Trump Would Reverse Global Warming Progress For Money

 The following is part of a post by Dan Rather:

President Biden calls climate change an “existential threat.” His administration has been responsible for more than 100 new laws and initiatives aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and cutting pollution. A big part of his agenda is transitioning from gasoline-powered cars to electric vehicles. . . .

For months Donald Trump has been openly hostile toward electric vehicles, saying they will “kill” the auto industry. His remarks are at odds with an industry embracing EV production. Maybe it’s because the United Auto Workers endorsed Biden. But perhaps there’s a different reason — money. 

 

Trump, long a climate change denier, doesn’t want to unplug only the electric car effort; he’s against wind and solar energy too. Last month he held a dinner at Mar-a-Lago for 20 oil and gas executives. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee reportedly offered that, if elected, he would scrap every one of Biden’s new environmental regulations in exchange for the oil execs raising $1 billion for Trump’s campaign. 

 

Call it what you want: a shakedown, quid pro quo, scandalous, but apparently it isn’t illegal. He went on to suggest that $1 billion is a “deal” for the oil companies because of the taxes and financial regulations they wouldn’t have to pay. While dealmaking like this isn’t new, the stunning transparency is.

Senate Democrats think so too. Today, they opened a second investigation into that now infamous meeting and whether Trump offered a “policies-for-money transaction.” 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or an environmental scientist, to know our planet is changing, and fast. We can all feel it. Weather experts say higher temperatures are causing more severe weather, more frequently. 

 

More needs to be done. The White House climate initiatives are only a beginning. To abandon them now would be, well, madness. I want my grandchildren and your grandchildren to know that we did our best to save our democracy and our planet.

Trump Solicits A $1 Billion Bribe From Big Oil Executives

The following is part of a post by Robert Reich:

When Trump sat down with some of America’s top oil executives last month at Mar-a-Lago, according to the The Washington Post, they complained of burdensome environmental regulations, despite spending $400 million to lobby the Biden administration in the last year. 

Trump’s response? He would offer them a better deal. 

He told them to raise $1 billion to return him to the White House and he’d reverse dozens of Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted (according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation).

The $1 billion “deal” would more than pay for itself, Trump told the oil executives, because of the taxes and regulations they would avoid thanks to him.

Biden has called global warming an “existential threat,” and over the last three years, his administration has finalized 100 new environmental regulations aimed at cutting air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, restricting toxic chemicals, and conserving public lands and waters. 

Trump has called climate change a “hoax.” His administration weakened or wiped out more than 125 environmental rules over four years.

Now, he’s making an even bigger offer. At that Mar-a-Lago dinner, the former president told Big Oil executives that they’ll have an even greater windfall in a second Trump administration — including new offshore drilling, speedier permits, and other relaxed regulations — if they sink a billion into his campaign.

 

Trump promised to immediately end the Biden administration’s freeze on permits for new liquefied natural gas exports — a top priority for the executives. “You’ll get it on the first day,” Trump said.

Trump told the executives that he would start auctioning off more leases for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, another priority for several of the executives. He railed against wind power. And he said he would reverse the restrictions on drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.

Trump also promised that he would scrap Biden’s rules for electric vehicles. The rules require automakers to reduce emissions from car tailpipes but don’t mandate a particular technology such as EVs. Trump called the rules “ridiculous” in the meeting with donors.

Will Big Oil put up $1 billion for all of this? Maybe.

Alex Witt, a senior adviser for oil and gas with Climate Power, said Trump will do whatever the oil industry wants if they support him. With Trump, Witt said, “everything has a price.”

 

But isn’t this an out-and-out bribe? And aren’t bribes illegal? Trump is literally willing to take bribes in exchange for the destruction of the planet.

Most Blame Putin And Oil Companies For High Gas Prices

 

The chart above is from the recent ABC News / Ipsos Poll -- done on April 8th and 9th of a national sample of 530 adults, with a 4.9 point margin of error.

Big Oil Is Engaged In An Obscene Price-Gouging

 

Americans, especially those in the poor and working classes are suffering from very high gas prices. Some want to blame President Biden, and others want to blame Vladimir Putin. Both are wrong! It's the Big Oil companies that are taking advantage of the current situation to increase their already exorbitant profits.

Here's part of how former Labor Secretary Robert Reich describes it:

Guess who’s making no sacrifice at all — in fact, who’s reaping a giant windfall from this crisis? 

As crude oil prices hit levels not seen in more than 13 years, Big Oil has hit a gusher. Even before Putin’s war, oil prices had begun to rise due to the recovery in global demand and tight inventories. Last year, when Americans were already struggling to pay their heating bills and fill up their gas tanks, the biggest oil companies (Shell, Chevron, BP, and Exxon) posted profits totaling $75 billion. This year, courtesy of Vladimir Putin, Big Oil is on the way to a far bigger bonanza.

How are the oil companies using all this windfall? I can assure you they’re not investing in renewables. They’re not even increasing oil production. As Chevron’s top executive Mike Wirth said in September, “we could afford to invest more” but “the equity market is not sending a signal that says they think we ought to be doing that.”  Translated:  Wall Street says the way to maximize profits is to limit supply and push up prices instead.

So they’re buying back their own stock in order to give their stock prices even more of a boost. Last year they spent $38 billion on stock buybacks — their biggest buyback spending spree since 2008. This year, thanks largely to Putin, the oil giants are planning to buy back at least $22 billion more. 

Make no mistake. This is a direct redistribution from consumers who are paying through the nose at the gas pump to Big Oil’s investors and top executives (whose compensation packages are larded with shares of stock and stock options). 

Though it’s seldom discussed in the media, lower-income earners and their families bear the brunt of the burden of higher gas prices. Not only are lower-income people less likely to be able to work from home, they’re also more likely to commute for longer distances between work and home in order to afford less expensive housing. 

Big oil companies could absorb the higher costs of crude oil. The reason they’re not is because they’re so big they don’t have to. They don’t worry about losing market share to competitors. So they’re passing on the higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, and pocketing record profits. 

It’s the same old story in this country: when crisis strikes, the poor and working class are on the frontlines while the biggest corporations and their investors and top brass rake it in.

Many Americans Say Big Oil Is Not Doing Enough

The chart above is from a Morning Consult Poll -- done between January 21st and 23rd of a nationwide sample of2,210 adults, with a 2 point margin of error. It shows that a plurality of American adults (33%) think the big oil companies are not doing enough to combat global climate change. That includes 44% of Democrats and 37% of Independents. Only Republicans have a plurality (35%) saying those companies are doing the right amount.

Trump Sides With Big Oil To Support Dakota Access Pipeline

For many weeks now, the Native Americans at Standing Rock (and many of their friends) have been trying to stop the building of the Dakota Access pipeline. That pipeline will disturb the graves of their ancestors, and put their water supply in serious jeopardy (the very reason it was changed from a route that did not go through their territory).

They have been opposed by the forces of Big Oil, who have marshaled at least 76 policing agencies from 10 states to stop the demonstrations. The peaceful demonstrators have been abused by those agencies, and the governor of North Dakota has ordered them to be removed from the private property they are camping on (claiming their living structures are not safe for the winter weather).

Now they have even worse news. The incoming president, Donald Trump, has made it clear that he is siding with the interests of Big Oil, and against the Standing Rock demonstrators. They will get no help from the federal government.

This is one more action showing that Trump is going to be a corporate-friendly and ate-free speech president. And he is going to act to improve his own financial situation, regardless of how that affects ordinary Americans.

While Trump has divested his interests in the company building the pipeline (worth between $500,000 and $1 million), he does have between $100,000 and $250,000 invested in Phillips 66, which will get 25% of the oil from the pipeline when it is finished.

Trump's corrupt policies have begun, and he hasn't even been sworn in yet.

Argument For Keystone XL Pipeline Rests On GOP Lies

There has been a debate over whether the Keystone XL pipeline should be built or not for months now. That pipeline would bring Canadian tar sands oil to the United States gulf coast. Republican leaders in Congress have said that would be one of the first things they do since they now control both houses of Congress -- pass a bill forcing the building of that pipeline.

Sadly, a majority of Americans seem to want the pipeline built. They have accepted the Republican argument that the pipeline would be good for this country. But that argument is built on three big lies -- that the pipeline would create 42,000 new jobs, that the pipeline would help lower American dependence on foreign oil, and that the pipeline would be safe. None of those things are true.

Republicans like to quote a government study that said the pipeline would create 42,000 jobs. But that's not what the study showed (and they know it). That study said building the pipeline would buoy that many jobs that already exist, but would produce only 35 new permanent jobs (a fact the GOP conveniently leaves out). The pipeline is not a job creator, and never was meant to be.

As for the argument that the pipeline will reduce America's dependence on foreign oil -- that is just laughable. The oil destined to be carried by the pipeline is foreign oil (from Canada), and is meant to be sold overseas (primarily in Asia).

That brings us to the final argument -- that the Keystone XL pipeline will somehow be magically better than all other pipelines, and will not be a danger to our environment (including the largest aquifer in this country (see image above). That is just a sick joke. There is nothing about this pipeline that makes it better than other pipelines. In fact, it might be worse since the oil it carries is more toxic to the environment and is harder to clean up. Pipeline leaks are not rare in this country, but are almost a daily occurrence -- and there is no reason to believe this new pipeline will be any better.

The White House has said the president will veto any bill coming out of Congress to force the building of the pipeline. I hope that is true. This pipeline makes no economic sense (except to Big Oil), and could well be an environmental disaster.

Has The Keystone XL Pipeline Just Quietly Died ?

For many months now, environmentalists have been fighting Big Oil over whether the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built in this country -- to transport oil from Canada to Texas. Republicans have been claiming the pipeline would create a huge number of new jobs and would help to lower our dependence on foreign oil (even though the oil comes from Canada). Those are lies. At best, the pipeline would create less than 200 permanent new jobs, and the oil was never meant for U.S. use -- but will be shipped overseas.

Those fighting the building of this pipeline noted that it cuts across the middle of this country, endangering much valuable farm and ranch land -- and was to be built over this nation's largest fresh-water aquifer (the Ogalalla Aquifer). Their argument was a valid one, and it never made much sense to put that much land and water in danger just to fill the pockets of some oil companies (with oil we were not even going to get to use).

I greatly admired those who were fighting against the building of the pipeline, but I have to admit that I thought they would probably lose in the end to the power of Big Oil and the federal government. It looks now like I was wrong about that. It seems that they have delayed the building of the pipeline long enough to kill it.

TransCanada, the company wanting the pipeline, has grown tired of waiting for the U.S. to make up its mind -- and they have requested an alternate route from the Canadian government. And the Canadian government, currently ruled by conservatives, has approved a pipeline route from Alberta ( the location of the tar sands oil) across eastern Canada to the Atlantic Ocean (see map above).

The question I have now is -- what is going to happen with the land stolen from landowners through the misuse of eminent domain (for the use of private corporations). Personally, I think that land should be immediately returned to the original owners.

Green Party Says Charges Dropped In XL Pipeline Case

Two years ago, Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein (pictured), actress Daryl Hannah, and Texas landowner Eleanor Fairchild were arrested for bringing supplies to protestors trying to stop the seizing of Fairchild's land to build the XL Pipeline. The Wood County District Attorney has finally dropped all charges against these three wonderful ladies. Here is the press release issued by the Green Party Shadow Cabinet on October 10th:

Oct.10, 2014, Wood County, Texas: The District Attorney has dismissed charges brought against Stein, Hannah and Fairchild in connection with the Tar Sands Blockade of the KeystoneXL Pipeline in East Texas.

The women had been arrested in actions in late 2012 supporting tree-sitters blocking construction of the KeystoneXL Pipeline. The actions took place on Eleanor Fairchild’s land that had been seized by TransCanada in what the protesters claimed was an illegal use of eminent domain.

Green Shadow Cabinet President, Jill Stein, said the dismissal was good news for the climate and the rising tide of civil disobedience against pipelines, tar sands, and fossil fuels in general.

“This is the leading edge of the new climate movement that just brought 400,000 people out on the streets of New York, and moved thousands to civil disobedience on Wall Street. The message is clear: We are not going to sit idly by while fossil fuel predators, banksters and their political allies destroy our future,” Dr Stein said.

“When I was arrested the east coast was in the grips of Super Storm Sandy while the Presidential election was in full swing. The climate itself was breaking the silence of the Obama and Romney campaigns that were sold out to oil, coal and gas companies,"

“Hurricane Sandy was just a taste of what's to come under the energy policies of the Obama administration that has overseen a massive expansion of oil and gas production.”

"The blockaders are the heroes of the movement to stop climate change and far worse storms in the future. We needed them in 2012 and we need them even more today"

“It was Halloween, and I was bringing much needed supplies to tree-sitters who were putting their bodies in the path of this disastrous pipeline.”

“As far as I was concerned we were on Eleanor Fairchild’s property. She has been an incredibly generous and dedicated activist who has been collaborating with the pipeline blockade from the start,” Dr Stein said.

The Lawyer representing the three women, Norman Ladd, of Ladd & Thigpen, P.C. said all charges, which included criminal trespass, resisting arrest, and ‘obstructing passageway’, had been dismissed. Mr. Ladd stated that it was in his clients’ best interests to continue to fight these charges while the civil case was proceeding in another court as to the eminent domain issue.

“Eleanor never conceded that it was not her land. So instead of agreeing to a plea bargain, we wanted to see how the civil case would play out,” Mr Ladd said.

“Given the history of the oil and gas industry in Texas, it’s an understandably delicate issue.  Almost everyone here has a friend or relative that works for an oil and gas company, including myself. However with this pipeline, and the impact it’s having on the land, I’m seeing lot of people taking  more time to really understand the impact a project like this could have on our environment."

“I was contacted by a member of the protest movement and I was happy to take on the case. I’ve always wanted to make sure that when it comes to conservation and environmental protection issues, people have someone that will ensure they are well protected. I think it goes without saying that we owe this duty to future generations.” Mr Ladd said.

Who Benefits From Building The Keystone XL Pipeline ?

(This image of the Koch brothers is from the website mediamatters.org.)

The Republican right-wingers have been loudly beating the drum in support of building the Keystone XL pipeline. Their argument is that the pipeline will benefit the people of the United States -- by creating new jobs and by lowering the amount of oil the United States would need to import. Is that argument true?

Let's first take the jobs argument. While it's true that a few thousand jobs would be created to build the pipeline, those are only temporary jobs. The State Department has admitted that only about 35 permanent jobs would result from building the pipeline. In short, the job creation argument is a false one -- and even if you add the few temporary jobs to the extremely small amount of permanent jobs, it would not significantly affect the unemployment crisis in this country.

But even though the pipeline won't create jobs, it would be beneficial if it significantly lowered the amount of foreign oil the United States needed to import. Unfortunately, that is a bogus argument also. First, the oil flowing through the pipeline would be foreign oil, and not oil that originated in this country. The oil would come from Canada. Even if we set that aside, recognizing that Canada is a much friendlier nation than much of our other imported oil comes from, the argument still doesn't hold water.

The amount of oil that would flow through the pipeline is only a tiny fraction of the oil this country imports, and would not significantly reduce America's consumption of foreign oil -- even if all of that oil stayed in this country. But it's not going to stay in the United States. The companies receiving and refining that oil have refused to promise to keep it in the United States, and they refused because they intend to ship most (or all) of it to other countries (where they can get a higher price).

So the pipeline will not create a significant number of new jobs, and it will not significantly reduce American dependence on foreign oil. Add to this the fact that the pipeline is environmentally dangerous (since pipeline leaks are not rare, but a common occurrence that happens almost daily in this country), and it's easy to see that the people of the United States will NOT be benefitted by the building of the pipeline.

So who will the pipeline benefit? It turns out that the biggest supporters of right-wing policies and candidates (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars) -- the Koch brothers -- would be the only Americans (outside of the big oil refiners on the Gulf Coast) to benefit. That's because the Koch brothers, through a subsidiary of Koch Industries, holds leases on at least 1.1 million acres of the tar sands oil in Canada. The pipeline would give them a much cheaper and easier way to get that oil to a refinery (so it can be refined and then sold overseas).

This shouldn't really surprise anyone. The Koch brothers fill the campaign coffers of right-wing candidates, and those candidates pay them back by campaigning for a pipeline that will fatten the already bulging bank accounts of the Koch brothers. It's exactly the kind of quid pro quo politics that shouldn't exist in a democracy. But then right-wingers aren't too enamored with democracy anyway -- much preferring a plutocracy that would benefit their rich friends.

If We Have A Critical Need To Drill For More Oil, Why Are We Exporting So Much Of It ?

For years now, we have been hearing from right-wing Republicans that we have a critical shortage of oil -- forcing us to depend on foreign countries for our oil supply. They say we must drill for more oil in this country, even if it means destroying national lands and beaches ("drill, baby, drill"). For them, allowing the oil companies to drill where ever they want is the only answer, and they are quick to denigrate putting federal money into renewable energy sources (and the GOP has actually proposed cutting funds for this).

Is that true? Do we really need to drill so much, even if it hurts the environment? If so, then the following list makes no sense at all. It is a list of our top ten exports to foreign countries:

1. Machines, engines.....$205.2 billion (13.9% of exports)
2. Electronic equipment.....$158.9 billion (10.7% of exports)
3. Oil.....$129.5 billion (8.8% of exports)
4. Vehicles.....$119.7 billion (8.1% of exports)
5. Aircraft, spacecraft.....$87.5 billion (5.9% of exports)
6. Medical, technical equipment.....$79.1 billion (5.3% of exports)
7. Fems, precious metals, coins.....$71.8 billion (4.9% of exports)
8. Plastics.....$58.6 billion (4.0% of exports)
9. Organic chemicals.....$45.6 billion (3.1% of exports)
10. Pharmaceuticals.....$38.8 billion (2.6% of exports)

That's right. We are exporting about $129.5 billion worth of oil to other countries each year -- nearly 9% of all of this nation's exports, making it the third largest category of exports from the United States. And it gets even worse. Those exports of oil are increasing (up over 200% in 2011), and are the second fastest growing export from this country (behind only vegetable products, which was up over 360% in that year).

If we have such a critical shortage of oil in this country, then why are we exporting so much of it to other countries? The truth is that those right-wing Republicans aren't really worried about our oil supply, or the fact that we import so much. If they were, they would be trying to stop those exports. No, they are just shilling for the giant oil companies. They care more about the oil company profits than they do about our environment or the price of gas for consumers (which all that exporting has to affect).

And the same is true of the proposed XL pipeline. They tell us that it will help to stop our dependence on foreign oil (in spite of the fact that pipeline oil will come from another country). The fact is that most of that oil will be exported after refined, and will do nothing to solve our energy dependence problem (if indeed, it is a problem at all).

Scientists Overwhelmingly Agree That Global Warming Is Real And Is Caused By Humans

The fossil fuel energy companies, and their paid lackeys (congressional Republicans), have been repeating the same lie for years now -- that scientists disagree on whether global climate change (global warming) is real or is caused by human actions (over-use of fossil fuels) if real. And sadly, they have been pretty effective in spreading that propaganda. A 2012 Pew Research survey showed that only 42% of the American public believes that global warming is real and caused by humans.

But is there really disagreement in the scientific community? John Cook, climate communications director at the University of Queensland (Australia), decided to find out. He signed up 24 researchers -- and they studied the 12,000 scientific papers, written in 2,000 scientific journals by 29,083 authors over the last 20 years. Roughly 4,000 of those scientific papers expressed a view on the evidence for global warming.

What was the result of this research? They found that 97% of scientists believe there is credible evidence of global warming, and that the warming was caused by humans. That's an overwhelming number, and should put to rest any of the specious arguments that there is significant disagreement in the scientific community over the reality of human-caused global warming. Those who say that there is significant disagreement are either idiots or they are telling bald-faced lies (or both).

I'm sure that climate change deniers will still point to that tiny 3%. But I am just as sure that there has always, throughout history, been a tiny percent of scientists who clung to their mistaken beliefs after any scientific advancement was made (Copernicus, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, etc., all had their detractors). Any reasonable person though, will accept what the 97% is saying.

----------------------------------------

But the blame for passing along this misinformation (propaganda) to the general public is not just the fault of the fossil fuel producers and Republicans. They never could have spread such an outrageous lie without the help of another powerful group --  the media. The media is supposed to report the truth to the public, but that does not always happen. In an effort to be "fair" and present "both sides", the media has too often presented evidence that is not true -- and given it equal weight to the truth.

That is not fairness. It is allowing a lie to continue to exist, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But as misleading as giving equal weight to the truth and a lie really is, there is another way the media has failed in its duty to inform the public of factual and truthful information. Many times the press will announce the results of "studies" or "research" without revealing the individuals or groups funding that research.

There are scientists among the 3% shown above who have sold out to the fossil fuel industry, and go out of their way to find results that please that industry (because to do otherwise would result in their funding being cut off). And too often, the media reports the results of these spurious "studies" funded by the fossil fuel industry as though it was real science -- and without telling the public who funded that "research". This gives the public the impression that the so-called study was done by scientists who were impartial (and not beholding to the fossil fuel industry), when in reality it is nothing more than propaganda.

Here are just a few of the media outlets who report these "studies" without giving the source of funding for the study:

Helping The Rich To Get Richer

The Republican Party was aghast when the Democrats tried to do away with just part of the billions of dollars in subsidies to the "Big Oil" companies. You would have thought from listening to the congressional GOP that those companies would go broke without those government subsidies. But the truth is that those oil companies are making record profits, and the government subsidies is just an added benefit for them -- just more profit to add to the already huge profits they make. The subsidies are not needed.

If the Republicans were serious about cutting the deficit, they would immediately do away with these unneeded subsidies, and save the government billions of dollars. But they're not serious about cutting the deficit. They talk about that because it helps them get what they really want -- more money for their rich friends, and destruction of the social programs that help hurting Americans (programs they have never approved of). That's why every budget they have tried to pass in the last few years has cut help for ordinary Americans and included big giveaways to the richest people.

The Republicans truly are the party of the rich.

Three Oil Pipeline Leaks This Last Week

First it was the Exxon pipeline near Mayflower (Arkansas) that dumped a few thousand barrels of oil (diluted bitumen) into the environment. Then a Canadian pipeline was broken by a train wreck in Canada and dumped a few hundred barrels of oil there. Now there has been a third pipeline leak in the same week -- this one in Texas (West Columbia). The company, Shell Oil this time, admits that several hundred barrels of oil leaked from the pipeline, and at least 70 barrels made it to the Gulf of Mexico (and the odds are that is a gross underestimate).

The media is making a big deal out of there being three pipelines leaking oil in one week -- like it's an unusual occurrence. But those to pay attention to such matters know that it isn't. Last year, there were 364 "incidents" (pipeline leaks) -- very close to one every day. Most of them are small, dumping only a few hundred barrels of oil, but all of them are hurting the environment.

And now the oil companies want President Obama to approve a huge new pipeline running right down the middle of this country from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast -- the XL pipeline. And this new pipeline will be much larger than existing pipelines. The Arkansas pipeline carries about 90,000 barrels a day, but the XL pipeline will carry about 800,000 barrels a day. Just imagine, a pipeline break of it could dump hundreds of thousands of oil (actually diluted bitumen) into the environment in just a few hours.

And unfortunately, that pipeline will probably be approved. The president has a history of giving the corporate interests most of what they want, and the oil companies want this huge new pipeline. There are those who will tell you this new pipeline will create jobs and help this country be less dependent on foreign oil. Not true! Only a couple of hundred permanent jobs will be created (unless you count the workers that will be needed to clean up the future pipeline leaks). And none of that Canadian oil is destined for this country. It will be refined in Texas and sold to other countries (primarily Asia).

This proposed XL pipeline is a bad idea -- both environmentally and financially. It will endanger the environment and only financially benefit the big oil companies. It should NOT be built!

Exxon Won't Have To Pay For Clean-Up

The picture above shows a tiny portion of the oil spill in Arkansas. It is from a pipeline owned and operated by Exxon -- and that company admits that thousands of barrels of oil were released from the broken pipeline before it was discovered and shut down. Now this city (Mayflower, Arkansas) faces a difficult clean-up (and the realization that the ecology of their area will be negatively affected). And guess who won't be paying for any part of that clean-up -- that's right, the Exxon Mobil corporation.

Years ago a fund was created to pay for oil spills. It is called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (and it is badly needed since at least 54,000 barrels of pipeline oil was dumped into the environment in 364 separate incidents last year).  But according to Oil Change International:

“The great irony of this tragic spill in Arkansas is that the transport of tar sands oil through pipelines in the US is exempt from payments into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Exxon, like all companies shipping toxic tar sands, doesn’t have to pay into the fund that will cover most of the clean up costs for the pipeline’s inevitable spills.”

That's because, in their infinite wisdom, the U.S. Congress let the oil companies talk them into passing a law that exempts those who ship this kind of crude oil (called diluted bitumen) from having to pay the 8 cents a barrel fee the fund requires. That's because they were able to get this particular kind of crude as not being defined as oil. And it is not the kind of crude oil that can be gotten by drilling a well. Instead, it is scooped from the ground as a solid, and chemicals are added to make it a liquid that will flow through the pipeline. That liquid is much like a thin asphalt, and is actually dirtier than the crude coming out of a drilled well.

So Exxon has not paid a single penny into the OSLT Fund for the sludge they are sending through that pipeline (and which has now spilled into the Arkansas landscape). And guess what, the companies that want to ship this same kind of dirty crude through the proposed XL pipeline won't have to pay into that fund either -- and that pipeline will pump nine times as much as the Arkansas pipeline does (which means of course, that it poses nine times the ecological danger to the environment).

This spill should serve as a warning to Americans -- that the XL pipeline should NOT be built. And the law exempting oil companies from having to pay into the OSLT Fund when they ship this noxious crude through our country should be repealed. It simply doesn't make sense.

Arkansas Spill Highlights Pipeline Danger

The right-wing Republicans in Congress have once again sold out to corporate interests -- this time to the Big Oil corporations. They are pressuring the president to approve construction of the XL Pipeline, which would cut right through the heart of America (running from the tar sands oil pits of Canada to the Gulf Coast refineries of Texas). They say that pipeline would be a real boon for this country -- creating jobs and lessening the country's dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, neither is true.

The numer of jobs the pipeline would create are mostly only temporary. Less than 200 permanent jobs would be created. That's an insignificant amount, considering the amount of jobs this country needs (and the Republicans have blocked in Congress).

And the idea that the pipeline would reduce the dependence on foreign oil is ludicrous. The oil being pumped through the pipeline IS foreign oil (since it is being built solely for the transporting of Canadian oil). In addition, the finished product after it is refined is destined to be shipped to foreign countries (mostly Asia). It will not stay in this country.

And then their is the way land is being procured for that pipeline. The government is backing an obvious misuse of eminent domain laws. Those laws were designed to let the government get property for the public good. But there is no public good in the building of this pipeline. The only entities being helped are giant oil companies -- the Canadian companies who will put their oil in it, and the American companies who will receive that oil to refine it. In other words, private property is being seized through eminent domain for the financial benefit of private corporations -- a clear violation of private property rights (which the Republicans claim to support).

But perhaps the best reason for stopping the pipeline from being built is to protect the environment. The pipeline will cut through the middle of this country -- crossing many thousands of acres of valuable farmland. Every acre of that land is in danger of being polluted with the very dirty Canadian oil. Proponents of the pipeline has shrugged off any danger to the environment, but a pipeline break just this last week in Arkansas (carrying the same kind of Canadian oil) shows this is a real danger.

That pipeline broke (see pictures above) and, before anyone realized it had happened, thousands of gallons of oil polluted the area near Mayflower, Arkansas. The authorities are not letting the general public near the spill, but the pictures above were taken by people living near the spill. And this was just a small pipeline, carrying about 90,000 barrels of crude per day. The XL Pipeline will carry about 800,000 barrels per day -- making a break much more serious than the one in Arkansas.

As the Arkansas break shows, we are not talking about whether a break can occur with the XL Pipeline -- only when and where such a break will occur. That monstrosity should not be built!

An Environmental Mistake

It's good to finally see someone in the mainstream media finally taking a sensible position on the building of the Keystone XL Pipeline. That pipeline is an environmental boondoggle that should never be finished. It will transport some of the dirtiest oil in the world through the heart of this country, creating an unnecessary risk to the environment of several states. In addition, eminent domain is being used by the government to take the land from private citizens and give it to a private corporation (for the benefit of that corporation, not the public).

The right-wing Republicans would like Americans to think the pipeline is a big job creator and will help to reduce this country's reliance on imported oil. Neither of those are true. Less than 200 permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline. And that dirty oil (tar sands oil) is coming from another country, to be refined in this country, and then shipped abroad. It will do absolutely nothing to reduce America's reliance on foreign oil.

This is just another example of a huge corporation using the power of our government to fatten their own bank account. And right now, it looks like they may get away with it. We need to urge the president to stop the building of the pipeline.

XL Pipeline Could Damage Our Environment

In his inauguration speech, President Obama talked about responding "to the threat of climate change", and protecting "our national treasure -- our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow-capped peaks". It was wonderful to hear. Unfortunately, it's beginning to look like the president may actually do something that will do just the opposite -- approve the building of the XL pipeline. That pipeline is already being built through Texas (using eminent domain to seize private land for the benefit of Big Oil), and with the president's approval it will stretch all the way from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

This pipeline would cut our nation in half to ship the poisonous tar sands oil, and poses a serious risk to the environments of all the states it will run through (in addition to providing more and dirtier fossil fuel to burn and make global warming even worse). The production of oil from these tar sand deposits is already damaging the environment in Canada, and there is a very good chance it will do the same in currently pristine areas of this country. The following article written by Kristena Chew, blogger and teacher at Saint Peter's University, shows what is already happening in Canada -- and what may be in store for the United States if we allow this poisonous pipeline to be built.

Back in 2010, residents near the shores of Canada’s Lake Athabasca called on the government to commission an independent study about the impact of the tar sands development in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan on the environment. Lake Athabasca is located downstream from one of the major tar sands developments and residents, who had found more and more fish with deformities (including huge tumors), demanded that a system of environmental monitoring be put in place and an investigation be carried out.

On Monday, the study resulting from these concerns was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and the verdict is clear: tar sands are bad for our health and for the environment.

In the study, Canadian researchers found that, since the 1960s when the tar sands development was started, the level of pollutants — specifically, of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which have been shown to adversely affect birds and aquatic organisms — has risen in six freshwater lakes. By examining sediment from five lakes within a 22-mile radius of the tar sands and one remote lake about 60 miles north, scientists found that PAH levels are now 2.5-23 times greater than than had been around 1960.

In the past decades, there has been a huge increase in developing the tar sands, as these are viewed as an increasingly important part of the world’s oil reserves at a time of rising energy prices and insatiable demand.

The tar sands in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan are the third largest reserve in the world and contain 97 percent of Canada’s reserves. Some speculate that Canada has been drawing heavily on the tar sands, and overlooking the environmental impact, as a way to “cushion the Canadian economy from shocks in global energy prices.”

The title of the study is “Legacy of a half century of Athabasca oil sands development recorded by lake ecosystems.” Based on the dirty evidence in once pristine lakes, that “legacy” is one we don’t want.

Indeed, the scientists’ long-term findings are all the more crucial as the tar sands industry has contended that pollution is “natural.” PAHs can be found in coal, crude oil, petroleum and in products made from fossil fuels, such as creosote and asphalt; they can also be released into the air when fossil fuels and organic matter are burned and are produced by volcanoes and forest fires.

But the researchers found, since 1978 (when large-scale production of tar sands got underway), that the levels of PAH deposits have been “steadily rising” from what they had been at for centuries. As the study simply states,

Because of the striking increase in PAHs, elevated primary production, and zooplankton changes, these oil sands lake ecosystems have entered new ecological states completely distinct from those of previous centuries.

“We’re not saying these are poisonous ponds. But it’s going to get worse. It’s not too late but the trend is not looking good,” as the study’s lead author, John P. Smol, a professor of biology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, said in the New York Times. The wildlife ponds have become as contaminated as those in urban areas, he also noted.

The results of the Canadian scientists’ study make it even more clear why we need to stop the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline which is to transport oil down through the western U.S. to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Who knows what damage the pipeline could do to so many lakes, ponds and other freshwater sources; to our flora and fauna, to us?

We must let the president know that our environment is too precious to allow it to be poisoned just to fatten the bank accounts of the Big Oil companies. Haven't we let them do enough damage to our environment already?

(Thanks goes to Adam Cohen of Zero Energy Construction blog for the heads up on this important issue.)

Coincidence ?

You'd have to be incredibly naive to believe this was just a coincidence. The best way to get the attention of anyone in Congress is to pump a bunch of money into their campaign chest. In fact, it's about the only way to get the attention of many of them. This is why Congress is loath to cut subsidies for corporations or raise taxes on the rich, but don't mind cutting programs for the poor and disadvantaged, children, or the elderly. They aren't likely to get a huge campaign donation from people in those groups -- and most in Congress care about nothing more than getting re-elected (while ignoring the needs of those who elected them).

Big Oil

How long are we going to put up with the scam Big Oil is running. They are making record profits, far more than most corporations, and yet our government continues to give the billions of dollars in subsidies. And they get away with it because they have been very effective in buying the requisite number of members of Congress. It's time to stop this nonsense. They are not only taking government money they don't need, they are also ruining the environment (and contributing to global climate change). They want us to think they are doing a patriotic service to America, but they really care about nothing but more profits (and adding your tax dollars to make that enormous profit even bigger). Enough!!!