Archive for Big Oil

Maine town to Big Oil: We don't want to bathe in bottled water

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

tar sands maple leaf oil Maine

Portland-Montreal Pipe Line (PMPL) is owned by a Canadian subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corp. and Suncor Energy Inc., "both heavily involved in extracting petroleum from oil sands," per a report by the Los Angeles Times. And now PMPL wants to start exporting toxic tar sands crude goo from Canada through South Portland, Maine. You all know what tar sands is, right? If not, please scroll through my many, many posts here to learn about the very real dangers of tar sands pipelines.

You'd think by now that impending climate change disaster and that other infamous, short-sighted, corporate disaster-in waiting would be a wake-up call. But no-o-o. Pollution be damned. Fresh air and water? Pfft! The health and well-being of anyone who gets in their way? Meh.

But there is a town in Maine that's not afraid to put up its dukes. The L.A. Times has the story:

On Monday night, the South Portland City Council, including Blake, is expected to pass an ordinance that would prevent the export of crude oil from the waterfront. The product of a relentless 18-month campaign by residents and Maine environmental groups, the measure is a response to plans by Portland-Montreal Pipe Line, or PMPL, to reverse the flow of its import pipeline in order to export oil sands crude from Canada, the same petroleum that would run through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in the Great Plains.

"This isn't an anti-Portland pipeline company measure," Blake said. "It's anti-dirty oil." [...]

Communities along the pipeline route, from Vermont to Maine, also grew alarmed by spills of oil sands crude into Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010 and then in a subdivision in Mayflower, Ark., in 2013... The Portland-Montreal pipeline six times crosses the watershed for a major tributary into Sebago Lake, the drinking water source for the greater Portland area.

That can't end well.

One resident's take says it all: "All you need is one break, not even a huge break, and hundreds of thousands of people are going to be drinking and bathing in bottled water."

Bingo.

Please read the entire article at the link.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

TransCanada to small town: Here's $28K. Now shut up about tar sands pipeline project.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

tar sands maple leaf oil

TransCanada is buying an Ottawa town's silence, and it will only cost them a few thousand dollars. TransCanada has aggressively pursued a rather unique "no comment" policy about their gigantic tar sands pipeline proposal. Why? It has to be because TransCanada knows that the project, which is bigger than our own Keystone XL project, is a disaster waiting to happen. Scroll through my many, many posts here to learn about the very real dangers of a tar sands pipeline.

By paying off an entire town, TransCanada can sidestep some of the challenges to the pipeline’s approval. Well, for five years, anyway.

TransCanda's new PR slogan should be, "Money talks so opponents don't have to!"

Via Think Progress:

A small town in Ottawa, Canada will be receiving $28,200 from energy company TransCanada Corp. in exchange for not commenting on the company’s proposed Energy East tar sands pipeline project, according to an agreement attached to the town council’s meeting agenda on June 23.

Under the terms of deal, the town of Mattawa will “not publicly comment on TransCanada’s operations or business projects” for five years. In exchange for that silence, TransCanada will give Mattawa $28,200, which will ultimately go towards buying a rescue truck for the town. [...] If approved, Energy East would carry about 1.1 million barrels of tar sands crude across Canada each day. That’s more than Keystone XL...

tar sands keystone xl protest climate change disaster

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Hey climate change deniers: State emission cuts have NOT brought economic ruin.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

another talking point bites the dust

map climate change emission cuts

Climate deniers-- hey you, over there on the right, I'm talkin' to you-- wail and moan about regulating carbon emissions because, tyranny!!!! and Armageddon!!!! and economic disaster!!!! That sound you hear is the coal industry shaking cash from their enormous wallets to buy their way out of cleaner air and water standards. Because, tyranny!!!! and Armageddon!!!! and economic disaster!!!!

Well, they're wrong. And there is proof that cutting emissions will not bring economic ruin to America. Sweartogod.

Via the New York Times:

The cries of protest have been fierce, warning that President Obama’s plan to cut greenhouse gases from power plants will bring soaring electricity bills and even plunge the nation into blackouts. By the time the administration is finished, one prominent critic said, “millions of Americans will be freezing in the dark.”

OMG 1

That sounds positively terrifying! Oh em gee! We will become a nation of freeze-dried citizens! All in the ironic name of saving lives!

Just a sec... hold that thought. I'm hearing through my imaginary news anchor earpiece that at least 10 states have already achieved emission cuts by the amount the president has fecklessly Kenyan-dictated-- some in excess of that-- and more states will make similar progress before the deadline of 2030.

Don't those tree-hugging, green-tinged fools realize their Kenyan-dictated, feckless, reckless actions will bring economic ruin?!

[T]heir strides so far have not brought economic ruin. In New England, a region that has made some of the biggest cuts in emissions, residential electricity bills fell 7 percent from 2005 to 2012, adjusted for inflation. And economic growth in the region ran slightly ahead of the national average.

Oh.

Via onamatopoeia.wordpress.com

Yet another Republican talking point bites the dust. Imagine that. Quel surprise.

Over in Europe, they're headed toward a 43 percent emission cut from power plants and "other energy-intensive industries" by the same year. That makes our measly 30% cuts look pretty... feckless.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

I see climate change: "One day there will be money in the pockets of dead people"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

i see dead people 2 climate change

new rules 2

Regular readers may recall that my mantra has always been how shortsighted Republicans are, especially when it comes to climate change. Seriously, how utterly idiotic of them to prioritize profits over lives, especially for a party that claims to be "pro-life." The hypocrisy is mind-boggling, as are their perverted attempts to obstruct every bit of legislation that would help Americans live healthier lives.

My other mantra has been that all those dirty dollars that Big Oil/Big Biz pull in with their drill-baby-drilling, fracking, and other reckless endeavors will be utterly useless to them if we start to choke on toxic fumes and lose what's left of Mother Nature's diminishing masterpieces.

Note to Big Oil and GOP polluters: You'll wheeze, hack, and scrounge for climate-proof digs right along with the rest of us.

And with that, here is today's Los Angeles Times letter to the editor from a soul mate, because our voices matter:

The debate over reducing carbon dioxide emissions to combat global warming brings us to the truth: Saving money is more important than saving the planet. In its shortsightedness, big business — led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — will fight this proposal to the death. ("New EPA rule seeks to cut carbon emissions 30% by 2030," June 1)

Global warming naysayers ignore rising sea levels, drowning islands, higher pollution levels and increases in pulmonary disease. One day there will be money in the pockets of dead people lying on the surface of a dead planet that is no longer able to provide sustenance to the inheritors of our world.

June Bailey

Rancho Mirage

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Hey Big Oil "pro-lifers": Fossil fuels may be killing babies!

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

we cannot drink the water big oil frackingScreen grab from "Fracking hurts Californians, Governor Brown" video below.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Melissa Harris-Perry took a disturbing look at a mysterious spike in infant deaths in Utah that could very well be linked to air pollution from the oil and gas industry. Yet, we haven't heard a peep about Big Oil possibly killing newborns from those very same "pro-lifers" who hypocritically devote themselves to "saving babies."

And while we're on the topic of Big Oil killing living things, look how their self-serving, corporate activities are contributing to land loss along the Louisiana Gulf Coast:

louisiana coastline destroyed by big oil

The Los Angeles Times has the story:

For decades, oil and gas companies cut canals through fragile wetlands with the state's approval to haul equipment and install pipelines. But scientists say the dredging let salt water flow in, killing vegetation that kept the land from eroding.

Without the buffer of these marshes and barrier islands, Louisiana's many low-lying coastal communities — and its biggest city — now have little natural protection from storm surges created by hurricanes. ... Last summer, the independent board that oversees flood protection for New Orleans decided that oil and gas companies should pay their share. In a move that roiled a state where the energy industry is the economic foundation, the board voted unanimously to sue all 97 companies operating in the state for unspecified damages. [...]

Over the next 50 years, the state is expected to lose as much land as it did in the last 80. The disappearance of the coast has left the state vulnerable to flooding from hurricanes, but it also affects the whole country. Nearly 90% of all offshore U.S. oil and gas production occurs off the state's coast, and the industry's infrastructure is stitched into the shoreline. The region is a hub for shipping and fisheries. The marshes attract millions of migratory birds annually.

Of course, it goes without saying that Gov. Bobby Jindal would do anything to save his state-- and the entire nation-- from environmental disaster... right?

Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal and key legislators denounced the litigation, initiating legislation that would quash the lawsuits and undo post-Hurricane Katrina reforms aimed at removing politics from flood control. Last month, the state Senate passed a bill that would allow Jindal to kill the New Orleans lawsuit by replacing the lawyers who are handling it.

Oops. My bad.

And while we're still on the topic of how fossil fuels are slowly snuffing life as we know it, remember this? Frackers set sights on largest oil shale reservoir in US... near CA's San Andreas fault. Hey, me too! Well guess what, there was an L.A. Times sequel: "U.S. officials cut estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%."

Families are already suffering everywhere, and there's more where that came from.

"What is all that money worth if there will be no future generations?"

Now let's take a look at today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor responses to those reports, because our voices matter:

Gov. Jerry Brown has displayed cognitive dissonance by supporting both climate change mitigation and fracking in California.

Fracking not only perpetuates our dependency on fossil fuels, it also releases methane all along the supply chain, which is a greenhouse gas less prevalent in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide but roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas.

Brown is trying to be slick like the streets of Atwater Village after the 10,000-gallon oil spill last week by appealing to both sides of the aisle. But like those streets, he is finding himself mired in a sticky situation, where he will need to fully commit to a side.

Californians are noticing that the governor's position on the issue of climate change is about as stable as the ground upon which Big Oil is fracking.

Amanda Grossi

Los Angeles

The writer is a field manager for Environment California.

***

I don't know why companies are even looking for oil anymore. What oil is left will be used up at some point. Meanwhile, extracting it gets more costly, and that doesn't include the hidden costs of the damage to the environment, including its contribution to global warming.

The sun produces energy; it has done so for billions of years, and when it stops, so will our planet. We should not build another house without solar panels. There should also be small wind turbines for our home patios that can help out when it is windy.

We don't need oil, and we really don't need shale oil.

Jenny Wilder

Apple Valley

Bonus insanity: House Votes To Deny Climate Science And Ties Pentagon’s Hands On Climate Change.

Via .ecobumperstickers.com

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Need a miracle? Why, here's one now! cc: Billionaire Tom Steyer's super PAC

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

solar freakin' roadways climate change miracle

Earlier, our own lwdgrfx posted a link to the above video about a new miracle, a possible global solution to help combat climate change, a brilliant idea, and-- wait for it-- a feasible one. As is stated at the link, "everything about this is good. You should be throwing your money at this project."

To put it mildly:

THIS IS A MUST-WATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please note that I used more exclamation points than the GOP does after "Benghazi!!!!!!!!!!!" and a larger font.

So there.

I own my exuberance. I do not apologize for shouting. In fact, I hope billionaire Tom Steyer notices.

Which brings me to two related articles from the Los Angeles Times that are relevant to the potential miracle that are solar freakin' roadways: Climate change to result in less nutritional food, report says and billionaire will brand climate skeptics as deniers and highlight the hardships on real people that climate change is already causing.

Dear Billionaire Tom, please invest in solar freakin' roadways (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Not familiar with Mr. Steyer? Please read my previous post, California billionaire may be liberals' answer to the Koch brothers.

Here are a few samples from the Times pieces. Please link over to read the rest. First, Billionaire Tom and his Amazing Super PAC:

A group run by California billionaire Tom Steyer unveiled plans to aggressively target Republicans in seven states who have been skeptics of global warming. Among the political figures the group plans to target is Florida Gov. Rick Scott and former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who hopes to win a Senate seat from New Hampshire.

The group plans to spend at least $100 million – half of it Steyer’s money, the rest raised from other environmentalists – on campaigns that will include micro-targeting voters, branding climate skeptics as deniers of basic science and highlighting the hardships climate change is already causing.

In other words, he's putting real faces and consequences to the catastrophes caused by climate change. He's humanizing it. He's offering concrete examples of actual living, breathing people being devastated by something tangible, something that the GOP is mocking (House Science Committee Hard At Work: More Hearings on Aliens Than Climate Change). Something many of us don't find very amusing.

Next, check this out. Some crops provide less nutrition than they used to, per a new report, and guess what's behind that:

Research indicates that higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have reduced the protein content in wheat, for example. And the International Rice Research Institute has warned that the quality of rice available to consumers will decrease as temperatures rise, the report noted. [...]

Scientists already have been investigating breeds of chicken and cattle that can thrive in triple-digit temperatures, grapes that are resilient to heat fungi and crops that won't whither as temperatures rise.

Anyone else find this disturbing?

We are already feeling and seeing the effects of our negligence in caring for our environment, both economically and physically. At this rate it will take a miracle to compensate for our recklessness. We can start with:

solar freakin' roadways climate change miracle 2

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Watchdog: Oversight of state pipeline safety "riddled with weaknesses."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

watchdog

What would we do without a watchdog to protect us and reveal what we already know: We need more (and as you'll see, way more effective) oversight of Big Corporate Ventures; and that Big Corporate Ventures involving fossil fuels (coughKEYSTONEXLcough) are putting our lives in serious danger.

Two words: Oy vey.

Via HuffPo:

(AP) — The federal agency responsible for making sure states effectively oversee the safety of natural gas and other pipelines is failing to do its job, a government watchdog said in a report released Friday.

The federal effort is so riddled with weaknesses that it's not possible to ensure states are enforcing pipeline safety, the report by the Transportation Department's Office of Inspector General said. The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, isn't ensuring key state inspectors are properly trained, inspections are being conducted frequently enough and inspections target the most risky pipelines, it said.

Uh oh.

uh oh

The post goes on to say that more than 20 percent of our pipelines are more than 50 years old or made of inadequate materials. And don't get me started on those incompetent inspectors. One had less than a year's experience.

Without proper oversight, deadly explosions and leaks occur, so clearly, the qualifications and competence of those who are charged with keeping us safe have to improve drastically.

But wait. One of the top three items on the official Republican bucket list is "less oversight." Oh, those wacky zany "pro-lifers" and their totes adorbs shortsightedness. The inspectors and the companies who are the focus of any given watchdog are as responsible as anyone for maintaining safe, healthy, reliable conditions for everyone affected by their operations. But so are our elected officials.

There's more here.

Time to revisit my post of a few days ago, "Our addiction to the ways of the past are destroying us. For humanity, intervention is needed."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare