Category Archives: big oil

Tough Decision – My mom is stupid or burning is stupid

Posted on by
Reply

OK so Mom wins but let me very quickly qualify that I love my Mother and I mean that unconditionally. My Mom is a rightwing fundamentalist Christian. So really what I am saying is that I hate the ideology more than my mother. I am not talking about the social agenda either or most of it anyway. I am pro abortion. I think everyone should have one. I am pro civil rights which means I am for samesex sexuality. I think everyone has tried just one. I am for universal health care.

I am more talking about her pro corporate business, pro rich, pro military, deregulation, anti union and anti evolution stances. Mom things that rich people and powerful people are the best. She got this from Eureka College where Ronald Reagan was big man on campus:

http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/07/stories/2009070750300200.htm

Budget pro-rich, says TDP Special Correspondent

‘No solution shown for unemployment and agricultural crisis’

Budget failed to specify how 1.20 crore jobs would be generated’

‘Promoting disinvestment in PSUs amounts to encouraging privatisation’

KADAPA: The Union budget is pro-rich and not oriented towards poverty alleviation and ignored the cause of the middle classes, Telugu Desam Party leaders alleged.

The budget failed to specify how 1.20 crore jobs would be generated, TDP State Secretary V.S. Ameer Babu, TNTUC president S.A. Sattar and party leaders S. Goverdhan Reddy and J. Rayappa Raju said in a statement. They deplored the government’s contention that it would attract foreign direct investment when there was global economic recession and did not specify how it would clear the foreign debt and interest.

The budget did not show any solution to unemployment, agricultural crisis and suicides. There was no mention of unearthing the black money of Rs. 1 lakh crore, they alleged. Inflation grew from 2.8 per cent last year to 6.7 per cent this year. The Bill passed for unorganised workers was confined to paper.

Promoting disinvestment in public sector units amounts to encouraging privatisation, the TDP leaders alleged.

Steps were not taken to curtail the increase in petrol and diesel prices. The budget made no mention of the lakhs of workers who lost jobs in IT industry, they said.

The TDP is opposing the budget, they asserted

‘Highly disappointing’ Tirupati Correspondent adds: Federation of the Farmers’ Association and various other farmers organisations have termed the general budget introduced today as highly disappointing from the farmers point of view.

:}

Which I think should clash with her Christian values. Lets face it, the rich just want more money at the expense of not just the poor but the environment. As long as they believe that their money can buy them clean water and clean air – even if it has to come in a bottle – well then the heck with the rest of us.

http://a4a.mahost.org/fakes.html

DON’T BE FOOLED!

Only after the last tree has been cut down,
only after the last river has been poisoned,
only after the last fish has been caught,
only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten.
–The Cree People

Big Business is terrified of the environmental movement, which remains the single most popular left-wing movement in the US. The dirty secret of Big Business is that it is principally responsible for pollution and environmental degradation around the world. The majority of Americans want a safer, cleaner environment. They know that, and have taken extensive countermeasures to protect themselves from the people at large, including pouring money into bogus environmental groups designed to further industry causes while appearing to be environmentally conscious. They also launch massive PR campaigns to paint themselves green.These anti-environmental initiatives are, in essence, efforts to thwart democracy.It’s important to note that the only green behind these efforts is money, not concern for the environment. These groups are very well-financed, backed, as they are, by corporations and other capitalist interests. What they lack in public support, they make up for in resources and powerful connections.Going over the list, you can see the copious use of buzzwords by the anti-environmental movement, as they strive to create the appearance of a broad mandate and public support. However, these groups are funded and controlled by economic and political elites, with a vested (financial) interest in thwarting and reversing environmental reforms.The following is excerpted from The Greenpeace Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations, put out by the excellent Odonian Press, Box 32375, Tucson, AZ 85751, and is part of their Real Story series

TACTICS

  • Greenwashing: When a company adopts marketing strategies whereby the company appears to be adopting a more environmentally-conscious stance, when really it’s simply doing its usual routine.
      Examples:
    1. Mobil Chemical added a small amount of starch to the plastic in Hefty trash bags and called them “biodegradable” (however, the bags would not degrade if buried in landfills, but only if left out in the sun; moreover, the bags didn’t degrade, but rather broke up into smaller plastic pieces — not the same thing!) A Mobil Chemical pitch man said, “degradability is just a marketing tool. We’re talking out of both sides of our mouth because we want to sell our bags.”
    2. Coors Brewing sponsors a greenwashing campaign called Pure Water 2000 that funds “grassroots organizations [engaged in] river cleanups, water habitat improvements, water quality monitoring, wetland protection, and pollution prevention.” In 1992, however, Coors pleaded guilty to charges that it had dumped carcinogenic chemicals into a local waterway for 18 years!
  • Astroturf organizing: These are industry-funded organizations meant to function like environment grassroots groups, except that they are heavily financed by industry and seek to manipulate public opinion by distorting facts. They seek to put environmentalists in an unfavorable light by launching personal attacks against them, charging that activists are “anti-family,” “anti-American,” and pitting jobs and the economy against environmental reform. They are termed “astroturf” because they are designed to look like they are genuine grassroots movements.
  • Physical violence: Activists are routinely harassed by the FBI, which considers any progressive movements “terrorist” in nature, justifying surveillance, break-ins, arrests, and worse. Activists find themselves the victims of assaults, sabotage, death threats, and worse.
      Examples:
    1. 1990: Earth First! activists Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney were nearly killed by a car bomb — incredibly, the authorities arrested them and accused them of transporting a bomb, which was later thrown out for lack of evidence. The actual perpetrators were never apprehended.
    2. 1992: Activist Stephanie McGuire of Florida was assaulted by three men for opposing a Procter & Gamble pulp mill’s practice of dumping toxins into the Fenholloway River (this mill still does this, btw). They beat her, burned her with a lit cigar, and cut her with a straight razor, while saying “now you have something to sue us over.” No one was arrested in this crime.
    3. The Center for Investigative Reporting noted 104 violent attacks on environmentalists from January 1989 to January 1993, averaging one every two weeks.
  • Government involvement: Through official government channels, whether Congress or the courts or the Executive Branch, government has been shown to regularly side with Big Business where environmental issues are concerned. The conservative 104th Congress recently showed this in its efforts to weaken endangered species laws, open up wetlands and parklands for economic exploitation, and lessening clean air, food, and water legislation. They also cut the funding for the EPA to the bone, all of which pleased industry greatly!

SIX TYPES OF ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

Most industries will rely on a combination of the following to undermine and roll back environmental reforms, lavishly spending money on campaigns to secure their financial gain at our expense!

  • Public relations firms
  • Corporate front groups
  • Think tanks
  • Legal foundations
  • Endowments and charities
  • Wise Use and Share groups

Of these, the misnamed “Wise Use” and “Share” groups need the most explanation. This anti-environmental movement is mostly a western phenomenon where timber, mining, ranching, chemical, and recreation companies banded together to fight the environmental movement. Ron Arnold, the movement’s founder, is a self-described reformed environmentalist, one who has “seen the light”. As he puts it: “We want to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, absolutely.”

Makes you wonder what kind of environmentalist he must have been, with an attitude like that!

“Wise Use” and “Share” (Canadian version of “Wise Use”) act basically as stormtroopers for industry, because, according to Arnold, the “Wise Use” movement can “do things the industry can’t. It can stress the sanctity of the family, the virtue of the close-knit community. And it can turn the public against your enemies.”

Wiseguys are recruited from the ranks of workers at company meetings (typically compulsory meetings, by the way), and through door-to-door canvassers claiming environmentalists are responsible for unemployment.

Here you see a classic tactic of capitalists, turning the working class against itself when they should be fighting their common enemies, the capitalists themselves! News flash, folks — capitalists cause unemployment, environmentalists don’t!

What the wiseguys want was hammered out in their 1988 conference in Reno, Nevada, where they created a 25 point platform cementing their goal to destroy the environmental movement. Below are eight of their “lofty” goals:

  • “immediate development of the petroleum resources of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska”
  • opening “all public lands, including wilderness areas and national parks” to mineral and energy exploitation and to recreational vehicles
  • exempting from the Endangered Species Act any species whose protection would interfere with resource exploitation (buzzword for “capitalist profit”, I’d say)
  • opening 70 million acres of wilderness that is currently protected by the Wilderness Act to commercial exploitation
  • logging 3.4 million acres of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska
  • making enviromentalists pay industry back if they lose cases in court, as well as to pay for lost industry profits (this is the classic “big guy” versus “little guy” tactic, where the industry hopes to scare off potential suits because they know that while they have the money to fight a successful court battle, environmentalists don’t — it’s not unlike a wealthy incumbent’s campaign war chest scaring off would-be challengers)
  • giving anti-environmental groups the right to sue environmentalists on behalf of the industry (this is a real gem, where industry uses these goons as dupes to do their dirty work, while the industry keeps its nose clean — ever the capitalist way!)
  • implementing free-trade agreements (e.g., NAFTA and GATT) that will grant US industry access to natural resources (e.g., raw materials) globally

Looking at these, one wonders where the “Wise Use” comes in! Far from being populists, these wiseguys are snugly in the vest pockets of their capitalist employers. They are what you’d call “ruling class heroes,” I suppose, making the world safe for wealth, power, and privilege — and they even get paid for their effort!

ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

:}

More on this later but suffice it to say that couching all of the above in a religious certainty and finding proof of that in the Bible is just plain wrong. In fact it is what all the polluters want to happen. Ready made stooges.

:}

:}

Why The Automobile Is Stupid – It had to be invented in America

Posted on by
Reply

America is the home of instant gratification. There IS nothing more instant than the automobile and capitalism and nothing more American than the car. At no time in the history of humans have people been able to go some place distant at a whim. The Odyssey remains a famous work precisely because it takes Odysseus 10 years to get home and he never got out of the eastern Mediterranean. For a historical perspective it took mankind 50,000 years to get around the world. Yet I can just get in my car and for a few hundred dollars drive to California. How dumb is that…better yet how irresponsible? For that priviledge 32,000 people (roughly) a year die. That figure has not changed since 1962.

That is again roughly 1,536,000 people. That is more casualities then most major wars. Driving put the casual in casualities. Staggering numbers when compared to Vietnam, or Korea and especially compared to the various  incursions in the Arab or Persian Gulf (Iraq, Kuwait, and I include Afghanistan). So let me be clear, I hate the internal combustion engine and not just the one under your hood. But cars do not make any sense no matter what powers its drive train, whether its bio-diesel, electricity or water. It is a bad use of resources. If you need to cover long distances…take the damn bus. If you have to get to the store RIGHT NOW…take your bike. You want to go really really long distances…take the freakin train… But every last one of us having a 2000 lb. car (many weigh much more) that carries 50 lbs. of fuel (usually much more) and transports one 300 lb. human (usually much less) is just stupid. There really is no other way to characterize it dumb dumb dumb.

Please also do not misunderstand me. As long as people have traveled they have died in transit. Think the Titanic here, sometimes in spectacular numbers:

http://www.titanic-facts.com/

:}

But:

A traffic collision is when a road vehicle collides with another vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or geographical or architectural obstacle. Traffic collisions can result in injury, property damage, and death.

Terminology

Phrases commonly used to describe collisions include: auto accident, car accident, car crash, car smash, car wreck, motor vehicle accident (MVA), motor vehicle collision (MVC), personal injury collision (PIC), road accident, road traffic accident (RTA), road traffic collision (RTC), road traffic incident (RTI), smash-up and fender bender.

As the factors involved in collisions have become better understood, some organizations have begun to avoid the term “accident,” as the word suggests an unpreventable, unpredictable event and disregards the opportunity for the driver(s) involved to avoid the crash. Although auto collisions are rare in terms of the number of vehicles on the road and the distance they travel, addressing the contributing factors can reduce their likelihood. For example, proper signage can decrease driver error and thereby reduce crash frequency by a third or more.[1] That is why these organizations prefer the term “collision” rather than “accident”.

However, treating collisions as anything other than “accidents” has been criticized for holding back safety improvements, because a culture of blame may discourage the involved parties from fully disclosing the facts, and thus frustrate attempts to address the real root causes.[2]

Background

Road crashes causing death, injury, and damage have always happened since animals were domesticated. History tells people who were the victim of such incidents. Louis IV of France died in 954 after falling from his horse, as did at least two kings of England: William I (William the Conqueror) in 1087 and William III in 1702. Handel was seriously injured in a carriage crash in 1752.[3]

The British road engineer J. J. Leeming, compared the statistics for fatality rates in Great Britain, for transport-related incidents both before and after the introduction of the motor vehicle, for journeys, including those by water, which would now be undertaken by motor vehicle:[4] For the period 1863–1870 there were: 470 fatalities per million of population (76 on railways, 143 on roads, 251 on water); for the period 1891–1900 the corresponding figures were: 348 (63, 107, 178); for the period 1931–1938: 403 (22, 311, 70) and for the year 1963: 325 (10, 278, 37).[4] Leeming concluded that the data showed that “travel accidents may even have been more frequent a century ago than they are now, at least for men“.[4]

Irish scientist Mary Ward died on 31 August 1869 when she fell out of her cousins’ steam car and was run over. She is believed to have been the world’s first motor vehicle accident victim.

 

 

A truck crash.

In the United States the calculable costs of motor-vehicle crashes are wage and productivity losses, medical expenses, motor vehicle damage, employers’ uninsured costs, and administrative expenses. (See the definitions for a description of what is included in each component.) The costs of all these items for each death (not each fatal crash), injury (not each injury crash), and property damage crash was: Average Economic Cost per Death, Injury, or Crash, 2006: Nonfatal; Disabling Injury; $55,000; Property Damage Crash (including nondisabling injuries) $8,200; Death; $1,210,000; Expressed on a per death basis, the cost of all motor vehicle crashes—i.e. fatal, nonfatal injury, and property damage—was $5,800,000. This includes the cost of one death, 197 property damage crashes (including minor injuries, 54 nonfatal disabling injuries). This average may be used to estimate the motor vehicle crash costs for a state provided that there are at least 10 deaths and only one or two occurred in each fatal crash. If fewer than 10 deaths, estimate the costs of deaths, nonfatal disabling injuries, and property damage crashes separately.

Defined in sections 2.3.4 through 2.3.6 of the Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (7th Edition) ANSI Standard D16.1-2007 are defined by severity motor vehicle injuries Estimates are given here of the costs by severity of injuries. http://www2.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/estcost.htm

Road incidents result in the deaths of an estimated 1.2 million people worldwide each year, and injure about forty times this number (WHO, 2004).

:}

OR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_your_Car!

Divorce your Car! Ending the Love Affair with the Automobile (New Society Publishers, ISBN 0-86571-408-8), written by Katie Alvord and with a foreword by Stephanie Mills, proposes that automobiles have lost their value as a convenience and have become a hindrance, even an addiction. “Today’s relationship with the automobile inflicts upon us pollution, noise, congestion, sprawl, big expenses, injury, and even death. Yet we continue to live with cars at a growing cost to ourselves and the environment.” [1] There are several arguments for her thesis presented throughout the text as well as some suggestions for how to wean one’s self from automobiles.[2]

Reception

The book was well received by critics and has been hailed by environmentalists as a realistic description of the current situation in which we live. Alvord cites many sources throughout the text to back up her claims, however there have been complaints that some of them are biased, originating from sources with an apparent agenda, such as Asphalt Nation. Jay Walljasper of Utne Reader claims the book is “A clear-headed approach to reducing or even eliminating our dependence on cars, Divorce Your Car! [is] full of common sense and fresh insight.”

About the Author

Katie Alvord, born in northern California, is a freelance writer, environmentalist, and avid bicyclist. A graduate of the University of California at Davis and with a Master’s degree from the University of California at Berkeley, Alvord has worked with many non-profit agencies focused on environmental issues. She has had articles printed in such publications as E Magazine, Wild Earth, and The Urban Ecologist. In 1992 she received several awards, including the Clean Air Champion award, for her self documented experience of divorcing her car while living in a rural part of Sonoma County, California.[4]

[edit] Main Points

[edit] Supporting Arguments

In the book, Alvord states that air pollution from cars is damaging to the health of humans directly because of contaminants in pollution and indirectly through the destruction of the environment and contribution to global warming.[5] Oil spills, acid rain, and dirty rivers are some of the results of widespread use of cars, according to Alvord. The destruction from oil spills can wreak havoc on entire ecosystems.[6] In addition to the cost of the car, an owner can expect to pay much more in repairs and upkeep throughout the car’s life.[7] Additionally, tens of thousands of people die every year from car crashes, and hundreds of thousands are injured.[8]

[edit] Solutions

Alvord proposes that there are benefits to walking, cycling and using mass transit beyond saving the Earth, such as exercise, money conservation, and self reliance.[9] By modifying land use, financial policies, and urban infrastructure, efficiency can be increased world wide and society can learn to function without a car in every household.[10] With the advent of the Internet and decreasing phone prices, it is more efficient to work from home or video conference online in many circumstances, and just as effective. This not only reduces pollution but can save money for businesses.[

:}

Kathleen Parker Saying Stupid Things About Energy – So far this year I have had to write posts about

Posted on by
Reply

George Will and Walter Wolfman Williams because they weighed in on energy issues. George Will is a nonfiction baseball writer and Wolfman claims to be an economist, so neither one by definition knows anything about energy consumption except that they do a lot of it. But when Kathleen Parker weighs in on Cap and Trade the whole world must be …what waiting with baited breathe? I mean:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0720parkerjul20,0,3212727.column

Kathleen Parker

Bio

Kathleen Parker assesses the country’s mental health with a reporter’s gimlet eye combined with a sense of humor.

“My ambitious goal,” she says, “is to try to inject a little sanity into a world gone barking mad.”

She came to column-writing the old-fashioned way, working her way up journalism’s ladder from smaller papers to larger ones.

“I never set out to become a commentator – and do continue to resist the label ‘pundit’ – but I found that keeping my opinion out of my writing was impossible,” says Parker. “One can only stand watching from the sidelines for so long without finally having to say, ‘Um, excuse me, but you people are nuts.'”

Her writings in support of American troops, first-responders and other front-line participants in the war on terror were among the reasons The Week magazine named her as one of the country’s top five columnists in 2004 and 2005.

:}

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/biographies/kathleen-parker.html

Kathleen Parker

Kathleen Parker

» Columnist | Parker started her column in 1987 when she was a staff writer for The Orlando Sentinel. Her column was nationally syndicated in 1995 and she joined The Washington Post Writers Group in 2006. Along the way, she has contributed articles to The Weekly Standard, Time, Town & Country, Cosmopolitan and Fortune Small Business, and she serves on USA Today’s Board of Contributors and writes for that newspaper’s op-ed page. She is a regular guest on “The Chris Matthews Show” on NBC. Her book “Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care” was published in 2008 by Random House.

:}

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x1911310943/Kathleen-Parker-A-crude-reality-about-clean-energy-security

Kathleen Parker: A crude reality about clean energy, security

Washington Post Writers Group

Posted Aug 02, 2009 @ 11:31 PM

WASHINGTON — What’s in a name? A bit of deception when it comes to the American Clean Energy and Security Act.A more accurate title might be: the American Clean Energy and Less Security Act.To get to the bottom of what’s wrong with the 1,400-page energy bill passed by the House of Representatives, you have to dig deeper than Canada’s tar sands. And what you find there is just as sludgy — and taxing to process.Crudely refined: The greener we are, the less secure we’re likely to be.

Meaning, we either can be green or we can be less dependent on oil from terrorist-sponsoring states. But under the current energy bill, we can’t be both.

Put another way: The more we cap our carbon, the happier the Saudis are. That’s because most Middle Eastern crude is more easily accessible and requires less processing than what we and our friendlier neighbors can produce.

If you don’t know this, it’s because beer summits are more fun than math. Herewith, a short course for word people.

Basically, the energy bill focuses primarily on stationary sources of CO2 emissions (power and manufacturing plants) and would do little to address mobile sources of emissions, i.e. transportation.

Since virtually all U.S. stationary sources use domestic energy — coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, etc. — the energy bill would do almost nothing about reducing oil or gasoline imports. Foreign sources provide about 70 percent of the oil used in refining gasoline and diesel.

:}

I am not going to report anymore of this drivel than the allowed several paragraphs. If you want your intelligence insulted you can go read the rest of it.  First because she has heard it over and over from the military she believes that WHERE we get our energy from has anything to do with our national security. Because OPEC kicked our economic asses after the oil embargo in 1973-76 the myth has been propagated that our energy sources “hold us hostage”. Well if we had a diverse enough portfolio then that would never be true AND if we had moved away from the carbon economy back then we would not even be having this discussion.

There in lies (pun intended)  her second stupidity that is she fails to mention ANY alternative to Saudi Oil or the carbon economy. She does not take into account that OPEC oil only amounts to about 20% of our total imports. Canada, Venezuela and Nigeria along with Mexico  are our biggest oil partners. Nor does she take into account the alternatives to carbon (batteries) are well underway especially in the transportation sector where gasoline consumption will continue its decline for the foreseeable future until we use NONE at all.

But the biggest hugest irony is that “Cap and Trade” is a time tested Industry suggested method of modifying our emissions. It was used most notably in the 70s to get rid of or mute acid rain. It worked very well and only modestly contributed to the rise in electrical costs. The same can be expected in the carbon market. The fact is that we need to quit burning coal all together or we will burn ourselves out of house and home. She doesn’t even remotely address the issue of our using the atmosphere as an open sewer. Dumb da Dumb dumb…just the facts mam.

:}

Run Like Hell The Pollution In The Atmosphere Will Kill Us – But there is no place to run

Posted on by
Reply

and the people who are doing the pollution are lying to keep on doing it. As you know this week I have (it’s) been examining phrases with (jam) hell in them to avoid thinking about how (band) bad things are about to get here on Planet Earth. Now it appears that even if we stop today the oceans will continue to acidify for years (friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySO-gryuO-c) and that means a huge loss of food.

http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/Hellphrases.htm

Run like Hell seems to imply really really fast. Like you can run from hell? Or as the song says “get out of hell before they know you are there”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBcY9HGqehE&feature=related

But there is also something in the phrase that implies that you not look back,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntm1YfehK7U&feature=related

And you you do not stop running until you can run no more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRcQZ2tnWeg&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_Like_Hell

:}

Yet the Energy Industry continues to lie through its teeth about our real choices:

 http://www.alternet.org/water/141202/energy_industry_threatens_water_quality,_sways_congress_with_misleading_data/

Energy Industry Threatens Water Quality, Sways Congress With Misleading Data

By Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica. Posted July 9, 2009.

The industry is misleading the public into a false choice between the economy and the environment.

The two key arguments that the oil and gas industry is using to fight federal regulation of the natural gas drilling process called hydraulic fracturing — that the costs would cripple their business and that state regulations are already strong — are challenged by the same data and reports the industry is using to bolster its position.

One widely-referenced study (PDF) estimated that complying with regulations would cost the oil and gas industry more than $100,000 per gas well. But the figures are based on 10-year-old estimates and list expensive procedures that aren’t mentioned in the proposed regulations.

Another report (PDF) concluded that state regulations for drilling, including fracturing, “are adequately designed to directly protect water.” But the report reveals that only four states require regulatory approval before hydraulic fracturing begins. It also outlines how requirements for encasing wells in cement — a practice the author has said is critical to containing hydraulic fracturing fluids and protecting water — varies from state to state.

One recommendation in that report flies in face of industry’s assertion that its processes are safe: hydraulic fracturing needs more study and should be banned in certain cases near sensitive water supplies.

Hydraulic fracturing — where water and sand laced with chemicals is injected underground to break up rock — is considered essential to harvesting deeply buried gas reserves that some predict could meet U.S. demand for 116 years.

In 2005 hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act, based on assurances that the process was safe. But a series of ProPublica reports has identified a number of cases in which water has been contaminated in drilling areas across the country, and EPA scientists say they can’t fully investigate them because of the exemption.

Now, Congress is considering legislation to restore the Environmental Protection Agency’s oversight of the process. And industry — leveraging its money and political connections — is using the recent reports to fight back.

Since January at least five studies have been published making the case that state laws (PDF) are adequate and that new regulations could hamper exploration (PDF), raise fuel prices and eliminate jobs. Three of the studies were paid for by the Department of Energy and produced by consulting firms that also work with the industry. One of the DOE reports (PDF) was written by the same person who authored a study for the Independent Petroleum Association of America (PDF)

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx3DtXyEqrE

If you are in England you might want to give these folks a try:

http://www.souththamesgas.co.uk

http://www.allaspectsltd.co.uk/services/plumbing-services/

Dave Stern likes them.

:}

George Will And Robert Murray Defend The Carbon Economy With Lies

Posted on by
1

The State Journal Register is just the same old Republican Rag that wants to shine Big Coals boots to stay in business. They ran 3 Right Wing Pundits today and 2 of them Commented on the Green Economy. One who says it won’t work and the other who says that Cap and Trade will destroy the US Economy. The first one, George Will:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032402294.html

Who admits in the very article that the report he cites is the product of,  a right wing radical libertarian economist, was published by a right wing think tank that opposes any change in energy policy besides “Drill here, Drill now” and that has neither been replicated nor peer reviewed. BUT none the less it is TRUE to point out that Spain has an unemployment rate of 18% (which is disputed by many) and that every green electricity production job costs  700,000 to 1.5 million $$$ counting subsidies and green corruption.

The unemployment figures are probably 3 to 4 % lower then he reports and at 12-14 % where the United States will end up by September or October BECAUSE we are in the greatest economic downturn since the GREAT Depression (though no one can tell me what was so great about it) that was caused by rightwing attacks on our financial sector, our housing sector and on labor (car manufacturers). These are his wealthy buddies yah know. He then tosses off another “source”, a report by rightwing Missourian, Kitt Bond who may or may not know anything about economics which comes to a similar conclusion, “Oil good when cheap – Wind and Solar bad” and concludes that a failed policy in EDUCATION will have the same results in ENERGY policy. Did George have a cup of coffee today? It is always tough when your biases show like your butt crack.

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x998784623/George-Will-Reality-of-green-spending-not-promising 

George Will: Reality of green spending not promising

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER

Posted Jun 25, 2009 @ 12:02 AM

WASHINGTON — The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating “green jobs” in “alternative energy” even though Spain’s unemployment rate is 18.1 percent — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration’s green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.Calzada says Spain’s torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada’s report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies — wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital. (European media regularly report “eco-corruption” leaving a “footprint of sleaze” — gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain’s economy.:}

Normally I would not even dein this kind of obvious “paid to play” kind of Drivel, because if I wrote a blog for everytime George Will was wrong or lying I would never get anything done, but when the SJ-R follows that with an attack on Cap and Trade (the industries OWN proposed solution) written by known liar and coal mine owner Robert Murray that is just way over the line. Please note their web site:

http://www.murrayenergy.net/ 

These people are proud that they are longwall miners and mountain TOP destroyers and even ash producers. To wit:

Murray is the largest privately owned coal company in America
Murrary Energy CorporationProducing approximately 30 million annual tons of bituminous coal that provides affordable energy to households and businesses across the country. We have eight (8) underground and surface mining operations, plus 40 subsidiary and support companies. Transporting coal via truck, rail and waterways, we operate the second largest fleet of longwall mining units in the country. With a support team of 3,000 hard-working, dedicated, and talented employees in six (6) states, Murray Energy Corporation provides efficient, safe, and affordable high-quality coal to the country’s leading electric producers, domestically and abroad.

Energy, Efficiency, Effective leadership . . .
Celebrating 20 years of building America’s energy future, and utilizing the industry’s most modern mining technologies today to enhance safety, improve productivity and reduce costs. We credit our employees and talents of the team assembled to provide this reliable, low-cost energy source. Murray is transforming America’s most abundant natural energy resource into electricity, powering America’s future. Murray Energy’s team, from the CEO to the coal miner, along with their effective managers use state-of-art technology and engineering principles, all to the production of energy..

Commitment . . .
Is the driving force behind Murray Energy producing and delivering to get the most reliable and affordable energy supplied to our customers. From our leadership and management, to our workforce, commitment is the center of our focus to produce every ton of coal safely, efficiently, and to provide the most affordable energy for the benefit of all Americans and the Country

:}

And he says:

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x998784635/Robert-Murray-Waxman-Markey-bill-will-destroy-U-S-coal-industry

Robert Murray: Waxman-Markey bill will destroy U.S. coal industry

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER

Posted Jun 25, 2009 @ 12:04 AM

Perhaps the most destructive legislation in our country’s history will be voted on, maybe as soon as next week, in the U.S. House of Representatives — the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill. It is a misguided attempt to address climate change.It will have adverse and lingering consequences for every American.It will raise the cost of electricity in our homes, the fuel for our cars, and the energy that produces our manufacturing jobs, with little or no environmental benefit.Further, independent experts estimate that it will cost Americans more than $2 trillion in just over eight years. All Americans in the Midwest, South and Rocky Mountain regions will be drastically affected because the climate change legislation will destroy the nation’s coal industry and the low-cost electricity it has provided to these regions for generations. Wealth will be transferred away from almost every state to the West Coast and New England.The most abundant and by far least expensive energy source in our country for generating electricity is coal. America’s coal reserves rival the energy potential of Saudi Arabian oil.

:}

Nowhere does he cite actual sources or anything else. No one at the SJ-R calls him on it or points out that “Cap and Trade” was very effective at getting rid of sulfur dioxide.  If coal were not such a nasty energy source we would not be getting rid of it. WHAT doesn’t he understand about “Leave it in the ground”?

:}

Feds Credits To Trade In An Old Inefficient Car – It’s called the Clunker or the Gas Guzzler Bill

Posted on by
Reply

It is not law yet, but if it will become law and it looks like it will. Waiting to buy a new car until it passes could be well worth it. I say this because it is unclear whether you will be able to take advantage of both the Clunker Bill and the Tax Credit for buying specific cars. In other words if you trade in an old car (getting a government rebate) and buy a Prius (getting a Tax Credit) would both apply? If they would you could get like nearly 10K off the price of the car making Prius or any other hybred car affordable. Since it is a House of Reps. Bill on first read in the Senate I can not tell you what it will say in the end but as I say, first the Proposed Tax Credit.

Not there silly here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:9:./temp/~bdJxBz::|/bss/|

H.R.2751
Title: To accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles.
Sponsor: Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] (introduced 6/8/2009)      Cosponsors (59)
Related Bills: H.R.2640
Latest Major Action: 6/11/2009 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 74.

:}

Interpreted in a sick way here:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailout-watch-554-cash-for-clunkers-passes-house/

Bailout Watch 554: Cash For Clunkers Passes House

By Edward Niedermeyer
June 10, 2009

The House of Representatives has passed Rep Betty Sutton’s $4 billion scrappage scheme [download full text here], reports CNN Money. The bill now goes to the Senate. Under Sutton’s bill, clunkers with a combined 18 miles per gallon rating or worse would be eligible for a scrappage rebate. Purchasing new vehicle which exceeds its replacement’s rating by four miles per gallon would earn a $3,500 rebate. Improve the combined EPA average by 10 mpg and snag $4,500. Offer good for one year. Or until we tear through $4 billion in a wholesome, American display of redemptive consumption. I’m sorry, I mean “shore up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies . . . improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The [Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save] act demonstrates that we can free ourselves from the false argument of either you are for the environment or you are for jobs. You can do both, you must do both.” As the bill’s author modestly puts it.

CNN Money »

:}

I hate to be pessimistic but anytime you involve the Feds, the House and the Senate in legislation that directly effects, OIL, Gasoline and the Internal Combustion Engine, I think you have troubles ahead my friend. Here is a site that is very optomistic:

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=94525

A ‘Cash for Guzzlers’ website was launched to help keep consumers informed and aware about the pending approval of the Cash for Guzzlers bill. The measure, if approved by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama, would offer up to $4,500 in the form of a voucher for consumers who would trade in their old gas guzzler for a more fuel efficient car.

The new bill aims at improving environmental conditions by encouraging consumers driving old cars to trade in their vehicle for a voucher of up to $4,500 that can be used towards the purchase of a more fuel efficient vehicle. If passed, the new bill could lead to the purchase of over 1 million fuel efficient cars, a measure some say could help the US become less dependent on foreign oil. The bill is expected to be passed before Memorial Day weekend.

According to the proposal, consumers would get a $3,500 voucher if they trade in a car that gets less than 18 mpg for a new car with mileage of at least 22 mpg. Vouchers of $4,500 would be awarded if the new car gets at least 10 mpg more than the old.

More information for consumers is available at the recently established website for the Cash for Guzzlers bill, http://www.cashforguzzlers.net/

:}

This one kinda thinks NOT:

http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/44956957.html

Gas-guzzler voucher plan hits roadblock Calif. senator criticizes compromise for failure to boost fuel economy

By Kevin Freking
Associated Press

Published on Thursday, May 14, 2009

WASHINGTON: Legislation that would give car buyers a government voucher up to $4,500 when they trade in gas guzzlers hit a speed bump in the Senate amid concerns that a compromise between the White House and House Democrats doesn’t go far enough to protect the environment.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who authored the ”cash for clunkers” bill in the Senate, said Wednesday that she can’t support the compromise announced last week after House Democrats met with President Barack Obama on global warming.

”Essentially what it means is that perfectly good vehicles would be scrapped, so that vehicles with below average fuel economy could be purchased,” Feinstein said.

Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Copley Township, introduced the House version in March, reviving an effort that failed in Congress earlier this year.

The program is supposed to serve two purposes: Help the struggling automobile industry and the environment by replacing gas guzzlers with more fuel efficient autos.

:}

Stay tuned. It is going to be a long global warming summer.

:}

Race Between Gobal Warming And Peak Oil – Hilarious take on it

Posted on by
Reply

I rarely post on a weekend BUT I have been doing those dreary tax credits for the last week and I may have a week or more to go so for a day let’s do funny. Plus I never thought I would be linked to ESPN. Crikey.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4223932

The Ultimate Ultimate Race

by Luke Cypher

And that was great news for Peak Oil! With low, low prices, there’s no profit motive, which means no reason to explore for more oil, which means sooner or later, an inevitable demand spike will be met by crippling shortages, leading to the end of civilization!

But Global Warming wasn’t going to be outdone, and was actually more impressive, when you look inside the numbers, which is the way we live now. This winter may have seemed cold, if you were a fan of the Bowdoin Polar Bears or Plattsburgh State Cardinals — and really, what right-thinking American isn’t? But the average U.S. temperature from December through February was half a degree above normal! And don’t even start on Down Under, because that’s a lot of prepositions. The Wilkins Ice Shelf crumbled like A-Rod‘s reputation, and Australia contained its wildfires about as well as Roger Clemens put out his. To complete the bad metaphor fest (because, like celebrity deaths, they always seem to come in threes), Global Warming was en fuego!

;}

They have been having fun with it for a long time:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/package?id=3480595

;}

The Day After Memorial Day – In all fairness to the Energy Conglomerates

Posted on by
Reply

The US Military is the largest single user of carbon based energy in the World. When you toss in the other worlds militaries, if we just cut the militaries of the world to patrolling borders global warming would backup by decades. Not only that but the Energy Companies are pushed around by the military big time. No military and the pirates take tankers…No Iraq war no Iraqui oil…No defense against China they suck all the world’s resources up like a vacuum cleaner…Do I feel sorry for the Energy Companies or the Military? No they deserve each other I just don’t think we deserve them. GO AWAY.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925

I am not going to reprint the total article here…this guy did a lot of work on graphs and charts and things but it is interesting and he is not the only person to report on this. It is important to note that the Energy Bulletin has been adopted by the Post Carbon Institute (http://www.postcarbon.org/). Wonder when that happened?

Published May 20 2007 by Energy Bulletin
Archived May 21 2007

US military energy consumption- facts and figures

by Sohbet Karbuz

As the saying goes, facts are many but the truth is one. The truth is that the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the world. But as a wise man once said, don’t confuse facts with reality. The reality is that even U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not know precisely where and how much energy it consumes. This is my Fact Zero.

Below I give some facts and figures on U.S. military oil consumption based mostly on official statistics.[1] If you want to reproduce them make sure you read every footnote even if you need to put on your glasses. Also read the footnotes in this article.

FACT 1: The DoD’s total primary energy consumption in Fiscal Year 2006 was 1100 trillion Btu. It corresponds to only 1% of total energy consumption in USA. For those of you who think that this is not much then read the next sentence.

Nigeria, with a population of more than 140 million, consumes as much energy as the U.S. military.

The DoD per capita[2] energy consumption (524 trillion Btu) is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa.

Total final energy consumption (called site delivered energy by DoD) of the DoD was 844 trillion Btu in FY2006FACT 2: Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) sold $13 billion of energy to DoD services in FY2006. More than half of it was to Air Force.

FACT 3: Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD’s total site delivered energy consumption. Oil is followed by electricity (slightly more than 10%) and natural gas (nearly 10%). In terms of fuel types, jet fuel (JP-8)[3] accounts for more than 50% of total DoD energy consumption, and nearly 60% of its mobility[4] fuel.

FACT 4: Nearly three quarters of DoD site delivered energy is consumed by vehicles (or for mobility if you like). Only one quarter is consumed in buildings and facilities.[5]FACT 5: DoD consumed 97 million gasoline gallon equivalent in its non-tactical vehicles and for that it spent 238 million dollars.

FACT 6: In 2006, its oil consumption was down to 117 million barrels (or 320 thousand barrels per day),[10] despite increasing activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

FACT 7: In 2006, for example, DESC reports in its Factbook that it sold 131 million barrels of oil (or 358 kbd) to DoD but DoD Federal Energy Management Report states that DoD consumed 117 million barrels (or 320 kbd).[12]

FACT 8: According to 2007 CIA World Fact Book there are only 35 countries in the world consuming more oil than DoD.

FACT 9: There exist no official estimates. Let me know if you see or hear one. According to my most pessimist estimates it is about 150 thousand barrels per day FACT 10: Whatever the true figure oil consumed by the U.S. military does not show up in world oil demand. See for more explanation under item #425 in October 2004 issue of ASPO Newsletter.

:}

For more of this incredibly insightful and well written article please go to the above website and see it..Even the Military is aware that it is seen as a BIG FAT energy PIG, but it is also aware that NO OIL = NO WAR

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/addressing-the-militarys-energy-efficiency/

Addressing the Military’s Energy Inefficiency

By John Lorinc

 

Report

The folks who gave the world the Hummer, the poster child of fuel inefficiency, want to spawn a new generation of eco-friendly military equipment with cross-over potential in the “civilian sector,” say a group of retired American military officers who released a sharply worded report on Monday calling on the Department of Defense to reduce its “carbon bootprint.”

“The American military gave you the Humvee, and now we’re taking it back,” said retired Adm. John Nathman, the former vice chief of naval operations and an adviser to President Obama, in a conference call on Monday. “You’re going to see some fairly dramatic movement by the Department of Defense in terms of public visibility.”

The report, “Powering America’s Defense,” was published by CNA Analysis and Solutions, a research group based in Alexandria, Va., that issued a previous study on defense and energy security in 2007.

In the new study’s preface, 12 retired military officers lay out the case for weaning the military — and the country — off oil:

Many of our overseas deployments were de?ned, in part, by the strategic decision to ensure the free ?ow of oil, to the U.S. and to our allies. Many of the troops we commanded were aided by air cover from high-thrust delivery systems that only an energy-intense society can provide. Many of these same troops were often burdened and imperiled by battle?eld systems that were energy-inef?cient. Some of the attacks on our troops and on American civilians have been supported by funds from the sale of oil. Our nation’s energy choices have saved lives; they have also cost lives.

As we consider America’s current energy posture, we do so from a singular perspective: We gauge our energy choices solely by their impact on America’s national security. Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish us harm, and weakens our economy; our dependency and inef?cient use of oil also puts our troops at risk.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking minority member chairman Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, told The Associated Press that he strongly agreed “with the stark conclusions” of the report, whose authors point out that fluctuating oil prices, dependence on foreign resources and an ailing electricity grid imperil national security both at home and abroad.

“Climate change is a threat multiplier,” said Vice Adm. Dennis V. McGinn, a retired officer and former commander of the Third Fleet.

Defense officials have previously described the American military as likely the world’s largest consumer of petroleum products, with an annual outlay in excess of $13 billion.

Each $1 per barrel increase in oil prices translates into $130 million of extra cost.

Calls for the military to address its environmental performance are not new. But in the past year or so, energy efficiency seems have become more of a priority, from a new solar wall installation at Fort Drum to the purchase of a large electric vehicle fleet for military bases.

:}

After all is said and done, are we safer with all this energy consumption? I think not:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/19-9

Published on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 by Agence France Presse

US Energy Use a National Security Threat: Study

WASHINGTON – US dependence on fossil fuels and a vulnerable electric grid pose a perilous threat to the country’s national security, retired military officers warned Monday in a report.

The threat requires urgent action and the Defense Department should lead the way in transforming America’s energy use by aggressively pursuing efficiency measures and renewable sources, said the report by CNA, a nonprofit research group.

“Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish us harm, and weakens our economy,” it said.

“The market for fossil fuels will be shaped by finite supplies and increasing demand. Continuing our heavy reliance on these fuels is a security risk,” said the report titled “Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security.”

The authors, top ranked retired officers from the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, also point to the strained domestic electricity network as a possible hazard for US military bases.

“Our domestic electrical system is also a current and significant risk to our national security: many of our large military installations rely on power from a fragile electrical grid that is vulnerable to malicious attacks or interruptions caused by natural disasters,” it said.

:}

Memorial Day – How do the gasoline refiners celibrate our Veterans?

Posted on by
Reply

They raise prices. Yup that is right. If you want to go see the Wall or other war memorials on the DC Mall or even go to Arlington Cemetary…you are going to pay more at the pump. They do it every year and no one makes the connection. Soldiers die in energy wars like Iraq and WWII and then they charge loved ones for the honor of visiting their graves…Of course they do the same thing to Labor in the fall. They are equal opportunity thieves.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090522/pl_usnw/consumers_will_suffer_memorial_day_energy_price_hangover__says_consumer_watchdog

Consumers Will Suffer Memorial Day Energy-Price Hangover, Says Consumer Watchdog

To: NATIONAL EDITORS

Contact: Judy Dugan, +1-213-280-0175 (cell), Jamie Court, +1-310-392-0522 ext. 327, or Carmen Balber, +1-202-629-3043, all of Consumer Watchdog

‘Optimism’ Is Driving Energy Prices and Oil, Gas Prices Rise Steeply for Holiday, Despite Oversupply and Low Demand

WASHINGTON, May 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The price of regular gasoline at the pump has shot up 30 cents a gallon nationally in the last month and crude oil has nearly doubled, to $60 a barrel, since its low point in December, according to data from AAA and the federal Energy Information Administration. Steeply rising prices are tough on everyone except energy traders, said Consumer Watchdog.

“The price spike at the pump amounts to a holiday frat party for energy traders and oil companies, with drivers paying for the kegger,” said Judy Dugan, research director at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer Watchdog. “A one-month pump price increase of 15% can only undercut the rest of an economy struggling to show any sign of long-term recovery.”

Analysts cite optimism that U.S. motorists will drive a little more this Memorial Day weekend, expectations that the economic slump has hit bottom and, harking back to mid-2008, the possibility that Nigerian violence will cut oil output. There is very little hard evidence of increased demand, said Consumer Watchdog.

The record spike in oil and gasoline prices in late 2007 and the first half of 2008 helped send the U.S. and world economies over a cliff, said Consumer Watchdog. Even a smaller spike at this low point of job loss and financial fragility will hurt consumers, curbing more economically productive spending. Food prices are also rising in tandem with oil, though at a slower pace.

Find out more at

www.oilwatchdog.org

www.consumerwatchdog.org

SOURCE Consumer Watchdog

:}

There is not much you can do about it but some people are trying to fight back:

http://ase.org/content/news/detail/5597

Memorial Day Weekend, Summer Travelers Can Cut Gasoline Costs in Tough Economy with Drive $marter Challenge Interactive Website, Money-Saving Tips, Resources

For Further Information                                                             
Jessica Lin (202) 530-4346; jlin@ase.org
Rozanne Weissman (202) 530-2217; rweissman@ase.org

http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/default.aspx

Washington, D.C., May 2009 – With the Memorial Day holiday weekend and heavier summer driving season approaching, and with gasoline prices nowhere near last summer’s record highs, thoughts turn to weekend and vacation road trips as a great escape from economic reality.

The Alliance to Save Energy’s interactive Drive $marter Challenge fuel efficiency website provides vacationers and everyday drivers with hundreds of dollars of money-saving gas tips, resources, and myth busters that respond to the call of frugal drivers: Why pay more for gasoline than you have to, particularly in this economy?

Whether you are headed to the big city or the great outdoors or staying closer to home, you can start saving money on gas even before you are on the road with a little advance planning, basic maintenance, and your driving and other choices:

Planning your vacation:

  • Get a customized vacation map with low gas prices along the route. Getting lost while driving in unfamiliar areas could lead to an expensive waste of gas. Resources on the Drive $marter Challenge website (http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/money-saving-tips/fuel-efficient-resources.aspx) can help your family print a customized vacation map that highlights low-cost gas stations along your route. Choose the right vehicle.  If your family has more than one vehicle, drive the car that gets better gas mileage if possible.
  • Rise and shine!  When possible, drive during off-peak hours to reduce gas costs and stress by avoiding stop-and-go or bumper-to-bumper traffic conditions.
  • Investigate other travel options. Consider trains, buses, or public transportation to your vacation destination when possible.
  • Explore new ways to get around at your destination.  Find information on biking, public transportation routes, car sharing, walking, and renting hybrid or fuel-efficient vehicles on the Drive $marter Challenge websiteresources page at http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/money-saving-tips/fuel-efficient-resources.aspx .

Before you leave: maintenance tips

  • Inflate your tires.  Keeping your tires properly inflated improves gas mileage by around 3%.
  • Select the right oil.  Using the manufacturer’s recommended grade of motor oil improves gas mileage by 1 to 2%. Motor oil that says “Energy Conserving” on the API performance symbol contains friction-reducing additives. Change your oil as recommended to extend the life of your vehicle.
  • Tune up.  Fixing a car that is noticeably out of tune or has failed an emissions test can improve its gas mileage by an average of 4%.

On the road: driving tips

  • Decrease your speed.  Gas mileage usually decreases rapidly above 60 mph. Each five miles per hour over 60 mph is like paying an additional 20 cents or more per gallon for gas.
  • Drive sensibly.  Speeding, rapid acceleration (jackrabbit starts), and rapid braking can lower gas mileage by 33% at highway speeds.
  • Use cruise control and overdrive gear.  Cruise control cuts fuel consumption by maintaining a steady speed during highway driving.  Overdrive gear, when appropriate, reduces engine speed, saves gas, and reduces engine wear.
  • It’s a “drag.” Avoid carrying items on your vehicle’s roof. A loaded roof rack or carrier increases weight and aerodynamic drag, which can cut mileage by 5%. Place items inside the trunk when possible to improve fuel economy.
  • Turn down the air.  Operating the air conditioner on “Max” can reduce mpg by 5-25% compared to not using it.
  • Avoid idling, which gets 0 mpg. Cars with larger engines typically waste even more gas while idling than cars with smaller engines.
  • Navigate with a GPS system.  GPS systems can help you find your way and, increasingly, GPS programs can search for low-priced gas at nearby stations.
  • Fill up before returning rental. Rental car companies charge higher gas prices if you don’t fill up the tank before returning the vehicle. Keep your gas receipts in case the company requires receipts to remove a gas surcharge. 

The Drive $marter Challenge website, www.drivesmarterchallenge.org, has been updated with 2009 vehicle models and current campaign partners. The website calculator and all tips will be further updated May 19 with new projected gas prices for the yearThe Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of prominent business, government, environmental, and consumer leaders who promote the efficient and clean use of energy worldwide to benefit consumers, the environment, the economy, and national security.

:}

:}

Enbridge Energy And The Rape Of The Canadian Oil Sands – Damge that you can see from space

Posted on by
Reply

Why are these people?:

http://www.enbridge.com/

News Releases

04.29.2009

Enbridge Inc. Announces Change to Webcast Start Time for 2009 First Quarter Financial Results

more…

04.20.2009

Enbridge’s Hybrid Fuel Cell Power Plant Featured on Daily Planet and a Finalist in Green Toronto Awards

News Release (PDF – 69.0KB)

04.08.2009

Joint energy industry carbon dioxide storage project achieves key milestone

more…

04.03.2009

Enbridge Ontario Wind Power Turns on Green Energy in Kincardine

more…

04.02.2009

CCS proposals offer significant emission reductions

more…

04.01.2009

Enbridge Announces plans to hold Open Season for proposed LaCrosse Pipeline

:}

Doing this?

can1.jpg

www.solarnavigator.net

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=70fd4398-81ff-4f17-8ad4-d81e1abe8a46

 

Oilsands damage is ignored

In a province running out of conventional oil and gas, Alberta’s oilsands are seen as a lifeline that will guarantee the continuation of our comfortable energy-driven society.

By The Edmonton Journal          July 29, 2006

In a province running out of conventional oil and gas, Alberta’s oilsands are seen as a lifeline that will guarantee the continuation of our comfortable energy-driven society.

Too much of the time, people in this province don’t think about the cost of this gigantic oilsands development. It’s easy to do: most Albertans don’t live in, and rarely visit, the northern one-fifth of the province where the oilsands lie. What we don’t personally see or smell or taste, we tend to ignore.

The four-day series on the environmental impact of the oilsands boom written by Journal environment reporter Hanneke Brooymans, which started on Friday, is a valuable corrective to our neglect.

can.jpg

www.wellsphere.com

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/12/canadian_oil_at.php

Canadian Oil: At What Price?

by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 12. 9.05

Most of you are already aware of the damage caused by the burning and the extraction of oil (like the apprehended damage caused by extraction in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, for example). But what about the famous Canadian tar sands? After only two years of digging for bitumen near Fort McMurray in Alberta, Shell has already dug up a pit that is as much as three miles wide and 200 feet deep. 400-ton trucks, said to be the largest in the world, are used to move around all that dirt, and it takes a lot of it since on average 2 tons of tar sand are required to make 1 barrel of oil.

can2.jpg

www.ienearth.org

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/155046/Oil-sands-company-now-says-1606-ducks-diedhttp://www.responsibleminer.com/234/canadian-oil-sands-declared-more-environment-damage.html

Oil sands company now says 1,606 ducks died

04/01/2009 | 06:49 AMEDMONTON, Alberta — A Canadian oil sands company says more than three times as many ducks died last spring on a northern Alberta toxic waste pond than the 500 birds originally estimated.

Syncrude Canada chief executive Tom Katinas said Tuesday the carcasses of 1,606 ducks were collected from the toxic oily waters. The ponds contain waste from the process of separating oil from sand.

Katinas released the updated figure a week after an Alberta court granted the consortium three more months to enter a plea on federal and provincial wildlife charges. – AP

:}

Don’t Believe go look for yourself:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=canadian%20oil%20sands&gbv=2&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=il

:}

Why should we in Illinois care?

http://www.sj-r.com/news/x1092988725/Officials-lobby-for-oil-pipeline-project-might-start-in-early-summer

 

Officials lobby for oil pipeline; project might start in early summer

Environmental groups oppose last phase of Canadian-U.S. energy company’s plan

By TIM LANDIS (tim.landis@sj-r.com)

GateHouse News Service

Posted Apr 29, 2009 @ 12:06 AM

Last update Apr 29, 2009 @ 10:39 AM

SPRINGFIELD —

Construction of a major underground oil pipeline along the eastern edge of Sangamon County could begin as early as this summer.

An energy developer and the Canadian consul general from Chicago are in Springfield this week to seek support for the endeavor as a major boost for jobs and energy security, including a meeting scheduled today with Gov. Pat Quinn.

The first section of the nearly 3-year-old, $350 million construction project has been completed to an area about 50 miles northeast of Peoria.

But the final phase has run into opposition from environmental groups and some landowners, who say the pipeline would only encourage continued reliance on polluting petroleum products and would violate property rights.

“Canada has the second-largest reserves in the world. There’s 170 billion barrels of reserves, and 97 percent are in the oil sands,” said Don Thompson, president of The Oil Sands Developers Group.

:}