DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4057--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: October 29, 2015, 7:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Imagine If Exxon Had Told the Truth on Climate
Change[/center]
[b]Bill McKibben
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
[/b] | October 29, 2015 9:05 am
Like all proper scandals, the #Exxon knew revelations have begun
to spin off new dramas and lines of inquiry. Presidential
candidates have begun to call for Department of Justice
investigations, and company spokesmen have begun to dig
themselves deeper into the inevitable holes as they try to
excuse the inexcusable.
(Worst idea: attack Pulitzer prize-winning reporters as
“anti-oil and gas activists”) ;D
As the latest expose installment from those hopeless radicals at
the Los Angeles Times clearly shows, Exxon made a conscious
decision to adopt what a company public affairs officer called
“the Exxon position.” It was simple: “Emphasize the
uncertainty.” Even though they knew there was none.[img
width=160
height=095]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]
Someone else will have to decide if that deceit was technically
illegal. Perhaps the rich and powerful have been drafting the
laws for so long that Exxon will skate; I confess my confidence
that the richest company in American history can be brought to
justice is slight.
But quite aside from those questions about the future, let’s
take a moment and just think about the past. About what might
have happened differently if, in August of 1988, the “Exxon
position” had been “tell the truth.” ;D
That was a few months after NASA scientist James Hansen had told
Congress the planet was heating and humans were the cause; it
was amid the hottest American summer recorded to that point,
with the Mississippi running so low that barges were stranded
and the heat so bad that corn was withering in the fields.
Imagine, amid all that, Exxon scientists had simply said:
“Everything we know says Hansen is right; the planet’s in
serious trouble.”
No one would, at that point, have blamed Exxon for causing the
trouble—instead it would have been hailed for its
forthrightness. It could have begun the task of finding
alternatives to hydrocarbons, and the world could have done the
same thing. This would not have been an easy job: the world was
utterly dependent on coal, gas and oil. But it would have become
our planet’s single-minded job. With Exxon—largest company on
Earth, heir to the original oil baron, with tentacles reaching
around the world—vouching for the science, there is no way we
would have wasted 25 years in fruitless argument.
There’s no way, for instance, that Tim DeChristopher would have
had to spend two years in jail, because it would have been
obvious by the mid-2000s that the oil and gas leases he was
blocking were absurd. Crystal Lameman and Melina
Laboucan-Massimo and Clayton Thomas-Muller would not have had to
spend their whole lives fighting tar sands mining in Alberta
because no one would seriously have proposed digging up the
dirtiest oil on the North American continent. Students would not
have—as we speak—to be occupying administration buildings from
Tasmania to Cambridge, because the fossil fuel companies would
long since have become energy companies, and divesting from them
would not be necessary.
More urgently, rapid development of renewables might well have
kept half of Delhi’s children—2.5 million children—from
developing irreversible lung damage.
The rapid spread of decentralized renewable technology might
have kept oil and gas barons like the Koch Brothers from
becoming, taken together, the richest man on Earth, and
purchasing America’s democracy. The Earth’s oceans would be
measurably less acidic—and we are, after all, an ocean planet.
Some climate change was unavoidable even by 1988—that’s about
the moment when we were passing what now seems the critical 350
parts per million threshold for atmospheric CO2. And with the
best will in the world it would have taken time to slow that
trajectory; there’s never been an overnight fix. So we can’t say
which of the various droughts and floods and famines might have
been avoided. But because we wasted those critical decades,
we’re now committed to far more warming than we needed to be—as
one scientist after another has shown recently, our momentum has
carried to us the point where stopping warming at even the
disastrous 2C level may at this point be barely manageable if
it’s manageable at all.
Of all the lies that Exxon leaders told about climate change,
none may quite top the 1997 insistence that “it is highly
unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century
will be significantly affected whether policies are enacted now
or 20 years from now.”
Exxon scientists knew that was wrong, and so did pretty much
everyone else. If you could poll all the experts about to
descend on Paris for UN climate talks and ask them what
technology would be most useful in the fight against climate
change, I’m pretty sure they’d say: a time machine that could
take us back 20 years and give us those wasted decades.
And if you think it’s just scientists and environmentalists
thinking this way, it’s actually almost anyone with a
conscience. Here’s how the editorial board of the[font=times new
roman] Dallas Morning News[/font]—Exxon’s hometown paper, the
morning read of the oil patch— put it in an editorial last week:
[quote]
“With profits to protect, Exxon provided climate-change doubters
a bully pulpit they didn’t deserve and gave lawmakers the
political cover to delay global action until long after the
environmental damage had reached severe levels. That’s the
inconvenient truth as we see it.”[/quote]
Those years weren’t inconvenient for Exxon, of course. Year
after year throughout the last two decades they’ve made more
money than any company in the history of money. But poor people
around the world are already paying for those profits, and every
generation that follows us now will pay as well, because the
“Exxon position” has helped take us over one tipping point after
another. Their sins of emission, like so many other firms and
individuals, are bad. But their sins of omission are truly
inexcusable.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
This op-ed first appeared in The Guardian.
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/29/bill-mckibben-exxon-climate-change/
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/29/bill-mckibben-exxon-climate-change/
[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#: 4093--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: November 7, 2015, 4:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Golden Oxen link=topic=4539.msg90570#msg90570
date=1446914878]
[quote author=RE link=topic=4539.msg90569#msg90569
date=1446911659]
HTML http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Crude-Sinks-As-Jobs-Report-Propels-Dollar-Even-Higher.html
HTML http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Crude-Sinks-As-Jobs-Report-Propels-Dollar-Even-Higher.html
Crude Sinks As Jobs Report Propels Dollar Even Higher
[center]
HTML https://oilprice.com/images/tinymce/nonfarmnov1.jpg[/center]
[/quote]
We have reached a point where one cannot accept one word from
the government as being true.
This is the industry that was doing all the hiring and paying
well.
We have Diner Roamer as an example of this total bullsh it. A
disgrace. A dumbed down populace, and a lying government, what a
combo.
When 2 and 2 = 4 again, it's going to be a real horror show. The
country of fiat paper castles and make believe economic
numbers, and political leaders in a two party system that make
upright citizens PUKE. :-\
[/quote]
Yep. I fully expect the attorney general of New York to get the
"caught with a call girl" treatment now that he wants to
investigate the ExxonMobil decision to fund a climate change
denial disinformation campaign despite having hard scientific
knowledge that fossil fuels must remain in the ground in order
to avoid a global warming catastrophe.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
ExxonMobil will eventually go down by the weight of their own
buy em' or bop em' track record of pis sing people off in
addition to the fact that their product never really was
competitive with clean energy in the real world of energy
return on investment.
But they will fight to their last fossil fuel government dollar.
They are helping destroy everything vital to the biosphere and
our place in it. If they aren't evil incarnate, I don't know
what is.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://assets-production-webvanta-com.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/000000/44/16/original/articles/General/2015/11_Nov/Exxon_desert_tanker_1.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]I sincerely hope humans, like those guys above, survive
the Big Oil Bastards.[/center]
#Post#: 4162--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: December 8, 2015, 3:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
12/07/2015 03:31 PM
[center]Philippines Takes Landmark Case, Investigate 50 Fossil
Companies for Role in Climate Change
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif[/center]
SustainableBusiness.com News
This might be the case we've been waiting for, as the first-ever
investigation of the largest fossil fuel companies proceeds in
the Philippines.
In early 2016, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines
will examine the biggest 50 fossil fuel companies for their part
in causing climate change and the human rights violations that
have resulted.
"The response of the Philippines' Human Rights Commission to the
petition signals a turning point in the struggle to avoid
catastrophic climate change. It opens a critical new avenue of
struggle against the fossil fuel companies driving destructive
climate change," says Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of
Greenpeace International.
[center]
[img
width=640]
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/imageupload/ExxonKnew-final.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]
[img
width=340]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/bernieexxon7502.jpg[/img][/center]
"This should hopefully inspire other human rights commissions
around the world to take similar action. If I were a CEO of a
fossil fuel company, I would be running scared. This is yet
another indication that we are seeing the end of the fossil fuel
era."
The petition maintains that "climate change interferes with our
fundamental rights as human beings," hence, we demand
accountability of those contributing to climate change."
"This investigation is not just about how fossil fuel companies
do business, but that they do business at all in the future.
It's time we held to account those who are most responsible for
the devastating effects of climate change," says Zelda Soriano
of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.
The petition was filed in September by Greenpeace Southeast
Asia, Amnesty International, Union of Concerned Scientists and
other organizations and 20 individuals, including survivors of
the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan, which killed at least 6300 people - and
displace 4.1 million - in the Philippines alone.
It asks the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines to:
•officially put the companies on notice
•request companies' plans for how they intend to eliminate,
remedy and prevent further damages
•recommend to the government how climate victims can be
monitored and assisted through human rights policies.
These companies have for too long been invincible and is it time
for their social license and role in climate change be called
out, says Greenpeace. "This is one step in a legal strategy of
making sure those complicit in climate change are held
accountable," Anna Abad at Greenpeace Southeast Asia told
Reuters.
"The real life pain and agony of losing loved ones, homes, farms
- almost everything - during strong typhoons, droughts, and
other weather extremes, as well as the everyday struggle to
live, to be safe, and to be able to cope with the adverse, slow
onset impacts of climate change, are beyond numbers and words."
One petitioner says her family huddled in the attic while Manila
was flooded during the 2009 typhoon. "We saw floating people,
floating animals, floating coffins. We could not do anything, we
could not help them. It was like watching a horror movie, she
told Reuters.
Investigators know it will be an uphill climb to hold fossil
fuel companies accountable for deaths and financial losses, but
the issue isn't about winning or compensation right now. It will
strengthen growing opposition to the fossil fuel industry,
turning away investors - their biggest priority.
Roberto Cadiz, a member of the Commission, told Reuters he
feels duty bound to take the case because losses from extreme
weather are mounting so rapidly and because efforts to curb
emissions are moving too slowly.
Petitioners say there are lots more to come.
Meanwhile, more than 500 institutions representing $3.4
trillion in assets are divesting from fossil fuels, up $1
trillion since September, and 20 French cities (including
Paris), Melbourne, Australia and Oslo, Norway.
Read our article, "Teenagers Win on Climate Change in Washington
State Court."
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26491
#Post#: 4164--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: December 8, 2015, 5:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://lh3.ggpht.com/7XNm8CtVvwtbRuU9njTvu3PhxHfkAnYsUtls6Ib0gMsrzn23fwIhPUz78ZoOx79oMVQ=w1264[/img][/center]
[center]War & Climate Change: Jeremy Corbyn on the Brutal Quest
for Oil & the Need for a Sustainable Planet: VIDEO[/center]
HTML http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/8/war_climate_change_jeremy_corbyn_on?autostart=true
#Post#: 4172--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: December 10, 2015, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Eddie link=topic=559.msg93094#msg93094
date=1449765785]
Doubtful we'd ever get the chance to vote for a Sanders, given
the way our system works. The only two candidates that offer
anything that seems the least bit sensible are Sanders on the
liberal side, and Paul on the conservative side. There are
things about each of them that would make me have to hold my
nose while I pulled the lever to vote for either one, but I
would consider it.
All the other candidates fill me with fear and loathing. Every
one of them is a tool of the elites. So one of them is the only
choice i expect to be given at the polls.
Well, maybe Trump is not a tool of the elites...but he is an
elite, as much as he pretends to be a man of the people. He's in
a special class of heightened fear and loathing...as in, if he's
elected, it's time to call Doug Casey and ask about condos in
Uruguay.[/quote]
You mean, how THEIR system works, right? If you still labor
under the view that it is "our" system, you are woefully
optimistic. OUR system, Eddie, does NOT work because it is
dysfunctional by design.
Pondering the mere possibility that Trump is not a tool of the
elite is 180 degrees out of phase. Trump is their representative
and member in good standing.
And at the rate things are deteriorating, you soon will not have
to hold your nose to "vote" (LOL!) for tweedledee or tweedledum.
Meanwhile, those fine credentialed University folks you and
MKing so admire are doing what they do to preserve the fossil
fuel government/Wall Street empathy deficit disordered SYSTEM
that Trump represents.
Trump is an "independent" who is so "rational" that he gets
offended at oceanic wind turbines because they "ruin" the view
for golfers at his Scottish golf course. Shame on him for
pretending he is anything but an empathy deficit disordered
demagogue.
All the noise he is making now is part of the campaign to KEEP
COP21 OFF THE NEWS with hysteria about 'airab terrists' until
next week. They started it in November. After COP21 is over, ALL
OF A SUDDEN, Trump will start sounding quite conciliatory and
the whole Muslim thing will not be mentioned again in the media
until after Christmas shopping consumption has been boosted and
some profits from stupid people buying stuff they don't need to
feed a machine that kills other people and animals on the planet
have been pocketed - sometime in early January 2016. It's all a
murderous facade, Eddie.
Uruguay is nearly at 100% renewable energy so it is probably a
good choice (until the fascist fossil fuel government decides to
"make an example" of them by engaging in sabotage, bombing or
some other excuse to terrorize them by branding them as
"terrorist"). :P
[center]Greenpeace Sting Exposes Academics Hired as
Climate-Change Deniers [/center]
Posted on Dec 9, 2015
By Deirdre Fulton / Common Dreams
As climate change deniers face growing scrutiny and skepticism,
a new undercover investigation by the environmental group
Greenpeace shines new light on academics-for-hire, who are
willing to accept secret payments from fossil fuel companies to
sow doubt about global warming.
The sting operation publicized Tuesday involved two Greenpeace
UK employees posing as representatives of oil and coal
companies, and asking U.S. academics to write papers touting the
benefits of rising carbon dioxide levels and the benefits of
coal use in developing countries.
Professors from Penn State and Princeton University “agreed to
write the reports and said they did not need to disclose the
source of the funding,” according to reporting by Greenpeace
Energydesk, a journalistic arm of the international
environmental organization.
Energydesk reporters Lawrence Carter and Maeve McClenaghan
continue:
Citing industry-funded documents—including testimony to state
hearings and newspaper articles—Professor Frank Clemente of Penn
State said: “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified.
All my work is published as an independent scholar.”
Leading climate-sceptic academic, Professor William Happer,
agreed to write a report for a Middle Eastern oil company on the
benefits of CO2 and to allow the firm to keep the source of the
funding secret.
[center]Among the exposé‘s other findings:[/center]
- US coal giant Peabody Energy also paid tens of thousands of
dollars to an academic who produced coal-friendly research and
provided testimony at state and federal climate hearings, the
amount of which was never revealed.
- The Donors Trust, an organization that has been described as
the “dark money ATM” of the US conservative movement, confirmed
in a taped conversation with an undercover reporter that it
could anonymously channel money from a fictional Middle Eastern
oil and gas company to U.S. climate septic organizations.
- Princeton professor William Happer laid out details of an
unofficial peer review process run by the Global Warming Policy
Foundation, a UK climate skeptic think tank, and said he could
ask to put an oil-funded report through a similar review
process, after admitting that it would struggle to be published
in an academic journal.
- A recent report by the GWPF that had been through the same
unofficial peer review process, was promoted as “thoroughly
peer-reviewed” by influential columnist Matt Ridley—a senior
figure in the organization.
Happer, the Princeton professor, was invited to speak on Tuesday
before the U.S. Senate at a ‘Data or Dogma’ ;) panel organized
by GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz. Greenpeace investigator
Jesse Coleman cornered him there to ask about the revelations.
Watch the video below: (at link)
Late last month, Happer—who has said “more CO2 would benefit the
world”—appeared at a climate skeptic summit in Texas, Energydesk
reports. There, he defended CO2 production saying: “Our breath
is not that different from a power plant.” He went on to say,
“If plants could vote, they would vote for coal.”
As Carter and McClenaghan point out, the Greenpeace
investigation follows recent reports showing fossil fuel
companies burying the truth about climate change, while funding
spurious research to cast doubt on the scientific consensus and
make it “difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to
trust.”
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/greenpeace_sting_exposes_climate-denying_academics-for-hire_20151209
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/greenpeace_sting_exposes_climate-denying_academics-for-hire_20151209
#Post#: 4226--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: December 28, 2015, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: The world's most in-your-face Welfare Queen
Crooks and Liars, the Fossil Fuel Fascists, are a having a
banner year at we-the-people's expense (as usual
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp).<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif
[center]
9 Gifts President Obama Gave Big Oil [img
width=100]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]in<br
/>2015[/center]
Lukas Ross, Friends of the Earth | December 28, 2015 11:12 am
SNIPPET:
[quote]
Big Oil has already received plenty of gifts this holiday
season. Despite another year of record-breaking temperatures,
the last 12 months have seen a wave of policy wins that could
secure an oil drenched status quo for decades to come. [/quote]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/28/obama-gifts-to-big-oil/
Agelbert rhetorical question: What is the reason the profit over
planet "real world" (see Orwell) modus operandi continues to be
aided and abetted by governments AND defended by fossil fuelers
like Mking and Roamer?
WHY, despite clear revelations of their toxic activity and
widespread calls to make these bastards stop their insane
environmental degradation of the planet,
[center][img
width=340]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-140614221527.jpeg[/img][/center]
do they continue to get away with it AND even continue to be
SUBSIDIZED
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif
to DO
IT!!!? ???
Because the people that run the governments of human society who
are running the biosphere into the Sixth Mass Extinction are
those overwhelmingly responsible for the empathy deficit
disordered profit over planet. Their "real world" is nothing but
the routine fiction any criminal gang puts up to justify
criminal behavior..
12/04/2015 12:12 PM
Income Inequality = Climate Inequality, Says Oxfam
SustainableBusiness.com News
In the US, one of the major themes in our presidential campaign
is income inequality between the richest 1% and the rest of our
citizens. Not surprisingly, this theme also applies to climate
change.
Oxfam's new report - released at COP21 - lays bare
"climate-change inequality": the world's richest 1% are also the
biggest polluters by far, producing 175 times the carbon
emissions as people in the bottom 10% of income.
[quote]The richest 10% are responsible for half the world's
emissions, while the poorest half - roughly 3.5 billion people -
produce only 10% of all emissions.[/quote]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-041215221521.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center]Income inequality[/center]
And the poor are - and will - be most negatively affected by
climate change. They can't move to safer ground or even insulate
their homes the way rich people can. They tend to live in
countries with the least capacity to adapt.
"Climate change and economic inequality are inextricably linked
and together pose one of the greatest challenges of the 21st
century," says Tim Gore of Oxfam.
Another report, "Carbon and Inequality: From Kyoto to Paris"
comes to the same conclusion. "It is the rich Europeans,
Americans and Chinese that emit the most carbon, while the
emissions from the world's poorest citizens are falling. The
richest 1% of Americans, Luxembourgers, Singaporeans and Saudis
emit more than 200 tonnes of carbon per person per year; 2,000
times more than the poorest in Honduras, Rwanda or Malawi," says
author French economist Thomas Piketty (who wrote the best
seller, "Capital").
Both Oxfam and Pikkety conclude the rich should be held
accountable for emissions, no matter where they live.
Oxfam points out that the super rich in developing countries
like China, India, Brazil and South Africa have
high and rapidly rising emissions, but are still "behind" their
advanced country counterparts .. and they will soon catch up.
Oxfam says:
"While the richest citizens can and should contribute as
individuals to cutting their own emissions through lifestyle
changes, wherever they live, they can't solve the climate crisis
through voluntary action alone. Their choices are often
constrained by the decisions of their governments in all sorts
of areas, from energy to transport policy.
"Without question, a weak agreement in Paris is no more in their
interests than it is in the interests of the poorest and least
responsible. Increasingly members of the richest 10% are
experiencing the impacts of climate change themselves, and are
mobilizing to demand action from their governments.
"The only beneficiaries of inadequate climate action in Paris
and beyond are a much smaller elite with vested interests in the
continuation of a high carbon and deeply unequal global economy.
[quote] The number of billionaires with interests in fossil fuel
activities has risen from 54 n 2010 to 88 in 2015, while the
size of their combined personal fortunes has expanded by around
50% from over $200 billion to more than $300 billion."
[/quote]
Poor nations haven't caused the problem but they are most
vulnerable to it. They need help to adapt so their people can
live.
And the world can't afford ANY more emissions, so developing
countries must get assistance to leap frog to renewable energy
instead of using coal.
Accelerating natural disasters already impacts hundreds of
millions of people a year. The Rockefeller Foundation estimates
that $1 out of every $3 spent on development is lost to these
recurring crises - a total $3.8 trillion worldwide. Resilient
societies would suffer less and recover more quickly.
Nearly 634 million people live in risk-prone coastal areas and
areas at risk from droughts and floods.
Read Oxfam's report, "Extreme Carbon Inequality":
Website:
www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/mb-extr
eme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26487
Talk that blames the poor people because they "have too many
babies" is irresponsible, as well as being IRRELEVANT. But, it
is a devilishly clever method for taking the spotlight off the
real culprits, especially those biosphere math challenged
criminals among the fossil fuel worshippers.
#Post#: 4232--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: December 29, 2015, 6:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Golden Oxen link=topic=6157.msg94107#msg94107
date=1451349301]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-140614221527.jpeg
I remember clearly the fight they put up to take lead out of
gasoline, Yes LEAD.
Can you imagine 250 million vehicles on the road here 24/7
spitting out LEAD constantly.
They told everyone their cars would knock like hell and their
engines would be toast after 10 thousand miles.
The real reason was the Benjamins, they didn't want to spend the
dough on the advanced safer additives. Lead was just fine
according to them. ::)
[/quote]
Yep. But it gets better.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>When Prohibition came into effect (that was REALLY about
Rockefeller's Benjamins too!), farmers could no longer grow
their own fuel for their tractors. You see, ethanol, known in
Brazil as E100 and used routinely to run internal combustion
machines efficiently (only a slightly higher compression ratio
is required) was IDEAL for high compression engines. Guess who
needed fuel for those engines? The aviation industry! Tetra
ethyl lead makes the witches brew of VOCS (mostly toxic volatile
organic compounds) and various long chained hydrocarbons (i.e.
gasoline) combust more evenly at a certain temperature. The very
same result was ALREADY available from ethanol because it
carries its own oxygen and is only one chemical compound.
Ethanol has a HIGHER octane rating than gasoline.
As more powerful and bigger engines were invented AND aviation
needed high compression engines for high altitude flying
efficiency, Rockefeller and his pals at Dow Chemical (or Du Pont
- I can't remember right now)scramble for something to goose
gasoline with. They sure as Benjamins did not want to admit
ethanol was the better fuel...
Well, Prohibition ended and America began the long march to
prepare for war in the air with fighters and bombers that
REQUIRED high compression engines. We-the-people were STUCK with
tetra ethyl lead and a spurious propaganda campaign bad mouthing
ethanol, when anybody that has ever been to a drag race KNOWS
alcohol is IT for high compression engine dragsters.
Finally, TO THIS DAY, it is STILL LEGAL for gasoline powered
aircraft to USE LEADED GASOLINE. It's called avgas. The 130
octane stuff I used fuel Piper Navajos with has a green die to
differentiate it as the "good stuff" for high compression, high
horsepower engines. So, if you live under the approach end of
general aviation airport, you get a routine shower of lead for
your kids to enjoy, complements of the fossil fuel government.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif
The laws on fuel as corrupted in this country that you CANNOT
legally make ethanol for fuel UNLESS it has a REQUIRED
percentage of gasoline added to it. The excuse is that it is a
"safeguard" to make sure it is not sold as booze, as per the
Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco portion of the fossil fuel government.
But we know that is BALONEY. It's just one more hidden subsidy
for the fossil fuel government profit over planet welfare
queens.
As you said, it's all about the Benjamins.
#Post#: 4233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: December 29, 2015, 7:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Golden Oxen link=topic=559.msg94121#msg94121
date=1451387423]
[quote]The laws on fuel as CORRUPTED in this country that you
CANNOT legally make ethanol for fuel UNLESS it has a REQUIRED
percentage of gasoline added to it. The excuse is that it is a
"safeguard" to make sure it is not sold as booze, as per the
Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco portion of the fossil fuel government.
But we know that is BALONEY. It's just one more hidden subsidy
for the fossil fuel government profit over planet welfare
queens.
As you said, it's all about the Benjamins.
[/quote]
Amazing revelations in that posting Agelbert. Pains one to think
these guys are still running the show.
I'm wondering when they're going to move on and take over the
solar industry? Just like them, with their water boys in
government, to start charging us to use the Sun?
[/quote]
Good point. There is ample evidence that they want to put
bureaucratic fascist regulatory meter on solar power. It's
really and old colonialist style modus operandi going back to
the Dutch, English and Spanish Empires. The difference now is
that we-the-people are the targets, not some native tribes.
As you know, the colonial MO was to prohibit finished industrial
goods from being made in the colonies while the "mother" country
imports all the raw materials from skins to make saddles with to
ore for finished metal products to quality wood for furniture
(and so on). The finished goods were then sold back to the
people in the colonies for exorbitant prices.
It is mind boggling to think it was illegal to make a saddle in
South America for centuries after the European invasion. It was
just as hard (and illegal) to get mills going in the English
colony we now know as the USA to make cloth from cotton and
hemp. Making a clock in the colonies was very difficult because
it was considered a "finished" industrial product. People
actually made them with (illegally) wooden parts. The accuracy
was, of course, not so great.
What does all this have to do with solar power? The LAW, like in
colonial times, is used for the purpose of fleecing the people
and defending the cartels (in this case as applied to solar
energy). The power companies will push for, and win, the right
to put giant solar farms here and there to centralize the
energy. THAT will cost us because they will then have their
typical duplicitous excuses for jacking up rates on a regular
basis due "maintenance costs".
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
At the same time, local ordinances will make it increasingly
expensive to get permits for panels on your property, require a
NEW roof for your house if your roof is more than X amount of
years old and other economic hurdles make it more and more
expensive for your to just get started. THEN they will require
some annual inspection by a "designated" ass hole that will
charge a fee to "make sure" your solar panel setup is not afire
hazard" (or an eye sore, or "violates" some ordinance, etc).
To add insult to injury, the LAND the power company gets to put
massive solar farms on will be subsidized by we-the-people. WE
will also NOT be able to deduct our solar maintenance costs from
our taxes because we "aren't a business" while the power company
profits from subsidies AND tax deductions on maintenance costs.
The only upside is that fossil fuels will FINALLY be gradually
phased out as the overwhelming evidence of how in-your-face
expensive they are in comparison to renewable energy continues
to cause businesses and power companies to break ranks and
abandon support for and investment in fossil fuel industry
crooks.
Who knows? We might even survive all this colonial MO through
clever "adaptation". ;)
But it looks pretty hopeless right now.
#Post#: 4234--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: December 29, 2015, 7:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=roamer link=topic=559.msg94172#msg94172
date=1451425416]
I agree very much that the utilities and bureaucrats will fight
tooth and nail to control solar. I'd recommend installing solar
in parallel to the grid and use it to phase out critical
appliances. Use it to power small DC deep freeze which could act
as a form of storage with a little forethought. Small system
decoupled from grid to power essentials can provide fast
payback, avoid utility involvement and help start the
distributed solar revolution which is needed.[/quote]
[center]
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif[/center]
One small correction. The solar revolution really started about
three years ago when the cost of solar panels began dropping
faster than Wile E. Coyote. 8)
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--UOgyPpdbVU/TgYd1mOJh-I/AAAAAAAAAUs/8L037QmwbPM/s1600/WEC.jpg[/img][/center]
Those were the days when the baloney was flying fast and furious
from Stoneleigh and fossil fuel worshipping friends about
renewable energy not amounting to a hill of energy beans (see:
"drop in a bucket"). Many here thought she was an "energy
expert". LOL! Her predictions were all wrong. But she never
owned up to her bad advice. So it goes. She sticks to her guns,
even if they are pointed squarely at her face and are going off
as we speak.
And the vertiginous drop in price of the Renewable Energy from
Solar Power (that the fossil fuel shill Nicole Foss - Stoneleigh
denied would ever happen[/I]) is ACCELERATING.
Solar Costs Will Fall Another 40% In 2 Years. Here’s Why.
January 29th, 2015 by Giles Parkinson
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/29/solar-costs-will-fall-40-next-2-years-heres/<br
/> [img
width=70]
HTML http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/yayayoy/yayayoy1106/yayayoy110600019/9735563-smiling-sun-showing-thumb-up.jpg[/img]<br
/>
Meanwhile, there are developments at the Department of energy
that bare watching. 8)
[center]Dr. Cherry Murray Confirmed as Director of the Office of
Science[/center]
December 11, 2015 - 3:04pm
WASHINGTON – Dr. Cherry Murray was confirmed by the Senate on
Thursday, December 10, 2015 as the Director of the Department of
Energy’s Office of Science.
“Dr. Murray will be an outstanding Director of the Office of
Science, drawing upon her experience in academia as professor
and dean of one of country’s leading universities of engineering
and applied sciences, key R&D leadership roles in industry, and
as former head of science and technology at one of the
Department’s national laboratories, ” said Energy Secretary
Ernest Moniz. “I thank the Senate for the approving her
nomination and look forward to working closely with her as
Director.”
As Director of the Office of Science, Dr. Murray will oversee
research in the areas of advanced scientific computing, basic
energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, fusion
energy sciences, high energy physics, and nuclear physics. She
will have responsibility not only for supporting scientific
research, but also for the development, construction, and
operation of unique, open-access scientific user facilities. The
Office of Science manages 10 of the Department’s 17 National
Laboratories.
For the past year, Dr. Murray served as the Benjamin Peirce
Professor of Technology and Public Policy and Professor of
Physics at Harvard University. Previously she was the Dean of
the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard
University from 2009 to 2014. Dr. Murray served as Principal
Associate Director for Science and Technology at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory from 2007 to 2009 and as Deputy
Director for Science and Technology from 2004 to 2007.
Dr. Murray held a number of positions at Bell Laboratories,
Lucent Technologies, formerly AT&T Bell Laboratories and
previously Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. from 1978 to 2004.
She began as a Member of Technical Staff within the Physical
Research Laboratory and eventually finished her tenure as Senior
Vice President for Physical Sciences and Wireless Research.
Dr. Murray was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in
1999, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001, and the
National Academy of Engineering in 2002. [i] Dr. Murray was
appointed to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon
Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling in 2010
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp.<br
/> She was also awarded the National Medal of Technology and
Innovation by the White House in 2014 for contributions to the
advancement of devices for telecommunications, the use of light
for studying matter, and for leadership in the development of
the STEM workforce in the United States. Dr. Murray received a
B.S. and a Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
HTML http://energy.gov/articles/dr-cherry-murray-confirmed-director-office-science
HTML http://energy.gov/articles/dr-cherry-murray-confirmed-director-office-science
Agelbert NOTE: It is hoped that Dr. Murray, who has in the past
HTML http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_161590.pdf<br
/>written some excellent pieces about future plentiful rooftop
gardens and the potential for bountiful solar power to be used
for sequestering excess CO2 from our atmosphere, has not been
brought in as a stalking horse for the new "small reactor"
nuclear power scam AND/OR another fossil fuel government excuse
to keep burning fossil fuels through solar powered CO2
sequestering technology. [img
width=030]
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png[/img]
But I wouldn't put it past them. :P
And as to Stoneleigh and anybody who thinks she is an "Energy
expert", diner is served. [center]
[img
width=340]
HTML http://lucidating.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/eatcrow.gif[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=140]
HTML http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 4235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Poll
ution
By: AGelbert Date: December 29, 2015, 8:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE:
Here is MORE evidence that SHELL is gearing up for LNG BIG TIME,
the biosphere and CO2 pollution be damned. >:(
Fifteen New Inland Barges to Run Mostly on LNG
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.seatrade-maritime.com/media/k2/items/cache/e74cea9f4e15981678f4853cf3bafb8e_XL.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]LNG-powered inland barge [/center]
December 28, 2015 by gCaptain
A total of 15 LNG-powered inland barges to be chartered by Shell
for use in European waterways will be equipped with Wärtsilä
dual-fuel main engines running primarily on liquified natural
gas, the Finnish engine manufacturer announced Monday.
The 110-meter barges are being built for Belgium-based Plouvier
Transportation and will be chartered by Shell Trading Rotterdam
in support of its growing operations in the ARA
(Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp) and Rhinetrack
(Germany/Switzerland) regions.
The barges will each be equipped with a 6-cylinder Wärtsilä 20DF
dual-fuel main engine operating mostly on LNG. Wärtsilä will
also supply other propulsion equipment and its LNGPac fuel gas
handling system.
“The specified requirements were for environmental compliance,
reliability, fuel flexibility, low operational costs, and a
proven concept,” Wärtsilä said in statement announcing the
contract award. “The development of LNG as a cleaner fuel for
shipping is supported by Shell, and these innovative new vessels
represent an important endorsement of this support. They will
also enhance the safety and efficiency performance of the
company’s fleet.”
The ships’ hulls are under construction at the VEKA Shipyard
CENTROMOST in Poland and final outfitting will be carried out at
VEKA Shipyard Werkendam. Delivery of barges are expected to take
place between late-2016 and mid- 2018.
HTML https://gcaptain.com/fifteen-new-inland-barges-to-run-mostly-on-lng/
Agelbert Comment: There is no doubt that this is all part of
Shell's plan to profit from exploiting the ocean bottom with the
giant Prelude FLNG monstrocity.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://max-groups.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FLNG-MAX-blog.png[/img][/center]
[move]but there is more...[/move]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.green4sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Shell-LNG-generic.jpg[/img][/center]
Shell has contracted STX Offshore & Shipbuilding to build a
special bunker vessel to serve ships powered by liquefied
natural gas (LNG).
HTML http://www.green4sea.com/shell-orders-lng-bunker-ship/
At the above link you will find happy talk cheerleading for LNG
as a "cleaner" fuel for ships, TOTALLY ignoring CO2 pollution or
the MASSIVE amount of energy it takes to process natural gas
into LNG. So it goes. :(
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page