Test - dirty oil

Showing posts with label dirty oil. Show all posts

Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL Pipeline

April 18, 2013 Add Comment Edit

Thomas Mulcair is the leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the official opposition in Canada's federal parliament appears to be of two minds on the Keystone XL pipeline. He is a lawyer, university professor, and politician. Mulcair is a NDP Member of Parliament for the electoral district of Outremont in Quebec since 2007, he was selected as the leader of the New Democratic Party on March, 2012, with 57 percent of the votes on the fourth and final ballot. Mulcair succeeded the late Jack Layton.

Previously Mulcair was a member of the Liberal Party of Quebec where he was the provincial Member of the National Assembly (MNA) of Quebec for the riding of Chomedey in Laval from 1994 to 2007. He served as the Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks from 2003 until 2006, in the Liberal government of Premier Jean Charest. Elected MP for Outremont in a by-election in 2007, he was named Deputy Leader of the New Democratic Party, jointly with Libby Davies, shortly afterwards, and has won re-election twice.

Mulcair's perspective on the Keystone XL seems a bit contradictory. As reported in the Edmonton Journal, the NDP leader told Americans that it's their decision on whether to approve Keystone but not to believe the Harper government's claims that Canada has a good record on the environment.

He then went on to say, "They [Americans] know that Canada is the only country that has withdrawn from Kyoto. They know that the Conservatives can’t possibly meet their Copenhagen targets (on greenhouse gas emissions) precisely because of the oilsands. They have to stop playing people for fools," he noted adding that he'd rather see a cross-Canada pipeline.

"...A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve [the Keystone pipeline] project that — even by the State Department’s most cautious calculations — can only add to the problem."

While applauded by those who oppose the project, Mulcair's statements on the Keystone XL are at odds with Canadians. According to an Abacus Data survey 53 per cent of Canadians support the development of the pipeline.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Canada is a Dirty Energy Superpower
Canadian Government Spending on Dirty Projects
Report Urges Canada's Federal Conservatives to Regulate Oil and Gas Sector to Meet GHG Targets
Canada's GHG Ranking
Canada is a Dirty Energy Superpower
Canada has the Dirtiest Oil on Earth (Video)
Canadian Conservatives Silence Opposition to the Northern Gateway Oil Pipeline
Canada's Hopes for an Environmentally Friendly Federal Leadership Now Rest with Justin Trudeau

Video - Bill McKibben and NEI President Bob Massie: "Divestment And The New Economy"

March 09, 2013 Add Comment Edit

"Divestment And The New Economy" Bill McKibben and NEI President Bob Massie discuss the relationship between fossil fuel divestment, the climate crisis, and the transition to a New Economy. In recent weeks, the movement to divest college and university endowments from the fossil fuel industry has spread to over 250 schools. Just last weekend, hundreds of students converged outside of Philadelphia to strategize and grow the movement. Today, those activists are back on campus meeting with their peers and planning ways to escalate their campaigns and fight for their futures.

These brave young people are asking difficult questions about the role of universities and the ethics of one of the world's most powerful industries. Now, students at Middlebury, the birthplace of 350, are using the opportunity to ask even harder questions about the basic nature of our economic system.

On Wednesday, March 6th they came together for a day-long summit supported by the New Economics Institute which seeks to create space for the Middlebury community to explore the kinds of economic alternatives that are springing up all over the world.

Related Articles
Video - Bill McKibben: Climate Change is an Environmental and Economic Problem
2013 Global Power Shift in Istanbul Turkey
Debate: McKibben vs. Epstein—Are Fossil Fuels a Risk to the Planet? (Video)
350.org's Connect the Dots End Fossil Fuel (2012)
350.org's Bill McKibben on Connect the Dots (2012)
Bill McKibben: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
Rio+20: 350.org Campaign to End Fossil Fuels (2012)
350.org's Bill Mckibben Calls Hurricane Sandy a Wake-up Call (2012)
Bill McKibben on The Fight of Our Lives Video (2012)
Business and Climate Impacts Day from 350.org (2012)
Success of the End Fossil Fuels Campaign (2012)

Big Oil's Influence on US Politicians

October 01, 2012 Add Comment Edit

A new analysis from the NRDC Action Fund and the advocacy group Environment America reveals that money from oil interests appears to be influencing the voting records of US lawmakers. The analysis of the relationship between oil money and American politicians was published on September 12 in a report titled "Who Votes Dirty?" Along with examining the votes on House and Senate bills for or against air pollution regulations, the NRDC analysis also looked at campaign contributions from "dirty industries."

The NRDC Action Fund analysis found a strong link between campaign contributions from polluters, and votes against clean air legislation. Congresspersons who took more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from career polluters also voted against clean air laws nearly twice as many times as those who accepted less than $100,000 from dirty industries. In the Senate, those who took more than $500,000 in campaign contributions from career polluters, voted against clean air laws three times as often as those taking less.

Using OpenSecrets data, the authors of this report found Senate members receiving more than $500,000 in career polluter campaign contributions voted against clean air laws three times as often as those taking less, on average. House members with similar contributions above $100,000 voted against clean air laws nearly twice as many times as those receiving less than that amount.

To get the facts before going to the polls on November 6, click here.

Related Articles
Political Heroes and Villains on US Air Pollution
Mitt Romney's Love Affair with Fossil Fuels
Romney's Coal Fired Campaign Versus Obama's Wind Power
What Romney's Energy Policy looks Like on the Ground (Video)
Mitt Romeny: The Legacy He Will Leave for our Children
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Climate Change
Climate Denying Republicans Delay their Convention Due to Extreme Weather
GOP VP Candidate Paul Ryan's Unsustainable Voting Record on Energy and the Environment
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the Republicans
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Republicans
The Koch Brother's Ties to GOP Presidential Candidates
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone XL
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Denialism
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance
Republican Obstructionism on the Debt Crisis and Implications for the Environment
Republican Cuts Target Green Jobs
Republican Gubernatorial Gains and Redistricting
Republican's Fail in their Bid to Defund the EPA
Defend Clean Air and Oppose the TRAIN Act
Republican Assault on the Environment
EDF Campaign Opposing US Anti-Environment Bill
Environmental Implications of the Credit Ceiling Agreement
Chu Video: The Worst Anti-Environmental Bill of her Career
Connolly Video: Climate Disasters And GOP Denial
Blumenauer Video: 'The Jihad Against Climate Change Continues'
Republican Obstructionism on the Debt Ceiling Risks Global Environmental Collapse
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Supreme Court Decision Undermines Climate Change Legislation
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
What is Wrong with the Right
The Business of Climate Change Deception

Obama Cancels the Keystone XL Pipeline Project

January 19, 2012 Add Comment Edit

On January 17th the Obama administration denied a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL. The pipeline would have carried tar sands oil to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. Approximately one month earlier, Republicans agreed to pass legislation on tax-cuts and employment benefits by forcing the President to decide on the Keystone XL pipeline.

In November the administration delayed approving the project until after the 2012 election, saying it wanted to study an alternate route. Republicans felt that they could gain more political traction by making the President decide on the fate of the pipeline before the election. Which is why the President was forced to issue his verdict ahead of schedule.

Despite concerns from some quarters about how market would react, there was no reaction from Wall street on the news of the cancellation of the Keystone XL. Oil actually declined in New York as crude for February delivery fell below 100 dollars a barrel.

Although oil prices were not effected by the cancellation of the Keystone XL, Republicans will no doubt try to tar Obama as a jobs killer.

Many are breathing a sigh of relief now that Obama appears to have killed the dirty oil deal. However, the Keystone XL project may yet rise from the dead as the administration is expected to allow TransCanada to submit a new application for an alternate route that avoids the environmentally sensitive aquifer in Nebraska.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Republicans Use Blackmail to Gain Support for the Keystone XL Pipeline
President Obama Stops Keystone XL Pipeline
Tar Sands Day of Action in Washington DC
President Obama and the Fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline
NRDC November 6 Protest Against the Keystone XL in Washington DC
Nebraska's Special Session to Stop the Keystone XL Pipeline
South Dakota Wants Additional Protections Against Spills from the Keystone XL Pipeline
Safety Measures for the Keystone XL Rejected by Environmentalists in Nebraska
State Department Hearings for the Keystone XL Pipeline
Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline Protest
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
Keystone XL Protest Ends in Washington
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
Nobel Prize Laureates Oppose Keystone XL Pipeline
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
Bill McKibben and other Protestors Jailed for their Opposition to the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline
Video: NASA's Leading Climatologist Addresses Crowd Before he was Arrested at the Keystone XL Tar Sands Protest in Washington

Canadian Prime Minister Dismisses Northern Gateway Pipeline's Environmental Review

January 10, 2012 Add Comment Edit

The enviromental review of the Northern Gateway pipeline began on January 10, but on the eve of the hearings Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver were dismissing the process. Rather than remaining impartial, the Prime Minister and his government are using their influence to undermine the entire environmental review process.

The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would carry Alberta’s tar sands nearly 1,200 kilometers (750 miles) through pristine wilderness to B.C.'s northern coast. Over 220 supertankers would then sail through B.C.’s North Coast waterways, something that was previously prohibited due to concerns that an oil spill would ruin precious coastal natural resources.

Those who are concerned about the environmental impact of the pipeline are being discredited by the Conservatives. Pro-pipeline propaganda dismisses those with environmental concerns as radicals funded by by foreign special interest groups.

The safety of Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway project has been challenged by a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Pembina Institute and Living Oceans Society. Nathan Lemphers, senior policy analyst, the Pembina Institute said, “This report shows why the Northern Gateway pipeline is not worth the risk for the communities, rivers and Pacific coastline of British Columbia.”

The report titled Pipeline and Tanker Trouble: The Impacts to British Columbia’s Communities, Rivers, and Pacific Coastline from Tar Sands Oil Transport, documents the risks of transporting tar sands oil to communities along the pipeline and tanker paths, to salmon-bearing rivers and to coastal ecosystems. The report warns that the combination of corrosive oil, the dangerous pathway and treacherous seas make Northern Gateway project an unnecessary threat.

According to Katie Terhune, Energy Campaign Manager, Living Oceans Society. “History has shown that oil tankers come with oil spills. It is not a question of if, but when, a spill will happen.”

Natural Resources Defense Council International Program director, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz said “We have cleaner solutions that will not devastate British Columbia’s great angling rivers, the globally important Great Bear Rainforest and our climate.”

Native groups are testifying against the project in the hearing's early stages and then other opponents of the pipeline will make their voices heard in the third week of March to coincide with the anniversary of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska.

In the Prime Minister's eyes the outcome of the project is already a foregone conclusion. However, opponents intend to use the hearings as a platform from which to mobilize public opinion.

Canadians may be stuck with the Federal Conservatives for another four years but B.C. Premiere Christy Clark's government is scheduled to face an election in 2013. Almost 100,000 letters opposing the pipeline were already sent to the government of B.C. in December.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

The Koch Brother’s Ties to GOP Presidential Candidates

December 22, 2011 Add Comment Edit

Oil billionaires David and Charles Koch use their oil wealth to misinform Americans and influence the GOP. The Koch brothers have spent $55 million to fund climate denial front groups, their agenda includes efforts to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Koch Industries has given generously to conservative politicians throughout the country at both the federal and state level and many Republicans including GOP presidential candidates are known to have ties to the brothers.

The Kochs use Republicans to resist climate and energy legislation and protect their oil interests. One of the reasons Americans are so ill informed about climate change is due to the barrage of misinformation from the Koch brothers’ network of front groups. The Koch brother are directly or indirectly involved with a variety of organizations that actively work to misinform lawmakers and the American public.

The Koch brothers have a long history of influence peddling through front groups like Americans for Prosperity (AFP), which had a role in the formation of the Tea Party. Many Republican presidential hopefuls have been in attendance at AFP events like the annual Defending the American Dream Summit. These Summits focus on issues like reversing environmental protections, preventing new environmental laws and promoting policies that benefit big oil.

At the October 5, 2007 Summit, the GOP Presidential candidates who attended included John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. The speakers that day included Herman Cain and AFP founder David Koch. At the 2009 Summit on October 3, in Washington, DC, speakers Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann voiced their opposition to proposed energy legislation. For the 2012 election cycle, the AFP foundation is planning to spend $200 million to influence the electoral outcome.

The Koch brothers also support conservative think tanks such as the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. It should come as no surprise that the 2011 Republican Foreign policy debate was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation.

This climate denying duo has developed a large network of alliances within the Republican Party, including some of the leading contenders for President. Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum have all been shown to have close ties with the Kochs.

Herman Cain

Although Herman Cain has recently withdrawn from the presidential race, he has close ties with the Koch Brothers and the AFP. Cain has been a featured speaker at AFP events for years. In 2005 and 2006, Cain was the public face of AFP’s “Prosperity Expansion Project.”

“I know the Koch brothers,” Cain told CNN host John King. “The Koch brothers helped to start an organization called Americans for Prosperity, and I did some speaking when they were starting that organization. I’m very proud of the relationship I have with the Koch brothers. I have also attended some of their seminars and have found them very informative.”

Cain’s campaign manager Mark Block and a number of aides have worked for Americans for Prosperity, or the AFP. Cain’s “9-9-9″ plan to rewrite the nation’s tax code was devised by Rich Lowrie who served on an AFP advisory board. Cain’s spokeswoman Ellen Carmichael, who left the campaign, was an AFP coordinator in Louisiana. His campaign’s outside law firm also represents the AFP and at least six other current and former paid employees and consultants for Cain’s campaign have worked for AFP in various capacities.

Cain continues to work with the group. On November 4, Cain spoke at the annual AFP’s “Defending the American Dream” summit.

Mitt Romney

In the last presidential election, David and his wife each gave the maximum $2,300 donation to Romney’s campaign. According to a leaked campaign memo, the Koch brothers are “the financial engine of the tea party.” To secure support from the Kochs and other conservatives, Romney has switched his position and embraced climate denial.

The memo also says that Romney was scheduled to meet with David Koch on Aug. 28 at his home in Southampton, N.Y., where Koch held a major event for Romney in 2010. Ironically, extreme weather (Hurricane Irene), a corollary of climate change, prevented them from meeting. The two last met in January 2011 in Manhattan at the Links Club.

Koch endorsed Romney in 2008, and was one of Romney’s first major campaign fundraisers for the 2012 elections. Romney also spoke at the Defending the American Dream Summit on November 4, 2011.

Michele Bachmann

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) may have been the Koch’s top pick for the 2012 presidential race. The Kochs have been providing financial support for her political run for President since she announced her candidacy.

In late May, KochPAC donated $10,000 in one day to Bachmann-linked committees ($5,000 to her 2012 congressional re-election committee and $5,000 to her political action committee, MICHELE PAC). According to federal campaign records, the committee has given $25,000 to the Minnesota congresswoman since 2006, excluding the May donation.

Rick Perry

Rick Perry’s contempt of environmental policies and protections make him an ideal Koch brother’s candidate. Perry has repeatedly met with the conservative billionaires. In the middle of the special legislative session in June, 2011, Perry flew to Vail, Colorado, on a donor’s private airplane to a Koch Brothers summit. Governor Perry is known to have received $76,000 in contributions from the Koch network in the last gubernational election. In 2010, KochPAC gave $50,000 to Texans for Rick Perry.

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum has a history of KochPAC financial support. Between 1999 and 2005, federal records show, Santorum election committees received $16,000 from the committee.

The ties between the Kochs and the Republican presidential hopefuls are troubling to say the least. The Kochs are hedging their bets and spreading their influence and wherever Koch influence is to be found, environmental abuse is sure to follow.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Related Posts
A Reintroduction to the Climate Denying Duo Known as the Koch Brothers
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
Koch Industries Destroys the Environment and Funds Climate Denial
The Anti-Environment Crusades of ExxonMobil and Koch Industries
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil
The Kochs' Tea Party Republicans
The Kochs' Cato Institute's Climate Denial
Koch Industries War with the EPA
Supreme Court and the Koch Brothers Clandestine War
The Koch Brothers' No Climate Tax Pledge
The Kochs' Spending on Political Influence
Koch Industries and the Tea Party's Corporate "Grassroots"
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
The Kochs' Mercatus Center
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
The Kochs' War Against Obama and the Democrats
The Kochs' Americans for Prosperity Undermines Cap-and-Trade
The Kochs' Citizens for a Sound Economy Feigned Grassroots
The Kochs' Climate Science Denial
Koch Industries War on Industry Oversight and Environmental Regulation
Video Linking the Kochs' and the Tea Party
Video: Koch Brothers Climate Denial Machine

Canada is Increasingly One of the World's Worst GHG Emitters

December 16, 2011 Add Comment Edit

Although Canada has a population of only 30 million people, it is one of the world's worst greenhouse gas emitters. Sadly, under the leadership of Stephen Harper's Conservative government this trend is only getting worse.

According to 2008 data collected by the CDIAC for the UN, Canada is the seventh largest emitter of GHGs in the world. The data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use such as deforestation. (These numbers would be much worse if deforestation were included).

According to a World Resources Institute (WRI) list of countries ranked by greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions per capita, Canada has higher emissions per capita than the United States and far greater emissions per capita than China. Canada's emissions per capita data indicate that the country is the 12th largest emitter in the world.

Canada is a world leading emitter of GHG and a comparison of the 2008 and 2010 data indicate significant increases. The 2008 EPI ranked 149 countries on 25 indicators tracked across six established policy categories: Environmental Health, Air Pollution, Water Resources, Biodiversity and Habitat, Productive Natural Resources, and Climate Change. The 2008 EPI identifies broadly-accepted targets for environmental performance and measures how close each country comes to these goals. As a quantitative gauge of pollution control and natural resource management results.

In 2010, the EPI ranked 163 countries on 25 performance indicators tracked across ten policy categories covering both environmental public health and ecosystem vitality. These indicators provide a gauge at a national government scale of how close countries are to established environmental policy goals.

According to the 2010 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) Canada ranks behind countries like Mexico and Romania.

In 2008 Canada ranked 12th with an EPI score of 86.6, in 2010 after three years under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, the countrys ranking fell to 46th and their EPI score fell to 66.4.

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Canada is a World Leader in GHG Emissions
WWF's Canadian Living Planet Report
The State of Canada's Environment
Canada Officially Withdraws from the Kyoto Protocol
Video: One South African Asks Why Canada is Silent on Climate Change
Canada is a Pariah at COP 17
The Costs of Canada's Failure to Act on Climate Change
Canada on Track to be a Dirty Energy Superpower
Canadian Federal Provincial Energy Conference on Resource Exploitation
Federal Provincial Energy Conference Sponsored by Big Oil
Canadian Conservatives Dirty Priorities
Canadian Conservatives Disregard for Canada's Environment
Video: The Alberta Tar Sands Dirty Oil
Lack of Canadian Co-ordination in Efforts to Reduce GHGs
Canadian Global Warming Denial from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
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
Conservative Budget: No Green for Canada
The Impact of a Climate Change Deal on Canada

Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline

September 11, 2011 Add Comment Edit

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

September 08, 2011 Add Comment Edit

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

August 14, 2011 Add Comment Edit

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

Canadian Federal Provincial Energy Conference on Resource Exploitation

July 31, 2011 Add Comment Edit

In the middle of July Canada's energy ministers met in Kananaskis, Alberta to discuss creating a national energy strategy and opportunities in the mining sector. The annual conference between federal, provincial and territorial officials was held between July 16th and 19th.

Predictably, Conservative Federal Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver said it was "in the interest of all Canadians, from coast to coast, to exploit the enormous natural resources we have."

For pro-oil Conservatives, now is the time to push ahead with an environmentally hazardous resource exploitation policy. After the Conservative election victory earlier this year, many companies associated with the old energy economy are counting on a regulatory environment that expedites the exploitation of Canada's natural resources.

Prior to the meeting, Sierra Club's executive director, John Bennett, indicated that he wants to see a change in the whole focus of the meeting. Rather than trying to increase the country's oil exports, the ministers should discuss ways to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and contribute to the war on climate change.

Roger Gibbins, president of the Canada West Foundation, a non-profit, public policy organization which represents Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia, said the diversity of energy sources in this country make a national strategy worthwhile. However, Gibbins conceded that Alberta's massive oil reserves, particularly the toxic tar sands, put Alberta in the driver's seat when it comes to energy policy.

Alberta and the Federal government share a common desire to exploit the tar sands, and many other provinces seem prepared to accept the environmental havoc it will wreak.

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Federal Provincial Energy Conference Sponsored by Big Oil
Ontario Urged to Stay with Green Energy Act
Canadian Conservatives Dirty Priorities 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
Canadian Conservatives Disregard for Canada's Environment
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
Conservative Budget: No Green for Canada
Obama's Visit to 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

July 04, 2011 Add Comment Edit

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

July 04, 2011 Add Comment Edit

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