DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 271--------------------------------------------------
Big Money Doesn't Always Win: Fracking Bans, No Coal Exports!
:>)
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: November 6, 2013, 9:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Big Money Doesn't Always Win: Fracking Bans, No Coal Exports
11/06/2013 12:58 PM
SustainableBusiness.com News
Following up on our article, Key Votes to Watch: Climate,
Fracking, Coal Exports, here are the results from the 2013
election.
Fracking Votes in Colorado
There's great news from Colorado, where three of four cities
voting on fracking moratoriums approved them.
Most importantly, Lafayette voters passed a Community Bill of
Rights, which permanently bans oil and gas drilling.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif
It also prohibits corporations from storing or transporting
chemicals, water or any byproduct of drilling in the city. It
bans any infrastructure that facilitates the extraction of oil,
gas or nuclear, and bans any extraction of city water for those
purposes.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
Voters in Fort Collins and Boulder passed five year moratoriums
on fracking with strong margins. The vote is being recounted in
Lafayette where there is just a 13 vote spread.
Proponents were outspent 40-1, with the oil and gas industry
pouring in a whopping $900,000
HTML http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Spiele/smilie_game_017.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
in
contrast to $26,000 raised by activists.
Community Bill of Rights were also on the ballet in three cities
in Ohio. It passed in Oberlin, but were voted down in Youngstown
and Bowling Green.
Coal Exports in Washington State
Here too, fossil fuel interests took a licking.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/5yjbztv.gif
All four progressive candidates for Whatcom County Council won.
They are all against issuing the permit needed to build a coal
export terminal.
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb029.gif
The race was the most expensive ever for this tiny county of
200,000 people. The environmental community spent about $1
million!
The $600 million coal terminal is one of three planned in Oregon
and Washington.
Tar Sands Referendum, Portland, Maine This important
referendum lost by only 192 votes and would have passed easily
if not for big oil's money.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201604.png
If the referendum passed, it would have permanently blocked
exports of tar sands oil from Portland's harbor, effectively
blocking the route through Maine.
The proposal would have amended Portland's code so that a
terminal to store, process and export tar sands oil could not be
built.
The Petroleum Institute was a major contributor to the $600,000
to defeat the referendum. Grassroots activists raised just
$42,000.
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png
As is often the case, people strongly favored the proposition
[color=maroon]until opponents framed the debate around
misinformation - the "huge" economic and job losses that would
result.
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif
But activists say they will be back with a second referendum and
the head of Portland's city council says he will work with them
to pass a law that would block tar sands exports. We will keep
you updated on what ensues.
Here's the background.
GMO Food Labels in Washington State
Since Washington requires mailed-in ballots, only 60% of the
vote has been counted, but as of now, this referendum also lost,
54.8% to 45.2%.
Had it passed, Washington would have been the first state to
require labels on food that contains GMO, breaking through the
logjam of threats of lawsuits from Monsanto in particular.
Just two months ago, polls showed that two-thirds of voters
favored the GMO labeling proposal, but that changed once big
money started rolling in. Opponents ended up spending triple
that of GMO activists.
"Win or lose, this is a long war, and labeling is inevitable,"
David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, told Seattle
Times. Dr. Bronner's was the biggest donor for GMO labels,
contributing $1.7 million.
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25337?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SBGeneralNews+%28SustainableBusiness.com+General+News%29
#Post#: 295--------------------------------------------------
Internal Docs Expose Oil Industry 'Profit over Planet' Mentality
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: November 10, 2013, 7:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/province/abzna.gif
Internal Docs Expose Oil Industry 'Profit over Planet' Mentality
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png
Internal emails indicate industry successfully lobbied federal
government against new regulations. >:(
Published on Friday, November 8, 2013 by Common Dreams
Internal documents exposed publicly Friday have pulled back the
curtain on the Canadian oil industry's war against
carbon-curbing regulations in a bid to protect its profit margin
over the planet.
Emails between the Canadian federal government and the Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)—released through
provincial freedom of information laws and publicly posted by
Greenpeace Canada researcher Keith Stewart—reveal that last
spring the oil industry successfully delayed a proposed carbon
tax increase of $40 per ton in the province of Alberta by
lobbying
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>the Canadian federal government.
“The industry in these documents is clearly saying delay, delay,
delay and then do as little as possible,” Stewart said Friday
in an interview with the Globe and Mail. “And the federal
government seems to be taking that as marching orders.”
In the exposed emails, CAPP officials vigorously oppose "costly
new burdens on the industry and the economy."
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif
Numbered among their concerns is that the profit margin of the
tar sands industry could be
harmed.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif
They insist the proposed tax will hurt their bottom-line without
helping their public image.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gif
"The objection to the
oil sands is ideological... 2
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif<br
/>if the 40/40 guidelines were enacted, oil sands opponents
would
claim that they too were insufficient."
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
"Will higher stringency requirements impact production and
revenue?" reads the document. "Very likely."
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/shame.gif
CAPP urges the government to forestall any immediate action,
insisting, "more communication, public awareness campaign of
current policies, regulations, and environmental issues is
required."
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg
The industry's efforts appear to have been successful so far at
stalling a carbon tax increase.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif
Large
carbon emitters currently pay $15 for every ton of carbon yet
are reimbursed large portions of these penalties through
provincial tax write-off laws.
Alberta has been slammed for its relatively weak laws and high
levels of emissions, thanks in part to its dirty tar sands
industry.
_____________________
[i]This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.[/I]
HTML http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/08-2
#Post#: 355--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: November 16, 2013, 1:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Transferred from my newz channel at the Doomstead Diner
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCIzWwVroNU&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
[move]Senator Whitehouse Tears the Wall Street Journal Editorial
Page to tiny pieces! He exposes their DENY, DOUBT and DELAY on
absolutely ALL climate issues from the 1970s until now. NEVER,
and I mean NEVER, believe you will get ANY TRUTH about factual
science when COSTS for polluting industries are on the table!
Listen to the quotes! Then read the DOUBTS voiced HERE at the DD
by Snowleapard "WE JUST DON'T KNOW" and others. Listen to the
exact same words you have read from Snowleapard and Mking coming
from the Wall Street Journal Editorial page. It's ORGANIZED.
It's LOCKSTEP. It's PROPAGANDIST MESSAGE DISCIPLINE! IT's a PACK
OF LIES AND DOUBLETALK! That's the PLAYBOOK 1. Deny the science
2. Question the motives 3. Exaggerate the costs UNTIL they can
no longer DELAY the regulations or legislation. THEN they change
their tune as if they had NEVER DENIED the SCIENCE! [/move]
#Post#: 373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: November 17, 2013, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/climate-coverup-hidden.jpg
1960s book on the left that revealed advertising lies. On the
Right, the Book that Reveals The Greatest Predatory Capitalist
Crime in History by some of the World's Largest and Most
Powerful Corporations.
Agelbert NOTE: This book details in agonizing and projectile
vomiting detail WHO DID THE CRIME to avoid liability for the
CLIMATE TRASHING CRIME! For those TWO HUGE CRIMES, they need to
DO THE TIME and PAY THE FINE!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
The COVER-UP is ALWAYS worse than the CRIME. WHY? Because the
benefit of the doubt existed as to their motives when they were
trashing the planet. Once they decided to avoid liability with
lies and duplicity, they are A PRIORI admitting they KNEW they
were TRASHING the PLANET AND DID NOT CARE!
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif
First Chapter of Climate Cover-Up HERE
HTML http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Climate%20Cover-up%20Chapter%201.pdf
“Climate Cover-Up documents one of the most disgusting stories
ever hidden about corporate disinformation. What you’ll discover
in this book amounts to proof of an intergenerational crime.”
DAVID SUZUKI, Author of The Sacred Balance and Good News for a
Change.
“This book explains how the propaganda generated by
self-interest groups has purposely created confusion about
climate change. It’s an imperative read for a successful
future.”
LEONARDO DICAPRIO, Actor and Producer
“To those of us who have been unknowingly made to turn a blind
eye to the terrifying and true facts about global warming,
there’s no time left for ignorance. Please read this shocking
and incredible book, learn how we’ve been manipulated, get angry
and take action.”
NEVE CAMPBELL, Actor and Producer
“A clear and courageous battle cry against those who, for
profit’s sake, would lead us to environmental and, ultimately,
economic ruin."LESTER BROWN, Author of Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to
Save Civilization
“An exposé of planetary scale.”
JAMES E. HANSEN, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies
“Forget about the crime of the century – this probably qualifies
as the crime of the geological epoch.”
BILL MCKIBBEN, Author of Deep Economy and The End of Nature
“A compelling, sometimes chilling explanation of how public
safety has been sacrificed on the altar of private
interest.”CHRIS MOONEY, Author of The Republican War on Science
"If you want the full, detailed story of the manufactured
opposition to climate science and climate action, look no
further than James Hoggan's comprehensive and compelling Climate
Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (Greystone, 2009).
It's the real story on climate change and the media, with
footnotes."
ALEX STEFFEN, World Changing
Through impeccably document analysis, Climate Cover-Up exposes
the well-oiled propaganda campaign designed to manufacture
dissent and uncertainty about the science of global warming. It
is essential reading for anyone who cares about the future of
democracy.”
ANDREW WEAVER, Author of Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming
World
“An important and disturbing book about the lies and corrupt
language that government and industry still employ to dismiss
the facts on global warming.”ANDREW NIKIFORUK, Author of Tar
Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent
“Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a
remarkable deconstruction of what he argues is a carefully
orchestrated propaganda campaign whose goal is to set the agenda
in climate policy by discrediting legitimate science and
manipulating public perceptions of the scientific evidence...I
have no doubt that Climate Cover-up is going to stir up
controversy, particularly in the United States where many of
these strategies were deployed and fine-tuned.”
STEPHEN HUME, Vancouver Sun
"Climate Cover-Up should be as big and influential as the Hidden
Persuaders was; it exposes how truth gets twisted, how lies
become opinions worthy of editorial pages, how Exxon greases the
whole process."
LLOYD ALTER, Tree Hugger
"James Hoggan's new book Climate Cover-Up (Greystone Books) is a
must-read for anyone concerned about the biggest, most pervasive
effort ever at manipulating the media by some of the world's
largest and most powerful corporations."
BILL TIELMAN, The Tyee
“Hoggan’s book is a thoughtful and sustained exposure of a
movement which has done great harm. I read it with close
interest and shared his dismay. I recommend it to anyone who
wants to understand how denial has had such a charmed run. His
presentation is painstaking and reasonable. There’s nothing
shrill about it, and his justifiable anger is relatively muted.”
CELSIAS, Clean Techies
"“The writing is a well-researched investigation into the
continuing fabrication of the defense of Climate Change
“skepticism”, which amounts to a long narrative of invention,
first of outright denial of the science of Global Warming, then
of foot-dragging delay being urged on all Governments.”
Jo Abbess
“Their new book is a chilling description of greed, conflicts of
interest and the oil and coal industries' shenanigans; it picks
up where other books, like Ross Gelbspan's "The Heat Is On"
(1997) and "Boiling Point" (2004), left off.”
Truth Out
“The book does a very thorough job of documenting the history of
sometimes despicable attempts by various vested interests and
contrarians to discredit climate science.”
Biodiversivist
“In brief, this is a must-read book. I’ve read a lot of
climate/energy books over the past couple of years (trying to
glean how to get the message across to the public); this is one
of the two best books on the subject you will find, even if you
aren’t involved in the issue at all. “
Consider it required reading for anyone remotely interested in a
livable climate, or defending public interest from industry.
Although, fair warning: You will probably be angry (or angrier)
at the status quo after reading this. It certainly makes me want
to take a stronger stand than before… maybe I can find a way to
link studies of PR and denialism into my grad studies…”
BRIAN D, Left as an Excercise
“This book will open your eyes, it will raise your ire and, most
especially, it will inspire you to take back the truth — to end
the Climate Cover-up. This is a must-read book.”
Climate Progress
“This book isn't some silly bit of finger-waving by activists,
but a concise, well-researched (thanks in large part to my
friend, Kevin Grandia) piece of journalism by people who have
been immersed in the PR industry for decades.”
HARRY TOURNEMILLE, The Threshold
HTML http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up
HTML http://transitionculture.org/wp-content/uploads/betterworld.jpg
When all else fails, there's always the NON SEQUITUR for the
Global Warming Deniers.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
#Post#: 439--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: November 24, 2013, 10:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
These members of Congress are bankrolled by the fracking
industry
By Molly Redden
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screen_shot_2013-11-20_at_4-08-10_pm-1.png?[[/img]
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
The growing fracking industry is “yielding gushers” of campaign
donations for congressional candidates — particularly
Republicans from districts with fracking activity — according to
a new report [PDF] from the watchdog group Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
The report, “Natural Cash: How the Fracking Industry Fuels
Congress,” examines a period spanning from 2004 to 2012. In that
time, CREW finds, contributions from companies that operate
hydraulic fracturing wells and fracking-related industry groups
rose 180 percent, from $4.3 million nine years ago to about $12
million in the last election cycle.
These donations are flowing to members of Congress at a time
when some legislators are trying to increase regulation of
fracking, a process in which drillers inject a mixture of water,
sand, and chemicals into the bedrock to release oil and natural
gas reserves. The most serious of these legislative efforts is
the FRAC Act. First introduced in 2009, the act would require
EPA regulation of the industry and would force fracking
companies to disclose the chemicals that they inject under high
pressure into the ground.
Both the House and Senate versions of the bill are stalled in
committee.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
“So far, the industry has successfully fended off almost all
federal regulation of fracking,” CREW’s report notes. The report
adds that the biggest increase in donations from the fracking
industry came between 2010 and 2012, when Congress was
particularly active on fracking issues.
Candidates from districts where fracking is concentrated — CREW
identifies 94 such districts — experienced the biggest windfall.
(CREW built an interactive map showing the industry’s
contributions over time in states home to fracking.) The
industry’s political contributions to those candidates rose 231
percent, from $2.1 million to $6.9 million. That’s nearly twice
the increase in their contributions to senators and members of
Congress from districts without any fracking activity. CREW
identified
ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Chesapeake Energy as the industry’s
three largest donors.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png
The fracking industry’s increase in giving far outstrips the
increase in political donations from the oil and gas sector at
large, which rose 104 percent over the same period. The whole
oil and gas sector gave $35.6 million to congressional
candidates in last year’s election.
Rep. Joe Barton
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png<br
/>(R-Texas) was head and shoulders above his fellow candidates
in
donations from the fracking industry. Barton accepted more than
half a million dollars — $100,000 more than any other candidate.
In the past, he chaired the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and he sponsored legislation in 2005 to exempt the
fracking industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act. A version of
that bill became law and prevented the EPA from exercising key
oversight over fracking activity.
Republicans in general benefited from the industry’s largesse
far more than Democrats. “Nearly 80 percent of fracking industry
contributions to congressional candidates went to Republicans,”
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png<br
/>the report notes. Republican candidates from fracking
districts
saw their donations from this sector go up 268 percent.
According to the report, only six of the top 50 recipients of
fracking industry contributions among current members were
Democrats.” Only one Democrat — Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png—<br
/>cracked the top 10 list of fracking money recipients.
#Post#: 502--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: December 5, 2013, 8:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
MKing said at the doomstead Diner,
--- Quote ---
> so you can run your built from petrochemicals computer?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png
>
--- End Quote ---
Ah yes, the purist argument...
I can't throw stones because I am as much a sinner as YOU ARE?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/funny.gif
Your argument is based on the false premise that RENEWABLE
ENERGY is BULLSHIT. I don't care whether you deny that day and
night. You THINK RENEWBLE ENERGY DOESN'T EXIST. You think DIRTY
ENERGY is IT, as far as energy. You think that Renewable Energy
enthusiasts should just stop using ALL energy because that is
the only "ethical" way to challenge the status quo.
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif
From your point of view, it makes a kind of shrewd sense. All
those greens should just LEAVE the energy discussions to
REALISTS like YOU. Well, it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
Rockefeller pulled the same SHIT with gasoline over ethanol by
funding Prohibition laws. AFTER Prohibition, the argument YOU
just trotted out (Hey, don't use energy(gasoline) if you've got
a complaint about refineries and pollution!) was trotted out.
How fucking convenient.
Fossil Fuel Corproations Game the FUCK out of the energy
"playing" (that word again LOL!) field and then claim that's the
"REAL WORLD" and we just have to "LIVE WITH IT" or stop being
silly goose "hypocrites" using dirty energy.
It's NOT GOING TO WORK THIS TIME, PAL!
We NEVER needed fossil fuels. We DON'T need them now. Renewable
Energy was and IS MUCH CHEAPER.
ANY defense of dirty energy is BULLSHIT and YOU KNOW IT.
But I realize that won't stop you from pulling out all your
tired propaganda points so have a ball. ;)
ALL your arguments ALWAYS AVOID discussion of the MASSIVE
GOVERNMENT GIVEAWAYS that we-the-people have been cheated out of
by the Fossil and Nuclear Fuel industries.
They were NEVER subsidies. That were ALWAYS BAIL OUTS because
without them they would have never enjoyed an energy monopoly
that they would subsequently and perversely twist 180 degrees
out of phase and claim, LOL!, the triumph of free enterprise and
the "cheapest" form of energy.
All that happy horseshit is going away, not because of prissy
tree hugging environmentalists out to poop on your dirty energy
party, but because you represent a MASSIVE FRAUD.
And, thanks to people that write about this Energy FRAUD, like
me, Dirty Energy is going to go bye bye.
The ONLY GROUNDS for an argument that you have, which you NEVER
BRING UP, for some reason, LOL!, is that a person claiming
defense of the environment and Renewable Energy is a HYPOCRITE
if he/she own STOCK in a Fossil Fuel PIG or Defense Contractor
that Pushes them and nuclear energy. That is PROBABLY because
you've got SEVERAL OF THEM in YOUR portfolio! :evil4:
I DO NOT OWN STOCK, PERIOD!
I will stop using electricity when the power is off, not a
moment sooner. Every second I use it to call fossil nukes on
their lies is WORTH IT for the biosphere. I can't say the same
for you. ;)
Have a nice day.
HTML http://www.wallpaperdev.com/stock/wild-cats-apple-mac-hd-comic-pet-very-happy-cat.jpg
#Post#: 503--------------------------------------------------
Exposed: The Rightwing's National Plan To Crush Green Energy
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: December 5, 2013, 11:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Exposed: The Rightwing's National Plan To Crush Green Energy
Published on Thursday, December 5, 2013 by Common Dreams
From supporting Keystone XL to opposing home solar panels, ALEC
planning assault on the
environment
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-misc-025.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-misc-023.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-misc-026.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-monster-002.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
- Sarah Lazare, staff writer
The American Legislative Exchange Council's war on green
protections is poised to expand over the next year, taking aim
at the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulations, and
even solar panels installed in individual homes.
Alec's policy agenda will, among other things, seek to penalize
individual homeowners who use solar power. (Photo:
©iStockphoto.com/AndreasWeber)
This is according to internal documents revealed Wednesday by
The Guardian and supplemented by interviews that expose this
corporate lobbying powerhouse's vast anti-green agenda.
The revelations come in the midst of a three-day ALEC policy
summit in Washington, DC bringing together 800 legislative and
corporate leaders from around the country.
In 2014, ALEC will push a series of measures aimed at preventing
the federal government from curbing greenhouse gas emissions and
blocking state efforts to expand wind and solar power, according
to The Guardian's summary of the documents.
John Eick, the legislative analyst for ALEC's energy,
environment and agriculture program, told The Guardian that ALEC
will also advocate for increasing financial penalties for
individual homeowners who would otherwise benefit from feed-in
solar energy programs. Many sustainable energy advocates see
state-level feed-in schemes—like the one that recently came
under attack in Arizona—as one of the keys to a national
transition to clean, renewable energy.
ALEC also notes that its resolution in support of the Keystone
XL pipeline has "been introduced in at least seven states this
year which has helped highlight state support for this project."
In 2013 alone, ALEC introduced at least 77 anti-green bills in
34 states, according to The Center for Media and Democracy.
As Connor Gibson, a research associate at Greenpeace, explained
to CMD: "ALEC's long time role in denying the science and policy
solutions to climate change is shifting into an evolving
roadblock on state and federal clean energy incentives, a
necessary part of global warming mitigation."
"ALEC's guise of 'free market environmentalism,'" Gibson
continued, "is just a code word for its real mission in our
states' legislatures: to allow dirty energy companies to pollute
as much as they want, to attack incentives for clean energy
competitors and to secure government handouts to oil, gas and
coal interests. That's not a free market."
An excerpt from the documents, boasting of past accomplishments,
can be seen below (at the link).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Alike 3.0 License.
HTML http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/05-2
HTML http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/05-2
#Post#: 505--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: December 6, 2013, 3:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A collection of DEEP and CONSCIENTIOUS OPINION CARTOONS by
friends of MKing and Snowleopard
HTML http://cdn03.cdnwp.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/29/gimme-gimme-GIF.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.envisionyourdreamsllc.com/Golden-Pig.jpg
HTML http://www.naturalnews.com/cartoons/climate_change_600.jpg
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.bubblews.com/assets/images/news/123723647_1366753156.JPG[/img]
Snowleopards' FAVORITE!
HTML http://www.sprattiart.com.au/UserFiles/Image/SprattiFolio/Spratti-GW-toon.jpg
MKing asures us there is "Nothing to see here, just move along"
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif
HTML http://chrissharron.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Global-warming-by-chris-sharron.jpg
Remember that LAST PANEL when they tell you to stop using
electricity OR that you CAN'T SUE Fossil fuel Corporations for
environmental damage.
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg
HTML http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/Say-Global-Warming-Is-A-Myth-simpsons.jpg
If the Fossil Nukers HAD THEIR WAY...
#Post#: 509--------------------------------------------------
The "Let Them Eat Coal" Fossil Fuel Propaganda
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: December 6, 2013, 9:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surly,
YEP. And catch this news. The "Bjorn Lomborg organization"
issuing the ridiculous crap about developing countries needing
"cheap" coal was THROWN OUT of Copenhagen. Do you know where it
is NOW? WASHINGTON D.C. :evil4: We are the heart of fossil fuel
DARKNESS.
“Let them eat coal”: Why cheap,
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
dirty
fuels aren’t a meal ticket for developing countries
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
By Brentin Mock
HTML http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/coal-miner-01.jpg
Bjorn Lomborg,
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg<br
/>a Danish provocateur who loves to pick fights with the climate
movement, argues in the New York Times this week that what
people in developing nations — or as he called them, “the poor”
— really want is cheap, dirty, fossil fuels to help them reach
prosperity. Poor folks, he says, could get rich off of coal if
the West would just get out the
way.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
It’s part of an ongoing conversation that has stymied
international climate talks, about how wealthy countries have
gotten rich on fossil fuels, and now want poor countries to help
clean up the mess.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/shame.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>
Lomborg uses South Africa as his test:
The last time the World Bank agreed to help finance construction
of a coal-fired power plant, in South Africa in 2010, the United
States abstained from a vote approving the deal. The Obama
administration expressed concerns that the project would
“produce significant greenhouse gas emissions.” But as South
Africa’s finance minister, Pravin Gordhan, explained at the time
in The Washington Post, “To sustain the growth rates we need to
create jobs, we have no choice but to build new generating
capacity — relying on what, for now, remains our most abundant
and affordable energy source:
coal.”
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif
We’ll put aside the fact that the last time, or rather the first
time the Dutch came up with a prosperity scheme for Africa it
involved a vicious slave trade that put the continent on a path
to poverty it’s yet to fully recover from.
Africans, not Lomborg, are the people to determine what Africans
need.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
And while Gordhan, speaking for finance, may have said his
country needed coal in 2010, the following year during the COP
17 climate negotiations in Durban, faith leaders came together
declaring that [PDF] “South Africa must stand with Africa — not
big polluters.”
For their COP 17 statement they wrote:
For South Africa, true leadership on climate change and
sustainability must mean abandoning nuclear energy and its
continued use of coal, its insistence on claiming further carbon
space, and its refusal to change unless it is paid to do so by
the international community.
It must turn away from supply and pricing models that privilege
multinational corporations, must improve on its current paltry
ambition of at most 20% renewable energy by 2030, and commit
resources into developing renewable energy and promoting energy
efficiency that will create new employment and new opportunities
for all in Southern Africa.
They circulated a petition at the Durban conference calling for
the same. Among the signers: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and Pravin
Gordhan.
In Gordhan’s 2013 budget speech, he didn’t mention coal once.
But he did say:
To ensure that South Africa produces fuel that is more
environmentally friendly, support mechanisms for both biofuel
production and the upgrade of oil refineries to cleaner fuel
standards will be introduced.
In addition, government continues to direct spending towards
environmental programmes, such as installing solar water
geysers, procuring renewable energy, low carbon public
transport, cleaning up derelict mines, addressing acid mine
drainage, supporting our national parks, and in particular, to
saving our rhino population, who remain under threat.
We are also encouraging the private sector and smaller public
entities to be creative and develop low-carbon projects through
the Green Fund.
Perhaps knowing that South Africa wasn’t his best black friend
on this issue, Lomborg included China as another example, noting
how it moved almost 680 million people out of poverty by giving
them access to coal-powered energy. “Yes, this has resulted in
terrible air pollution and a huge increase in greenhouse gas
emissions,” wrote Lomborg. “But it is a trade-off many
developing countries would gratefully choose.”
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
Maybe they’d choose it, but “gratefully”? If they aren’t offered
much other choice? I grew up with a lot of people who came up
out of poverty by selling drugs. This led to a huge increase in
incarcerations and poor health outcomes throughout the rest of
their communities – not to mention shaving years off their own
lives due to the threat of jail or getting killed. Yes, it’s a
tradeoff, but they took it because they weren’t offered much
else in terms of jobs and economic opportunities.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
The tired “let them eat coal” argument that you should get rich
or die from pollution trying is obsolete and borderline racist
given you rarely hear it made for Europeans.
But Africans have determined that this is not an either-or
thing.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
A conference held in October by the Climate for Development in
Africa (ClimDev Africa Programme) concluded with a summary and
recommendations document [PDF] that said, “There is no question
of a choice between economic growth and environmental
protection. The green economy is about achieving green growth
while at the same time protecting our environment.” They
recommended that, “Planners of development programmes and
projects should include the valuation of Africa’s ecosystems as
part of their economic evaluations.”
In other words, there is no trade-off. What Africans have been
demanding is funding from the already-rich-from-coal countries
for their own climate change adaptation, mitigation, and clean
technology systems. Their economies have not been able to keep
up with the hyper-industrialized western nations so they can’t
afford this on their own. How they got that they way had a lot
to do with those Dutch slave traders.
Today, Lomborg’s home country is one of the world leaders in
renewable energy. I can imagine one of the African farmers who
actually have to live with the worst of climate change’s impacts
saying to him, “If this coal is so cheap and good, then why
don’t you eat it?”
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif
Brentin Mock is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist who writes
regularly for Grist about environmental justice issues and the
connections between environmental policy, race, and politics.
Follow him on Twitter at @brentinmock.
HTML http://grist.org/climate-energy/let-them-eat-coal-why-cheap-dirty-fuels-arent-a-meal-ticket-for-developing-countries/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily%2520Dec%25206&utm_campaign=daily
HTML http://grist.org/climate-energy/let-them-eat-coal-why-cheap-dirty-fuels-arent-a-meal-ticket-for-developing-countries/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily%2520Dec%25206&utm_campaign=daily
#Post#: 526--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: December 9, 2013, 1:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://awesome.good.is.s3.amazonaws.com/transparency/web/1012/subsidize-this/transparency.jpg
Proper Perspective on Fossil Fuel "Subsidies" (bail outs of an
UNPROFITABLE DIRTY FUEL INDUSTRY)
[move][I]Rockefeller (I'm a Capitalist BUT Competition is a
sin!) is the FATHER of the Fossil Fuel Industry's SECRET MOTTO:
Fossil Fuels are CHEAP because the POLITICIANS we buy GUARANTEE
IT!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-animal-031.gif
The
laws of thermodynamics and pollution effects are for Libral
Commies!
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-monster-002.gif[/i][/move]
HTML http://blog.sunrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/whichmakesmoresense.jpg
PROPAGANDA SMOKE SCREEN on the LEFT so we don't SEE the TRUTH on
the RIGHT!
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 30
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page