59 pm

What Do We Want To See? 

 The vision behind the Transition Town movement is that every community can engage its collective creativity to unleash an extraordinary and historic transition to a future beyond fossil fuels; a future that is more vibrant, abundant and resilient; one that is ultimately preferable to the present.

 What does that look like? What do the people who are active in the Transition Network really envision for the future of their towns, if the transition they are working to create becomes reality?

 They all envision something much more humane.  ( Cities that are much quieter, much cleaner, much slower, more people working closer to home. They talk about strong bonds around food, knowing your local farmer, growing your own food. Everything is much more decentralized. Alternative energy supplies the grid. The whole economy is much more local and society is more equitable. Quality of life skyrockets. (

 The Transition approach is very much a study of permaculture in itself. It asks not: How can we make sure people take action the way we know they ought to and grow food, start composting, install solar panels, etc?" No, it asks: what is already going on in this town and how can we maximize the interchange and benefit of all the commerce and activity already in motion - regardless of people's views, politics, awareness of energy issues and so on?

 Ben Brangwyn, co founder of the Transition Network says he believes "When we look back, having reached that transition point, we will say: How on earth could we ever have conceived of living any other way? (see Agelbert NOTE for answer.  ;))

 --Bibi Farber

 For more information on the Transition Town Movement, visit

Agelbert NOTE:
WE DIDN'T "conceive" of living dying for elite greed; WE-THE-PEOPLE were Bernaysed into accepting the CON JOB of profit over planet CENTRALIZED POWER as the "real world", PERIOD. The odds of Homo SAPDOM surviving the greedy, biosphere math challenged predators among us are NOT GOOD.  (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on May 10, 2015, 10:23:09 pm
In fossil fuel industry board rooms in undisclosed locations, strategy sessions are being held to accomplish a trifecta.

1. Avoid litigation that would result in forcing them to pay for the massive enevironmental damage they are responsible for over the last 120 years.

2. Enjoy a 20 year (at least) profit bonanza from a guaranteed massive price hike for fossil fuels due to massive global cooling.

3. Regain their fraudulent 20th century title of "savior" of civilization while blaming all the environemtnal problems on another dirty energy explosive/source.

The secret memo that may have already been disseminated to their bought and paid for political lackeys is this:

We all know that war is good for business, but NUCLEAR WAR is even better. Not only will we no longer have to endure silly talk about global warming, we will have guaranteed profits for at least two decades! The price spike from nuclear war will be turn into a price spike on steroids with the nuclear winter.  (

During that time the population can be convinced we are their saviors while we strangle other energy producing upstarts like solar and wind with legislation that "defends the people from wasteful energy sources".   (

Nuclear War will be the biggest propaganda bonanza we have ever had. We will no longer be restrained in our prudent, measured, logical, do the math, exploitation of earth's resources for the good of mankind and our shareholders.(

So get moving and start that saber rattling!


Year 0
Five megatons of black carbon released into the atmosphere, which absorbs sunlight and begins to cool the planet. Black carbon rain also kills millions.
Year 1
Average surface temperature drops by 1°C (2°F).
Year 2
Crop growing season is shortened by 10 to 40 days.
Year 5
Earth is an average of 1.5°C (3°F) colder than the present day, colder than it has been in 1,000 years. There is also nine per cent less rainfall. The ozone is also up to 25 per cent thinner, increasing UV rays on Earth.
Year 10
Ozone recovers slightly to just 8 per cent less than modern day.
Year 20
Planet warms slightly to 0.5°C (1°F) lower than the present day.
Year 26
Rainfall increases to about 4.5 per cent less than today

Agelbert NOTE: They left a MINOR DETAIL OUT. The price of FOSSIL FUELS WILL GO TO THE MOON AND STAY THERE. Nuclear war is insane, stupid and suicidal. But so is the fossil fuel industry. They have a TRACK RECORD of ignoring, and indeed fostering, climate and human health damaging activities while making us pay the price. So do not be surprized if they think NUCLEAR WAR is a "GOOD DEAL" for them, no matter what they say in public.


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on May 18, 2015, 03:19:25 pm
Shell Oil Caught Planning for Deadly 4 to 6 Degree Rise in Global Temperature

Whoopsies  ;).
From The Guardian:

Royal Dutch Shell has been accused of pursuing a strategy that would lead to potentially catastrophic climate change after an internal document acknowledged a global temperature rise of 4C, twice the level considered safe for the planet.

A paper used for guiding future business planning at the Anglo-Dutch multinational assumes that carbon dioxide emissions will fail to limit temperature increases to 2C, the internationally agreed threshold to prevent widespread flooding, famine and desertification.

Instead, the New Lens Scenarios document refers to a forecast by the independent International Energy Agency (IEA) that points to a temperature rise of up to 4C in the short term, rising later to 6C.

The Shell document says: “Both our (oceans and mountains) scenarios and the IEA New Policies scenario (and our base case energy demand and outlook) do not limit emissions to be consistent with the back-calculated 450 parts per million (Co2 in the atmosphere) 2 degrees C.”

It adds: “We also do not see governments taking steps now that are consistent with 2 degrees C scenario.”

Surely there's nothing Shell itself could do to try to mitigate global warming. They're just planning realistically for our future!  ( (
But seriously, this is disgusting. It shows callous disregard for the planet and all its inhabitants.
Contact Shell and tell them to change their plans: (

Mail: P.O. Box 2463, Houston, TX 77252 (Shell Oil Company)
Shell U.S. Switchboard: 713-241-6161 (all Shell U.S. companies)
US Shareholder Services: 888-737-2377
Shell U.S. Media Relations: 713-241-4544
Shell U.S. Trademarks: 888-SHELLTM or 888-743-5586
Shell U.S. Royalties: 281-544-2600

Agelbert NOTE:
EXCELLENT COMMENTS  ( for you to copy, paste and pass on to as many people as you can:  (

RW media may not believe climate change is real. (95+ / 0-)
But sure looks like Shell believes it. Smoking gun.
Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.
by RhodeIslandAspie on Sun May 17, 2015 at 04:14:00 PM PDT

Makes the timing of TPP so suspicous, huh?
The people behind it and supporting it are ass holes, too, just as much as companies that will use it to put us on the hook for their destructive failures...again.
by Words In Action on Sun May 17, 2015 at 10:44:54 PM PDT

From an associated Guardian article:
"With Shell’s involvement in such controversial areas there is also scrutiny of its lobbying efforts. The Union of Concerned Scientists in the US has started a campaign against Shell over its continued involvement in the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a rightwing nonprofit organisation that has been criticised for drafting model legislation that denies any human contribution to climate change."

We are taught that cheats never prosper, yet the country is run by spivs.. George Monbiot
by northsylvania on Mon May 18, 2015 at 12:48:55 AM PDT

Ass holes (58+ / 0-)
by GANJA on Sun May 17, 2015 at 04:12:25 PM PDT

Ass hole is too nice a word. An ass hole cuts
in front of you in traffic. A sociopath enables mass death on this kind of scale. You can't have a conscience and work in the top rungs of a major oil company in 2015.
by samanthab on Mon May 18, 2015 at 04:06:50 AM PDT


what top rungs are available?

you got me thinking; is there an industry in which sociopathic qualities are not required at the top end?
Any type of resource extraction?
Maybe Ben & Jerry?

Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013 UPDATE 2/2015: still true, getting worse. 2014 hottest year ever.

by kamarvt on Mon May 18, 2015 at 05:12:06 AM PDT

Not exactly

Our culture just promotes sociopathy, and rewards it.
If corporate charters could be revoked for serious malfeasance and if the only way to get a tax loophole was to donate money in a pro social manner?
Then it might be different.
We make the USA run...or not... Bring back the general strike!!!
by slouchingdragon on Mon May 18, 2015 at 11:24:59 AM PDT

And that includes the leaders

Of industrialized countries who assist fossil fuel companies in creating that catastrophe.

“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
by MrJayTee on Mon May 18, 2015 at 10:29:20 AM PDT
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on June 16, 2015, 06:11:22 pm
Sen. Lindsey Graham has Empathy Deficit Disorder AND a psychopath's sense of humor too.  (

GRAHAM: "I'm gonna get you motivated to want to kill the clay pigeon..."

GRAHAM: "Alright, do a Bernie Sanders."


GRAHAM: "Pull!"


GRAHAM: "Sorry about that, Bernie!"


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on June 16, 2015, 06:37:01 pm
Fossil Fuel-Funded Lawmakers Want to Weaken Human and Environmental Health Protections

Elliott Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists | June 16, 2015 10:02 am

Americans consistently support environmental safeguards by wide margins. A survey of likely 2016 voters, for instance, found that 91 percent of Americans endorse strengthening drinking water and air pollution protections, 87 percent want expanded renewable energy development, and 82 percent would like the government to place limits on power plant carbon pollution.

Texas Republican Lamar Smith  :evil4: , chairman of the House Science Committee, wants to make it more difficult for the EPA to do its job. Photo credit: The Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy.

Despite those numbers, industry-backed legislators in both houses of Congress have been introducing—and reintroducing—benign-sounding bills ( the last few years that would do the exact opposite of what a solid majority of Americans want.  ( The sponsors of these Trojan Horse bills claim they would increase accountability and transparency, but in fact they would obstruct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies from enacting science-based rules, setting back public health and environmental protections for decades to come.

Full article at link. Bring your barf bag. (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2015, 02:30:02 pm
Koch Brothers Exposed for Campaign Contributions to 19 Members of Congress Who Voted to Deny Fair Compensation to Asbestos Victims  >:(

Environmental Working Group | July 16, 2015 10:42 am

House Judiciary Committee members who voted for a bill that could delay or deny fair compensation to asbestos victims received almost $3.3 million in campaign contributions over the last five years from companies that would benefit from the legislation, according to an investigation of federal records by Environmental Working Group (EWG) Action Fund.


The so-called FACT Act, H.R. 526, authored by Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.), is being supported by dozens of companies and industry associations with billions of dollars worth of liability for deaths and diseases caused by exposing workers, their families or consumers to asbestos. On May 14, the Judiciary panel approved it 19 to 9. The full House is expected to debate it soon.

“Rep. Farenthold’s bill claims to be about increasing transparency for asbestos claims, but it’s really just a scheme to delay paying for victims’ deaths and illnesses as long as possible,” said Bill Walker of EWG Action Fund and author of the report.

“The FACT Act would not only erect needless bureaucratic hurdles to victims’ compensation, but by forcing them to make public their personal financial data, could put them at risk of identity theft,” Walker said. “You might think such a bad bill would be a non-starter for members of Congress, but our report shows how asbestos interests are using their cash and clout in an attempt to deny justice and evade the consequences of their liability.”

The Koch brothers empire, which includes the forest products giant Georgia-Pacific, and its affiliated political action committee, has given the 19 committee members who voted for the FACT Act $241,500 since 2010. Koch network contributions were exceeded only by defense contractor Honeywell International, which gave the members more than $245,000.


In addition to their campaign contributions, since 2010, Koch, Honeywell, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others aligned with asbestos interests have spent unknown millions of dollars on K Street, lobbying for the bill.

Most of the largest contributors to congressional supporters of the FACT Act were defense contractors, who have exposed millions of Americans to asbestos over the years. But big donors also included AT&T, ExxonMobil, railroads and insurance companies.

Koch’s Georgia-Pacific subsidiary is facing tens of thousands of lawsuits from people exposed to asbestos in its pipe joint compound. The company’s estimated liability is nearly $1 billion—culpability it tried to skirt by funding bogus scientific studies falsely concluding that the type of asbestos used in the product does not cause cancer.

Honeywell International, whose political action committee donated more money to members of Congress than any other U.S. corporate PAC, has paid out more than $1 billion in asbestos damages since 2010.

The 19 FACT Act supporters on the House Judiciary Committee received an average of $173,267 apiece from asbestos interests since 2010.

EWG Action Fund examined federal records of campaign contributions to members of the House Judiciary Committee who voted for the FACT Act, starting with the 2010 election cycle.

The EWG Action Fund report compiles contributions from companies that met at least one of these criteria:

•Companies or industry associations that have disclosed on federal forms that they lobbied for the FACT Act or for asbestos litigation reform.

•Companies named in court decisions in the last 10 years as defendants in asbestos lawsuits.

•Companies that have disclosed significant asbestos liability in Securities and Exchange Commission filings or whose liability was confirmed by news reports.

House Judiciary Committee members who received the most campaign contributions from asbestos interests between 2010 and 2015 were:

•Lamar Smith (R-TX), $382,150
•Darryl Issa (R-CA), $372,329
•Virgil Goodlatte (R-VA), the committee chair, $300,879
•Randy Forbes (R-VA), $286,285
•Blake Farenthold (R-TX), $239,250

EWG Action Fund’s full analysis is here:

 Asbestos Interests Gave $3.3 Million to House Members Who Voted to Impede Compensation for Victims
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2015, 08:03:05 pm
Thursday, July 16, 2015

Second group launches solar energy ballot initiative
Jim Turner, July 16, 2015 (Sun Sentinel)

“A new ‘pro solar-energy’  ( coalition will push for its own ballot initiative as a way to counter a separate group's proposed constitutional amendment to expand the use of solar energy in Florida… Consumers for Smart Solar  (  ( , a group whose leadership includes two former state lawmakers, a Jacksonville tea-party founder, and a former chairman of the Florida Public Service Commission…will race to collect signatures to get on the 2016 ballot alongside the ongoing effort by a group known as Floridians for Solar Choice [to make solar leasing possible in the state]…


 “[M]embers of the new group ( described the proposal by Floridians for Solar Choice — now under review by the state Supreme Court — as a ‘power grab ’( (  by out-of-state [national solar installers like SolarCity and Sunrun]… Floridians for Solar Choice [which includes the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, the Florida Retail Federation, Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, the Ecology Party of Florida, the Evangelical Environmental Network, Greenpeace USA, the Sierra Club Florida, the Space Coast Climate Change Initiative and The Tea Party Network] responded that the newest opposition ‘is a slickly developed campaign to potentially confuse voters’ and said it believes the effort is supported by [traditional fossil fuel and nuclear interests and utilities]…”

Agelbert NOTE: The fossil fuelers and nuke pukes never stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes while they fleece AND poison us 24/7. I hope the Floridians for Solar Choice expose the "Consumers for Smart Solar" (See Orwell) profit over people and planet, Empathy Deficit Disordered skullduggery for all to see.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on July 23, 2015, 05:57:56 pm
Corruption of Government and Environment by Fossil Fuel Companies (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 07, 2015, 07:30:33 pm
Watch The Fossil Fuel Government DO WHAT IT DOES to prevent the fossil fuel industry from being held liable for, and paying for, their CRIMES.  >:(

Climate Scientist Faces Backlash for Urging Investigation of Fossil Fuel Companies

Jagadish Shukla will be questioned by a Congressional committee after he and other scientists called for a racketeering probe of deliberate climate denial.

By Katherine Bagley, InsideClimate News   

Oct 7, 2015

This story was updated on Oct. 7 at 2:00 p.m.

A climate scientist who was the lead signatory on a letter urging President Obama to launch a federal investigation into whether fossil fuel companies "knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change" is now facing an investigation by Congress because of his part in the letter.

Jagadish Shukla  (, a climate scientist at George Mason University in Virginia, received notice Oct. 1 that the non-profit research organization he runs, the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES), will soon be investigated by the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology for suspected misuse of federal funding.

Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas (, who chairs the House committee, requested that Shukla and IGES "preserve all e-mail, electronic documents, and data (‘electronic records’) created since January 1, 2009," according to the notice. (

The investigation stems from Shukla's involvement in the letter to President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and White House science advisor John Holdren on Sept. 1. The letter's 20 signees—climate scientists from Columbia University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the University of Maryland and other institutions—asked the administration to explore whether energy companies could be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1970 for purposefully casting doubt on the scientific evidence for climate change. Federal prosecutors used the RICO Act in the 1990s and 2000s to sue tobacco companies for covering up the health impacts of smoking. ScienceInsider first reported Smith's investigation.

Shukla's research organization, IGES, posted a copy of the RICO letter to its website—a move that Smith told Shukla "raises serious concerns"  ::) over a taxpayer-funded scientific group "participating in partisan political activity." The research center has received funds from the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

"Promoting a lobbying effort and publicizing that effort on a website is not an appropriate use of federal research funds," an aide for the House Science, Space and Technology Committee told InsideClimate News.

"Additional questions have been raised regarding the fiscal management of federal grant dollars received by IGES and the transfer of IGES to George Mason University," the aide said. The committee will be looking into the salaries of Shukla and his wife Anastasia, who works as the organization's business manager.

"I signed this letter as a private citizen on personal time, urging action on climate change, and I have been shocked by the reaction," Shukla told InsideClimate News. "Any allegations of inappropriate behavior are untrue." (

IGES said the letter was posted on its website inadvertently. It has since been removed.

"IGES's recent decision to remove documents from its website raises concerns that additional information vital to the Committee's investigation may not be preserved," Smith wrote. Smith informed Shukla he and his colleagues had until Oct. 8 to inform the House Committee on how IGES would comply with the request.

"The House Science Committee isn’t going after Dr. Shukla and his colleagues for their scientific work, but for their opinions as private citizens," said Michael Halpern, program manager of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Scientists have the same right as anyone to engage in the political process and express their beliefs without fear of being hauled before Congress for their views."

A History of Inquiries (

Smith's investigation is just the latest in a long line of probes into climate scientists by conservative politicians. In 2005, Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, who was then Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, examined the work of climate scientists Michael Mann of Penn State and Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts. Over the last decade, the scientific community has had to field an increasing number of public records requests from conservative groups looking to cast doubt on their research.

"Overall, scientists whose work is policy relevant are certainly under more scrutiny than ever before through a variety of means, from subpoenas to open records requests, and need to be prepared to respond to that scrutiny," said Halpern. Such investigations, he said, "can send the wrong message to researchers about how valuable their expertise is to society. We need scientists to engage in public conversations on science-based issues, no matter how contentious the topic."    (

The biggest difference between Smith's investigation today and the one Mann and Bradley faced in 2005, Mann said, is that "back then, there were a number of moderate pro-science, pro-environment Republicans who came to my defense. Chief among them was Sherwood Boehlert—an old-school Republican from upstate New York."

"Unfortunately, we no longer have moderate republicans like Boehlert chairing the House science committee," said Mann.  >:(
The old fossil fuel industry FUNDED witch hunt.  >:(

Shukla and his colleagues' letter was sent three weeks before an eight-month investigation by InsideClimate News showed that ExxonMobil's own research confirmed fossil fuels' role in climate change in the 1970s and 1980s. The company then spent the next two decades funding a campaign to derail climate regulations and question climate science.

"If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible,"  ( Shulka and the other climate scientists wrote in the letter.

Holdren wrote back to the researchers that "the [Obama] administration shares the concern expressed in the letter about the seriousness of the threat posed by climate change," according to ScienceInsider.

ScienceInsider also reported that Shulka is not the only signatory of the letter facing backlash.

Attorney Christopher Horner (, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian think tank, filed a public records request with several of the signatories' universities for emails contained the words "RICO, racketeer, racketeering, DOJ, prosecute or prosecution."

"If they believe this is part of their job, we will not dispute that, but instead would like to see how the institutions were used in this innovative application of public education resources," ( Horner ( ScienceInsider. 


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: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 07, 2015, 08:59:19 pm
British Government Accused of Distorting Market in Support of Fossil Fuels and Nukes  >:(

Alex Kirby, Climate News Network | October 7, 2015 10:14 am

One of the pioneers of the UK’s renewable energy industry says the British government is distorting the market in an attempt to support fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Onshore wind farms in the UK have had government support cut. Photo credit: Andy Magee / Flickr

Onshore wind farms in the UK have had government support cut. Photo credit: Andy Magee / Flickr

His accusation comes as the industry’s trade association, RenewableUK, announces that in the second quarter of this year renewable energy produced 25.3 percent of the country’s electricity—more than either nuclear power (21.5 percent) or coal (20.5 percent).

The accuser is Dale Vince, who in 1995 founded the green energy company Ecotricity, which supplies almost 170,000 British customers with wind and solar power.

He is challenging the government to scrap its subsidies for nuclear power and fossil fuels in order to “create a level playing field” after it cut support for renewable energy.

Abandon Policies  (

Last month, the influential Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said countries should abandon fossil fuel support policies.

Vince said that in the second quarter of 2015 renewable energy had, for the first time, outperformed the nuclear and coal industries. And it had done so with a fraction of the subsidies that fossil fuels and nuclear power enjoyed.

He said:

“Renewable energy receives one-tenth of the support that fossil fuels do, yet powers 25 percent of the country. And government says only renewable energy has to stand on its own two feet. It makes no economic sense. Britain is blessed with enough renewable energy to power our entire country several times over, safely, without pollution and at the lowest cost of all energy sources.”

Vince added that the International Monetary Fund put UK subsidies to the fossil industries in Britain at £30 billion (US$45.5 bn) annually—more than £1,000 (US$1,500) per household per year. “In contrast, support for all renewable energy amounted to £2.6 billion last year, about £100 per household per year, with onshore wind—which is the main focus of government attacks—adding just £10 to household energy bills.”

“Unfortunately, the government appears ideologically opposed to renewable energy and has moved to put a stop to this incredible success story, ” says Vince.

“It is not just cutting all support and increasing planning hurdles, but even going so far as to make renewable energy pay the Climate Change Levy, which is (or was) a tax on fossil fuels to fund climate change measures. Renewable energy in Britain now effectively subsidizes the fossil fuel industry—to the tune of £1 billion every year, ” he adds.

Last week, the government announced it would pay a further £2 bn to encourage the Chinese to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in the west of England.

Vince said the plant would be paid twice the market price for power, for the next 35 years—”and then we’ll have to clean up the mess left behind, which already amounts to £120 billion for the current fleet of nuclear plants being decommissioned.”

( Widespread Criticism  ( 

Plans by the government to supplement its aging fleet of nuclear power stations with a new reactor at Hinkley Point is attracting widespread criticism—not just from anti-nuclear campaigners, but also from the energy industry and investment banks.

The government is also intent on exploiting shale gas. As the energy and climate change secretary, Amber Rudd, explained in August: “We are backing the safe development of shale gas because it’s good for jobs, giving hardworking people and their families more financial security, good for our energy security and part of our plan to decarbonize the economy.”

“We need more secure, home-grown energy supplies—and shale gas must play a part in that.”

As claims mount that the UK’s energy policy is in disarray, the hapless Rudd has been renamed “Amber Rudderless” by some of her critics.

The UK government’s policy appears to ignore global trends. Worldwide, 2015 marks a doubling of the renewable energy sector from its size just 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 24, 2015, 02:39:31 pm
(  (   (

What's wrong with the rest of this country?
??? Fossil Fuel Industry CORRUPTION and THREATS! (

24 States Sue Obama Over Clean Power Plan   (

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.

Internal Documents Expose Fossil Fuel Industry’s Decades of Deception on Climate Change.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on November 14, 2015, 06:17:45 pm
Monsta said,
Let us assume the false flag theory is true and this event was planned what would be the objective of such an event? Would it be to convince the French public to be more supportive of aggressive military actions or to take a more hard line approach to immigration? I think if there is a motive it would more likely be the former as staging an event like this simply to reduce immigration is overkill.

I agree that the motive is not more war in the Middle East or the immigration thing.


Polluters Goebbels Style Conspiracy to Sabotage COP21

Let us connect the war profiteering dots, shall we? Some here will scoff and say I just discarded "more war" as a motive. Yes, I did that. But I DID NOT discard WAR SCARE propaganda.

WHAT, EXACTLY, is scheduled to happen next month in PARIS that threatens the bottom line of ALL the war profiteering ****s all over the planet?


Can you think of a better way to DISTRACT the worldwide public from the climate change reforms that spell bankruptcy for the polluting "business models" that RELY on price shocks and wars to keep making billions of dollars in profits to buy or bop politicians with?

Can you think of a better way to frighten all the delegates from all over the world coming to Paris next month?

Can you think of a better way to keep the climate change issue OFF the front pages while the COP21 conference gets CASTRATED by the fossil fuel, mining, chemical, weapons manufacturing and pharmaceutical (etc.) industries?

Polluters: Do not **** with our "business model" or our profits.  :evil4:


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on November 28, 2015, 04:43:09 pm

4 Ways Exxon Stopped Action on Climate Change  (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 02, 2015, 02:57:39 pm

Exxon ( Targets Journalists Who Exposed Massive Climate Change Cover-Up
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 22, 2015, 03:29:23 pm
As the Dec. 23 deadline approaches for the fossil fuel industry to respond to legal briefs in support of the Clean Power Plan, the Sierra Club released The Fight Before Christmas, a new version of the beloved holiday poem A Visit from St. Nicholas, illustrating the activities of corporate polluters and their allies two nights before Christmas.


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 22, 2015, 09:15:03 pm

“Process,” “roadmap,” “framework.” We need to use the technical word “bulls hit” to describe these phrases. They are words to describe non-agreements, words to fool the public into thinking something important has actually been accomplished.

Despite all the hype about how cheap renewal energy is becoming it’s still cheaper to burn fossil fuels (FF), since FF producers don’t have to pay a dime to treat their deadly (to the climate) carbon dioxide waste. Thanks to fracking and other factors the price of methane (natural gas) is at a 16 year low. The U.S. has so much oil it can now export it again. The obvious, obvious need for a tax to pay for FF waste is not mentioned in the agreement.

The agreement doesn’t even challenge the subsidies that governments give to the FF industries to go out and find more carbon to burn. A piece in Scientific American in May 2015 calculated the total yearly amount of these subsidies, a breathtaking; mind boggling $5 trillion, $5 trillion a year to hasten the end of a human-favored climate.   (

‘Progress’ Is Fatal   (
Posted on Dec 21, 2015

By Stanley Heller / PeaceNews

The REALLY inconvenient truth!


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 19, 2016, 06:28:33 pm
Koch Brothers Plotting Multimillion Dollar War on Electric Vehicles   (

Lorraine Chow | February 19, 2016 2:45 pm


Death to the electric car?    ( Charles and David Koch are reportedly backing a new group that will use millions to promote petroleum and fight against government subsidies for electric vehicles.

In an effort to strike back at record-breaking EV sales, the fossil fuel industry is allegedly funding a new organization that will spend $10 million a year to push petroleum-based transportation fuels and attack government subsidies on EVs, refining industry sources told the Huffington Post.

Elon Musk
✔  ‎‎@elonmusk 

Worth noting that all gasoline cars are heavily subsidized via oil company tax credits & unpaid public health costs.

Comment by renewableguy

Fossil fuels is scared sh--less.

Agelbert reply:

Amory Lovins knows the score. The fossil fuel industry is a wounded beast. It's days are numbered.

Over the past 40 years, Americans have saved 31 times as much energy as renewables added. Those cumulative savings are equivalent to 21 years’ current energy use.  They’re simply invisible: you can’t see the energy you don’t use. But globally, it’s a bigger “supply” than oil, and inexorably, it’s going to get much, much bigger.

Oil companies worry about climate regulation, but they’re even more at risk from market competition. The oil that’ll be unburnable for climate reasons is probably less than the oil that’ll be unsellable because efficiency and renewables can do the same job cheaper.

An oil business that sputters when oil’s at $90 a barrel, swoons at $50, and dies at $30 will not do well against the $25 cost of getting U.S. mobility—or anyone else’s, since the technologies are fungible—completely off oil by 2050. That cost, like the $18 per saved barrel to make U.S. automobiles uncompromised, attractive, cost-effective, and oil-free, is a 2010–11 analytic result; today’s costs are even lower and continue to fall.

In short, like whale oil in the 1850s, oil is becoming uncompetitive even at low prices before it became unavailable even at high prices.

As Oil Prices Gyrate, Underlying Trends Are Shifting To Oil's Disadvantage (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 19, 2016, 07:44:36 pm
Bill McKibben: It’s Not Just What Exxon Did, It’s What It’s Doing

Bill McKibben, TomDispatch | February 19, 2016 9:18 am

Here’s the story so far. We have the chief legal representatives of the eighth 8 and 16th largest economies on Earth (California and New York) probing the biggest fossil fuel company on Earth (ExxonMobil), while both Democratic presidential candidates are demanding that the federal Department of Justice join the investigation of what may prove to be one of the biggest corporate scandals in American history. And that’s just the beginning. As bad as Exxon has been in the past, what it’s doing now—entirely legally—is helping push the planet over the edge and into the biggest crisis in the entire span of the human story.


As bad as Exxon has been in the past, what it’s doing now—entirely legally—is helping push the planet over the edge and into the biggest crisis in the entire span of the human story.

Back in the fall, you might have heard something about how Exxon had covered up what it knew early on about climate change. Maybe you even thought to yourself: that doesn’t surprise me. But it should have. Even as someone who has spent his life engaged in the bottomless pit of greed that is global warming, the news and its meaning came as a shock: we could have avoided, it turns out, the last quarter century of pointless climate debate.

As a start, investigations by the Pulitzer-Prize winning Inside Climate News, the Los Angeles Times and Columbia Journalism School revealed in extraordinary detail that Exxon’s top officials had known everything there was to know about climate change back in the 1980s. Even earlier, actually. Here’s what senior company scientist James Black told Exxon’s management committee in 1977: “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.” To determine if this was so, the company outfitted an oil tanker with carbon dioxide sensors to measure concentrations of the gas over the ocean and then funded elaborate computer models to help predict what temperatures would do in the future.

The results of all that work were unequivocal. By 1982, in an internal “corporate primer,” Exxon’s leaders were told that, despite lingering unknowns, dealing with climate change “would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.” Unless that happened, the primer said, citing independent experts, “there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered … Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible.” But that document, “given wide circulation” within Exxon, was also stamped “Not to be distributed externally.”

So here’s what happened.
Exxon used its knowledge of climate change to plan its own future. The company, for instance, leased large tracts of the Arctic for oil exploration, territory where, as a company scientist pointed out in 1990, “potential global warming can only help lower exploration and development costs.” Not only that but, “from the North Sea to the Canadian Arctic,” Exxon and its affiliates set about “raising the decks of offshore platforms, protecting pipelines from increasing coastal erosion and designing helipads, pipelines and roads in a warming and buckling Arctic.” In other words, the company started climate-proofing its facilities to head off a future its own scientists knew was inevitable.

But in public?  (
There, Exxon didn’t own up to any of this. In fact, it did precisely the opposite. In the 1990s, it started to put money and muscle into obscuring the science around climate change. It funded think tanks that spread climate denial and even recruited lobbying talent from the tobacco industry. It also followed the tobacco playbook when it came to the defense of cigarettes by highlighting “uncertainty” about the science of global warming. And it spent lavishly to back political candidates who were ready to downplay global warming.


Its CEO, Lee Raymond, even traveled to China in 1997 and urged government leaders there to go full steam ahead in developing a fossil fuel economy. The globe was cooling, not warming, he insisted, while his engineers were raising drilling platforms to compensate for rising seas. “It is highly unlikely,” he said, “that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are enacted now or 20 years from now.” Which wasn’t just wrong, but completely and overwhelmingly wrong—as wrong as a man could be.

Sins of Omission

In fact, Exxon’s deceit—its ability to discourage regulations for 20 years—may turn out to be absolutely crucial in the planet’s geological history. It’s in those two decades that greenhouse gas emissions soared, as did global temperatures until, in the twenty-first century, “hottest year ever recorded” has become a tired cliché. And here’s the bottom line: had Exxon told the truth about what it knew back in 1990, we might not have wasted a quarter of a century in a phony debate about the science of climate change, nor would anyone have accused Exxon of being “alarmist.” We would simply have gotten to work.

But Exxon didn’t tell the truth. A Yale study published last fall in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that money from Exxon and the Koch Brothers played a key role in polarizing the climate debate in this country.

The company’s sins—of omission and commission—may even turn out to be criminal. Whether the company “lied to the public” is the question that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman decided to investigate last fall in a case that could make him the great lawman of our era if his investigation doesn’t languish. There are various consumer fraud statutes that Exxon might have violated and it might have failed to disclose relevant information to investors, which is the main kind of lying that’s illegal in this country of ours. Now, Schneiderman’s got backup from California Attorney General Kamala Harrisand maybe—if activists continue to apply pressure—from the Department of Justice as well, though its highly publicized unwillingness to go after the big banks does not inspire confidence.

Here’s the thing: all that was bad back then, but Exxon and many of its Big Energy peers are behaving at least as badly now when the pace of warming is accelerating. And it’s all legal—dangerous, stupid and immoral, but legal.

On the face of things, Exxon has, in fact, changed a little in recent years.

For one thing, it’s stopped denying climate change, at least in a modest way. Rex Tillerson, Raymond’s successor as CEO, stopped telling world leaders that the planet was cooling. Speaking in 2012 at the Council on Foreign Relations, he said, “I’m not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going
to have an impact. It’ll have a warming impact.”

Of course, he immediately went on to say that its impact was uncertain indeed   (, hard to estimate and in any event entirely manageable.    ( His language was striking. “We will adapt to this.   ( Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around—we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem and it has engineering solutions.”

Add to that gem of a comment this one: the real problem, he insisted, was that “we have a society that by and large is illiterate in these areas, science, math and engineering, what we do is a mystery to them and they find it scary. And because of that, it creates easy opportunities for opponents of development, activist organizations, to manufacture fear.”

Right. This was in 2012, within months of floods across Asia that displaced tens of millions and during the hottest summer ever recorded in the U.S., when much of our grain crop failed. Oh yeah and just before Hurricane Sandy.

He’s continued the same kind of belligerent rhetoric throughout his tenure. At last year’s ExxonMobil shareholder meeting, for instance, he said that if the world had to deal with “inclement weather,” which “may or may not be induced by climate change,” we should employ unspecified “new technologies.” Mankind, he explained, “has this enormous capacity to deal with adversity.”

In other words, we’re no longer talking about outright denial, just a denial that much really needs to be done. And even when the company has proposed doing something, its proposals have been strikingly ethereal. Exxon’s PR team, for instance, has discussed supporting a price on carbon, which is only what economists left, right and center have been recommending since the 1980s. But the minimal price they recommend—somewhere in the range of $40 to $60 a ton—wouldn’t do much to slow down their business. After all, they insist that all their reserves are still recoverable in the context of such a price increase, which would serve mainly to make life harder for the already terminal coal industry.

But say you think it’s a great idea to put a price on carbon—which, in fact, it is, since every signal helps sway investment decisions. In that case, Exxon’s done its best to make sure that what they pretend to support in theory will never happen in practice.   (

Consider, for instance, their political contributions. The website Dirty Energy Money, organized by Oil Change International, makes it easy to track who gave what to whom. If you look at all of Exxon’s political contributions from 1999 to the present, a huge majority of their political harem of politicians have signed the famous Taxpayer Protection Pledge from Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform that binds them to vote against any new taxes. Norquist himself wrote Congress in late January that “a carbon tax is a VAT or Value Added Tax on training wheels. Any carbon tax would inevitably be spread out over wider and wider parts of the economy until we had a European Value Added Tax.” As he told a reporter last year, “I don’t see the path to getting a lot of Republican votes” for a carbon tax and since he’s been called “the most powerful man in American politics,” that seems like a good bet.

The only Democratic senator in Exxon’s top 60 list was former Louisiana solon Mary Landrieu, who made a great virtue in her last race of the fact that she was “the key vote” in blocking carbon pricing in Congress. Bill Cassidy, the man who defeated her, is also an Exxon favorite and lost no time in co-sponsoring a bill opposing any carbon taxes. In other words, you could really call Exxon’s supposed concessions on climate change a Shell game. Except it’s Exxon.

The Never-Ending Big Dig

Even that’s not the deepest problem.

The deepest problem is Exxon’s business plan.
The company spends huge amounts of money searching for new hydrocarbons. Given the recent plunge in oil prices, its capital spending and exploration budget was indeed cut by 12 percent in 2015 to $34 billion and another 25 percent in 2016 to $23.2 billion. In 2015, that meant Exxon was spending $63 million a day “as it continues to bring new projects on line.” They are still spending a cool $1.57 billion a year looking for new sources of hydrocarbons—$4 million a day, every day.

As Exxon looks ahead, despite the current bargain basement price of oil, it still boasts of expansion plans in the Gulf of Mexico, eastern Canada, Indonesia, Australia, the Russian far east, Angola and Nigeria. “The strength of our global organization allows us to explore across all geological and geographical environments, using industry-leading technology and capabilities.” And its willingness to get in bed with just about any regime out there makes it even easier. Somewhere in his trophy case, for instance, Rex Tillerson has an Order of Friendship medal from one Vladimir Putin. All it took was a joint energy venture estimated to be worth $500 billion.

But, you say, that’s what oil companies do, go find new oil, right? Unfortunately, that’s precisely what we can’t have them doing any more. (

About a decade ago, scientists first began figuring out a “carbon budget” for the planet—an estimate for how much more carbon we could burn before we completely overheated the Earth. There are potentially many thousands of gigatons of carbon that could be extracted from the planet if we keep exploring. The fossil fuel industry has already identified at least 5,000 gigatons of carbon that it has told regulators, shareholders and banks it plans to extract. However, we can only burn about another 900 gigatons of carbon before we disastrously overheat the planet. On our current trajectory, we’d burn through that “budget” in about a couple of decades. The carbon we’ve burned has already raised the planet’s temperature a degree Celsius and on our present course we’ll burn enough to take us past two degrees in less than 20 years.

At this point, in fact, no climate scientist thinks that even a two-degree rise in temperature is a safe target, since one degree is already melting the ice caps. (Indeed, new data released this month shows that, if we hit the two-degree mark, we’ll be living with drastically raised sea levels for, oh, twice as long as human civilization has existed to date.) That’s why in November world leaders in Paris agreed to try to limit the planet’s temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius or just under three degrees Fahrenheit. If you wanted to meet that target, however, you would need to be done burning fossil fuels by perhaps 2020, which is in technical terms just about now.

That’s why it’s wildly irresponsible for a company to be leading the world in oil exploration when, as scientists have carefully explained, we already have access to four or five times as much carbon in the Earth as we can safely burn.

We have it, as it were, on the shelf. So why would we go looking for more? Scientists have even done us the useful service of identifying precisely the kinds of fossil fuels we should never dig up and—what do you know—an awful lot of them are on Exxon’s future wish list, including the tar sands of Canada, a particularly carbon-filthy, environmentally destructive fuel to produce and burn.

Even Exxon’s one attempt to profit from stanching global warming has started to come apart. Several years ago, the company began a calculated pivot in the direction of natural gas, which produces less carbon than oil when burned. In 2009, Exxon acquired XTO Energy, a company that had mastered the art of extracting gas from shale via hydraulic fracturing. By now, Exxon has become America’s leading fracker and a pioneer in natural gas markets around the world. The trouble with fracked natural gas—other than what Tillerson once called “farmer Joe’s lit his faucet on fire”—is this: in recent years, it’s become clear that the process of fracking for gas releases large amounts of methane into the atmosphere and methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. As Cornell University scientist Robert Howarth has recently established, burning natural gas to produce electricity probably warms the planet faster than burning coal or crude oil.

Exxon’s insistence on finding and producing ever more fossil fuels certainly benefited its shareholders for a time, even if it cost the Earth dearly. Five of the 10 largest annual profits ever reported by any company belonged to Exxon in these years. Even the financial argument is now, however, weakening. Over the last five years, Exxon has lagged behind many of its competitors as well as the broader market and a big reason, according to the Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI), is its heavy investment in particularly expensive, hard-to-recover oil and gas.

In 2007, as CTI reported, Canadian tar sands and similar “heavy oil” deposits accounted for 7.5 percent of Exxon’s proven reserves. By 2013, that number had risen to 17 percent. A smart business strategy for the company, according to CTI, would involve shrinking its exploration budget, concentrating on the oil fields it has access to that can still be pumped profitably at low prices and using the cash flow to buy back shares or otherwise reward investors.

That would, however, mean exchanging Exxon’s Texan-style big-is-good approach for something far more modest. And since we’re speaking about what was the biggest company on the planet for a significant part of the twentieth century, Exxon seems to be set on continuing down that bigger-is-better path. They’re betting that the price of oil will rise in the reasonably near future   (, that alternative energy won’t develop fast enough and that the world won’t aggressively tackle climate change. And the company will keep trying to cover those bets by aggressively backing politicians capable of ensuring that nothing happens.    (

Can Exxon Be Pressured?  ???

Next to that fierce stance on the planet’s future, the mild requests of activists for the last 25 years seem … well, next to pointless. At the 2015 ExxonMobil shareholder meeting, for instance, religious shareholder activists asked for the umpteenth time that the company at least make public its plans for managing climate risks. Even BP, Shell and Statoil had agreed to that much. Instead, Exxon’s management campaigned against the resolution and it got only 9.6 percent of shareholder votes, a tally so low it can’t even be brought up again for another three years. By which time we’ll have burned through … oh, never mind.

What we need from Exxon is what they’ll never give: a pledge to keep most of their reserves underground, an end to new exploration and a promise to stay away from the political system. Don’t hold your breath.

But if Exxon seems hopelessly set in its ways, revulsion is growing. ( The investigations by the New York and California attorneys general mean that the company will have to turn over lots of documents. If journalists could find out as much as they did about Exxon’s deceit in public archives, think what someone with subpoena power might accomplish. Many other jurisdictions could jump in, too.

At the Paris climate talks in December, a panel of law professors led a well-attended session on the different legal theories that courts around the world might apply to the company’s deceptive behavior. When that begins to happen, count on one thing: the spotlight won’t shine exclusively on Exxon. As with the tobacco companies in the decades when they were covering up the dangers of cigarettes, there’s a good chance that the Big Energy companies were in this together through their trade associations and other front groups. In fact, just before Christmas, Inside Climate News published some revealing new documents about the role that Texaco, Shell and other majors played in an American Petroleum Institute study of climate change back in the early 1980s. A trial would be a transformative event—a reckoning for the crime of the millennium.

But while we’re waiting for the various investigations to play out, there’s lots of organizing going at the state and local level when it comes to Exxon, climate change and fossil fuels—everything from politely asking more states to join the legal process to politely shutting down gas stations for a few hours to pointing out to New York and California that they might not want to hold millions of dollars of stock in a company they’re investigating. It may even be starting to work.

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, for instance, singled Exxon out in his state of the state address last month. He called on the legislature to divest the state of its holdings in the company because of its deceptions.

“This is a page right out of Big Tobacco,” he said, “which for decades denied the health risks of their product as they were killing people. Owning ExxonMobil stock is not a business Vermont should be in.”

The question is: Why on God’s-not-so-green-Earth-anymore would anyone want to be Exxon’s partner?  ???

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: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 23, 2016, 10:18:01 pm

Three U.S. House Reps call for DOJ to investigate Shell climate probe  (

Staff Writers  February 23, 2016   
Three U.S. House Democrats are calling for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate whether Shell Oil misled the public about climate change.

According to the L.A. Times, U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu of California, Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont and Rep. Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania sent a letter earlier this week asking the DOJ to investigate whether Shell “intentionally” hid information about climate change and engaged in a “misinformation” campaign.

The letter also suggests that Shell, ExxonMobil and potentially other energy firms were involved in a conspiracy to obscure the impact of climate change.

The letter cites an L.A. Times investigation published in December that claims Shell redesigned a $3 billion North Sea platform to allow the facility to operate amid rising sea levels.

A Shell spokesman told the paper that Shell has included information about climate change and the challenges it poses in its publications, including its annual reports and Sustainability Report, for over 10 years.

“Recognizing the climate challenge and the role energy has in enabling a decent quality of life, we continue to pursue and advance constructive dialogue on this topic as the challenge is one for all of society,” the spokesman told the L.A. Times.

In October, Lieu sent a letter to the DOJ asking it to determine if Exxon misled the public about climate change and violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO.

Citing investigations conducted by the L.A. Times, Inside Climate News and Columbia University’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Project, Lieu also asked the DOJ to determine if Exxon violated shareholder protection, public health, truth in advertising, consumer protection and other laws.

Exxon has denied any wrongdoing and said it has provided  “continuous and publicly available climate research” that refutes claims that the firm deliberately suppressed data.”  (

“These activists took those statements out of context and ignored other readily available statements demonstrating that our researchers recognized the developing nature of climate science at the time which, in fact, mirrored global understanding,” Exxon vice president of public and government affairs Ken Cohen said in response to Lieu’s letter.

Exxon confirmed in November that it received a subpoena from the attorney general of New York relating to climate change documents.

Exxon added that it has included information about the business risk posed by climate change for many years in its 10-K, Corporate Citizenship Report and in other reports to shareholders.  ;)

The New York Times reported that month that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been investigating the company for about a year and may be looking at information dating back to the 1970s.

Schneiderman is reportedly investigating whether Exxon misled investors by failing to disclose the potential impact climate change could have on its business.

The New York Attorney General’s Office has not commented on the matter.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 03, 2016, 02:31:33 am
Did he know too much? It's not hard to MAKE somebody drive into a wall with a vehicle that does the job and drives away.

Indicted ex-Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon dies in car wreck

Staff Writers  March 2, 2016   
Ex-Chesapeake CEO and early pioneer of the American shale industry was killed in a single car accident in Oklahoma City today, one day after he was indicted for conspiracy to rig lease bids.

According to Capt. Paco Balderrama of the Oklahoma City Police Department, McClendon, 56, crashed into an embankment while traveling at a “high rate of speed” in Oklahoma City just after 9 a.m.

“He pretty much drove straight into the wall,”
Balderrama said.

McClendon’s 2013 Chevrolet Tahoe was immediately engulfed in flames.

He stepped down from Chesapeake Energy in 2013, a company he co-founded in 1989.

An federal grand jury indicted McClendon yesterday on conspiracy charges for his alleged involvement in fixing Oklahoma land lease bids.

“His actions put company profits ahead of the interests of leaseholders entitled to competitive bids for oil and gas rights on their land. Executives who abuse their positions as leaders of major corporations to organize criminal activity must be held accountable for their actions,” Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division Bill Baer said.

McClendon was one of the highest paid executives in the United States for many years. In 2008, his pay package was $112 million. The following year, Chesapeake offered him a five-year retention contract, including a $75 million bonus.

He was a part owner of the NBA team, Oklahoma City Thunder.

 After he left Chesapeake Energy, McClendon founded American Energy Partners in 2013 and served as its CEO.

“Aubrey’s tremendous leadership, vision, and passion for the energy industry had an impact on the community, the country, and the world.  ::)  We are tremendously proud of his legacy  ( and will continue to work hard to live up to the unmatched standards he set for excellence and integrity,”  ::)  American Energy Partners   ( said in a statement. (


Agelbert NOTE: For those who may find the tone of my post "inappropriate and offensive", here is some background on McClendon's "unmatched standards of excellency and integrity"...


March 2, 2016

The indictment was filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

It alleges that McClendon “orchestrated” a conspiracy between “two large” oil and gas companies from December 2007 to March 2012 to collaborate on bids for oil and gas leases in northwest Oklahoma.

The conspirators allegedly decided who would place the winning bid ahead of time, with the winner then allocating an interest in the lease to the other company.

McClendon also allegedly instructed his subordinates to execute the conspiratorial agreement, including withdrawing bids on leases and agreeing on how the stakes in the leases would be divided between the two companies.

“His actions put company profits ahead of the interests of leaseholders ( entitled to competitive bids for oil and gas rights on their land.  Executives who abuse their positions as leaders of major corporations to organize criminal activity must be held accountable for their actions,” Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division Bill Baer said.

McClendon left Oklahoma-based Chesapeake Energy in January 2013 and currently serves as the CEO of American Energy Partners.

Each violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals.

McClendon has denied any wrongdoing.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 03, 2016, 03:32:44 pm
Aubrey McClendon’s car will tell whether he killed himself


Aubrey McClendon left a mystery: Did he deliberately drive his 2013 Chevrolet Tahoe SUV into a bridge support at high speed? Or did something else that he couldn’t control, such as a heart attack or other emergency, cause the crash?
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 16, 2016, 09:32:47 pm
Agelbert NOTE: More evidence that the fossil fuel industry is "responsible" and always "behaves ethically" towards its employees who are considered, as MKing the fossil fueler will be quick to tell you, the  "salt of the earth"...


Four oil and gas firms  ( owe $1.6 million in back wages, Feds say

Staff Writers March 16, 2016

The U.S. Department of Labor said Monday it has identified $1.6 million in back wages owed to oil and gas workers at four different firms.

The DOL said investigations of Jet Specialties Inc. of Boerne, Texas, Frank’s International LLC and Stream-Flo USA LLC, of Houston and Viking Onshore Drilling LLC, of Odessa, Texas found violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime provisions.

The four companies have more than 2,500 employees combined and owe employees a combined $1.6 million in back wages.

According to the DOL, Jet Specialties considered salaried employees exempt from overtime requirements, failed to pay an overtime premium regardless of how many hours employees worked and failed to include bonus payments workers received as part of their regular pay rates when calculating overtime.

Frank’s International failed to “pay proper overtime” after not including bonus payments in workers’ regular pay rates when computing overtime, and Stream-Flo USA paid nonexempt workers flat salaries without regard to how many hours they worked.

Investigations of Frank’s International and Stream-Flo USA began in the Northeast and expanded to other U.S. locations, the agency said.

Affected employees for both companies live in Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

Viking Onshore Drilling failed to include bonus payments in workers’ regular rates when determining overtime pay, according to the DOL.

Investigators found violations related to Viking Onshore Drilling operations in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.

“We continue to find unacceptably high numbers of violations in the oil and gas industry. We must ensure that employers pay workers the hard-earned wages they have rightfully earned,” regional administrator for the Wage and Hour Division in the Southwest Betty Campbell said.
Company Name                     Back Wages   Employees Affected      
Jet Specialties Inc.                     $866,871              321      
Frank’s International LLC            $555, 351           1,760      
Viking Onshore Drilling LLC          $167,646              411      
Stream-Flo USA LLC                      $75,414               29 (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on June 27, 2016, 07:47:08 pm
Our Opinion: Stifling renewables

Posted: Friday, June 24, 2016 12:00 am

Some N.C. politicians say they oppose tax credits and subsidies because they don’t think the government should be picking winners and losers in private industry. But they are clearly doing just that in regard to the state’s energy future. 

Bills in the N.C. House and Senate would deliver a knockout punch for solar and wind power development in North Carolina. (

House Bill 763  :evil4: , which cleared the Senate on Monday, would render most of eastern North Carolina off limits to wind farms, supposedly to protect current and future military bases.  (

This economically disadvantaged area of the state, which is uniquely suited to wind farms, stands to lose two wind projects currently in the pipeline that total $700 million in investment.


The permitting process in place already allows the military to weigh in on potential projects.

Senate Bill 843 would require wind and solar farms to get a state permit and build a 1.5-mile buffer from neighboring property lines, including a landscape buffer for solar farms.

Compare that to setbacks for facilities that are clearly noxious: 200 feet for hazardous waste landfills and 500 feet for swine waste lagoons. The setbacks currently proposed for natural gas fracking wells are 650 feet from an occupied building and 200 feet from surface waters. The bill also requires renewable energy developers to guarantee millions of dollars to cover future costs of decommissioning, or removing the energy project at the end of its lifetime.

(                             (

Sen. Bill Cook (R-Beaufort) ( said SB 843 stemmed from concerns he’d heard from coastal residents about environmental damage from wind and solar farms. Cook contends that solar farms permanently ruin farmland through land clearing, storm runoff, soil erosion and herbicide use. Hmm. Sounds like the same problems you encounter with an actual farm.


The state currently ranks third in overall solar capacity, thanks in large part to the renewable energy portfolio standard passed in 2007, which requires large utility companies like Duke Energy to provide increasing amounts of energy from renewable sources. (

Some GOP legislators have been trying to repeal the renewable energy portfolio since 2013. House Bill 332 would freeze at 6 percent the percentage of renewable energy that utility companies are required to provide. That percentage was scheduled to increase to 12.5 percent by 2021. Last year, the legislature ended the tax credit program for renewable energy development.

State lawmakers are using every tactic to suppress this burgeoning industry, which added 3,000 jobs in the state last year, and invested $12 billion since 2007. The cost of solar has dropped significantly, and its addition to the power grid will eventually lower utility bills for everyone.

SB 843 is titled Renewable Energy Property Protection  (, and HB 763 is called the Military Operations Protection Act  ::), but the real purpose of both is protecting big energy.

Meanwhile, the legislature (  ( has done little to protect people or property in its rules for fracking ( or its oversight of coal ash clean-up ( 

Renewable energy companies can and will go elsewhere if the state creates a hostile environment. But the real losers will be the citizens of North Carolina.

They will pay higher power bills, and watch as the state’s air, land and water are further degraded by dirty energy sources like coal, nuclear and natural gas. (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2016, 04:52:16 pm
'Pence is going to help Trump with voters who can't decide if they're more worried that gay people will get a wedding cake or healthcare'.

Presumptive Republican nominee for president Donald Trump announced Friday that he has chosen Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate.

Gov. Pence is famously—or infamously—right-wing, and a particular darling of far-right Evangelical voters.

Pundits surmised that Trump is attempting to sway the conservative Christian portion of the Republican party, which had previously rallied behind Ted Cruz.

Progressives decried the decision. Leftists pointed out Pence's plethora of policy stances and decisions that have threatened civil rights, women's health, the environment, and the welfare of the most vulnerable since he was elected to Congress in 2000 and then as Indiana's governor in 2012.

Science Denier

"Look, I don't know that [climate change] is a resolved issue in science today."—Gov. Mike Pence, 2014

Regarding Pence's climate stance, Greenpeace listed the many times in which Pence ( against the climate and for the oil and gas industry:

    As a Congressman, Pence consistently voted true to his climate denial, voting to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, to reverse President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act, and against enforcing limits on global carbon dioxide emissions. He was also a vocal critic of the Clean Power Plan, insisting in a letter to President Obama that Indiana would not comply.
    Pence joined his fellow House Republicans in opportunistically using the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill to call for energy independence built on access to all of our domestic resources, including more offshore drilling. (Never mind that Deepwater Horizon was an offshore drilling rig in U.S. waters.)
    During his tenure as governor, he has overseen the expansion of the Whiting Refinery to process increasingly risky forms of fossil fuels, particularly petcoke and tar sands coming in from Canada. It is the 3rd largest tar sands refinery in the country, and its processing of petcoke, a byproduct of tar sands extraction that is cheaper and way dirtier than coal, has tripled in recent years.

Pence has also expressed doubt regarding evolution. "Do I believe in evolution? I embrace the view that God created the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that's in them," he said on MSNBC in 2008.

In the late 1990s, long after scientists had conclusively shown that cigarette smoking was linked to lung cancer, Pence dismissed such claims as "hysteria."

Attacked Women's Rights

In March, Pence signed into law what reproductive rights activists characterized as "one of the worst anti-abortion bills in the country." As Common Dreams reported:

    The law, which Pence said he signed "with a prayer," makes Indiana the second state in the nation, after North Dakota, to ban abortion in cases where a fetal anomaly is detected.

    It also mandates the burial and cremation of miscarried or aborted remains; restricts fetal tissue donation; and requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital or to have an agreement with a doctor who does.

Civil rights groups subsequently sued the state over what they described as a "cynical, deceptive attempt to ban abortions."

Pence also joined many right-wingers in attacking Planned Parenthood in response to a fake video purporting to show the group selling bodily tissues. (The filmmakers were eventually indicted for tampering with government records.)

Legalized Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination

Last year, Pence signed into law the so-called "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" that gave "legal cover, under the guise of 'religious liberties,' to any businesses or individuals who wish to violate anti-discrimination laws," as Common Dreams reported.

As Rolling Stone's Jeb Lund wrote:

    Pence and Indiana Republicans capitalized on a decades-long manipulation of "religious freedom" as an excuse to exclude and punish groups they see as immoral or repugnant, leveraging religion's perquisites to create a bubble of legitimated pre-Civil Rights Era prejudice (and tax avoidance). Only Pence and company went too far: Indiana's RFRA didn't just protect religious intolerance from government interference but actually empowered business to discriminate against immoral other folk without risk of civil rights lawsuits. Only, when pressed even to answer yes or no as to whether Pence had just signed a bill that legalized religious discrimination of gays, he sputtered and retreated. Typically, the Onion did the best job of anyone when it came to nailing him to a wall.

Tried to Privatize Social Security

"Governor Pence has a long history of fighting to cut and privatize Social Security," writes Nancy Altman, co-director of the progressive group Social Security Works. Altman released the following statement in reaction to Trump's choice of Pence for VP:

    In 2005, [Pence] was the leader of a group of House Republicans who criticized George W. Bush’s Social Security privatization plan for not being extreme enough! He supports raising the retirement age and other cuts to Social Security benefits. This despite the fact that the nation is facing a looming retirement income crisis, which is likely to be harshest for younger Americans.

    Pence has shown his desire to dismantle Social Security brick by brick, or even faster. He insultingly calls our Social Security system an “entitlement” rather than the earned benefit that it is. This attitude towards Social Security, the people’s pension, fits in perfectly with Donald Trump’s outrageous claim that Social Security is an illegal Ponzi Scheme. This name calling is an insult to every worker and Social Security beneficiary. It is an insult to all of us.

Iraq War Propagandist

Igor Volposky, deputy director of the Campaign for America's Future Action Fund, dug into congressional records and discovered that during his tenure in the House of Representatives, Pence had served as "Bush's chief war propagandist" when it came to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"Before he became governor of Indiana and a candidate to be Donald Trump's vice-presidential nominee, Mike Pence was a congressman, and he voted for every free-trade agreement that came before him," the Washington Post wrote.

Pence's stance has apparently already hurt his state's workers: "This year, Pence urged an Indiana manufacturer, Carrier Corp., to reconsider a decision to move 1,400 jobs from Indiana to Mexico. The company is continuing with the plans but agreed to repay some state and local tax incentives," the Post reported. "After meeting with the company, Pence said he did not want to give Indiana workers 'false hope' that the jobs would stay in their state."


Service Employees International Union (SEIU) executive vice president Rocio Saenz condemned Pence's record on immigration in a statement released Friday:

    [Pence's] positions on immigration are anti-immigrant and anti-family. If Donald Trump wasn’t enough to alienate Latino voters, a Trump/Pence ticket will be the ultimate deal breaker for one of the fastest-growing demographics.

    His latest attack against immigrants and their American children came when he joined 25 other Republican governors in a lawsuit that blocked Obama’s executive initiatives on immigration, DAPA and DACA that would have shielded approximately five million undocumented immigrants from deportation.

    Governor Pence is not a friend of the immigrant community.

And in response to Trump's decision, Twitter erupted on Friday with comments both decrying and quipping about Trump's choice. (

Definitely a marriage of convenience designed to deliver the powerful religious know-nothing vote.

It's a big **** (typical Trump behavior?), and bound to have lots of fall-out.

Begs, the question, "Whose idea was this?"

Maybe Newt Gingrich told him to do it. I don't think it was The Donald's idea.

Pence is, ABOVE ALL, a Koch Brothers TOOL. He has his head so far up the fossil fuel industry descending colon that he peddles the BULLSHIT that global warming is a "myth".

Pence  ( enjoying a day at the beach.  (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on July 26, 2016, 12:29:47 am
July 25, 2016


Agelbert NOTE: The Fossil Fuel Industry CORRUPTED Gooberment is DOING WHAT THEY DO to defend Profit over People and Planet.    (

ICYMI: FBI Infiltrates, API Infiltrates RNC/DNC, And More

There was a lot that happened last week, and a lot of stories we didn’t get to. So to start off the new week, let’s quickly go through some of the great content you might have missed:

First, there’s Lee Fang and Steve Horn’s piece in The Intercept about how local and federal law enforcement agencies went undercover into fracking protest groups, including local branches of Emails obtained through FOIA requests show law enforcement working closely with the corporations whose activities were being protested. Of course they didn’t find anything criminal in the peaceful protests, just like the FBI’s past investigation into Keystone XL protests turned up nothing to justify the surveillance of private citizens meeting peacefully to express themselves.

Next there is the Alex Emmons piece, again in The Intercept, about how the Washington Post and The Atlantic push the limits of ethical journalism by hosting panel events sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute at the RNC, where climate deniers went basically unchallenged when repeating myths (like they did on regular programming on Fox News). There are similar, API-sponsored events planned for the DNC, and as reporting in The Intercept earlier this month showed, Politico and The Hill are also cashing in on the sponsored content gravy train.

Meanwhile, the congressional speeches documenting the Koch and Exxon #WebofDenial have been annotated for future reference. And eight of the senators who spoke also penned a letter in response to the #WebofDenial groups that criticized the effort, asking those groups to reveal their funders to prove that they really do, as the web of groups claim, “represent many, many millions of Americans.” The senators suspect the groups really just represent the “many, many millions” of dollars funneled through “identity scrubbing” organizations like Donors Trust that conceal just how much the Kochs or ExxonMobil dole out.

Speaking of ExxonMobil, the Union of Concerned Scientists pushed back on fossil-fuel-funded Lamar Smith’s unconstitutional and McCarthy-based subpoena of the #ExxonKnew investigators with an op-ed in the New York Times, while NCSE wrote a blog of their own on the issue. Dana Nuccitelli at the Guardian laid out the tobacco court case parallels, while Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) pushed back on Smith and Exxon in a tweetstorm so intense it generated press.

Though maybe the fossil fuel and tobacco narrative isn’t exactly what we thought it to be after all. Documents unearthed by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and published on their Smoke and Fumes page suggest that the oil industry didn’t actually use the tobacco industry’s playbook. Instead, it looks like Big Oil wrote the PR playbook back in the 1950s, then tobacco picked it up and followed! According to CIEL president Carroll Muffett, having done PR work for the oil industry “was a pedigree the tobacco companies recognized and sought out.”

So what did we learn last week, besides that The Intercept is doing great investigative journalism? Well for one thing, if you’re the conductor of the fossil fuel gravy train, you can buy panels at political events to blur the line between news and advertisements.  (

Oh, and that suspiciously well-groomed protester who just showed up? He might be a narc. Because infiltrating advocacy organizations that are expressing their rights to assemble and free speech without any evidence of any wrongdoing is apparently just fine when corporate profits are at stake.

But if a non-profit organization requests the investigation of a corporation’s decades-long history of potential fraud  ( then you’re a threat to free speech  ::), and a congressperson riding the gravy train might just subpoena your organization.  (

In other words, go up against the fossil fuel gravy train, and you might get railed.  (

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on July 27, 2016, 03:39:20 pm
New York, Mass. AGs Reject Subpoena Request   (

The attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts said they will refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena for records on their investigations into ExxonMobil. A letter from New York AG Eric Schneiderman’s council called the July 13 subpoena from Lamar Smith  (, Chairman of the House Science Committee, “an unprecedented effort” to target the ongoing investigations.

Massachusetts AG Maura Healey’s council issued a similar letter, calling the subpoena an “unconstitutional and unwarranted interference.” Smith, who had set a deadline of today for all subpoenaed parties to respond, said he was “disappointed that Schneiderman and Healey refused to comply.”

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on July 27, 2016, 08:37:07 pm
New York, Mass. AGs Reject Subpoena Request   (

The attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts said they will refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena for records on their investigations into ExxonMobil. A letter from New York AG Eric Schneiderman’s council called the July 13 subpoena from Lamar Smith  (, Chairman of the House Science Committee, “an unprecedented effort” to target the ongoing investigations.

Massachusetts AG Maura Healey’s council issued a similar letter, calling the subpoena an “unconstitutional and unwarranted interference.” Smith, who had set a deadline of today for all subpoenaed parties to respond, said he was “disappointed that Schneiderman and Healey refused to comply.” (

Smith...another rat bastard. His extremely gerrymandered district happens to include my neighborhood. You get Bernie, I get Ted Cruz and Lamar Smith. Texas voters are such idiots, I'm tellin' you. It wasn't always quite this bad.

True. But we can't go back to the past and the future looks very, very bad.

In that video about Monsanto, one of the charges (that they were found guilty of) in Alabama was "Outrage". Unlike the use of that word in the common vernacular, this is a legal term.

I think the entire elite political and corporate structure in the USA at present is guilty of this.   

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on August 05, 2016, 07:00:08 pm
08/03/2016 01:58 PM       

Germany Says NO to Fracking News

Faced with a barrage of oil ( companies lobbying to begin fracking, Germany basically banned it!   (

They didn't ban it outright, but the rules are so tough that only conventional natural gas drilling is allowed, not miles-deep fracking from shale. State governments will decide whether to allow any drilling at all, but it is not allowed in areas that could affect water supplies. In 2021, lawmakers will review the rules.

On the same day, Berlin voted to divest from all fossil companies in its pension fund. It joins a growing list of cities: Paris, Copenhagen, Oslo, Seattle, Portland and Melbourne.

Renewable energy now provides about 31% of Germany's electricity after a surge of offshore wind installations last year. The goal is to reach 40-50% by 2025 and 80% by 2050.

Germany Renewables Ownership 

The country still relies on coal for 44%  :P, but that's dropping every year even with Germany's decision to stop producing nuclear power by 2022 - which supplies 18% of electricity.

Sadly, the confluence of events that have hit Germany, and Europe generally, have considerably softened its leadership on renewable energy.  :'(

In 2011, Europe was a magnet for clean energy investment with 45% of the world's total, but it's now down by more than half - 18% of world investment, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (

After showing the world it could quickly ramp up solar through generous subsidies (feed-in tariffs), it disrupted the progress by pulling back on them. Their world-leading companies closed or were acquired and a third of solar jobs are gone in Europe. Because wind subsidies are still strong, they had a banner year in 2015, but that could change given the Brexit vote.

Because of its leadership, Europe met its 2020 climate target in 2014, but the next milestones may be harder to reach.   :(

Read our article, Germany's Contradictions

Learn More: A Clash of Green and Brown: Germany Struggles to End Coal:

Website: (

Agelbert NOTE: Where are almost all the profit over planet, polluting greedball oil companies lobbying Germany to Frack based? ???  (

Frackopoly: The Battle for the Future of Energy and the Environment (

Published on Jun 3, 2016

A true tale of corruption and greed, Frackopoly: The Battle for the Future of Energy and the Environment, a book by Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter, exposes how more than 100 years of political influence peddling facilitated the control of our energy system by a handful of corporations and financial institutions.


It provides the public policy backstory and the history of deregulation that has turned our communities into sacrifice zones.

But, even in such dire circumstances, Hauter is hopeful. People who are sick, tired and fed-up are standing up to the corporations and forcing their policymakers to take action. Frackopoly chronicles the power generated by an exciting grassroots movement that is not only fighting to ban fracking — it is helping to take back our democracy.

Take action:
Learn more:

Nonprofits & Activism

Standard YouTube License


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on August 28, 2016, 02:58:53 pm

Agelbert NOTE: You've all heard that old rhyme about love and marriage going together like a horse and carriage.

Some things just go together. Da Oil Bidness and Crime are one of those 'things' that ALWAYS go together. 

When you think about fossil fuel corporations, it is prudent to assume that criminal behavior is integral to their corporate modus operandi.

Oil and Crime have a love affair over a century old. The crimes are not limited to 'externalizing' the pollutants produced during exploration, exploitation, transportation and refining to we-the-people. The 'business model' of fossil fuel corporations make the Cosa Nostra look like pikers in comparison.

The following news item is merely the tip of the turberg, so to speak. 

ITF Slams North Sea Oil’s ‘Secretive Corporate Structures’

August 24, 2016 by gCaptain

The International Transport Workers Federation is slamming offshore oil companies operating in North Sea after a report claimed that many are using a complex web of companies to move money and avoid paying taxes.

The ITF says the new report released today, Offshore Oil, Offshore Tax, has lifted the lid on the secretive corporate structures and aggressive tax minimisation schemes used by Chevron and other major North Sea oil producers, including Nexen, the Chinese Government controlled oil producer.

Steve Cotton, ITF General Secretary, said the report laid out in detail the secretive corporate structures used by Chevron and now copied by other oil companies.  (

“The concerns emerging this week about the secretive corporate structure of Nexen are rife within the oil and gas sector. The public would be shocked to see how Chevron uses a complex web of companies to route money through the Netherlands, Bermuda and other tax havens. It has over 200 active subsidiaries in Bermuda alone.

“This at a time when there has been a dramatic reduction in tax revenue from the North Sea. In the mid 1980’s, taxes on North Sea oil production accounted for nearly 9% of all tax receipts collected by the UK Government – today it is just 0.7%.

“While production has fallen, tax revenues have fallen much further, due to tax cuts and aggressive tax minimisation schemes.

“To put this revenue slump in context British motorists paid six times more tax on petrol ($26.9 billion in 13/14), excluding VAT, than the oil and gas industry paid on all taxes covering North Sea oil production ($4.4 billion in 13/14).   (   (

“It is well documented that both Shell and BP are using similar corporate structures to reduce their tax in the UK. Both BP and Shell  ( in 2014 paid no UK corporate tax. (

“I think the public will demand action from our political leaders to get to the bottom of what this report has found. The UK Parliament needs to establish an inquiry to investigate the corporate structures used by the oil companies operating in the North Sea and the impact they have on security, taxes and royalties,” Mr Cotton said.

Unite, the largest union in the North Sea oil fields, Scottish Secretary Pat Rafferty said: “The UK government needs to investigate and step up action to clamp down on any inappropriate tax loopholes being exploited by Chevron to make sure UK taxpayers aren’t taken for a ride and it pays its fair share,” he said.

Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell MP who has been briefed on the report said: “This thorough new research blows open the complex tax avoidance measures undertaken by a major multinational. Anyone concerned with ending the scourge of tax avoidance needs to pay careful attention to its findings. It’s time to put a stop to these complex company structures that rip off taxpayers and place extra strains on public services across the globe.”   (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 15, 2016, 01:59:51 pm
The battle goes on.

RE (

Stuff that matters

Dakota Access
A journalist arrested for filming a Dakota Access protest could face more prison time than Edward Snowden.


Ten activists were arrested on Tuesday for shutting down tar-sands oil pipelines. Among them was Deia Schlosberg, producer of the documentary How to Let Go of the World and Love All the Things Climate Can’t Change.

Schlosberg reportedly faces three felony conspiracy charges. If convicted, she could be sentenced to 45 years in prison. To put that in perspective:

Neil Young, Mark Ruffalo, and other celebrities called for the charges to be dropped on Thursday, arguing that Schlosberg was not participating in the protest but documenting the event as a filmmaker. That’s right, folks: In the eyes of the legal system, spilling the NSA’s secrets is less reprehensible than doing a journalist’s job.

In February 1979, John Trudell ( led a march in Washington, D.C. to draw attention to Indian difficulties.

He had been warned against speaking out but John was and activist and the FBI hated him.  The FBI does not have a red man's soul in any way.  On the steps of the FBI building John spoke out on the agency's harassment of Indians.  Less than 12 hours later John's wife, Tina and his three children, were burned alive in their family home in Duck Valley, Nevada along with Tina's mother.


The hatred in Washington for the Indians goes long and deep.  The hatred was institutionalized long ago and for most people monkey see monkey do explains everything that they do; so the hatred festers as it is imitated by new occupants of the bureaucracy as generations pass.

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on November 12, 2016, 01:13:10 pm
How is This Allowed?!  ???  >:(  Wild Buffalo Rounded Up and Kept Without Food or Water to Protect Dakota Access Pipeline Construction Site

fight to defend the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, which is home to more than 8,000 members of the Sioux tribe, against the Dakota Access Oil Pipeline has been waging for months. Protestors from all across the U.S. have stepped in to help defend the Native American people whose homes and livelihoods are being threatened by the impending  pipeline. These brave souls have been subject to brutal treatment and ruthless threats from officials and proponents of the pipeline, but people aren’t the only ones suffering.

This video shows a group of wild buffalo that has been corralled and isolated inside a razor wire wall that is surrounded by a deep trench.  In a post on Facebook, Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) wrote, “It has been reported that wild buffalo are being corralled and held behind razor wire fencing without food or water near the Dakota Access Pipeline – and that there have been threats of killing the buffalo by the construction company.”

The ALDF is currently investigating the legality of the treatment of these animals. If seeing this makes you angry, we encourage you to learn more about what is happening at Standing Rock and share this and other stories with everyone you know to raise awareness. We cannot ignore this blatant disregard for the basic rights of people, and animals, that is occurring all in the interest of building a profit-generating oil pipeline.

To learn more about the Dakota Access Pipeline protests and find out how you can help, click here (


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on November 27, 2016, 04:18:15 pm

Sheriffs (
Refuse to Send Reinforcements to Standing Rock as Costs and Public Outrage Mount  (      (

Posted on Nov 25, 2016

By Jenni Monet / Yes! Magazine

Maxwell   (

A few items to take note of here:

The $15 million should be going to food banks, to health care, to heat assistance, to housing to....and it's important to point that out to the people in N Dakota as this is happening. Your tax dollars are going directly to protect the profits of a private corporation instead of helping out the people. It's an easy argument to make.

Take note of the tactics and the persistence and how that is impacting the public relations and most importantly the bottom line. (...were taking their toll on local agencies. The policing costs have reached nearly $15 million. The courts are taxed. The jail is burdened. The 34 local law enforcement officers are stressed.).

This is illustrative of how the machinery of the State, even as it appears intractable, is in fact vulnerable. Think for a moment if there were companion actions of a similar nature happening in a myriad of places organized nationally on any number of issues.

Think for a moment on the issue of single payer e.g. and how it would look if mass protests occurred nationwide for an extended period of time.

Another important aspect of this is that those at Standing Rock are not asking permission- they are simply saying ENOUGH.


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 01, 2016, 05:36:08 pm
Lucinda Abreu (

I am finding it so hard to understand why the American People find this type of thing so shocking. I went to Standing Rock to support the cause, daughter, Tribes. During my flight, I struck up conversations in the airports and during flights.

Most people didn't even know what was going on in Standing Rock. I am so tired of Non Natives ( mostly greedy companies) who know nothing of Native history or government relations to tribes in our own American history making decisions regarding treaty lands and ancestral burial grounds.

The lack of caring and respect of our Planet, American citizens, Indigenous peoples rights, Human rights, Veterans rights is so outrageous it's hard to believe this is America.

My Father was a Police officer and a Veteran of the Korean War. My Native Uncle's fought for our country. World War II would not have been won without our Navajo Nation. I am so ashamed in the eye's of the world at our country's greed.

It highlights our lack environmental needs for the need of money, my heart cries a million tears. Where is President Obama?

Has his courage shrunk with the thought of making a stinging mark in history as he leaves his office?

Is there not enough money in the world to satisfy President elect Trump to make a decision based on the lives of billions of people instead of billions in money? When is he going to be satisfied with his personal riches? He has personal interest in this issue, which makes this a conflict of interest!

He is asking that his children have access to government secrets! I am so thankful for the Robert F. Kennedy Jr.s of the world, because the Native's will never, ever give up.

However, it will take the power of a Kennedy to get people to listen before our water is nothing but sludge for our grandchildren.

Our college kids can't even identify our Vice President when asked, but you ask a Swedish student what they are actively doing to clean up our water? They are creating floating Ocean trash collectors to collect the trash that is floating in our oceans. NOT THE SCIENTISTS....THE CONCERNED KIDS! AMERICA......... stop paying outrageous amounts to our football, basketball, baseball players, singers and glorifying there ridiculous lifestyles, and start paying our teachers and scientist and professors, our planet is in trouble and it has been for a long time.

Morton County North Dakota Sheriff Department, Trump, Obama, DAPL, etc....DOES NOT CARE!

Like · 44 · Nov 29, 2016 10:50pm

Veronica-Mae Soar

Brilliant and so well put You are so right, Here in the UK I am typing this with tears in my eyes. All I can send are my heartfelt thoughts and prayers. What country can act this way and dare to call itself great ??

I am so glad you have supporters such as Kennedy Jr. I have signed several petitions to Obama and cannot understand why he does not act. he is basically a good guy, who has done his best in difficult circumstances, but he may be shackled by things we do not know about.

Agelbert NOTE: The above comments were in reference to this article with several hard truths stated about how there is a TRACK RECORD of the current abuse in this country for any 'minority' (if they aren't one, TPTB genocide them into being one) that stands in the way of profit over planet.

 Energy| Nov. 29, 2016 07:27PM EST

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr: 'I'll See You at Standing Rock'

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.


On Sunday, the U.S. Army Corps issued a declaration to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe that might have been penned by the Kern county sheriff. The Corps Colonel John Henderson ( told Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II that the agency was evicting the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protesters from their camp for their own protection. (  (

The tribes and their supporters will be moved to a "free speech"  zone ( a great distance from the pipeline. Henderson's threats would be troubling if addressed to any group of American citizens, but coming from the U.S. Army Corps to the Sioux nation, it is positively chilling. One wonders whether Colonel Henderson is even peripherally aware of the Corp's central role in the Indian genocide, the most shameful stain on America's national experience, our high ideals and character.

Anthropologist Nancy Scheper-Hughes has observed that Genocide is a continuum that runs for years, decades or centuries. It begins with marginalization and dehumanization of an identifiable minority, the theft of their lands and property, their slaughter and decimation, and the gradual squeezing of remnant populations. The central organizing principle of the continuum is a narrative that turns "others into non-persons or monsters," that normalizes atrocities and rationalizes the "every day practice of violence."

Colonel Henderson's letter manages to be both, patronizing and menacing. In that sense, it captures perfectly the tone and content of a hundred letters received by Indians from U.S. Corp colonels and generals over four centuries, all of them repeating genocide's persistent refrain: "For your own good, move off the land, or else."


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 01, 2016, 08:01:01 pm

  November 29, 2016

The Resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline Undaunted by Threats of Evictions and Fines

With two thousand veterans expected to join the opposition to the pipeline, Water Protectors say they remain resilient despite eviction orders.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 16, 2016, 08:48:17 pm
Is Trump Turning America Into a Petrostate?  (

Does a Wild Bear poop in the woods?

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 02, 2017, 10:10:23 pm
  January 1, 2017

The People's Tribunal on the Iraq War, Day Two: Noam Chomsky

On Day 2 of the CODEPINK #IraqTribunal, participants provided testimony on the lies that were used to invade Iraq.

January 1, 2017

The People's Tribunal on the Iraq War, Day Two: Mairead Maguire

 On Day 2 of the CODEPINK #IraqTribunal, participants provided testimony on the lies that were used to invade Iraq.

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 12, 2017, 02:10:22 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: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 17, 2017, 03:08:20 pm
Wyoming Bill Would All But Outlaw Clean Energy by Preventing Utilities From Using It  (

By Zahra Hirji
Jan 13, 2017
Wind power is abundant in Wyoming, including the Foote Creek Rim Wind Project

While many U.S. states have mandates and incentives to get more of their electricity from renewable energy, Republican legislators in Wyoming are proposing to cut the state off from its most abundant, clean resource—wind—and ensuring its continued dependence on coal.

A new measure submitted to the Wyoming legislature this week would forbid utilities from providing any electricity to the state that comes from large-scale wind or solar energy projects by 2019. It's an unprecedented attack on clean energy in Wyoming, and possibly the nation. And it comes at a time when such resources are becoming cheaper and increasingly in demand as the world seeks to transition to clean energy to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.

The bill's nine sponsors, two state senators and seven representatives, largely come from Wyoming's top coal-producing counties and include some deniers of man-made climate change. They filed the bill on Tuesday, the first day of the state's 2017 legislative session. Activists and energy experts are alarmed by the measure, which would levy steep fines on utilities that continue providing (or provide new) "non-eligible" clean energy for the state's electricity. But they are skeptical it will get enough support to become law.

"I haven't seen anything like this before," Shannon Anderson, director of the local organizing group Powder River Basin Resource Council, told InsideClimate News. "This is essentially a reverse renewable energy standard."

Anderson, who has tracked the Wyoming legislature's work for a decade, added: "I think there will be a lot of concerns about its workability and whether this is something the state needs to do... it seems to be 'talking-point' legislation at this point."

Last year, Republican Gov. Matt Mead introduced a new energy plan for the state that involved "doubling down" on coal. But even this fossil fuel-centric plan included room for the state's renewable resources, especially wind energy, to grow.

The new bill mandates utilities to use "eligible resources" to meet 95 percent of the state's electricity needs in 2018 and then all of its power supply in 2019. Those sources are defined as coal, hydroelectric, natural gas, net metering sources (such as rooftop solar or backyard wind projects for homeowners and small business), nuclear and oil. Using power from utility-scale wind, solar and other renewable projects would be outlawed under this legislation.

Wyoming generates and consumes mostly coal-powered electricity. Nearly 90 percent of electricity generated in the state came from coal in September 2016, the latest month with available data. Renewables, mainly wind, were the second-biggest source; other small sources of electricity included petroleum- and natural gas-powered plants and hydroelectric power.

A big state with vast energy resources and a small population, Wyoming produces a lot more power than it needs: It  is the nation's largest producer of coal, fourth-largest natural gas producer and eighth-biggest crude oil producer, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. Wyoming also ranks high in untapped wind resources, with one of the nation's largest wind farms under construction. The wind power expected to be generated at this massive project, however, along with much of the wind power already being produced in the state, is already destined for out-of-state markets.

Under this new proposal, power providers could continue to generate and sell wind to customers outside of Wyoming ( without a penalty—but they would be hit with a fee for providing that same power to in-state residents and businesses. Utilities that fail to meet the proposed standards would face $10 penalty for each megawatt hour of energy the utility fails to procure from approved sources and the utility couldn't recover this penalty by raising customer rates.

Pacific Corp.'s Rocky Mountain Power and Black Hills Corp.'s Black Hills Energy are among the utilities operating in Wyoming that could feel the bill's impact because some of the electricity they provide to the state comes from clean energy sources now. Spokespeople from both companies told InsideClimate they are still reviewing the bill and wouldn't comment further.

When asked about the motivation for the bill and concerns about it driving away future wind generation, bill sponsor Republican Rep. David Miller from Fremont County said, "Wyoming is a great wind state and we produce a lot of wind energy. We also produce a lot of conventional energy, many times our needs. The electricity generated by coal is amongst the least expensive in the country. We want Wyoming residences to benefit from this inexpensive electrical generation."

"We do not want to be averaged into the other states that require a certain [percentage] of more expensive renewable energy," Miller wrote in an email to InsideClimate News.

(In Wyoming, wind and natural gas are the cheapest forms of new energy generation, according to Dave Eskelsen, a spokesman for Rocky Mountain Power.)

Some of the bill's sponsors are also vocally opposed to climate action and continue to openly question the scientific consensus on climate change.

"The controversy of climate change affects our families in Campbell County," writes state Rep. Scott Clem on his website. "Coal=Jobs. The fact of the matter is that man-made climate change is not settled science. Instead, it is hotly disputed by reputable and educated men and women...."

Although Republicans outnumber Democrats 51-9 in the state House and 27-3 in its Senate, Miller, the sponsor, isn't confident the bill will pass. He estimates its chances are "50 percent or less."

"It's a clear statement the legislature is supporting the traditional sectors of the economy," said Robert Godby, director of University of Wyoming's Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy. Regardless of whether this bill passes, he added, "the fact that it has been run up the flagpole might have some negative consequences." For example, wind developers may be less interested in operating in the state.

Another recently proposed state bill seeks to increase the state's tax  (  on wind generation, a move that could also potentially discourage future wind projects as well. (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 17, 2017, 04:51:12 pm

January 17, 2017'

Denier ( Roundup

From White House to State Houses, Hypocrisy Flourishes in 2017

Wouldn’t it be neat if there were a test to tell us whether certain political statements are honest expressions of an intellectual position or a convenient excuses for partisan ideology? Of course it would. And last week, we could’ve benefitted from it several times over.

First with the nomination of Rex Tillerson and many other special interest leaders.


Next with the now five hires from Goldman Sachs, even after his campaign promised to drain the swamp of special interest influence and attacked those with connections to the bank.

Another example is of course EPA Admin nominee Scott Pruitt. A report reported on by PoliticoPRO Friday shows that in 13 of the 14 cases where Pruitt co-sued the EPA with a corporation, that corporation had donated money to a political committee linked to Pruitt. How that squares with Trump, who repeatedly invoked the idea that his opponents were guilty of “pay to play,” is unknown.

And already, the start of the 2017 legislative year has brought even more examples of hypocrisy at the state level.

A favorite reason given for opposition to policies to promote renewable energy is that government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers. Is that more than just rhetoric to mask a pro-fossil fuel position? We’ll soon see, based on how many of those same voices speak out against a new bill in Wyoming. The proposed legislation would prevent utilities from using large-scale wind or solar. A lack of vociferous GOP pushback would indicate that the government should pick winners and losers, so long as coal wins and renewables lose.

You know how deniers rail against supposed political interference in academia? About how liberals are somehow influencing what college students learn? Apparently one conservative Arizona legislature thought that was a good idea, and introduced legislation to ban colleges from having any course, activity or event that deals with social justice or race. So far, no outrage from outlets that regularly warn against political influence in universities, like the Daily Caller.

Speaking of which, they recently ran an opinion piece attacking the Rockefeller foundation for funding Exxon investigations, bearing the headline Fake News: When Leftist Foundations Fund Activism Posing As Journalism. Despite mentioning that the left loves to attack the Koch brothers in this piece, they conveniently left out any mention of the hundreds of thousands of dollars the Koch foundation’s given the Daily Caller.   

The sad part is, that’s not even the most hypocritical fake news happening of last week. No, that distinction goes to Trump, who at his press conference refused to take a question from CNN, calling it fake news, and instead called on someone from Breitbart.

Breitbart, which just so happens to have sent its former chief to the Trump campaign. And is heavily financed by the Mercer family, who besides sending millions of dollars to climate denial organizations (, were said to “basically own” the Trump campaign by an insider.

Assuming they’re not hypocrites, it should only be a matter of time before we see something in the Daily Caller about the Mercer family funding activism posing as journalism. 

We were going to say we’re holding our breath for that reporting, but considering what air quality is apt to be once Pruitt’s running the EPA, we might as well enjoy clean air while we can.   (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 22, 2017, 09:38:20 pm

The Empire of Petroleum, (Part 1/4) Documentary 2017

Published on Jan 21, 2017
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 23, 2017, 05:16:14 pm

The Empire of Petroleum, (Part 2/4) Documentary 2017


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 24, 2017, 06:52:29 pm
The Empire of Petroleum, (Part 3/4) Documentary 2017
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 25, 2017, 06:51:58 pm
Trump Administration Tells EPA to Cut Climate Change Page From Website

Federal Agencies Barred From Speaking to Press, Posting on Social Media

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 25, 2017, 07:06:43 pm
Government Agencies Defy Trump by Tweeting Climate Facts (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 25, 2017, 10:54:49 pm
The Empire of Petroleum, (Part 4/4) Documentary 2017

Medical Cannabis Spain 4 days ago

wouldn't surprise me if cancers are due to petroleum products across the board

Agelbert NOTE:
I believe radionuclides from nuclear explosions and power plants are the main cause of the worldwide increase in cancers from 1950 (when one in five people were expected to get cancer in their lives) to now when TWO out of FOUR people are expected to get cancer in their lives. But I do agree that the MAIN cause of Catastrophic climate Change is the CO2 pollution from the burning of fossil fuels. We either stop burning fossil fuels or we go extinct, PERIOD.        (

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 30, 2017, 06:44:14 pm
I'll probably write a full blog on this subject at some point, but right now I am pretty backed up and don't like to publish more than 2 of my own blogs/week, to give them a chance to be read.

However, I have to comment on this complete and utter stupidity in the first week of Trumpty-Dumpty's reign as POTUS.

This was so poorly orchestrated it is beyond belief!  :o  Even Modi's demonetization in India was better planned!  The whole Immigration Dept is in sheer chaos and nobody knows if they should follow the POTUS order, or the rescinding order of some Federal Judge? ???  The **** MSM is simply going WILD with this, and meanwhile hundreds if not thousands of people are in some kind of Limbo Land.  Even if they have a Green Card, if they happen to be overseas visiting somebody, they can't get back in the door.

However, bad and stupid as it is, just imagine the NIGHTMARE of trying to deport all the illegal Mexicans and other SA folks floating around out there in the FSoA!  These numbers are in the MILLIONS, not hundreds or thousands.  It's just nuts, and I am beginning to become convinced that in fact The Donald is quite insane.  He doesn't seem to have a CLUE about planning, and shooting from the hip every day on Twitter just keeps piling on his problems. He's not making ANY friends, ANYWHERE, not even in his own party!  Overseas, he is a complete pariah, with the exception of Vlad the Impaler who still seems to like him, but frankly I do not give that relationship a long lasting timeline.

Personality-wise, this won't cause The Donald to back down, rather he will DOUBLE-DOWN instead and become still more confrontational.  If he has the Koch Brothers against him, he is in some Deep Doo-Doo.

I am having trouble seeing The Donald staying above ground level for a full term at this point.  And I am not referencing his Underground Bunker with the Ford Models either.



Koch and Trump ARE NOT disunited. Trump is part of the Koch team. Trump lied to the heartland saying he would support ethanol. Trump demonizes wind power, exactly in line with Koch propaganda. The ALLEGED animosity between Trump and Koch based on the ALLEGED lack of "contributions" made to the Trump campaign COMPLETELY ignores all the hidden fossil fuel industry money used to corrupt Trump that the Koch Brothers have ALWAYS been an integral part of.

Koch Versus Trump on "immigration" is a Propaganda FOOD FIGHT, nothing more.

It is expected that pro-Trump propagandists would want to fuel the fire of this food fight.  ;)

I will nowy post a video that conclusively shows how absolutely JOINED AT THE FOSSIL FUEL HIP the Trump Administration is with the Koch Brothers lackeys.

The fossil fuelers are ALL birds of a feather.


Where The Kochs Are Influencing Trump The Most

Alex Kotch PhD, Investigative Journalist. The Koch brothers refused to support Trump in the election, but now it looks like the band of billionaires are ready to work together to screw the American people. Alex Kotch reported at Alternet that so far, fully one-third of the Trump team has ties to the Koch brothers. But where does it look like the Kochs are trying to influence Trump the most? The Koch Brothers are Smiling...  ( (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 22, 2017, 07:04:42 pm

How Big Oil    ( Conquered the World

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 23, 2017, 06:49:02 pm

Bannon Admits Trump's Cabinet Nominees Were Selected To Destroy Their Agencies

By Dartagnan   

Thursday Feb 23, 2017 ·  4:27 PM EST


At CPAC today Stephen Bannon, the Chief Advisor and intellectual heft behind the Twittering infant that sits in the Oval Office, provided a little glimpse of the future he has planned for all of us.

In the clearest explanation for why nearly all of Trump’s cabinet choices are known mostly for despising and attacking the very Federal agencies they’ve been designated to lead, Bannon explained—in very clear language--that they weren't appointed to lead these agencies, but to destroy them:


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 26, 2017, 03:01:37 pm
Trump wants Pruitt to finish What Reagan Started 

Thursday Feb 23, 2017 ·  5:50 PM EST


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 28, 2017, 01:38:09 pm

Agelbert NOTE: The following videos are from the PBS documentary made based on the above book. The American people have been, not just ripped off on the price of fuels while simultaneously being manipulated into paying for oil wars with their blood, they have been forced to PAY with their health and dollars for the pollution which continues to degrade, and possibly doom, the biosphere. (

Please pass it on.   (

The Prize: A History of Oil, Money, and Power:
PBS The Prize Part 4 - Oil in the 20th Century

At this point, the Fossil Fuel Industry TOTALLY controlled US Foreign AND Domestic policy. But The American public had not caught on to that. As many today, they were propagandized (i.e. SUCKERED) into thinking oil was the "savior" of mankind.   >:(

PBS The Prize 5
PBS The Prize Part 6 - History of Oil

NO, OPEC DID NOT "end the power of the Oil Majors" as the above video claims. But PBS has a way of avoiding certain painful truths (like that fact that the USA put Saddam in power in Iraq AND the Shah of Iran in Iran).

The next video starts talking about an "allied" army that "fought Saddam's invasion". LOL! It was the USA that gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait as a SET UP! The Oil Majors USED the US Government to attack Iraq (in 1991 AND later in 2003). So, please remember that the fossil fuel GOVERNMENT is alive and killing we-the-people to this day.

PBS The Prize Part 7 of 8

PBS The Prize Part 8 of 8

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 28, 2017, 02:08:36 pm
The REAL reason behind the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010  (

NOW, with Trump, even the few regulations the oil pigs had will be either eliminated or NOT enforced. Fasten your seat belts.


Trump Wants Pruitt to Finish What Reagan Started (

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 02, 2017, 04:32:51 pm
Big Oil:  (
From the Monopoly Men to the PetroDollar Recycling System

"In May 1973, with the dramatic fall of the dollar still vivid, a group of 84 of the world?s top financial and political insiders met at Saltsjobaden, Sweden, the secluded island resort of the Swedish Wallenberg banking family. This gathering of [the] Bilderberg group heard an American participant, Walter Levy, outline a "scenario" for an imminent 400 percent increase in OPEC petroleum revenues. The purpose of the secret Saltsjobaden meeting was not to prevent the expected oil price shock, but rather to plan how to manage the about-to-be-created flood of oil dollars, a process U.S. Secretary of State Kissinger later called 'recycling the petrodollar flows.'"

- F. William Engdahl, A Century of War (2004) [38]

According to research outlined in Dr. David Spiro's book, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony (1999), it was during this time (May 1973 during the first ever Bilderberg Meeting) that OPEC began discussions on the viability of pricing oil trades in several currencies. This unpublished proposal involved a "basket of currencies" from the Group of Ten nations, or "G-10". These 10 members of the Bank of International Settlements (plus Austria and Switzerland) included the major European countries and their currencies such as Germany (Mark), France (Franc), and the U.K. (Sterling), as well other industrialized nations such as Japan (yen), Canada (Canadian dollar), and of course the Unites States (U.S. dollar). [35] It should be noted the powerful G-10/BIS Group of Ten also has one unofficial member, the governor of the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority, or SAMA.

In order to prevent this monetary transition to a basket of currencies, the Nixon administration began high-level talks with Saudi Arabia to unilaterally price international oil sales in dollars only - despite U.S. assurances to its European and Japanese allies that such a unique monetary/geopolitical arrangement would not transpire. In 1974 an agreement was reached with New York and London banking interests which established what became known as "petrodollar recycling."

That year the Saudi government secretly purchased $2.5 billion in U.S. Treasury bills with their oil surplus funds, and a few years later Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal cut a secret deal with the Saudis to ensure that OPEC would continue to price oil in dollars only. [36]

In typical understatement Dr. Spiro noted, "clearly something more than the laws of supply and demand resulted in 70 percent of all Saudi assets in the United States being held in a New York Fed account." [37] Naturally, this arrangement with the Saudi government prevented a market-based adjustment, and was the basis for the second phase of the American Century, the Petrodollar phase.  ( follows is the extraordinary history in which petrodollar recycling was vigorously implemented during the 1970s.

Beginning in the mid-1970's the American Century system of global economic dominance underwent a dramatic change. The oil price shocks of 1973-1974 and 1979 suddenly created enormous demand for the floating dollar. Oil importing countries from Germany to Argentina to Japan, all were faced with how to acquire export-based dollars to pay their expensive new oil import bills. The rise in the price of oil flooded OPEC with dollars that far exceeded domestic investment needs, and were therefore categorized as "surplus petrodollars." A major share of these oil dollars came to London and New York banks where the new process of monetary petrodollar recycling was initiated.

Engdahl's remarkable book, A Century of War (2004), chronicles how certain geopolitical events mirrored a "scenario" discussed during a May 1973 Bilderberg meeting. Apparently powerful banking interests sought to "manage" the monetary dollar flows that were premised upon what the group envisioned as "huge increases" in the price of oil from the Middle East. The minutes of this Bilderberg meeting included projections regarding the price of "OPEC oil of some 400 per cent." [39]

In 1974 U.S Assistant Treasury Secretary Jack F. Bennett and David Mulford of the London-based Eurobond firm of White Weld & Co set about the mechanism to handle the surplus OPEC petrodollars. 40 Kissinger, Bennett and Mulford helped orchestrate the secret financial arrangement with the Saudi Arabia Monetary Agency (SAMA) that creatively transformed the high oil prices of 1973-1974 to the direct benefit of the U.S. Federal Reserve banks and the Bank of England. (

Despite the financial windfall enjoyed by the U.S./U.K banking and petroleum conglomerates who "managed the recycling of petrodollar flows," most Americans regard the 1973-74 oil shocks as a particularly painful time period of high inflation and long lines at every gas station. In the Third World these high oil prices created huge loans from the International Monetary Fund debts to be re-paid entirely in dollars.  ( let's fastforward to more recent events...

On September 24, 2000 Saddam Hussein emerged from a meeting of his government and proclaimed that Iraq would soon transition its oil export transactions to the euro currency. [52] Saddam referred to the U.S. dollar as currency of the "enemy state." Why would Saddam's currency switch be such a strategic threat to the bankers in London and New York? Why would the United States President risk fifty years of carefully crafted global alliances with various European allies, and advocate a military attack whose justification could not be proved to the world community? ???

The answer is simple - the dollar's unique role of a petrodollar has been the foundation of the dollar hegemony since the mid 1970's. The process of petrodollar recycling underpins American economic hegemony, which funds American military supremacy.

Dollar/petrodollar supremacy allows the U.S. a unique ability to sustain yearly current account deficits; pass huge tax cuts, build a massive military Empire of Bases around the globe, and still have others accept our currency as medium of exchange for their imported good and services. The origins of this history are not found in textbooks on International Economics, but rather in the minutes of meetings held by various banking and petroleum elites who have quietly sought unhindered power.

U.S. Dollar: Fiat Currency or Oil-Backed Currency?

"What the powerful men grouped around the Bilderberg had evidently decided that May <1973> was to launch a colossal assault against industrial growth in the world, in order to tilt the balance of power back to the advantage of Anglo-American financial interests and the dollar.  In order to do this, they determined to use their most prized weapon for control of the world's oil flows. Bilderberg policy was to trigger a global oil embargo in order to force a dramatic increase in world oil prices. Since 1945, world oil had by international custom been priced in dollars. A sudden sharp increase in the world price of oil, therefore, meant an equally dramatic increase in world demand for U.S. dollars to pay for that necessary oil.

Never in history had such a small circle of interests, centered in London and New York, controlled so much of the entire world's economic destiny. The Anglo-American financial establishment had resolved to use their oil power in a manner no one could have imagined possible. The very outrageousness of their scheme was to their advantage, they clearly reckoned."

- F. William Engdahl, A Century of War (2004)

At this point he makes an extraordinary claim: "I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them."

'He says he was convinced of this by the attitude of the Shah of Iran, who in one crucial day in 1974 moved from the Saudi view' 'to advocating higher prices.'

'King Faisal sent me to the Shah of Iran, who said: Why are you against the increase in the price of oil? That is what they want! Ask Henry Kissinger - he is the one who wants a higher price.'

Yamani contends that proof of his long-held belief has recently emerged in the minutes of a secret meeting on a Swedish island, where UK and US officials determined to orchestrate a 400 per cent increase in the oil price.

- UK Observer interview with Sheikh Yaki Yamani (Saudi Arabian Oil Minister from 1962-1986) at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, January 14, 2001 54

As previously noted, the crucial shift to an oil-backed currency took place in the early 1970s when President Nixon closed the so-called 'gold window' at the Federal Treasury. This removed the dollar's redemption value from a fixed amount of gold to a fiat currency that floated against other currencies. This was done so the Federal Government would have no restraints on printing new dollars, thereby able to pursue undisciplined fiscal policies to maintain the U.S.'s Superpower status. The only limit was how many dollars the rest of the world would be willing to accept on the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. The result was rapid inflation and a falling dollar.

Although rarely discussed outside arcane discussions of the 'global political economy,' it is easy to grasp that if oil can be purchased on the international markets only with U.S. dollars, the demand and liquidity value will be solidified given that oil is the essential natural resources required for every industrialized nation. Oil trades are the basic enablers for a manufacturing infrastructure, the basis of global transportation, and the primary energy source for 40% of the industrial economy.

During the 1970s a two-pronged strategy was pursued by the U.S./U.K. banking elites to exploit the unique role of oil in an effort to maintain dollar hegemony. One component was the requirement that OPEC agree to price and conduct all of its oil transactions in the dollar only, and two was to use these surplus petrodollars as the instrument to dramatically reverse the dollar's falling liquidity value via high oil prices. The net effect solidified industrialized and developing nations under the sphere of the dollar. No longer backed by gold, the dollar became backed by black gold.

This brilliant if somewhat nefarious act of monetary jujitsu enormously benefited not only the U.S./U.K. banking interests, but also the "Seven Sisters" of the U.S./U.K. petroleum conglomerate (Exxon, Texaco, Mobil, Chevron, Gulf, British Petroleum, and Royal Dutch/Shell). These major oil interests had incurred tremendous debts from the capital requirements in their large new oil platforms in the inhospitable areas of the North Sea and in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

However, following the 1974 oil price shocks, their profitability was secure. Engdahl candidly noted "while Kissinger's 1973 oil shock had a devastating impact on world industrial growth, it had an enormous benefit for certain established interests - the major New York and London banks, and the Seven Sisters oil multinational of the United States and Britain." [57]

The unique monetary arrangement was formalized in June 1974 by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, establishing the U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation. The U.S. Treasury and the New York Federal Reserve would "allow" the Saudi central bank to buy U.S. Treasury bonds with Saudi petrodollars. [58]

Likewise, London banks would handle eurozone-based international oil transactions, loan these revenue via ?Eurobonds? to oil importing countries. The debt and interest from these loans would then flow to the dollar denominated payments to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), thereby completing the recycling of surplus petrodollars back to the Federal Reserve. for Saddam's switch that led to "regime change"...

Although this little-noted Iraq move to defy the dollar in favor of the euro in itself did not have a huge impact, the ramifications regarding further OPEC momentum towards a petroeuro are quite profound. If invoicing oil in euros were to spread, especially against an already weak dollar, it could create a panic sell-off of dollars by foreign central banks and OPEC oil producers. In the months before the latest Iraq war, hints in this direction were heard from Russia, Iran, Indonesia and even Venezuela. There are indicators that the Iraq war was a forceful way to deliver a message to OPEC and others oil producers, "Do not transition from the petrodollar to a petroeuro system." Engdahl's conversation with a forthright London-based banker is rather enlightening:

Informed banking circles in the City of London and elsewhere in Europe privately confirm the significance of that little-noted Iraq move from petrodollar to petroeuro. "The Iraq move was a declaration of war against the dollar", one senior London banker told me recently. "As soon as it was clear that Britain and the U.S. had taken Iraq, a great sigh of relief was heard in London City banks. They said privately, "now we don't have to worry about that damn euro threat." [63]

Petrodollar recycling works quite simply because oil is an essential commodity for every nation, and the petrodollar system demands the buildup of huge trade surpluses in order to accumulate dollar surpluses. This is the case for every country but the United States, which controls the dollar and prints it at will or fiat. Because today the majority of all international trade is done in dollars, other countries must engage in active trade relations with the U.S. to get the means of payment they cannot themselves issue. The entire global trade structure today has formed around this dynamic, from Russia to China, from Brazil to South Korea and Japan. Every nation aims to maximize dollar surpluses from their export trade as almost every nation needs to import oil.

This insures the dollar's liquidity value, and helps explain why almost 70% of world trade is conducted in dollars, even though U.S. exports are about one third of that total. The dollar is the currency which central banks accumulate as reserves, but whether it is China, Japan, Brazil or Russia, they simply do not stack all these dollars in their vaults. Currencies have one advantage over gold. A central bank can use it to buy the state bonds of the issuer, the United States. Most countries around the world are forced to control trade deficits or face currency collapse.

Such is not the case in the United States, whose number one export product is the dollar itself.  This unique arrangement is largely due to the dollar's World Reserve currency role, which is underpinned by its petrodollar role. Every nation needs to get dollars to purchase oil, some more than others. This means their trade targets are countries that utilize the dollar, with the U.S. consumer as the main target for export products of the nation seeking to build dollar reserves.


35. David E. Spiro, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets, Cornell University Press, (1999) p. 121-123

36. David E. Spiro, ibid, p. x

37. David E. Spiro, ibid, p. 125

38. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order,' Pluto Press (2004, 2nd edition), p. 130

39. William Engdahl, A Century of War, pgs. 130-138. Note: Engdahl was able to purchase the secret minutes of a May 1973 Bilderberg meeting from a Paris bookseller. His book contains actual photocopies of the cover page and related text discussed in chapter 1. The cover page is stamped: "SALSJOBADEN CONFERENCE 11-13 May 1973." Also stamped on the cover page are the words:"PERSONAL AND STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL" and "NOT FOR PUBLICATION EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART"

53. William Engdahl, A Century of War, op cited, p. 135

54. Oliver Morgan and Islam Faisal, ?Saudi dove in the oil slick,? Observer, January 14, 2001,6903,42...

57. William Engdahl, ibid, p. 136
52. Robert Block, ?Some Muslim Nations Advocate Dumping the Dollar for the Euro,? The Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2003

63. William Engdahl, ?A New American Century? Iraq and the hidden euro-dollar wars,?, No 4, 2003
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 07, 2017, 02:26:42 pm


Trump Steals ExxonMobil's Thunder for Obama-Era Investments: ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods announced the company's new $20 billion Gulf of Mexico spending plan, which aims to create 11 primarily US-based chemical and natural gas projects and 45,000 jobs, in a speech at CERAWeek Monday.

President Trump quickly took credit for Exxon's success, tweeting several times about the announcement, and the White House issued a statement that lifted entire paragraphs and sentences nearly verbatim from ExxonMobil's release on the plan. Analysts were quick to point out that most of the investments Woods described were made before the election, with some dating before the oil price crash in 2014.

Curiously  ;), the White House didn't comment on Woods's other focus in his CERAWeek speech: flaunting Exxon's progress on environmental and climate issues and expressing support for "transparent, uniform carbon prices." (Exxon plan: AP, Reuters, WSJ $, Houston Chronicle. Trump response: Washington Post $, Politico, Bloomberg, The Hill, Mother Jones. Carbon prices: Politico Pro $)

Forecast: Trump to Shower Industries with Gifts This Week
 The forecast this week calls for flurries of climate (in)action from the White House. Let’s run through the list of nightmares.
 Today, the EPA and DoT are expected to announce that they’re starting the process to revise fuel economy standards. The rollbacks will be a gift to the auto and oil industries, while the American public will pick up the tab at the pump. There are also murmurs that Pruitt will also go after California’s right to create stricter fuel efficiency standards than the federal government--a remarkably hypocritical position for Scott “States’ Rights” Pruitt to take.
 Also expected this week is an executive order instructing the EPA to begin the long and intensive process of undoing the Clean Power Plan while also lifting the moratorium on coal leasing on public lands. This will be framed as energy independence or security, but we all know it’s just another piece of corporate welfare for Trump’s fossil fuel buddies.
 Speaking of which, here’s a scary sentence from E&E: “The Inhofe (  infantry   ( to grow at U.S. EPA.” Apparently a number of alums from Inhofe’s staff have found positions within the EPA and across the Trump administration. Which is just lovely. (
 On a slightly sunnier note, Team Trump has not yet figured out what to do about the Paris Agreement, despite conflicting reports. While they deliberate, we’ll read and re-read Andrew Freedman’s perfect explanation of why “Leaving the Paris Agreement would be Trump's worst move yet.”
In the meantime, there are still clouds on the horizon to worry about. One big storm cloud we’re watching: Trump’s proposed budget. While Congress’s budget will most likely be better than the bloodbath of Trump’s initial proposal, it will still be bad. It’s not surprising that the proposed cuts to the EPA’s scientific research would be so severe as to cause the department to “implode,” but Trump’s even going after bipartisan-supported efforts like the Energy Star program, turning it over to industry.
 Fortunately even GOP appropriators have said the money that pours from the EPA to states will make it difficult for Congress to cut the budget to the degree Trump is asking. And if the pork barrel rationale doesn’t save the budget, maybe the GOP majority will actually listen to their constituents?
 That might be a good idea: a new survey out of Yale shows there is widespread support for reducing carbon pollution and increasing our investment in renewables. Even 62% of Trump supporters think there should be taxes or regulations on carbon pollution.
 Unfortunately, not polled were the only voices Trump appears to listen to: the corporate overlords he will apparently do just about anything to appease.
 So while uncertainty rains in the Trump camp, one thing is certain: we’re bracing for a SHITSTORM.

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 10, 2017, 12:44:14 pm
March 7, 2017 | Rona Fried | Policy/Trends

War on Regulations Takes Off (

Last week, Trump ordered supervisors installed in all federal agencies to carry out his “2 for 1” scheme to eviscerate big bad regulations that supposedly hold our economy back. Only regulations that cost industries $0 in 2017 can stay in place – forget any benefits of holding corporations accountable, such as saving lives, protecting human health, safeguarding fundamental rights, worker rights, environmental rights, and caring for wildlife and wildlands. And for any regulation that is put in place, two must be eliminated even if they are entirely unrelated.

“This fundamentally changes our government’s role from one of protecting the public to protecting corporate profits, and will lead to a dangerous new era of deregulation and corporate “self-regulation,” says Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen, which is suing Donald J. Trump for the regulations assault.

But this is just the beginning. If the Midnight Rules Act, REINS Act and Regulatory Accountability Act pass, major items long on the Republican wish list will finally be fulfilled. The bills have passed in the House and now await Senate action.
◾Midnight Rule Relief Act allows Congress – in just one vote – to repeal all regulations passed over the past year.

◾REINS Act ( (Regulations From The Executive In Need of Scrutiny  ::)) gives Congress control over major new regulations, taking it out of the hands of professionals in federal agencies. For the first time, Congress would be in charge of approving regulations. If not approved within 70 days, the regulation dies and the agency is barred from taking it up again.

◾Regulatory Accountability Act  ( makes it very hard to set new regulations by bogging the process down with over 60 new steps. Until now, agencies balance costs and benefits when considering new rules, but this law requires them to choose the “least costly” option as opposed to the “most effective” option.

The House passed the REINS Act several times during Obama’s term, but it was stopped in the Senate. The House voted down Democrat amendments to exempt rules that affect veterans’ health care, nuclear reactor safety, transportation of hazardous materials, and the safety of products used by children under the age of 2, reports USA Today.

Read our article, REINS Act Would Increase Toxic Pollution (

These bills “give Congress sweeping authority to substitute political judgement for scientific judgement. It gives Congress permission to ignore all the years of technical work and public comment used to develop public health, safety, and environmental protections, and simply dismantle all these vital safeguards in one fell swoop,” says Union of Concerned Scientists. It’s ironic, because federal agencies develop regulations at the behest of Congress in the laws they pass!

The REINS Act “could, in effect, impose a slow-motion government shutdown, and would replace a process based on expertise, rationality and openness with one characterized by political maneuvering, economic clout and secrecy. The public would be less protected, and the political system would be more abused. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more far-reaching, fundamental and damaging shift in the way the government goes about its business of safeguarding the public,” says Natural Resources Defense Council.

Conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute is helping out with a 193-page agenda with a long list of regulations to eliminate, and Rep. Meadows (R-NC) ( offered a list of 232 regulations that can be repealed immediately.

And who did Trump put in charge of advising on which regulations to gut? Billioinairre corporate raider Carl Icahn. ( With $16.5 billion, Icahn has plenty of money to protect (and grow!).

Corporations are Thrilled  ( (  (

Real estate developers, for example, are thrilled with the rollbacks. Eliminating the “Waters of the US” rule makes it much easier to build without worrying about protecting wetlands and the streams half of Americans rely on for their drinking water. When the Endangered Species Act is gone, that will take a big pain out of the way.

Environmental Protection (  Agency

Federal contractors are thrilled that the House repealed Obama’s Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order, which requires them to comply with worker health and safety laws before getting new contracts. 30% of the worst violators received $81 billion in federal contracts, according to a 2013 Senate report.  It affects the family of Rodney Bridgett, who was killed when a piece of heavy equipment crushed him and Calvin Bryant, crippled by a workplace explosion that killed 14 co-workers, for example. A vote in the Senate is imminent.

On the chopping block:

◾lead safety standards in drinking water

◾unsafe chemicals to be removed from the market under the Toxic Substances Control Act

◾gut enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts

◾prohibit payday lenders from praying on consumers with high interest rates

◾gut Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform,  Consumer Protection Act, Food Safety Modernization Act, Pipeline Safety Act and many more.

◾gut food safety regulations, net neutrality rules that protect he Internet from monopolies, energy efficiency standards for appliances and vehicles, and of course, the Clean Power Plan that reduces emissions from power plants.

◾no more restrictions on oil drilling or coal mines on public land

◾no more standards for healthy school lunches

◾standards that protect health workers from exposure to infectious diseases

◾a rule to prevent mining equipment from crushing miners

◾rules that protect communities from oil trains from exploding

◾protections for endangered species

Visit to keep up (if you can!) with the rules on the chopping block.

“It’s horrifying that even after the Wall Street crash, the massive BP oil spill and numerous other public health and safety disasters across the country due to a lack of strong regulations, Americans will once again have to pay the price for the consequences of corporate recklessness, greed and lawbreaking,” says Weissman.

“Congress totally lacks the technical competence to review these kinds of complex rules. Do we really want members of Congress deciding whether a chemical can safely be used in food packaging? Or the proper procedures for approving new drugs as safe and effective? Or setting the allowable safety standard for heavy metals in drinking water?,” asks Carl Pope, former Sierra Club president.

Say Goodbye to Class Action Lawsuits?

HR 985, which would make it almost impossible for citizens to join class action lawsuits – among the most effective tools for victims of corporate abuse – will soon get a vote. Think about the BP oil spill or Wells Fargo’s illegal bank accounts. HR 720, HR 725 and HR 732 would make it harder for victims of corporate wrongdoing to sue and hold them accountable.

How About a Rule that Requires the President to Reveal His Taxes? ( (

Although the vast majority of Americans want Trump to reveal his taxes, House Republicans don’t like that rule either.  Every single one of them voted to block a resolution that would force Trump to do what all other presidents have done on their own volition.

The House Ways and Means Committee has the power to demand Trump’s taxes, but the full House voted it down ( ( when Rep. Pascrell (D-NJ) brought it to the floor.

Agelbert NOTE: Message from the Trump Team to we-the-people:

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 10, 2017, 02:09:25 pm
Agelbert Note: Tulsa World journalist understands what is going on ( at the EPA.



It’s clear from all of this that Scott Pruitt misled Congress and the American people about his intentions and beliefs as regards a core agency responsibility of regulating CO2 emissions.

For these reasons, Senators should demand that Pruitt be removed from his position -- that way he can be a fossil fuel lobbyist on his own time and not the government’s dime.

The arsonist is now in charge of the fire department, and Pruitt wants to let the climate crisis burn out of control. The EPA administrator is supposed to protect families and communities from environmental crises, but all Pruitt is willing to do is spewing corporate polluter talking points.

Pruitt is clearly unfit and uniquely unsuited to do the job he has been entrusted to do.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 12, 2017, 12:43:16 pm

Beyond Cozy: Pruitt’s Oily Emails

Communications Expose Troubling Links Between New EPA Chief, Industry, Right Wing
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 13, 2017, 01:18:29 pm

The Dance of Death

Posted on Mar 12, 2017

By Chris Hedges


The ruling corporate elites no longer seek to build. They seek to destroy. They are agents of death. They crave the unimpeded power to cannibalize the country and pollute and degrade the ecosystem to feed an insatiable lust for wealth, power and hedonism. Wars and military “virtues” are celebrated. Intelligence, empathy and the common good are banished. Culture is degraded to patriotic kitsch. Education is designed only to instill technical proficiency to serve the poisonous engine of corporate capitalism. Historical amnesia shuts us off from the past, the present and the future. Those branded as unproductive or redundant are discarded and left to struggle in poverty or locked away in cages. State repression is indiscriminant and brutal. And, presiding over the tawdry Grand Guignol is a deranged ringmaster tweeting absurdities from the White House.

The graveyard of world empires—Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Mayan, Khmer, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian—followed the same trajectory of moral and physical collapse. Those who rule at the end of empire are psychopaths, imbeciles, narcissists and deviants, the equivalents of the depraved Roman emperors Caligula, Nero, Tiberius and Commodus. The ecosystem that sustains the empire is degraded and exhausted.


Economic growth, concentrated in the hands of corrupt elites, is dependent on a crippling debt peonage imposed on the population. The bloated ruling class of oligarchs, priests, courtiers, mandarins, eunuchs, professional warriors, financial speculators and corporate managers sucks the marrow out of society.


The elites’ myopic response to the looming collapse of the natural world and the civilization is to make subservient populations work harder for less, squander capital in grandiose projects such as pyramids, palaces, border walls and fracking, and wage war. President Trump’s decision to increase military spending by $54 billion and take the needed funds out of the flesh of domestic programs typifies the behavior of terminally ill civilizations. When the Roman Empire fell, it was trying to sustain an army of half a million soldiers that had become a parasitic drain on state resources.

The complex bureaucratic mechanisms that are created by all civilizations ultimately doom them. The difference now, as Joseph Tainter points out in “The Collapse of Complex Societies,” is that “collapse, if and when it comes again, will this time be global. No longer can any individual nation collapse. World civilization will disintegrate as a whole.”

Civilizations in decline, despite the palpable signs of decay around them, remain fixated on restoring their “greatness.” Their illusions condemn them. They cannot see that the forces that gave rise to modern civilization, namely technology, industrial violence and fossil fuels, are the same forces that are extinguishing it. Their leaders are trained only to serve the system, slavishly worshipping the old gods long after these gods begin to demand millions of sacrificial victims.

“Hope drives us to invent new fixes for old messes, which in turn create even more dangerous messes,” Ronald Wright writes in “A Short History of Progress.” “Hope elects the politician with the biggest empty promise; and as any stockbroker or lottery seller knows, most of us will take a slim hope over prudent and predictable frugality. Hope, like greed, fuels the engine of capitalism.” 

The Trump appointees—Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, Rex Tillerson, Steve Mnuchin, Betsy DeVos, Wilbur Ross, Rick Perry, Alex Acosta and others—do not advocate innovation or reform. They are Pavlovian dogs that salivate before piles of money. They are hard-wired to steal from the poor and loot federal budgets. Their single-minded obsession with personal enrichment drives them to dismantle any institution or abolish any law or regulation that gets in the way of their greed. Capitalism, Karl Marx wrote, is “a machine for demolishing limits.” There is no internal sense of proportion or scale. Once all external impediments are lifted, global capitalism ruthlessly commodifies human beings and the natural world to extract profit until exhaustion or collapse. And when the last moments of a civilization arrive, the degenerate edifices of power appear to crumble overnight.


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 13, 2017, 02:11:47 pm

Opening Arctic Waters to Drilling Is Trump Priority(, Key Senator ( Says

March 12, 2017 by Bloomberg


Bloomberg) — Senator Lisa Murkowski said President Donald Trump is interested in opening up new coastal waters for oil and gas drilling and reversing Obama-era policies that restrict energy development in Alaska.

Both Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke are weighing ways to expand opportunities to drill in Arctic waters though the changes could take years to accomplish administratively, Murkowski said in an interview on the sidelines of the CERAWeek conference in Houston.  (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 14, 2017, 06:41:58 pm

Tillerson ( Used 'Alias' Email to Discuss Climate at Exxon, NY AG Says

Climate Nexus

Rex Tillerson used an email address registered under the name "Wayne Tracker" to discuss climate policies while CEO of ExxonMobil, according to a letter sent by the New York attorney general's office to a New York Supreme Court justice Monday.

In the letter, lawyers for AG Eric Schneiderman's office allege that Exxon did not disclose the existence of this false address in court documents and failed to provide correspondence from the account in its reply to the AG's subpoena investigating the company's public and private climate policies.

Exxon executives  ( responded that the "" address, in use between 2008 and 2015, was "put in place for secure and expedited communications between select senior company officials and the former chairman for a broad range of business-related topics."  (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 15, 2017, 07:52:35 pm
Can you sue for Fracking Caused Earthquake Damage? ???

Thom chats with Dr. Anthony Ingraffea about the undeniable cause of the recent uptick in earthquakes in Oklahoma and what we can do about them.

Dr. Anthony Ingraffea PhD P.E. : Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering Emeritus and Weiss Presidential Teaching Fellow - Cornell University.

Agelbert NOTE: Fossil Fuel Industry reaction to the above irrefutable facts:

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 24, 2017, 09:02:51 pm

Published on Mar 24, 2017

Thom talks with Greg Palast (Investigative Reporter & Contributor - Rolling Stone Magazine, Author & Filmmaker - The Best Democracy Money Can Buy) about the current battle for control of the republican party between the billionaire Koch brothers and Paul Ryan's super PAC.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on April 01, 2017, 03:51:28 pm
Exxon Dealt Big Blow  ;D  as Texas Judge Kicks Climate Lawsuit to New York Court

to New York Court

In a decision released Wednesday, ExxonMobil lost its bid to have their complaint against Attorneys General Eric Schneiderman and Maura Healey heard by a sympathetic Texas judge.

"The decision is a major blow to Exxon's efforts to distract from the valid investigations into whether the company lied to the public and its investors about the dangers of global warming," Jamie Henn, strategic communications director, said.

"Instead of coming up with more bogus legal maneuvers, Exxon should comply with the Attorneys General requests, including handing over Tillerson's secret 'Wayne Tracker' emails."

In an effort to distract from the Attorneys General investigation into if the company lied to its shareholders and the public about its knowledge of global warming, ExxonMobil had filed a complaint ( asserting that the investigation against it was a politically motivated conspiracy designed to "silence" it.  (

Despite his obvious sympathy to the oil giant, U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade ( ( was forced to admit in a decision this afternoon that Exxon's complaints against the Attorneys General should be transferred out of Texas to the Southern District of New York because "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" in New York City.

As part of its complaint, ExxonMobil had issued a subpoena to in December in an attempt to gain access to the organization's emails. promptly filed a motion to quash the subpoena and issued a statement asserting our First Amendment rights to speak out and advocate for the public interest. That motion is currently pending in the Southern District.

Wednesday's decision is a blow for Exxon, who had obviously hoped to fight the Attorneys General on their home turf in Texas rather than comply with the investigation. The announcement comes just days after the embarrassing revelation that while CEO of the company Rex Tillerson used a secret email alias "Wayne Tracker" to discuss climate change and other sensitive issues.

"The public deserves the truth about what Exxon Knew," Henn said. "The company is arguing we want to silence them, but it's just the opposite: We want them to speak clearly and honestly about their track record of climate denial so we can get to work solving the problem. Instead of continuing to follow the Big Tobacco playbook of deceit and deception, Exxon  ( should come clean and own up to the damage it's caused." will keep up pressure on ExxonMobil to comply with the existing investigations, as well as advocate for more Attorneys General to launch their own inquiries into what Exxon knew.

"With Rex Tillerson ( now guiding our international climate policy as Secretary of State, this case is more important than ever," Henn continued. "If Tillerson used a secret email to discuss Exxon's climate coverup, that would turn out to be an absolute bombshell. We could be on the verge of seeing an acting Secretary of State getting pulled into a fraud investigation. And this isn't just any old fraud: Exxon's crimes are on a planetary scale."


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on April 02, 2017, 02:27:14 pm

March 31, 2017

Behind Michael Flynn's Turkish Lobbying Controversy, An Israeli Gas Pipeline  (

AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté.

We have covered various aspects of alleged connections between senior Trump Administration officials, and the Russian government, and how strong these connections really are. Michael Flynn was forced out as National Security Advisor, after he lied about his talks with the Russian Ambassador. But Flynn's ties with Turkey have not gotten as much attention. Flynn recently filed papers acknowledging he worked as a foreign agent on behalf of the Turkish government. Flynn was paid more than $500,000 while advising Trump's campaign.

The White House says Trump was unaware (; a claim Flynn's team rejects. Flynn's connection to Turkey also reveals much about the role of natural gas in the political webs of the Middle East. And joining us to discuss is Shir Hever, Real News Correspondent in Germany, Shir, welcome.

SHIR HEVER: Thanks for having me, Aaron.

AARON MATÉ: So, okay, the Flynn controversy around Turkey has been that he was paid by a firm owned by a Turkish-American businessman, to basically help lobby against Fethullah Gülen, this Turkish cleric who's living in exile in the U.S. and who Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan accuses of basically being behind a coup attempt. But you're looking at now Flynn's work on behalf of an Israeli company linked to natural gas, is that correct?

SHIR HEVER: Yes. Actually, this is what the Dutch company Inovo, who is owned by this Turkish-American businessman, is claiming -- that in fact, they were not hired by... they did not hire Flynn in order to get him to release Fethullah Gülen, but in order to promote the interests of an Israeli gas company.

AARON MATÉ: But it is true that Flynn did write an op-ed denouncing Gülen, which would then lend credence to this claim that he was hired by a Turkish national for that purpose.

SHIR HEVER: This may be an additional purpose of his work in Turkey, and it's not completely clear whose interest he would be promoting. What I think is interesting, is that Flynn's very strong position on Iran. He has very anti-Iran sentiments. It actually plays right into the interests of the Israeli natural gas companies, who are trying to sell their natural gas to Turkey.

And Iran is also an exporter of natural gas, but more importantly, Iran is perceived, at least by the Israeli natural gas companies, as somehow supporting the Hamas Party in the Gaza Strip; and therefore, part of the policy of Erdogan towards Israel is very much related to the siege on the Gaza Strip, and this ties directly to the natural gas resource as well.

AARON MATÉ: So, are you suggesting that Flynn's anti-Iran stance is linked to his work on behalf of an Israeli natural gas company?

SHIR HEVER: I don't know what caused his anti-Iran stance. It could also be that an Israeli gas company decided to hire him rather than somebody else, because they found his views on Iran helpful. But the main issue is that there is an obstacle for the Israeli natural gas sector, because of the way that natural gas technology is developed. And there are new natural gas fields that are being revealed and developed the whole time. Gas prices are declining, and the Israeli gas industry is very anxious to find customers.

AARON MATÉ: Ok, so what do we know then, about what Flynn was hired to do on their behalf, if anything?

SHIR HEVER: We know very little. I think what we know more, is about what are the policies of President Erdogan of Turkey, and now because Flynn was doing both at the same time; he was lobbying the Turkish government and working with the Trump campaign team. Then there was the accusation against the Inovo Company saying; well you may have decided to hire Flynn in order to have some kind of influence over the U.S. government, on behalf of the Turkish administration.

So, this makes him a kind of double lobbyist  (, working for both sides. The defense that Inovo is now saying to the FBI investigation is -- how could we have known that Trump would win the election? At the time, polls were giving Hillary Clinton an 80% chance of success. But I think, from an economic point of view, even if they put this amount of money for the 20% chance that Trump will become the President, it's a pretty good investment.

AARON MATÉ: Okay, so help set the geopolitical scene here for us. This story that you're looking at has to do with Israeli natural gas interests. How do those interests impact Israeli relations with the U.S., with Turkey, and with, what you mentioned before, Iran? What is happening here geopolitically when it comes to natural gas?

SHIR HEVER: Well, like I said, natural gas is a rapidly developing technology. So, what appeared to be a very expensive and difficult to obtain energy source, is now becoming a very major source of energy for the Middle East, or the entire Mediterranean region. It used to be monopolized mainly by Qatar in the south, and Russia in the north. Russia supplies natural gas to Turkey, for example.

And then there was a discovery by the British company, British Gas, of natural gas offshore of Gaza. And they wanted to develop it as way back as 2000, so 17 years ago, and this was not allowed by the Israeli government -- as part of their siege on Gaza, they did not allow the Palestinians to develop the natural gas. Then nine years later, 2009 the Israeli natural gas companies make a massive discovery of natural gas offshore of Haifa, in Israel's territorial waters. And they rush to try to develop this gas as fast as they can, and try to export it.

But this causes a very serious internal debate within Israel, because the taxes are too low, and it seems that only a very small group of people are set to benefit from the natural gas, while the general Israeli public will not gain anything. So, there are political protests and so on, and these natural gas companies turn out to be extremely political.

That's a very interesting angle, because they're not just out there for the money, but they're out there to exploit the political system in Israel; and the hatred of Arabs basically, in order to try to get popular support for exploiting the gas, even if taxes remain very low.

What they say basically is, that unless the government gives them the right to exploit the gas for very low taxes, they will not exploit the gas. They will not use it, because it's not worthwhile. Then Israel will have to import natural gas from its enemies, meaning Egypt. But here's the problem, Egypt is not an enemy of Israel; actually, the two countries have a peace treaty and they trade with each other.

So, this is a kind of argument that says if you don't allow these companies to make a lot of profit, then you're an Arab-lover. Now, Inovo is saying that the natural gas company--

AARON MATÉ: And Inovo is this company that hired Flynn, just to clarify?

SHIR HEVER: Yes, the Dutch company owned by a Turkish-American businessman. They're saying it was an Israeli natural gas company that hired us. But the FBI is not telling us which company. And the Israeli media which is covering this is just saying, "An Israeli company". But there are only three large gas-drilling companies in Israel, which are even capable of an international deal of this scale. And they're called Ovnow(?), Isramco and Delek. And the fourth company that is also drilling offshore of Israel is actually an American company; it's Texas based  ( and it's called Noble Energy.

Noble Energy is also related to the regional politics, and it brings the U.S. into the story, because Noble Energy is one of the companies that is actually tied to the Trump Administration. So, here we have another tangent that links the Trump Administration to natural gas coming from Israel. And George Papadopoulos who's Energy Security Advisor appointed by Trump, well, he used to work for the Hudson Institute, as the Hudson Institute gave a prize to the CEO of Nobel Energy, and also put pressure on the Israeli government to develop the natural gas, and to export it as fast as possible.

So, here we see another angle to the story. What I think is... And you asked me how this ties to Iran, how this ties to the geopolitics of the region? No country will want to buy the natural gas from Israel, if they believe the price is going to drop very soon, after they sign a contract. You don't want to buy a product when you expect this product's value to drop, if you just wait a little bit. When will the price of natural gas drop? When the Palestinians in Gaza will be allowed to develop their own natural gas; and then they will compete. And the price can only go down.

And since President Erdogan of Turkey, really put a lot of pressure on Israel, and tried to use his influence to end the siege on Gaza. Which would mean allowing the Palestinians to develop their gas field. He was exactly in the position that he doesn't have any interest to sign a gas deal with Israel. But the Israeli companies are desperate, they need customers, because they planned on selling it to Egypt, and Egypt has just made a big discovery of natural gas, and they're not interested in Israeli natural gas.

AARON MATÉ: Do you think Israel will actually ever allow Palestinians to develop their own natural gas resources?

SHIR HEVER: Obviously, the Israeli government is never going to do this of their own accord. It's only a question of international pressure. And as soon as the international pressure will be strong enough, they will allow it. And actually, now the Israeli Minister of Transportation is promoting this kind of project to build a port/airport on an artificial island offshore of Gaza, in order to sort of allow the siege of Gaza to become a bit more mild, and to reduce the level of responsibility of the Israeli government to what's going on in Gaza. To the humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding there.

And part of that deal could, of course, include developing the natural gas. The purpose of this, is to get more international legitimacy, and this minister is only going to succeed in its project if there will be international pressure on Israel to actually alleviate the siege.

AARON MATÉ: Which has been pretty absent for many years, as Israel has not allowed much development in Gaza, and in fact, hindered development. But as we wrap, looking at the Flynn investigation, as it goes forward, certainly he's going to continue to get a lot of scrutiny for his alleged Russia ties.

When it comes to this story, this Turkish natural gas connection, what are you looking for when it comes to questions you want to see answered, as Flynn's foreign ties receive more and more attention? Quickly.

SHIR HEVER: Yeah, I think we need to know: which company has hired Inovo to hire Flynn on their behalf? Why they thought they need a security expert, a former general, to do a job, which is basically an economic job? So, this is a very important angle to this -- why is this story about energy, turning to be a story about military officers?

   And I think it's also interesting to see -- how was the Trump Administration considering the whole issue of natural gas, when the Trump energy policy seems to hinge mainly on coal? Natural gas was more associated with the Hillary Clinton campaign. And so, she considered it to be a kind of transition fuel towards renewable energy, and this is a very controversial issue, because natural gas is not really a transition fuel.

But this sheds a certain light on everything, and also the appointment of George Papadopoulos, that actually the interests here were not to develop a kind of energy source, but to form political ties for the United States, and for Israel; and in a kind of competition over regional dominance against Russia.

AARON MATÉ: Shir Hever, Real News correspondent in Germany -- thanks very much for joining us today.

SHIR HEVER: Thanks for having me.

AARON MATÉ: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on April 02, 2017, 02:48:27 pm

March 31, 2017

Oil Industry ( Misleading Shareholders on Future Fossil Fuel Demand, Report Says


Charlie Kronick ( is the Senior Programme Advisor for Greenpeace in the UK and the Global lead on finance and investment for the oil industry, focused for most of the last decade on energy and climate change related issues; and on the risks to capital markets from investment in high carbon infrastructure.


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on April 27, 2017, 03:32:37 pm


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on May 09, 2017, 03:38:43 pm
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on May 09, 2017, 09:12:57 pm
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on May 20, 2017, 07:03:33 pm
Koch brothers ( plan 'multimillion-dollar' drive to push tax cuts for themselves and their businesses  (

By Hunter   

Saturday May 20, 2017 ·  4:01 PM EDT



The Koch brothers have been largely sidelined in the news these days by, well, everything else, but that doesn't mean the pair of billionaire influence-buyers hasn't been busy. Donald Trump may have not been their first, second, or tenth preference to lead the conservative movement but they'll be dead in the cold, cold ground before they miss an opportunity to push through another round of tax cuts aimed specifically at benefiting themselves and their own businesses.

In a major jolt of support for President Trump, the powerful political network overseen by conservative billionaire Charles Koch is launching a multimillion-dollar campaign to drive Trump's tax plan through Congress.

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on May 26, 2017, 07:15:05 pm


What Did Exxon and CEO Rex Tillerson Know and What Did They Do About It?

Published on May 25, 2017

Rex Tillerson now acknowledges climate change science, but as CEO of Exxon Mobile did he do anything about it? The New York State Attorney General wants to know says Investigative journalist David Hasemeyer.  (

Agelbert NOTE: What will eventually come out is that Exxon AND every other fossil fuel Industry greed ball out there figured out way back in 1977 (or as far back as 1968!) that, yes they were polluting the planet and would be eventually forced to stop doing that.

However, even as they came to that realization, the FACT that they had to change to a clean energy business model gave them heartburn when they looked hard at the energy generating  process where they could no longer use the air, land and sea as an open sewer  ("externalized" cost somebody else would have to pay).  They came to the conclusion that Renewable Energy would NEVER provide the gargantuan profits they were used to with their polluting product. Actually having to abide by biosphere math, along with making Renewable Energy technology devices that people could take home and get energy when people wanted, not when Big Oil wanted, was very upsetting to their inner fossil fueler psychopath. (
  (  (

WHY? BECAUSE they could NOT obtain a choke hold on the Renewable Energy spigot. It is also rather difficult to start wars and create price shock bonanzas from "scarcity" of wind or solar. Renewable Energy is bad for the WAR BUSINESS. War has always been GooD for the fossil fuel price shock "fun and games".(

The bean counters in Big Oil realized that there is a huge distributed and democratized element to Renewable Energy. IOW, trying to centralize Renewable Energy would be like herding cats. So, they decided to DELAY the transition to Renewable Energy as long as possible through a malicious disinformation campaign specifically directed at doubting the science (i.e. discredit  climate scientists) that Exxon KNEW was accurate. 


To add criminal insult to mens rea injury, these fossil fuel crooks and liars PRETENDED to "embrace" SOME renewable energy (see British Petroleum HEAD FAKE to "Beyond Petroleum") while they were ACTUALLY doubling down on exploring for and exploiting new locations of, fossil fuels.


That's right, boys and girls. The fossil fuel corporations have spent FAR MORE MONEY THAN WAS NEEDED TO TOTALLY TRANSITION their business model to Renewable Energy in searching for increasingly difficult to obtain fossil fuels. The behavior of these fossil fuelers is not just irresponsible, it is criminal.  (

In criminal law, KNOWING an action will cause severe bodily harm to humans AND DECIDING TO DO IT ANYWAY, even though you have the money to change to clean energy, is called MALICE AFORETHOUGHT (MENS REA). IOW, Exxon and their partners in pollution for profit crime have been committing FRAUD based on profit over people and planet since at least 1977!

For them to claim (the old "we are a corporation" TRICK) it was their "fiduciary duty" to "maximize profit" and stick with fossil fuels is like saying we have a "fiduciary duty" to rob a bank because it beats working for the money.

Prison is too good for those fossil fuel corporate bastards. BUT, it would be a good start.  ;D


The Fossil Fuelers   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: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on June 01, 2017, 09:27:13 pm

June 1, 2017

A Personal Take on The Modern History of Iraq - RAI with Sabah Alnasseri (5/6)

On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Alnasseri says Trump's strategy is to use the war against ISIS as an excuse to build up US troop levels in Iraq to control the oil and create a pro-American government.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on June 02, 2017, 08:47:44 pm
Paris Exit Was 'Victory Paid and Carried Out' by Republican Party for the Koch Brothers

The 22 Republican senators who sent a letter to President Donald Trump last week urging the United States' withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement received more than $10 million dollars in campaign funds from fossil fuel interests.

The two-page letter was signed by a number of Republican heavyweights from coal/gas/oil-rich states, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Ted Cruz of Texas.

The Guardian calculated that the 22 senators received a total of $10,694,284 from oil, gas and coal money in just five years. (See the breakdown below.)

However, that sum does not even come close to the amount of undisclosed funds coming from the deep pockets of Charles and David Koch's coal, oil and gas conglomerate, Koch Industries, and other outside groups.

As the Guardian explains:

"Visible donations to Republicans from those industries exceeded donations to Democrats in the 2016 election cycle by a ratio of 15-to-1, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And that does not include so-called dark money passed from oil interests such as Koch industries to general slush funds to re-elect Republicans such as the Senate leadership fund.

"At least $90m in untraceable money has been funneled to Republican candidates from oil, gas and coal interests in the past three election cycles, according to Federal Election Commission disclosures analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics."

Jeffrey Sachs, professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, shared recently his views on Trump's climate walkout.

In an interview with Bloomberg Surveillance, Sachs referenced the senators' letter and specifically cast blame on the billionaire oil barons for pulling the strings of Republican party leaders such as McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, who both supported exiting the Paris accord.

"This is the victory paid and carried out for 20 years by two people, David and Charles Koch," Sachs said. "They have bought and purchased the top of the Republican party. Trump is a tool in this."

Notably, most of the Republican signatories of the letter do not support the belief that human activity contributes to climate change.

During an appearance on MSNBC, Democratic Sen. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts explained why he thinks his Republican colleagues do not believe in the science of climate change.

"This Conservative party in the United States is funded by the Koch brothers [and] it's funded by the coal industry," Markey said. "[They] insist that Scott Pruitt—the Attorney General of Oklahoma that actually sued the EPA 19 times on clean air, clean water, soot, mercury issues—becomes the head of the EPA in our country."


The 22 Republican signatories' funding from Big Oil, Gas and Coal in the past three election cycles (2012, 2014 and 2016):

James Inhofe, Oklahoma

Oil & gas: $465,950 + Coal: $63,600 = $529,550

John Barrasso, Wyoming

Oil & gas: $458,466 + Coal: $127,356 = $585,822

Mitch McConnell, Kentucky

Oil & gas: $1,180,384 + Coal: $361,700 = $1,542,084

John Cornyn, Texas

Oil & gas: $1,101,456 + Coal: $33,050 = $1,134,506

Roy Blunt, Missouri

Oil & gas: $353,864 + Coal: $96,000 = $449,864

Roger Wicker, Mississippi

Oil & gas: $198,816 + Coal: $25,376 = $224,192

Michael Enzi, Wyoming

Oil & gas: $211,083 + Coal: $63,300 = $274,383

Mike Crapo, Idaho

Oil & gas: $110,250 + Coal: $26,756 = $137,006

Jim Risch, Idaho

Oil & gas: $123,850 + Coal: $25,680 = $149,530

Thad Cochran, Mississippi

Oil & gas: $276,905 + Coal: $15,000 = $291,905

Mike Rounds, South Dakota

Oil & gas: $201,900 + Coal: none = $201,900

Rand Paul, Kentucky

Oil & gas: $170,215 + Coal: $82,571 = $252,786

John Boozman, Arkansas

Oil & gas: $147,930 + Coal: $2,000 = $149,930

Richard Shelby, Alabama

Oil & gas: $60,150 + $2,500 = $62,650

Luther Strange, Alabama (Appointed in 2017, running in 2017 special election)

Total: NA

Orrin Hatch, Utah

Oil & gas: $446,250 + Coal: $25,000 = $471,250

Mike Lee, Utah

Oil & gas: $231,520 + Coal: $21,895 = $253,415

Ted Cruz, Texas

Oil & gas: $2,465,910 + Coal: $103,900 = $2,569,810

David Perdue, Georgia

Oil & gas: $184,250 + Coal: $0 = $184,250

Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Oil & gas: $263,400 + Coal: $0 = $263,400

Tim Scott, South Carolina

Oil & gas: $490,076 + Coal: $58,200 = $548,276

Pat Roberts, Kansas

Oil & gas: $388,950 + Coal: $28,825 = $417,775
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on June 05, 2017, 08:43:06 pm
Paris Climate Accords Withdrawal Bought And Paid For By Koch Brothers & Friends

June 5th, 2017 by Steve Hanley


Remember those 22 Senators who wrote an impassioned letter to alleged president Trump recently, urging him to withdraw from the Paris climate accords? According to The Guardian, that group has received a total of $10 million from the Koch Brothers and other fossil fuel interests over the past 5 years.

Big Money   ( Climate Accords Debate


Full article:

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on June 25, 2017, 03:31:19 pm

Utility CEOs Try to Rob Shareholders of Rights to Express Climate Concerns

Sunday, June 25, 2017

By David Pomerantz, Energy and Policy Institute | News Analysis


Group ( Flush With Fossil Fuel  ( and Utility CEOs  (  Led Call for Language

A group of CEOs which often lobbies for policies that support the fossil fuel industry, the Business Roundtable, has led the effort to insert the language restricting shareholders' rights. The group sent a letter to Trump economic advisor Gary Cohn advocating for the changes. The letter also called for delaying the EPA's rules to protect people from harmful ozone pollution, called for an overhaul of the Clean Power Plan, and called for the complete reversal of the Waters of the US rule to prevent pollution of streams, rivers and lakes. Those are all positions that other utility industry trade groups have fought, while individual utilities have sought to avoid the publicity of attacking popular anti-pollution rules.

Agelbert NOTE: Why do the fossil fuelers never grow tired of avoiding responsibility and accepting their liability? Why do they keep doubling down on fossil fuels instead of transitioning rapidly to Renewable Energy (they have had the Capital to do that, in less than a decade, for at least 25 years!)?



But the basis of their 'greed is IT' loyalty to polluting practices suicidal rationale is found in their fascist ideology/religion:

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on July 24, 2017, 01:35:50 pm

Environmental devastation, ruined economy and deteriorating health afflict Bodo community years after Shell oil spill.

Bodo Village, Nigeria - In 2008 and 2009, a 55-year-old pipeline owned by Shell ruptured twice, throwing up 600,000 barrels, according to UK court claims, of crude oil into the surrounding creeks of the Niger Delta.


In 2015, after many years of battles with campaigners, Shell announced it would pay out $83.2m in compensation for the spill. This was split up among the community. Most families received about 600,000 naira ($3,000). Yet after more than eight years that have passed, the community is still waiting desperately for the cleanup efforts promised to them. The creeks and shores of this once thriving fishing community remain decimated by the oil damage.




In January 2017, a British court blocked a lawsuit brought against the Anglo-Dutch Shell company by the devastated Nigerian communities, saying it must be filed in Nigeria. 

On January 26, 2017, as reported by the Associated Press, Kay Holtzmann, the former director of the project funded by Shell to clean up the oil spills, wrote a letter saying there are "astonishingly high" levels of pollution affecting the Nigerian community.


The letter was addressed to the chairperson of the Bodo Mediation Initiative, Inemo Samiama,  and outlined the potential health effect of the contamination on the Bodo community. "Although the locals are accustomed to their environment they are exposed to hazards and especially negative long-term effects on their health are unpredictable. The results dictate the need for a health screening of the Bodo people," Holtzmann stated.

Joyful Paango, a resident in Bodo village, says she and her family have struggled with their health since the spill. She is concerned for her six younger siblings, who have been directly affected by the contamination. "I pray that God will take me and my family from Bodo one day."







The fossil fuel Industry is kiilling us all over the world, not just in Nigeria. (


Response by the fossil fuel industry to the above irrefutable evidence of their criminal polluting profit over people and planet behavior:


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on August 04, 2017, 02:42:46 pm

AZ Investigation Reveals Shadier Side   ( of Anti-Solar Utilities   (  (

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single utility in possession of an anti-solar regulatory board, must be doing something shady.

Over the last several years, the Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the largest power provider in the state, has tried thwarting rooftop solar by getting utility-friendly candidates elected to the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates the state’s utilities. Now, APS is reportedly being investigated by the FBI for its political spending.

In 2014, APS allegedly funded a political nonprofit that supported the candidacy of two utility-friendly Republican candidates for the regulatory commission. For most of its long history, APS steered clear of politics. But, in recent years, APS helped turn a bipartisan regulatory commission into a panel of anti-solar Republicans through targeted political spending.

The investigation kicked off after the former chairman of the regulatory commission, Gary Pierce, was indicted for allegedly raising the rates for a water and sewer company in exchange for payments to his wife. The FBI probe of Pierce led to an inquiry into APS, which had allegedly tried to influence Pierce by contributing to his son’s campaign for Arizona secretary of state.

The allegations of wrongdoing suggest the lengths to which embattled utilities are willing to go to protect their interests. It’s not that utilities oppose solar power, per se — many are investing in large-scale solar projects, but many utilities are opposed to customers generating their own electricity and selling it to the grid. Think of APS like a grocer who doesn’t want home gardeners selling vegetables in the town square — except this grocer enjoys a government-sanctioned monopoly.

The FBI investigation will likely be lengthy, and may not result in anything. But if it does, it could be game over for the APS monopoly.

Agelbert NOTE: Fossil fuel industry response to the above "fake" news:

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on August 25, 2017, 09:23:05 pm
Thom Hartmann Book Club - Dark Money ( by Jane Mayer

Aug. 25, 2017 8:47 am

Thom reads an excerpt from Jane Mayer's book, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on August 28, 2017, 04:56:18 pm
Agelbert NOTE: The mens rea purpose of fossil fuel Industry mendacious propaganda is to produce DOUBT about the danger their polluting product represents to the biosphere (see below).


Exxon did know about climate change since the 70s — and it lied, knowingly  (  (



The world’s largest company knew what was going on for a long time.

It should surprise no one that ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company, does a lot of science. Many scientists will tell you that Exxon and other oil companies do some of the best geology studies out there — and that makes a lot of sense. With billions in profit every year and a direct interest in understanding both local and planetary processes, Exxon’s research and development is booming.

So one can only wonder then, why hasn’t Exxon addressed climate change earlier? It’s virtually impossible to study earth science and fossil fuels for so long and not come across anything, yet Exxon has refuted climate change for many years, saying that it’s not happening and investing millions and millions into denying it.


Well, more and more evidence is lining up that Exxon did know about climate change, they just lied.

A mountain of damaged oil drums near an Exxon refinery. Image credits: EPA.

On the question of whether ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences about climate science, our analysis supports the conclusion that it did,” a team from Harvard University writes in the study.

“ExxonMobil contributed quietly to the science and loudly to raising doubts about it.”

A conflict of interests(

Several pieces of evidence have emerged, all indicating that Exxon purposefully kept climate change science under the lid. It all peaked in 2015 when an email from inside the company revealed that Exxon had data pertaining to climate change as early as 1981 – seven years before it became a public issue.

Full eye opening article:

The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!    (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on August 28, 2017, 07:56:47 pm

DENIER ROUNDUP August 28, 2017


50 Ways to Censor Science

There are a lot of ways that former presidents have allegedly censored science or the public in the past. Usually, though, they spread it out a little so as not to be obvious. Not Trump. You can explore the different shades of censorship during his eight-month tenure using just examples from last week.

Last Sunday, we learned that Trump disbanded an advisory group charged with helping policymakers and the private sector incorporate the findings of the National Climate Assessment. The group pledged to keep meeting without official White House blessing, giving us hope that the public won’t be cut off from vital climate info. This is the third scientific advisory board to be disbanded by the Trump administration.

The next day, it was reported that Trump halted funding for a study on the health impacts of mountaintop removal mining, killing an attempt to understand the threats facing those coal miners he loves so much.

On Wednesday, the Bay Journal announced that it was losing its EPA funding, putting the future of the 27 year old Chesapeake Bay-focused paper in jeopardy. Pruitt has made assurances that the EPA still cares about cleaning up the Bay, but apparently it doesn’t care about keeping the public informed. Also on Wednesday, it was reported that the National Institute of Health scrubbed the term “climate change” from its site.

Then on Thursday came a triple-whammy. As explained by Vox, Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s grid study showed how political editing can censor out inconvenient facts, and how politicians can ignore the findings and say whatever they want about the study.

Meanwhile, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s “sham review” of national monuments showed how easy this administration finds censoring the public. There were literally millions of comments that were opposed to the administration’s plan of shrinking or eliminating monuments, but Zinke wrote them off as part of a “well-organized national campaign.”  (
Instead of listening to the public, Zinke chose to do what he wanted in the first place, and used a handful of pro-industry comments as justification for shrinking protected lands. (

Thursday’s third example came in a simple tweet: “This is what censorship looks like”. It looks like that in order to meet the president’s budget language restrictions, some scientists are being asked to remove the words “climate change” from the abstracts of grant proposals.

Then Friday, in addition to Vice publishing the FOIA’d details about the climate scientists who weren’t allowed to meet with Mark Zuckerberg, a small blurb in Politico’s Morning Energy reported that EPA leadership has decided employees can’t use social media except for a specific business purpose.

We’d put an ask out on Facebook and Twitter about how staff members feel about this, but apparently only Trump is allowed to use social media while at work.

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on September 02, 2017, 02:51:22 pm

Democracy Now!

Greenpeace and Indigenous Water Protectors Respond to Lawsuit ( Accusing DAPL Activists of Eco-Terrorism
Friday, September 01, 2017

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on September 13, 2017, 06:37:49 pm

I Was an Exxon-Funded Climate Scientist (   (

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

By Katharine Hayhoe, The Conversation | Op-Ed

Katharine Hayhoe  ( is director of the Climate Science Center and a professor at Texas Tech University.


Fresh out of Canada, I was unaware that there were people who didn't accept climate science -- so unaware, in fact, that it was nearly half a year before I realized I'd married one -- let alone that Exxon was funding a disinformation campaign at the very same time it was supporting my research on the most expedient ways to reduce the impact of humans on climate.  (

Yet Exxon's choices have contributed directly to the situation we are in today, a situation that in many ways seems unreal: one where many elected representatives oppose climate action, while China leads the U.S. in wind energy, solar power, economic investment in clean energy and even the existence of a national cap and trade policy similar to the ill-fated Waxman-Markey bill of 2009.

Personal Decisions

This latest study underscores why many are calling on Exxon( to be held responsible for knowingly misleading the public on such a critical issue. For scientists and academics, though, it may fuel another, different, yet similarly moral debate.

Full article:

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on September 13, 2017, 06:45:13 pm
Agelbert NOTE: The mens rea purpose of fossil fuel Industry mendacious propaganda is to produce DOUBT about the danger their polluting product represents to the biosphere (see below).


Exxon did know about climate change since the 70s — and it lied, knowingly  (  (



The world’s largest company knew what was going on for a long time.

It should surprise no one that ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company, does a lot of science. Many scientists will tell you that Exxon and other oil companies do some of the best geology studies out there — and that makes a lot of sense. With billions in profit every year and a direct interest in understanding both local and planetary processes, Exxon’s research and development is booming.

So one can only wonder then, why hasn’t Exxon addressed climate change earlier? It’s virtually impossible to study earth science and fossil fuels for so long and not come across anything, yet Exxon has refuted climate change for many years, saying that it’s not happening and investing millions and millions into denying it.


Well, more and more evidence is lining up that Exxon did know about climate change, they just lied.

A mountain of damaged oil drums near an Exxon refinery. Image credits: EPA.

On the question of whether ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences about climate science, our analysis supports the conclusion that it did,” a team from Harvard University writes in the study.

“ExxonMobil contributed quietly to the science and loudly to raising doubts about it.”

A conflict of interests(

Several pieces of evidence have emerged, all indicating that Exxon purposefully kept climate change science under the lid. It all peaked in 2015 when an email from inside the company revealed that Exxon had data pertaining to climate change as early as 1981 – seven years before it became a public issue.

Full eye opening article:

The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!    (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on September 13, 2017, 06:56:51 pm

September 13, 2017


Five German companies ( among most active lobbying against climate policy

Five major companies from Germany are among the world’s 35 most active anti-climate policy lobbying enterprises, British think tank InfluenceMap says. In a study that examines the companies most influential in shaping climate and energy policy around the world, Germany’s BASF, Bayer, Heidelberg Cement, Daimler and BMW figure among those who “delay or dilute efficiency and CO2 emissions standards and procedures both in Europe and North America” the think tank argues.

Estimating a company’s impact on climate change solely by gauging their greenhouse gas emission “may be incomplete”, InfluenceMap says in a study, arguing that their influence on climate-related public discourse and policy from governments merits similar attention.

On the other hand, InfluenceMap says Germany’s EnBW and Deutsche Telekom are among the companies most active in using their influence to further energy transition and emissions reduction goals.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on September 13, 2017, 07:13:37 pm
Corporate Carbon Policy Footprint - the 50 Most Influential

An InfluenceMap Report

September 2017


"The data shows the climate policy agenda, in terms of corporate influencing, is being driven by a small number of massive global corporations. It also shows a group of powerful of companies in the tech, consumer goods and utilities sectors increasingly pushing for policy to implement the Paris Agreement." - Dylan Tanner, Executive Diretor, InfluenceMap

“Lobbying should come under the same scrutiny as any other business activity. If companies are making a concerted effort to undermine climate policy, they may well be driving a systemic risk that will impact portfolios.” - Alice Garton, Corporate lawyer, ClientEarth

"Corporations can greatly influence what policies are adopted to address climate change. Thus it is important to extend the analysis of corporate behavior beyond its physical emissions. This accounting system clearly shows which corporations are assisting in a transition to a low carbon future, and those that are hindering this effort. Investors concerned about climate change need to take corporate policy actions into account in their investment decisions." - Robert J. Brulle, Professor of Sociology and Environmental Science, Drexel University

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on September 30, 2017, 07:31:42 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Houston got promised 15 billion or so. Puerto Rico, much worse hit, got promised one Billion or so.(  But you Texans that don't work for the polluters had better not count on gettin' a fair amount of that 15 billion. ( (


September 30, 2017

Will Harvey Disaster Relief Go to Climate Polluters?

Many are concerned that most of the aid will go toward Texas businesses--including the fossil fuel industry, which contributed to the climate-change related catastrophe in the first place. TRNN speaks with Reggie James, director of the Sierra Club's Lone Star Chapter
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 03, 2017, 07:03:49 pm

Corruption, Corruption, Corruption

Sep. 29, 2017 3:30 pm

While the CDC budget is being slashed, Thom discovers that the rich are flying around the world using our military planes?



Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 04, 2017, 03:03:48 pm
Resilience is Illegal in Florida  >:(

By Tom Lewis | September 19, 2017 | Energy

Let’s say you live in Florida. Yes, I know, that requires us to assume you are pretty oblivious to the rising seas and corrosive stupidity assailing the state from every direction, but let’s just say you live in Florida. No offense.

You’re smart enough to know that life in Hurricane Alley could get difficult, and you live after all in the Sunshine State, so you installed solar panels on your roof, enough to run your house, just in case. Now, we just assumed you ( were dense enough to choose to live in Florida , so let’s assume, on the other side of the ledger, that you are smart enough ( to have avoided some of the major pitfalls of the rooftop solar business.   

Number one, you avoided the trap of the new solar panels with the built-in inverters. Designed for and marketed to the accountants among us, who see solar panels primarily as a way to reduce power bills, these new-age solar panels save you the trouble of buying and installing a separate inverter to bump the output from 12 volts — what the panels produce — to 120 volts — what most things in your house require.

You didn’t do that because it gradually dawned on you — they never tell you this up front that the panels require power from the grid to run the inverters. Know what that means? In a power outage, your new solar panels are useless.* When the grid is down, your panels will churn out tons of 12 volt current that you can’t use because you can’t plug your panels into the grid. Now, because you’re smart about these things, you didn’t buy the new solar panels. To you, saving a few bucks by selling your excess solar-panel output to the power company is not as important as saving your butt in an emergency.

Okay, so far so good. But this is where you run into Florida Power and Light(FPL), the state’s monopolistic and avaricious electric utility company. Snag #1: If you install more than 10 kilowatts worth of solar panels, you must pay FPL up to $1,000 for the privilege. Not for the panels, not for anything but the privilege. Why? Because they can.

Snag #2:  You are not going to be allowed to go off the grid. Even if you have installed enough solar power to run your house  and you want to do it, you are required by law to connect your system to the grid. And you have to pay a monthly fee for that privilege, too.

If you are getting the impression that FPL regulates Florida state government, and not the other way around, you’re getting the right picture. FPL made more than a billion dollars in profits last year, and that’s after spending millions to induce lawmakers to hobble solar panel owners. 

(That’s not all the lobbyists do, of course. After Hurricane Wilma killed the power to 75 per cent of FPL’s customers, the state government girded it legislative loins and insisted that the utility do better next time. The lobbyists put out all the fires with assurances that FPL had “hardened” the grid against hurricane damage and would do much better next time. Next time was Wilma. This time, 90 per cent of FPL’s customers lost power. )

So let’s say you’re one of them, but this time it’s different for you. You’ve spent over $30,000 on a solar system, and your roof is generating all the power you need. You have a switch that disconnects your system from the grid and allows you to use the power you are making while the grid is down.

Snag #3, aka The Big One: You are prohibited by law from throwing that switch.  That’s right. The law, written by FPL, requires you to install the switch and forbids you to use it. The rationale is that you might accidentally back-feed the grid and shock a lineman. You live in Florida, after all, and might not be able to distinguish between the label that says “ON” and the one that says “OFF.”

This is the state that will not permit anyone in government to use the words “climate change,” and that ignores the rising seas that are intruding at high tide into the streets of Miami Beach, Coral Gables, and countless coastal developments.

And you live in this state?

* Agelbert NOTE: There is an OFF GRID work around for the solar panel with micro-inverters that require grid power.  ;D Tom Lewis correctly takes Floridians to task for their stupid fascist laws and the stupidity of a government not allowed to talk about the in-your-face climate change destroying their state, but he forgot to mention that solar panels with individual micro-inverters are far more efficient than a system with a single large inverter because large inverters reduce the output from the ENTIRE system of panels when a SINGLE panel is in partial or complete shade. Micro-inverters reduce power only from the shaded panel while the others are getting the maximum into your battery and/or appliances.

Finally, there is no way in God's good Earth that the Republican Fossil fuel and Nuclear power defending government of Florida is going to be able to enforce the "law" requiring that you not throw that switch.  ;D

VERY SOON, ANOTHER hurricane (see NHC web site) is headed to Florida, this time near the Capital of Tallahassee (God must have heard Tom Lewis.    ( ) . Let's see how many people avoid "throwing that switch" when they ain't got no juice from the grid. They HAVE to throw the switch to isolate house power from the grid or some workman on a pole restoring power after the storm will be fried to death. ( Therefore, the Florida polluter welfare queen defending "law" is unenforceable in a court of law. (

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 05, 2017, 06:43:47 pm

Breaking Down Trump’s Anti-Science Agenda By The Numbers

31, 27, 10, 1, 0 & 0; 78; 20,000,000,000; 0.0007%. While they might not look like much at first, these numbers represent so much that’s wrong with the Trump administration.

First: 31, 27, 10, 1, 0 & 0. Delaware Senator Tom Carper listed these as the reasons he opposes Trump’s nomination of former Bush-era EPA employee William Wehrum for assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Air and Regulation. NRDC’s John Walke tweeted an explanation of Carper’s reasoning in an impressive Twitter thread on the hearing: 31 is the number of times in the last decade that Wehrum has sued the EPA. 27 is the number of times that the EPA clean air office, under Wehrum, lost lawsuits over weakened protections. 10 is the number of years children were needlessly exposed to toxic pollution, courtesy of Wehrum’s illegal delays on regulations. 1 is the number of times Wehrum appears to have lifted language verbatim from his former law firm straight into EPA rulemaking. 0 is the number of times Wehrum fought for stronger public health protections in court after leaving the EPA. 0 is also the number of times Wehrum promised to protect public health in a private meeting with Senator Carper. Though it’s quite a bit, it’s still a pretty succinct summary of the talent ( Trump ( is tapping to drain  ( the swamp.


Next up, 78. That’s the number of ways the Trump administration has sold out public health and lands to private interests, as compiled by the Center for American Progress. ( They’ll keep updating the page, so this number can only keep going up.

As will 20,000,000,000, the dollar figure for US subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, according to a new report from Oil Change International.  ( also point out two additional figures: the $350 million the industry has given to Congress, and its impressive 8,200% return on investment.



Finally, the smallest figure: 0.0007%. That’s percent of grid down time in the last five years that can be attributed to fuel supply problems, according to Rhodium Group research. With that miniscule percentage, it’s even more clear that Rick Perry’s use of fuel supply as justification to lavish money on coal and nuclear plants is just an excuse. To arrive at that figure, Rhodium went through the records of customer-hours of major electricity disruptions between 2012 and 2016, and separated the hours out by what caused the outage. The overwhelming majority of outages were due to extreme weather, mainly knocking down power lines. Of the 3.4 billion customer-hours of lost power, only 2,815 hours were due to supply problems--just 0.0007%. Of that pittance, 2,333 hours were caused by a single event in Minnesota in 2014, which involved a coal plant.

But if you think these numbers will add up to any change among the divided morons in the Trump administration, well... we wouldn’t count on it.  (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 21, 2017, 08:10:55 pm

October 19, 2017

Secretive Billionaire Wants to Expand Fossil Fuel Empire in the US

James Ratcliffe ( , the billionaire owner of the chemical giant Ineos Corporation, is pushing for a dangerous pipeline through Pennsylvania, while the company quietly works to start fracking operations in Scotland and the UK, says Food & Water Watch's Patrick Woodall
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 21, 2017, 08:41:51 pm
Agelbert NOTE: It is a pleasure to see the Polluter crooks and liars TAKE A HIT TO THEIR profit over planet WALLETS for their Mens Rea Orwellian methods.    (


October 18, 2017

California Judge Delivers 'Knockout Punch' to RICO Case Against Greens (

A California judge dismissed the charges from logging giant Resolute and awarded Greenpeace and other defendants their attorneys' fees. 'It could not have gone any better,' says Todd Paglia, executive director of and a defendant in the case
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on October 22, 2017, 06:23:50 pm


By Rebecca Bowe | Wednesday, October 11, 2017

The way of life of the Gwich’in people, who have depended on the caribou of the Arctic Refuge for millennia, is threatened by plans for oil drilling. PHOTO COURTESY OF U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

UPDATE, October 11, 2017: The House has approved a budget resolution that paves the way for drilling in the Arctic Refuge, and soon the Senate is expected to vote. This represents one of the greatest legislative threats facing the Arctic Refuge in years. Please take a moment to TAKE ACTION by contacting your Congressional representatives and urging them to protect the Arctic Refuge.

September 25, 2017: Summer in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge doesn’t last for long, but in that brief burst, millions of migratory birds flock to this vast wilderness expanse from every direction. Taking wing from Asia, South America, Africa, Antarctica and all 50 U.S. states, they congregate to nest in the refuge, a national treasure that’s one of the last wild, intact landscapes on the planet. Caribou, polar bears, Arctic foxes and wolverines roam the vast expanse, which spans 19.6 million acres in Northeast Alaska.

The 1.5-million acre coastal plain within the refuge is a biologically rich swath that borders the Beaufort Sea. It’s considered sacred by the indigenous Gwich’in people, whose way of life has for millennia depended on the caribou that calve there each summer.

An Alaskan tundra wolf leaps through the blowing snow in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. TROUTNUT/GETTY IMAGES

For years, Earthjustice has partnered with a diverse coalition of groups to protect the refuge from oil and gas ( development. PHOTO COURTESY OF U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

These baby tree sparrows are some of the millions of birds that call the Arctic Refuge home. PHOTO COURTESY OF U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Legal policy has prohibited new oil exploration for the last 35 years in this pristine wilderness area. PHOTO COURTESY OF U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Herds of caribou roam the vast expanse of the Arctic Refuge, which spans 19.6 million acres in northeast Alaska. PHOTO COURTESY OF U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

For decades, the Arctic Refuge and its coastal plain have been at the center of a political tug-of-war over fossil fuel extraction. Earthjustice has long partnered with a diverse coalition of groups on the side of protecting the refuge from oil and gas development. That battle reignited last week with news that the Trump administration is planning an attack on laws protecting the refuge, in order to accelerate oil drilling on the plain.

As the Washington Post revealed, the acting director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service instructed the agency’s Alaska regional director in an August memo to change a rule on “exploratory activity.” This precursor to oil drilling includes ear-piercing seismic blasting and underground shock waves to identify where oil deposits may lie.

The regional director was told to erase the part of the rule spelling out that these harmful exploratory tests were only allowed from Oct. 1, 1984 until May 31, 1986. This one shady little edit flies in the face of 35 years of established legal policy barring new oil exploration in the pristine wilderness area, throwing the biological heart of the refuge into immediate peril.

“We cannot and should not play politics with our national heritage, just to line the pockets of the oil and gas industry.”

Trump’s political appointees appear to be orchestrating this assault on the Arctic Refuge. Former commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources, Joe Balash (, who was nominated to a high-ranking Interior post, has submitted multiple proposals to conduct harmful seismic exploration on the Coastal Plain. And David Bernhardt, who Trump appointed to the second-highest position at Interior, represented the state of Alaska in a lawsuit in 2014 against the Interior Department to allow for seismic testing in the coastal plain, but lost. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency that is suddenly pressuring for this rule change, answers to Interior.

Under federal law, only Congress can allow drilling in the refuge, and a 1980 law protects the coastal plain from oil and gas leasing and development. Yet other efforts that could jeopardize the refuge are moving forward simultaneously in Congress.

The House budget resolution for FY 2018 includes provisions that will be used to advance drilling in the refuge, signaling an attempt by congressional allies of the oil industry to insert a highly controversial policy issue into must-pass budget legislation. Meanwhile, the refuge isn’t the only Arctic landscape in the oil and gas industry’s sights. Earthjustice is currently opposing Arctic drilling proposals on multiple fronts, including offshore territories and public lands in the western Arctic.

Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge threatens the habitats of a wide range of wildlife, including polar bears, Arctic foxes and wolverines. SARKOPHOTO/GETTY IMAGES

Secretary Zinke ( in David Bernhardt ( as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior. PHOTO COURTESY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Trump’s political appointees have submitted multiple proposals to conduct harmful seismic exploration on the Coastal Plain of the refuge.PHOTO COURTESY OF US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

This beautiful, expansive Arctic landscape is too precious not to protect from the oil industry’s destructive plans to drill. ERIC RORER/ISTOCK

Even as cries of “drill, baby, drill” seem to be echoing off the walls of smoky backrooms from Alaska to D.C.   ( (, one might be surprised to learn that there isn’t actually any shortage of oil. Supplies have reached historic highs, and gas prices have dipped – which means the industry has little to gain financially by opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“The Arctic Refuge is just too special to drill for oil and gas that we don’t need and should be kept in the ground,” says Earthjustice Associate Legislative Counsel Marissa Knodel. “For 30 years, Congress has respected the will of the vast majority of American people, who want to protect the Arctic Refuge. Drilling there should be excluded from any budget proposal. We cannot and should not play politics with our national heritage, just to line the pockets of the oil and gas industry.”

( Agelbert NOTE: For those who think drilling in the (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) ANWR is 'no big deal', please watch the video below to learn why you DO NOT want the ANWR trashed by the Fossil Fuelers (see: When they came for the polar bears, you did nothing...).


The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!    (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on November 07, 2017, 09:05:45 pm


New EPA advisor  (
believes air is “a little too clean for optimum health”




Unfortunately, it seems like this administration is hellbent on making the EPA an anti-scientific, destructive organization. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has replaced 22 members of the Science Advisory Board with industry reps and members of state regulatory agencies. Actually, to be fair, one of them is technically a scientist. The one academic member, Robert Phallen, is mostly known for his statement that “modern air is a little too clean for optimal health.”

Full article:
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on November 08, 2017, 02:03:37 pm

The US ( Just Withdrew from a Global Anti-Corruption Pact

By Joe McCarthy NOV. 3, 2017


The group was a watchdog for oil, gas, and mining industry corruption.

Full article:


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on November 11, 2017, 02:02:29 pm

 November 11, 2017

Empire Files: The Sacrifice Zones ( of Hurricane Harvey

In this second installment of special coverage Hurricane Harvey's aftermath, Abby Martin explores how the petrochemical industry dominates the city and why its low-income, Black and Latino areas are in the highest-risk areas for flooding and pollution, earning them the name "sacrifice zones." Watch more on teleSUR

Written Transcript at liink:
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on November 11, 2017, 03:01:53 pm

EPA Continues to Serve as Industry Doormat  >:(

Outside interests' brisk takeover of the EPA continued Thursday as the Senate confirmed a controversial lobbyists' nomination and Scott Pruitt  ( unveiled his latest gift to industry. William Wehrum (, whose past client list includes the American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, will lead the Office of Air and Radiation following a party-line vote in the Senate Thursday. (

The Bush White House withdrew Wehrum's nomination for the position in 2006, after it became clear the Senate would not confirm his nomination, and Wehrum went on to sue the EPA 31 times since 2008 to undermine the Clean Air Act.

Meanwhile, the EPA unveiled a proposal to rescind an Obama-era emissions rule on older trucks, which is backed by trucking groups and engine manufacturers. The rollback comes following a May meeting between Pruitt and a major manufacturer of truck equipment ( would be negatively impacted by the rule.

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on November 15, 2017, 05:41:13 pm

November 14, 2017

Congress and Oil Industry Collude to Charge Anti-Pipeline Activists With Terrorism

The American Petroleum Institute ( has crafted a letter, signed by 84 members of Congress, suggesting that anti-pipeline activists should be charged with domestic terrorism. DeSmog Blog's Steve Horn says it's just one of many instances of a government-industry alliance ( against green activists


It REALLY WAS a good ride, not for you and me, but for TPTB. So expect them to do WHATEVER to prolong their RIDE, against all scientific evidence that EXPLOITATION WITHOUT REFLECTION OF FELLOW EARTHLINGS OF ALL SPECIES (not just humans) AND THE BIOSPHERE FOR PROFIT OVER PLANET is deleterious (i.e. SUICIDAL/abysmally STUPID) to the Homo SAP species.


The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!    ( [/move
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on November 22, 2017, 07:19:27 pm
How Pipelines Put You In Danger For Profit! (w/Guest Greg Palast)

Greg Palast joins Thom to share his investigation into the alteration of pipeline safety equipment to avoid the cost of repairing old pipelines, the results are explosive.

Thom Hartmann Nov. 21, 2017 5:00 pm

Agelbert NOTE:
Fossil Fuel Indutry reaction to the above irrefutable evidence of Skullduggery:


Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 12, 2017, 07:57:42 pm


Zinke, Perry and Pruitt’s Pretend Populism Profits Polluters

We started the week with a look at Pruitt’s industry-friendly contradictions--but we hardly scratched the surface yesterday.
For example, the New York Times reported on Sunday how Pruitt’s EPA has taken a step back from actually enforcing air and water pollution laws. Despite Pruitt’s professed dedication to enforcing the laws, his EPA has started a third fewer cases than Obama’s EPA by nine months in, and only a quarter as many as George W. Bush’s EPA in the same timeframe. This math makes it clear that Pruitt is giving polluters a pass, despite his claim that he doesn’t “hang with polluters; I prosecute them.” Take even the most cursory look under his whole down-home country lawyer shtick, and his true colors are revealed.
But Pruitt is far from the only Trump advisor palling around with polluters instead of regulating them. Last week, In These Times ran photos of a meeting between Energy Secretary Rick Perry and coal man Bob Murray in advance of Perry’s coal-friendly FERC proposal, after Murray vehemently denied he had influence over the plan. The Washington Post’s Steve Mufson expands on this reporting with his own piece last Friday about the plan that comes “straight from coal country.” Nora Brownell, Former FERC committee member appointed by George W. Bush, tells the Post that the plan is “cash for cronies.”
And then there’s Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior. In an op-ed for CNN last week, Zinke wrote that the decision to dramatically shrink national monuments was a result of “prioritizing the voice of the people over that of the special interest groups.” Unfortunately for Zinke, the three million public comments filed--99% in support of the monuments and against shrinking them--undercut this claim. Who is in support of Zinke’s move to minimize? Well we can’t say for sure, but here’s a Washington Post headline with a clue: “Areas cut out of Utah monuments are rich in oil, coal, uranium.”
And hey, another clue in another Post headline: “Uranium firm urged Trump officials to shrink Bears Ears National Monument.” As Juliet Eilperin reported this weekend, a anium company lobbied and met with Zinke about the decision to downsize. Though Zinke told reporters there’s no mine within the monument, the new shrunk size of Bears Ears means significant uranium deposits are now no longer off-limits to industry.
Zinke hasn’t just been busy penning op-eds: he and the House Natural Resource Committee took some time to hit back at Patagonia’s criticism of the monument downsizing. But criticizing an American company for expressing its first amendment right to free speech is, in the words of former White House ethics officer Walter Shaub, “wildly inappropriate.”

Sure, this administration may be lawless and constantly capitulating to polluters and profiteers. But at least they’re down-home populists, in touch with nature and the common man, right? All of Zinke’s horseback-riding and cowboy-hat-wearing seems to suggest that he’s just a simple country boy.
That facade may be a little too thin for Zinke’s liking. In an interview with Outside Magazine published last week, Zinke presents himself as a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist and seasoned fisher, talking with reporter Elliot Woods while standing in a river, rod in hand. Unfortunately for Zinke, he’s no Teddy, and on top of that Woods seems to be a much better fisherman than the Secretary of the Interior, noting at the end of the piece that Zinke was having some trouble casting because he rigged his reel backwards.
And last May, when Zinke spent thousands in public money to helicopter out to a horse-riding session with Mike Pence, Zinke wore his cowboy hat backwards. This is apparently a frequent mistake: the Sierra Club pointed out that in the shot of Zinke exiting Air Force One for last week’s announcement, his hat was again on backwards.
Now we don’t expect Trump or his fan base to get all that upset about all these handouts to polluters at the public’s expense. But a faux-pas like this, with a man incapable of properly wearing his hat?
The red-MAGA-cap crowd’s anger is surely brimming over.    (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 12, 2017, 11:41:43 pm


In the Battle of Pruitt Vs Pruitt, Industry Wins Every Time

Scott Pruitt’s long-awaited first appearance before the House committee that oversees the EPA was, somehow, both incredibly boring and richly informative. While Pruitt delivered his well-honed lawyer act like the seasoned professional he is, dodging and pivoting like a champ, there were a few notable fumbles in his performance.

For example, when Florida Representative Kathy Castor questioned Pruitt about his refusal to recuse himself from decisions involving both his donors and his previous co-litigants, Pruitt refused to answer. He instead deferred to the EPA’s ethics office, who apparently allow him to work on suits he was part of before becoming administrator. Implied conflicts of interest, Pruitt seemed to infer, aren’t a valid reason for recusal if the EPA ethics office doesn’t mandate it.

However, when pressed about his reforms to the EPA science boards, Pruitt’s response was that the removal of EPA grant recipients was to prevent “a perception or appearance of a lack of independence.” Who was making those complaints? Why, the tobacco and fossil fuel industries of course! And whose favorite researchers have gotten added to the board? Those same industries, whose products are regulated by the EPA.

So Pruitt claims replacing independent advisors with industry-funded advisors is necessary to prevent the EPA from appearing biased. But when it comes to Pruitt and his appointees working on cases and decisions they were once involved in, apparently the appearance of a lack of independence doesn’t matter. Even ignoring the fact industry scientists are the opposite of independent, Pruitt’s own standard for avoiding the appearance of impropriety is conveniently inconsistent.

As E&E’s Scott Waldman described in his roundup of the hearing, Pruitt also contradicted the very arguments the people he’s brought onto those advisory boards make about the dangers of particulate matter. Responding to California Rep. Raul Ruiz, Pruitt acknowledged the health benefits to reducing particulate matter pollution. But the Clean Power Plan repeal’s economic justification hinges on zeroing out those benefits to skew the cost-benefit analysis.

Pruitt also said a little more about the Endangerment finding than he has before, making the lawyerly process argument that by referring to the IPCC reports, the EPA committed a “breach of process.” But as Chelsea Harvey at E&E reports, that exact argument was used in a 2012 case, Coalition for Responsible Regulation Inc. v. EPA.

It lost. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision ruled it “little more than a semantic trick,” saying the "EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."   

Although Pruitt claims a deference to the “rule of law,” (even running a group with that in its name before moving to the EPA) apparently the rule of law doesn’t count when industry lost.

Although Pruitt claims particulate matter pollution is a health threat, his own CPP repeal math doesn’t include it.

Although Pruitt claims the appearance of a conflict of interest warrants removing advisors to the EPA, that same concern doesn’t extend to his own conflicts, or of those he’s bringing into the EPA.

At this point, if Pruitt claimed he wasn’t a robot controlled by polluting industries, we’d want to check that secret superfluous $25,000 phone booth for charging cables and a remote control interface.(  ;D
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 19, 2017, 08:02:10 pm

Is The Trump Administration Attacking Climate Scientists? (w/Guest Michael Man)

Thom Hartmann Program

Published on Dec 19, 2017

The Trump administration is threatening and harassing Climate Scientists, but why? Thom talks to Dr. Michael Mann to get to the bottom of this!
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 20, 2017, 07:42:41 pm
‘The same tax bill that wrecked Obamacare and is taking a bite out of your paycheck has giveaways to Exxon—because Republicans care about Exxon, not you. Time to vote them out!’


What the GOP Tax Bill Means for Climate, Energy, and the Environment

Brian Kahn

December 19, 2017 2:47pm Filed to: DEATH AND TAXES


The tax bill is setup to kick people while they’re down (  ( While people who have lost everything (or close to it) from wildfires and hurricanes this year will be able to write off those losses on taxes, future disaster victims won’t be in the same boat.

The personal casualty loss deduction allows victims to write off losses that are greater than 10 percent of a person’s adjusted gross income. Taxpayers were able to deduct $1.6 billion in losses from natural disasters in 2015.

The House bill canned it entirely, but the Senate bill kept the deduction in place if a federal disaster is declared, which is how the final bill reads. For people who suffer from tornadoes, hurricanes or large fires, that’s (relatively) good news. But smaller fires or weather disasters may slip through the cracks.

Full article:
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 30, 2017, 12:56:53 pm

Juliana( v US( For Children of All Ages — Part Two

December 28, 2017

By Joel B. Stronberg


In part one of this article (, I took a closer look at the oral arguments in the latest episode of Juliana v. United States, and identified two questions that were raised during the orals that bear further consideration:

The first was: who would prevail in the event of a conflict between the findings of the District Court and the Trump administration?

More specifically:

What if: The District Court finds climate change harmful to the health of the plaintiffs and a violation of their constitutional rights. BUT, the Administration  ( climate change a hoax or of a much-diminished magnitude than currently thought after its current reconsideration of the Clean Power Plan (CPP)?

It is at least an even bet Administrator Pruitt ( will prevail upon Trump ( to approve rescission or a substantial watering of the endangerment finding as well.


Time and Nature wait for no one. Failing to contain global warming threatens the health and well-being of current generations. Most importantly, it steals the opportunities of future generations to live long and prosper. These are the Juliana’s plaintiffs.

The raw hostility to climate science and the depth of enmity exhibited by Trump and company is not to be seen merely in their efforts to unwind the environmental legacies of Nixon, Carter, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama. It is found in their purging them from consciousness—to deny their reason for being and very existence.  (

The darkest irony of all is the one time the Administration seems content to agree that climate change is bad for America and is the product of harmful human emissions is the time when their outright dismissal of scientific fact might defeat an open and consequential debate. A meaningful proceeding in the only remaining forum able to prompt constructive action.

Judge Coffin is right: the judicial forum is particularly well-suited for the resolution of factual and expert scientific disputes, providing an opportunity for all parties to present evidence, under oath and subject to cross-examination in a process that is public, open, and on the record.

Denial not debate is the watchword of this President and his agents ( To date, the legal victories of climate defenders have been mostly the consequence of an administration indifferent to the established rule of law.

What distinguishes Juliana v. U.S. from all the cases that have gone before is the opportunity it offers to elevate environmental protection to a Constitutional right—equal to the right to vote or to love and to marry whomever one chooses. The inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness and opportunities to thrive and to prosper. A right not easily abridged or made a victim of political whims. (

Full article: (

Agelbert NOTE: The mens rea modus operandi of Trump and his other Fossil Fuel bought and paid for Toadies behind the effort to purge environmental legacies from consciousness to the point of denying their reason for being and very existence is TEXTBOOK 1984 (the book written by Orwell about a cruel mind twisting dictatorship that forced people to deny reality - the origin of the term "Orwellian") strategy (See: EngSoc language purging). I do not think they will be successful, simply because Catastrophic Climate Change will continue to be too much in our faces to pretend it is not there.


But, I do think the Trumpers will delay and hamper meaningful action to mitigate Catastrophic Climate Change as long as they are in power. If you love your children and want a future for them where they inherit a viable biosphere, please do your part to get those children/biosphere murderers out of government as soon as possible. Please pass this on. We may be out of time already but we have to keep doing what is right, come hell or high water.  (

Trump and his wrecking crew want YOU TO IGNORE all of the following IRREFUTABLE empirical evidence that our environment is WORSENING BECAUSE OF CONTNUALLY INCREASING POLLUTION FROM THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY and other polluters. ALL the following GOVERNMENT data will soon be erased by Trump and his wrecking crew in Orwellian mindfork fashion to convince you that these THREATS to your health are "not real" and Renewable Energy is "no big deal". DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS ATROCITY! Save this and pass it on.
( (



Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 30, 2017, 01:54:35 pm
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on December 30, 2017, 02:53:50 pm
The Deepwater Enterprise conducts operations to mitigate the effects of the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill, May 23, 2010. U.S. Coast Guard Photo

Trump Administration ( Rolls Back Offshore Safety Rules Put In Place After Deepwater Horizon

December 29, 2017 by Bloomberg


President Obama put the safety rules in place late last year, after six years of analysis following the 2010 BP Plc oil spill, in which a well blew out in the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed changes include revisions to safety system design requirements and equipment failure reporting requirements.

Environmentalists blasted the move, saying it put oceans and wildlife at risk.

“By tossing aside the lessons from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Trump is putting our coasts and wildlife at risk of more deadly oil spills,” Miyoko Sakashita, director of the oceans program at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “Reversing offshore safety rules isn’t just deregulation, it’s willful ignorance.”

Full article:
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 05, 2018, 02:23:00 pm

January 5, 2018


Pulling Back The Curtain On the Red Team, CPP and Pruitt’s Agenda for the EPA

As Rebecca Leber of Mother Jones pointed out this summer, Scott Pruitt and his closest cohorts at EPA are uniquely reluctant to engage with journalists outside the conservative echo chamber. The agency’s new approach to press has also been revealed to be rather stormy: see the press office’s bizarre interchanges with New York Times reporter Erik Lipton and attacks on the AP’s Michael Biesecker this fall.

Because getting past the wall of Heartland-and-Koch-ghostwritten talking points( during an interview with an EPA official can be a bear, we like to highlight when a reporter’s pushed through. This month’s hat tip goes to Robin Bravender at E&E. (

In December, Bravender wrote on a meeting between EPA air chief Bill Wehrum and the White House, in which she reported that the White House put the Red Team attack “on hold.” Then yesterday, E&E published an interview between Bravender and Wehrum that offers up some intel into the EPA’s otherwise opaque thinking on the Clean Power Plan repeal process, the Red Team, and Pruitt’s priorities for 2018.

As Wehrum told Bravender, the Red Team project is still in the “talking and thinking about it” stage. While Wehrum indicated the agency has no “current plans” for a Red Team, Pruitt “would very much like to initiate a process to at least solicit additional input on the scientific basis for the endangerment finding.”

While we’ve assumed the end goal of the Red Team is overturning the endangerment finding, Wehrum’s statements confirm that this supposedly good faith examination of the science has a very specific policy goal ( The endangerment finding is the White Whale for deniers. Whether Pruitt is just placating these tireless Ahabs with this seemingly unending “talking and thinking about it” stage or whether he really charts a course to somehow sail around the mountain of scientific evidence underpinning the finding is yet to be seen. 

What we do know is that either way, he’ll be doing what he can to roll back climate protections. On the Clean Power Plan, Wehrum told Bravender that the EPA is “setting out a range of possible outcomes” for repealing and replacing. But when asked specifically about the inside-the-fence approach that we’ve discussed before, Wehrum indicated “that's pretty much what [the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is] all about.”

Beyond that, Wehrum tips the EPA’s hand on another new regulation agency leadership is targeting, saying a priority for 2018 is to “take a hard look at” the rule requiring oil and gas drilling companies to limit methane and ozone-causing emissions.

Going beyond merely tweaking the rule to make it more palatable for the fossil fuel industry ( , Wehrum ( thinks they will “take a hard look at whether it really is appropriate to regulate methane under that rule.” (Quick catch up: an August ‘17 ruling of the D.C. Circuit court put the rule in effect (, at least until Pruitt successfully finalizes a replacement.)

A well-deserved kudos to Bravender ( for managing to get the EPA to tip its hand, even just so slightly, and letting us know what our public servants ( are planning to do in the coming year. Keep up the good work, along with all the other great reporters out there. When it comes to Pruitt’s wall of secrecy at the EPA, we trust the press to eventually Wehrum down.   (

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 06, 2018, 02:45:04 pm
EPA chief Pruitt  ( is said to be eyeing attorney general job

Now why doesn't that surprise me?  ;)

Where else would a world class crook want to go to make sure nobody nabs him for his crimes against the environment in general and humanity in particular?

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 24, 2018, 06:30:21 pm

The Kids the World Forgot

Wednesday, 24 January 2018 07:28



Street kids in Kabul. (Photo: Ken Hannaford-Ricardi)( at article link)

I spent much of yesterday with some kids the world forgot. Young, remarkably sturdy and resilient, they can often be naïve and almost willfully gullible. They inhabit a world 🦖 that delights in tripping them up and watching them fall. They are Kabul’s Street Kids. 🌺 🌻 🌼 🌷

Every Friday morning, roughly 100 of these forgotten children sit in noisy – sometimes raucous - groups of seven to ten in a large, unheated classroom, discussing and brainstorming human rights - rights few in the international community seem to acknowledge they enjoy. On this thirty degree Kabul morning, some are in shirtsleeves; few have coats adequate for the weather. They are dirty. They are underfed. They are loved.

These kids are the smallest microcosm of Kabul's estimated 50,000 "street kids", boys and girls who dot the city’s already clogged roads selling balloons, "blessing" cars with incense, or lugging scales on which passers-by are invited to weigh themselves. They perform these demeaning tasks for a meager “fee” which helps their mothers buy food for their families.

full article:

agelbert • 11 minutes ago
What Fossil Fuel Industry/Wall Street motivated war and mayhem has done to Afghanistan is as heartbreaking as it is criminal.

"Capitalist ideology claims that the world is perfectly ordered and everybody is in their place (i.e. everybody gets what they deserve). This self legitmating aspect of Capitalism 🦖  is Socially Catastrophic. This is the Victorian view of the world." Rob Urie - Author " Zen Economics"
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 31, 2018, 09:16:24 pm


EPA ends important Clean Air policy, fulfilling request of fossil fuel lobby (


Strike another win for the fossil companies and another loss for the people. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the withdrawal of a key provision of the Clean Air Act. Following this move, hundreds of U.S. industrial facilities will be allowed to dramatically increase their emissions of the most toxic air pollutants.

Image credits: Petter Rudwall.
The EPA has removed the “once-in always-in” policy under the Clean Air Act, which oversaw the regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions for large-scale polluters. Under the new interpretation, major sources such as coal power plants can be reclassified, allowing them to follow different standards and emit much more than they were allowed to do before now.

This move is only the latest in a worrying series of environmental rollbacks issued by the Trump Administration. John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says this decision is among the most dangerous yet.

“This is among the most dangerous actions that the Trump EPA has taken yet against public health. Rolling back longstanding protections to allow the greatest increase in hazardous air pollutants in our nation’s history is unconscionable.”

“This move drastically weakens protective limits on air pollutants like arsenic, lead, mercury and other toxins that cause cancer, brain damage, infertility, developmental problems and even death. And those harmed most would be nearby communities already suffering a legacy of pollution. NRDC will fight this terrible decision to unleash toxic pollutants with every available tool.”

The move highlights President Donald Trump’s relentless efforts to roll back federal environmental regulations. The withdrawal of this particular policy was sought by utilities, the petroleum industry, and other large-polluters. But in their zeal to roll back such regulations, they seem to have forgotten the best interests of citizens and focus overwhelmingly on corporate industrial interests. There is good reason to believe that while this will ease the regulatory burden on corporations, it will have massive consequences on the health of US citizens.

“The possibility seems very likely that some [downgraded] sources could actually increase their emissions as long as they don’t hit the cap,” said Janice Nolen, assistant vice president for national policy at the American Lung Association, who added that changing these rules would remove an important tool for the public to enforce air quality laws.

In recent times, the EPA seems to have become the antithesis of what it stands for. Instead of ensuring environmental and health protection, under Scott Pruitt, the agency has become a fiefdom where industry lobbying — especially coming from coal and oil — can get pretty much everything it asks for. Scientists have been swiftly removed by industry reps, and just recently, an EPA representative ( said that the air is “a bit too clean for human health” — well, the recent rollback should certainly help with that. ( (

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on January 31, 2018, 09:29:23 pm
Scott Pruitt 🦀 needs to answer for what he's done to the EPA



The list of double talk terms goes on and on. Who knew that “regulatory certainty” would be preached by an EPA administrator who throws out regulations already on the books?

Who knew that a man who says “process matters” over and over again would be sued so many times for trying to delay and obstruct life-saving safeguards?

The overriding assumption is that words don’t mean much to Pruitt, and he is inevitably going to do whatever polluting industries ask for and then make up some platitude to justify it.

Full article:
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 01, 2018, 01:44:55 pm
Scott Pruitt 🦀 needs to answer for what he's done to the EPA



The list of double talk terms goes on and on. Who knew that “regulatory certainty” would be preached by an EPA administrator who throws out regulations already on the books?

Who knew that a man who says “process matters” over and over again would be sued so many times for trying to delay and obstruct life-saving safeguards?

The overriding assumption is that words don’t mean much to Pruitt, and he is inevitably going to do whatever polluting industries ask for and then make up some platitude to justify it.

Full article:

If there ever was a political class that deserved the guillotine, it's these clowns we have now.

That is not a subversive statement, just a casual observation.

If I said  "Off with their heads!" that might be subversive, so I won't say that. These are dangerous times to speak out about anything.

Yep. I understand perfectly and agree. Our country is besieged by entrenched fascism.  :(

How a 19th-Century Whaleship Can Save the 'White Working Class'

By Paul Street —  The story of the Essex—rooted in racialized ignorance and fear—offers a valuable lesson in survival for contemporary America.


The third missing part of the (National Geographic) story has to do with North American black-white relations. Seven of the Essex’s sailors were black. None of these crew members were among the eight survivors. Five of the first six Essex crew members to die were black. The first four sailors to be devoured by their shipmates were black.

Philbrick ties this racially disparate outcome to the inferior diets of the black crew members—a reflection of racial discrimination in the United States.


Just three years before Melville published “Moby-Dick,” a 30-year-old communist philosopher named Karl Marx noted how the bourgeois system had “left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment.’ ” He famously observed: “It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.”


People think unrestrained greed, institutional racism disguised as "exceptionalism" and Fossil Fuel Industry Fascist Corruption/Skullduggery (buy em' or bop em') of government for the nefarious PRIVATE oligarchic purpose of coopting US Foreign AND Domestic policies for profit over people and planet (i.e. murder and mayhem for empire) are not inextricably linked.

They are. There is a cause and effect chain that is as long term destructive as it is short term profitable. If we shut down ALL the Fossil Fuel Corporations in the USA and imprisoned the polluters everywhere, every single one of the social cancers I mentioned above would not disappear, but they would be severely hampered by lack of funding. Immorality isn't going away any time soon. BUT, profitable immorality would vanish.

The WORLD needs the same Independence that the USA needs.

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 01, 2018, 02:52:51 pm

Report: White House ( Wants to Cut Renewable Energy Programs by 72% (

February 1, 2018

By Lorraine Chow

President Donald Trump—who remarked Tuesday that his administration ended the nonexistent "war on beautiful clean coal"—really wants to make fossil fuels 🦖 great again.   (

The White House plans to ask Congress to cut the Department of Energy's renewable energy and energy efficiency programs by a massive 72 percent in fiscal 2019, according to draft budget documents obtained by the Washington Post.

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EERE) current spending level is set at $2.04 billion for the current fiscal year ending on Oct. 1. But the Trump administration will significantly lower that amount to $575.5 million for 2019, the Post reported.

The EERE supports the development of sustainable transportation, renewable power, and energy-efficient homes, buildings and manufacturing. Its SunShot Program has significantly reduced the total costs of solar energy.

The draft budget document calls for a number of cuts, including:

֍ A staff cut of 680 in the enacted 2017 budget to 450 in 2019.

֍ Reducing research in fuel efficient vehicles by 82 percent.

֍ Cutting research into bioenergy technologies by 82 percent.

֍ Shrinking research into solar energy technology by 78 percent.

This is the second year Trump has targeted clean energy spending. Last year, he proposed cutting the office's budget by two-thirds to $636.1 million, which Congress later rejected.

"It shows that we've made no inroads in terms of convincing the administration of our value, and if anything, our value based on these numbers has dropped," one EERE employee told the Post.

The reported spending cut comes not long after Trump's decision to impose steep tariffs on imported solar panels and related equipment—a move that experts say will stifle the current solar boom, harm the fastest-growing job sector in the U.S., and drag down clean energy innovation.

The draft document could change before the federal budget is due later this month, but as the Post pointed out, the budget "will mark a starting point for negotiations and offer a statement of intent and policy priorities."

In response, the White House🦀 ( told the newspaper: "We don't comment on any leaked or pre-decisional documents prior to the release of the official budget."  (  ( (

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 01, 2018, 06:36:27 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Please observe in that innocent sounding title below that NO Energy CEO from Solar, or wind or geothermal, etc. is actually included in the term, "U.S. Energy CEOs" (as in, "our loyal energy servants" ( ).

Ain't that just amazing how these  exclusively FOSSIL FUEL related Corporate CEOs can be made to look like they cover the whole energy enchillada in the USA. When ya look at at that way, their "request" does not look like what it is (i.e. a GOVERNMENT HAND OUT funded by we-the people  (

These fine fellows ( love to talk about private enterprise and hard work and all that. The truth is that they are now, and they always have been, Welfare Queen polluting crooks and liars.

Of course their tool Trump will scramble to do their bidding by calling it a "jobs program" or the other standardised bit of bullshit (i.e. "it's for national security") the fossil fuelers love to trot out.

When Hurricane Harvey hit that area, I told you the Houston channel dredging costs would be massive and the Fossil Fuel Fascists would try to pass the buck for the fix to  we-the-people. Now it is happening. (

Tell me again about how "profitable" these fossil fuel corporations are so I can laugh in your embarrassingly ignorant face! THEY bring about the environmental hit on the channel through their polluting crap and then THEY don't have the money to fix what THEY mostly caused. And you call THAT a "profitable" business? ( What a nation of total suckers we are to keep allowing these welfare queen crooks to socialize the costs and privatize the profits. (

U.S. Energy CEOs 🦖( Trump  ( 🦖 to Fund Port of Corpus Christi Dredging

January 31, 2018 by Mike Schuler

The Theo T 🦕 departs the port of Corpus Christi with the first export cargo of US crude oil since the United States government repealed a 40 year ban on the export of crude oil in December 2015. Picture taken December 31, 2015. Photo credit: Port of Corpus Christi

CEOs of six well-known American energy companies signed a letter addressed to President Donald Trump on Wednesday in support of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel Improvement Project (CIP).

The CC Ship Channel Improvement Project will widen the Corpus Christi Ship Channel to 530 feet, plus add additional barge shelves, to allow for two way vessel and barge traffic. It will also deepen the channel to 54 feet, which will allow for the safe and efficient passage of deep draft vessels, including Very Large Crude Carriers.

The Port of Corpus Christi and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers signed a Project Partnership Agreement for the project last October, but as of now the project still lacks the required funding needed to get off the ground.

The letter requests funding for the United States Army Corps of Engineers to deepen and widen the Corpus Christi Ship Channel in an effort to meet surging global demand for U.S. produced oil and natural gas.

Since the U.S. lifted the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports in late 2015, the Port of Corpus Christi has emerged as the largest export port of U.S. produced crude oil, and it is a major export hub for U.S. energy products. According to Energy Analysts International, the Port of Corpus Christi exported more than $6 billion of crude oil to U.S. trading partners in 2017, contributing to offset the United States trade deficit.

CEOs from Occidental Petroleum 🦖 Corporation, NuStar 🦖 Energy L.P., Buckeye 🦖 Partners, L.P., Howard 🦖 Energy Partners, Plains All American 🦖 Pipeline, and Cheniere 🦖 Energy, Inc. specifically asked that the President include $60 million for this project ( in his Fiscal Year 2019 Presidential Budget to begin Federal participation in its construction.

”Funding the CIP is an opportunity to invest in a national transportation asset that would allow our U.S. companies and the port to significantly increase our export capacity and help solidify the U.S. as a world energy leader,” the CEOs stated in their letter to President Trump.

“With widespread bipartisan support, we are confident you will find this project the most worthy of funding of all U.S. coastal navigation construction projects in the Nation,” said Sean Strawbridge, Port Corpus Christi CEO in an attached letter to President Trump. “In support of this project are U.S. energy companies who themselves are investing billions in infrastructure from the rich producing energy fields of West Texas to Corpus Christi. As the gateway to the global markets, Port Corpus Christi must ensure the infrastructure it oversees, namely the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, is capable of transporting safely and competitively the anticipated increased export volumes of crude oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products. At the center of the emergence of the United States as a dominant player in the global energy market is the Corpus Christi Ship Channel Improvement Project.”
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 12, 2018, 11:59:28 pm
Tomgram: Michael Klare, Militarizing 🦀 America’s Energy 🦖  Policy

February 12, 2018

This article originally appeared at


Think of President Trump 🦀 and his administration ( as a den of thieves. There is, of course, the obvious thievery: what they will in the end, as with the recently passed tax “reform” bill, steal from ordinary citizens and offer as never-ending presents to the already staggeringly wealthy, among them the president himself (possible savings up to $15 million annually) and son-in-law Jared Kushner (possible savings: up to $12 million annually). According to the Congressional Budget Office, government cash reserves are already starting to fall faster than expected as a result of lost revenue from that bill. And the modest gains offered to ordinary taxpayers to give cover to a vast increase in the wealth of the top 1% will all sunset in the 2020s, while that bill’s corporate tax cuts are meant for eternity.

Think of such moves not as acts of petty theft, but as robbery of the most basic sort, since they involve stealing from the future to fund an increasingly plutocratic present. The Donald, in other words, isn’t just stealing from us but from our children and grandchildren. And if that’s true of his tax bill, it’s so much truer of his energy policies, as TomDispatch regular Michael Klare makes clear in a newsworthy manner today. That the president’s addiction to fossil fuels, his belief that freeing Big Energy from every form of restriction and regulation, is crucial to future American global domination has, Klare informs us, been embedded in the administration’s recently released National Security Strategy.  In other words, the exploitation of fossil fuels in North America is now officially the heart and soul of the global policy-making of President Trump and his generals.

This isn’t just a matter of stealing future money from our children and grandchildren, or even of polluting the American environment in which they’ll grow up in a fashion familiar to anyone — like Donald Trump (or me) — who was raised in the 1950s.  It’s a matter of stealing everything from them, including potentially the very environment that’s nurtured generation after generation of children on this planet for all the thousands of years of human history.  If the president and his crew of climate deniers have their way and a fossil-fuelized version of energy “dominance” comes to rule our American world, while the path to alternative energy growth is crippled, then they will have stolen from the future in the most basic way imaginable for the comfort of just a few human beings now.  As part of what can only be thought of as a semi-conscious plan to further warm the planet, President Trump’s energy policy will, without any doubt, represent not just thievery, not just the crime of this century, but terracide, the destruction of the planet itself, which will be the crime of any century. Keep that in mind as you read Klare’s piece today. Tom

Full article:
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 14, 2018, 10:24:13 pm

February 14, 2018

West Virginia Woman 🕊 Removed From Legislature After Exposing Fossil Fuel 🦖 Contributions to Lawmakers 🦍

A woman drove 100 miles to West Virginia's state capitol to testify against invasive drilling legislation, but was pulled off the House floor for highlighting how fossil fuel money corrupts politics, Ben Norton reports.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 15, 2018, 01:03:24 pm
California, allies ready for emission-law war ( with Trump🦀 EPA 🦖 , CARB head says

John Voelcker Feb 15, 2018


With the release of proposed new and lower fuel-economy rules expected from the NHTSA by March 30, many eyes have turned to the powerful California Air Resources Board.

The state's pioneering role in reducing emissions and cutting air pollution predates even the existence of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

That agency, now run by Scott Pruitt—an unabashed proponent of burning fossil fuels and a climate-science denier—will shortly issue its own related proposal for boosting the carbon-dioxide emissions allowed from road vehicles.

California, however, is not likely to accede to any radical increase in national emission standards.   (

Instead, it has a long-established legal right to establish its own, tougher emission rules, recognizing its pioneering role and the specially dire air-pollution conditions in the Los Angeles Basin.

Unless, that is, Pruitt ( reverses himself and decides to attack that right by rescinding the "waiver" to the national rules that permits that, one of a long series stretching back 30 years.

If Pruitt does that, however, CARB is ready to go to war.

Full article:
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 22, 2018, 01:20:26 pm

Karl Rove strategy #3: Accuse your opponent of your own weakness

Quite often a mitigation skeptic will present an "argument" that would make sense if the science side would make it, but makes no sense from their side. Classics would be dead African babies or being in it for the money.

A more person example would be Anthony Watts, the host of mitigation skeptical blog WUWT, claiming that I have a WUWT fixation. Fixation champion Anthony Watts who incites hatred of Michael E. Mann on a weekly if not daily basis. That I write about his cesspit occasionally makes sense given that Watts claims to doubt the temperature trend from station measurements; that is my topic. WUWT is also hard to avoid given that PR professional Watts calls his blog "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate changes" to improve its standing with journalists and his blog is at least a larger one thus the immoral behavior of WUWT represents the mainstream of the political movement against mitigation.

You can naturally see this behavior as the psychological problem called "projection":
Psychological projection is the act or technique of defending oneself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in oneself, while attributing them to others.

Exxon 🦖 Sues Collection Of Figures 🕊🍀🌻 🌼 🌷🌱 Associated With Climate Change Lawsuits, Alleging Conspiracy (

February 22nd, 2018 by James Ayre 


As you may recall, companies are now considered to have the same rights as humans from a legal standpoint in the US.

So, what can be made of the new lawsuits from Exxon? Just another spectacle for the public? Another way for the various “sports teams” that comprise most of what passes for politics these days to hoot and holler at each other? Another spectacle at the coliseum? Another way to curtail actual change and keep “business and usual” churning? Or is there more to it than that?

Full article:

Agelbert NOTE: In other news that I am certain and I am sure could certainly not have anything to do with a CONSPIRACY of the Fossil Fuel Fascists working with our bought and paid for government to hide the truth about FRACKING POLLUTION, you may be intersted in reading this:

Emissions From Fracking 5 Times Higher Than Reported

February 22nd, 2018 by Steve Hanley


Natural gas is not a “bridge fuel to the future.” It is a death sentence for humanity. Think that is too strong? Think again. A new study by the Environmental Defense Fund finds that methane escaping from fracking operations in Pennsylvania “causes the same near term climate pollution as 11 coal fired power plants” and is “five times higher than what oil and gas companies report” to the state. A previous assessment by EDF last November found methane emissions escaping from oil and gas wells in New Mexico are “equivalent to the climate impact of approximately 12 coal fired power plants.”

Full article:


The Fossil Fuelers 🦖  DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!    (
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on February 26, 2018, 06:18:35 pm
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here ( to subscribe.


Courts Questioning Trump’s 🦀 Pipeline Policies as Protesters 🕊 Face Fossil Fueled 🦖 Front Groups

As we hold on for dear life at the start of the second year of the Trump administration, the crazy wave of national news that breaks each week can feel overwhelming. But a few key pieces of pipeline news from last week are worth a revisit.

On Wednesday the 21st, a US District Court Judge ruled that the Trump administration needed to turn over documents explaining its decision to reverse course and approve the Keystone XL pipeline, or explain why that reasoning should be kept secret. The Obama administration spent years studying the pipeline’s impacts, and ultimately that body of evidence justified blocking the pipeline. But upon assuming office, President Trump almost immediately decided the opposite. Given that such decisions are required to be based on facts, what new evidence did the government suddenly find to change its mind so quickly?

As we’ve said before, according to the Administrative Procedures Act, federal decisions need to be based on science and facts. If not, they can be struck down in court for being “arbitrary and capricious,” a fancy way of saying something is done for political reasons that aren’t supported by the evidence.

For example, on Thursday, Judge William Orrick of the U.S. District Court for Northern California ruled that the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had to start enforcing a rule to limit methane waste from oil and gas operations on federal land. Judge Orrick allowed the lawsuit defending the waste prevention rule to proceed because BLM “relied on opinions untethered to evidence,” didn’t show their work to justify the decision, “and it is therefore arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of the APA.”

Though Trump is in the process of deciding what to do about the rule, the judge’s order means the administration can’t keep procrastinating and must enforce the rule while they figure out what’s next. (In case you’re wondering what methane emissions might look like, the emissions from various facilities have been captured by Earthworks on infrared camera.

These are encouraging decisions, particularly in light of the fact that pipeline fights are still raging across the country with significant battles being played out locally. News broke last week per HuffPo’s Itai Vardi that a front group for natural gas and gas-heavy utility companies is masquerading as a “sustainable energy” organization. In a letter to Massachusetts Governor Baker, the Mass Coalition for Sustainable Energy argues for more natural gas pipelines as part of a climate solutions. It’s signed by the presidents of various mundane sounding business groups, like Boston and Springfield Chambers of Commerce. Not signing on, however, are some of the groups other funders, like Canadian pipeline company Enbridge, or the utilities Eversource and National Grid.

These companies are actively seeking new pipelines through Massachusetts. They’re funding the PR effort to get more pipelines. Why oh why wouldn’t they want their name on the coalition’s website, and on the letter to the governor? Surely a great mystery, that. (  (

Another totally unsolvable mystery? Why ALEC and pro-pipeline politicians are trying to get the Department of Justice to prosecute pipeline protesters as terrorists. Alex Kaufman at HuffPo explored last week how the “valve turners” who shut down a pipeline as an act of protest against climate change are being equated by the lawyers prosecuting them to the 9/11 hijackers and the Unabomber.

Who are these apparently terrifying terrorists the pipeline profiteers so gravely fear? Well, there’s Chief Avrol Looking Horse, who penned an op-ed last week ( about how the Standing Rock pipeline protests have gone global. He’s a Native American chief whose peaceful religious ceremonies are apparently a 9/11-scale threat.

Then there’s Danielle Pierre, a 16 year old whose op-ed last week on New Jersey’s pipeline fights ( is hardly the Unabomber’s manifesto.

But as we’re seeing with the #NeverAgain movement for gun control, maybe the oil and gas industry’s terror at the thought of a high school protester isn’t so arbitrary or capricious.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 07, 2018, 09:42:37 pm
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here ( to subscribe.


Trump Admin 😈 Intent on Picking 💵 Losers Like Coal💣   and Nuclear☢️

Clean coal and nuclear power--according to some, they’re the baseload power that environmentalists should support. Unfortunately, as we learned last week, the Kemper clean coal plant was an abject failure, and and Georgia regulators are still struggling to drag the massively over budget Vogtle nuclear plant over the finish line.

But failure’s never been a deterrent for the Trump administration. The Houston Chronicle’s James Osborne’s latest piece looks at the Trump administration’s proposed budget and Rick Perry’s plans for new coal plants. In light of what Joe Aldina, director of coal analytics at S&P Global Platts, tells Osborne is a “general skepticism” about carbon capture, Trump and Perry are trying to shovel taxpayer money into “High Efficiency Low Emissions” coal plants, the newest generation of coal plants that try and get more energy out of every lump of coal. The 2019 White House budget cuts funding for the Department of Energy’s carbon capture programs by 80%, to offset an increase in funding for these new coal plants.

But as Osborne notes, these plants provide “nowhere near the gains scientists say are necessary to slow climate change and meet targets under international accords.” On top of that, Woods Mackenzie analyst Matt Preston told Osborne that  “even with significant government involvement,” building these plants is “still no less expensive than building wind or solar or gas.”

So just as pricey, with no climate benefits. Most politicians seek out win-wins, but apparently Trump 🦀 and Perry 🦕 are going for a lose-lose.

Speaking of losers, some say nuclear power provides an opportunity for producing carbon-free electricity, and the Trump administration sure seems eager to throw money at the industry. And although some supposedly intelligent people (falsely) allege green groups are what’s standing in the way of a nuclear-powered future, the reality is that it’s economics that’s killing nuclear.

The latest on that front comes from the South Carolina Post and Courier, where Andrew Brown reported on Monday that the ill-fated V.C. Summer Nuclear Station is already off track just six months into construction. But like the Kemper clean coal plant, instead of disclosing the problems, the owners of V.C. Summer, Westinghouse Electric Corp., decided to hide them. according to an email by Westinghouse CEO Danny Roderick, the company was concerned was that letting the public know about the extent of the delays and depth of the cost overruns would have a “decidedly negative effect on everyone involved in the project.”.

His concerns are legitimate. The public would probably be furious to find out that they spent over $2 billion on reactors that were never completed.

$2 billion spent, for zero watts of electricity produced. 🤬

Doesn’t take a degree from Trump University to see how bad a deal that is.
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 11, 2018, 08:43:25 pm

March 10, 2018
Save the Birds, Kill the Planet ( Interior 🦀 Attacks Wind Turbines in Push for Fossil Fuels 🦖

While pledging the administration's dedication to the fossil fuel industry  ( 🦖 , Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke 😈 made the inaccurate but oft-cited claim that turbines kill 750,000 birds a year. Scott Edwards of Food & Water Watch discusses the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure and states' efforts to pass climate regulations in the absence of federal laws

Agelbert NOTE: Zinke is a fossil fuel funded LIAR! Bird deaths from Fossil fuel Power Plant Stack Pollution and glass on multistory buildings DWARF the relatively tiny number of deaths from wind turbines! Zinke is trying to kill the planet's biosphere 🌎💣, INCLUDING the birds 🕊🔫 too! (

Zinke 😈 is the ENEMY of Renewable Energy BECAUSE he has arbitrarily picked, something he😈 and Perry😈 and Pruitt 😈 mendaciously claimed they didn't want to do, fossil fuels as GOVERNMENT FAVORED WINNERS!.

Zinke's LIES about Renewable Energy "caused bird deaths" are proof!

New International Version (NIV)

Proverbs 26:

12 Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them.

24 Enemies disguise themselves with their lips, but in their hearts they harbor deceit.

25 Though their speech is charming, do not believe them, for seven abominations fill their hearts.

26 Their malice may be concealed by deception, but their wickedness will be exposed in the assembly.

28 A lying tongue hates those it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin.

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 13, 2018, 02:01:35 pm
Trump Fires Secretary of state

He didn't kiss enough ass.

Now the question is, who is the next sucker to take the job?  ???    (


Given to Pompeo ( already


"Kissing ass" had nothing to do with Tillerson and his second in command being "fired".

This is really not that hard to figure out. 🕵️

The Kochroaches are winning the fossil fuel war against the Exxon Big Oil Crooks.


These corporate fossil fuel bastards, now that they have Trump there to do everything possible to BABY them with welfare queen handouts while he does everything to DESTROY the progress in Renewable Energy, are fighting amongst themselves to be the top "apex polluting predator" in the Fascist Trump MAGA Swamp.

You helped get the Libertarian (FASCIST) Kochroaches to OWN the US Government, GO. I hope you are satisfied. (


Tardigrade - extremophiles inherit the earth

Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 13, 2018, 09:14:59 pm

March 13, 2018

Newly Tapped Sec of State Mike Pompeo 🦕 Comes with Deep Ties to the Koch Brothers (

"If I were on the confirmation committee, I would be asking Mike Pompeo exactly how much money the Koch network has invested in him that has not been publicly disclosed," says Lisa Graves of Documented
Title: Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on March 13, 2018, 09:23:22 pm
The Kochroaches are winning. Not sure if that's by default. From the beginning there were more of them than just about anybody else. The Koch's bought Trump off immediately after the election.

Tillerson is too middle-of-the road, and has been trying to run the State Dept. according to the rules, instead of being Trump's ****. Tillerson might be from Big Oil, but he's also an Eagle Scout who sees his responsibility as being to the country, not Trump.

Donald Trump is a graduate of West Point and a true patriot.

The voters chose wisely.

Bullshit. (

Excuse me. Trump did NOT attend West Point. As in the United States Military Academy at West Point. You are mistaken about that.

He DID attend a private military high school, New York Military Academy. Nice uniforms though.

He attended college at Fordham and Wharton (U. of Pennsylvania) an UNDERGRAD (He did NOT obtain an MBA from the Wharton School of Business, as he leads people to believe.). He garnered no honors that were ever recorded.

He did dodge the draft while you were probably walking around in rice paddies. He received five deferments in all.

All this stuff is public record. (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on July 03, 2018, 01:39:01 pm
The Age of STUPID ( (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on September 01, 2018, 11:06:39 am
THERE you are again. ;D You pop in and you pop out. You are fun to watch. ;D However, I cannot ever compete with God, who has you on his S H I T list now. Here's that message you are mocking again so you can pass it on to your fellow HYDROCARBON HELLSPAWN. ;D



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

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

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


Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on September 21, 2019, 05:06:17 pm
Documentary “Blowout” Follows Climate ☠️ Cost of 🦖 Oil Boom from 🦕 Fracking to Exports

September 20, 2019

The new film follows the U.S. oil supply chain, covering health, climate and environmental justice impacts. And it points to the president who was central ( 🦖( creating the current reality: 😈 Barack Obama.

Story Transcript

DIMITRI LASCARIS: The United States fracking boom has entered a new phase as massive amounts of oil are now being exported to the global market. This is Dimitri Lascaris reporting on this subject for The Real News from Montreal, Canada.

Dozens of coal-fired power plants too have been converted into natural gas power plants and about 200 more are now under proposal across the country, according to a recent story by USA Today. A decade ago, a new technique called fracking inspired films such as Gasland and Promised Land due to the impacts it was having on rural community water resources in the United States, but today the horizontal drilling process has unleashed impacts which are truly global in nature. For most Americans, those impacts remain out of sight, rarely looked at from either a macro or micro point of view. A new movie aims to change that, however. That film, Blowout: Inside America’s Energy (, is a cross-newsroom collaboration between the outlets, The Associated Press, Newsy, Center For Public Integrity and The Texas Tribune. Here’s part of the trailer for that film.

BLOWOUT FILM TRAILER: Right now we’ve got energy policies that are really being dictated by a handful of fossil fuel producers. Energy companies are looking to develop kind of this blank canvas, if you will. We started seeing the pads pop up. I started having vomiting episodes. Those impurities are going into my air. We are the sacrifice. No drills, not in our neighborhoods. It will never be safe. We’re sacrificing people’s health so that the oil and gas industry can ship overseas and make a profit.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: An ongoing seven-part print companion series is now also up online. The film is now streaming on platforms such as Amazon Prime, Fire TV, Roku, VIZIO, and Apple TV. Joining us here to talk about the film is Zach Toombs, the film’s director. He is also the Executive Producer of Newsy Documentaries. And thank you for coming onto The Real News, Zach.

ZACH TOOMBS: Thanks for having me.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: So Zach, let’s start out with this simple question. How did you come up with the idea behind Blowout, and why did your team choose a supply-chain based approach to tell the story?

ZACH TOOMBS: Right, so the Center For Public Integrity were really the driving force behind the core story idea, putting together this cross-newsroom partnership, and doing some really great journalism around the global exports boom that has come from this production boom in the US. And so the Center For Public Integrity, The Associated Press and The Texas Tribune all looked at different aspects of this global oil and gas trade fueled by the US. From Newsy’s perspective, we knew that we have this story that spanned the globe and a feature-length documentary seemed like a great way to tell that story because we could basically follow the physical path from drilling in West Texas and Colorado to shipping through the Panama Canal, to where the oil and gas is being bought in India, where it’s being burned off, and what the global climate impact looks like.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: Now, for the film, you managed to examine how many people live within 2,000 feet of a drilling pad in the United States. That number is remarkable. You’ve concluded that, as I understand it, 1.2 million Americans live within that health-risk zone based on US Census data.


DIMITRI LASCARIS: And as I understand, nearly half a million of them live in that zone in Texas. What are the health risks for those living in that zone?

ZACH TOOMBS: Yeah. It’s 1.4 million people across the US who live within 500 feet of active oil and gas production in the US. And the impact within that zone is well documented by scientists, by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, by researchers at the University of Colorado. And those health impacts can look like anything from nosebleeds and respiratory issues to an increased risk of cancer. The risk of cancer is actually eight times higher within 500 feet of active oil and gas production than the EPA’s accepted threshold for cancer risk. And so that’s about eight in 10,000. It seems like a small number, but given the scale of US oil and gas production right now, that puts a lot of people in a dangerous position.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: In 2015, in the midst of a presidential election season, the world changed when President Barack Obama signed legislation reversing the crude oil export ban, which had been in place since the 1970s, and here’s a clip from the film dealing with that issue.

BLOWOUT FILM CLIP: And for decades, it kind of went and challenged until around 2008 when fracking really took off. And that’s the only time when you start to hear the oil and gas groups, like the American Petroleum Institute, start to suggest that this old ban that was put in place back in the 1970s, “maybe you should throw it out.” And around 2013, you see maybe under a dozen companies lobbying on the crude oil export ban. And then a year to two years later, that number grows to 300 lobbyists on this, converging on Capitol Hill.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: For Blowout, Zach, you took trips to the port of Corpus Christi and the Panama Canal to explore exports. Talk about what you learned in these places and how it relates back to the 2015 legislation.

ZACH TOOMBS: Well, one major thing that we took away from the whole process of filming this story across the world are the global impacts that decisions made in Washington can have, and the global impacts of an increase in drilling that has had a positive economic impact on some pockets of the US, but has severe public health and climate impacts across the world. And so, for example, in Corpus Christi—I mean, take the Gulf coast, for example. The port of Corpus Christi has seen tremendous growth, hundreds of new jobs, a lot of opportunity economically. But if you go further north up the Gulf coast, you get into places like Port Arthur, Texas, which is this town surrounded by refineries, which has essentially been dealing with poisonous air for the better part of the last few decades.

And now, the activity at these refineries that surround this town and a lot of refinery towns along the Gulf Coast, is only ramping up as us oil and gas production ramps up. At the Panama Canal, they’ve actually installed whole new sets of infrastructure within the canal to handle the increase in US traffic headed to Asia. So, that’s just one of the examples that we saw of a global impact that the US oil and gas boom is having right now.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And you just mentioned Asia, you did not confine yourself in the making of this film to the Western hemisphere. You also went across the Pacific to South Asia, reporting in both India and Bangladesh. How is the US oil boom and exports impacting those regions?

ZACH TOOMBS: [inaudible] where they have this ambitious renewable energy plan based on solar energy, and then there’s the natural gas option, which is provided by the US— cheap, abundant fuel, and fuel that is certainly cleaner than coal. But the question is, the bridge that natural gas forms, and that’s what it’s often talked about as is, “Okay, natural gas will be this bridge between really dirty fossil fuels like coal, and renewable energy.” The question right now is how long will that bridge be for countries like India, countries that are pretty significant when you’re looking at a global scale, just because of their population. If they invest in infrastructure for natural gas, terminals to handle imports, pipelines, those are investments meant to last 30, 40, 50 years into the future. So, the countries that are now becoming customers for the US, buyers of the US natural gas, how long will natural gas delay a transition to renewable energy?

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And lastly, Zach, climate change. When you were out in the field in West Texas, you could see methane, as I understand it, a very potent greenhouse gas, methane plumes emitted into the sky via an infrared camera. What exactly is the current state of play for ethane/methane emissions and climate impacts for oil drilling in the United States?

ZACH TOOMBS: I mean, a lot of the legislative action and the executive action from the White House lately has been around methane. It’s something that is not talked about as much as it should be. When we talk about climate impact, we’re always talking about carbon emissions. Everybody knows about CO2, but what’s less discussed, but also very important, are methane emissions. Natural gas puts out less CO2, but it puts out a lot more in methane. And so, that’s something to consider when you’re thinking about greenhouse gases overall because methane has incredible potency in warming the Earth’s atmosphere. That’s something that Gabrielle Patron and researchers at NOAA break down for us in the film. And so, as natural gas is being sold as this relatively clean energy source, we have to look at the methane. The Obama administration, when they rolled back this export ban, they also tried to counter that because they knew more drilling would come and more natural gas would be produced.

They tried to counter that with some new restrictions and limitations on methane, which there’s a serious problem in the industry right now with methane leaks. The Trump administration has basically said, “Go for it.” They’ve rolled back those restrictions that were put in place, or delayed some that were planned. They don’t seem to be terribly worried about it. They want to take what they see as the shackles off of the natural gas industry and drilling. But that’s going to have a major methane impact, which is a major greenhouse gas impact, which is a climate impact.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: Well, I’ve been speaking to Zach Toombs, Director of the new film about the global fracking industry in America’s fracking boom. It’s called Blowout: Inside America’s Energy ( Recommend you see it. And this is Dimitri Lascaris reporting for The Real News Network from Montreal. Zach, thank you for joining us today.

ZACH TOOMBS: Thank you.

DHARNA NOOR: Hey, y’all. My name is Dharna Noor, and I’m a climate crisis reporter here at The Real News Network. This is a crucial moment for humanity and for the planet. So, if you like what we do, please, please support us by subscribing at the link below. Thank you.

The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹 Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
Post by: AGelbert on September 22, 2019, 09:14:05 pm
Senate Democrats release list of climate studies buried by 🦀 Trump administration

By HELENA BOTTEMILLER EVICH 09/19/2019 01:48 PM EDT Updated 09/19/2019 02:57 PM EDT

Senate Democrats released on Thursday a report outlining dozens of times the Trump 🦕🦖 administration has censored or minimized climate science across the federal government at agencies including the EPA and the Department of Homeland Security.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, also publicly released a list of more than 1,400 climate studies that Department of Agriculture researchers have published during the current administration after POLITICO reported that USDA buried its own research and failed to release its plan to study the issue. The matter is increasingly urgent for farmers and ranchers dealing with erratic and extreme weather.

The trove of studies by USDA researchers carry warnings about climate change that the government is largely not communicating to farmers and ranchers or the public. The list published includes research showing that climate change is likely to drive down yields for some crops, harm milk production, and lead to a drop in nutrient density for key crops like rice and wheat. (

“These studies show how climate change is affecting crop production, disrupting how food is grown and increasing risk to communities,” Stabenow said during a press conference on Thursday. Stabenow also serves as chairwoman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, the research arm of Senate Democrats.

The Michigan Democrat called it “outrageous” that “critical information for communities, for farmers, for those of us who care deeply about what’s happening to agriculture, these are not being shared with the people who need to know but they are being paid for by them, as taxpayers.”

A spokesperson for the Agriculture Department said it's "false" to suggest that the department is suppressing science. (

“We have repeatedly provided the Senate Agriculture Committee with evidence to the contrary, and the department has been transparent and communicative to the committee in response to their questions on research," the spokesperson said, in an email. "The list of studies linked in the report were provided by the USDA to the committee and are all publicly available."

The move comes as climate change is becoming an increasingly prominent issue in the Democratic presidential primary. The report was released ahead of several planned climate protests Friday and the United National Climate Action Summit in New York this weekend.

In their report, Senate Democrats allege that the Trump ( administration has repeatedly gone out of its way to undermine climate science. (

The report pointed to President Donald Trump falsely claiming that Alabama had been under threat from Hurricane Dorian and his subsequent insistence on overruling the forecasting of NOAA scientists. It also noted the government released the Fourth National Climate Assessment — which warned of billions in damages and sweeping effects to public health and infrastructure — the day after Thanksgiving when most Americans are not paying attention to the news.

The roundup includes numerous instances where agencies, including FEMA, EPA, Department of Homeland Security and Interior Department, have dropped mention of climate change from key reports or websites.

“Frankly, this is just an overview because it’s being done every day,” Stabenow told reporters. (

Title: Denier Roundup
Post by: AGelbert on May 21, 2021, 12:27:40 pm
May 19, 2021

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


Disinfo Has Not Yet Had Its Day In Court, But Insurectionists' Defenses Might Make That Happen

The Supreme Court ruled on the Baltimore vs Big Oil case this week and while traditionally we’ve delved into these sorts of things, these days there’s plenty of excellent coverage out there- Inside Climate News, as always, is well worth reading to get all the nuance, while Emily Atkin brings up the point that a couple of the 🐍 Justices are potentially as corrupt as 🦖 big oil itself.   

As for the decision, while the oil industry is popping champagne and calling it a major win, the 7-1 decision was a very narrow, procedural ruling that has nothing to do with the case itself. Instead, the court said a lower court had to consider all of Big Oil’s excuses for why the case should be heard in federal court, and not just rule on the one and then move on. Basically this just mires the cases in even more procedural back-and-forth before finally getting to a venue where a court might actually rule on disinformation.

But we may well see some disinfo-related rulings well before that. Because while ExxonMobil and other polluters can hire lawyers by the building-full, the 400-some regular Joe’s arrested in connection to the January 6th invasion of Congress are stuck with slightly less slick legal teams, who are trying some relatively novel defenses. 

Matt Shurman at TalkingPointsMemo reported yesterday there is perhaps an unsurprising theme to many of the defenses being raised: It’s not my client’s fault they decided to travel to DC to subvert democracy, they were just following orders from Trump! ::)

Now, legally, this is essentially a nonstarter. A former U.S. attorney told Shurman that “the law doesn’t recognize it as an excuse. Whatever brought them there, whatever they were spurred on to do, social media postings or whatever, they’re equally guilty under the federal statutes.

But that’s not necessarily the point, according to Albert Watkins, the lawyer for the Insurrection Icon known as the Q Shaman and legally known as Jacob Chansley. Instead, it’s largely to try and influence judges and prosecutors into being more sympathetic to the defendants. But there were plenty of people who were subjected to the same propaganda but chose not to listen to the deranged ramblings of a Trump mind.

So far, judges aren’t buying it, and when Watkins used the argument that the Q-Shaman was just following Trump’s orders to plead with a judge not to keep Chansley detained until his trial, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth soundly dismissed it. Turns out that even if Chansley “truly believes that the only reason he participated in an assault on the U.S. Capitol was to comply with President Trump’s orders,” that would still be just as bad, Lamberth ruled, because it “shows defendant’s inability (or refusal) to exercise his independent judgment and conform his behavior to the law.”

Watkins is basically invoking the Nuremburg Defense and combining that with a claim that his client was merely duped by Trump into participating. He also says, without any apparent explanation as to how it's relevant, that his client has Asperger’s syndrome. 

And then he said a whole lot more we won’t repeat, the least offensive of which was that “a lot of these defendants” like his client “are people with brain damage.” Not exactly the sort of thing a lawyer typically says in defense of their client, because as Judge Judy might be heard to say, stupidity is not a defense

But after doubling down on the ableist slurs, Watkins, whose bio alone is a journey, struck a slightly more sympathetic tone, pointing out that “they’re our brothers, our sisters… they’re part of our country. These aren’t bad people, they don’t have prior criminal history. F u c k, they were subjected to four-plus years of goddamn propaganda the likes of which the world has not seen since f u c k i n g Hitler.” 

Another attorney, Joe Hurley, said his client Anthony Antonio was actually sick when he broke into the Capitol building, with “Foxitis.” Apparently in an attempt to distinguish his client from “that herd of thugs that belong behind bars,” (links ours) he’s trying to claim that because Antonio was stuck at home watching Fox News all day during the pandemic, he was exposed to “the slithery snake” (link ours) that apparently convinced him to violently halt (however briefly) the workings of a peaceful and democratic transfer of power and attempt to assassinate the presidential line of succession. 

And he makes a good point. No, not that it’s fun and cool to use schoolyard slurs, or to try and deflect blame for a client’s crimes. And no, not that these are all angels — at least nine insurectionists have a (documented) history of violence against women, another was just arrested for shooting a mountain lion despite the fact that he is legally prohibited from owning guns due to a 1996 robbery conviction. (And it’s not that he needed the gun, he allegedly also killed a bobcat last January by using a slingshot and siccing his dogs on it to kill the cat. Montgomery was arrested in April and has been indicted on 10 charges including assaulting a police officer.) Not exactly an innocent sucked into violence and corrupted by Trump... 

But while the individuals who attempted to take democracy hostage should certainly be held responsible for the choices they made, the fact is that — while not a legal defense — saying “🦀 Trump told us to” is basically true. If not for the sustained propaganda of 🦀 Trump, 🐘 Republicans and 😈 conservative media, these people wouldn’t have been in DC that day. 

There should be liability for those actions as well.
Title: 🦕 Keystone XL 📢 Goodbye and Good Riddance! 🤠
Post by: AGelbert on June 10, 2021, 12:46:13 pm
The $8 billion pipeline would have pumped 830,000 barrels of crude oil from Alberta, Canada’s tar sands to Nebraska, where it would connect with other pipelines that reach the Gulf Coast.

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

June 10, 2021

Goodbye 🦕( and Good Riddance  (

Canadian pipeline company TC Energy announced it was terminating the 🦕 Keystone XL pipeline on Wednesday, marking a major win for Indigenous and environmental groups ( ( who have been fighting the project for more than a decade. The long-embattled pipeline has largely been considered dead since President Biden revoked a key permit on his first day in office. Even before that, the project faced legal issues after a court ruled in 2018 that the Trump administration did not perform an adequate environmental review of the project when it issued a permit. The news was met with disappointment from the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and some Republicans in Congress. Climate activists, on the other hand, were pleased by the move and believe it will add momentum in the fight against other fossil fuel projects.

The decision comes just days after thousands gathered in Northern Minnesota to protest ( ( the Line 3 pipeline, another tar sands pipeline  that would bring 🦕 oil from Canada.

“The termination of this zombie pipeline sets precedent for President Biden and polluters to stop Line 3, Dakota Access, and all  ( 🦖 fossil fuel 😈 projects,” said Kendall Mackey 👍, a campaign manager with (Washington Post $, New York Times $, AP, CNN, Buzzfeed, BBC, Reuters, NPR, USA Today, Bloomberg, The Verge (, The Hill, Wall Street Journal $, Washington Examiner)