DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5155--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: May 25, 2016, 6:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move][font=courier]Headlines that Evidence the Fossil Fuel
Industry Consistent LACK of Ethics: [/font][/move]
[center]My father warned Exxon about climate change in the
1970s. They didn't listen (Guardian, Claudia Black-Kalinsky
op-ed)[/center]
HTML http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/25/exxon-climate-change-greenhouse-gasses?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco
[center]ExxonMobil tried to censor climate scientists to
Congress during Bush era[/center]
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/25/exxonmobil-climate-change-scientists-congress-george-w-bush
[center]Shell CEO warns renewables shift could spell end if too
swift
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/shame.gif[/center]
HTML http://uk.reuters.com/article/shell-agm-climatechange-idUKL5N18L36K
[center]Lawmakers
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>approve bill to cut NOAA, climate research [img
width=70]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif
(E&E News $)[/center]
HTML http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/25/stories/1060037824
[center][img
width=300]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210316151047.png[/img][/center]
[center]The "logic" of the fossil Fuel Industry and their bought
and paid for "Lawmakers"[/center]
#Post#: 5188--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: May 30, 2016, 6:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/1bakken.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Emails Confirm Hillary Clinton Used Her State Department
Role to Press Countries to Embrace Fracking [/center]
Posted on May 28, 2016
A campaign commercial that aired in upstate New York in April
touted Hillary Clinton’s work as secretary of state forcing
“some of the world’s worst polluters” to make “real change.”
Then she promised to “stand firm with New Yorkers opposing
fracking, giving communities the right to say ‘no.’ ” [img
width=80]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]
Lee Fang and Steve Horn reported at The Intercept on Monday:
The television spot, which was not announced and does not appear
on the official campaign YouTube page with most of Clinton’s
other ads, implied a history of opposition to fracking, here and
abroad. But emails obtained by The Intercept from the Department
of State reveal new details of behind-the-scenes efforts by
Clinton and her close aides to export American-style hydraulic
fracturing — the horizontal drilling technique best known as
fracking — to countries all over the world.
Far from challenging fossil fuel companies, the emails obtained
by The Intercept show that State Department officials worked
closely with private sector oil and gas companies
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif,
pressed
other agencies within the Obama administration to commit federal
government resources including technical assistance for locating
shale reserves, and distributed agreements with partner nations
pledging to help secure investments for new fracking projects.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
[move]Brought to you by the patriotic profit over planet efforts
of the fossil fuel government [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]<br
/>and their loyal servant, Hillary Clinton. [/move]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://img06.deviantart.net/bb6a/i/2011/120/f/6/corporate_pollution_by_jakejames-d3512u1.jpg[/img][/center]
The documents also reveal the department’s role in bringing
foreign dignitaries to a fracking site in Pennsylvania, and its
plans to make Poland a “laboratory for testing whether US
success in developing shale gas can be repeated in a different
country,” particularly in Europe, where local governments had
expressed opposition and in some cases even banned fracking.
The campaign included plans to spread the drilling technique to
China, South Africa, Romania, Morocco, Bulgaria, Chile, India,
Pakistan, Argentina, Indonesia, and Ukraine.
In 2014, Mother Jones reporter Mariah Blake used diplomatic
cables disclosed by WikiLeaks and other records to uncover how
Clinton “sold fracking to the world.” The emails obtained by The
Intercept through a separate Freedom of Information Act request
provide a new layer of detail.
Continue reading.
HTML https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hillary-clinton-fracking/
—Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.
#Post#: 5197--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: June 1, 2016, 1:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]It’s Time to Break Saudi’s Oil Monopoly and Embrace
Clean Transportation[/center]
Carl Pope | May 31, 2016 9:15 am
Oil touched $50 last week, close to double its slump price
earlier this year, before falling slightly below that benchmark.
Short-term impacts—the wildfire in Canada and outages in
Nigeria—helped reduce stocks and drive up the price; then Iraq
production increases stalled the rally. The market seemed to
have averted the risk of an extended period of $20-30 prices,
unsustainable for oil dependent nations, even the richest like
the Saudis, whose “pump and dump” strategy lies behind the
current low-price environment.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ev_oil_750.jpg[/img]
[/center]
[center]What is lacking, particularly in the U.S., is a robust
public conversation about breaking oil’s monopoly and replacing
it with cleaner transportation.[/center]
At $40-60/barrel, however, the Saudis can stay the course. They
can afford that price in terms of their budget deficit, if not
easily. Some U.S. shale plays come back into production, but the
capital heavy projects in the Arctic, ultra-deep ocean or
Canadian tar sands are still off the table as prudent
investments. Medium term, as non-OPEC [Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries], non-shale production falls, with
no new big ticket projects coming on-line to replace depleted
wells, reserves fall. Increasing demand will then require
increasing dependence on OPEC and soaring prices. Even if U.S.
shale roars back in response, it can’t make up for an investment
slump everywhere else. The Saudis can then set the price they
want.
Western governments know this. They treat the Kingdom with kid
gloves. In Kossovo, even while it was effectively an American
protectorate, the Saudis were allowed to implant jihadi mullahs
to create an ideological base for their Wahhabi Islam. In the
process they “transformed this once-tolerant Muslim society at
the hem of Europe into a font of Islamic extremists and a
pipeline for jihadists.” Kossovo now sends more recruits to ISIS
than any nation in Europe: 314 identified to date from a tiny
country.
Kossovo is not alone. Wiki-Leaks found that the Saudi consulate
in New Delhi had 140 imams on its payroll—and Indian Muslims
lament the erosion of the tolerant Islam that was indigenous to
their country.
In Washington, efforts to disclose the role of the Saudis in the
9-11 attacks, laid out in 28 still secret pages of the 9-11
Commission Report, are still stalled by counter-lobbying from
the Saudi Government—although some of its representatives have
previously asserted they have nothing to hide and would welcome
the release of the documents.
So cheaper oil, even oil below $50, has not freed the U.S. from
the security threats of oil’s monopoly over global
transportation, while it has threatened to continue (or even
exacerbate) the escalating disruption of global climate stemming
from continued reliance on oil and other fossil fuels.
The Saudi Strategy to extend oil’s hegemony seems to be
gathering steam.
But technology and politics are hinting there is a pathway to a
world Beyond Oil. Recent months have been full of breakthroughs
among advocates of clean transportation technologies like EV’s.
The biggest splash was Elon Musk’s staggering 400,000 early
orders for the launch of his Model 3. But significant new
opportunities for EV’s were also signaled by the declaration by
Indian Energy Minister Piyush Goyal that he wanted a national
goal of complete electrification of the Indian motor vehicle
fleet by 2030! The German government, its market lagging the
rest of Europe in EU sales, committed $1.4 billion to catch up.
The Austrian Ministry of Agriculture and Environment is working
on a plan that would ban the sale of new gas and diesel cars by
2020. Lawmakers in the lower house of the Dutch Parliament
approved a motion in March that would ban the sale of new gas
and diesel cars five years later.
[center][quote]These kinds of policy support for a more rapid
transition to cleaner, non-petroleum based transportation
choices matter—a lot. [/quote][/center]
Indeed, even if clean transportation vehicles have higher
sticker prices than diesel or gasoline engines, their positive
impact on future oil prices makes them a very good deal for oil
importers like the EU, the U.S., India and China. A recent study
by Cambridge Econometrics, Oil Market Futures, concluded that
investing in clean transportation could help head off the next
oil price spike. It also found that without such leadership, oil
prices could easily reach $130 by 2050, even though most of the
U.S. shale reserves would become profitable again once prices
reach $80. Importantly, it estimated public policies to
encourage reduced reliance on oil could save $33 trillion in
transportation spending over the decade from 2020-2030.
What is lacking, particularly in the U.S. [img
width=60]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img],<br
/> is a robust public conversation about breaking oil’s monopoly
and replacing it with cleaner transportation. While states on
the West Coast and in the Northeast push for lower oil
dependence and the Obama Administration works on fuel economy
standards, the oil and auto industries are gearing up a massive
political assault on these efforts. Oil companies are pouring
tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions into
California legislative efforts. The President has done little to
make the fight to get off oil a clear priority for his final
year in office. Donald Trump, of course, thinks the answer is
simply to drill even more wells, precisely the strategy that has
left us vulnerable to the Russians and Saudis today.
But one intriguing idea has been offered up—that the next
president should set up a National Commission to investigate the
manipulation of the global oil market by exporters like Saudi
Arabia, Russia and Iran. The idea was offered by Securing
America’s Future Energy (SAFE), a coalition of business and
national security leaders. SAFE’s goal is not so much to
discover new conspiracies—OPEC conducts its market manipulation
in the broad light of day and economists have agreed for decades
that in a competitive oil market, prices would be far lower.
But what has been lacking is a mechanism to focus public
attention on the problem and the solution—ensuring that
Americans have genuine transportation choices rather than being
forced to fuel up with gasoline, diesel or jet fuel all derived
from crude oil. SAFE’s proposed OPEC Commission could serve that
function, forcing Washington to address the problem. The first
Congressional support for the idea came from some interesting
sources: Arizona Republican Congressman Trent Franks, Minnesota
Democrat Colin Peterson and Donald Trump’s own energy advisor,
North Dakota Congressman Kevin Cramer. (Trump himself did not
embrace the idea, nor have either of the Democratic Presidential
candidates).
So right now the Saudi bet is paying off—now it’s up to oil
importing nations like the U.S. to decide if they want to be
whipsawed by $100 oil (or higher) yet one more time—or if they
will embrace clean transportation, save trillions, defang Russia
and the Wahhabis, with pollution free alternatives to oil.
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/31/saudi-oil-monopoly/
Agelbert COMMENT: Step one is to get rid of the "subsidies" for
any and all fossil fuel exploration, exploitation and products
from the well to the refinery to the gas station. There is
absolutely no reason why we should dig our own grave supporting
these polluting welfare queens.
Senator Sanders, now running for President, has repeatedly
submitted legislation to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies over
the last decade.
ALL the subsidy money hitherto earmarked for dirty energy MUST
be spent on Renewable energy Infrastructure.
#Post#: 5201--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: June 2, 2016, 8:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Sanders Touts Fracking Ban as Clinton Pushes Renewables
Plan Just Days Before California Primary[/center]
Lorraine Chow | June 2, 2016 1:25 pm
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are ramping up their green
bona fides before the Golden State’s crucial Democratic primary
Tuesday. The Democratic presidential candidates recently
elaborated their national energy plans, with Sanders calling for
a nationwide ban on fracking and Clinton pledging to use federal
lands to enable the nation’s transition to more renewable
energy.
[center][img
width=300]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/bernie_hillary_750.jpg[/img][/center]
Bernie Sanders
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
“If elected president, we will not need state-by-state,
county-by-county action, because we are going to ban fracking in
50 states in this country,” the Vermont Senator said at a press
conference in Spreckels, California. “I hope very much that
Monterey County will continue the momentum that makes it clear
that fracking is not safe, is not what we want for our kids.”
He also called Clinton out for being weak on fracking
regulations. The former Secretary of State has been attacked for
her enthusiasm for fracking and natural gas, and for saying at a
December 2014 New York City speech before the League of
Conservation Voters, “If we are smart about this and put in
place the right safeguards, natural gas can play an important
bridge role in the transition to a cleaner energy economy.”
“Secretary Clinton and I obviously have many, many differences
of opinions on many issues, but on the issue of fracking, our
differences of opinion are pretty profound,” he said. “I think
it is too late for regulation. I think fracking ought to be
banned in America.”
During his speech, Sanders said that the Democratic Party as a
whole should also adopt a fracking ban on its platform.
“I would hope the Democratic Party makes it clear that it has
the guts to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and tell them
that their short-term profits are not more important than the
health of our children or the future of our planet,” he said.
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/U2iKxIxhzQU[/center]
Sanders said he will be fighting Clinton all the way to the
Democratic National Convention in late July, even though at this
point it is mathematically impossible for him to win the
nomination based on pledged delegates alone.
However, as Grist noted, even if he loses the nomination, one of
the candidate’s biggest contributions is pulling Clinton and the
party to the left. Additionally, as the publication observed, he
was recently awarded five out of 15 slots on the all-important
Democratic Party Platform Drafting Committee, ensuring that his
environmental and progressive legacy will live on if he doesn’t
win.
Sanders’s candidates include academic and political activist
Cornel West, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, Arab American
Institute head James Zogby, Native American activist Deborah
Parker and climate activist Bill McKibben.
Hillary Clinton
“Now, as we work to combat climate change and build America into
the world’s clean energy superpower, our public lands can once
again play a key role in unlocking the resources we need,”
Clinton wrote in an editorial in the Mercury News published
Wednesday.
She continued, “We can accelerate our transition to a clean
energy economy by increasing renewable energy generation on
public lands and offshore waters tenfold within a decade.”
According to her campaign website, Clinton has set a goal to
generate enough renewable energy to power every home in the
country.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/>
“To help meet this goal, Clinton will expand energy production
on public lands and waters ten-fold within ten years of taking
office, while reforming federal fossil fuel leasing,” the site
states.
Clinton, who has a narrow two-point lead over Sanders in
California, recently received a rare endorsement from the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)’s Action Fund, the
first time the NRDC has backed a presidential candidate.
“Hillary Clinton is an environmental champion
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220216203149.gif<br
/>with the passion, experience and savvy to build on President
Obama’s environmental legacy,” Rhea Suh, president of the NRDC
Action fund, said. “More than any other candidate running,
Hillary Clinton understands the environmental challenges America
faces, and her approach to solving them is grounded in the
possibility and promise our democracy affords.”
Michael Brune, Sierra Club’s executive director, also praised
Clinton’s environmental stewardship plan, calling it a “huge
step forward that would build on the progress President Obama
has made to keep our cherished public lands public.”
He said that Clinton’s proposal pushes for reforms of oil and
gas leasing programs, and “ends the debate once and for all
surrounding offshore drilling in the Arctic and the Atlantic.”
“This detailed, specific plan also reaffirms our belief that
everyone should have the same opportunities to enjoy and explore
our parks, and boosts the American outdoor economy that creates
jobs and generates billions of dollars. Additionally, Clinton is
committing to protect our forests and expanding the resources
available to fight devastating wildfires,” Brune added.
“We applaud this proposal that makes conservation central to
Clinton’s campaign and offers powerful solutions to protect our
treasured lands and make them more accessible and available for
generations to come.”
The Sierra Club has not endorsed a presidential candidate.
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/02/sanders-clinton-california/
Comment Thread:
agelbert • 7 hours ago
Hillary Clinton is a friend of the fossil fuel industry, their
polluting practices and their welfare queen subsisdies, every
bit as much as Donald Trump is.
Senator Sanders has repeatedly submitted legislation over the
last decade to eliminate the welfare queens subsides
we-the-people are saddled with on behalf of the fossil fuel
industry.
Senator Sanders is credible on Renewable energy and reducing
pollution from fossil fuels through the elimination of subsidies
and a ban on Fracking.
Hillary Clinton is Trump in drag.
3 △ ▽
•
Rob Brown > agelbert • 7 hours ago
agelbert,
I'm not sure I quite agree with your last sentence! Literary
fluorishes are always welcome but...... Otherwise you are making
fair comments!
1 △ ▽
•
agelbert > Rob Brown • 6 hours ago
I just couldn't resist. You are right, of course. There are
differences between Trump and Clinton.
But, as far as what needs to be done to provide a viable
biosphere, Sanders has the track record and credibility to do it
and both Clinton and Trump do not.
1 △ ▽
•
Edit
•
agelbert • 5 hours ago
“The Future of U.S. Climate Policy: Coal, Carbon Markets and the
Clean Air Act.” - U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse October 29, 2014
“Pollution-driven climate change hurts our economy, damages our
infrastructure and harms public health,” he told his audience.
“However, none of these costs are factored into the price of the
coal or oil that’s burned to release this carbon. The big oil
and coal companies have offloaded those costs onto society.
Economics 101 tells us that’s a market failure; in the jargon,
that negative externalities are inefficient. If a company
participates in an activity that causes harm, it should have to
compensate those harmed.”
“By making carbon pollution free, we subsidize fossil fuel
companies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars
annually,” he continued. “By making carbon pollution free, we
fix the game, favoring polluters over newer and cleaner
technologies that harvest the wind, sun and waves. Corporate
polluters, not bearing the costs of their products, are in
effect cheating their competitors.”
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/29...
Cummulative subsidies pie chart:
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/ga...
1 △ ▽
•
agelbert • 6 hours ago
Hillary Clinton REFUSES to support legislation to eliminate
fossil fuels. Senator Sanders has repeatedly introduced
legislation to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. Hillary Clinton,
as Secretary of State, advocated for Fracking and sweetheart
deals for U.S. Oil and Gas corporations to to several countries.
Senator Sanders has been consistently calling for a ban on
Fracking.
Senator Sanders cares about we-the-people. Hillary Clinton does
not.
Reflections From Below The Fossil Subsidy Iceberg
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2015/...
1 △ ▽
•
agelbert • 6 hours ago
01/30/2015 12:47 PM
Fossil Fuel Subsidies Finally Trending Down, But Not In US :>(
SustainableBusiness.com News
Now that deep sea oil drilling projects are being cancelled
across the world because of low petroleum prices, governments
should use this opportunity to phase out fossil fuel subsidies,
says the International Energy Agency (IEA).
And at least 27 countries are doing so, they say. It started in
2013, when fossil subsidies declined by $27 billion to $548
billion, while renewable energy support rose $11 billion to
$96.5 billion. The process is accelerating with low oil prices.
　
"In the absence of subsidies, all of the main renewable energy
technologies would be competitive with oil-fired plants," says
Faith Birol, Chief Economist at IEA. 　
IEA calculates that for every $1 that subsidizes renewable
energy, $6 is spent to subsidize fossil fuels - precious funds
that could be used for sustainable development. 　
Countries cutting subsides range from Mexico to Germany, from
Morocco to Malaysia, mostly in the form of higher gas prices -
everyone except the US, as usual! There's no need to subsidize
fossil fuel consumption when prices are so low, saving
governments lots of money and leveling the playing field for
renewable energy. 　
India, for example, has been spending 2.2% of GDP on fossil
subsidies to keep electric and fuel prices artificially low.
　
Fossil Fuel Subsidies US　
Countries need to stop providing subsidies to stoke exploration
and production - amounting to about $88 billion last year. The
UK, for example, is considering incentives for drilling in the
North Sea, and the US - the biggest subsidizer - has a new
offshore oil leasing plan.　
IEA has been fervently calling for an end to fossil subsides -
that alone, would reduce global emissions 13% - while making it
much easier for renewable sources to compete. It would also
reduce air and water pollution and free up funding for the Green
Climate Fund. 　
Efforts to cut emissions by using more renewable energy can't do
the job if fossil fuel use keeps growing, says IEA. If the
status quo continues, global energy demand will rise 37% and
carbon emissions 20% by 2040. That would lead to a 3.6°C (6.5°F)
temperature rise - making catastrophic sea level rise, polar ice
cap melt, water shortages and other severe effects inevitable.
　
To get fossil subsidies down faster, the Center for American
Progress is promoting "SPARC Bonds," which would be repaid with
savings from reduced subsidies. Read more:
Website: www.americanprogress.org/issue...
HTML http://www.sus
tainablebusiness...
see more
1 △ ▽
•
agelbert • 6 hours ago
SNIPPET from an article by Bill Ritter, Colorado’s 41st
governor.
Fossil fuels enjoy a variety of targeted tax benefits as well as
MLPs. Denying the same mix to renewable energy investors
perpetuates federal policies that have long picked fossil fuels
as the winners. The PTC/ITC and MLPs should not be an either/or
issue. Both belong in an intelligent mix of tax policies that
create more robust market competition on a more level playing
field.
In addition, opening MLPs to renewable-energy investment is
consistent with the "all of the above" energy strategy advocated
both by President Obama and the Republican Party. I am confident
that as various renewable energy technologies become ready for
full-scale commercialization, they will compete very well.
In the absence of access to MLPs, private investors and state
governments are creating other ways to capitalize emerging
clean-energy technologies. Renewable-energy bonds, green-energy
banks, crowdfunding and "yield cos" are among recent
innovations.
Nevertheless, a great deal of private capital remains sidelined,
waiting for stable and equitable federal energy policies. If we
really believe in letting all market-ready energy options slug
it out in robust competition, then we shouldn’t ask that federal
policies fix the fight. But that is what happens when
renewable-energy investors are barred from the tax incentives
that investors in fossil fuels enjoy.
Bill Ritter served as Colorado’s 41st governor. He is currently
the director of the Center for the New Energy Economy at
Colorado State University.
HTML http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2...
1 △ ▽
•
agelbert • 6 hours ago
Unnatural Gas: How Government Made Fracking Profitable (and Left
Renewables Behind)
To paraphrase Samuel Clemens in regard to some of his
experiences with people that make holes in the ground to get
stuff out of and sell to us for "profit", a FRACKING site is a
hole the ground with a bunch of LIARS on top.
Here's an article the fossil fuelers will disagree with and
ridicule as "garden variety" or "irrelevant" or disdain with
some other pejorative bit of puffery.
The only part of the article the fossil fuel funded
propagandists will agree with is that the Oil and Gas industry
ACTUALLY gave solar power technology development a boost back in
the 70s because PV supplied power to very remote locations the
fossil fuelers tend be located for new profit over planet
piggery.
The FULL story of how we-the-people have supported these fossil
fuel and nuclear welfare queens is there from the start until
this day. The appearance of fossil duel industry profitability
ignores our tax money for research and continuous subsidy.
Fossil fuelers have an amazing ability to ignore, not just
externalized costs, but the giveaways from we-the-people! They
have the gall to compute those subsidies as part of the ROI
(Return On Investment). That's a blatant accounting falsehood.
Without subsides they are not profitable, period. But the fossil
fuelers will continue with their fantasies, come hell or high
water. So it goes.
SNIPPPET 1:
Quote
The bias against renewable funding and support is clear. Recent
analysis found that over the first fifteen years an industry
receives a subsidy, nuclear energy received an average of $3.3
billion, oil and gas averaged $1.8 billion,Fto and renewables
averaged less than $0.4 billion.
Renewables received less than one-quarter of the support of oil
and gas and less than one-eighth of the support that nuclear
received during the early years of development, when strong
investment can make a big difference. Yet even with this
disparity, more of our energy supply now comes from renewables
than from nuclear, which indicates the strength of renewables as
a potential energy source.
SNIPPET 2:
Quote
The President Carter supported momentum behind renewable
development came to a rapid halt as soon as Ronald Reagan was
elected president. Not only did he remove the solar panels atop
the White House, he also gutted funding for solar development
and poured billions into developing a dirty synthetic fuel that
was never brought to market.
Unnatural Gas: How Government Made Fracking Profitable (and Left
Renewables Behind)
HTML http://www.dissentmagazine.org
...
see more
1 △ ▽
•
agelbert • 6 hours ago
The quagmire that faces industrialized civilization is that much
of it was built using "cheap" fossil fuels which were, not only
subsidized directly, but in nearly all cases the externalities
were never factored in so the damage and costs associated with
fossil fuel were lugged to the general
population/wildlife/environment.
The other important thing is energy, especially artificially
cheap energy, acts as an enabler of other resources.
This means if it is cheap to procure energy then the costs of
getting other resources lessens and when you reduce the price of
any commodity you encourage its consumption. As consumption
increases you not only encourage more wasteful consumption but
you also make it viable to mine big fields that could only be
economic under the current regime of fossil fuels.
Think of all those gold mines or other rare metal mines that
need to be treated with harsh chemicals. None of those projects
would be viable if there was no "cheap" energy so this is
another hidden associated cost of fossil fuels.
1 △ ▽
•
agelbert • 7 hours ago
Legislation to End Fossil Fuel Tax Breaks Introduced by Sen.
Sanders, Rep. Ellison Friday, November 22, 2013
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 – As House and Senate budget negotiators
look for ways to lower deficits,
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)
today introduced legislation to eliminate tax loopholes and
subsidies that support the oil, gas and coal industries.
The End Polluter Welfare Act of 2013 would remove tax breaks,
close loopholes, end taxpayer-funded fossil fuel research and
prevent companies from escaping liability for spills or
deducting cleanup costs. Under current law, these subsidies are
expected to cost taxpayers more than $100 billion in the coming
decade.
The White House budget proposal for next year calls for
eliminating several of the same provisions that the legislation
by Sanders and Ellison would end.
"At a time when fossil fuel companies are racking up record
profits, it is time to end the absurdity of American taxpayers
providing massive subsidies to these hugely profitable fossil
fuel corporations," Sanders said.
"The five biggest oil companies made $23 billion in the third
quarter of 2013 alone. They don’t need any more tax giveaways,"
Ellison said. "We should invest in the American people by
creating good jobs and ending cuts to food assistance instead of
throwing tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at one of the
biggest and most profitable industries in the world."　
The five most profitable oil companies (ExxonMobil, Shell,
Chevron, BP and ConocoPhilips) together made more than $1
trillion in profits over the past decade.　
The Sanders and Ellison legislation is supported by
environmental groups including Friends of the Earth, Oil Change
International and 350.org.　
The fiscal watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, which has worked
for nearly two decades to eliminate wasteful energy subsidies,
also supports the bills.
HTML http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...
Hillary Clinton was silent as DEATH on the above legislation
which failed due to Republican pandering to the Fossil Fuel
Industry. Hillary Clinton did NOT, and DOES NOT, support the
elimination of fossil fuel industry welfare queen subsidies.
see more
1 △ ▽
•
agelbert • 7 hours ago
Here's the main problem I have with the defense of the fossil
fuel energy status quo as if it was something reasonably priced,
economical, viable and sane as opposed to the continuous fossil
fuel industry disngenuous insistence on claiming that renewable
energy is "too costly and/or unreliable":
Fossil fuel energy was never, and I mean never, cost effective.
In a sane society that doesn't pretend you can add and subtract
whatever factors you wish in order to come up with a profit that
will attract investment capital, you figure in all the costs to
human society.
From the moment John D. Rockefeller started flushing gasoline
down the rivers in Pennsylvania in the late 19th century (it was
a waste product then) after refining crude oil for lubricants
and lamp oil, huge costs were being foisted on society.
Coal is even worse. Fossil fuelers pretend all that is water
under the bridge. Fossil fuelers pretend all the benefits of
modern society are an acceptable tradeoff.
Well, they aren't. The only premise that is logical and sane
now, with the continued damage that adds insult to injury to the
biosphere we all depend on, is to admit that fossil fuels were
never a viable, cost effective, sustainable source of energy for
mankind and press on to renewable energy simply because there is
no other alternative.
A sane person would not argue this isn't real and those who
defend fossil fuel energy are not in la la land in regard to the
actual cost of these poisons,
The subsidies the fossil-fuel (and nuclear) industry receive —
and have received for many years — make their product
"affordable." Those subsidies take many forms, but the most
significant are their "externalities." Externalities are real
costs, but they are foisted off on the community instead of
being paid by the companies that caused them.[18]
Paul Epstein, director of Harvard Medical School Center for
Health and the Global Environment, has examined the health and
environmental impacts of coal, including: mining,
transportation, combustion in power plants and the impact of
coal’s waste stream. He found that the "life cycle effects of
coal and its waste cost the American public $333 billion to over
$500 billion dollars annually". These are costs the coal
industry is not paying and which fall to the community in
general. Eliminating that subsidy would dramatically increase
the price of coal-fired electricity.[18]
IEA position on subsidies
According to IEA (2011) energy subsidies artificially lower the
price of energy paid by consumers, raise the price received by
producers or lower the cost of production. ,"Fossil fuels
subsidies costs generally outweigh the benefits.
Subsidies to renewables and low-carbon energy technologies can
bring long-term economic and environmental benefits".[19] In
November 2011, an IEA report entitled Deploying Renewables 2011
said "subsidies in green energy technologies that were not yet
competitive are justified in order to give an incentive to
investing into technologies with clear environmental and energy
security benefits".
The IEA's report disagreed with claims that renewable energy
technologies are only viable through costly subsidies and not
able to produce energy reliably to meet demand. "A portfolio of
renewable energy technologies is becoming cost-competitive in an
increasingly broad range of circumstances, in some cases
providing investment opportunities without the need for specific
economic support," the IEA said, and added that "cost reductions
in critical technologies, such as wind and solar, are set to
continue."[20]
Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies were $409 billion in 2010, oil
products claim half of it. Renewable-energy subsidies were $66
billion in 2010 and will reach according to IEA $250 billion by
2035. Renewable energy is subsidized in order to compete in the
market, increase their volume and develop the technology so that
the subsidies become unnecessary with the development.
Eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies could bring economic and
environmental benefits. Phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies by
2020 would cut primary energy demand 5%. Since the start of
2010, at least 15 countries have taken steps to phase out
fossil-fuel subsidies.
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
I say they should take the subsidy money presently assigned to
fossil fuels and transfer all of it to renewable energy
subsidies.
Fossil fuel was never a viable energy option for mankind. We
cannot afford to burn fossil fuels, period.
1 △ ▽
•
agelbert • 7 hours ago
Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S
What is a fossil fuel subsidy?
A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the
cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received
by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy
consumers. There are a lot of activities under this simple
definition—tax breaks and giveaways, but also loans at favorable
rates, price controls, purchase requirements and a whole lot of
other things.
How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal
companies?
In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel
subsidies range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually, while
even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have
been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below　
HTML http://priceofoil.org/content/...
HTML http://priceofoil.org/fossil-f...
1 △ ▽
•
agelbert • 5 hours ago
Here's some more real world science that motivates the efforts
Senator Sanders. He is the only presidential candidate that
understands the gravity of our situation and will to do
something to lessen the impact of catastrophic climate change.
quote:The troposphere is warmed in part through absorption of
radiation by H2O and CO2, the stratosphere is warmed, indeed
created, through absorption of radiation by O3. unquote
quote: the absorption of terrestrial radiation is dominated by
triatomic molecules – O3 in the UV, H2O, CO2 and others in the
IR (infrared) because it so happens that triatomic molecules
have rotational and vibrational modes that can easily be excited
by radiation with wavelengths in the IR. These molecules are
present in tiny concentrations (see Table 1.2) but play a key
role in the absorption of terrestrial radiation (see Fig.2.6).
They are known as Greenhouse gases.
This is the fundamental reason why atmospheric radiation may be
so vulnerable to the human-induced changes in composition shown
in Fig.1.3. p46. unquote
quote: The most important negative feedback regulating the
temperature of the planet is the dependence of the outgoing
longwave radiation on temperature. p53. unquote
IR (infrared) is longwave radiation.
THE HOTTER IT GETS, the less effective the negative feedback
mechanisms that were hitherto keeping a cooling balance on our
planet are. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the greater the
positive feedback mechanisms heating our planet are.
THAT is why it is called a runaway greenhouse; the hotter it
gets, the faster the rate of heating increases.
△ ▽
•
agelbert > agelbert • 5 hours ago
NOTE to EchoWatch AND Disqus. Every single time I have made the
above post, it has been flagged as spam. I have not place a link
to the studies because this web site has link bounce software
that seems to be triggered after about four posts. I have filled
my "quota" today, I guess.
This link bounce practice is un-American. Please stop it. In a
couple of hours, if this post is still here, I will post the
link to the studies irrefutably connecting GHG(s) in general,
and CO2 in particular, as THE cause of global warming.
The fossil fuel industry is the culprit. They must go or we
will.
△ ▽
•
agelbert > agelbert • 16 minutes ago
Well and good. The post explaining the runaway greenhouse hasn't
been attacked as "spam".
Here are the links the data came from:
Absorption frequencies for energy transfer and info on water and
CO2 molecules as well as uv energy.
HTML http://gs105cocc.wikispaces.co
...
1.
HTML http://www.3sc.net/solarm/solr...
2.
HTML http://www.grida.no/files/publ...
3.
HTML http://www.grida.no/publicatio...
4.
HTML http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.go
...
5.
HTML http://paoc.mit.edu/labweb/not...
6 .
HTML http://paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap...
1 △ ▽
•
karen orlando • 6 hours ago
Quite a few people listed in this article like bill mckibben and
Michael brune aren't terrifically impressive on climate progress
as both are antifracking and anti natural gas. Clearly Bernie is
their candidate because his climate platform is also against
nuclear. Seems backward thinking to me but that's their choice.
Clinton has a briefing fact sheet which doesn't appear to be
anti natural gas.
HTML https://www.hillaryclinton.com
...
△ ▽
agelbert > karen orlando • 5 hours ago
Talk is cheap. The WALK provides incriminating evidence.
Emails Confirm Hillary Clinton Used Her State Department Role to
Press Countries to Embrace Fracking
Posted on May 28, 2016
SNIPPET:
The documents also reveal the department’s role in bringing
foreign dignitaries to a fracking site in Pennsylvania, and its
plans to make Poland a “laboratory for testing whether US
success in developing shale gas can be repeated in a different
country,” particularly in Europe, where local governments had
expressed opposition and in some cases even banned fracking.
The campaign included plans to spread the drilling technique to
China, South Africa, Romania, Morocco, Bulgaria, Chile, India,
Pakistan, Argentina, Indonesia, and Ukraine.
In 2014, Mother Jones reporter Mariah Blake used diplomatic
cables disclosed by WikiLeaks and other records to uncover how
Clinton “sold fracking to the world.”
The emails obtained by The Intercept through a separate Freedom
of Information Act request provide a new layer of detail.
HTML https://theintercept.com/2016/...
△ ▽
•
#Post#: 5213--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: June 4, 2016, 7:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/ambiente-01.jpg?w=529&h=237[/img][/center]
[center]Frackopoly: The Battle [/I]for the Future of Energy and
the Environment will be in bookstores this Tuesday, June
7.[/center]
[i]Emily Wurth, Food& Water Watch act@fwwatch.org
Fracking isn't new. Oil and gas industry influence isn't new.
But do you ever wonder how we got into this mess?
Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter's new book
— Frackopoly: The Battle for the Future of Energy and the
Environment — exposes the handful of corporations, financial
institutions and individuals that have shaped the policies that
keep us reliant on dirty energy sources. With the same forces in
play, learning this history is critical to finally moving beyond
fracking and fossil fuels.
Our current crisis is no accident. It took over 100 years for
the oil and gas industry to accumulate the power they still
wield today.
In a recent example, ExxonMobil’s own researchers were aware of
the devastating climate impact of fossil fuel extraction and
consumption in the late 1970s. Despite what it knew, ExxonMobil
has spent $31 million since 1998 to fund climate-denier think
tanks and politicians, while keeping its research out of the
hands of the concerned public.
The good news: We've already seen that the growing grassroots
movement can overcome the biggest and the baddest efforts of the
dirty energy industry. Communities are fighting back, and in a
big way — and it’s been nothing short of inspiring.
We put together this video to give a taste of what you’ll find
in Frackopoly:
[move]Take a look at the video, then sign the petition to stop
the Frackopoly:[/move]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/BeGmMhfIJ4E[/center]
Thanks for taking action,
Emily Wurth
Water Program Director
Food & Water Watch
ewurth(at)fwwatch(dot)org
Emily Wurth,Food& Water Watch act@fwwatch.org
#Post#: 5218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: June 5, 2016, 6:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]The PERFIDY of the Energy Information Administration - EIA
- Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government [/move]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-050616182206.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center]EIA Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power Friendly Charts
Consistently Low Ball Renewable Energy[/center]
These charts by the fossil fuel friendly EIA severely understate
the Renewable energy share of U.S. energy consumption BECAUSE
they ONLY measure REPORTED energy use, not NEGAWATTS (off grid,
non-metered and efficiency based energy demand destruction). The
Rocky Mountain Institute has reported that over one third of all
global rural electrical production is now Renewable Energy
based.
So, why do I present these charts? Because even the EIA cannot
disguise how Renewable Energy is taking market share away from
the fossil fuel industry (although they do their level best to
try).
Notice the change from 2012 through 2015 and you will see
evidence of the Renewable Energy caused fossil fuel demand
destruction. This is also the main cause of the persistently low
price of oil and gas driving, at last count, over 60 oil and gas
polluters into bankruptcy.
[center]
[img
width=280]
HTML http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_2012-large.jpg[/img]<br
/>[img
width=360]
HTML http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_2015-large.jpg[/img][/center]
AS you can see, our loyal servants in the EIA were magnanimous
enough to admit ONE PERCENT increase for Renewable Energy for
2012 through 2015. Not only is that a bad joke, but excluding
coal, it is downright embarrassingly defensive of the polluters
from the fossil fuel AND nuclear power industries. WHY?
First, despite the MASSIVE economic disruptions during that time
and the MASSIVE increase in Renewable energy capacity during
that time period, let us ass-u-me, as the charts claim, that the
total energy consumption increased 2.7 quadrillion btu from 2012
through 2015. They drop 2% off of coal but, despite some
closings of nuclear power plants, ADD a percent to nuclear
power! But it gets better.
Second, they REFUSE to lower the percentage for Petroleum while
adding 2 percent to fossil "natural" (i.e. FRACKED) gas. The
disclaimer about "the sum of components not adding to 100%",
even though in the 2015 chart they DO add up, is ridiculous.
They don't even update their boilerplate. These people have no
shame.
Third, they have the unadulterated brass to claim, not just that
there was a ONE PERCENT ONLY increase in the Renewable Energy
share of consumption rom 2012 through 2015, but that WIND POWER
added a mere 2 percent of the Renewable energy mix in FOUR
YEARS!
Now take a look at 2014's fossil fuel and nuclear power friendly
EIA chart next to the 2015 chart. They are DESPERATE to hide the
massive increase in Renewables.
[center] [img
width=320]
HTML http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_2014-large.jpg[/img]<br
/>[img
width=320]
HTML http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_source_2015-large.jpg[/img][/center]
2015 was a banner year for BOTH wind and solar power. 2015 saw
massive demand destruction for fossil fuels causing over 60 oil
and gas bankruptcies and cratering price of fossil fuels.
Renewable energy use INCREASED while USE of fossil fuels due to
a depressed economy and added Renewable infrastructure,
DECREASED.
YET, according to our EIA bean counters, there was NO INCREASE
in the Renewable energy SHARE of consumption OR A DECREASE in
the oil and gas energy share from 2014 to 2015! To make it look
good, they took one percent away from petroleum and handed it to
"natural" FRACKED gas. LOL! Renewable Energy consumption is
allegedly STILL only 10% after a BANNER YEAR!
BULLSHIT!
The EIA admits, inaccurately (remember they count only REPORTED
energy from utilities, not negawatts), that 0.1 quadrillion Btu
of Renewable Energy was added. Point one quadrillion Btu DOES
NOT CUT IT for a banner year in both wind and solar. They give
solar a mere 2% increase and give wind, which REALLY jumped in
2015, a mere ONE PERCENT increase in the Renewable Energy mix.
BULLSHIT!
The PRICE of oil and gas is not low because we are "consuming
them at the same percentage"; it's low because we are consuming
them at a LOWER percentage. The oil and gas pigs are not known
for charitable gestures.
The PRICE of Renewable Energy infrastructure is coming down from
mass production and installation. The ratio of Renewable energy
installation to fossil fuel based infrastructure new
installation in 2015 (which has continued into this year) is 70
to one.
When the EV market takes off in 2017, the end will come quickly
for the fossil fuel industry because they cannot make a profit
when over 50% of the refinery product is for transportation
fuels they cannot sell. And even without the loss of the
polluting fuels product profit, the fossil fuel industry would
self destruct without all their subsidy swag. But the EIA plays
dumb about the all the pollution costs that we-the-people are
paying.
Renewable energy is easily already over 25% of total Energy
consumption in the U.S., though the EIA will never admit it
until they "revise" the data a couple of decades from now. ;)
Renewable Energy Growth Blows EIA Forecasts Out of the Water,
Again
by Ben Jervey, originally published by DeSmog Blog | Mar 14,
2016
HTML http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-03-14/renewable-energy-growth-blows-eia-forecasts-out-of-the-water-again
[center]EIA 2040 Forecast Understates Renewables, Policy,
Contingencies[/center]
April 20th, 2015 by Sandy Dechert
MONEY QUOTES:
So far more possibilities exist than those indicated by the
narrow range of assumptions that EIA has included in this latest
assessment. Respected voices are saying that America can, and
should, get 100% of its energy from renewables by 2050, that 80%
would be good enough, or 100% by 2100, or that 50% is attainable
in the next 35 years, and so on. EIA’s limited focus can support
none of these.
The organization claims in Figure 4 to cover “scenarios that
encompass a wide range of future crude oil price paths.” Great
to have such a diverse oil perspective, but the exploration of
renewable and other scenarios seems puny by comparison.
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/20/eia-2040-forecast-understates-renewables-policy-contingencies/
[center]EIA responds that it never told a lie, fudged the stats
or gamed the predicted numbers to favor fossil fuels and low
ball Renewable Energy. [/center]
[quote]Turning to projections, some critics have argued that
EIA's recent AEO Reference case projections have consistently
understated the adoption of wind and solar power.
A review of past performance of EIA's projections does not offer
much support for this argument, particularly when it is
recognized that AEO Reference case projections deliberately
incorporate existing laws and regulations that are in effect at
the time the Reference case projections are developed and do not
attempt to forecast future policy decisions.[/quote]
HTML http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25512
Don't you just love that "does not offer much support for this
argument" pseudo erudite exercise in dismissive type fallacious
debating techniques? Do all these fossil fuel tools go to the
same school of double talk sophistry?
The above defense is ludicrous in the light of the FACT that
their projections for fossil fuel use and nuclear power have
CONSISTENTLY IGNORED the ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS (that the EPA has
danced around and refused to try to enforce or over 30 years,
even though they ARE on the books) that militate for a REDUCTION
in the energy market share of fossil fuels and nuclear power.
NOT ONE closing of nuclear power plants was predicted by the
EIA. Even the now vertiginous descent in coal use was NOT even
remotely foreseen by these dirty energy defending tools, never
mind the current descent in the demand for oil and gas (that
they CONTINUE to low ball).
And now they want to talk about legislation as the "logical"
basis for their grossly inaccurate Renewable Energy projections?
The EIA can come up with all sorts of hemming and hawing excuses
about inconsistent application of laws favoring Renewables, as
if that had beans to do with the ACTUAL Renewables track record
of their installation and use (which is what unbiased energy
experts use to project future use and market share), but give
fossil fuels and nuclear power the most rosy energy use
projection scenario as the "prudent" and "most realistic"
outlook...
But the last paragraph in their response PLAINLY states WHO they
are going to defend in their cherry picking energy bean counting
(hint - dirty energy producers = industry stakeholders):
[quote]
EIA continues to work with [size=14pt]industry stakeholders to
ensure its assumptions and analytic methodologies provide
accurate data and appropriate projections for wind, solar, and
other renewables. A more extensive review of EIA's data and
projections for wind and solar technologies is available in a
recent EIA report, Wind and Solar Data and Projections from the
U.S. Energy Information Administration: Past Performance and
Ongoing Enhancements.
Principal contributors: Chris Namovicz[/size][/quote]
HTML http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25512
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-050616182935.png[/img][/center]
Now you know why certain fossil fuelers love to quote the
"reliability" of the energy use stats and projections from the
EIA.
Have a nice day.
[move][I][font=impact]The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Climate
Trashing, human health depleteing CRIME,[COLOR=BROWN] but
since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks,
they are trying to AVOID [/color] DOING THE TIME or PAYING
THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif[/font][/I][/move]
#Post#: 5220--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: June 6, 2016, 1:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/thankyou.gif
Thank you James
Cromwell and John “J.G.” Hertzler of [font=georgia]Star
Trek[/font] fame and 17 area residents. These fine people know
that there isn't any way we can live long and prosper if we keep
burning fossil fuels.
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/Lw9sbdWIIag
HTML https://youtu.be/Lw9sbdWIIag[/center]
[center]Star Trek Actors Arrested, Call on Gov. Cuomo to Boldly
Go Beyond Fossil Fuels[/center]
Sandra Steingraber | June 6, 2016 12:52 pm
Early this morning on a hillside above Seneca Lake, actors James
Cromwell and John “J.G.” Hertzler of [font=georgia]Star
Trek[/font] fame joined 17 area residents in an act of civil
disobedience that is part of an ongoing citizen campaign against
salt cavern gas storage.
While blockading the main entrance to the Crestwood compressor
station, the two actors urged Gov. Cuomo to stand up to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for green-lighting
an expansion of this fracked gas infrastructure project against
overwhelming local opposition and for undermining the governor’s
own stated commitment to a rapid transition to renewable energy.
Starting at 6:45 a.m. and continuing until their arrests by
Schuyler County deputies shortly before 7:30 a.m., the
protesters blocked all traffic from leaving and entering the
facility, including two Crestwood tanker trucks. All 19 were
transported to the Schuyler County sheriff’s department, charged
with disorderly conduct, ticketed and released.
“The prettiest place I’ve ever seen is right here: the Finger
Lakes region of New York … Governor Cuomo, we, the people, do
not want to see these pristine lakes turned into cheap,
contaminated, industrialized storage facilities for Crestwood
and Con Ed. Stand with us, Governor!,” John Hertzler, 66, who
played Klingon General Martok on [font=georgia]Star Trek: Deep
Space Nine[/font], said.
“Defend your own program for getting New York State off of
fossil fuels and transitioned to renewable energy. FERC—the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission—seeks to keep us chained to
the energy of the past and, in so doing, threatens our water,
our lands, our safety and the very climate of this, our planet.
Boldly go with us, Governor Cuomo, into a renewable energy
future.”
Hertzler lives in the Finger Lakes region with his family in the
town of Ulysses where he serves on the town board.
James Cromwell, 76, who played Zefram Cochrane in
[font=georgia]Star Trek: First Contact[/font] and who was
nominated for an Academy Award for his role as Farmer Arthur
Hoggett in Babe, called on New Yorkers to join the We Are Seneca
Lake movement.
“FERC-approved fracked gas infrastructure projects are taking
over our entire state—from the crumbly salt caverns of Seneca
Lake, where the gas will be stored, to the pipelines and
compressor stations that devastate our farmlands, wetlands and
maple groves, all the way to the burner tips of the natural
gas-fired power plants that are planned for downstate,” he said.
“[quote]With all of New York under attack by the fossil fuel
industry and by the rogue agency called FERC, all New Yorkers
now need to stand up, stand together and say no.”[/quote]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/seneca_750.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Photo credit: We Are Seneca Lake[/center]
Referencing the films in which the two have appeared, protesters
held banners and signs that read, “We Are Seneca Lake, Babe/And
We Will Not Be FERC-ed” and “Trekkies Against Crestwood-Con Ed
Boldly Going Toward Renewables.”
The total number of arrests in the 20-month-old We Are Seneca
Lake civil disobedience campaign now stands at 604.
Crestwood’s methane gas storage expansion project was originally
approved by FERC in October 2014 in the face of broad public
opposition and unresolved questions about geological
instabilities, fault lines and possible salinization of Seneca
Lake, which serves as a source of drinking water for 100,000
people. In spite of near-unanimous citizen opposition, FERC’s
last-minute permit extension on May 16 gave Crestwood’s
Arlington subsidiary another two years to build out its natural
gas storage facility.
Salt cavern storage accounts for only seven percent of total
underground storage of natural gas in the U.S. but, since 1972,
is responsible for 100 percent of the catastrophic accidents
that has resulted in loss of life.
Crestwood also seeks to store two other products of fracking in
Seneca Lake salt caverns—propane and butane (so-called Liquefied
Petroleum Gases, LPG)—for which it is awaiting a decision by
Gov. Cuomo’s Department of Environmental Conservation.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/seneca3_750.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]John Hertzler. Photo credit: We Are Seneca Lake[/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/seneca2_750.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]James Cromwell. Photo credit: We Are Seneca
Lake[/center]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/06/star-trek-actors-arrested/
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/06/star-trek-actors-arrested/
#Post#: 5244--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: June 8, 2016, 6:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
EIA talks construction cost, never mind what happens after it is
built and DOES what it is DESIGNED to DO (i.e. GENERATE energy).
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
[center]EIA: Constructing ;) a natural gas plant is cheaper
than other options [/center]
By Robert Walton | June 7, 2016
[center][img
width=300]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300416161529.png[/img][/center]
HAPPY TALK SNIPPET:
[quote]
•The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently began
collecting data on the cost to construct electric power
generators, showing gas capacity to be the cheapest widely-used
generation
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/>and wind [img
width=50]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/>to be the least-expensive renewable resource. ;)
•In 2013, the first year for which the agency collected data,
natural gas generation on a capacity-weighted basis averaged
$965/kW
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/>, compared with $1,895/kW for wind and $3,705/kW for solar.
•More than 7,400 MW of gas capacity was added that year,
compared with 2,600 MW of solar and 860 MW of wind.[/quote]
HTML http://www.utilitydive.com/news/eia-constructing-a-natural-gas-plant-is-cheaper-than-other-options/420453/
Agelbert NOTE: Doesn't that sound so nice and objective? That
sweet talk about wind being the Cheapest Renewable Energy source
is the set up for the sucker punch chart they rigged showing the
"natural" gas power plants as MUCH "cheaper". And WTF is the
idea of limiting the COST of infrastructure to the initial
construction costs? HELLO? Power Plants operate for at least
THIRTY YEARS! It's BOLD FACED mendacity and disingenuous
duplicity to claim one system is "cheaper" than another just
from initial construction costs! Talk about PICKING WINNERS by
excluding pollution costs after operation begins!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
And, by the way, it's 2016. What's with the 2013 stats (2014
and 2015 were BOTH BANNER YEARS for wind that saw construction
costs GO DOWN!) to try to make Gas Power Plants look good?
Then they have the brass to publish a ridiculous cost comparison
chart excluding fossil fuel pollution costs! [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]
The "capacity" talk is a deliberate conflation of construction
costs with generation costs to pull the wool over your eyes. The
EIA
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
has
no shame. ANY study of capacity for ANY Renewable energy source
in general, and wind in particular, evidences VAST more energy
capacity than fossil fuel power plants BECAUSE the fuel is FREE.
What these fossil fuel friendly bastards in the EIA are doing
here is going back to "high energy density" of hydrocarbons to
justify a gamed "capacity".
In a sane world, the INSTANT you talk about energy density, you
MUST talk about polluting products COSTS. If you don't, then you
are cherry picking fossil fuels as WINNERS, PERIOD. [img
width=80]
HTML http://drphilyerboots.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cherry-picking.jpg[/img]
HERE'S what the fossil fuel friendly EIA does not want YOU to
know:
[quote][center]Wind energy is now as cheap as natural gas, and
solar is getting close[/center]
And it's only getting cheaper.
BEC CREW 7 OCT 2015
Wind power is now comparable in price to fossil fuels, and solar
is well on its way, according to a new report that confirms
earlier predictions that renewables aren't just the best option
for the environment - they’re unequivocally the smartest
long-term investment you can make on energy.
The report, by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, found that in the
second half of 2015, the global average cost of onshore wind
energy will be $83 per megawatt-hour of electricity (which is
down $2 from the first half of the year), and for thin film
solar photovoltaics, the cost is $122 per megawatt-hour (down $7
in the past six months).[/quote]
HTML http://www.sciencealert.com/wind-energy-is-now-as-cheap-as-natural-gas-and-solar-is-getting-close
[quote][center]Natural Gas Health and Environmental
Hazards[/center]
Natural gas power plants are significant air pollution sources,
releasing hazardous air pollutants, global warming pollution and
fine particulate matter.
[center]Natural gas is worse than coal for global
warming[/center]
While the smokestack emissions from gas-burning power plants are
lower than coal, gas is worse because of the leakage from the
wells to the pipelines and compressor stations to the end-uses
-- since methane (the principle component of natural gas) is far
more potent at heating the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (which
is produced when coal or gas are burned).
The newest science on methane's global warming potential shows
that it's far more potent than previously thought:[/quote]
HTML http://www.energyjustice.net/naturalgas
#Post#: 5248--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: June 9, 2016, 4:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Sierra Club Endorses Hillary Clinton[/center]
Allison Chin, Sierra Club | June 9, 2016 12:34 pm
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/09/sierra-club-endorses-hillary-clinton/
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/09/sierra-club-endorses-hillary-clinton/
Agelbert COMMENT: Thank you Sierra Club, for paving the way for
Hillary Clinton to remove any and all barriers to Fracking in
the USA and the world, as she did during her tenure as Secretary
of State.
We are also pleased that Victoria Nuland is President Hillary
Clinton's pick for Secretary of State.
Thank you Sierra Club, for ensuring a huge increase in the price
of fossil fuels (i.e. price shock bonanza!) from the war
tensions that Victoria Nuland, neocon State Department queen of
the [I]"let's go to war with Russia" group [/I]will joyfully
generate.
We are ready, willing and able to patriotically and in
altruistic fashion (OF COURSE!), work arm in arm with the
Clinton Administration to provide peace, prosperity and lots of
cheap, clean energy to the world for the welfare of all
humanity.
[I]Signed,[/I]
[I]Your Loyal Servants and Political Campaign Friends from
Exxon, Schlumberger, Halliburton, etc. (you get the idea). [/I]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://quotes.lifehack.org/media/quotes/quote-Albert-Camus-the-welfare-of-the-people-in-particular-102493_1.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 5278--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: June 13, 2016, 6:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120616193700.png[/img][/center]
For those who can still add and subtract, the following FACTS
about fossil fuel ERoEI thermodynamic efficiency (That is, the
Fossil fuel ERoEI math, that Gail Tverberg and at least 54% of
the Renewable Energy survey participants swear by, including
Palloy, DELIBERATELY IGNORES THE FACT that, in the real world of
the science of thermodynamics, Energy RETURN MINUS WASTE HEAT
EQUALS work (as defined by physics) ) reveal the error of
assuming fossil fuels have a higher ERoEI than Renewable Energy
technologies.
The fossil fuel industry originated disingenuous trick is to
FIRST hammer the "high energy density" (excluding waste heat, of
course) Hess Law based thermodynamics into us while avoiding
discussions of waste heat like the plague. When they have
established the FALSE MEME that fossil fuels have a "higher
energy density" than Renewable Energy technologies, they
cleverly create a false equivalence between the cherry picked
"higher" fossil fuels ERoEI and "higher" MONETARY Profits. [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]
Massive Fossil Fuel Industry Welfare Queen Subsides, COSTS to
we-the-people, which are TOTALLY UNRELATED to ERoEI
thermodynamics, ALWAYS make it to the "higher" MONETARY profits
happy talk. ;)
However, the SCC (social Cost of Carbon), like waste heat
thermodynamics, never gets included in the fossil fuel ERoEI
happy talk OR the false equivalence "higher" MONETARY Profits
fossil fuel happy talk, even though ALL MONETARY INVESTMENT
DECISIONS, on which energy sources to use, are based on ALL
COSTS.
HELLO? Is anybody there?
If we are going to talk about how much MONEY to invest in an
energy source, based on how much MONEY it will cost to DO THAT,
and how much MONEY we can get in a RETURN on our IVESTMENT, it
is customary (if you aren't Gail Tverberg doing the [img
width=80]
HTML http://drphilyerboots.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cherry-picking.jpg[/img]<br
/>bidding of the fossil fuel industry) to SUBTRACT all the COSTS
of said energy source.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010216161405.jpeg[/img]
[/center]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page