Showing posts with label addiction to oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label addiction to oil. Show all posts

Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline

Claims about the economic benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline have been contradicted by an economic analysis from economists at Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute. The new Cornell fact sheet analyzing the latest economic data about Keystone XL, concludes that the project is far too risky to undertake in a fragile economic climate.

“The idea that Keystone XL is a “game changer” in terms of generating jobs and stimulating economic growth is a massive overstatement … However, building the Keystone XL pipeline represents a serious and long term commitment (valued at $14 billion) on the part of the U.S. to dirty fossil fuels—a commitment that will having a chilling effect on economic activity based on clean and renewable energy,” the report said.

In addition, the risk of economic damage from spills and other pollution pose a long term threat to traditional economic activity that has supported local communities along the pipeline route for generations.

Read the entire report here.

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Keystone XL Protest Ends in Washington
Bill McKibben and other Protestors Jailed for their Opposition to the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
Nobel Prize Laureates Oppose Keystone XL Pipeline
Video: NASA's Leading Climatologist Addresses Crowd Before he was Arrested at the Keystone XL Tar Sands Protest in Washington
Religious Leaders Join the Protest Against Keystone XL Pipeline
US Protests Against the Tar Sands Oil
Canada on Track to be a Dirty Energy Superpower
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
Nobel Prize Laureates Oppose Keystone XL Pipeline

Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline

In addition to its massive footprint, resistance to the Keystone XL pipeline is due to concerns about the environmental destruction that would result from a spill. TreeHugger has called Canadian Tar Sands oil exploitation one of the most destructive projects on earth. If fully developed, the Alberta tar sands would be the second largest source of global warming gases in the world.

We have seen a major spill in the Gulf of Mexico which spewed oil for months before finally being capped on July 15 and more recently the North Sea. The proposed tar sands pipeline is even more problematic as it comes with a host of additional problems. Not only are the tar sands one of the dirtiest energy sources on Earth, pipelines used to transport the oil are commonly subject to spills.

TransCanada's existing Keystone I pipeline, which would connect to the XL, has leaked 14 times in its first year of operation.

The recent Yellowstone River oil spill by ExxonMobil, has spread out over 240 miles. The Keystone XL pipeline could result in a spill twenty times more catastrophic than the Yellowstone River oil spill. That would mean up to 1,000,000 barrels of oil spilled which could travel 4,800 miles.

By some estimates we can expect an average of almost 2 spills per year over the course of the fifty-year life of the Keystone line. Even TransCanada's own estimates indicate a possible eleven spills over the life of the pipeline.

An oil spill in the Keystone XL pipeline also risks contaminating the Ogallala Aquifer, the main source of fresh water for the Great Plains. In addition there are concerns for Nebraska's fragile Sandhills, which lie above the aquifer. This concern has led Nebraska's Republican Gov. Dave Heineman to reject the present course of the pipeline.

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Keystone XL Protest Ends in Washington
Bill McKibben and other Protestors Jailed for their Opposition to the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline
Nobel Prize Laureates Oppose Keystone XL Pipeline
Video: NASA's Leading Climatologist Addresses Crowd Before he was Arrested at the Keystone XL Tar Sands Protest in Washington
Religious Leaders Join the Protest Against Keystone XL Pipeline
US Protests Against the Tar Sands Oil
Canada on Track to be a Dirty Energy Superpower
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline

Another Offshore Oil Leak this Time from Shell

There has been another offshore oil spill, this time it is in the Gannet field of the North Sea. The Gannet field is co-owned with Exxon and operated by Shell. A leak in the platform flow line operated by a British subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell has already dumped 110 tons of oil into the water, and there is an oil slick about 20 miles long and 2.5 miles wide. So far there is no indication that the leak has been fully stopped.
In an email statement, oil campaigner Ben Ayliffe said "North Sea [offshore oil] is supposed to be ultra-safe, we're told spills can't happen there." In 1988, 167 workers on the Piper Alpha, a platform owned by Occidental Petroleum, were killed in the North Sea. Last year’s BP Deepwater Horizon disaster spewed nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Shell announced the spill on Friday, August 12, but according to their press release the company had been trying to control the leak since at least Wednesday, August 10.

Shell has not been forthcoming in reporting details of the leak and environmental organizations like Greenpeace want the company to disclose more information so that contingency and clean-up plans can be formulated.

For its part Shell does not appear to be mounting a cleanup. In an online statement Shell said, “our current expectation is it will be naturally dispersed through wave action and will not reach shore.”

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
BP's Corporate Irresponsibility
The Costs of Offshore Drilling
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil
The Business of Climate Change Deception
Palin Renews Call for Offshore Oil Exploitation
Drill Baby Drill
Peak Oil
The Economic Calamity of Peak Oil
Planning a Future Without Oil
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
Koch Industries Destroys the Environment & Funds Climate Denial
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence

Canada is a Dirty Energy Superpower

At the federal provincial energy conference in July, Canada's energy ministers agreed on the broad strokes of a plan to make Canada a dirty energy superpower. The plan is to squeeze as many petrodollars as they can out of the tar sands which some have described as the most environmentally destructive project on earth.

Normal oil is very harmful to the environment but tar sands oil emits even more heat-trapping and toxic air pollution when it’s produced and refined. Dr. Hansen – America’s top climate scientist – has said that full exploitation of Canada’s tar sands would constitute a “game over” scenario for efforts to solve climate change.
The support for the plan was almost unanimous with the exception of Ontario, whose energy minister refused to support the final communiqué issued because it referred to the Alberta tar sands as “sustainable and responsible”.

Although these plans include initiatives to encourage more efficient energy use, the expansion of fossil fuel exports will increase tanker traffic and pipelines.

Under the plan Canada will increase its exports of oil to the US and beyond to include nations in Asia like China. Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway heavy crude pipeline between the Edmonton area and Kitimat, B.C., is a key export link to Asia. The pipeline would see massive oil tankers navigating narrow coastal waterways.

The pipeline makes communities and fragile coastlines vulnerable to oil spills. It would also make climate change worse and harm the health of people living near refineries. Canada's indigenous people living near tar sands oil extraction sites are already suffering from high rates of cancer.

As reported by PacificWild.org, the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project has already been the subject of protests. Last August, hundreds of people gathered outside of Riverlodge in Kitimat to protest. At the same time, some 200 people gathered outside of the Enbridge office in Vancouver to lend their voice to opposing the project.

“Due to the uncertainty associated with the transport of crude oil along our unpredictable northwest coast, the Village of Queen Charlotte has resolved that this project should not proceed…All Haida Gwaii municipalities stand together in opposition to Enbridge because the tradeoffs and risks involved are unacceptable,” said Kris Olsen, a municipal councillor with the Village of Queen Charlotte.

Haida Gwaii in the Queen Charlotte Islands has created a sustainable economy. "The Enbridge project threatens our economy and opportunities for future generations,” Olsen said.

"You look at the size of the tankers, and you see the narrowness of the turns, and you think, how in hell is this ever going to happen without an accident at some point?" Austin said. "I think it's amazing that they even want to consider it.” said Skeena MLA Robin Austin.

Massive protests against the the 1,700-mile long Keystone XL Pipeline are planned in the US later this summer. President Obama is expected to announce his decision about the pipeline as early as September.

"I would presume before September of next fall that we can work as governments to ensure that the federal cabinet can expedite that decision because, ultimately, it will be a federal cabinet decision," said Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert at the conclusion of the two day national energy summit.

There was unanimous agreement amongst the provincial energy ministers, with the exception of Ontario which refused to sign the final communique because it refers to the tar sands as "responsible and sustainable."

Although the Energy Policy Institute of Canada indicated the deal will make Canada an "energy superpower," the Pembina Institute expressed concerns that the tar sands were the focus.

"While the ministers expressed interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy production, their decision to call Canada's oilsands a sustainable source of energy for the world raises serious questions about that goal," said the Pembina Institute's executive director, Ed Whittingham. "An effective framework must also include a price on greenhouse gas pollution as a central feature."

Northern Gateway is going through National Energy Board hearings starting in January 2012. However, there appears to be no stopping Canada's intent to move forward with its plan to be a dirty energy superpower.

In their efforts to expedite tar sands exploitation, the federal Conservatives are planning to revamp the regulatory system which will increase environmental vulnerability. Responsible exploitation of Canada's oil reserves could exist alongside a longer term strategy that focuses on renewable energy. Instead, Canadians appear destined to get an energy policy based on the environmental destructive tar sands.

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts

Canadian Federal Provincial Energy Conference on Resource Exploitation
Federal Provincial Energy Conference Sponsored by Big Oil
American Protests Against the Tar Sands Oil Pipeline
Canadian Conservatives Dirty Priorities
Canadian Conservatives Disregard for Canada's Environment
Canada is a World Leader in GHG Emissions
WWF's Canadian Living Planet Report
The State of Canada's Environment
Video: The Alberta Tar Sands Dirty Oil
Ontario's Green Energy Investments in Sault Ste. Marie
Ontario's Green Energy Act is Leading the Green Economy
Ontario Urged to Stay with Green Energy Act
Lack of Canadian Co-ordination in Efforts to Reduce GHGs
Canadian Global Warming Denial from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Canadians Support Efforts to Combat Climate Change
Canadian Government at Odds with the Public on Climate Change
Conservatives Ignore Canadians While Jeopardizing the Environment and the Economy
Canadian Conservative Government Rejects Kyoto
Canada's Government Opposes Kyoto and Hampers Progress at COP16
World Urges Canada to Do More to Manage Climate Change
Obama's Visit to Canada
Conservative Budget: No Green for Canada
Why Canadian Environment Minister Resigned
The Impact of a Climate Change Deal on Canada
A Made in Canada Sustainable World Order

Obama's Call for an End to Oil Subsidies and Big Oil's Suggestion

To make cuts in American government spending the President has once again proposed ending oil subsidies. On Wednesday June 29, President Barack Obama, indicated that it reasonable to expect oil and gas companies that “have done so well” in the current economy to give up some breaks to help close federal deficits. “I don’t think that’s real radical,” he said.

In response to calls to end oil subsidies, Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, told Washington Wire, rather than cutting subsidies or raising taxes on the oil and gas industry, America should increase their exploitation of domestic petroleum resources.

The industry has been pushing for more production in places such as the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Big Oil is seemingly oblivious to the environmental costs. These risks are particularly great as they apply to offshore oil.

Last summer we witnessed a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska has seen its share of devastating oil spills. The 1989, Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska impacted over 1100 miles of non-continuous coastline in Alaska. Despite miles of booms, scores of skimming ships and armies of beach washers, only 14 percent of the oil was ever cleaned up.

In the 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill, more than 700 million liters of crude oil leaked into the water. Some have suggested that efforts to address the spill have exacerbated the problem. Dispersants used to reduce the size of the oil slick also impacting upon marine ecosystems. A break in a BP-owned pipeline on the North Coast of Alaska spewed 200,000 gallons of oil in March 2006.

The fact that fossil fuels are the leading cause of climate change make taking advice from Big Oil sort of like asking a thief about security. Its would be a great idea if they did not want to steal from you.

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Post
Independence Day 2011: Declaration of Freedom from Fossil Fuels

Independence Day 2011: Declaration of Freedom from Fossil Fuels

Two hundred and thirty five years ago, the colonies freed themselves from the injustice of British rule, now America needs to free itself from the injustice of fossil fuels.

The United States' Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. On that day, thirteen American colonies proclaimed their freedom from Great Britain. On the fourth of July 2011, America needs a declaration of freedom from fossil fuels.

A few years after the American revolution, the industrial revolution dawned, beginning America's meteoric rise to global dominance. However, the engine that drove this growth is also the leading cause of climate change.

This Independence day, as the Congress is working on budget cuts, Americans have some important choices to make.

We must rethink some of the basic notions of the old economy. We need to move towards more efficient and sustainable visions of the future. It is time for Americans to declare their independence and begin working towards a future free of fossil fuels.© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Post
Obama's Call for an End to Oil Subsidies and Big Oil's Suggestion

Video: The Alberta Tar Sands Dirty Oil



Dirty Oil - A Documentary on The Alberta Tar Sands, is a film written and directed by Leslie Iwerks. This 2009 documentary explores Canada's role as the largest supplier of American oil. It also exposes the dishonesty and greed of the Canadian and Alberta governments as well as the oil companies.

Governments and oil companies make astronomical profits at the expense of the environment, the wildlife, and the native communities who live near the tar sands of northern Alberta.

The film indicates that renewable sources of energy offer a way out of our dependence on destructive fossil fuels. It cites America's mobilization at the beginning of World War ll despite being a recessionary economy. At the start of World War ll, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "Let no man say it cannot be done, it must be done, and we are undertaking to do it."

We are at a crossroads, we can either engage the struggle to reduce our footprints or ignore it at our own peril. The film also encourages personal responsibility as a way out of the environmental calamity we face.

The film concludes by quoting President Obama who said, "We must end the age of oil in our time, energy independence will require an all hands on deck effort from America , efforts from scientists, and entrepreneurs, from businesses and from every American citizen."

"Its going to take leadership and its going to take a vision and its goinng to take action by each of us, saving civilization is not a spectator sport. We all have to get involved, we all have a stake in it."

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Canadian Conservatives Disregard for Canada's Environment
Canadian Conservatives Dirty Priorities
Canada Lags Behind in Protected Land
Lack of Canadian Co-ordination in Efforts to Reduce GHGs
The State of Canada's Environment
Canadian Global Warming Denial from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Canadians Support Efforts to Combat Climate Change
Canadian Government at Odds with the Public on Climate Change
Conservatives Ignore Canadians While Jeopardizing the Environment and the Economy
Canadian Conservative Government Rejects Kyoto
Canada's Government Opposes Kyoto and Hampers Progress at COP16
World Urges Canada to Do More to Manage Climate Change
Canadian Conservatives Repudiation of the Environment in 2008
No Reprieve for the Environment as Slacktivists Hand Majority to Canadian Conservatives
Environmental Platforms of Canada's Federal Parties in 2008
Canadian Conservatives Repudiation of the Environment in 2008
Canada's Conservative Oppose Kyoto and Hampers Progress at COP16
World Urges Canada's Conservative Government to Do More to Manage Climate Change
Canada is a World Leader in GHG Emissions
WWF's Canadian Living Planet Report
Conservative Budget: No Green for Canada
Obama's Visit to Canada
Why Canadian Environment Minister Resigned
Green Policy Debated in Canadian Parliament
The Impact of a Climate Change Deal on Canada
A Made in Canada Sustainable World Order

High Oil Prices Stimulate Renewable Energy

Higher oil prices stimulate renewable energy. Renewable energy enables the world economies to grow sustainably, where our current reliance on fossil fuels is entirely unsustainable.

To stimulate renewable energy we must see what is known as supply shock. A supply shock is an event that suddenly changes the price of a commodity or service. In the case of oil this will be caused by a sudden decrease in the supply relative to demand. This sudden change affects the equilibrium price.

When oil approaches $200 per barrel we should get the shock and a stimulus effect on renewable energy. This will occur when the oil supply out paces demand by something like 10 percent.

Instability in the Middle East may very well be the catalyst that causes oil prices to go sharply higher, which in turn will create the shock that will stimulate renewable energy.

There are a great many unknowns, but renewable energy will be driven by how market demand reacts to higher oil prices.

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Oil and Renewables
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy
Sustainable Growth Excludes Fossil Fuels
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
Businesses Will Lead the Transition from Oil to Renewable Energy
Sustainable Economic Growth
Greenpeace Campaign is Asking Facebook to Unfriend Coal
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Peak Oil
The Economic Calamity of Peak Oil
The Price of Crude Oil
Planning a Future Without Oil
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Republican Political Finance and the 2010 Midterm Elections

Outside money has caused a huge disparity between Republicans and Democrats in the run up to the midterm elections. It is clear that money helps candidates win and this year at least 40 Democrats took in less cash than their Republican opponents. What has many concerned is the fact that outside political money is funding Republican hopefuls in campaigns across America.

Campaign finance is a big issue this election cycle in part because a Supreme Court ruling that removed contribution limits. This year, is the first national election since the Court's decision opened the floodgates enabling companies (primarily the fossil fuel industry) to spend unlimited sums to support candidates who will protect the interests of the old energy economy.

To help facilitate the influx of money, Republicans and their allies have set up new organizations, nicknamed super PACs, these groups accept and spend unlimited contributions without disclosing their donors.

The Sunlight foundation, a nonpartisan group that advocates for government transparency, estimates that nearly $100 million in what it calls "dark money" is finding its way into midterm election races. That's about half of all the money from outside groups, and most of it is going to Republicans.

The Sunlight foundation says Republican-supporting super PACs and other independent groups are outspending those allied with Democrats by nearly $41 million. The Campaign Finance Institute at George Washington University puts the disparity at $63.5 million. They also cite a 73 percent rise in spending since 2008 by independent outside groups.

Environmental groups also donate money and influence the debate, however, the massive resources of the oil industry dwarf environmental groups. In 2009, the oil industry spent over $175 million lobbying against climate change legislation whereas all environmental groups together spent about 7 percent of that amount or $24 million.

Another important distinguishing factor of environmental groups lobbying efforts is that they are working to create green jobs, reduce pollution and combat climate change. Republican candidates are taking money from the petrochemical industry who are seeking to protect oil interests at the expense of green jobs and a clean energy economy.

The Democrat's efforts to pass a disclosure bill this year, ran into a wall of GOP opposition. With all the money flowing to Republican candidates from big oil, it is no wonder they resist transparency. It also helps to explain poll results favoring Republican candidates.

Americans deserve to know the truth about money that is coming from out of state, particularly money coming from those with a dirty agenda.


Related Posts
Koch Spending on Political Influence
The Kochs War on Industry Oversight and Environmental Regulation
Koch's Tea Party Republicans and Climate Change Denial
Koch Industries and the Tea Party's Corporate "Grassroots"
Republican Strategy for the 2010 Midterms and Beyond
Republican's Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
The Tea Party and Republican Obstructionism
Tea Party Candidates and O'Donnell's Constitution Confusion
Tea Party's Climate Change Denial
California's Proposition 23
What is Wrong with the Right
Climate Change is a Security Issue
Environmental Issues in California and 5 Key Senate Races
The 2010 Midterms and the Fight Against Climate Change
Election 2010 Midterm Predictions
Democrat's Chances in the 2010 Midterms
The Global Work Party and US Midterm Elections
Health Care Legislation and Implications for the Environment
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
Van Jones Succumbs to Republican Pressure
Why We Did Not Get A Binding Agreement At COP15
Obama Needs the Senate to Succeed on Climate Change
Deniers Deprived of Misinformation Strategy
The Dangerous Diversion of Climategate
How to get Through to Climate Change Deniers
Sarah Palin: Tea Party Queen but No Friend of Green
Palin Renews Call for Offshore Oil Exploitation
Sarah Palin Belongs on Fox Not Discovery
Palin is No Friend of Green
Palin Blames Environmentalists for Oil Spill
Limbaugh Blames the Sierra Club for Oil Spill
The New International System: The Role of Government

Peak Oil Conference

On Saturday, October 9th, 2010 in Washington, D.C., the 6th annual Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas Conference came to a close. The conference communicated important information about the impacts of the looming energy crisis in a world without a readily available supply of cheap oil.

Among the conference guests were former Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger, former CIBC Chief Economist Jeff Rubin and policy expert Ralph Nader. A host of peak oil scientists were also joined by US Representative Roscoe Bartlett, and energy analysts, including Dr. Bob Hirsch, Dr. Roger Bezdek, and Charlie Maxwell.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about peak oil in the US, specifically the difference between easy-to-get-to and hard-to-get-to oil. Americans, particularly Republicans, need a better understanding of the complex socioeconomic and geopolitical impacts of peak oil.

While there are huge tar sand reserves, (500 billion barrels in Orinoco tar sands, and another 170 billion in the Alberta tar sands), extracting oil from the Canadian oil sands costs up to $70 to $80 a barrel and deep water offshore drilling efforts can cost $50 to $60 a barrel.

The simple fact is that the price of oil will increases as oil becomes more expensive to access. We will never again see oil below $40 a barrel.

According to the conference press release, “Petroleum is being consumed four times faster than it is being discovered. It's time for the government and society to recognize the crisis. Immediate, bold action is required in the areas of conservation, mass transit, new technologies and lifestyle changes.”

Peak oil is another reason for the US to get serious about supporting the transition to renewable sources of energy that are limitless and emissions free.


Related Posts
Peak Oil
Independence Day: Declaration of Freedom from Fossil Fuels
The Economic Calamity of Peak Oil
Planning a Future Without Oil
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy
The Costs of Offshore Drilling
BP's Corporate Irresponsibility
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Temporarily Capped
Obama Presidency and the Gulf Oil Spill
Limbaugh Blames the Sierra Club for Oil Spill
Palin Blames Environmentalists for Oil Spill
Palin Renews Call for Offshore Oil Exploitation
Drill Baby Drill
The Business of Climate Change Deception
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
Koch Industries Destroys the Environment & Funds Climate Denial
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence

Government Energy Policy the Environment and the Economy

What a government does, or does not do, on energy policy will have major implications for the future. Rather than allowing the markets to dictate the price of energy, the confluence of environmental and economic concerns are putting pressure on governments to engage the issue of energy.

China recently unveiled a $700-billion program to promote clean energy investment. The U.S. government is seeking greater automotive efficiency and Germany is considering the development of nuclear power. In countries like Brazil Government policy has enabled the country to go from being a net importer to a net exporter of energy.

China, already the largest energy consumer in the world, is planning a major expansion of its greenhouse gas causing coal-fired generating plants. The challenge is the same in India and everywhere in the world because coal is cheap and easily readily available.

The growing energy demands of countries like China and India are widely believed to be a major threat to the environment. However, countries like Canada are also a target of criticism because of their massive oil sand reserves.

Fossil fuel powered energy is a major emitter of GHGs and it drives down the price of energy thereby impeding the growth of renewable sources of power. Fossil fuels are relatively cheap which is why governments must not allow price to dictate energy choice.
___________________________________

Related Posts
The New International System: The Role of Government
Green Stimulus and Free Markets
Electric Vehicle Bill Passes Energy Committee
4 Principles for Climate and Energy Legislation
Obama Renews His Commitments to Clean Energy and Small Business
A New Energy Economy: Obama's Gift to America and the World
California's Government Partnerships are Driving the Green Economy
The Best Eco-Inventions of 2009: Energy Production
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy
Governments and the Growth of EVs
Germany and the Global Competition for EV Supremacy
Government Investment Fuels Greener Vehicles

Palin Blames Environmentalists for Oil Spill

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the fault of 'extreme environmentalists' who protest against oil companies, Sarah Palin said.

The former Alaskan governor said if campaigners weren't successful in prohibiting land based oil exploration in the US, companies like BP would not have to resort to deep-sea drilling and the oil spill disaster would never have happened.

Palin, who made the chant 'Drill, Baby, Drill!' famous in the 2008 presidential election, favors drilling in environmentally sensitive areas including the Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In an online Facebook rant titled 'Extreme Enviros: Drill, Baby, Drill in ANWR - Now Do You Get It?' she said: 'Look, here's the deal: when you lock up our land, you outsource jobs and opportunity away from America and into foreign countries that are making us beholden to them.'

'Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country's energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas,' she said.

Palin does not appear to understand that the catastrophic impacts of oil are not reserved for off shore drilling. Fossil fuels are a finite source of energy that is driving climate change. The environmental impact of burning fossil fuels and the risks associated with its exploitation, justifies the aggressive pursuit of renewable alternatives.

Rush Limbaugh's excuse may be an addiction to pain medication, Palin may simply be the victim of her own intellect.

Palin said, 'It's catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proved.' However, what is more likely is that Palin's tragic record on the environment will one day catch up with her.
_____________________________________________

Related Posts

Limbaugh Blames the Sierra Club for Oil Spill
Palin Renews Call for Offshore Oil Exploitation
Sarah Palin Belongs on Fox Not Discovery
Sarah Palin: Tea Party Queen but No Friend of Green
Tea Party's Climate Change Denial
Palin is No Friend of Green
Drill Baby Drill
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence
Supreme Court Decision Undermines Climate Change Legislation
The Tyranny of Protest and Climate Change Pragmatism
What is Wrong with the Right
The Business of Climate Change Deception
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy

Limbaugh Blames the Sierra Club for Oil Spill

The leaking undersea oil well in the Gulf of Mexico is an environmental disaster of epic proportions. Most thinking people are attributing blame to those who caused the incident (BP, Transocean and Cameron International). However, some conservative American leaders are pointing their fingers in the most unlikely directions.

Paradoxically, conservatives tend to blame the "enviro-nuts" for supporting restrictions on drilling. The popular conservative view suggests we should aggressively exploit all domestic sources of oil. Former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin is amongst those who have indicated their support for this view.

Infamous radio host Rush Limbaugh blamed the Sierra Club and suggested that they should "pick up the tab" for the cleanup. This statement lends credence to the view that Limbaugh's perspectives are fueled by an addiction to pain medication.

Ironically, people responded to Rush's bizarre broadcast with a flood of donations to the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club is now asking people to donate $10 in Rush's name, and in return they will send Rush a special note thanking him for helping to support clean-energy solutions and a ban on offshore drilling.

In the face of environmental and safety concerns, many appear to be seeing the wisdom of a 21st century energy economy. Although conservatives like Limbaugh may seem laughable, they have a large and loyal following whose resistance to environmental concerns borders on religion.

Rather than begin the arduous yet necessary task of weaning ourselves off of oil, conservative Luddites like Limbaugh are seeking to expand our addiction to a finite resource that is imperiling the planet.
__________________________________

Next: Palin Blames Environmentalists for Oil Spill

Related Posts

Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
BP's Corporate Irresponsibility
The Costs of Offshore Drilling
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil
The Business of Climate Change Deception
Palin Renews Call for Offshore Oil Exploitation
Drill Baby Drill
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy
Peak Oil
The Economic Calamity of Peak Oil
Planning a Future Without Oil
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
Koch Industries Destroys the Environment & Funds Climate Denial
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence

Obama Presidency and the Gulf Oil Spill

Although President Obama is seeking to move America away from fossil fuels, he was quick to accept responsibility for the oil spill in the Gulf and the incompetence of the Minerals Management Service (MMS).

Many Americans do not approve of the President's efforts to manage the spill. A CBS News poll found that 45 percent disapproved and 20 percent were undecided. Only 35 percent of Americans surveyed approved of the Obama administration's handling of the oil spill.

The Gulf oil spill adds fuel to those discontented about the 9.9 percent US jobless rate. With two wars, the recession of 2008 and important legislation pending, the road leading up to the November congressional elections will be a challenging one. Other geopolitical issues will also embolden critics including tensions on the Korean peninsula, in Iran and the Middle East.

Despite the chorus of criticisms, the government is making efforts to manage this environmental crisis. On May 6, 2010, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a moratorium on the issuance of final permits for new offshore drilling activity. However, the MMS approved 19 new drilling plans ­after the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon, all with exemptions from environmental review.

The Obama administration does not appear to be on top of this issue. The definition of the new drilling moratorium has changed so often that even Secretary Salazar appears confused, Salazar incorrectly reported to Congress that all new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has stopped. As it now stands, the moratorium applies only to new permits, but does not effect those who have been issued drilling permits prior to May 6, 2010. Nor does the moratorium preclude the issuance of drilling permits like the one BP was operating under when the Deepwater Horizon exploded.

Although we should move to limit all offshore oil drilling, the spill in the Gulf makes a convincing case for putting a definitive end to all deep water drilling. The sad truth is that many wells are planned or are currently being drilled off US coasts and some of these wells call for deep water drilling even more hazardous than the current leaking well in the Gulf.

The President may have successfully lead the way out of one of the most severe crises of modern times, but those without understanding will use the spill in the Gulf to fuel their rabid resistance to change. If the Republicans do prevail in November Congressional elections, it will impair the President's ability to deliver on his green promises.

President Obama inherited a host of serious problems from the Bush administration, however, it is Obama's Presidency that is in jeopardy along with his ambitious green agenda for a sustainable 21st century economy.
__________________________________

Related Posts

The Costs of Offshore Drilling
BP's Corporate Irresponsibility
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil
The Business of Climate Change Deception
Palin Renews Call for Offshore Oil Exploitation
Drill Baby Drill
Peak Oil
The Economic Calamity of Peak Oil
Planning a Future Without Oil
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
Koch Industries Destroys the Environment & Funds Climate Denial
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence

Peak Oil

The world's oil supply is finite and many credible sources are counting down to the moment when demand exceeds supply.

As indicated in the CNA report "Powering America's Defense," there is a strong relationship between climate change, energy dependence, and national security. The report clearly states that continued reliance on fossil fuels creates “an unacceptably high threat level from a series of converging risks.” These threats include conflicts over fuel resources, destabilization driven by ongoing climate change, and threats to critical infrastructure. According to the report, dependence on foreign oil weakens international leverage, jeopardizes the military, and entangles the US government with hostile regimes.

In February 2010, the IISS held a workshop on climate change and energy security. Their discussion included a review of some direct threats due to climate change. Although participants were divided, some of those present put forth the idea that we could surpass ‘tipping points’ that could lead to rapid, dangerous changes.

The US Army is the biggest single user of oil in the world and according to a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years. Serious shortages are expected by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact. "By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report.

In February 2010, Ibrahim Sami Nashawi, Adel Malallah and Mohammed Al-Bisharah from the College of Engineering and Petroleum at Kuwait University, published a study on global oil supply using a multi-cycle Hubbert model. The original Hubbert model in 1956, accurately predicted that oil production would peak in the United States around 1970.

Although widely accepted, the Hubbert model has been criticized because it does not consider factors like technological innovation, political events, social tensions and economic considerations. The Kuwait study methodology is a multi-cycle approach that incorporates elements ignored by the Hubbert model.

According to the findings of the Kuwait study, the world production is estimated to peak in 2014 at a rate of 79 million barrels/day. OPEC has a remaining reserve of 909 barrels, which is about 78% of the world reserves. OPEC production is expected to peak in 2026 at a rate of 53 million barrels/day. On the basis of 2005 world crude oil production and current recovery techniques, the world oil reserves are being depleted at an annual rate of 2.1%.

Due to its environmentally harmful effects and dwindling supply we must prepare for a world without oil. Clean energy production is not only a sensible strategy to meet shortfalls in energy demand, it is the most sustainable way to replace existing demand.
________________________________
Related Posts

Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes

The Koch companies have a notorious environmental record. According to Greenpeace, in the last 15 years they have amassed an impressive rap sheet that includes everything from environmental violations to negligence causing death.

In 2009, the US Justice Department and the EPA announced that Koch Industries' Invista subsidiary would pay a $1.7 million penalty and spend $500 million to fix environmental violations at facilities in seven states.

In May 2001, Koch Industries paid $25 million to settle with the US Government for the company’s long-standing practice of illegally removing oil from federal and Indian lands.

In late 2000, the company was charged with covering up the illegal release of 91 tons of the known carcinogen benzene from its refinery in Corpus Christi. Koch eventually cut a deal with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to drop all major charges in exchange for a guilty plea for falsifying documents, and a $20 million settlement.

In 2000, the EPA fined Koch Industries $30 million for its role in 300 oil spills that resulted in more than three million gallons of crude oil leaking into ponds, lakes, streams and coastal waters.
In 1999, a Koch subsidiary pleaded guilty to charges that it had negligently allowed aviation fuel to leak into waters near the Mississippi River from its refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota, and that it had illegally dumped a million gallons of high-ammonia wastewater onto the ground and into the Mississippi.

In 1996, two people where burned alive in their vehicle due to a poorly maintained Koch pipeline that had leaked flammable butane into a residential Texas neighborhood.

Koch's crimes are not limited to spills of oil, ammonia, aviation fuel, benzene, and butane. A recently released Greenpeace expose uncovered Koch industries' connections with climate denial front groups.
______________________________________

Next: Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial

Related Posts
Koch Industries Destroys the Environment & Funds Climate Denial
Social Action Driving Businesses to Adopt Sustainable Practices
Pepsi Refresh Project's Cause Marketing Videos
Coke's Zero Waste Carbon Neutral Sponsorship
America's Most Sustainable Businesses
Canada's Most Sustainable Businesses
Policies Contributing to More Robust Climate Risk Disclosure
Investors Prompt SEC To Provide Guidance on Climate Change Disclosure
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence
Sustainable Stock Offers More than Extraordinary Returns
Social Media and the Green Message: WWF Global Online Event
EvanCarmichael's List of Top 50 Social Entrepreneurship Blogs
The Overwhelming Logic of Sustainable Business
The Business of Climate Change Deception
What is Wrong with the Right
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
New Beginnings or Ignoring the Apocalypse?
The Dangerous Diversion of Climategate
How to get Through to Climate Change Deniers