DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Hydrocarbon Industry Skullduggery
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10560--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 7, 2018, 3:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=800]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-020818201645-1486464.jpeg[/img][/center]
The [img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418201302.png[/img]<br
/>GOP and Big Oil [img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418201722.png[/img]<br
/>can't escape blame for climate change
By Dana Nuccitelli
Mon 6 Aug 2018 06.00 EDT
SNIPPET 1:
The New York Times [img
width=20]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png[/img]<br
/>magazine blames ‘human nature [img
width=30]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202829.png[/img],’<br
/>but fingers have already been pointed at the true culprits
🐉🦕 🦖
SNIPPET2:
In the key 1983 press briefing, Nierenberg [img
width=20]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817135149.gif[/img]<br
/>basically lied about the climate report’s findings, claiming i
t
found no urgent need for action. Nierenberg’s false summary made
headlines around the world and stymied climate policy efforts
for years to come. Only after 1985 when the discovery of ozone
depletion captured worldwide attention was climate change able
to ride its coattails back into serious policy discussions.
SNIPPET 3:
Culprit #2: the fossil fuel industry
🐉🦕🦖
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203402.gif
In his unfortunate Prologue, Rich also describes the fossil fuel
industry as “a common boogeyman.” He argues that the fossil fuel
industry didn’t mobilize to kill the 1989 Noordwijk negotiation.
That’s true, because it didn’t have to; had the treaty even
succeeded, it would have just been the very first step in global
efforts to cut carbon pollution.
[quote]Leah Stokes
(@leahstokes)
Of course Exxon wasn’t running a denial campaign until the
1990s. They didn’t need to yet. The threat of policy action was
remote. When action became more likely, that’s when fossil fuel
companies started their lying in earnest. 6/
August 1, 2018[/quote]
Immediately after the Noordwijk shot came across its bow, the
fossil fuel industry launched a decades-long,
many-million-dollar campaign to undermine public trust of
climate science and support for climate policy. For example, the
Global Climate Coalition (GCC) fossil fuel industry group formed
in 1989. By the time the 1992 Rio Earth Summit rolled around,
these polluter industry organizations began heavily investing in
disinformation campaigns to undermine international and domestic
climate policies. Speaking about the Rio summit, Bush 🦀
sounded like Donald Trump 🦀, saying:
[quote]I’m not going to go to the Rio conference and make a bad
deal or be a party to a bad deal. [img
width=20]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718205808.gif[/img][/quote]
Bill Clinton proposed an energy tax to try and meet the treaty
goals anyway, but the GCC invested $1.8m in a disinformation
campaign, and Congress voted it down. The GCC then spent $13m to
weaken support for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the Senate voted
95-0 to pre-emptively declare its opposition to the treaty.
Since then, Exxon [img
width=30]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718205137.gif[/img]<br
/>alone has given $31m to climate-denying organizations.
[move]📢 It’s been three decades since 1989 😠
[/move]
The fossil fuel industry is one exceptionally wealthy,
influential, and powerful ‘boogeyman.’ As Rich notes in his
Epilogue, it’s also been quite successful:
More carbon has been released into the atmosphere since the
final day of the Noordwijk conference, Nov. 7, 1989, than in the
entire history of civilization preceding it
Apparently at a private dinner the night before his piece was
published, Rich described the fossil fuel industry as being
“guilty of crimes against humanity.” It’s a shame that his story
took on such a different tone. As Benjamin Franta, PhD student
in the history of science at Stanford summarized it:
One common mistake in this NYT magazine piece is the idea that
companies like Exxon somehow changed from “good” (doing research
in the 1970s and ‘80s) to “bad” (promoting denial in the ‘90s
and 2000s). Exxon’s own memos show that the purpose of its
research program was to influence regulation, not to solve the
climate problem per se. The industry-organized disinformation
campaign that emerged at the end of the 1980s was in response to
binding policies that were just then being proposed. If such
policies were proposed earlier, it stands to reason that the
industry response would have occurred earlier as well. To say
that industry disinformation isn’t the whole story is to knock
down a straw man: the fact remains that it is a major--and
perhaps the most important--part of the story.
In the alternative universe where the Bush administration didn’t
sabotage the Noordwijk climate treaty, the fossil fuel industry
would still have crippled global climate policies through its
misinformation campaign and by purchasing the Republican Party’s
climate denial complicity. 1989 was a missed opportunity, but
the fossil fuel industry and GOP can’t escape responsibility for
the ensuing three decades of climate failures.
Full article:
[img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/aug/06/the-gop-and-big-oil-cant-escape-blame-for-climate-change-dana-nuccitelli
[center][img
width=990]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-260718203813.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#: 10561--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 8, 2018, 6:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s Plan To Take Tesla Private
;D[/center]
August 7th, 2018 by Kyle Field
[img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/07/tesla-ceo-elon-musks-plan-to-tesla-private/
Agelbert COMMENT to Zachary Shahan of Cleantechnica:
Zach, nobody here seems to want to mention it (except Kyle in
the article), but the Saudi move is evidence that the
Hydrocarbon Hellspawn fossil fuelers smell the bankruptcy coffee
from losing their market for the (former refinery waste)
products called gasoline and diesel.
I have done the math over and over. The "business model" of the
Fossil Fuel Industry is a dead man walking without a welfare
queen subsidized market for liquid pllanet polluting fuels.
That is the REAL bottom line for those crooks. They are,
therefore, going all out to destroy the competition. This is not
new to the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn. This is a part of their "buy
em' or bop em'" fascist "business model".
Elon has anticipated those dastardly fossi lfuelers at every
turn and beat them with high tech products and publlic good
will.
But now, the threat to Tesla is an order of magnitude greater.
Now, you can be 100% certain that Trump is backing the Saudi
move with all the skullduggery he can muster.
Therefore, the e-mail announcing the possible move to go private
is exactly the right move. Every shareholder will now realize
what the Saudis (and the Koch/Exxon/Chevron,etc. et al tools,
including Trump) are up to.
As a group the shareholders will individually put pressure on
brokers to NOT sell without specific permission. All the hedge
funds and pension funds that hold Tesla stock will be hearing ,
LOUD AND CLEAR, from people of good will that they will NOT
agree to a hostile takeover from polluters.
So, with just a single e-mail, Elon has forced the cretins from
the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn to abandon any hope of destroying the
company with shorts (the "bop em'" mafia tactic they have used
often to destroy the competition).
Simultaneously, the e-mail also exposes the "buy em'" option as
an attempt to destroy the competition against liquid hydrocarbon
fuels, effectivel destroying the underhanded, but clever, fossil
fueller plan to fool the public into believing the stock buy is
a "Saudi move o Renewable Energy".
The Hydrocarbon Hellspawn are against the wall. They fight VERY
dirty when they are threatened.
Elon Musk needs every single person that understands the good
that he is trying to accomplish to get active and call out the
happy talk lies about polluting cars over and over and over
again.
For those of us who cannot afford an EV, drive your gas guzzler
as little as possible. BANKRUPT the fossil fuelers. They CANNOT
survive without selling us a LOT of polluting fuel.
If we do not win this fight against the polluters, we are all
dead. This is the fight of our lives, people.
Zach, if you could publish a breakdown of how depoendent on
selling polluting fuels the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn are, it would
help to explain why the fossil fuel industry is trying so hard
to destroy the EV business model.
Everyone needs to understand that behind ALL fossil fuel
industry moves like what the Saudis are doing (and what Trump is
doing to force California to not adopt more environmentally
friendly stringent fuel economy standards) is THIS (see below):
[center][img
width=540]
HTML https://static1.bigstockphoto.com/1/4/1/large1500/141856316.jpg[/img][/center]
Climate Denial Is Now US Policy
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg6843/#msg6843
Zachary Shahan Community Manager > agelbert
Thanks. This was an idea for my next or 2nd next article. I'm a
bit torn on motives here, but want to put both out there for
many to consider.
agelbert > Zachary Shahan
Excellent! Thank you.
Wallace on Tesla Stock Shorters:
With $17 (?) billion at risk it seems like a group of them would
simply stake out the Fremont factory for a day or two and count
the new cars coming out. Hell, they could hire a private
investigator.
Either the numbers are coming out or they aren't. The only thing
left is somehow Elon is cooking the books and hiding huge
amounts of spending.
A few million dollars, I can see that being the Anti-Tesla Cult
money, but this is billions. Serious money that someone must be
taking seriously.
agelbert > Wallace:
See my comment to Zach. You may not agree with it but, if what I
said is correct (and I stand by my claim that it is correct),
then it explains why all the serious money from the Hydrocarbon
Hellspawn is being spent to crush Tesla.
Tesla is the vanguard of a threat (multiplied many times by the
current Chinese EV production rate) to over 60% of the products
the fossil fuel industry welfare queens get subsidized to
pollute us with.
The liquid hydrocarbon fuels that now provide gigantic profits
are slowly changing to a toxic waste product needing hazardous
waste handling equipment and technology. There is no way the
fossil fuel industry can be "profitable", even with all their
welfare queen subsidies, if their marketable products exclude
fuels. You can get lubricants from the cracking tower and use
the rest for feed stock to make textiles, medicines, fertilizers
and plastics (etc.), but the fossil fuelers know that is not a
profitable business model.
Here's the pie chart that shows how vital to the fossil fuel
industry the polluting liquid fuels are:
[center][img
width=400]
HTML https://thetravelinsider.inf
o/airlinemismanagement/images/crudeoilyield.jpg[/img][/center]
This is the obligatory (with very little leeway to modify
product percentages, per barrel of crude, in the cracking
towers) number of gallons of products from a U.S. (42 gallons)
barrel of crude:
[center][img
width=400]
HTML https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/products_from_barrel_crude_oil-large.jpg[/img][/center]
Here's some detail:
[center][img
width=840]
HTML https://s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/learnhive/lcards/Petroleum-52d6671eca3da.png[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-230717132319.png[/img][/center]
To say that Fossil Fuel Industry 🦕🦖 😈
disinformation isn’t the whole story is to knock down a straw
man: the fact remains that it is a major--and perhaps the most
important--part of the story.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/hydrocarbon-industry-skullduggery/hydrocarbon-crooks-evil-actions/msg10560/#msg10560
#Post#: 10562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 8, 2018, 6:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=times new roman]CleanTechnica[/font]
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!
Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/shop/#!/
[center]Saving Private Tesla: 7 Questions[/center]
August 8th, 2018 by Michael Barnard [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
[quote]Michael Barnard Mike works with startups, existing
businesses and investors to identify opportunities for
significant bottom line growth in the transforming low-carbon
economy. He regularly publishes analyses of low-carbon
technology and policy in sites including Newsweek, Slate,
Forbes, Huffington Post, Quartz, CleanTechnica and RenewEconomy,
with some of his work included in textbooks. Third-party
articles on his analyses and interviews have been published in
dozens of news sites globally and have reached #1 on Reddit
Science. Much of his work originates on Quora.com, where Mike
has been a Top Writer annually since 2012. He's available for
consultation, speaking engagements and Board positions.[/quote]
On August 7, 2018, Elon Musk tweeted a game changer. He
indicated that he was working toward taking Tesla private and
had secured the funding to do so. It’s fairly easy to guess from
this five-day view of Tesla’s stock price when the tweet
dropped.
TSLA trading was halted briefly with the significant rise in
market capitalization and volume.
Which leads to a set of questions. Is Elon Musk serious? Is it a
good idea? Is announcing it on Twitter legal? Who wins and who
loses? How will individuals invest in Tesla after this? What
could stop it? What’s next? Let’s take these one by one.
[center]Is Elon Musk serious?[/center]
Yes, he is. At around the same time as he tweeted, an email was
sent to all employees and then later posted to the corporate
blog. It outlined the status, the reasons, and for IPO- and
Silicon Valley-savvy employees, provided a great deal of
reassurance that this was focused on moving the company forward.
[center]Is it a good idea?[/center]
Yes, I think it is. Before seeing the email/blog post, I pointed
out the four advantages I saw to going private.
First, it’s good for current investors. If they own shares now,
they can cash out at 20% above start of Aug 7, 2018 value.
Furthermore, TSLA was already close to its historic maximum
after the quarterly analyst call and Tesla’s achievement of the
key 5,000 cars per week target. Investors, whether they were
recent or long-term holders of TSLA shares, will do very well by
this. If they had bigger dreams, they can retain their shares in
Tesla after it goes private.
Second, it eliminates the Tesla shorter nonsense. There will no
longer be that subset of market-driven venality creating a churn
of negative PR for Tesla. There will no longer be any short
selling opportunity for shorters, so they will turn their sights
to other targets and stop paying attention to Tesla. The
negative press won’t stop, as shorters were well-aligned with
organizations and individuals seeking to impede electrification
of transportation and the inevitable shift to an electric
economy. The Koch Brothers, the oil majors, and the Libertarian
“think” tank content providers will continue to fund and churn
out various pieces of nonsense. But they won’t be aided and
abetted by the shorters and the shorter-oriented press.
The third is that this would make Tesla a $70 billion private
company, which is well under the largest. Both Cargill and Koch
— there’s that name again — are well over $100 billion, and Koch
is increasingly stuck with stranded assets, hence its ongoing,
overlapping campaigns against global warming, renewables, and
electric vehicles. Private funding that Koch has lined up is
looking for exits in many cases, and shifting to a privately
owned Tesla would make sense. That’s part of the story of the $2
billion+ position the Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth fund has in
Tesla. The size of the private company, in other words, wouldn’t
be a hindrance to raising capital or funding debt. It will
increase the cost of acquiring capital and debt according to
some analysts.
The fourth is that Musk has significant experience running a
successful private corporation — SpaceX. Private is arguably
much simpler than public, and if you don’t have to deal with
public stock offering compliance, then a subset of your overhead
diminishes. One report references a 10% saving there. Instead of
quarterly analyst calls, a smaller number of institutional
discussions and governance suffice.
These are reasonably well aligned with Musk’s reasoning in the
email/blog post. They are obvious in retrospect, bold in
strategic execution.
[center]Is announcing it on Twitter legal?[/center]
The consensus seems to be that it is. The question comes down to
intent and accepted medium. If the intent was solely to pump and
dump the stock, then it’s illegal. If the intent was to clearly
tell the markets and investors about the intent to take Tesla
private, then it is legal assuming the medium is appropriate.
And while many aged former SEC officials are looking somewhat
aghast at the choice of Twitter as a medium, the consensus
appears to be that as Musk regularly imparts corporate strategy
via Twitter, as his following is 22.9 million and as the press
watches his Twitter feed like a hawk, this is an appropriate
medium. The medium would have to be one that is provably
intended to hide the information, not ensure its broad and rapid
dissemination. No one can claim that they weren’t given the
opportunity as investors to know about this plan.
And given the other preparations that have been made, Tesla’s
legal team probably signed off on Twitter as the vehicle for
this.
[center]Who wins and who loses?[/center]
As stated, investors win. [Editor’s note: However, some
investors who wanted to hold the company for much longer but
also wanted the high liquidity public stock ownership offers can
lose, especially if they feel forced to sell at a lower price
than they could have if they held onto the public stock.
Shareholders of private Tesla will reportedly have the
opportunity to sell shares once every six months or so, but
details regarding this and how the company will be valued have
not been disclosed.]
Employees of Tesla win as well, I think. The drumbeat of
negative “news” goes down while they continue to be equity
holders in the company. Their personal wealth goes up just as
much as any other investor’s.
People who are focussed, as I am, on the transformation of our
economy from technologies causing pollution and global warming
to much more benign technologies are winners as well. Musk’s
blog lays out the reasons why this is good for the management
and future of Tesla, and Tesla is leading the electrification of
transportation disruption, which is sweeping the automotive
industry. It’s part of his master plan, and this assists with
that master plan.
Shorters lose. Bigly. They have already lost billions on Tesla,
but shorting has wins and losses and it’s a matter of timing.
The biggest shorters with the longest positions have lost the
worst, and the shorters who bet on the most recent quarterly
analysts call lost large as well. But Tesla is a volatile stock,
and there were undoubtedly many counter-investors who did just
fine taking short positions at the right time for the right
duration. And as has been shown, many of them have excellent
communications channels with the Tesla-focussed press to gain
the knowledge of when to make their bets. That’s all gone now.
The subsets of the media which received a ton of eyeballs from a
steady stream of anti-Tesla news and posts — Seeking Alpha and
Business Insider are the most obvious examples — will lose as
well. With shorters and day traders no longer obsessing second
by second over TSLA, eyeballs for those sites will diminish.
(Editor’s note: That could also mean that eyeballs on
CleanTechnica will drop. We are not stressed about that, since
our core aim is to help society help itself, however that may be
as it relates to cleantech news, analysis, and commentary. We
only cover Tesla because of its important role in the cleantech
transition. You can also support us via a monthly subscription
if you are concerned about our revenue dropping. 😉
😀 )
Arguably, stock market analysts, especially the ones on the
quarterly calls, lose. Tesla is a halo stock. Being on their
calls is a status symbol. Tesla is sexy. If those calls go away,
it’s back to a mind-numbing round of discussions of various less
interesting company details. But that’s their job. Small loss
for them really.
How will individuals invest in Tesla after this?
It will still be possible via a private investment vehicle that
Tesla will set up. They need to do this for their employees.
Musk asserts that retail investors will have a choice to be
bought out or stay in the private investment vehicle. There are
various mechanisms for this, but the specific one used is a
matter of speculation at this point.
[center]What could stop it?[/center]
Revlon.
Okay, that requires some explanation. In 1985, Revlon was sold
with the aid of a junk bond king and saddled with $2.9 billion
in debt. This caused Revlon grief for years, but what is
relevant is that it is a case which has established fiduciary
duty for Boards of Directors which require competitive auctions
in situations like Tesla’s.
In other words, the Tesla Board of Directors has a legal
obligation to ensure that taking Tesla private with the funding
Musk has lined up is in the best interests of the shareholders.
That’s not Tesla’s best interest. That’s not Elon Musk’s best
interest. That’s the shareholders’ best interest.
Now, tweets like Musk’s don’t appear magically without a lot of
planning and preparation. He’s on the wrong coast of the USA for
that. This has undoubtedly been a subject of strategic
discussion with the Board for months and possibly years. Equally
possibly, the Board could have already discharged its fiduciary
duty prior to the tweet coming out.
If not, then they will be required to basically auction the
company off to the highest bidder, regardless of any structures
and funding Musk has established today. Watch this space.
[center]What’s next?[/center]
This isn’t approved. This has to go to stakeholders for their
approval. That will take a bit of time to set up, as voting for
shareholders isn’t electronic and formal mechanisms for this are
specified under SEC regulations.
And if the Board hasn’t already performed its fiduciary duty and
ensured that competitive funding alternatives lead to something
in the best interest of the shareholders, that will take a while
as well.
In the meantime, the shorters will undoubtedly be attempting to
find ways to spin this and short Tesla stock until it disappears
entirely.
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/08/saving-private-tesla-7-questions/
[quote]Maarten Vinkhuyzen
The problem with the Revlon case is that the courts likely view
what is best for stockholders as the highest bid now. The option
that Elon offers, to stay on as stockholders in a private
company will likely not be valued.
Another question is, what is the value of Tesla without Musk?
I doubt there can be a competing bid without Musk underwriting
it.
And no (group of) business adversaries is going to spend that
much money just to liquidate Tesla.
OK, Revlon is scary, it will delay the process, but it is
unlikely to alter the outcome.
Martin Lacey > Maarten Vinkhuyzen
If big oil is intent on killing the EV they have more money than
anyone and can buy Tesla and moth ball their technology. Highly
unlikely, I know.
Amazon and Apple might well be interested in buying Tesla,
incorporating it into their companies and will offer Musk a lead
designer/engineer role and a big buy out. Both Amazon and Apple
can make their own autonomous vehicles and use whichever
autonomous suite is ready first.[/quote]
agelbert > Martin Lacey
I am certain big oil wants to kill Tesla by hook or by crook.
That said, I think they will bankrupt themselves trying. Yes,
they have a lot of money and almost unlimited government backing
in the U.S. Petro-State under Trump, but I am convinced the EV
train has already left the station.
It's just too late to stop the Renewable Revolution in general
and EVs in particular. The Chinese alone are making a lot more
EVs than Tesla ever will, so no matter how much skullduggery is
aimed at Tesla, even Tesla will come out like Rocky in the movie
series. Tesla will get punched around but will come out of this
smelling like a rose. [img width=70
height=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060518153110.png[/img]
Betting against EVs is a losing bet that big oil has decided to
push to the limit. It will help sink them faster. WHY? Because
their happy talk propaganda has always been based on being our
"loyal servant".
That is what got them so much public support. Now big oil is
being exposed as the greedy, government bribing, welfare queen
subsidized bullies they have always been.
Those crooks will not be able to counter the truth. The public
will turn its back on big oil permanently.
#Post#: 10581--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 9, 2018, 9:16 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]
Aug 8, 2018
[img
width=990]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-121217195108.png[/img]
[center]Trump 🦀Admits Gas Mileage Reversal Will Kill 60k
Jobs [/center]
As the barrage of dumb Trump stuff marches on (Yay crimes! Boo
water!), analysis of Trump’s stupid policy moves often fails to
grab the public’s attention (yay asbestos!)
One of the administration’s most stupid policies of late is its
decision to reverse Obama-era gas mileage standards. Don’t let
the official language about the supposed lifesaving benefits
fool you: rolling back these standards, in essence, lets car
companies off the hook for producing better cars, and keeps
customers buying, and burning, more gas. [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203402.gif<br
/>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418193910.gif
E&E News, thankfully, has put some smart reporters on the
“stupid policy” beat, and produced a number of interesting
stories lately about the auto mileage standard rollback. Last
Thursday, the outlet ran an intriguing story about how the car
rule came together. Though officially the policy was a joint
effort between the EPA and Department of Transportation, E&E
reported that retired EPA officials told them the DOT “cooked
the books,” and that “EPA staff had basically nothing to do
with” the final policy document.
If DOT did take the steering wheel for this particular policy,
it’s not because of ample staff time: the division of the DOT
that worked on the rule, The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), has far fewer experts at its disposal
than the EPA. One former EPA staffer told E&E that her
“understanding is that NHTSA in-house has only two engineers
that are responsible for the fuel economy standards, whereas at
EPA, we have hundreds of engineers.”
Perhaps that dearth of experience is a reason why, per a second
E&E story last week, the auto rollback policy proposal cites
research from scientists who told E&E that they think the
rollback is “nuts” and “just not consistent with the evidence."
One researcher also pointed out the irony that the data used in
the study and cited by the administration is private, and
therefore wouldn’t be permitted under the EPA’s proposed (and
opposed) pro-tobacco science rule.
That the policy proposal justifies the burning of more oil with
research about the dangers of doing just that is hardly the only
oddity. Two stories E&E ran yesterday provide more details on
the nearly thousand-page auto rule proposal.
For example, despite Trump’s claim last year that “the assault
on the American auto industry is over,” and the right wing’s
well-worn canard about regulations costing jobs, Trump’s
proposed rule change, per E&E, actually says the opposite: the
weakened standards could result in as many as 60,000 fewer jobs
in the industry. As it turns out, innovation and competition are
good for business and employment, and letting those things
stagnate isn’t. What a shocker!
Equally shocking is that the proposal points to higher oil
consumption as a result of the suggested changes, estimating
that an additional 500,000 barrels will be burned per day after
the policy is implemented. As a result, E&E reports, the rule
suggests that CO2 concentrations by 2100 will reach an
unthinkable 789.76 ppm [size=18pt]😡, nearly doubling the
concentrations.[/size] 😱 🤬
Although the administration has downplayed just how much
additional carbon pollution the rollback will emit, Rhodium’s
Trevor Houser pointed out on Twitter that “by 2035 the impact
could be larger than total national emissions of 82% of
countries today.”
More pollution, fewer jobs, more time and money spent at gas
stations. Surely not a good rule for anyone.
Except, of course, the oil industry 🐉🦕🦖,
which lobbied for the move.
HTML https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-03/big-oil-cheers-quietly-as-trump-moves-to-ease-auto-standards<br
/>That Trump 🦀 would appease them
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203402.gif,<br
/>and not any other Americans, is pretty much the only thing tha
t
makes sense about the reversal.a
[center][img
width=140]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100718164155-14511755.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-020818220747-15881860.jpeg[/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#: 10626--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 14, 2018, 5:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Agelbert RANT
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-040718162655-1422241.gif:[/center]
The [b][i][color=maroon]mens rea
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuels-degraded-democracy-and-profit-over-planet-pollution/msg3875/#msg3875<br
/>of the fossil fuel industry and almost half of the world’s 100
largest companies, including Procter & G a m b l e and Duke
Energy, has been recently exposed. They all funded lobbyists and
propagandists in order to obstruct climate change legislation.
I use the Latin legal expression, "mens rea", because the above
obstructionists of climate change legislation were knowledgeable
over 40 years ago of the damage that burning fossil fuels causes
to the biosphere in general and humans in particular.
As Theresa Morris made quite clear in her essay, these
corporations made the wrong choice. And they made that choice
because they refused to think things through.
Ethical considerations aside for a moment, the people in these
powerful corporations are not stupid. They love their own
children.
So, if they knew, because over 40 years ago ExxonMobil
scientists laid out the facts to oil executives
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuels-degraded-democracy-and-profit-over-planet-pollution/msg3873/#msg3873,<br
/>who then secretly joined with several other corporations to fu
nd
denial of climate change and obstruct climate change
legislation, why did they, with malice and aforethought, engage
in disguising the fact that they were, and are, getting an F in
viable biosphere math?
Some will say that it's a no brainer that they did it for
profit. While that is partially true, it ignores the fact that
big oil corporations DO believe their own scientists. It also
ignores the fact that fossil fuel corporations DO NOT believe
the happy talk propaganda that they fund.
They plan ahead. They plan to take advantage of the
'Fragmentation of Agency' mentioned by Stephen Gardiner. The
corporations did not get limited liability laws passed because
they wanted to be socially responsible. I believe they will use
the 'Fragmentation of Agency', in regard to biosphere damage
claims, to unjustly limit their liability in a typically
unethical "damage control" exercise.
One of the themes about human history that I have tried to
communicate to readers over and over is that predatory
capitalist corporations, while deliberately profiting from
knowingly doing something that causes pollution damage to the
populace, always plan AHEAD to socialize the costs of that
damage when they can no longer deny SOME liability for it.[/I]
Their conscience free lackey lawyers will always work the system
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuels-degraded-democracy-and-profit-over-planet-pollution/msg2122/#msg2122<br
/>to limit even PROVEN 100% liability.
When 100% liability is blatantly obvious, as in the Exxon Valdez
oil spill, they will shamelessly use legalese to limit the
liability. ExxonMobil pulled a fast one on the plaintiffs by
getting "punitive", rather than "compensatory" damages. See what
the learned counselor said, "The purpose of punitive awards is
to punish, not to destroy, according to the law". Ethics free
Exxon and its ethics free lawyers KNOW how the Court System
"works". JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 18:151] The purpose
of this comment is to describe the history of the Exxon Valdez
litigation and analyze whether the courts and corresponding laws
are equipped to effectively handle mass environmental
litigation.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuels-degraded-democracy-and-profit-over-planet-pollution/msg2123/#msg2123.<br
/>
While the profits are rolling in, they will claim they are "just
loyal public servants, selflessly providing a service that the
public is demanding", while they laugh all the way to the bank.
When the damage is exposed, they will claim we are "all equally
to blame" (i.e. [i]DISTORTED Fragmentation of Agency).
This is clearly false because polluting corporations, in
virtually all cases, AREN'T non-profit organizations. If they
were NOT PROFITING, THEN, and only then, could they make the
claim that "we all benefited equally so we all are equally
responsible to pay equally for the cost."
Those who presently benefit economically from the burning of
fossil fuels, despite the scientific certainty that this is
ushering in a Permian level mass extinction, will probably be
quick to grab on to a severely distorted and duplicitous version
of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' meme, in regard to assigning
the proportionate blame for the existential threat our species
is visiting on future generations.
Privatizing the profits and socializing the costs is what they
have done for over a century in the USA. They have always gotten
away with it. That is why, despite having prior knowledge that
their children would be negatively impacted by their decisions,
they decided to dispense with ethical considerations.
They assumed that, with all the profits they would accumulate
over the last 40 years (or as long as the populace can be
blinded to the truth of the existential threat), they could
protect their offspring when things got "difficult".
They know that millions to billions of people, in all
probability, will die. But they think their wealth can enable
them to survive and thrive.
As for the rest of us, who obtained a pittance in benefits in
comparison to the giant profits the polluters raked (and still
continue to rake) in, we can expect an army of corporate lawyers
descending on our government(s) demanding that all humans, in
equal portions, foot the bill for ameliorating climate change.
The lawyer speak will probably take the form of crocodile tears
about the "injustice of punitive measures" or, some double talk
legalese limiting "punitive damage claims" based on
Environmental LAW fun and games (see: "punitive" versus
"compensatory" damage claims).
This grossly unjust application of the 'Fragmentation of Agency'
is happening as we speak. The poorest humans are paying the most
with their health for the damage done by the richest. The
richest have avoided most, or all, of the deleterious effects of
climate change.
When the governments of the world finally get serious about the
funding needed to try to clean this mess up (present incremental
measures ARE NOT sufficient), the rich plan to continue
literally getting away with ecocide, and making sure they don't
pay their share of the damages for it.
As Kevin Anderson (after showing the alarming rate of increase
in CO2 emissions) put it in the graphic below, the 1% bear about
50% of the blame.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-190915202124.png[/img][/center]
Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's
population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of
Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should
look like this:
[center]
[img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240915212016.jpeg[/img][/center]
The way the fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s
100 largest companies, will want that 'Fragmentation of Agency'
pie chart to look like is as follows:
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240915212425.png[/img][/center]
The world of business has made many Empathy Deficit Disordered,
unethical choices. We are all paying for their rejection of
their responsibility to use [I]dianoia[/i] in their decision
making process.
But they are relatively few in number. Their chicanery would
cease from a huge public outcry if they did not have so many
people aiding and abetting their unethical biosphere destroying
modus operandi.
Those are the comfortable millions who have swallowed the
corporate happy talk propaganda.
Those are the people that continue to delay progress on the
implementation of the drastic government action we must demand,
which is desperately needed to stem, or eliminate, the length
and breadth of the climate change damage existential threat.
The people who think that this climate change horror can be
addressed by incremental measures are, as Aristotle said,
deliberately becoming irrational.
[I]Dianoia[/i] is sine qua non to a viable biosphere.
[center][img
width=400]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240318144053.png[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-240718142416.png[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=800]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240318144202.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#: 10644--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 18, 2018, 5:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-231014212330.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center]Is Climate Change Killing More People Than George W Bush
Ever Could?[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/zQ6GjVpbI1o[/center]
Thom Hartmann Program
Published on Jul 31, 2018
Short answer yes, it already has, and partly because of his wars
he started we still have to do something and the question is
what?
[center] [img
width=300]
HTML http://036daf1.netsolhost.com/Theprimaryline/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/FEE-questiions-answer-construction.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]
HTML https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_An6iCCo62M/hqdefault.jpg[/center]
#Post#: 10650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 19, 2018, 5:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=240]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100718164155-14511755.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center]US [img
width=100]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-020818201645-1486464.jpeg[/img]<br
/>🐉🦕🦖 says conserving oil is no longer a
n
economic imperative
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418193910.gifhttp://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203402.gif<br
/>[/center]
[center]
[img
width=640]
HTML https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:9f53ccef19054d7aa21b1cf56fd74cdc/800.jpeg[/img][/center]
By ELLEN KNICKMEYER
SNIPPET:
August 19, 2018y
WASHINGTON (AP) — Conserving oil is no longer an economic
imperative for the U.S., the Trump [img
width=30]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718205137.gif[/img]<br
/>administration declares in a major new policy statement that
threatens to undermine decades of government campaigns for
gas-thrifty cars and other conservation programs.🤬
The position was outlined in a memo released last month in
support of the administration’s proposal to relax fuel mileage
standards. The government released the memo online this month
without fanfare.
Growth of natural gas and other alternatives to petroleum has
reduced the need for imported oil, which “in turn affects the
need of the nation to conserve energy,” the Energy Department
said. [img
width=100]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817121829.png[/img]
It also cites the now decade-old fracking revolution that has
unlocked U.S. shale oil reserves, giving “the United States more
flexibility than in the past to use our oil resources with less
concern.”
[center] [img
width=150]
HTML http://memecrunch.com/meme/5L3XX/spiderman-bullshit-detector/image.jpg?w=544&c=1[/img][/center]
With the memo, the administration is formally challenging old
justifications for conservation — even congressionally
prescribed ones, as with the mileage standards. The memo made no
mention of climate change. Transportation is the single largest
source of climate-changing emissions.
President Donald Trump 🦀 has questioned the existence of
climate change, embraced the notion of “energy dominance” as a
national goal, and called for easing what he calls burdensome
regulation of oil, gas and coal, including repealing the Obama
Clean Power Plan.
Despite the increased oil supplies, the administration continues
to believe in the need to “use energy wisely,” the Energy
Department said, without elaboration. Department spokesmen did
not respond Friday to questions about that statement.
Reaction was quick.
Full article:
HTML https://www.apnews.com/18583e5da59d4329bc6a409e233aad7f/US-says-conserving-oil-is-no-longer-an-economic-imperative
[center][img
width=800]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-110818141759.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=340]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301216142007.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 10653--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 19, 2018, 7:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]So, How’s That Major-Party Election Madness Working for
Us?[/center]
August 12, 2018
By Paul Street — The Republicans and Democrats are two faces of
the same failure. And there will be no real hope of rescue by
third parties until the American system of electoral politics is
rebuilt from the ground up.
SNIPPET:
[quote]A smart and liberally inclined family doctor I know
recently expressed concern over her high-income husband’s
support for the malignant narcissist and pathological liar
currently occupying the White House. “I can understand him being
a Republican,” the doctor says, “but I just don’t get him
backing Donald Trump.”
The problem here—what the doctor doesn’t get—is that Trump’s
malicious persona and politics are darkly consistent with the
white-supremacist and arch-reactionary heart and dog-whistling
racism of the Republican Party going back five decades. It was
just a matter of time until something like Trump happened: a
Republican candidate who really meant the racism. Along the way,
the Republican Party has become what Noam Chomsky credibly calls
“the most dangerous organization in human history” because of
its total disregard for livable ecology and its dedication to
destruction and dismantlement of any institutions in place to
address global warming. The Greenhouse Gassing to Death of Life
on Earth [img
width=60]
HTML http://dl2.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1087/1087832pmq26zqtt4.gif[/img][img<br
/>width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240618220633.png[/img]is<br
/>a crime that promises to make even the Nazi Party look like a
small-time crime syndicate. [img
width=50]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-150715183719.png[/img][/quote]
Read more: [img
width=50]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML https://www.truthdig.com/articles/so-hows-that-major-party-election-madness-working-for-us/
[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#: 10664--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 21, 2018, 2:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=times new roman]The New Republic[/font]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://images.newrepublic.com/438c0b5fe877b18767de36c3b8b43266a5385bfe.jpeg?w=1200&q=65&dpi=1.25&fm=pjpg&fit=crop&crop=faces&h=800[/img][/center]
[center]The Modern Automobile Must Die [img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png[/img]<br
/> [img width=70
height=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060518153110.png[/img]
[/center]
[center][img
width=40]
HTML http://www.funny-emoticons.com/files/funny-animals/blue-bird-emoticons/801-listen-up!.png[/img]<br
/>If we want to solve climate change, there's no other option.
[/center]
By EMILY ATKIN
August 20, 2018
SNIPPET:
Germany was supposed to be a model for solving global warming.
In 2007, the country’s government announced that it would reduce
its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by the year 2020.
This was the kind of bold, aggressive climate goal scientists
said was needed in all developed countries. If Germany could do
it, it would prove the target possible.
So far, Germany has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 27.7
percent—an astonishing achievement for a developed country with
a highly developed manufacturing sector. But with a little over
a year left to go, despite dedicating $580 billion toward a
low-carbon energy system, the country “is likely to fall short
of its goals for reducing harmful carbon-dioxide emissions,”
Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday. And the reason for that
may come down not to any elaborate solar industry plans, but
something much simpler: cars.
“At the time they set their goals, they were very ambitious,”
Patricia Espinosa, the United Nations’ top climate change
official, told Bloomberg. “What happened was that the
industry🦕🦖—particularly the car industry
😈🐉🦕🦖—didn’t come along.” [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]
Changing the way we power our homes and businesses is certainly
important. But as Germany’s shortfall shows, the only way to
achieve these necessary, aggressive emissions reductions to
combat global warming is to overhaul the gas-powered automobile
and the culture that surrounds it. The only question left is how
to do it.
In 2010, a NASA study declared that automobiles were officially
the largest net contributor of climate change pollution in the
world. “Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and
greenhouse gases that promote warming, while emitting few
aerosols that counteract it,” the study read. “In contrast, the
industrial and power sectors release many of the same gases—with
a larger contribution to [warming]—but they also emit sulfates
and other aerosols that cause cooling by reflecting light and
altering clouds.”
In other words, the power generation sector may have emitted the
most greenhouse gases in total. But it also released so many
sulfates and cooling aerosols that the net impact was less than
the automobile industry, according to NASA.
Since then, developed countries have cut back on those cooling
aerosols for the purpose of countering regular air pollution,
which has likely increased the net climate pollution of the
power generation industry. But according to the Union of
Concerned Scientists, “collectively, cars and trucks account for
nearly one-fifth of all U.S. emissions,” while “in total, the
U.S. transportation sector—which includes cars, trucks, planes,
trains, ships, and freight—produces nearly thirty percent of all
US global warming emissions ... .”
In fact, transportation is now the largest source of carbon
dioxide emissions in the United States—and it has been for two
years, according to an analysis from the Rhodium Group.
Full article:
HTML https://newrepublic.com/article/150689/modern-automobile-must-die
#Post#: 10666--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus
By: AGelbert Date: August 23, 2018, 7:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/styles/renewablerevolution/files/780_9adc777a0e08428257b76ece69d18ee52006bb5e39d60d966bb2440d29d17641.jpeg[/img]<br
/>[/center]
[center]Trump’s 🦀 Dirty Energy Appointees Dismantle
Clean Energy Controls
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-210818163126-16781285.gif[/center]
August 22, 2018
Trump’s EPA announced a plan to end Obama’s Clean Power Plan,
using coal companies’ proposals, which lowers federal
regulations on emissions and allows states to set their own
emissions reduction goals. We discuss the proposal with Mustafa
Ali
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/Prto64Xw8to[/center]
HTML https://therealnews.com/stories/trumps-dirty-energy-appointees-dismantle-clean-energy-controls
[center][img
width=340]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-020818220747-15881860.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100718163957-14481568.png[/img][/center]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page