Really? Seriously?

Huffington Post: Denying Climate Change and Receiving Big Oil Money Not Mutually Exclusive

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:54:18 PDT

The Huffington Post published a piece yesterday highlighting a not-so-shocking trend among climate-denying candidates for Congress. It notes that of all Republican candidates vying for the 37 open Senate seats this election, none support climate and energy legislation, with most outright questioning the sound and settled science of climate change, and that most have received considerable campaign contributions from dirty energy interests, such as Koch Industries and Murray Energy.

Many of these candidates are also members of LCV's 2010 Dirty Dozen List. This includes Koch Industry favorite, Ron Johnson (WI-Sen), as well as Roy Blunt (MO-Sen) and Carly Fiorina (CA-Sen), both of whom count Murray Energy as top contributors. The piece also cites Pat Toomey (PA-Sen):

Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey drew headlines when he said in a local radio interview on Friday, that the degree to which human activity is to blame for global warming is being "very much disputed" and "debated."...Trolling Opensecrets.org, HuffPost found Toomey's top contributors include oil and coal giants Koch Industries ($15,000) and Murray Energy ($16,655).

Speaking on behalf of Joe Sestak - Toomey's competitor - campaign spokesman Jonathon Dworkin referred to Toomey as "another closed-minded ideologue bent on insisting that the 'world is flat.'" We couldn’t agree more. Toomey is a card-carrying member of what LCV President Gene Karpinski likes to call the Flat Earth Society, as are many of the candidates The Huffington Post mentions.

New GOP plan: Contract for Exxon Lobbyist

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:41:02 PDT

This morning, Republican House leaders unveiled “A Pledge to America,” a 45-page glossy pamphlet laced with tax cuts and promises to cut spending and clean up Congress. It was no surprise that the GOP leadership laid their planks in such a highly orchestrated fashion: at a lumber store outside of Washington.

What is surprising, however - or, I suppose, not surprising in the slightest, depending on how cynical you are - is who wrote the GOP's new plan: a former lobbyist for Exxon Mobil and Andarko Petroleum Corp. From Huffington Post:

In a draft version of The Pledge that was being passed around to reporters before the official release, the document properties list "Wild, Brian" as the "Author." A GOP source said that Wild -- who is on House Minority Leader John Boehner's payroll -- did help author the governing platform that the party is unveiling on Thursday...

Until early this year, Wild was a fairly active lobbyist on behalf of the firm the Nickles Group, the lobbying shop set up by the former Republican Senator from Oklahoma, Don Nickles. During his five years at the firm, Wild, among others, was paid...$800,000 from energy giant Andarko Petroleum...[and] more than $1.3 million from Exxon Mobil..."

Wild also served as a lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce where he helped steer more than $34 million worth of lobbying activity for the group that works overtime for Big Oil.

Paints a pretty clear picture of where the priorities of GOP leadership truly lie.

Rep. "Smokey Joe" Barton Still Shilling for Big Oil

noreply@blogger.com (Kate) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:37:11 PDT

You remember Joe Barton, don't you? The shameless Texas Representative - and ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee - who apologized to BP for the government's $20 billion "shakedown" after the Deepwater Horizons disaster? Well, good ole "Smokey Joe" is back to his old ways, shilling for Big Oil.

Politico has uncovered a secret meeting where Barton and other congressmen with atrocious environmental records promised favors to Big Oil and King Coal in exchange for campaign cash, assuring them of their ascension to top Energy positions in the House.

Yesterday, Barton, Reps. Fred Upton (Mich.), John Shimkus (Ill.), Mike Rogers (Mich.) and Greg Walden (Ore.) met with about 40 to 50 industry lobbyists during an event at the National Republican Club. Though the event wasn't billed as a fundraiser, according to one source in the room, the lawmakers tacitly linked donations to the Energy Committee's agenda in 2011. From Politico:

"You should be giving us money because we're going to be in charge," the source said. "We'll ensure there is no climate bill."

Barton's apology, laden with chutzpah, put him on America's radar. It caused quite a stir among many of his fellow Republicans.

So, you'd think after a stunt like that, Smokey Joe might want to step back from the I-fight-for-profiteering-and-environment-marauding-industries limelight. But no. Barton and his colleagues are not only flouting discretion, but their hubris is starting to rival LeBron James and "The Decision."

BP Ruins Your Gulf Coast...and Teaches Your Children!

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:43:16 PDT

California’s geography, economy, and demographics have made it a unique laboratory for environmental protection. As a result, California has been on the forefront of identifying environmental problems and in finding creative solutions.

Lately, however, California's environmental leadership status has been seriously challenged. First, there was the introduction of Prop 23, a ballot measure that, if passed, would suspend AB 32, California's landmark climate change legislation. Then today came this news (from the Sacramento Bee):

BP, the energy giant responsible for the largest offshore oil spill in history, helped develop the state's framework for teaching more than 6 million students about the environment.
Despite a mixed environmental record even before the Gulf of Mexico disaster, state officials included BP on the technical team for its soon-to-be-completed environmental education curriculum, which will be used in kindergarten through 12th-grade classes in more than 1,000 school districts statewide.

Yeah. That happened. The oil company with one of the worst environmental records in history is partially responsible for teaching our nation's youth about such weighty topics as energy conservation, pollution prevention, toxic and hazardous waste management.

In fact, according to another member of the technical working group on which BP sat, the team was responsible for developing the program's guiding principles. BP helped articulate the philosophy behind California's efforts to develop a statewide curriculum for environmental education, the first by any state.

Though this initiative was launched in 2003 - before BP proved their utter ineptitude and lack of integrity with the debacle in the Gulf - BP had been subject to a number of federal criminal investigations and paid substantial fines for environmental abuses for many years before.

Right now, the U.S. finds itself fighting for its future, facing questions that cut to its very core. How do we protect ourselves from looming ecological threats? How do we maintain a stable environment to ensure our continued proliferation? How do we properly educate our youth and develop a capable, competitive workforce for years to come?

We cannot help but be troubled by this. BP's primary goal is to profit from energy; not to teach children about the environment.

On the one hand you've got science, on the other, Ken Buck

noreply@blogger.com (Thom Kay) — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:23:33 PDT

Ken Buck, the Colorado Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, has offered a new reason for Coloradoans to vote for him. First it was "because I do NOT wear high heels." Very enticing, but if sexist gaffes aren't enough to secure your vote, Buck has more to offer. Now he's a proud denier of human-caused climate change and that whole science thing in general, as he revealed in a recent interview.

"I'll tell you, I have looked at global warming, now climate change, from both sides. While I think the earth is warming, I don't think that man-made causes are the primary factor. I am one of those people that Al Gore refers to as a skeptic."

The interviewer pointed out that Gore calls such people "deniers."

"Deniers?" Buck said. "Ok, I'm one of those folks."

Wow, Ken, that's all very impressive, but what do you mean when you say you've looked at global warming from "both sides"? One of those sides is presumably science, which is a good start. We suggest you weigh that more heavily than the non-science side you are currently favoring.
Buck goes on to show his academic strength by beating up a straw man.

"The idea that we need to transfer our manufacturing jobs to China to reduce our pollution in this country is crazy."

Yes, Mr. Buck, that is crazy. So crazy, in fact, that no one has advocated for doing that. Ever. But wait, he backs up his argument with rock solid math.

"China pollutes, per Barbie doll, China pollutes much more than we do in this country."

Alright, this is a little scary. Does Ken Buck think a Barbie doll is a scientific unit of measurment?
The interviewer then asked Buck "apart from global warming, one of the issues that's coming to the surface...is ocean acidification. Have you looked at that? Is that a concern of yours at all?"

"I have not looked at it, no."

That is hardly reassuring. It looks like Senate candidates are, per Barbie doll, just not what they used to be.

Want to deny climate change? Yeah, there's an app for that

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:34:05 PDT

Sure, climate deniers don't keep pace with most advancements of modern society -- you know, like the science they're supposed to study and be "experts" on. But they seem to have embraced one of the greatest technological developments in recent history: the iPhone.

Generation-Y skeptics rejoice! Apple recently approved an iPhone app, "Our Climate," which so neatly compiles the many cherry-picked arguments into a single app without a mess of contradictions -- i.e. "Our Climate" frequently touts CO2 as plant food, but mentions nothing of that important little thing called water and the increasing severity of drought. The app contributors include notable climate deniers, such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer,. (To see screenshots and read about all the ways in which "Our Climate" keeps its users "informed," click here).

iPhone apps are meant to make our lives easier, right? Why should we refuse climate deniers such convenience?

The most alarming part of this story, reported here, is the growing popularity of this app. Downloads are surging to the point that Apple is promoting it on the front page of their app store! Check it out:

There are more than 230,000 Apps in the App store -- only 40 Apps are featured in this front page category at any time!

This is disappointing because, in the past, Apple has seemed to be a friend of the environment. In 2009, they quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its position on climate change. Greenpeace ranks them fifth out 18 tech companies on their "Guide to Greener Electronics." And seeing those "greenest family of notebooks" ads, you'd think Apple would want to maintain that eco-friendly image. A company as large as they are might want to more vigilantly monitor one of their biggest means of consumer outreach.

I guess you can't blame Apple for the spike in "Our Climate" downloads. After all, the top selling movie in iTunes right now is “Kick A$$” – a make-believe comedy about people pretending to be superheroes…kinda like make-believe claims by people pretending to be climate experts.

"Today on, 'As the Oil World Turns'..."

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 05:01:08 PDT

Remember in high school, when your best friend got dumped and the school hallways were abuzz with rumors of who did what and who said what?

Well, in today's Washington Post, Dan Eggen examines “the murky world of advocacy-for-hire in Washington” – which, as it turns, bears resemblance to those same high school dramas.

The article focuses on an advocacy arm of the conservative Institute for Energy Research (IER), which launched a campaign over the July 4 weekend highlighting how the actions of BP leading up to the Gulf spill were not indicative of the industry as a whole:

Days after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig sank in the Gulf of Mexico, a conservative nonprofit group called the Institute for Energy Research asked BP to contribute $100,000 for a media campaign it was launching in defense of the oil industry.

Although BP took a pass, the group's advocacy arm went ahead with a campaign -- only instead of defending BP, it vilified the company as a "safety outlier" in an otherwise safe industry. The campaign's Web site features dozens of images of the burning rig, oil-smeared birds and other environmental devastation from the spill.

This where the mess really turns into a he-said-she-said ideally suited for the high school lunchroom.

Backers of BP familiar with the situation called it a shakedown, saying the original proposal contained no anti-BP messages. Thomas Pyle – IER president and formerly an oil industry lobbyist – responded that rather than retaliation, the images were part of a separte campaign to distance BP from the industry as a whole (funny then that a document sent to group supporters last week included a scathing, 19-point attack on BP's safety record).

It's not clear who to believe in this saga fit for a teen soap opera (I think I saw a "Degrassi" episode just like this). What is clear is this: these 'advocacy-for-hire' groups connive stealth communications campaigns with no disclosure of their backers or their motives. What's more, Big Oil will cannibalize its own in the name of protecting their bottom line and keeping us addicted to oil.

Circular Firing Squad at the Chamber of Commerce Over Climate Issues

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 07:06:06 PDT

The big-business lobbyists at the mammoth U.S. Chamber of Commerce are apparently fighting a bit of a civil war these days over global warming.

As Mother Jones reports, the Chamber's national office - which has called for a "Scopes monkey trial" of climate science - is engaging in a public relations campaign to discredit some of its own local chambers of commerce. What offense did these dozen or so local chambers commit? Why, calling for action on clean energy of course! Per MoJo:

A new split over climate policy is brewing within the ranks of the US Chamber of Commerce as a breakaway group of local chambers is getting ready to publicly split with the business lobby's hardline stance against climate legislation. The new climate coalition, known as the Chambers for Innovation and Clean Energy (CICE), will press Congress to take stronger action on climate and energy issues. It has already signed up about a dozen chambers and will officially launch later this year.

The US Chamber is already working behind the scenes to discredit the new group. After it caught wind of the effort last month, it fired off a letter to local chamber leaders, discouraging them from joining CICE, which it claimed was "established by the Natural Resources Defense Council." The letter, written by US Chamber board member Winthrop Hallett, the president of Alabama's Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, states that the new group's "indirect purpose appears to be undermining the U.S. Chamber's and the business community's leadership on" climate issues.

Oh goodness, where to begin...

Well first of all, kudos to the local chambers willing to take a stand against their national office. They join other innovative businesses like Best Buy, Microsoft and Apple in splitting with the U.S. Chamber's anti-science stand against clean energy. Also, Chamber president Tom Donahue is both a frightening and a very confused man, so crossing him is not a step to be taken lightly.

Second of all, in true Chamber fashion (see Dylan Ratigan's "you talk nonsense" line), the charge about a link with NRDC appears to be, well, just sort of made up:

The claim that CICE is little more than a front group for the NRDC is "outrageous" and "really just pissed me off," says Steve Falk, the president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, which has been organizing the independent climate coalition. Hallett's letter, which has not been posted publicly but which Mother Jones has seen, does not explain the alleged connection between CICE and the NRDC. Hallett and a spokesman for the US Chamber did not respond to requests for comment.

And third, let's focus on the part where Hallett says the new group's purpose is "undermining the U.S. Chamber's and the business community's leadership" on climate issues.

Really? The group of local chambers standing up to Tom Donahue and his anti-science thugs who have blocked clean energy action for decades is the group that's "undermining leadership?" Unless she's referring to the $123 million the Chamber spent on lobbying in 2009 trying to block essentially every legislative priority of the Obama administration, this R?S?er is not sure what "leadership" Hallett could possibly be referencing.

We've been at this debunking thing a while now, but the U.S. Chamber truly never ceases to amaze.

Big Coal Bosses Banding Together To Buy Elections

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:15:11 PDT

With the disastrous 5 - 4 Citizens United ruling by a Supreme Court that is being called the "most conservative in decades," the floodgates are now open for Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Everything Else to dump millions of dollars into smear campaigns targeting politicians who dare to stand up to them.

Now it appears that Big Coal at least stands ready to take full advantage of this new opportunity for wealthy polluters to have an even bigger say in our democracy, as ABC News reports:

Top officials at the country's major coal companies, including Massey Energy, owner of the West Virginia mine where 29 died earlier this year, apparently want to take advantage of looser campaign finance laws and use corporate money to defeat political candidates they believe to be "anti-coal."

According to an email from Roger Nicholson, senior vice president of the International Coal Group, "a number of coal industry representatives recently have been considering developing a 527 entity with the purpose of attempting to defeat anti-coal incumbents."

And what, pray tell, makes a member of Congress "anti-coal" in the eyes of a company like Massey Energy?

Massey Energy owns the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, site of the April 5 explosion that took 29 lives, while ICG owned the Sago mine, also in West Virginia, where 12 died four years ago. The incidents have caused Congress to take a closer look at mine safety.

Oh, right: any and all attempts to look into Big Coal's gross violations of safety and environmental regulations. In fact, buying elections is a tried-and-true strategy for Massey CEO Don Blankenship (who also, by the way, doesn't believe in science):

Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship has already excited controversy via his own involvement in West Virginia state elections. He spent millions of his own money in a successful attempt to defeat a sitting state supreme court justice. The justice who Blankenship supported later ruled in Massey's favor, as did another justice, Spike Maynard, who had vacationed on the Riviera with Blankenship while the case was pending before the court.

At the very least the FBI is not an elective office, or they'd have to watch out too... investigating federal crimes by Massey Employees probably also makes you "anti-coal."

Exxon: Earns billions in second quarter, spends millions to kill climate and energy legislation

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:56:10 PDT

Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company announced their second quarter profits today and the numbers are astounding. During these past three months, the corporation's income nearly doubled to $7.56 billion. Revenue increased 24 percent to $92.5 billion. The Irving, Texas based company also found time in Q2 to grow its energy-sector empire, acquiring natural gas producer XTO Energy. The deal, valued at $29 billion, immediately makes Exxon the largest natural gas company in the U.S.

Ok, maybe the numbers aren't that shocking when you consider the state of its competitors (see: BP's rightful loss of $49.2 billion in Q2). But what truly boggles the mind, what absolutely confounds, is how much Exxon and its other colleagues spent on lobbying during this period .

Amidst the single worst oil catastrophe in our nation's history, big oil companies made humongous profit; that's enough to stoke one's ire. Simultaneously, however, these companies spent millions to kill comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Consider the following chart from Progressive Media:

	1st quarter profit	2nd quarter profit	1st quarter lobby spending	2nd quarter lobby spending	2010 Political Spending
ConocoPhillips	$2,100,000,000	$4,200,000,000	$6,408,978	$5,523,001	$234,947
ExxonMobil	$6,300,000,000	$7,560,000,000	$3,390,000	$2,520,000	$584,479
Shell	$4,900,000,000	$4,500,000,000	$2,270,000	$4,000,000	$10,099

The fact that Exxon spent nearly $6 million in the past two quarters is more shocking when viewed in this context (via Yahoo! News):

Exxon earned the majority of its income from producing oil and natural gas in foreign waters, particularly in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

So, Exxon invested loads of resources in killing efforts to break America's addiction to oil and set us on the path towards a clean energy future, yet the majority of their profit comes from endeavors abroad?!

ExxonMobil Contributes $1.5 Million to Climate Deniers

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:13:56 PDT

Despite pledges to stop funding such groups, ExxonMobil gave $1.5 million to climate deniers and energy industry front groups last year, according to the Times of London.

Exxon-backed groups used this infusion of oil money to build the frenzy surrounding the “Climategate” non-scandal and other efforts to derail progress towards an international agreement to fight climate change at the COP-15 talks in Copenhagen last winter.

The Times article notes [subscription required]:
Several [of the Exxon-funded groups] made outspoken attacks on climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and argued their leaked e-mails showed that the dangers of global warming had been grossly exaggerated.

The scientists were exonerated this month by an independent inquiry but groups funded by Exxon have continued to lambast them. The Media Research Centre, which received $50,000 last year from Exxon, called the inquiry a "whitewash" and condemned "climate alarmists".

Some of Exxon's largest donations were to groups that lobbied against a global deal on emissions being reached at the climate summit last December in Copenhagen.
The Times then goes on to discuss how Exxon had pledged in 2007 to stop funding climate denier groups:

In its 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report, [Exxon] stated: "In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."

Exxon also gave reassurances last year that it had no funding links with the sceptics' biggest annual conference, the International Conference on Climate Change. But a list published by Exxon this month of its "2009 worldwide contributions and investments" revealed that it had given four cosponsors of the New York event a total of $275,000. It also gave $1 million to 20 other sceptic groups.

Whoops. And how would Exxon respond to the fact that they didn't make good on their pledge to stop funding denier groups? By regurgitating that commitment:

After being contacted by The Times, Exxon announced that it would no longer fund the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Media Research Centre or the Pacific Research Institute. Exxon did not comment on whether it would continue to fund the other 21 sceptic groups to which it gave money last year.

It said in a statement: "We fund a wide range of groups. Every year, we do an evaluation and make funding decisions.

If a group's position on climate change becomes distracting or diverts attention away from this important discussion, we evaluate whether we will continue funding." Exxon said it selected groups because of their work "on a variety of issues, for example Heritage Foundation to further discussion on tax and trade issues".

Riiiiiiight. We believe that, just as we believed BP when they pledged to plug the gaping hole at the bottom of the Gulf in a timely fashion.

Progress Parade: Why Gulf Coast Oysters LOVE Oil Spills!

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:31:16 PDT

We talk all the time in this space about how ridiculous groups like the American Petroleum Institute are. As the oil industry's trade association, API spends millions on slick TV ads like these telling us that clean energy and climate legislation is bad and oil is all hugs and sunshine.

Whenever we see these ads, we can't help but wonder how absurd they'll look to people 50 years from now. Now, thanks to a great YouTube find, we know EXACTLY how absurd they'll look.

They'll look just as absurd as "Progress Parade: Oil," a 1960 American Petroleum Institute infomercial about how happy and healthy Gulf Coast oysters are when they're submerged in vats of oil-polluted water:

Look! They even made little baby oysters! Isn't oil great? In fact, according to what API would have us believe about how a noxious, slimy black substance interacts with organic life, Gulf Coast fishermen should be out there RIGHT NOW bringing oil-covered seafood to dinner tables everywhere! YUM.

Big Oil Mouthpiece

noreply@blogger.com (Thom Kay) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:54:32 PDT

Offshore drilling proponents, undeterred by the evidence that all of their previous claims about drilling safety were completely wrong, continue to push for deepwater drilling in the very region that is struggling to survive the current spill.

Joseph R. Mason, Louisiana State University Chair of Banking, and a highly respected puppet of the oil industry, has just put out a paper claiming that the temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling the Obama administration put in place last week will cost the United States $2.8 billion in economic activity.

While Mason works full time for LSU, the questionable report in question is funded by the American Energy Alliance, on of R?S? favorite polluter front groups. AEA President Thomas Pyle is a powerful lobbyist for Big Oil and a former staffer of Tom Delay. Pyle and AEA have invested in pro-drilling reports like this in the past, and have gotten the misinformation they paid for.

When looking at the bloated estimate of the cost of the moratorium, it is important to remember that Secretary Salazar did not put a temporary moratorium in place as a jobs stimulus plan. He did so because it was his responsibility to only allow drilling if it can be demonstrated to meet minimum safety and environmental standards. If rig owners cannot demonstrate that they can drill without endangering their workers and causing greater damage to the Gulf ecosystem, then they simply should not be allowed to drill.

Mason conveniently ignores worker safety and the environment, or "externalities," when coming up with his sum. Mason's argument is that $2 billion in economic activity is enough to justify an industry's practices. So what if they nearly destroyed the Gulf through negligence, greed, and incompetence? That was, like, one time! (FYI it was one BIG time and a bunch of smaller spills). I suppose Joseph Mason would be just as eager to advocate for drug trafficking because it provides high paying jobs.

Big Oil will likely be using their front groups like AEA to tout this paper in the next couple of weeks as they continue to try to deflect attention and fail to take real responsibility for what they have done.

FOX News: Supporting America's Veterans, Unless Fox Disagrees With Them

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:58:42 PDT

As if we needed any more evidence that FOX News essentially functions as the communications arm for Big Oil's congressional allies - opposing any sort of clean energy and climate bill - the network has rejected without explanation a second advertisement from the veterans' group VoteVets.

As reported by Politico's Ben Smith, FOX is refusing to air this spot, featuring retired Brigadier General Steven Anderson, who was the top logistics aide to the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus:

As Smith points out, it's the second time in recent months that FOX has rejected an ad from VoteVets.

For a network whose anchors literally shed tears on the air while talking about their love of country, denying a decorated military leader the chance to speak his mind about a national security issue is -- and these are hard to come by these days at FOX -- a new low.

FAIL: Barrier-Islands Off Louisiana Coast

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:55:37 PDT

Classic rock immortal Robert Plant once sang, "When mountains crumble to the sea, there will still be you and me." So, maybe Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) is just a huge Zepp fan. That's as logical as any explanation for his insistence on responding to the BP oil disaster as he has.

Today, the Washington Post is reporting on one of Louisiana's primary strategies for keeping oil out its sensitive coastal marshes: put solid land in its way. The state has proposed building 128 miles of islands in arcs off the coast - and has already received the federal go-ahead to construct 45 miles worth of these berms - using rocks, sandbags in metal frames, and mounds of dredged sand.

The one problem? These artificial “barrier islands” are already failing. How surprising, considering, “categorically, across the board, every coastal scientist” questioned the wisdom of the program.

The first artificial island project is already showing serious signs of erosion, with heavy equipment sinking into the ocean. Photographs released by Louisiana scientist Leonard Bahr and the US Army Corps of Engineers show that the artificial island E-4 - from which WaPo reported - intended to reach an 18-mile length, is struggling to survive at 1,100 feet:


Berm E-4, June 25	Berm E-4, July 7

Berm E-4, July 8

Jindal pushed to build the $360 million project, trying to justify the barrier-island construction back in May by saying it was the “obvious” thing to do:

It makes so much sense. It’s so obvious. We gotta do it

“We know it works, we have seen it work, but if they need to see it work, they need to do that quickly,” argued Jindal. On May 27, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) attacked President Barack Obama, calling his administration’s caution “absolutely outrageous“:

Here the president doesn’t seem to have a clue. His decision on the emergency dredging barrier island plan is a thinly veiled ‘no.’ Approving two percent of the request and kicking the rest months down the road is outrageous, absolutely outrageous.

Jindal continues to press for the federal government to approve the emergency construction of 125 miles of sand berms, arguing the 0.2 miles constructed are “are doing what they were intended to do” -- even as they crumble into the sea.

Hey, Rand Paul, You Know What's REALLY "Un-American"?

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:01:48 PDT

Back in May, Rand Paul made a big stink over President Obama's criticism of BP for ruining thousands of American jobs and the Gulf Coast environment, calling it "really un-American." It was an absurd comment even at the time, considering that (1) any reckless corporation that does that much damage deserves its fair share of criticism, and (2) BP (formerly "British Petroleum") is not an American company.

Now, however, that comment is looking downright disastrous. Multiple outlets are reporting today that BP confirmed it had lobbied the British government in 2007 for a prisoner transfer with Libya in order to grease the wheels for a lucrative drilling contract off the Libyan coast. Per Mother Jones:

Robert Menendez (D-NJ) decried the release last August of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi as a "moral outrage" at a press conference on Wednesday. Megrahi is the only person who has been convicted of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing that killed 270 people in 1988. BP has admitted that it lobbied for a prisoner exchange—they have just not said which prisoners. Now Menendez and three other senators have called on the State Department and the British government to investigate precisely what role BP may have played in negotiating his release, as the company has since admitted that they pushed for a prisoner transfer to help ensure the $900 million oil deal went through.

Can the story get even more damning? Yes. Yes it can:

A top UK official has acknowledged that oil interests played "a very big part" in his release—and in securing BP's big deal.

This very clearly presents a national security threat:

The senators argue that the Megrahi example, and the overarching issue of a private company using a business deal to sway the justice system, presents a national security concern. The case "undermines our ability to hold international terrorists accountable," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

Someone should ask Rand Paul: does this latest round of criticism of BP by Sens. Menendez and Gillibrand make them un-American, too?

CO2 Is Green Infiltrates Print Media

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 06:10:56 PDT

Last week, we wrote about CO2IsGreen's new ad campaign promoting the idea that carbon dioxide is not an environmental pollutant. Today, the group with close ties to Big Oil launched the print arm of their campaign with this half-page ad from today's The Washington Post.

The ad makes a slew of charges in its quest to quell the Senate's efforts at passing climate and energy legislation. (My favorite: "The bill is based on the false premise that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change. Real, empirical evidence indicates it is not.") Others include that the American Power Act, proposed by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will drive up costs of food, transportation and electricity, and that its backers are buying Wall Street support for the legislation with corporate giveaways.

David Di Martino, spokesman for Clean Energy Works, a coalition of about 60 groups that want climate legislation, sums up the asininity of these ads quite nicely in an interview with the New York Times:

"The ad reads like the 'climate deniers' manifesto. This Big Oil front group wants people to think Congress is going to raise taxes, kill jobs, spill more oil, take our children and charge us for the pleasure. ...

"[The ad is] funded by the world's largest polluters and those who stand to profit from our continued dependence on fossil fuels for our energy. [see here]
"Considering the source, the message of the ad, and the intent to keep America addicted to oil, this cynical front group should change its name to 'Greed is Good.'" He added that the Kerry-Liberman "is projected by independent studies to create new American jobs and it will reduce our deficit by $20 billion," according to figures from CBO.

Couldn't have said it better ourselves, David.

In Which Clive Crook Reveals His Relationship With Reality To Be More Of A Passing Acquaintance

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:00:12 PDT

The Atlantic's Clive Crook is out with a truly sad piece of journalism this morning. While we normally shy away from critiquing mainstream reporters who cover energy and climate issues, Crook's piece on the bogus "climategate" scandal so thoroughly boggles our mind that we can only ask... Really? Seriously?

For those who need a quick refresher on "Climategate," it's the manufactured scandal in which right-wing groups and Congressional goofballs like Sen. James Inhofe siezed upon thousands of emails hacked from the personal accounts of climate scientists, artfully plucking small portions of single sentences out of context and saying they "proved" that climate scientists are part of a vast cabal that's creating the global warming myth.

These charges were grounded in so little fact that independent political watchdog PolitiFact.com called them flat-out "FALSE," and media watchdog FactCheck.org attributed any sense of legitimacy the scandal may have attained to "confusing" reporting (that's a nice way of saying "malpractice") by journalists.

Journalists like Clive Crook, who breathlessly wrote when the "scandal" first broke: "The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering."

Now that those sorts of ludicrous claims have been proven false, we were eagerly awaiting a humble retraction. Instead we got Climategate and the Big Green Lie.

Even though he's about to write a lengthy rant that lends further, undeserved legitimacy to a make-believe scandal that's been thoroughly debunked, Clive Crook would like you to know that he's one of the "good guys."

By way of preamble, let me remind you where I stand on climate change. I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously. I think energy policy should be intelligently directed towards mitigating this risk. I am for a carbon tax.

That's super, Clive! Can you give us an example of how you as a journalist take climate science seriously?

I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption. The scandal attracted enormous attention in the US, and support for a new energy policy has fallen. In sum, the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute, and set back the prospects for a better energy policy.

Wait... really? But as someone who we imagine follows the news pretty closely, didn't you see the three separate investigations into the actions of the climate scientists in question, each of which concluded that there was no manipulation of data, and nothing anywhere in the hacked emails to suggest that climate science isn't sound?

I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.

So let's get this straight: even though Clive Crook believes "climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously," he also believes that three separate investigations -- not to mention the PolitiFact and FactCheck debunks -- are not nearly enough to prove that climate science isn't a vast conspiracy? That's like ending a wild-eyed rant about the legitimate questions raised by moon landing conspiracy theories by saying, "But of course, there's no doubt that we did actually land on the moon."

Also, Clive Crook apparently believes that it's on climate scientists to repair the damage that's been done to public belief in global warming. This from a journalist who, in the very same article he's writing for a highly-circulated news magazine, lends further credibility to make-believe attacks on climate science.

We think FactCheck said it best:

News coverage of the e-mails and the various claims about what they supposedly show may have contributed to public confusion on the subject.

No kidding! You see, climate scientists don't reach millions of readers a day. That's the job of reporters. Reporters occupy a special place in society, acting as a sort of firewall that's supposed to separate truth from BS for purposes of public consumption. When journalists fail to put adequate time and judgement into sifting objective truth from the loads of spin, misinformation and lies that are out there, damaging phenomena like the "climategate" scandal occur, in which total BS gets through the filter and manages to warp public opinion.

Which leaves us wondering: Why pay to read any of Clive Crook's stuff? We can get the exact same "journalism" on ClimateDepot for free.

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:42:51 PDT

This comic, sent our way by our friends at Defenders of Wildlife, speaks for itself:

With Record Heat Wave Slamming East Coast, Big Oil Front Group APPLAUDS Global Warming

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:00:56 PDT

With a brutal heat wave sweeping the East Coast, one would think it would be a bad time to launch ads extolling the benefits of global warming. Now, we may be sapped of energy, and of our tolerance for a proverbial stinky substance, but this is ridiculous.

But that's exactly what the good folks at CO2IsGreen are doing. Unlike some friends of Big Oil, they're not denying that global warming is happening -- no, they're embracing it. The group has launched a radio and television ad campaign claiming that the American Power Act will be bad for both trees and the economy because (wait for it) trees need a little global warming. Via Roll Call:

“New legislative efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will inevitably fail to lower global temperatures,” CO2IsGreen.org spokesman Leighton Steward said in a statement this week. “Congress and federal regulators seem poised to ignore both science and common sense by repeatedly attempting to put in place a reckless cap-and-trade system that will not only suffocate our economic recovery, but reduce the growth rates of Earth’s plants and forests.”
The organization is spending $600,000 on the 10-day buy that will run through July 13. Television ads will air nationwide on the cable news giant Fox News, as well as on local network affiliates in the Washington, D.C., area. The group is also running 60-second radio spots and newspaper advertisements in Louisiana, Tennessee, Nebraska, Ohio and Indiana publications. The ads criticize an energy proposal by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.).
“Urge your Senators to vote ‘no’ to the president’s cap-and-trade bill full of corporate Wall Street giveaways,” a narrator states in the ads. “At a time of record U.S. debt, skyrocketing deficits and high unemployment, it is not fair to the American people to pass a cap-and-trade bill that increases energy taxes.
“The Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill will increase your costs of living, such as electricity, gasoline and food,” the narrator concludes. “Keep America strong. Protect jobs. Defeat the Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill.”

Increase costs of living? That's funny, because, the EPA's "definitive analysis proves that the American Power Act (APA) will decrease energy bills for families and protect consumers while offering the most effective cost containment measures of any previous climate legislation.” (via The Hill)

But this blogger's favorite part of the ad? Citing "record U.S. debt" and "skyrocketing deficits," it claims that the Kerry-Lieberman bill will "cripple the economy." That's right, cripple. As if the APA were some form of incurable, debilitating disease. What CO2IsGreen conveniently neglects are the conclusions from the Congressional Budget Office's examination, announced yesterday: the bill would cut $19 billion from the deficit over the next decade. Darren Samuelsohn reports:

"The CBO analysis of the American Power Act, championed by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) found that government revenues would grow by about $751 billion from 2011 to 2020 if the bill became law. By contrast, the legislation would create direct spending of $732 billion over the same 10-year period."

I know if I had an extra $19 billion lying around, I would certainly feel crippled.

Let's just hope this CO2IsGreen campaign backfires like their last one. With outrageous claims like theirs, it shouldn't be too hard to win some proponents of clean energy and climate legislation (see CO2IsGreen's website, where they challenge people to prove carbon dioxide is a pollutant -- "Of all the myths quoted, calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is the worst - it's simply is not true! Totally false. We challenge you to prove otherwise." They go on to claim that because "CO2 is in our every breath," it can't be a pollutant. Hey, because humans poop, raw sewage shouldn't be considered a pollutant, right?)

Watch video of one of their ads below (watch at your own risk; LCV cannot be responsible for any madness that may ensue):

Big Oil Reaps Big Money from Subsidies

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:34:15 PDT

It's bad enough that the Deepwater Horizon oil rig (registered in the Marshall Islands) and its owner, Transocean (corporate headquarters in Switzerland), have found tax relief by setting up shop abroad. But a recent New York Times article illustrates exactly how many of your tax dollars Big Oil is sucking up.

Oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses in the U.S., with tax breaks - including arcane drilling incentives dating back to 1913 - available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process. According to the most recent study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, Big Oil's capital investments are taxed at a rate of 9%. That's lower than almost any other industry, considering the overall rate for businesses in general is 25%.

For many small to medium sized oil companies, most of the taxes are eliminated by various credits. Indeed, for these companies, subsidies are so high that the return on investment is often higher after taxes and credits are accounted than before. Various government reports indicate that these tax breaks average about $4 billion a year.

BP, for example, boasts sizable tax benefits from leasing the Deepwater Horizon rig from Transocean. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committe, the company used a tax break to write off 70% of rent for the rig. That comes out to more than $225,000 per day since the lease began.

Congress and the Obama administration are working on a bill to cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks over the next decade. Unless these reforms are enacted, one has to wonder how long Big Oil will continue to shortchange the American taxpayer?

DeMint Scratches BP's Back

noreply@blogger.com (Thom Kay) — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 14:05:43 PDT

For the President's oil spill inquiry commission to investigate the causes of the BP oil spill, and more importantly to stop it from happening again, they need the power of subpoena. Last week, the House showed overwhelming bipartisan support for granting the commission subpoena power in a vote of 420-1, with the only holdout being ultra-libertarian Ron Paul (R-TX).

It would seem the Senate would have a similarly easy time granting subpoena power through unanimous consent, right? Not on Jim DeMint's watch. Sen. DeMint (R-SC) objected, which had the possibility of delaying the subpoena for several weeks. He did so, he said, not on his own behalf, but on behalf of the Republican conference. They must think DeMint can get away with anything, even taking PAC money from each of the country's biggest oil producers, BP included, since his opposition in this year's Senate race is Alvin Greene, a real "Who's Who" of who the hell is that.

Fortunately, the Republicans have now lifted their hold on granting the power of subpoena to the Gulf oil spill commission, but only because DeMint's actions were so blatantly pro-Big Oil that it was causing a political embarrassment. Even "Smokey Joe" Barton didn't let his buddies at BP off the hook on this one.

For now, Jim DeMint and a couple of "Drill, Baby, Drill" allies in the Senate have backed off to fight another day. It doesn't make their protection of Big Oil any less disgusting.

House Minority Leader Boehner Flip-Flops on White House's Oil Disaster Response

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:17:54 PDT

First President Obama wasn't doing enough on the oil disaster. Now, he's doing too much.

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) criticized the Obama administration for its response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports:

Boehner said Obama overreacted to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The spill might warrant a "pause" in deepwater drilling, but Obama's blanket ban on drilling in the gulf -- which a judge overturned last week -- could devastate the region's economy, he said. Louisiana State University scientists estimate the ban could have affected more than 10,000 jobs.

That's funny because just over a month ago he lambasted the President for not doing enough. In a national radio appearance on May 27, Boehner said that it is "becoming increasingly clear" that the Obama administration's response to the Gulf spill has been insufficient.

“The law makes it pretty clear that if there’s an oil spill, the President is required to take action, and we’ve got the Governor of Louisiana, we’ve got parish presidents of those small communities south of New Orleans asking for help, asking to be allowed to put a sand berm and other things in to protect the marshes, and they can’t get an answer out of the federal government. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the Administration is not fulfilling their responsibility to the people of the Gulf Coast area or the people of the United States.”

So which is it, Boehner? Too much or too little?

GOP Congressman Compares Obama to Hitler

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Levin) — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:40:53 PDT

It seems right-wing intellectuals and clean energy foes - including Sarah Palin - have taken a page out of Glenn Beck's playbook.

Not long ago, Daily Show correspondent, Lewis Black, diagnosed the beltway pundit with a case of "Nazi Tourettes," referring to Beck's propensity to liken anything and everything he doesn't like to the actions of Hitler and the National Socialist party (watch Black's rant here). Now, other prominent conservatives are exhibiting signs of the same condition.

Thomas Sowell, a conservative columnist, recently wrote an editorial in which he compares the BP escrow fund to something Hitler might have done.

Tuesday night, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) took to the House floor to regale his colleagues with the comparison:

GOHMERT: There's a brilliant man named Thomas Sowell. And, um, I didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008, but I sure would have voted for Thomas Sowell. This man, well, his article says quite a lot. His editorial, um, says here — and it's just been posted this week — but it says, "When Adolph Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920's" — and I'm quoting from Thomas Sowell in his editorial:

...leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

And this isn't in the article — this is my comment — but we do have useful idiots today, who are heard to say, "Wow, what we really need is for the president to be a dictator for a little while." They know not what they say.

Gohmert continued reading approvingly from the column, including the part in which Sowell bashes Obama for his handling of the Gulf disaster:

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

Wow. Just wow. Where to begin on the absurdity of this. Sowell's main argument (and therefore, Gohmert's) is that both President Obama and Hitler were able to motivate people who aren't normally interested in politics. Funny ... the same could be said of the Tea Party.

And speaking of the Tea Party...one of their favorites, Sarah Palin, took to Twitter also to hype Sowell's outlandish analogy:

I'll bet you'd find a few Palin supporters in Louisiana and Mississippi, but try telling some Gulf Coast residents that President Obama's attempts to help them make him like Hitler. See what they say. It seems Joe Barton (R-TX) isn't the only GOP legislator who is completely out of touch with reality.

Click here to read Sowell's entire article. Watch the video of Gohmert's statement below:

Big Oil Front Group Doubles Down On Tried-And-True Strategy: Make Stuff Up

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:51:30 PDT

Yesterday, multiple outlets reported that the League of Conservation Voters was joining clean energy allies VoteVets, SEIU and the Sierra Club as part of a campaign to help ensure the Senate acts on comprehensive energy and climate legislation this summer.

How did Big Oil respond to this news? With made-up, over-the-top attacks, naturally.

@IERenergy Environmental groups to spend $11M on ad campaign calling for purity on carbon criminalization vote http://ow.ly/23d5F

That's the Twitter handle for the "Institute for Energy Research," a behemoth lobbying group funded by major oil companies like ExxonMobil whose main purpose in life, according to SourceWatch, is to advocate "positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless."

Oh, and its president used to be the communications director for Enron. So they seem to have all of their "bad guy" bases covered.

That's why I suppose we shouldn't be too shocked that IER has decided that "criminalization" is the right word for legislation that would limit carbon pollution. According to that logic, limiting anything is the same as criminalizing it: limiting drivers to 25 miles per hour in school zones "criminalizes" driving, and limiting hunters to five bucks a season "criminalizes" hunting.

There is one thing that IER doesn't seem to worried about limiting, however: oil spills. While a seemingly limitless gusher of oil from BP's sunken rig continues to destroy the Gulf of Mexico, IER wants to make sure you know how strongly it opposes any efforts to limit future spills. Because that would be "anti-energy," which is basically oil-biz-speak for "un-American."