DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Hydrocarbon Industry Skullduggery
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10482--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: July 24, 2018, 5:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
July 24, 2018
[center]The Private Sector & Climate Change: Holding
Corporations Accountable[/center]
[font=times new roman]by The Sanders Institute[/font]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/dJyDOUZUEWw[/center]
There are a number of actions that our country could be taking
to reduce our carbon footprint and lessen the progress of
climate change, however, there are significant barriers in place
that hinder these efforts.
Many of these barriers stem from corporate action. Companies
that benefit from the continued use of energy sources that
contribute to climate change have a vested interest in hindering
the progress of solutions that will move us away from the status
quo. Below are a few examples of how corporations have done
this:
In the six years prior to 2017, rooftop solar panel
installations grew by as much as 900% in the United States. Each
year, more and more Americans were taking steps to install solar
panels on their roofs, lessen their carbon footprint, and
contribute excess energy back into the grid to further diminish
the carbon footprint of others who could not afford solar
panels. The New York Times reports that in 2017, growth in solar
panel installations came “to a shuttering stop.” This was
largely because of “a concerted and well-funded lobbying
campaign by traditional utilities, which have been working in
state capitals across the country to reverse incentives for
homeowners to install solar panels.”
In addition, Instead of cutting residents a break for helping
solve the climate crisis, the utility companies —led by the
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Edison
Electric Institute (whose lobbying efforts ratepayers actually
underwrite)—are lobbying for the end of “net-metering” laws that
let customers sell excess power they generate back to the grid.
Moreover, lobbying is frequently combined with political
contributions to, and coordination with politicians. Arizona,
whose capital lies in the “Valley of the Sun,” has incredible
potential for solar power. However, according to Tuscon.com,
last year in May, "A federal grand jury has indicted a former
state utility regulator and his wife for taking bribes.” The
former regulator took those bribes for approving a rate hike for
the areas utility company. Despite this indictment, coordination
between politicians and utilities in Arizona has not stopped.
For instance, environmental groups in Arizona have proposed a
constitutional amendment to the Arizona ballot that would
require that 50% of Arizona’s energy needs be met with renewable
energy sources by 2030.Inside Climate News reports that “a
senate committee passed a separate bill—which an APS spokeswoman
said the utility had proposed—that would add a second ballot
initiative with a nearly identical title” The most recent bill
has similar language to the one proposed by environmentalists
but includes a “safety valve” that would not allow full
implementation of the bill. This approach is designed to confuse
and halt progress toward renewable energy.
Arizona is not the only state that has experienced corporate
lobbying against climate change solutions, nor is net metering
the only issue where corporations have succeeded in moving
forward with policies and activities that demonstratively harm
the environment. For instance, fracking continues despite
numerous studies that show significant damage to the
environment and public health.
There are a number of ways that we can hold corporations
accountable and stop actions that negatively affect the
environment.
[center]Get Money Out of Politics[/center]
Too frequently, our politicians are able to be swayed by
campaign contributions that lead to decisions that harm the
American people, and put the future of our planet in jeopardy.
It is all too easy to find the enormous contributions made by
companies that contribute to our carbon footprint:
According to Open Secrets: Oil and gas companies have so far
contributed over $14 million to all candidates in the 2018
election cycle, electric utilities have contributed over $11
million, natural gas pipeline companies have contributed almost
$2 million, and coal mining companies have contributed over $800
thousand.
If we get money out of politics legislators might be more likely
to vote for policies and ideas that benefit their constituents,
the environment, and the world.
[center]Taxes That Reflect The True Cost of Pollution [/center]
A “Carbon Tax” is traditionally considered an “economist’s
solution” to fighting climate change. In short, the Carbon Tax
Center describes that “A carbon tax is a fee imposed on the
burning of carbon-based fuels.” There are two strong arguments
for why a carbon tax is both necessary and would work.
It holds carbon producers and consumers accountable for the
damage that their actions have on the environment. To put that
damage in perspective, National Geographic reports that “Extreme
weather, made worse by climate change, along with the health
impacts of burning fossil fuels, has cost the U.S. economy at
least $240 billion a year over the past ten years.”Economics
Help describes that “The idea of a tax is to make consumers and
producers pay the full social cost of producing pollution.”
Money raised by the government from this tax could be used to
finance initiatives that will further reduce carbon emissions
(e.g. subsidizing renewable energy or carbon capture.)
It creates incentives to for both consumers and producers to act
in ways that will reduce their carbon footprint. Producers may
invest in ideas that will reduce their carbon emissions to avoid
paying as much in taxes. Price increases on items or utilities
that include this carbon tax may result in consumers looking to
alternative energy sources, or consuming less.
Economics Help describes that “the social marginal cost (SMC) of
producing the good is greater than the private marginal cost
(PMC) The difference is the external cost of the pollution. The
tax shifts the supply curve to S2 and therefore, consumers are
forced to pay the full social marginal cost. This reduces the
quantity consumed to Q2, which is the socially efficient outcome
(because the SMC=SMB)” Therefore, the tax adjusts the price of
good to take into account the harm that it is doing.
[center]The impact of a carbon tax can be seen in the graph
below:[/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://new-amend.creativengine.com/assets/sanders-institute/imo/media/image/True%20Cost%20of%20Cabon.png[/img][/center]
[center]True Cost of Pollution Source: EconomicsHelp [/center]
Carbon Taxes are also proven to have worked elsewhere in the
world. British Columbia imposed a carbon tax of 10 Canadian
dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in 2008 and then raised that
tax to 30 Canadian dollars per ton by 2012. The New York Times
reports that the tax “reduced emissions by 5 to 15 percent with
‘negligible effects on aggregate economic performance… It
encouraged people to drive somewhat less and be more careful
about heating and cooling their homes. Businesses invested in
energy efficiency measures and switched to less polluting
fuels.”
[center]Get the Incentives Right[/center]
Each year, the U.S. government subsidizes a range of economic
activities. It is important that those subsidies encourage
economic activity that will help reduce our carbon footprint and
climate change.
Unfortunately, many subsidies support industries that are
contributing to climate change. Researchers at Oil Change
International recently found that “Government giveaways in the
form of permanent tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry – one
of which is over a century old – are seven times larger than
those to the renewable energy sector.” These fossil fuel
subsidies, including both federal subsidies and state subsidies,
total to $20 billion annually.
That said, the renewable energy industry has also received a
number of subsidies through the years (varying though different
administrations and not to the level of those for the fossil
fuel industry). These subsidies have contributed to substantial
growth in the renewable energy sector. Eighteen percent of the
United States energy needs are now provided by renewable energy.
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute states that the
U.S. has reduced its emissions “by about 760 million metric tons
since 2005.” The increase in renewable energy usage has
contributed significantly to that reduction.
These subsidies for renewable energy There are also other
benefits to renewable energy subsidies. Quartz Media reported
that “the fossil fuels not burnt because of wind and solar
energy helped avoid between 3,000 and 12,700 premature deaths in
the US between 2007 and 2015” and that “the US saved between $35
billion and $220 billion in that period because of avoided
deaths, fewer sick days, and climate-change mitigation.”
Incentives need to reflect economic activities that will help
the environment, Americans, and the world, not harm them.
[center]Get the Penalties Right[/center]
While incentives are important for companies that are working to
help the environment, it is equally important to include
penalties for companies that are harming the environment.
Most Americans are familiar with the largest oil spills in the
United States like the BP oil spill, also called the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill, in 2010. However, large spills that get
covered in the news are only a portion of the problem. According
to the latest data from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
excluding the BP oil spill, 287,416 barrels of oil (or 12
million gallons of oil) were spilled in the U.S. between 1964
and 2015. That equals over two hundred thousand gallons of oil a
year. The BP oil spill added another 4.9 million barrels of oil
spilled, totaling over two hundred million gallons of oil.
(There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel.)
A number of news organizations reported in 2015 that BP would
pay more than $20 billion in settlement claims as punishment for
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Justice Department called
the settlement historic and quoted Attorney General Loretta
Lynch in saying “Building on prior actions against BP and its
subsidiaries by the Department of Justice, this historic
resolution is a strong and fitting response to the worst
environmental disaster in American history...BP is receiving the
punishment it deserves, while also providing critical
compensation for the injuries it caused to the environment and
the economy of the Gulf region.”
However, when you dig deeper into that settlement, that
“historic” amount of money isn’t so large when you take into
account U.S. tax laws that allow corporations to write off
natural resource damage payments, restoration, and reimbursement
of government costs. Forbes reports that ultimately “BP should
be able to deduct the vast majority, a whopping $15.3 billion,
on its U.S. tax return. That means American taxpayers are
contributing quite a lot to this settlement, whether they know
it or not.”
In other cases, companies are given penalties that can be
considered negligible when their annual earnings are taken into
account. The Real News reports that “In the last 12 years,
Marathon Petroleum Corporation, who manage one of the largest
petroleum pipeline networks in the U.S., has had 61 incidents...
including recent spill of 42,000 gallons of diesel. In the same
week they had to pay A fine of three hundred thousand dollars
for another spill last year.” In reference to this three hundred
thousand dollar fine, Sierra Club’s Jodi Perras pointed out that
Marathon is “a 13.8 billion dollar company.... they will expect
to have a 330 million dollar profit this year. And so they are
paying $335,000 for that spill in 2016. That's pennies to a
company like that.” Ultimately, Marathon Petroleum Corporation
is being fined 0.001% of their annual profits.
Penalties should be large enough to encourage constructive steps
towards reducing future accidents and harm to the environment,
and when they are large enough, the burden to pay them should be
placed on the company, not taxpayers.
Tags: Carbon Tax, Climate Change, Incentives, Penalties,
Private Sector, Subsidies
HTML https://www.sandersinstitute.com/blog/the-private-sector-and-climate-change-holding-corporations-accountable
[center][img
width=340]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100718163824-14461877.png[/img][/center]
[move][I][font=impact]The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean
Energy Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health
depleting 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! [/font][/I][/move]
#Post#: 10484--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: July 25, 2018, 5:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Agnotology: Part six of six parts [/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-180315185953.png[/img][/center]
Agnotology: Part one of six parts
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/resisting-brainwashing-propaganda/msg10449/#msg10449
Agnotology: Part two of six parts
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/resisting-brainwashing-propaganda/msg10453/#msg10453
Agnotology: Part three of six parts
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/resisting-brainwashing-propaganda/msg10458/#msg10458
Agnotology: Part four of six parts
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/resisting-brainwashing-propaganda/msg10465/#msg10465
[b]Agnotology: Part five of six parts
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/resisting-brainwashing-propaganda/msg10480/#msg10480
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-251117173650.png[/img][/center]
[center][b]Fox 😈🦕🦖 news Climate change
coverage[/center]
[center]A truthful image from the UCS about Media
propaganda.[/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/ucsfox.jpg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070417182049.png[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181015183028.png[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=300]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-251117173820.png[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=300]
HTML https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/500x/72816168/we-will-be-dispensing-meds-shortly-stay-calm.jpg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-251117175954.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-040417131033.jpeg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 10498--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: July 27, 2018, 4:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Oil Change International Exposing the true costs of fossil
fuels
[center]Dozens of Advocacy Groups Refute Energy Department
🦕🦖 [img
width=100]
HTML http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/american-flag-oil-rig-lower_463x297.jpg[/img]<br
/>Report Touting [b]LNG Export Demand and Feasibility[/b][/cente
r]
Collin Rees, July 27, 2018 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 27, 2018
CONTACT: Seth Gladstone, seth [at] fwwatch.org
Lorne Stockman, lorne [at] priceofoil.org
[center]Dozens of Advocacy Groups Refute Energy Department
Report Touting LNG Export Demand and Feasibility[/center]
[center]In Submitted Public Comments, Fundamental Flaws and
Biases of Study Are Listed[/center]
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In comments submitted to the Energy
Department today, dozens of national and international advocacy
groups highlighted fundamental flaws in a draft federal study
that is intended to assess the macroeconomic impacts of expanded
liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The comments were submitted
by groups including Food & Water Watch, Oil Change
International, Friends of the Earth-US, 350.org, the Center for
Biological Diversity, the Center for International Environmental
Law, and dozens of local community groups fighting gas
infrastructure in their areas.
The joint submission criticizes the study for: a failure to
consider expanding state-based restrictions on fossil fuel
extraction; a failure to consider expanding economic costs of
fossil fuel-driven climate chaos; a failure to consider the
increasing production and decreasing cost of clean energy
sources; and a dismissal of growing international pressure to
solve the climate crisis and rein in fossil fuels that will
increasingly impact overseas demand for LNG.
The comments focus primarily on a blatant statement of bias made
in the study that undermines its credibility. The study authors
dismiss the potential impact on LNG demand of the Paris
Agreement on climate change, something almost every nation other
than the United States is working to implement, with what would
appear to be their personal opinion that “future progress will
(not) be very much greater than the past”. With this they assign
a very low probability (5%) to the possibility of tepid future
demand for LNG.
“The draft study is deeply flawed, as the authors [img
width=100]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/styles/renewablerevolution/files/780_9adc777a0e08428257b76ece69d18ee52006bb5e39d60d966bb2440d29d17641.jpeg[/img]<br
/>chose to ignore both climate science and climate action in fav
or
of what appears to be a political imperative over any objective
analysis. In my experience, this would not stand up to peer
review in any academic institution,” said Lorne Stockman, Senior
Research Analyst with Oil Change International and lead author
of the comments. “The authors need to start again using robust
methods for assessing the impact of climate policy on future
global LNG demand. Anything less is doing a disservice to the
taxpayers that paid for the study.”
“While a number of states and most countries are smartly turning
away from filthy, antiquated fossil fuels, the Trump
administration is senselessly pushing ahead with climate-killing
LNG exports. The world will increasingly reject our gas exports
in favor of truly clean, renewable power, and as a result the
costs of this policy to Americans will skyrocket. Trump makes up
his own science, and our country and the world suffers,” said
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, the
group that co-authored the joint comment.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to promote and
expand LNG exports on all fronts. This week it finalized a rule
expediting the approval of “small-scale” LNG exports. The rule
applies to LNG shipments destined for countries without
free-trade agreements with the United States, which have
generally been subject to a higher degree of agency scrutiny.
Read the full joint comment:
HTML http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2018/07/Comments-on-Draft-of-Macroeconomic-Outcomes-of-Market-Determined-Levels-of-US-LNG-Exports-Final.pdf
HTML http://priceofoil.org/2018/07/27/advocacy-groups-refute-doe-lng-export-study/
[center][img
width=240]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100718164155-14511755.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=140]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-270718182509.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 10509--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: July 28, 2018, 6:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=340]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070815234504.png[/img][/center]
[center]Trump 🦀 Expected to Roll Back California’s Clean
Air Plan[/center]
July 25, 2018
The Environmental Protection Agency will revoke California’s
exception to the Clean Air Act that had allowed it to set higher
clean air standards than the rest of the nation. This means auto
manufacturers will be allowed to follow lower fuel efficiency
standards and do not need to sell as many electric vehicles. We
talk to Paul Cort of EarthJustice about the legal and
environmental ramifications
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/tJC4vFS1WM4[/center]
[center]Story Transcript[/center]
SHARMINI PERIES: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Sharmini
Peries, coming to you from Baltimore.
The Trump administration has not only withdrawn from the Paris
climate accord, but it is now expected to present a new plan
this week to revoke California’s ability to set state vehicle
emissions standards and to mandate electric vehicle sales. If
implemented, and all signs are that it will be, this represents
a major blow to California’s leadership role in setting
emissions standards for the country. In addition, the new rules
will roll back federal rules to boost fuel efficiency that are
currently in place into the next decade.
Now joining me to discuss the consequences of this latest
assault on carbon emissions and the standards is Paul Cort. Paul
is a staff attorney with the organization Earthjustice in
California, and at its regional office in San Francisco. Paul, I
thank you so much for joining us today.
PAUL CORT: Thank you for having me.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Paul, let’s begin with these latest
regulatory rollbacks with regard to fuel emissions standards.
What are they, and what will it do?
PAUL CORT: Well, this is all still in the rumor stage, but it
sounds like there are two pieces. The first piece would be to
roll back the federal fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas
emissions standards. So EPA in 2013 under Obama entered into an
agreement with California and the auto manufacturers to
establish fuel economy standards that would ratchet down over
the next 10-plus years, through 2025. Trump administration, not
surprisingly, wants to roll those back. It does not want the
standards to continue to tighten through 2025, and has said that
their preference would be to freeze those standards at 2020
levels and keep fuel economy at that level.
The second part is that they realize that what they’re proposing
would be to split the standards. So they would loosen the
federal standards, but California still has the ability to adopt
more stringent emission standards. And so the Trump
administration, recognizing that they don’t want to create two
sets of standards, is not only going to roll back the federal
standards, but go after California’s ability to set its own
standards.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Paul, what does this mean in terms
of emission controls?
PAUL CORT: Well, what the Trump administration is proposing to
do by freezing that fuel economy standard is going to mean that
greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise. And the proposal
would be the equivalent of adding 43 coal-fired power plants in
the United States. It’s that level of greenhouse gas emissions
that we would have avoided with the Obama standards.
SHARMINI PERIES: And not only, as I said off the top, since
California is known for setting regulatory standards that other
states then follow, this means an increase in emissions across
the country, and not meeting the standards we had hoped for
under the Obama plan.
PAUL CORT: Right. Well, the California standards are both about
greenhouse gases but also about just basic air pollutants. The
emissions that create smog and soot pollution in California, and
in 13 other states across the country. So they want to go after
the ability of those states not just to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, but just to protect air quality in those polluted
regions.
SHARMINI PERIES: And California had set those standards a while
ago, because I remember when it was almost impossible to go to
L.A. because the smog was so bad.
PAUL CORT: Yeah, so California’s had this special provision
carved out in law in the Clean Air Act since it was adopted in
1970, because as far back as the 1950s and ’60s, California had
recognized the need to clean up cars. California was responsible
for the development of the catalytic converter. It was
California standards, really, that have driven the advancement
of automotive technology for going on 50 years now.
SHARMINI PERIES: Paul, it’s it’s rather ironic that a
conservative president, President Trump, is insisting on
regulating what a state can and cannot do. Because
traditionally, the conservatives, or Republicans, have always
stood up for the rights of states to regulate itself. What do
you make of this political shift?
PAUL CORT: I mean, it’s clearly not principled or consistent
with traditional conservative values about state leadership. And
it’s not based in reality, either. Because again, the states,
especially in this field, have been the innovators, have driven
the technology. And, you know, all the ways that state
leadership matters, here’s proof that having that state
authority can lead to superior results.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Now, as far as justice is concerned,
is this a done deal? Or are you going to plan to fight back?
PAUL CORT: I mean, all the rumors point to this proposal coming
out. But we’re still puzzled whose interest this serves, really.
The auto manufacturers don’t want this fight. They don’t want to
have multiple standards out there. They don’t want the
uncertainty that’s bound to come as a result of litigation. You
know, maybe this is about the oil industry. But you know, I
haven’t heard anyone, other than folks within the
administration, pushing for these changes.
California has reached out and has offered to, you know, make
slight changes to the program to account for some of the
complaints that they’re hearing. But I’m not hearing anybody
actually support this proposal. So at that level, I guess we’re
holding out hope that someone will come to their senses and, and
pivot before they finalize this. But this is the way it’s-.
SHARMINI PERIES: Paul, is there any chance that the car
manufacturers themselves will proceed with the standards that
they were expecting to deliver, regardless of what the federal
government regulates?
PAUL CORT: I think, well, it’s hard to say. I mean, I think- you
know, California and the United States will probably end up
getting dirtier cars. But I think the, the ironic part about all
this is that there are countries around the world, China, many
countries in Europe, who are moving away from fossil fuels. And
so for our industries to compete in those markets they’re going
to have to develop these cleaner cars. And the result may be
that those countries get the cleaner cars while we get stuck
with the dirty ones.
SHARMINI PERIES: And what’s the deal with electric car vehicle
sales? What is it that the federal government wants to do in
that regard?
PAUL CORT: Well, they want to take away, again, California’s
ability to require that auto manufacturers sell a certain
percentage of zero emission vehicles. California adopted a
mandate for zero emission vehicles even before they were talking
about greenhouse gases. Because California realized again to
meet just the smog standards in places like L.A. and the Central
Valley that we need to move away from combustion in cars. And so
it’s always been tied to meeting basic air quality standards.
But EPA, again, according to the rumors, is going to argue that
that’s about greenhouse gases, and that’s outside of
California’s authority.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Paul, I thank you so much for
joining us. I’ve been speaking with Paul Cort with Earthjustice.
I thank you.
PAUL CORT: Thank you.
SHARMINI PERIES: And thank you for joining us here on The Real
News Network.
HTML https://therealnews.com/stories/trump-expected-to-roll-back-californias-clean-air-plan
[center][img
width=400]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170718172005.png[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=400]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-240718142416.png[/img][/center]
[center]
[img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-270615171708.jpeg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 10522--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: July 31, 2018, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/D0E_3S7HiDEYsz4SgN1eWqK8SOEgiOIPNVm4ZWYTfPOQyJHQjQffVAWmMMtz1TB-0AUkPfN46_J5AZYjq-U6Pcs8CZlreFtQ9PDZ2q83uc4ceStp1FGi3nxuJNsDU52nnhGhC8SRgeHGuUy5f_s=s0-d-e1-ft#https://dingo.care2.com/pictures/petition_images/petition/478/514802-1531585363-wide.jpg[/img][/center]
July 31, 2018
[center]Pence's Family Business Cost Taxpayers Over $20 Million
In Environmental Cleanup. Make Them Pay Us Back![/center]
by: OD Action
recipient: Vice President Mike Pence and his brother, Greg Pence
63,094
The family business of Vice President Mike Pence, Kiel Bros. Oil
Co, went under in 2004, making millions for the Pences but
leaving a trail of environmental wreckage and dangerous
chemicals behind. Almost a decade and a half later, the cleanup
cost has exceeded $22 million and counting.
And guess who's paying the majority of the Pences' tab —
taxpayers. We refuse to stand for it and demand Mike Pence and
his family fully reimburse the public for the fallout from their
reckless business practices.
Pence and his Republican Party claim to loathe government
spending and love "personal responsibility," using that ideology
to deny millions of Americans lifesaving healthcare, food
assistance, and housing — among other things.
But that is clearly a lie. When it comes to cleaning up the
mistakes of businessmen born to privilege, Pence and his ilk are
more than happy to let us pay their debts.
We think it's time for the Vice President to take a little
personal responsibility of his own. Add your name to demand the
Pence family pay back the tens of millions that taxpayers have
paid to clean up their toxic mess! [img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/514/802/478/
#Post#: 10537--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 1, 2018, 6:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Feast your eyes on this latest bit of Trump
Mindfork. Trump [img
width=80]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/styles/renewablerevolution/files/780_9adc777a0e08428257b76ece69d18ee52006bb5e39d60d966bb2440d29d17641.jpeg[/img],<br
/>a 24/7 TOOL of the Koch Brothers, is going full Orwell and
claiming he ain't got nuttin' to do wid dem'. [img
width=80]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]
[quote]The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke
in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and
Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t
need their money or bad ideas. They love my Tax & Regulation
Cuts, Judicial picks & more. I made…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2018
….them richer. Their network is highly overrated, I have beaten
them at every turn. They want to protect their companies outside
the U.S. from being taxed, I’m for America First & the American
Worker – a puppet for no one. Two nice guys with bad ideas. Make
America Great Again!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2018[/quote]
[center] [img
width=300]
HTML http://memecrunch.com/meme/5L3XX/spiderman-bullshit-detector/image.jpg?w=544&c=1[/img][/center]
Read more: [img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png[/img]<br
/>
[center]
Donald Trump vs. the Koch Brothers: Major Rift [img
width=30]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718211017.gif[/img]<br
/>or Stunt Staged by Steve Bannon [img
width=20]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718205808.gif[/img]<br
/>? [img
width=20]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817121424.gif[/img]
HTML https://truthout.org/articles/donald-trump-vs-the-koch-brothers-major-rift-or-staged-stunt/[/center]
[center] [img
width=300]
HTML https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/c/b/n/s/t/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.1ofjs7.png/1519075417100.jpg[/img][/center]
[center] [img
width=70]
HTML http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 10539--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 2, 2018, 12:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www.workforgood.org/getasset/94faf2cd-34c2-4855-9221-ead0608380d5/[/img]
August 2, 2018
[center]The Trump [img
width=80]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/styles/renewablerevolution/files/780_9adc777a0e08428257b76ece69d18ee52006bb5e39d60d966bb2440d29d17641.jpeg[/img]<br
/>Administration’s 🐉🦕🦖 Hazy Plans to
Weaken Car Pollution Standards Won’t Work. Here’s Why.[/center]
Earthjustice attorney Paul Cort explains why Trump’s EPA chief
is careening way outside his lane in trying to undo a key
provision of the 1970 landmark Clean Air Act.
Full article: [img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML https://earthjustice.org/features/pruitt-car-pollution-law
#Post#: 10540--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 2, 2018, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
August 2, 2018
[center]LIVE Q&A: Who's Committing Treason?[/center]
[font=times new roman]TheRealNews[/font]
Started streaming 7 minutes ago
Aaron Mate hosts a live interactive discussion with Senior
Editor Paul Jay, taking on issues from Russiagate to climate
change to answer the question: Is Trump betraying the American
people?
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/0G7UXLfANfA[/center]
#Post#: 10542--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 2, 2018, 1:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img
width=180]
HTML https://wiki-gateway.eudic.net/wikipedia_en/I/m/Center_for_Biological_Diversity_logo.jpg[/img]
July 24, 2018
[center]Revelator: 207 Environmental Activists 🕊
Murdered Last Year [img
width=80]
HTML http://images.zaazu.com/img/Incredible-Hulk-animated-animation-male-smiley-emoticon-000342-large.gif[/img][/center]
Globally more than 200 conservation activists were killed in
2017 for trying to defend their communities from environmental
destruction, writes John Platt in The Revelator — an all-time
high. And those numbers, reported by the group Global Witness,
probably understate the crisis.
The murders were linked to agribusiness most often, then mining,
then poaching and wildlife trafficking. More than half took
place in Brazil and the Philippines — with Colombia, Mexico and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo next in line. Hundreds more
people were intimidated and hurt, including two indigenous
activists in Brazil who had their hands cut off with machetes by
ranchers who claimed their land.
[center][img
width=800]
HTML https://therevelator.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Countrykillings_EN.width-800.png[/img][/center]
What can be done to stop it? Read the feature now. [img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML https://therevelator.org/murder-intimidation-environmental-activists/
#Post#: 10551--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 4, 2018, 7:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img
width=100]
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/545693884664119297/mCDJfUgm.jpeg[/img]
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click [i]here
HTML http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa<br
/>to subscribe.[/i]
August 1, 2018
[img
width=990]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-121217195108.png[/img]
[center]Clickbait Goes to Print: NYTimes Magazine Issue a
Climate Whodunit That Aquits the Guilty >:([/center]
The entire August 5th issue of the New York Times magazine is
dedicated to a single story by Nathaniel Rich: how we could have
saved the world from climate change, but failed.
The promotional materials say it reads like a historical
whodunit, traversing the world before building to a moment when
a global agreement was very nearly, but not quite reached: the
1989 Noordwijk Ministerial Conference in the Netherlands. The
prologue says that neither the “common boogeyman” of the fossil
fuel industry nor the Republican party are to blame.
Who or what, then, in Rich’s account, was responsible for
torpedoing that conference and dooming us to climate inaction?
After 30+ pages of deeply reported storytelling on the science
and policy of climate change in the ‘80s, relying on numerous
interviews with some of the players involved, the last chapter
addresses that pivotal 1989 conference where we almost saved the
world. When asked what was happening as the Noordwijk conference
negotiations went into the midnight hour, a Swedish minister
reportedly said the US “government is f u c k i n g this thing
up!”
That failure is how the piece ends. The failure at the hands of
the Republican, fossil-fuel friendly Bush administration serves
as the anticlimactic conclusion.
How can that be? According to the prologue and epilogue, it’s
not the Republicans or fossil fuel industry that’s to blame,
because some in the GOP weren’t deniers, and because the
industry’s denial propaganda hadn’t ramped up yet. (A quick
correction: the Reagan administration negatively politicized the
environment, particularly DoI Secretary James Watts and EPA
Admin Anne Gorsuch. Also, the early 80s saw the emergence of
climate denial with API’s "Two Energy Futures: A National Choice
for the '80s" and Sherwood Idso’s “Carbon Dioxide, Friend or
Foe” in 1982.)
But we don’t need to trace the organized denial machine that far
back to see the acquittal of these groups is unwarranted. Rich
already did the work to prove their guilt.
If this were a game of Clue, it’d go like this. The key suspect
is Bush’s Chief of Staff John Sununu, who was so amenable to
fossil fuels that when he resigned, ECO magazine headlined the
news by quipping that “Sununu resigns… Coal lobby in mourning.”
Sununu was skeptical of climate science, to say the least, as
Rich’s penultimate chapters deal with how he tried to censor
James Hansen’s climate testimony.
The scene of the crime, where the failure happened, is of course
that Noordwijk conference. And the candlestick/murder weapon was
negotiator Allan Bromley. Rich wrote that “Bromley, at the
urging of John Sununu and with the acquiescence of Britain,
Japan and the Soviet Union, had forced the conference to abandon
the commitment to freeze emissions.”
It was Sununu, in Noordwijk, with Bromley, who scuttled the deal
that would’ve saved the world. Game over.
[center][img
width=300]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-020818201645-1486464.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=300]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060714185706.gif[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=400]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-071117175342.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-020818214537-1551111.gif[/center]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page