DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4542--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: February 19, 2016, 5:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://crooksandliars.com/files/imagecache/node_primary/primary_image/15/11/kochtopus.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Koch Brothers Plotting Multimillion Dollar War on
Electric Vehicles
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif[/center]
Lorraine Chow | February 19, 2016 2:45 pm
SNIPPETS:
Death to the electric car?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>Charles and David Koch are reportedly backing a new group that
will use millions to promote petroleum and fight against
government subsidies for electric vehicles.
In an effort to strike back at record-breaking EV sales, the
fossil fuel industry is allegedly funding a new organization
that will spend $10 million a year to push petroleum-based
transportation fuels and attack government subsidies on EVs,
refining industry sources told the Huffington Post.
Elon Musk
✔ ‎‎@elonmusk
Worth noting that all gasoline cars are heavily subsidized via
oil company tax credits & unpaid public health costs.
HTML http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/19/koch-brothers-war-on-evs/
Comment by renewableguy
Fossil fuels is scared sh--less.
Agelbert reply:
Yep.
Amory Lovins knows the score. The fossil fuel industry is a
wounded beast. It's days are numbered.
QUOTE
Over the past 40 years, Americans have saved 31 times as much
energy as renewables added. Those cumulative savings are
equivalent to 21 years’ current energy use. They’re simply
invisible: you can’t see the energy you don’t use. But globally,
it’s a bigger “supply” than oil, and inexorably, it’s going to
get much, much bigger.
Oil companies worry about climate regulation, but they’re even
more at risk from market competition. The oil that’ll be
unburnable for climate reasons is probably less than the oil
that’ll be unsellable because efficiency and renewables can do
the same job [i]cheaper.[/I]
An oil business that sputters when oil’s at $90 a barrel, swoons
at $50, and dies at $30 will not do well against the $25 cost of
getting U.S. mobility—or anyone else’s, since the technologies
are fungible—completely off oil by 2050. That cost, like the $18
per saved barrel to make U.S. automobiles uncompromised,
attractive, cost-effective, and oil-free, is a 2010–11 analytic
result; today’s costs are even lower and continue to fall.
In short, like whale oil in the 1850s, oil is becoming
uncompetitive even at low prices [I]before[/I] it became
unavailable even at high prices.
UNQUOTE
As Oil Prices Gyrate, Underlying Trends Are Shifting To Oil's
Disadvantage
HTML http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_02_01_as_oil_prices_gyrate_underlying_trends_are_shifting_to_oils_disadvantage
#Post#: 4546--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: February 19, 2016, 6:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Bill McKibben: It’s Not Just What Exxon Did, It’s What
It’s Doing[/center]
Bill McKibben, TomDispatch | February 19, 2016 9:18 am
Here’s the story so far. We have the chief legal representatives
of the eighth 8 and 16th largest economies on Earth (California
and New York) probing the biggest fossil fuel company on Earth
(ExxonMobil), while both Democratic presidential candidates are
demanding that the federal Department of Justice join the
investigation of what may prove to be one of the biggest
corporate scandals in American history. And that’s just the
beginning. As bad as Exxon has been in the past, what it’s doing
now—entirely legally—is helping push the planet over the edge
and into the biggest crisis in the entire span of the human
story.
[quote]
As bad as Exxon has been in the past, what it’s doing
now—entirely legally—is helping push the planet over the edge
and into the biggest crisis in the entire span of the human
story. [/quote]
Back in the fall, you might have heard something about how Exxon
had covered up what it knew early on about climate change. Maybe
you even thought to yourself: that doesn’t surprise me. But it
should have. Even as someone who has spent his life engaged in
the bottomless pit of greed that is global warming, the news and
its meaning came as a shock: we could have avoided, it turns
out, the last quarter century of pointless climate debate.
As a start, investigations by the Pulitzer-Prize winning Inside
Climate News, the Los Angeles Times and Columbia Journalism
School revealed in extraordinary detail that Exxon’s top
officials had known everything there was to know about climate
change back in the 1980s. Even earlier, actually. Here’s what
senior company scientist James Black told Exxon’s management
committee in 1977: “In the first place, there is general
scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which
mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon
dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.” To determine
if this was so, the company outfitted an oil tanker with carbon
dioxide sensors to measure concentrations of the gas over the
ocean and then funded elaborate computer models to help predict
what temperatures would do in the future.
The results of all that work were unequivocal. By 1982, in an
internal “corporate primer,” Exxon’s leaders were told that,
despite lingering unknowns, dealing with climate change “would
require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.” Unless that
happened, the primer said, citing independent experts, “there
are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered
… Once the effects are measurable, they might not be
reversible.” But that document, “given wide circulation” within
Exxon, was also stamped “Not to be distributed externally.”
So here’s what happened. Exxon used its knowledge of climate
change to plan its own future. The company, for instance, leased
large tracts of the Arctic for oil exploration, territory where,
as a company scientist pointed out in 1990, “potential global
warming can only help lower exploration and development costs.”
Not only that but, “from the North Sea to the Canadian Arctic,”
Exxon and its affiliates set about “raising the decks of
offshore platforms, protecting pipelines from increasing coastal
erosion and designing helipads, pipelines and roads in a warming
and buckling Arctic.” In other words, the company started
climate-proofing its facilities to head off a future its own
scientists knew was inevitable.
But in public? [img
width=80]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/>There, Exxon didn’t own up to any of this. In fact, it did
precisely the opposite. In the 1990s, it started to put money
and muscle into obscuring the science around climate change. It
funded think tanks that spread climate denial and even recruited
lobbying talent from the tobacco industry. It also followed the
tobacco playbook when it came to the defense of cigarettes by
highlighting “uncertainty” about the science of global warming.
And it spent lavishly to back political candidates who were
ready to downplay global warming.
[center][IMG
width=340]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280714152422.png[/img][/center]
Its CEO, Lee Raymond, even traveled to China in 1997 and urged
government leaders there to go full steam ahead in developing a
fossil fuel economy. The globe was cooling, not warming, he
insisted, while his engineers were raising drilling platforms to
compensate for rising seas. “It is highly unlikely,” he said,
“that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be
significantly affected whether policies are enacted now or 20
years from now.” Which wasn’t just wrong, but completely and
overwhelmingly wrong—as wrong as a man could be.
Sins of Omission
In fact, Exxon’s deceit—its ability to discourage regulations
for 20 years—may turn out to be absolutely crucial in the
planet’s geological history. It’s in those two decades that
greenhouse gas emissions soared, as did global temperatures
until, in the twenty-first century, “hottest year ever recorded”
has become a tired cliché. And here’s the bottom line: had Exxon
told the truth about what it knew back in 1990, we might not
have wasted a quarter of a century in a phony debate about the
science of climate change, nor would anyone have accused Exxon
of being “alarmist.” We would simply have gotten to work.
But Exxon didn’t tell the truth. A Yale study published last
fall in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
showed that money from Exxon and the Koch Brothers played a key
role in polarizing the climate debate in this country.
The company’s sins—of omission and commission—may even turn out
to be criminal. Whether the company “lied to the public” is the
question that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman
decided to investigate last fall in a case that could make him
the great lawman of our era if his investigation doesn’t
languish. There are various consumer fraud statutes that Exxon
might have violated and it might have failed to disclose
relevant information to investors, which is the main kind of
lying that’s illegal in this country of ours. Now,
Schneiderman’s got backup from California Attorney General
Kamala Harrisand maybe—if activists continue to apply
pressure—from the Department of Justice as well, though its
highly publicized unwillingness to go after the big banks does
not inspire confidence.
Here’s the thing: all that was bad back then, but Exxon and many
of its Big Energy peers are behaving at least as badly now when
the pace of warming is accelerating. And it’s all
legal—dangerous, stupid and immoral, but legal.
On the face of things, Exxon has, in fact, changed a little in
recent years.
For one thing, it’s stopped denying climate change, at least in
a modest way. Rex Tillerson, Raymond’s successor as CEO, stopped
telling world leaders that the planet was cooling. Speaking in
2012 at the Council on Foreign Relations, he said, “I’m not
disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is
going
to have an impact. It’ll have a warming impact.”
Of course, he immediately went on to say that its impact was
uncertain indeed [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img],<br
/>hard to estimate and in any event entirely manageable.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
His language was
striking. “We will adapt to this.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/>Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas
around—we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem and it
has engineering solutions.”
[center]
[img
width=210]
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Bzb-1rVB8pc/UfXxBekcYVI/AAAAAAAAEm4/hXUkGCzFIPg/s1600/giveafuckometer-gif.gif[/img][/center]
Add to that gem of a comment this one: the real problem, he
insisted, was that “we have a society that by and large is
illiterate in these areas, science, math and engineering, what
we do is a mystery to them and they find it scary. And because
of that, it creates easy opportunities for opponents of
development, activist organizations, to manufacture fear.”
Right. This was in 2012, within months of floods across Asia
that displaced tens of millions and during the hottest summer
ever recorded in the U.S., when much of our grain crop failed.
Oh yeah and just before Hurricane Sandy.
He’s continued the same kind of belligerent rhetoric throughout
his tenure. At last year’s ExxonMobil shareholder meeting, for
instance, he said that if the world had to deal with “inclement
weather,” which “may or may not be induced by climate change,”
we should employ unspecified “new technologies.” Mankind, he
explained, “has this enormous capacity to deal with adversity.”
In other words, we’re no longer talking about outright denial,
just a denial that much really needs to be done. And even when
the company has proposed doing something, its proposals have
been strikingly ethereal. Exxon’s PR team, for instance, has
discussed supporting a price on carbon, which is only what
economists left, right and center have been recommending since
the 1980s. But the minimal price they recommend—somewhere in the
range of $40 to $60 a ton—wouldn’t do much to slow down their
business. After all, they insist that all their reserves are
still recoverable in the context of such a price increase, which
would serve mainly to make life harder for the already terminal
coal industry.
But say you think it’s a great idea to put a price on
carbon—which, in fact, it is, since every signal helps sway
investment decisions. In that case, Exxon’s done its best to
make sure that what they pretend to support in theory will never
happen in practice.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif
Consider, for instance, their political contributions. The
website Dirty Energy Money, organized by Oil Change
International, makes it easy to track who gave what to whom. If
you look at all of Exxon’s political contributions from 1999 to
the present, a huge majority of their political harem of
politicians have signed the famous Taxpayer Protection Pledge
from Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform that binds them
to vote against any new taxes. Norquist himself wrote Congress
in late January that “a carbon tax is a VAT or Value Added Tax
on training wheels. Any carbon tax would inevitably be spread
out over wider and wider parts of the economy until we had a
European Value Added Tax.” As he told a reporter last year, “I
don’t see the path to getting a lot of Republican votes” for a
carbon tax and since he’s been called “the most powerful man in
American politics,” that seems like a good bet.
The only Democratic senator in Exxon’s top 60 list was former
Louisiana solon Mary Landrieu, who made a great virtue in her
last race of the fact that she was “the key vote” in blocking
carbon pricing in Congress. Bill Cassidy, the man who defeated
her, is also an Exxon favorite and lost no time in co-sponsoring
a bill opposing any carbon taxes. In other words, you could
really call Exxon’s supposed concessions on climate change a
Shell game. Except it’s Exxon.
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010914214256.png[/img]
[/center]
[center]The Never-Ending Big Dig[/center]
Even that’s not the deepest problem.
The deepest problem is Exxon’s business plan. The company spends
huge amounts of money searching for new hydrocarbons. Given the
recent plunge in oil prices, its capital spending and
exploration budget was indeed cut by 12 percent in 2015 to $34
billion and another 25 percent in 2016 to $23.2 billion. In
2015, that meant Exxon was spending $63 million a day “as it
continues to bring new projects on line.” They are still
spending a cool $1.57 billion a year looking for new sources of
hydrocarbons—$4 million a day, every day.
As Exxon looks ahead, despite the current bargain basement price
of oil, it still boasts of expansion plans in the Gulf of
Mexico, eastern Canada, Indonesia, Australia, the Russian far
east, Angola and Nigeria. “The strength of our global
organization allows us to explore across all geological and
geographical environments, using industry-leading technology and
capabilities.” And its willingness to get in bed with just about
any regime out there makes it even easier. Somewhere in his
trophy case, for instance, Rex Tillerson has an Order of
Friendship medal from one Vladimir Putin. All it took was a
joint energy venture estimated to be worth $500 billion.
But, you say, that’s what oil companies do, go find new oil,
right? Unfortunately, that’s precisely what we can’t have them
doing any more.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif
About a decade ago, scientists first began figuring out a
“carbon budget” for the planet—an estimate for how much more
carbon we could burn before we completely overheated the Earth.
There are potentially many thousands of gigatons of carbon that
could be extracted from the planet if we keep exploring. The
fossil fuel industry has already identified at least 5,000
gigatons of carbon that it has told regulators, shareholders and
banks it plans to extract. However, we can only burn about
another 900 gigatons of carbon before we disastrously overheat
the planet. On our current trajectory, we’d burn through that
“budget” in about a couple of decades. The carbon we’ve burned
has already raised the planet’s temperature a degree Celsius and
on our present course we’ll burn enough to take us past two
degrees in less than 20 years.
At this point, in fact, no climate scientist thinks that even a
two-degree rise in temperature is a safe target, since one
degree is already melting the ice caps. (Indeed, new data
released this month shows that, if we hit the two-degree mark,
we’ll be living with drastically raised sea levels for, oh,
twice as long as human civilization has existed to date.) That’s
why in November world leaders in Paris agreed to try to limit
the planet’s temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius or just
under three degrees Fahrenheit. If you wanted to meet that
target, however, you would need to be done burning fossil fuels
by perhaps 2020, which is in technical terms just about now.
[quote]That’s why it’s wildly irresponsible for a company to be
leading the world in oil exploration when, as scientists have
carefully explained, we already have access to four or five
times as much carbon in the Earth as we can safely burn.
[/quote]
We have it, as it were, on the shelf. So why would we go looking
for more? Scientists have even done us the useful service of
identifying precisely the kinds of fossil fuels we should never
dig up and—what do you know—an awful lot of them are on Exxon’s
future wish list, including the tar sands of Canada, a
particularly carbon-filthy, environmentally destructive fuel to
produce and burn.
Even Exxon’s one attempt to profit from stanching global warming
has started to come apart. Several years ago, the company began
a calculated pivot in the direction of natural gas, which
produces less carbon than oil when burned. In 2009, Exxon
acquired XTO Energy, a company that had mastered the art of
extracting gas from shale via hydraulic fracturing. By now,
Exxon has become America’s leading fracker and a pioneer in
natural gas markets around the world. The trouble with fracked
natural gas—other than what Tillerson once called “farmer Joe’s
lit his faucet on fire”—is this: in recent years, it’s become
clear that the process of fracking for gas releases large
amounts of methane into the atmosphere and methane is a far more
potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. As Cornell University
scientist Robert Howarth has recently established, burning
natural gas to produce electricity probably warms the planet
faster than burning coal or crude oil.
Exxon’s insistence on finding and producing ever more fossil
fuels certainly benefited its shareholders for a time, even if
it cost the Earth dearly. Five of the 10 largest annual profits
ever reported by any company belonged to Exxon in these years.
Even the financial argument is now, however, weakening. Over the
last five years, Exxon has lagged behind many of its competitors
as well as the broader market and a big reason, according to the
Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI), is its heavy investment in
particularly expensive, hard-to-recover oil and gas.
In 2007, as CTI reported, Canadian tar sands and similar “heavy
oil” deposits accounted for 7.5 percent of Exxon’s proven
reserves. By 2013, that number had risen to 17 percent. A smart
business strategy for the company, according to CTI, would
involve shrinking its exploration budget, concentrating on the
oil fields it has access to that can still be pumped profitably
at low prices and using the cash flow to buy back shares or
otherwise reward investors.
That would, however, mean exchanging Exxon’s Texan-style
big-is-good approach for something far more modest. And since
we’re speaking about what was the biggest company on the planet
for a significant part of the twentieth century, Exxon seems to
be set on continuing down that bigger-is-better path. They’re
betting that the price of oil will rise in the reasonably near
future
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif,
that
alternative energy won’t develop fast enough and that the world
won’t aggressively tackle climate change. And the company will
keep trying to cover those bets by aggressively backing
politicians capable of ensuring that nothing happens.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
Can Exxon Be Pressured? ???
Next to that fierce stance on the planet’s future, the mild
requests of activists for the last 25 years seem … well, next to
pointless. At the 2015 ExxonMobil shareholder meeting, for
instance, religious shareholder activists asked for the
umpteenth time that the company at least make public its plans
for managing climate risks. Even BP, Shell and Statoil had
agreed to that much. Instead, Exxon’s management campaigned
against the resolution and it got only 9.6 percent of
shareholder votes, a tally so low it can’t even be brought up
again for another three years. By which time we’ll have burned
through … oh, never mind.
What we need from Exxon is what they’ll never give: a pledge to
keep most of their reserves underground, an end to new
exploration and a promise to stay away from the political
system. Don’t hold your breath.
But if Exxon seems hopelessly set in its ways, revulsion is
growing.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif<br
/>The investigations by the New York and California attorneys
general mean that the company will have to turn over lots of
documents. If journalists could find out as much as they did
about Exxon’s deceit in public archives, think what someone with
subpoena power might accomplish. Many other jurisdictions could
jump in, too.
At the Paris climate talks in December, a panel of law
professors led a well-attended session on the different legal
theories that courts around the world might apply to the
company’s deceptive behavior. When that begins to happen, count
on one thing: the spotlight won’t shine exclusively on Exxon. As
with the tobacco companies in the decades when they were
covering up the dangers of cigarettes, there’s a good chance
that the Big Energy companies were in this together through
their trade associations and other front groups. In fact, just
before Christmas, Inside Climate News published some revealing
new documents about the role that Texaco, Shell and other majors
played in an American Petroleum Institute study of climate
change back in the early 1980s. A trial would be a
transformative event—a reckoning for the crime of the
millennium.
But while we’re waiting for the various investigations to play
out, there’s lots of organizing going at the state and local
level when it comes to Exxon, climate change and fossil
fuels—everything from politely asking more states to join the
legal process to politely shutting down gas stations for a few
hours to pointing out to New York and California that they might
not want to hold millions of dollars of stock in a company
they’re investigating. It may even be starting to work.
Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, for instance, singled Exxon out in
his state of the state address last month. He called on the
legislature to divest the state of its holdings in the company
because of its deceptions.
[quote] “This is a page right out of Big Tobacco,” he said,
“which for decades denied the health risks of their product as
they were killing people. Owning ExxonMobil stock is not a
business Vermont should be in.”
[/quote]The question is: Why on God’s-not-so-green-Earth-anymore
would anyone want to be Exxon’s partner? ???
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/19/exxon-climate-change-crime/3/
[move][I][font=impact]The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Climate
Trashing, human health depleteing CRIME,[COLOR=BROWN] but
since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks,
they are trying to AVOID [/color] DOING THE TIME or PAYING
THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif[/font][/I][/move]
#Post#: 4568--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: February 23, 2016, 9:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=440]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-230216221448.png[/img][/center]
[center]Three U.S. House Reps call for DOJ to investigate Shell
climate probe [img
width=60]
HTML http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/lenm/lenm1201/lenm120100200/12107060-illustration-of-a-smiley-giving-a-thumbs-up.jpg[/img][/center]
Staff Writers February 23, 2016
Three U.S. House Democrats are calling for the Department of
Justice (DOJ) to investigate whether Shell Oil misled the public
about climate change.
According to the L.A. Times, U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu of California,
Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont and Rep. Matt Cartwright of
Pennsylvania sent a letter earlier this week asking the DOJ to
investigate whether Shell “intentionally” hid information about
climate change and engaged in a “misinformation” campaign.
[quote]The letter also suggests that Shell, ExxonMobil and
potentially other energy firms were involved in a conspiracy to
obscure the impact of climate change.[/quote]
The letter cites an L.A. Times investigation published in
December that claims Shell redesigned a $3 billion North Sea
platform to allow the facility to operate amid rising sea
levels.
A Shell spokesman told the paper that Shell has included
information about climate change and the challenges it poses in
its publications, including its annual reports and
Sustainability Report, for over 10 years.
“Recognizing the climate challenge and the role energy has in
enabling a decent quality of life, we continue to pursue and
advance constructive dialogue on this topic as the challenge is
one for all of society,” the spokesman told the L.A. Times.
In October, Lieu sent a letter to the DOJ asking it to determine
if Exxon misled the public about climate change and violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly
known as RICO.
Citing investigations conducted by the L.A. Times, Inside
Climate News and Columbia University’s Energy and Environmental
Reporting Project, Lieu also asked the DOJ to determine if Exxon
violated shareholder protection, public health, truth in
advertising, consumer protection and other laws.
Exxon has denied any wrongdoing and said it has provided
“continuous and publicly available climate research” that
refutes claims that the firm deliberately suppressed data.”
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/>
“These activists took those statements out of context and
ignored other readily available statements demonstrating that
our researchers recognized the developing nature of climate
science at the time which, in fact, mirrored global
understanding,” Exxon vice president of public and government
affairs Ken Cohen said in response to Lieu’s letter.
Exxon confirmed in November that it received a subpoena from the
attorney general of New York relating to climate change
documents.
Exxon added that it has included information about the business
risk posed by climate change for many years in its 10-K,
Corporate Citizenship Report and in other reports to
shareholders. ;)
The New York Times reported that month that New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman has been investigating the company for
about a year and may be looking at information dating back to
the 1970s.
Schneiderman is reportedly investigating whether Exxon misled
investors by failing to disclose the potential impact climate
change could have on its business.
The New York Attorney General’s Office has not commented on the
matter.
HTML http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/02/california-congressman-call-for-shell-climate-probe/
#Post#: 4624--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: March 3, 2016, 1:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Did he know too much? It's not hard to MAKE somebody drive into
a wall with a vehicle that does the job and drives away.
[center] [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp[/img]<br
/>
[/center]
[center]
Indicted ex-Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon dies in car
wreck[/center]
Staff Writers March 2, 2016
Ex-Chesapeake CEO and early pioneer of the American shale
industry was killed in a single car accident in Oklahoma City
today, one day after he was indicted for conspiracy to rig lease
bids.
According to Capt. Paco Balderrama of the Oklahoma City Police
Department, McClendon, 56, crashed into an embankment while
traveling at a “high rate of speed” in Oklahoma City just after
9 a.m.
[quote]“He pretty much drove straight into the wall,”[/quote]
Balderrama said.
McClendon’s 2013 Chevrolet Tahoe was immediately engulfed in
flames.
He stepped down from Chesapeake Energy in 2013, a company he
co-founded in 1989.
An federal grand jury indicted McClendon yesterday on conspiracy
charges for his alleged involvement in fixing Oklahoma land
lease bids.
“His actions put company profits ahead of the interests of
leaseholders entitled to competitive bids for oil and gas rights
on their land. Executives who abuse their positions as leaders
of major corporations to organize criminal activity must be held
accountable for their actions,” Assistant Attorney General of
the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division Bill Baer said.
McClendon was one of the highest paid executives in the United
States for many years. In 2008, his pay package was $112
million. The following year, Chesapeake offered him a five-year
retention contract, including a $75 million bonus.
He was a part owner of the NBA team, Oklahoma City Thunder.
After he left Chesapeake Energy, McClendon founded American
Energy Partners in 2013 and served as its CEO.
“Aubrey’s tremendous leadership, vision, and passion for the
energy industry had an impact on the community, the country, and
the world. ::) We are tremendously proud of his legacy [img
width=20]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png[/img]<br
/>and will continue to work hard to live up to the unmatched
standards he set for excellence and integrity,” ::) American
Energy Partners
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>said in a statement.
HTML http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/03/indicted-ex-chesapeake-ceo-aubrey-mcclendon-dies-car-wreck/
HTML http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/03/indicted-ex-chesapeake-ceo-aubrey-mcclendon-dies-car-wreck/
[center] [img
width=340]
HTML http://forum.ih8mud.com/attachments/h6a3a1d8f-jpeg.1060027/[/img][/center]
Agelbert NOTE: For those who may find the tone of my post
"inappropriate and offensive", here is some background on
McClendon's "unmatched standards of excellency and integrity"...
SNIPPET:
[quote]March 2, 2016
The indictment was filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma.
It alleges that McClendon “orchestrated” a conspiracy between
“two large” oil and gas companies from December 2007 to March
2012 to collaborate on bids for oil and gas leases in northwest
Oklahoma.
The conspirators allegedly decided who would place the winning
bid ahead of time, with the winner then allocating an interest
in the lease to the other company.
McClendon also allegedly instructed his subordinates to execute
the conspiratorial agreement, including withdrawing bids on
leases and agreeing on how the stakes in the leases would be
divided between the two companies.
“His actions put company profits ahead of the interests of
leaseholders
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>entitled to competitive bids for oil and gas rights on their
land. Executives who abuse their positions as leaders of major
corporations to organize criminal activity must be held
accountable for their actions,” Assistant Attorney General of
the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division Bill Baer said.
McClendon left Oklahoma-based Chesapeake Energy in January 2013
and currently serves as the CEO of American Energy Partners.
Each violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of
10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals.
McClendon has denied any wrongdoing.
[/quote]
HTML http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/03/feds-indict-aubrey-mcclendon-for-rigging-oklahoma-lease-bids/
#Post#: 4627--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: March 3, 2016, 2:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Aubrey McClendon’s car will tell whether he killed
himself[/center]
SNIPPET:
[quote]Aubrey McClendon left a mystery: Did he deliberately
drive his 2013 Chevrolet Tahoe SUV into a bridge support at high
speed? Or did something else that he couldn’t control, such as a
heart attack or other emergency, cause the crash?[/quote]
HTML http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aubrey-mcclendon-s-car-will-tell-if-he-killed-himself-182023313.html#
#Post#: 4706--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: March 16, 2016, 8:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: More evidence that the fossil fuel industry is
"responsible" and always "behaves ethically" towards its
employees who are considered, as MKing the fossil fueler will be
quick to tell you, the "salt of the earth"...
[center]
[img
width=100]
HTML http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Four oil and gas firms
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif
owe $1.6 million in
back wages, Feds say[/center]
Staff Writers March 16, 2016
The U.S. Department of Labor said Monday it has identified $1.6
million in back wages owed to oil and gas workers at four
different firms.
The DOL said investigations of Jet Specialties Inc. of Boerne,
Texas, Frank’s International LLC and Stream-Flo USA LLC, of
Houston and Viking Onshore Drilling LLC, of Odessa, Texas found
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime
provisions.
The four companies have more than 2,500 employees combined and
owe employees a combined $1.6 million in back wages.
According to the DOL, Jet Specialties considered salaried
employees exempt from overtime requirements, failed to pay an
overtime premium regardless of how many hours employees worked
and failed to include bonus payments workers received as part of
their regular pay rates when calculating overtime.
Frank’s International failed to “pay proper overtime” after not
including bonus payments in workers’ regular pay rates when
computing overtime, and Stream-Flo USA paid nonexempt workers
flat salaries without regard to how many hours they worked.
Investigations of Frank’s International and Stream-Flo USA began
in the Northeast and expanded to other U.S. locations, the
agency said.
Affected employees for both companies live in Colorado,
Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Texas, Utah and Wyoming.
Viking Onshore Drilling failed to include bonus payments in
workers’ regular rates when determining overtime pay, according
to the DOL.
Investigators found violations related to Viking Onshore
Drilling operations in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.
“We continue to find unacceptably high numbers of violations in
the oil and gas industry. We must ensure that employers pay
workers the hard-earned wages they have rightfully earned,”
regional administrator for the Wage and Hour Division in the
Southwest Betty Campbell said.
Company Name
Jet Specialties Inc.
Frank’s International LLC
Viking Onshore Drilling LLC
Stream-Flo USA LLC
HTML http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/03/four-oil-gas-firms-owe-1-6-million-back-wages-feds-say/
HTML http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/03/four-oil-gas-firms-owe-1-6-million-back-wages-feds-say/
#Post#: 5389--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: June 27, 2016, 6:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Our Opinion: Stifling renewables [/center]
Posted: Friday, June 24, 2016 12:00 am
Some N.C. politicians say they oppose tax credits and subsidies
because they don’t think the government should be picking
winners and losers in private industry. But they are clearly
doing just that in regard to the state’s energy future.
Bills in the N.C. House and Senate would deliver a knockout
punch for solar and wind power development in North Carolina.
[img
width=60]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-041115022304.png[/img]
House Bill 763 :evil4: , which cleared the Senate on Monday,
would render most of eastern North Carolina off limits to wind
farms, supposedly to protect current and future military bases.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220216203149.gif
This economically disadvantaged area of the state, [I]which is
uniquely suited to wind farms[/i], stands to lose two wind
projects currently in the pipeline that total $700 million in
investment.
[center] [img
width=150]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img][/center]
The permitting process in place already allows the military to
weigh in on potential projects.
Senate Bill 843 would require wind and solar farms to get a
state permit and build a 1.5-mile buffer from neighboring
property lines, including a landscape buffer for solar farms.
Compare that to setbacks for facilities that are clearly
noxious: 200 feet for hazardous waste landfills and 500 feet for
swine waste lagoons. The setbacks currently proposed for natural
gas fracking wells are 650 feet from an occupied building and
200 feet from surface waters. The bill also requires renewable
energy developers to guarantee millions of dollars to cover
future costs of decommissioning, or removing the energy project
at the end of its lifetime.
[center] [img
width=200]
HTML http://media.tumblr.com/c6492e4b47cfdbd50e74d285fde3c53e/tumblr_inline_mm3g4yCaZc1qz4rgp.gif[/img]<br
/> [img
width=200]
HTML http://media.tumblr.com/302d5f12cc0718fa860d4eb3560c6813/tumblr_inline_mr7yzosKkc1qz4rgp.gif[/img]
[/center]
Sen. Bill Cook (R-Beaufort) [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]<br
/>said SB 843 stemmed from concerns he’d heard from coastal
residents about environmental damage from wind and solar farms.
Cook contends that solar farms permanently ruin farmland through
land clearing, storm runoff, soil erosion and herbicide use.
Hmm. Sounds like the same problems you encounter with an actual
farm.
[center] [img
width=300]
HTML http://memecrunch.com/meme/5L3XX/spiderman-bullshit-detector/image.jpg?w=544&c=1[/img]
[/center]
The state currently ranks third in overall solar capacity,
thanks in large part to the renewable energy portfolio standard
passed in 2007, which requires large utility companies like Duke
Energy to provide increasing amounts of energy from renewable
sources. [img
width=70]
HTML http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/yayayoy/yayayoy1106/yayayoy110600019/9735563-smiling-sun-showing-thumb-up.jpg[/img]<br
/>
Some GOP legislators have been trying to repeal the renewable
energy portfolio since 2013. House Bill 332 would freeze at 6
percent the percentage of renewable energy that utility
companies are required to provide. That percentage was scheduled
to increase to 12.5 percent by 2021. Last year, the legislature
ended the tax credit program for renewable energy development.
State lawmakers are using every tactic to suppress this
burgeoning industry, which added 3,000 jobs in the state last
year, and invested $12 billion since 2007. The cost of solar has
dropped significantly, and its addition to the power grid will
eventually lower utility bills for everyone.
SB 843 is titled Renewable Energy Property Protection
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif,
and HB 763 is called
the Military Operations Protection Act ::), but the real
purpose of both is protecting big energy.
[quote]Meanwhile, the legislature
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/d2.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
has done little to
protect people or property in its rules for fracking [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png[/img]<br
/>or its oversight of coal ash clean-up [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png[/img].<br
/> [/quote]
Renewable energy companies can and will go elsewhere if the
state creates a hostile environment. But the real losers will be
the citizens of North Carolina.
They will pay higher power bills, and watch as the state’s air,
land and water are further degraded by dirty energy sources like
coal, nuclear and natural gas.
HTML http://www.greensboro.com/opinion/n_and_r_editorials/our-opinion-stifling-renewables/article_e342d5ff-07c5-5671-9bc2-5a39f06b86ee.html
HTML http://www.greensboro.com/opinion/n_and_r_editorials/our-opinion-stifling-renewables/article_e342d5ff-07c5-5671-9bc2-5a39f06b86ee.html
#Post#: 5471--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: July 16, 2016, 3:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Eddie link=topic=3282.msg108547#msg108547
date=1468694604]
[quote author=knarf link=topic=3282.msg108532#msg108532
date=1468679633]
'Pence is going to help Trump with voters who can't decide if
they're more worried that gay people will get a wedding cake or
healthcare'.
Presumptive Republican nominee for president Donald Trump
announced Friday that he has chosen Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as
his running mate.
Gov. Pence is famously—or infamously—right-wing, and a
particular darling of far-right Evangelical voters.
Pundits surmised that Trump is attempting to sway the
conservative Christian portion of the Republican party, which
had previously rallied behind Ted Cruz.
Progressives decried the decision. Leftists pointed out Pence's
plethora of policy stances and decisions that have threatened
civil rights, women's health, the environment, and the welfare
of the most vulnerable since he was elected to Congress in 2000
and then as Indiana's governor in 2012.
Science Denier
"Look, I don't know that [climate change] is a resolved issue in
science today."—Gov. Mike Pence, 2014
Regarding Pence's climate stance, Greenpeace listed the many
times in which Pence [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]acted<br
/>against the climate and for the oil and gas industry:
As a Congressman, Pence consistently voted true to his
climate denial, voting to prevent the EPA from regulating
greenhouse gases, to reverse President Obama's Offshore
Moratorium Act, and against enforcing limits on global carbon
dioxide emissions. He was also a vocal critic of the Clean Power
Plan, insisting in a letter to President Obama that Indiana
would not comply.
Pence joined his fellow House Republicans in
opportunistically using the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill to
call for energy independence built on access to all of our
domestic resources, including more offshore drilling. (Never
mind that Deepwater Horizon was an offshore drilling rig in U.S.
waters.)
During his tenure as governor, he has overseen the expansion
of the Whiting Refinery to process increasingly risky forms of
fossil fuels, particularly petcoke and tar sands coming in from
Canada. It is the 3rd largest tar sands refinery in the country,
and its processing of petcoke, a byproduct of tar sands
extraction that is cheaper and way dirtier than coal, has
tripled in recent years.
Pence has also expressed doubt regarding evolution. "Do I
believe in evolution? I embrace the view that God created the
heavens and the earth, the seas and all that's in them," he said
on MSNBC in 2008.
In the late 1990s, long after scientists had conclusively shown
that cigarette smoking was linked to lung cancer, Pence
dismissed such claims as "hysteria."
Attacked Women's Rights
In March, Pence signed into law what reproductive rights
activists characterized as "one of the worst anti-abortion bills
in the country." As Common Dreams reported:
The law, which Pence said he signed "with a prayer," makes
Indiana the second state in the nation, after North Dakota, to
ban abortion in cases where a fetal anomaly is detected.
It also mandates the burial and cremation of miscarried or
aborted remains; restricts fetal tissue donation; and requires
doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a
hospital or to have an agreement with a doctor who does.
Civil rights groups subsequently sued the state over what they
described as a "cynical, deceptive attempt to ban abortions."
Pence also joined many right-wingers in attacking Planned
Parenthood in response to a fake video purporting to show the
group selling bodily tissues. (The filmmakers were eventually
indicted for tampering with government records.)
Legalized Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination
Last year, Pence signed into law the so-called "Religious
Freedom Restoration Act" that gave "legal cover, under the guise
of 'religious liberties,' to any businesses or individuals who
wish to violate anti-discrimination laws," as Common Dreams
reported.
As Rolling Stone's Jeb Lund wrote:
Pence and Indiana Republicans capitalized on a decades-long
manipulation of "religious freedom" as an excuse to exclude and
punish groups they see as immoral or repugnant, leveraging
religion's perquisites to create a bubble of legitimated
pre-Civil Rights Era prejudice (and tax avoidance). Only Pence
and company went too far: Indiana's RFRA didn't just protect
religious intolerance from government interference but actually
empowered business to discriminate against immoral other folk
without risk of civil rights lawsuits. Only, when pressed even
to answer yes or no as to whether Pence had just signed a bill
that legalized religious discrimination of gays, he sputtered
and retreated. Typically, the Onion did the best job of anyone
when it came to nailing him to a wall.
Tried to Privatize Social Security
"Governor Pence has a long history of fighting to cut and
privatize Social Security," writes Nancy Altman, co-director of
the progressive group Social Security Works. Altman released the
following statement in reaction to Trump's choice of Pence for
VP:
In 2005, [Pence] was the leader of a group of House
Republicans who criticized George W. Bush’s Social Security
privatization plan for not being extreme enough! He supports
raising the retirement age and other cuts to Social Security
benefits. This despite the fact that the nation is facing a
looming retirement income crisis, which is likely to be harshest
for younger Americans.
Pence has shown his desire to dismantle Social Security
brick by brick, or even faster. He insultingly calls our Social
Security system an “entitlement” rather than the earned benefit
that it is. This attitude towards Social Security, the people’s
pension, fits in perfectly with Donald Trump’s outrageous claim
that Social Security is an illegal Ponzi Scheme. This name
calling is an insult to every worker and Social Security
beneficiary. It is an insult to all of us.
Iraq War Propagandist
Igor Volposky, deputy director of the Campaign for America's
Future Action Fund, dug into congressional records and
discovered that during his tenure in the House of
Representatives, Pence had served as "Bush's chief war
propagandist" when it came to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
"Before he became governor of Indiana and a candidate to be
Donald Trump's vice-presidential nominee, Mike Pence was a
congressman, and he voted for every free-trade agreement that
came before him," the Washington Post wrote.
Pence's stance has apparently already hurt his state's workers:
"This year, Pence urged an Indiana manufacturer, Carrier Corp.,
to reconsider a decision to move 1,400 jobs from Indiana to
Mexico. The company is continuing with the plans but agreed to
repay some state and local tax incentives," the Post reported.
"After meeting with the company, Pence said he did not want to
give Indiana workers 'false hope' that the jobs would stay in
their state."
Anti-Immigrants
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) executive vice
president Rocio Saenz condemned Pence's record on immigration in
a statement released Friday:
[Pence's] positions on immigration are anti-immigrant and
anti-family. If Donald Trump wasn’t enough to alienate Latino
voters, a Trump/Pence ticket will be the ultimate deal breaker
for one of the fastest-growing demographics.
His latest attack against immigrants and their American
children came when he joined 25 other Republican governors in a
lawsuit that blocked Obama’s executive initiatives on
immigration, DAPA and DACA that would have shielded
approximately five million undocumented immigrants from
deportation.
Governor Pence is not a friend of the immigrant community.
And in response to Trump's decision, Twitter erupted on Friday
with comments both decrying and quipping about Trump's choice.
HTML http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/15/anti-women-anti-immigrant-anti-lgbtq-crusader-trump-finds-perfect-match-pence-vp
HTML http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/15/anti-women-anti-immigrant-anti-lgbtq-crusader-trump-finds-perfect-match-pence-vp
[/quote]
Definitely a marriage of convenience designed to deliver the
powerful religious know-nothing vote.
It's a big **** (typical Trump behavior?), and bound to have
lots of fall-out.
Begs, the question, "Whose idea was this?"
Maybe Newt Gingrich told him to do it. I don't think it was The
Donald's idea.
[/quote]
Pence is, ABOVE ALL, a Koch Brothers TOOL. He has his head so
far up the fossil fuel industry descending colon that he peddles
the BULLSHIT that global warming is a "myth".
[center] [img
width=540]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-171015155423.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center]Pence
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif<br
/>enjoying a day at the beach.
HTML https://smileyshack.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/stupid-im-with-arrow-left.gif<br
/>[/center]
#Post#: 5492--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: July 25, 2016, 11:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
July 25, 2016
[center] DENIER ROUNDUP by [img
width=140]
HTML http://climatenexus.org/sites/all/themes/climatenexus/logo.png[/img]
[/center]
Agelbert NOTE: The Fossil Fuel Industry CORRUPTED Gooberment is
DOING WHAT THEY DO to defend Profit over People and Planet.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
[quote] [center]ICYMI: FBI Infiltrates 350.org, API Infiltrates
RNC/DNC, And More[/center]
[size=10pt]There was a lot that happened last week, and a lot of
stories we didn’t get to. So to start off the new week, let’s
quickly go through some of the great content you might have
missed:
First, there’s Lee Fang and Steve Horn’s piece in The Intercept
about how local and federal law enforcement agencies went
undercover into fracking protest groups, including local
branches of 350.org. Emails obtained through FOIA requests show
law enforcement working closely with the corporations whose
activities were being protested. Of course they didn’t find
anything criminal in the peaceful protests, just like the FBI’s
past investigation into Keystone XL protests turned up nothing
to justify the surveillance of private citizens meeting
peacefully to express themselves.
Next there is the Alex Emmons piece, again in The Intercept,
about how the Washington Post and The Atlantic push the limits
of ethical journalism by hosting panel events sponsored by the
American Petroleum Institute at the RNC, where climate deniers
went basically unchallenged when repeating myths (like they did
on regular programming on Fox News). There are similar,
API-sponsored events planned for the DNC, and as reporting in
The Intercept earlier this month showed, Politico and The Hill
are also cashing in on the sponsored content gravy train.
Meanwhile, the congressional speeches documenting the Koch and
Exxon #WebofDenial have been annotated for future reference. And
eight of the senators who spoke also penned a letter in response
to the #WebofDenial groups that criticized the effort, asking
those groups to reveal their funders to prove that they really
do, as the web of groups claim, “represent many, many millions
of Americans.” The senators suspect the groups really just
represent the “many, many millions” of dollars funneled through
“identity scrubbing” organizations like Donors Trust that
conceal just how much the Kochs or ExxonMobil dole out.
Speaking of ExxonMobil, the Union of Concerned Scientists pushed
back on fossil-fuel-funded Lamar Smith’s unconstitutional and
McCarthy-based subpoena of the #ExxonKnew investigators with an
op-ed in the New York Times, while NCSE wrote a blog of their
own on the issue. Dana Nuccitelli at the Guardian laid out the
tobacco court case parallels, while Senator Elizabeth Warren
(D-MA) pushed back on Smith and Exxon in a tweetstorm so intense
it generated press.
Though maybe the fossil fuel and tobacco narrative isn’t exactly
what we thought it to be after all. Documents unearthed by the
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and published
on their Smoke and Fumes page suggest that the oil industry
didn’t actually use the tobacco industry’s playbook. Instead, it
looks like Big Oil wrote the PR playbook back in the 1950s, then
tobacco picked it up and followed! According to CIEL president
Carroll Muffett, having done PR work for the oil industry “was a
pedigree the tobacco companies recognized and sought out.”
So what did we learn last week, besides that The Intercept is
doing great investigative journalism? Well for one thing, if
you’re the conductor of the fossil fuel gravy train, you can buy
panels at political events to blur the line between news and
advertisements.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
Oh, and that suspiciously well-groomed protester who just showed
up? He might be a narc. Because infiltrating advocacy
organizations that are expressing their rights to assemble and
free speech without any evidence of any wrongdoing is apparently
just fine when corporate profits are at stake.
But if a non-profit organization requests the investigation of a
[b]corporation’s decades-long history of potential fraud [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif[/img][/b]...well<br
/>then you’re a threat to free speech ::), and a congressperson
riding the gravy train might just subpoena your organization.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif
In other words, go up against the fossil fuel gravy train, and
you might get railed.
HTML http://dl8.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1238/1238988d68zgywbnq.gif[/quote]<br
/>
[center][img
width=100]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 5495--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: July 27, 2016, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]New York, Mass. AGs Reject Subpoena Request [img
width=50]
HTML http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/xig/ojx/xigojx6KT.png[/img]
[/center]
The attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts said they
will refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena for records
on their investigations into ExxonMobil. A letter from New York
AG Eric Schneiderman’s council called the July 13 subpoena from
Lamar Smith [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img],<br
/>Chairman of the House Science Committee, “an unprecedented
effort” to target the ongoing investigations.
Massachusetts AG Maura Healey’s council issued a similar letter,
calling the subpoena an “unconstitutional and unwarranted
interference.” Smith, who had set a deadline of today for all
subpoenaed parties to respond, said he was “disappointed that
Schneiderman and Healey refused to comply.”
HTML http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-climatechange-idUSKCN1062GX?il=0
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page