The Keystone Pipeline ruptured Wednesday night near a creek in northern Kansas, spilling what its operator, TC Energy, says is about 14,000 barrels of oil.
Tony, the spill is being covered, including by the NYT & WAPO. See HCR's NOTEs at the end of the Letter for news reports used for today's Letter.
The following are reports at the site of Keystone’s spill.
‘The Keystone pipeline spill in a creek running through rural pastureland in Washington County, Kansas, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) northwest of Kansas City, also was the biggest in the system’s history, according to U.S. Department of Transportation data.’
‘Environmentalists said the heavier tar sands oil is not only more toxic than lighter crude but can sink in water instead of floating on top. Bill Caram, executive director of the advocacy Pipeline Safety Trust, said cleanup even sometimes can include scrubbing individual rocks in a creek bed.’
“This is going to be months, maybe even years before we get the full handle on this disaster and know the extent of the damage and get it all cleaned up,” said Zack Pistora, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club at the Kansas Statehouse.'
‘The spill raised questions for environmentalists and safety advocates about whether TC Energy should keep a federal government permit that has allowed the pressure inside parts of its Keystone system — including the stretch through Kansas — to exceed the typical maximum permitted levels. With Congress facing a potential debate on reauthorizing regulatory programs, the chair of a House subcommittee on pipeline safety took note of the spill Friday.’ (CNBC)
‘Past Keystone spills have led to outages that lasted about two weeks, but this outage could possibly be longer because it involves a body of water, said analysts at RBC Capital Markets in a note to investors.’
‘Chris Pannbacker said the pipeline runs through her family's farm. She and her husband drove north of their farmhouse and across a bridge over Mill Creek.’
“We looked at it from both sides, and it was black on both sides,” said Pannbacker, a reporter for the Marysville Advocate newspaper.'
Junior Roop, the sexton of a cemetery near the spill site, said people could smell the oil in town.“
"It was about like driving by a refinery,” he said. (abcNEWS)
There is a sequence in the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still where Keanu Reeves, playing the alien is meeting with one of his own who has lived most of his life on Earth and in his report to Klaatu (Reeves) says: "The tragedy is, they know what's going to become of them. They sense it. But they can't seem to do anything about it."
This is but just one of many examples of this reality. It was always known that there will be leaks. It's a given. Running a pipeline filled with a substance toxic to life for thousands of miles over, under, lakes, rivers, streams and farmland over time Will result in tragedies like this. But, as was said in the fictional (but realistic) movie of others observing us, "(we) can't seem to do anything about it", esp when put up against the more sensible option of just "using less" or other equally preferable alternatives.
How we got here is a long, complex subject but, for those of you interested more in the role of capitalism, corporate greed and even academia in these issues from the viewpoint of a former member of the respected Rocky Mountain Institute this link is a 2021 paper with relevant issues to our current state. Those of you old enough, like me will remember it goes back to the 1970 "Crying Indian" ad to "Keep America Beautiful" (link below also)
I disagree with the movie quote. It's not that they CAN'T seem to do anything about the problem of climate change. It's that they WON'T do anything to change things because making significant changes would hurt somebody's bottom line. It's always about the money.
No, "can't" is correct. The people who care only about money are making it impossible for those who want the changes to make them happen. We already know that more than half the population knows they want change, but just like the cigarette companies before them, the oil companies don't want to cut off their cash cows before they grab up the alternatives and force those prices up, too. Just saying.
I will read those links. Thanks. But I already know a thing or two about humans' addiction to fossil fuel. It is not hard to understand, but there are many moving parts. Humans are no different than any other species in that we are opportunistic, and will do things (or not do other things) that benefit us directly. That along with genetic variation is how evolution works. We have reasoning brains that have over geologic time taken the place of instincts much more so than other species, but those brains remain hard wired to place importance on basic near term benefit. What we are not hard wired for is very long term benefit (like doing what is necessary to save our climate). It takes another kind of reasoning to accomplish that - something we need much more of. Add in greed, willful ignorance, lazy intellect (or just plain anti-intellectualism) which are stoked by those greedy leaders who wish to maximize power, and unfortunately are characteristics all too common in the human psyche, and the voices of reason from our scientific community get drowned out. It does not help that haphazard weather patterns can drown out the gradual climate trends that our scientists see, but most average people do not yet see. It also doesn't help that the phenomenon of climate change from increases in CO2 is such that we can go beyond the point of no return without realizing it, and once realized, mitigation cannot immediately reverse the effects. One must place some trust in warnings from science that this is true, for it is not taking place before our eyes (at least not obviously). Too many do not have that trust, especially when egged on by the denialist community (which includes BTW the entirety of the Republican Party). And it also is extremely unhelpful that our faith community has largely failed to place any importance on the issue - perhaps believing that God would never do that to us, or worse that climate change is nothing but what has been prophesized in Revelations or some other prediction of humankind's doom, and nothing can or should be done about it. And BTW - humankind's proclivity for believing in religious teachings in the absence of evidence is everywhere.
Fossil fuels are like a great big present to humanity. Oil and coal are energy packets ripe for the taking. Oil pumped out of the ground, or coal mined from deposits in the ground or in mountains give mankind the ability to release energy (and waste products that go with it) in a geological instant that has taken eons to lay down. No wonder the earth's atmosphere is going to react in surprising ways! That alone is a scary thought, unless you are of the belief that God has provided this to us. Big Oil has made alot of great things happen, and has raised the standard of living for millions of people. For quite a while now. Nobody, including climate activists, are happy to go backwards when it comes to those benefits. The difference is, some people recognize the long term costs of continuing on with fossil fuel burning (and they are very scary), and some other people either don't care because they will be dead before the worst of it comes, or just cannot fathom giving up some of the benefits of a fossil fuel burning society (not even a little) and welcome the words of denial and spin that are everywhere, spewed out by those who's interests get damaged by climate action.
"Oil pumped out of the ground, or coal mined from deposits in the ground or in mountains give mankind the ability to release energy (and waste products that go with it) in a geological instant that has taken eons to lay down. No wonder the earth's atmosphere is going to react in surprising ways!"
The hydrocarbons that we are able to recover make up a miniscule fraction of those laid down over the eons. The majority of hydrocarbons are not recoverable. Your imagery of pulling eons of carbon deposits into the atmosphere is patently false. It's a product of vivid imaginations, programmed by individuals seeking to skim a profit from the commodity.
The IPCC was not formed by the United Nations to prove or disprove that climate catastrophe is imminent. It's in their initial statement of formation. It was formed under the preconceived notion that that debate is over, and that we must take strong action to halt climate change. Al Gore claimed the debate is over as well. If that were the case, then why are so many research papers submitted to the IPCC still attempting to prove the preconceived notion?
The reason is that most real climate scientists themselves are not convinced that there is a crisis. They submit papers with caveats stating things like "the action of clouds cannot be modeled at this time". The caveats are ignored by the political appointees (in the summaries for policymakers) who are there to advise governments on how to deal with the preconceived notion. They are not there to debate whether the problem even exists.
The fact that the action of clouds is the most dominant cooling forces in our atmosphere either escapes the writers of the summaries for policymakers, or they are being intentionally deceptive. One or the other. I'm inclined to believe the latter for various reasons we can discuss.
The action of clouds (convection) is the most dominant cooling force in our atmosphere. Heat is carried aloft and radiated into space in the form of Infrared radiation. You can see an example of this radiance in Infrared imagery of a Hurricane. What you see is infrared energy being radiated into space. Climate models are not able to account for this, and that is the primary reason that the models have been wrong historically. The models predict ever rising temperatures, but the measurements have proven them wrong every time. The obvious reason is that the models are not accounting for a huge amount of energy being radiated into space.
The radiation from the top of the atmosphere is triggered by warming itself, and acts as a sort of thermostat moderating the temperature of the planet to a narrow range of extremes. Convection increases with warming, and decreases with cooling. Fortunately for us, that narrow range has been suitable for the evolution of all creatures on earth, including ourselves. In a sense, through natural selection, we are "designed" by the climate that exists on earth to be the way that we are. Same for all the other living things.
I don't even know where to start in a response except to say your statements seem to come straight out of a climate denialism website or something. I have seen such statements over the years, every one of them debunked by climate scientists who are actually experts.
"The hydrocarbons that we are able to recover make up a miniscule fraction of those laid down over the eons." Where did you get that????
"The IPCC was not formed by the United Nations to prove or disprove that climate catastrophe is imminent. It's in their initial statement of formation. It was formed under the preconceived notion that that debate is over, and that we must take strong action to halt climate change." That will be news to the scientists who contribute to the IPCC efforts. In fact, assessment of findings and claims is a big part of the IPCC. You sir appear to find fault with the IPCC because their assessments seem at odds with what you want to be true.
"....most real climate scientists themselves are not convinced that there is a crisis." Dude- that is just effin' laughable if it weren't so tragic. Where on earth did you find that gem? Do you actually believe it? It is the evidence itself that they are continuing to uncover and further understand that drives climate scientists to go to work every day. Your suggestion here is that there is some sort of skullduggery going on here. Patently false.
"The fact that the action of clouds is the most dominant cooling forces in our atmosphere either escapes the writers of the summaries for policymakers, or they are being intentionally deceptive." Again, where did you get this? I mean, just YESTERDAY alot of disturbing news came out from the climate science community that there is more evidence that as a whole, cloud cover and how it is affected by climate change is actually CONTRIBUTING to warming, not cooling. It is really bad news, but news none the less. For several years now, the notion that clouds are cooling us (as they always have), and therefore there is no global warming, has been steadily invalidated. Much as mankind would hope this to be true, it appears to not be so.
"In a sense, through natural selection, we are "designed" by the climate that exists on earth to be the way that we are. Same for all the other living things." Isn't that the point??? BTW, humans are singularly able to adapt to climate changes due to our ability to respond through reason (make appropriate clothing, move to other places, build more appropriate shelters, etc). Stuff the animal kingdom cannot do, except to evolve to handle it. And what we are doing to our climate is happening too quickly by several orders of magnitude for that evolution to occur. Hence the danger. It's going to upset the entire balance.
Look - I feel like I am trying to respond to a "Gish Gallop". I am not an expert, and neither are you. But I do read a good bit about the science, as you probably do. I also am a great believer in the scientific method as the prime force for moving humanity forward, a notion you in all likelihood do not share for some reason. For that is why, I believe, you refuse to acknowledge the consensus view of climate science. In a world where objective truth is harder and harder to recognize, due to advancements in communication, and due to the power of disinformation, I have chosen science (real science, not fringe science) to guide my understanding of the world. It is a pretty sure bet. You have chosen something different, along with way too many of your cohorts. You know - have you considered that maybe you are wrong? What if you are? And what if you win out, and nothing is done, and climate science is proved correct. Then, in all likelihood your grand children (and mine) will be doomed to live in a dystopian world of climate catastrophe. That outcome is not at all unlikely, much as I wish it were not so.
You can fetch for yourself if you care to learn. I can repeat all of your ad hominem attacks about you, but what's the point? Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
You will not change your mind, and I will not change the minds of the policymakers. I'm just here to state an opinion. You are free to agree or disagree, it make me no difference.
Your last question being "What if you are wrong" can also be placed right back in your lap.
The next major glacial advance could be beginning today, or last year, and we would not know it. If the cycles we see hold true, it can begin at any time in the next 10,000 years or so, including today, or last year. The drought of this summer, and the drying up of the Mississippi River could easily be the first sign of it.
Won't it be funny (or tragic) for our descendants to look back at the time we wasted trying to stop climate change, when in fact there is really no stopping climate from changing? If the planet is now descending into the next glacial advance, we will begin to see drier and colder conditions more and more often, until most of the moisture is locked up at the poles and what is not under ice is essentially desert except for a small band near the equator. That is the band of earth from which humans emerged during the current 20,000 year warm "vacation" from normal glacial domination. Humans and other animals will decline in population due to a lack of food. One can only wonder if our civilization will completely break down, and we will go back to beasts fighting for mere survival.
So if we do nothing, and simply make the most of the current climate "vacation" we will probably be doing the best thing we can do for ourselves, our planet and our descendants. We certainly should not be limiting the resources so desperately needed by so many people poorer than ourselves. Intentionally making fossil fuel more expensive in order to make weaker "alternatives" appear to be cheaper is hurting the poorest of the poor most of all.
Our children will look back on this age as one of selfish hubris, where people really were convinced that we could hold back climate change, and tried to do so at the expense of our most vulnerable brothers and sisters.
I will furnish you with one tidbit backing up my statement about IPCC scientists acknowledging the frailty of climate models. I will not do the rest of your work for you. It's up to you to learn or deny science. Science does not care how you feel about it.
The following quote expressly states that the models are still needing work to effectively model cloud feedbacks. It also states the most recent revisions have resulted in LESS positive feedback. If you can follow the Science article, and then read the paper in question (second link). You may understand better the importance of the error in climate models. Feel free to come back and comment further after reading the article and paper.
"Bretherton says more cloud-resolving models are on their way. "Within the next few years, we will have global models that will do what [Schneider's] does in a more defensible way." Bretherton is the midst of developing such a model himself, which also relies on eddy simulations to power its simulations. To his surprise, he added, initial runs seemed to suppress the warming feedbacks for these clouds more than expected."
"humankind's proclivity for believing in religious teachings in the absence of evidence is everywhere."
Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith. Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere near the point that it could not sustain humans. To the contrary, the Earth has tended to be much cooler than today for much longer periods of time. Glaciers covered New York City for over 200,000 years in the last glacial advance. The current melt began about 20,000 years ago, and is expected to only last only for a short while, perhaps if we are lucky another 10,000 years. The entirety of civilization has developed during the last 10,000 years of glacial retreat. Humans and other creatures have thrived during this warmer and moister climate "vacation".
You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science. It's understandable that politics would be involved if you assume that some regulatory steps must be taken, and that such steps would effect the rising of the oceans or the warming of the atmosphere. That makes perfect sense if you believe the premise.
Regardless of whether or not you buy the argument of human caused climate catastrophe, the actions being proposed will be harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable more than anyone. Making fossil fuel less affordable in order to make alternatives appear affordable makes everything, not just energy, more expensive for everyone. That in and of itself enriches the fossil fuel companies you seek to eliminate. It's a fools errand and does more harm than good.
"You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science." First, I object to your term "skepticism". Another standard trope from the world of climate denial. Skepticism, when used in scientific inquiry is a way of taking scientific findings to a high level, where it must pass muster among experts who have questions. Is the logic good? Where the experiments legit? Etc. But there is a point where legitimate skepticism ends and a consensus is reached. That has occurred for nearly all climate science today - did a long time ago. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Any contrarian views must now be subjected to "skepticism" from the scientific community. Including yours. See if it holds up. So far it has not. For the sake of the world, I hope such claims are right. But I think I know better. Follow the money. Second, I did not say that skepticism (I would correct that to say "contrarianism") is rooted in anti-intellectualism. It is a factor for sure, but I believe the real reason is greed and want of riches and power.
As for a discussion with you, I am not expert enough. And neither are you. And in the absence of true understanding, true expertise, it comes down to who do you trust. I trust climate science to reveal the true nature of what is happening to our atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning at a prodigious rate. You do not - you are on a different page. We are not going to get past that. So no thanks.
"Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith." False - it does not rely upon faith. It relies upon scientific study of climate history, and our increasing understanding of the mechanisms involved in such a possibility. BTW - are you an earth scientist, steeped in the research where such concerns are coming from? If so, please educate me.
"Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere near the point that it could not sustain humans." Go back far enough and most certainly the earth had an unsustainable climate. That aside, some form of human society can no doubt sustain nearly anything. So can cockroaches. The rest of our ecosystem as currently configured? Not so much. Look, Climate Science is not predicting a total Venusian meltdown - a range of scenarios are predicted and that range narrows the more the science advances. Inside that range however are scenarios where humankind sustains a shit ton of suffering. A world I don't want my progeny to live in and neither would you. Rising seas, failed ecosystems, mass extinction, flooded cities, mass migrations, ever increasing weather catastrophes, entire latitudes of earth largely unlivable (as some areas are already), more chance of world war likely nuclear, food shortages. Can humans live in it? Yes. Is the possibility worth just keepin' on keepin' on? I think not. It must be avoided.
"..the Earth has tended to be much cooler than today for much longer periods of time. Glaciers covered New York City for over 200,000 years in the last glacial advance. The current melt began about 20,000 years ago, and is expected to only last only for a short while, perhaps if we are lucky another 10,000 years. The entirety of civilization has developed during the last 10,000 years of glacial retreat. Humans and other creatures have thrived during this warmer and moister climate "vacation"." All true. However has nothing to do with current global warming trends, human caused. The point is that humankind's burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented in world history, except possibly ancient (millions upon millions of years ago) cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. Which by the way, strongly appear to have had significant and rapid climate effects. All that climate history you quote can be explained by astronomy and earth sciences, and has. We are in new territory with man-made global warming, which can trump the slow moving trends of the past, at least for the next few millenia.
"Regardless of whether or not you buy the argument of human caused climate catastrophe, the actions being proposed will be harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable more than anyone. " And that, for all reading this response, is one of the biggest excuses for doing nothing, presented by the climate denial community. Taken straight out of the Competitive Enterprise Institute playbook.
On the contrary, the effects of climate change will be (and currently is already) felt the most by the poor and vulnerable among us. Furthermore, this move away from fossil fuels can be done in such a way as to minimize human impacts. It is so very very unfortunate that this "gift" of oil in the ground, which is making life easier for (presumably) all of humanity, is in actuality, with the rate we are burning it, leading humanity to doom. But that is the case. Therefore, despite this claim, humanity must seek an alternate course, and soon. In the long run, the poor and vulnerable among us will benefit as well as all of humanity.
What we have here is a textbook example of a climate denialist. none of my arguments will have any effect at all, no matter how well supported by the science.
Look in the mirror "GandalfGrey" - who do you really stand for? The science is clear, and getting clearer. The motivations of the big oil companies is as clear as abell, especially with the revelations piling up WRT the decisions made in boardrooms. They have placed their profits over the fate of the world, and will continue to do so if not stopped. What is your motivation for continuing to deny it, at our peril? I'd really like to know.
You have already claimed that you are not qualified to discuss climate science. How then can you claim to know who is qualified?
"The point is that humankind's burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented in world history, except possibly ancient (millions upon millions of years ago) cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. Which by the way, strongly appear to have had significant and rapid climate effects."
Volcanic eruptions tend to cool the atmosphere by blocking sunlight from reaching the surface. They also emit huge amounts of CO2, which if the climate change theory held water, should have caused warming once the haze cleared. That has not been the case. Most volcanic eruptions cause very rapid but short term climate effects and the climate quickly recovers to normal. It's water vapor and convection that are the primary drivers, and this action quickly corrects the short term temperature imbalance.
You may ask: "Why would the planet have a certain balanced range of temperature?" The reason is complex, but it has to do with our proximity to the sun, the total surface area of the planet, the density of the atmosphere and surface pressure (determined by mass of planet and volume of atmosphere).
A black body when warmed tends to radiate more heat than when it was cooler. How rapidly it radiates depends upon the surface area of the black body. The biggest factor which maintains a steady range of temperature on Earth, and not on Venus for example, is water vapor in the atmosphere. This is one reason that scientists look for solid, liquid and gaseous water when searching for distant planets which may inhabit life. The planet has to be the correct size, the correct distance from a star, and it must have water in three phases, solid, liquid and gas. The water is a transport mechanism for heat. When it is gaseous, it absorbs Infrared radiation coming from the ground like a blanket. Unlike a blanket though, it has many holes where convection carries the heat aloft and radiates it into space.
When you hear a climate scientist say that the "greenhouse gases" act like a blanket or greenhouse, they are giving you a climate change sales pitch. They know most people are ignorant enough to but the blanket image. Most climate scientists would never describe the atmosphere as a blanket or greenhouse. Neither has any opening for convection because they are designed to keep heat inside. The atmosphere is not like either one of them. It constantly circulates from low altitude to high altitude, carrying heat with it to be radiated into space. That action is what the climate models cannot adequately model. The modelers all admit this in the fine print.
Interestingly, what is not known at all, is why we have this odd cycle of 20,000 years of warming, then 200,000 years of deep glaciation. No one knows what triggers either change, but this fairly regular cycle is observed in the geologic record. We are nearing the end of this warm cycle as we speak.
What will happen to civilization in the next deep glaciation no one can predict. Certainly our population will have to decline. The habitable zone will be dramatically decreased. Our energy needs will rise, because it's much harder to survive severe cold than severe heat. Food will become an issue.
If you still don't get the point about enjoying these favorable conditions while we have them, then I have little sympathy for you, and neither does science. It does not care one iota about how you feel. It will go on, we may not. In fact, most assuredly the sun will engulf the earth one day and humankind will cease to exist.
Make the best of the time you have, earth will be here long after we are gone. Enjoy the gifts she provides while you are here.
Thank you for the link, BK...the struggle for balance in our moral accountability on and with this planet is a constant but necessary one.
Those of us who ignore it must MUST learn to step back from capitalism's bulldozers and take in the gifts of beauty and nature's home before it is totally destroyed 🌿
Thank you, I didn’t express myself very well. What I meant to comment was that the reports I’d read in the news didn’t contain the deeper context that HCR provided. 😺
Thank you, Tony. One or two articles that I read did provide a worthwhile context. I agree that HCR's decision to make the pipeline spill the subject of the Letter given that life on the planet and the planet itself are endangered as result of the manner in which capitalism has been practiced, its pivotal connection to the fossil fuel sector, what has been ingrained human practice...It's our MAJOR!
I grew up in MI so I often find myself interested in all things MI. There is a pipe line that runs along the Mackanaw Bridge. There is a group I write letter for sometimes but I can not make to protests or committee meetings as I live in CA. The group is: oilandwaterdontmix.org There is a new proposed tunnel to run under the lakes, yikes. After the Kalamazoo River accident you would think one would question why ever endanger The Great Lakes.
Yes. Thanks for writing the letters and supporting Oil and Water Don't Mix!!! Enbridge has conned folks in the U.P. into believing that without Line 5 they will freeze to death when most of the natural gas in the pipeline goes from Canada, across the north part of the state and eventually back to Canada in the east. Two of my friends lives closest to where the pipe enters Lake Michigan at St. Ignace and have been very politically active. Scary stories they tell of anchor strilkes from big steamers. And yes. after the Kalamazoo spill you'd think we Michiganders would have more sayso, but Big Oil bought our seditionist U.S. Representative, Jack Bergman, his seat (he actually lives in Louisiana). We fought hard to get the fabulous Democrat, Dr. Bob Lorinser from Marquette, elected in his place, but couldn't compete with the lying campaign commercials Big Oil bought for him. Not giving up though! Thanks for your support!!
Totally agree - although that often is “preaching to the choir”. These letters should be syndicated to every major city newspaper particularly in the red states and required reading for Congress. But, education is clearly not in the best interest of the republicans! I remember when Paul Ryan spoke those words and it was abundantly clear the republicans had and have a total lack of understanding of climate change, the rights of Indigenous people, economic realities (alternative energy sources are huge job creators). Their sole end game is power with the ugliest of overtones and consequences.
Perhaps naive of me, but I have often wondered why these wonderful letters and rich commentary are not distributed in
frequent syndicated columns in the major news outlets. Seems to me that this historian would be a terrific author/advisor to some contemporary version of "The Fireside Chats".
I used to write many letters to the editor every day when I was engaged in activism about 10 years ago. What I've long suspected is that letters like mine that did not reflect the newspaper's editorial policies weren't published.
My prolific Op-Ed letter writing in the 1980s & '90s frequently got published in the Gainesville Sun FL, Miami News (while it lasted) & Miami Herald (less frequently in that stodgy rag). Of course the free weeklies and college aimed papers were my forte, Preaching to the Choir on local issues.
And it won’t be. Mary Pipher( author) wrote a fabulous book “The Green Boat” . This is a description of the fight Nebraska organized to keep TC pipeline out of their state in order to protect the “Sandhills “ against major pollution of their ground water.
An important read for those who understand that “big oil” doesn’t care about the damage done by their industry.
As Mary Pipher points out... this will only change with grassroots organizing. Big industry needs to be stood up to.
A while ago I lived in the NW. Protestors there managed a colorful and very dramatic demonstration against Shell Oil which was attempting to open digging in the Arctic circle. The demonstrators lower themselves and long banners from a high bridge so that they dangled just above the rigs setting sail for Alaska. Shell quit.
Yes, Tony, it should be on the front page and the entire front page of the NYT & WAPO, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they 'ain't a gonna do it.' They are both corporate owned media.
"...the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released documents from executives at major oil companies revealing that they recognize that their products are creating a climate emergency but that they have no real plans for changing course."
The oil companies and the executives who run them will be remembered as killers — of untold millions of people, countless animal species, and perhaps one day the Earth itself. And for what? Money, of course. It's their god. And their dollars feed Republicans in Congress, who eagerly lap up what their masters serve them.
Loosely regulated capitalism is a doomsday machine.
Thank you, Heather. I don’t know how I missed the news about the Keystone Pipeline rupture, but I did, and you did not. Thank you for clarifying the distinction between Keystone, XL, and DAP. 
Michael, that was the sentence that leapt out at me too! It’s sickening, no? “No real plans for changing course” and making sure the Earth does disappear, us and everything else along with it. We are facing doomsday, as you note. I wonder where they think they are going to spend all that money? Such a depressing way to begin this week. Have a good one, anyway.
But, who DOES have a real plan for changing course? Do you plan to drive your car today Elisabeth? Do you plan to drive tomorrow as well? The day after?
See the conundrum Elsabeth?? As long as YOU need to drive you car, the oil companies need to provide you with fuel. Correct?
Otherwise, Elisabeth, you will starve to death. No lie.
Imagine if the oil companies closed up shop and walked away TODAY to "save the planet"??
Three, maybe four weeks from now your neighborhood would smell awful. Dead, starved bodies everywhere. Because, the Trucks and Trains that bring food to your store?
They would stop running Elisabeth. Even if you can walk to your grocery store it would not matter.
So, OF COURSE the oil companies don't have a plan to change.
As Americans.. we must DEMAN public transportation using non-petroleum or coal energy options. Where I live in Texas, there aren’t even bike paths let alone busses or trains. I have no option to walk to a grocery store or any kind of store. Also .. I live in a subdivision and can’t have a horse here. We need public transportation, nationally.
Your observation is taken by me not as a criticism of Elisabeth (us), but to make the point that things don't change unless there is a desire down the consumption line. I observe that we make our choices, our plans, more from the options actually presented to us by the entities (policy makers, industries, scientists do development, those selling products) that are engaged in providing us a needed resource. Because the energy sector has resources to design the alternatives, I feel justified in calling them out and expecting them to make plans for switching to energy sources that don't cripple the world or result in the scenarios you suggest. Maybe, our part in demanding the alternatives is underplayed because our expectations for change are too low or simply we too readily settle for choices between the brands of beer available at the local Quick Trip.
I have been listening to the same logic for 50 years. Meanwhile, the earth is on fire. Like a frog being boiled in a pot of water. Enough is enough...then belittle a child that is trying to change. Boil away
Fred. Excellent response and thank you. No. I was not criticizing anyone. But. I was criticizing everyone.
Your argument that we are subject to big oil and so we drive sort of works. But. When the first car was invented it was universally viewed as a Godsend.
Speaking of conundrums, how and why are fossil fuel products like gasoline and diesel priced so low in comparison to their real costs? Elizabeth doesn’t pay the lobbyists and donate millions to API and other fossil fuel PACs. Methinks you are blaming the wrong people. If Elizabeth grew up and lived in a world where those socialized costs were borne directly by the producers and consumers of fossil fuels we would be living in a safer and more sustainable world today. It is not impossible but there are greed driven forces that make it very difficult. There are reasonable enough solutions to all of your above horrors intended only to frighten.
What about the 120,000 abandoned oil wells in the USA that need to be properly decommissioned? Some of those leak a lot of methane into the air. Other marginal and end-of-life wells are sold off to paper entities without assets to offload the potential financial risk from large companies.
We do need energy and it is clear that fossil fuels bootstrapped us to the life and longevity we enjoy today, but it’s not a free lunch.
Instead of looking early, as we had the perfect in fossil fuels, innovation concentrated on exploiting that resource rather than (except with some exceptions like nuclear) looking to potentially viable new sources. Difficult to replace the viable, the marketable, with something farfetched, like ... well electric or wind when it's easier to be creative, rather than inventive, with the resource or medical practice or drug or food source like beef for a sustainable solution to need we are familiar with. There is need to turn our collective minds and attitudes and probably value criteria 30° if we are to get out of most the messes of legacy solutions.
Yes, we must reduce dependence on oil as fast as possible, but there is no way to do it instantly. There has to be a transition period else millions of people dependent on that source of energy will die. Your asking oil companies to "just stop" producing oil and convert themselves into green energy companies overnight using technologies that are great and improving but not yet profitable. In other words, your asking them to commit suicide.
I really don't think you understand the scale of the challenge. Your heart is in the right place on caring for the planet and the life that dependsonit, but it's been emotionally hijacked.
Although nobody wants to say it, the only real solution to the "climate emergency" is dramatic, fantastical reduction of the human population.
Because, no matter WHAT we use to power ourselves to the grocery stores and no matter what the trains/trucks use to bring food to your grocery store and no matter what tractors use to plow the fields?
The fact is, the processes of keeping 8 Billion people alive on this earth are killing the planet. IF the human population is not substantially reduced, I mean, "A LOT" as Trump might say, then, our environment will continue to be destroyed. Not even slowly.
Have you seen a Nickel mining operation?? (Nickel is key to Lithium batteries).
Have you seen Lithium mining operations? (Lithium is key to the EV transition)
EV is not ECO friendly. That is not true. Transitioning to EV? That will present other problems.
Humans need to recognize the ROOT CAUSE of the destruction of our ecosphere.
Mike, when one country with a fraction of the world's population can use natural resources at a level that exceeds that of most of the rest of the people on earth, your statement sounds pretty hollow. The US alone has contributed the bulk of what is already causing climate change that impacts most of all the people who had literally nothing to do with it but who are paying the price for our actions. I agree that EVs are not a solution: it is merely a way for people to avoid making real changes in how they live. In Greta's memorable words, it is all blah blah blah. And so is your claim that the problem is too many people. The actual problem is culture of people who do not want to give up their entitlements.
Is it not a matter of both? There are thresholds of unsuitability and both the number and size of the footprints contribute to total impact. Both the number and size of dried beans limit how many you can force into a jar.
Please keep our transportation history in mind. By the time automobiles became widely available large cities were drowning in horse manure.
The public transportation system built around trolleys and commuter rail was undone by auto manufactures and tax dollars spent on roads. That we did not evolve more available, convenient, and flexible public transport was obviously a missed opportunity in hindsight. However, the fact remains that creating those systems that could compete with consumers’ desires that automobiles fulfilled were and would be very expensive.
I’m not clear about what you consider an “entitlement.” Healthcare including pharmaceuticals, safe and plentiful food, robust education options, social/economic mobility — these things are possible only due to abundant energy resources. We won’t willingly go back to a largely agrarian lifestyle.
Breaking the plutocratic political roadblock to high speed rail would be a step in the right direction. Total travel time between some major US cities would be reduced compared to air by fast rail. Poor, unreliable Amtrak takes a backseat to freight. I got around urban and rural Japan with ease on a variety of trains, so it is not a pipedream. Modern Republicanism puts corporate profits first and public (including environmental) interests last.
Oil certainly allowed the development of industrial level farming- which is actually one of the most energy intensive and inefficient forms of farming. I follow developments in farming closely (habit left over from my professional life), and it is encouraging that the trend is toward small farms using sustainable practices. Possible even with grain: there are a number of small grain growers in my state, and this trend is not unusual. Even larger grain farmers have swung to the same lower-input methods. All in all, higher productivity, and lower costs. Add in the increasing growth of alternative methods of delivery to consumers. We are reversing the Earl Butz approach to farming (he was the worst thing that ever happened to American farming, and by extension, destroyed traditional and efficient ways of food production all over the world).
BTW, I would posit that the promotion of industrial farming was a factor in forcing people to move to cities, among other factors. Now there are programs to enable young people who want to farm to have access to farms and markets. Including within cities, as used to be the case.
Thanks for bringing that up. I read about that the other day and eager to learn more- can't remember details now, except that it is cheaper, does not require mining, and could be readily available. Still in R&D, but promising. I still think EVs are not best use for this, but wouldn't it be great for community self-reliance, and for powering long-range public transportation?
AND new News on Hydrogen Cells for vehicles, planes, etc. 3 breakthroughs reported in 1 week. Breaking H out of a supply of ammonia (NH3) is the one I remember.
You are certainly correct that our environmental sustainability problems are ultimately a knock on effect of overpopulation, although the earth can sustain far more environmentally frugal people than profligate ones. Right now our "only corporate social responsibility a company has is to maximize its profits" orientation of priorities is exacerbating our impact. Yes, we will not get through this without talking about and doing something about moderating population, voluntarily, despotically, and/or catastrophically. The population crash cycles we observe in other species certainly apply to us, and our technology can exacerbate the scale, and is doing so, although we don't call it that.
There is a known way that is very effective when applied. It is used now, but requires a rethinking of how we approach economic development. Too often, our projects end up increasing wealth gap and leaving the less well-off even less well-off - and leaving women in the dust.
But time and again it has been shown that by increasing the well-being of women, and by extension, their families, that birth rates go down, and the local economy improves. The community begins to prosper in local terms, and this has a propagating effect in the culture as women become an active part of it. Perhaps we need to stop thinking in terms of western historical patterns, and take a look at supporting local processes. In many traditional cultures, women played not only a respected economic role, but were also an integral part of the decision-making process.
When Euros came in, they replaced that with the assumption that only men could be economic and political leaders, and destabilized many cultures. We should still provide ecoomic support, especially to cultures now in distress, but we also can direct it to those most likely to be in a position to change the direction of that culture so that it accommodates their needs. Women.
There are traditional cultures right now who are taking the initiative to prepare their communities for climate change. We are starting to learn from them. When we learn how to become indigenous, we will be able to make more rational decisions about how to use the technologies we develop. A different kind of future is possible-- if we are willing to find the ways that lead to it.
Yeah, whatever happened to ZPG in the 1970s? What a sound idea.
I look at the earth fotos from space at nite and think of a petri dish with a fungus spore, ever spreading, consuming the gel until it reaches the edge of the dish, then starts dying from its own waste, all that remains.
Look at that foto of the East Coast of the U.S. or Europe and see the spores growing into each other, consuming all the space.
But before we consume all of the space we will damage or destroy habitability. But yes, the same principle. Yeast dies in a wine barrel when it changes it's environment too much to be sustainable.
As a lifelong environmental activist who has spent the better part of the last 40 years working on energy policy, I must gently protest your comment, Jerry and offer a little context.
You are correct in saying we cannot convert instantly. The problem is and always has been that the federal government provides incentives to oil, gas and coal - much out of proportion to the meager incentives that are sometimes available and sometimes cancelled for wind, solar and geothermal. Oil companies have one of the best funded and most effective lobbies in D.C. and have buried policy that favors renewables so often I no longer keep track. I just continue to work on climate.
We have no oil or coal resources here in MN where I live. But. We have solar resources as good as Houston, TX and wind resources second to none on the planet. Read that again. In order for Minnesota's economy, one of the best in the nation throughout my nearly 70 years on this planet, we require energy to power it and have tried, repeatedly, to create policies that FAVOR renewables in order for wind and solar developers to be able to compete with the tax breaks the federal government continues to provide oil, gas and coal.
In 2007, we passed one of the strongest Renewable Energy Standards in the country (yes, California, as usual, was ahead of us, smart folks that they are.) North Dakota, which has both oil and coal, sued Minnesota under Interstate Commerce laws to force Minnesota legislators to reduce the incentives for renewables and continue to allow MN utilities unfettered access to ND oil and coal. Fortunately, the lawsuit failed and the RES was implemented.
The original RES goal was 20% of energy would be from renewable sources by 2020. Our biggest utility exceeded that goal by 2012 - within just five years! Not instant but about as quick a transition as could be built out, given the transmission issues with distributed energy sources such as wind turbines and solar roofs/fields (vs. a single power plant.)
I understand and respect the dangers of loss of electricity better than most - the Polar Vortex that took down the Texas grid hit us first and way harder. It was -18 below in my back yard the first morning. But because this is MN, because we understand and live through brutal winter weather often, no one here lost power. We are built to federal standards, MISO regulated transmission build outs and maintenance, wind turbines built to withstand ice storms and 80 mile per hour devastating north winds. Texas does not build or maintain to federal standards - and how many died because of that greed and hubris? Hundreds - the most vulnerable among us.
We have long had the technology and ability to build a robust renewable energy grid in this country. But oil company execs - and power company execs, who have long known about the dangers of the now emergency climate crisis, favored profits over anything else. Time to call bullshit on greed.
The theory of the "greenhouse effect" was postulated in the 1860's by Irish physicist John Tyndall. We've had more than 160 years to work on this. I'm not certain we have another 160 years to fix what we've broken. So you'll have to forgive me for being over-the-top emotional at the rates of extinction, loss of habitat, loss of arable land for food production and continually watching crises like Yemen's famine and the floods that covered more than one third of Pakistan earlier this year in standing water. Not getting emotional and acting as if this is an emergency is suicide in my opinion - but a pretty damn well informed one.
So much I didn't know here (like about ND suing MN -- with the current SCOTUS I'm afraid they would have won) -- thank you, thank you!
Last year, a project I was working on took me back to the late 1970s, especially the time around the Three Mile Island accident. I was a politically engaged adult at the time (in my mid/late 20s), but I was startled by how much information about climate change and the hazards of fossil fuels as well as nuclear power was in the popular press. We knew, goddammit, we knew -- and then the Reagan administration and its successors (look at where the Bushes came from!) pretty much shut it down. So it seems in retrospect, at least. We have lost so much time.
The "Reagan Revolution" was the political weaponization of media and the triumph of quasi-feudalistic plutocracy. Both Carter and even corrupt Nixon were environmentally oriented. Nixon established the EPA and Carter the Dept. of Energy, which Republicans since Reagan have decried and vowed to dismantle. Nixon was the last environmentally concerned Republican president:
"I hope the automobile industry's present determined effort to make the internal combustion engine sufficiently pollution-free succeeds. But if it does not, then unless motor vehicles with an alternative, low-pollution power source are available, vehicle-caused pollution will once again begin an inexorable increase... I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered, virtually pollution free automobile within five years." -Nixon
"Therefore, I urge again that the energy measures that I have proposed be made the first priority of this session of the Congress. These measures will require the oil companies and other energy producers to provide the public with the necessary information on their supplies. They will prevent the injustice of windfall profits for a few as a result of the sacrifices of the millions of Americans. " -Also Nixon. A Republican?!!
Dr. Frank C. Baxter: "Even now, man may be unwittingly changing the worlds climate through the waste products of his civilization. Due to our release through factories and automobiles every year of more than 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide, which helps air absorb heat from the sun, our atmosphere seems to be getting warmer."
Richard Carlson: "This is bad?"
Dr. Frank C. Baxter: "Well, it's been calculated a few degrees rise in the earths temperature would melt the polar ice caps. And if this happens, an inland sea would fill a good portion of the Mississippi valley. Tourists in glass bottom boats would be viewing the drowned towers of Miami through 150 feet of tropical water. For in weather, were not only dealing with forces of a far greater variety than even the atomic physicist encounters, but with life itself."
"Oil companies have one of the best funded and most effective lobbies in D.C. and have buried policy that favors renewables so often I no longer keep track."
My mainstream news sources regularly report that popular initiatives are blocked by one or another "powerful lobby". They also speak of lobbies writing legislation that legislators dutifully pass, all implicitly normal and acceptable, like the sun in the morning and the moon at night. But if we actually believe in governance of, by and for the people, are not we speaking here of industrial scale corruption? Are not these interventions patently anti-democratic? Patently a betrayal of the common good? If I want to write my legislators, they want me to tick off an "issue". Why is this not even an "issue"?
"Texas does not build or maintain to federal standards - and how many died because of that greed and hubris? Hundreds - the most vulnerable among us."
When we vote or not vote, we are not just expressing a personal opinion (the side of voting that public interest announcements seem to emphasize, our share of choice, but also managing our inherent share of democratic responsibility for outcomes, not only for ourselves, but for the whole society, and increasingly, the whole planet. Our selfish, or careless choices always seem to impact the already unjustly deprived the hardest. Responsible politics is not a narcissistic, competitive sport, it is about charting survival, fulfillment, and maximizing decency within our societies, ourselves included. The pages of history are filled with ugly scenes of what happens when it's not the latter. We become our species' own worst enemy.
I may be simplifying things a bit, but there's a big hulking power out there for which there are virtually no checks and balances in the Constitution: corporate and financial power. The Reagan administration managed to dismantle most of the checks put in place during and after the New Deal, and the SCOTUS has demolished most of the rest, while gutting access to the ballot in their spare time. And, as HCR points out from time to time, as soon as the subject of regulation comes up, Certain Interests are quick to cry "Socialism! Un-American! Stifling competition!" They're the ones stifling competition, but never mind: too many USians fall for it Every. Single. Time.
Virtually all of the independent grocers in my area where bought out by a big local chain, then two national corporations bought essentially all of the locally present chains, and now the two are trying to merge. Some competition.
As a child I remember when streetcars were common in St. Louis, but because of pressure from GM diesel buses were replacing them. I also remember when a Greek revival building downtown was sandblasted. It was grey and there is the grey granite, which I always thot it was made of, but it was actually pink granite. A byproduct of particulate matter from diesel buses & trucks.
You are right that Minnesota has approached this more rationally than Texas. First hand, since I live in TX and almost lost 2 family members to that cold snap. Texas politicians are currently a unique brand of stupid, and I try to vote them out each election cycle.
What you describe to have happened in Minnesota is new info to me. The politics thee are different, obviously. Why haven't those successes been exported to other states?
Jerry, read more. Please don't assume that Texas is the norm. It is regarded as well behind the curve.
Vermont produces more electricity than we use and exports the excess. Because much of what we currently produce is solar, and because we are part of a regional grid, at night we get largely hydroelectric power from the regional grid. Not all of it is hydro, though, so we end up unfortunately using electricity still produced by gas. One of the solutions: my electrical utility is actively working to build up a network of batteries located in homes and businesses to absorb that daytime excess for nighttime use. Various organizations join together to create publicly owned non-profit energy production. This is a just one example. I grew up in the Pac NW and both WA & OR have made huge strides to both reduce use of electricity and are well-along in changing to wind and solar power. Almost every week we hear more of these stories.
The people with power in some states are not so willing to make those moves. But at this point, I think there are some projects programs in place in every states, and many have regional compacts. A great many small projects are done at the community level, in every state.
It's just that we lost a lot of time through the willful ignorance and greed of people who held power. As others have pointed out, every region in the country had offices dedicated to research and development of reducing dependence on oil and other non-sustainable energy sources. We were on our way to sane environmental practices. I should add that this as also the era in which social goods were also being focused on. Reagan dismantled it all within 3 months of taking office. But our situation would be much worse if many states had not kept going, and if NGOs and individuals hadn't kept working on those issues. Because of them, we still have a chance.
It's clear you care. But it is also clear you are not aware of what has been going on for decades in states other than Texas. There are entire publications devoted to that kind of information. There are books. There are organizations (350.org comes to mind, but that is only one) who are actively working to inform, educate, organize, lobby, create.
We need you. TEXAS needs you. You have an opportunity to become a nexus of folks who want to work on things like this.
Jerry, Dr. James Hansen, the former head of the Goddard Space Center of NASA testified about the dangers of climate change in front of Congress in 1988. Not long thereafter, several national energy related agencies including the EPA, developed more stringent standards for electricity generation and included temporary, minimal incentives to developers of renewable (more about wind at that time). Taking advantage of the money and tax benefits, Texas utilized those incentives and produced more wind-generated electricity than any other state. Iowa was a close second. Farmers and ranchers could generate passive income in their fields - wind above, crops or cattle on the ground. When those incentives were dropped from the budget (by intense lobbying from the oil industry) renewable energy generation floundered. It takes big picture policy, at the federal level, to push everyone in the same direction. Incentives were critical.
Here in MN, several key individuals understood that it takes good policy to even out the playing field. Texas has oil and gas. We have wind and sun. Oil is a finite resource as well as having toxic side effects. Wind and sun are endless (if a bit more fickle). In order to keep the standard of living high, in order to keep the lights on, in order to protect the climate (agriculture is still the number one industry in MN), policy makers figured we needed to transition to renewables. Texas Republicans made the choice for oil and gas - knowing the risks.
there was bipartisan support for the RES. Perhaps it was the incentives/tax breaks for those who built it. In part, Xcel Energy, the biggest utility in MN, made the business decision that renewables were the future. Hard to bust through that in Texas, especially with George Bush as president and the oil companies lining the pockets of so many politicians nationally.
Texas has access to plenty of reasonable policy ideas regarding renewable energy. Oil $$ stand in the way.
Thanks again, Sheila B. It does put Reagan's "government is the problem" mantra in a clearer light, doesn't it? And the point you made here and elsewhere about some states and regions taking the lead on the transition is so important.
Not just oil money. A decades-long disinformation campaign amply covered by Dr. Richardson in many other posts. Enough of Texans have swallowed the b.s. whole, with local beer, that it will take more effort to turn this potentially great state Blue.
The better question is "Why haven't those successes been *imported by* other states?" And you've pretty well answered it as far as Texas is concerned, although I'm guessing that oil has at least something to do with the stupidity.
My state government (MA) is nothing to write home about, but like other states we're working on our own solutions based on our own resources. (Wind is big here too, and since we've got a lot of coastline it's hard to ignore sea-level rise or what's happening to the fisheries.)
It is ok to be emotional. Our life support systems are being destroyed and 2/3 of American males are driving pickup trucks back and forth to the car wash.
You are correct that lack of vision in government is the root cause.
Jerry, alternative renewable energy sources have been explored at least since the oil embargo of the 1970s. Back then, the Federal govt subsidized electric utilities to explore cutting edge tech like solar, wind, battery storage, pumped hydro, photovoltaics, geothermal. Research and development was extensive with shortage of oil, but when embargo lifted, and Reagan admin came to office, govt resources stopped and research petered. Conversion to alternatives is anything but “instant.” Change is slow but work has been going on for 50 years.
Not only that. In the early 1900s, you could take electric based public transportation from Boston to Philadelphia for low cost, among many places. These lines were bought and closed by men expecting to get rich selling cars...
The lithium and other metals in EV batteries can be recycled, unlike the fuel that powers combustion engines. And, as your linked article points out, EV’s cause less greenhouse gas production than fossil fuel powered vehicles in any cradle to grave analysis.
I don’t see a call to “stop instantly” in Heather’s letter. I believe what is wanted is a good faith effort and facing up to sincere truths—none of which is happening in the fossil fuel sector. Most egregious are the power plays by several state governors to punish the banks that provide the capital to finance fossil fuel projects when those banks curtail their investments in fossil fuels.
The oil companies were onto the dangers in the 1970s, but of course they covered it up. Then along came the Deregulation Administration. Jerry, I'm not sure you understand how long this has been going on. We've lost more than four decades of "transition period."
Nobody is asking oil companies to "just stop". I see that you are using logical fallacies to undermine the basic argument (over generalizing - "just stop' producing") and ad hominem ("you don't understand"). This is what the trolls do.
Margaret, I was responding to the specific language in a specific comment. I also really do believe that many of the commenter here understand only one side of the equation and dismiss the other. That is not trolling. Calling me a troll is.
Nothing happens instantly in any deal. However, the lack of cooperation and planning on the part of big oil has now made it the citizenry’s problem to drive serious policy to save ourselves. In that light, we have to get policy passed as close to -instantly - as possible because it will take time to implement the policy. Especially, if court filings from big oil stop any requests the citizenry wants.
Michael, it is primarily R's fed by the extractive industries like petroleum, coal, etc. ; we have a some in the D and independent political categories too.
"The oil companies and the executives who run them will be remembered as killers"
Let me guess: You drive a car?? Yes?
The people working in the production and refining of oil? Those folks are providing you what you need and billions of people worldwide need just to get to the grocery store.
IF you want to blame someone as killer Michael, go take a look in the mirror. Whenever you crank your car and drive to get groceries? You are blasting more CO2 into the air than you will breath out for (a year? five years? ten years if you drive for half a day?).
Why blame someone else for something that you are doing?
Stop driving Michael. You are killing people and killing the environment.
Go ahead. Stop driving your car. Save the planet.
See the conundrum Michael? Don't blame somebody for giving you what you need to stay alive.
Mike A chicken & egg situation? Generally, the American public transportation system is much worse than that available in Western Europe. I remember in the early 1970s with the oil crisis that wide ranging car pools were established. ATT and Long Lines in NJ established shared-rider organizations and provided bus service as far away as Lawrenceville to Basking Ridge.
EV may provide a possible amelioration a decade or more hence, though the obstacles are substantial. Meanwhile, most oil companies and our ‘Arab friends’ are bent on maintaining the petroleum society.
As for personal driving, I have a 2011 car with 40,000 miles over the past 11 years.
As Marie Antoinette might have said “Let them drink petroleum, since with impeding climate change the world will be flooded, scorched, and, perhaps, unlivable for billions.’
First, I've been driving an EV since 2016. Do I have a carbon footprint? Yes, but I continue to work to reduce it.
I wouldn't be so strident in my views about oil companies if they would have done anything substantial to ease the dire problem they cause. As another poster said, they could have long ago been working to transition to renewable energy.
Climate change isn't a death sentence if the crisis is met with aggressive action immediately to help solve it. Not taking such action is suicide.
Well phrased: "Loosely regulated capitalism is a doomsday machine." It sums up the state of the problem today---without regulation human greed, ignorance, and downright immorality in running businesses all provide the ingredients for destruction.
Michael There was a book on Exxon ‘private empire’ some years ago that documented how Exxon was two faced on ‘climate change.’ Reminds me of cigarette companies for decades on cancer in cigarettes.
A few oil companies (BP?) seem to making at least a half-hearted effort to adopt to a less-petroleum world. Exxon clearly is NOT part of this group. Ditto with Arabian peninsula authoritarianism countries.
Regarding ‘climate change,’ I imagine myself as captain of the Titanic as the ice berg was spotted. ‘What possibly could happen?’ NEARER TO GOD IS THEE.
I trust we've all seen the movie "There Will Be Blood" -- about the birth of the oil industry in the United States. Fascinating. Frightening. Not strictly historical, but not far off the mark.
Exactly! In MT both R congressional rep keep throwing this out as red meat for the people here that they swallow bc it is coming from a R. Daines is especially loud about how the President is killing the economy & upping inflation by curtailing oil & gas drilling & hurting MT.
Thank you Heather. I am so glad you wrote about this. I have a life long friend who is a trump supporter.. she and her 90+ year old Mother, who I’ve known since I was 14... for 44 years... both called me a liar when I tried to explain all this to them. They called me a liar when I told them thd Keystone Pipeline was fully functional. They called me a liar when I explained it was an extension to the Keystone that was halted. They called me a liar when I pointed out DAP was endangering sacred indigenous land and both it and the extension (XL) were at risk for contaminating watershed as well. It’s pretty much destroyed our relationship. I appreciate your documenting all of this, as when I attempted to show them the pipeline maps and documentation, they claimed it was all made up leftist propaganda. Thank you!
Since my husband has Lakota ancestry, Sans Arc band, his relatives have made us aware of all the problems, particularly in South Dakota. All this activity and the threat it presents does not only contribute to climate change, but also may ruin the aquifer which many, including white ranchers rely on. Right now one of his cousins who has a large acreage ranch on the Pine Ridge is worried about the lack of rain and snow, so there's that too. Finally, the total lack of respect for sacred sites is a travesty, no matter where they are located.
All you say is true. I'd like to add that while pipelines are necessary for a little bit longer as we transition to a lesser dependence on oil, but ignoring promises and treaties and riding roughshod over indigenous people's rights is inexcusable and tragically unnecessary.
The XL pipeline should've been designed with a longer or different route.
No, of course we don't "need" to do so. It's just economically more efficient because there's a concentration of refining capacity around Houston that can efficiently handle the specific chemistry of the Canadian Alberta tar sands.
Jerry, your argument stuns me. You have really bought into the oil companies' mindset, haven't you? You talk of "efficiency" and routing pipelines as if they were givens and as if other people here had no idea how that works. For many of us, those were the starting points. In Vermont, we were fed those same arguments about a natural gas pipeline (by company within same holding company as the midwest pipelines, about costs and about the "efficiency" argument, including the supposed "transition" argument. We did the research and proved the companies were lying. Not merely wrong. Lying. Though the corporations managed to stave off the challenges for a while, time proved us right. ULtimately we won, but not before a lot of damage was done and people's lives upended.
The pipelines are dangerous no matter where they are put. And they are costly no matter where they are built: every single one has huge cost overruns. I've been in the tar sands and in the fracking fields. They are ugly, and they are toxic, in addition to being disruptive (understatement) to the communities they are near.
Ultimately, their product is not needed. These pipelines are not "interim solutions". We already have the technology to completely replace the oil. It is irrational to ship (by any means) toxic sludge from Canada to Texas for refining - except for the corporations who buy off politicians so they can keep alive their cash cow.
What if Texas began to willingly transform from allowing itself to be economically dependent on a technology that is dirty, affects human health, destroys ecosystems both directly and indirectly? What if Texas took advantage of the other sources of energy it has access to (wind and solar, for instance) and began to built a multi-state grid that benefited all Texans and not just a few? That's the real transition: recognizing the historical reality of how oil companies do things, and choosing to shift away from being complicit.
Texas's disaster wasn't the storm. Texas's disaster was its own decision to ignore the needs of its people, and put the interests of big corporations above their responsibility to both human beings and the environment.
Something maybe for you to think about. I have friends in Texas. They get it.
I wasn't arguing, only repeating the oil companies' logic. I intimately understand their approach because I worked in that industry. That doesn't mean I agreed with everything.
However, you keep wanting to blame oil companies for the public's demand (thirst) for oil. To meet that demand, pipelines are necessary. Yes they could be safer as a group, but it's not a given that a given pipeline is unsafe. It IS a given that pipelines are a safer means of transport than rail. For the time bring, transport is necessary.
I agree we need to accelerate transition to renewable and Texas could lead there (Houston is working to create a green energy tech hub). But demand is where the challenge lies. That is a global issue, and even if the transition to green goes as fast as possible, global demand for oil and gas will continue to rise for a couple of decades or more.
Note that I'm not trying to protect oil and pipeline companies (they're often separate). Sheer scale of human demand for energy will fo that.
If I am remembering correctly, it was supposed to go on a different route, but white folks objected, so... I had a unpleasant encounter with a Lakota this last week, and I do understand his anger. He accused me of all sorts of things including racism which is not one of my faults. We were on a thread of one of my husband's Lakota relatives who thankfully defended me and blocked him. I don't know what he does about his first name which sounds English or his surname which sounds Scotch-Irish. One of the things I told him is that I could write a book on how this country was built on slavery, genocide, and stolen land. I personally am mindful of the latter and also the sacredness of the earth. I have gardened for over 50 years with that in mind and have gratitude for what I am able to harvest and often share with others.
What a difference with the "respect" for other religions, isnt it? But indigenous people - their ways and religions are looked down upon & ignored. Of course, the larger church organizations produce a great deal of money - for whatever purpose! And money seems to be what matters.
This has been part of the European mantra for centuries. We are going to redeem these "savages" and save them. That is part of the novel Things Fall Apart which takes place in Nigeria as missionaries arrive. My time in the Peace Corps was work in a Irish Catholic run boys' school. The boys were Catholics at school and also retained their own beliefs as well. There was lots of "juju"around including certain items put next to rice fields. Another good novel about this is The Poisonwood Bible where what the missionaries thought was happening was quite different in the eyes of the Africans. I did laugh. Just this week my husband was reading something which said the Catholic Church in West Africa supported itself through the slave trade.
Not a surprise. Its downright amazing how really lousy the "redeeming & saving" was & still is to this day. The Catholic Church "organization" was responsible for so much abuse & cruelty. And really never has accepted the blame they deserve. And its not only them. Strange how religion - evangelical & otherwise - seems to believe that they & only they (familiar?) can save these "poor" people. I've heard of the Poisonwood Bible - never read it - I'll look for it, Michele - thanks.
I read a lot of history and I am amazed at what cruelty we inflict on each other for no really good reasons. You might also try At Play in the Fields of the Lord which takes place in South America. I did laugh at parts of that too. The person I find most grounded among my friends is a devout Christian who walks, but doesn't talk. I feel serene just being around her. So it possible to be a person of faith and not destroy everything in sight and promote hatred. I also like the writing of Marilynne Robinson who is also a Christian and writes excellent fiction and nonfiction.
I admit I dont read a lot of non-fiction - the truth part of what mankind does is usually much much worse than fiction! Thanks for titles to ask for at the library - I appreciate it.
Rupert is good at blaming others for what he is doing. No need to ask if they watch Fox. The lies and spin have fried the brains of half our population. Sort of like the destruction of the pipeline, only worse.
The “executives at major oil companies” are stupid, lazy, and arrogant They could have rebranded as general energy services companies years ago and diversified into renewables. It’s not like that suggestion wasn’t offered. But instead of investing in the future they invested in greed and greenwashing.
Sorry, they are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live. They're not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies. Their shareholders would revolt.
The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10 years. If you think they don't care and aren't worrying about the inevitable transition, then you're blinded by emotional name-calling. Lazy? Nope.
Lordy, I am old, been hearing of these problems for decades, and seeing the intransigence of the “power that be” republicans over many years. Money ruled, rules, and will rule. You make excuses for what is “inexcusable and tragically unnecessary.” Old alliances do die hard, even when one tries…
Is not "excuses". It's scientific and economic reality. Your emotional ourburst gets many more "likes" on this forum, and feels good, but is part of an "old alliance " itself that causes its own intransigence.
The reality is that if your wishes were granted today, economic upheaval would cause immediate and severe human suffering, and the political backlash would set environmental progress back by decades.
1.) that they (the oil companies) “are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live.” You (I assume) would also include coal and natural gas* in the same category. And, you are correct their efforts provide energy in a variety of forms and has been/is/and will be a very important aspect of all of our lives.
(* atomic energy should be considered in a separate category.)
2.) You also write that they are “not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies.” Are you saying that IF those technologies (the Green ones) were profitable the Fossils would adopt those technologies? (Please note that United States is estimated to provide a total of $20 billion in fossil fuel subsidies every year. Approximately 70 percent of these subsidies come from the federal government, and another 30 percent come from the state government.)
3.) If the Fossils and the Greens could BOTH be profitable (including with government subsidies). Would any of the “shareholders … revolt”? (Please note: According to Congressional Budget Office testimony in 2016, an estimated $10.9 billion in tax preferences was directed toward renewable energy, $4.6 billion went to fossil fuels, and $2.7 billion went to energy efficiency or electricity transmission.)
4.) You write: “The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10 years.” Correct, Jerry. This is a very long term project. BUT, it is (as you say) also INEVITABLE.
5.) “If you think they don't care and aren't worrying about the inevitable transition, then you're blinded by emotional name-calling.” The FOSSILS should quit “worrying” about the transition and get going on helping to provide a solution. It appears to me that both the FOSSILS and the GREENS are in a winner-take-all stance. So are our politicians. We, the People need to push the corporations and the politicians into a better mindset. Everyone CAN be winners in this matter. EXXON (not to just pick on them) can find itself in the position of being a leading producer of energy - past, present, and future. And government can lead the way, using the traditional “carrots and sticks.” We, the People need to demand more of corporations and government in this matter. Remember that those subsidies are OUR money.
6.) Jerry, you ask “Lazy?” I agree, none of the “players” are probably lazy. Unmotivated, uninformed, uncourageous, unambitious, unaccountable, uneducated, uncommitted, un-American? (Sorry, I couldn’t UN-plug myself….)
So are the Greens, Mike. Think about it. This really shouldn’t be a Fuel Feud. It’s not just about dollars and cents and who can con the politicians out of more Taxpayer Money.
Jerry, your several comments today have mentioned “transition,” a concept that make total sense but lacks a plan. I have mentioned on this site several times a way to merge the Fossils and the Greens into cooperative ventures. Yea, it will take government subsidies. (Reminder: the money of We, the People.)
You have mentioned “the shareholders.” Good point. Would EXXON’s shareholders reject the Huge Carrot that We, the People could provide by to EXXON by encouraging them (monetarily) to erect wind turbines and solar panels on the same piece of land where the pumpjacks are incessantly moving up and down, pumping the oil out of the ground? And the solar and wind companies would help construct and manage that merger of ideas and technology and change. EXXON could actually have a FUTURE rather than be seen as a dying entity. Furthermore, when you pull your car into an EXXON gas station, you could get gas or power for your EV, both of which would be produced by EXXON.
Yes, this is just one aspect of this attempt at ending the FOSSIL vs GREEN feud. This is something that We, the People, with our voices and our pocketbooks can demand from “the powers that be.” Fossils and Greens can both be winners. If we don’t do/demand change/cooperation/merging of ideas, etc., Fossils, Greens, and We, the People will be losers.
Paul, your vision makes sense, at least the part about gas stations providing charging stations like many currently provide air pumps next to the gas pumps. If you drive through parts of West Texas, you will see both active pump jacks and wind mills interspersed, salted with beef on the hoof grazing on dry grass.
But we can't have wind power generated everywhere (at least yet). There's been more progress towards personsl solar power front so far. But the sheer scale of global power needs means it will take decades to transition, and it will never be a total transition. The physics don't support it, and human demand, especially in 2nd and 3rd world counties, prevent this.
We the People need energy to live. That demand is persistent and inflexible.
"Persistent and inflexible"? Only to some Americans, it seems. We are talking already existing change to a more sustainable energy, and reducing our "demand" to a more rational level. Jerry, even so-called "underdeveloped" countries are on board with that more than you seem to grasp. Like I said, read more so you aren't just repeating what the oil companies want you to believe. It's getting tiresome. Our wastefulness is an embarrassment. And as for "3rd world"... some parts of our country are doing no better than many "3rd world" nations. And that's not so much an economic issue as it is a social one that arises out of a distorted economic system.
1.) that they (the oil companies) “are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live.” You (I assume) would also include coal and natural gas* in the same category. And, you are correct their efforts provide energy in a variety of forms and has been/is/and will be a very important aspect of all of our lives.
(* atomic energy should be considered in a separate category.)
2.) You also write that they are “not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies.” Are you saying that IF those technologies (the Green ones) were profitable the Fossils would adopt those technologies? (Please note that United States is estimated to provide a total of $20 billion in fossil fuel subsidies every year. Approximately 70 percent of these subsidies come from the federal government, and another 30 percent come from the state government.)
3.) If the Fossils and the Greens could BOTH be profitable (with government subsidies). Would any of the “shareholders … revolt”? (Please note: According to Congressional Budget Office testimony in 2016, an estimated $10.9 billion in tax preferences was directed toward renewable energy, $4.6 billion went to fossil fuels, and $2.7 billion went to energy efficiency or electricity transmission.)
4.) You write: “The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10 years.” Correct, Jerry. This is a very long term project. BUT, it is (as you say) also INEVITABLE.
5.) “If you think they don't care and aren't worrying about the inevitable transition, then you're blinded by emotional name-calling.” The FOSSILS should quit “worrying” about the transition and get going on helping to provide a solution. It appears to me that both the FOSSILS and the GREENS are in a winner-take-all stance. So are our politicians. We, the People need to push the corporations and the politicians into a better mindset. Everyone CAN be winners in this matter. EXXON (not to just pick on them) can find itself in the position of being a leading producer of energy - past, present, and future. And government can lead the way, using the traditional “carrots and sticks.” We, the People need to demand more of corporations and government in this matter.
6.) Jerry, you ask “Lazy?” I agree, none of the “players” are probably lazy. Unmotivated, uninformed, uncourageous, unambitious, unaccountable, uneducated, uncommitted, un-American? (Sorry, I couldn’t UN-plug myself….)
What about the millions (billions?) of taxpayer “corporate welfare” currently being paid to the oil industries? And if their shareholders revolt will they be assaulted with water cannons or just have to diversify their portfolios? Stop making excuses for corporate greed.
Both “sides” - FOSSILS and GREENS are recipients of “corporate welfare,” Donna. The problem is not that the “carrots” are scare. The problem is that the “sticks” don’t demand cooperation, unity of purpose, or the interest in America’s future. The “stick” that We, the People should demand is ending the FOSSILS vs GREENS feud. Every energy company can be a winner and have a future - even the Fossils.
The oil industry, a mature industry if ever there was one, still receives subsidies from the US government. Renewables have lost much of their subsidies, especially at the state level, yet are still able to compete price-wise with fossil fuels. Scaling them up is already happening, and will continue to happen regardless of what party controls our elected branches of government. I pay significantly less per kWh than my neighbors because I have solar panels on my roof, not the other way around. This trend is going to continue. It can leave big oil in the dust, or not. It's up to them.
How much did your solar setup cost? I'm curious because in my area, even with subsidies, it would take well over a decade to recoup those costs through savings. I don't plan on staying in one address that long. I also didn't have enough cash for the upfront costs I would have faced when au looked at this year's ago. Maybe it's different now.
I have had my solar panels since 2015, when I got a sweet deal from Solar City (Tesla). Free installation. I will own them after 20 years. I pay Tesla for the power they generate - locked in at 2015 electricity prices (NH has some of the highest electricity rates in the US, and they've increased significantly over the past 7 years). Essentially, I have 2 electric bills, one to Tesla, and one to my local utility if my panels don't supply my needs. This is the case in Nov, Dec, and Jan, when NH doesn't get much sun. However, the panels generate a surplus May - Sep, which, under NH state law, my utility has to buy from me, my meter actually runs backward during that time.
I was looking into this in 2015. I decided against this because I was moving houses and didn't think I'd only be in the current house for 20 years. Now I think we'll be here much longer, but the local deed restrictions currently limit use of solar. The challenges are many.
That said, I'm glad you and other really adopters are finding satisfaction with the transition because your successes lead to a change in local ordinances and to a drop in unit price.
Fern, outside of NYC, it's hard to live without a car. Within NYC, it would be impossible to live without public transportation and an energy infrastructure. Some individuals in some places can live off grid. Most of us can't.
Fern, I reread the thread, and yes it does. While I agree it's up to us, not all of us can choose lifestyles that force change, except for vote. It's easier to be more efficient and greener in dome locations more than others.
So, I really wasn't disagreeing at all, just adding a comment.
You can't make an elephant turn into a hyena. Even if they want to, there is no profitable way for that to change. At most, you can make oil companies less relevant. But that takes time.
“Their shareholders would revolt”. That says it all. The greed model is unsustainable. Humanity is on a path to its own destruction and sad to say it’s likely too late to reverse. Hope to be wrong.
This is such a huge disaster if only for the poisoning of the soil. Are we capable of coming to terms with the work we must do to “make do” with less? We did it in WWII, but this America seems too drugged, too undereducated (do we get free college like France? free medical school for the qualified so we can survive the diseases of climate change?), too “exceptional” to find the flexibility for the democracy to survive, particularly given the Republican base.
Having just watched the MSNBC movie on student loans, I read about the oil spill and felt the most discouraged about US in days. If the Republicans do even a few of the horrors they plan, I fear that the America I have loved and voted for will be history.
Meanwhile we have to eat. Destroying farmland or even potential farmland needs to be criminalized. Where is the will to do that? To clean rivers and other water sources?
The cancer has spread all around, republicans are eaten up with it, Dems are in treatment, but the cure is about as unpalatable as the disease. Sad to say
We have wonderful farmland here in the Willamette Valley and an organization called 1000 Friends of Oregon devoted to saving it. There is a local chapter here in Marion County which we belong to. One of the problems here is that most county commissioners except in Portland are Rs and they have never seen a development they didn't love. We are having New Year's Eve out with a couple friends who are very active in saving farm land and we will catch up with what is going on. It is a constant task to keep up with all the nefarious schemes. 1000 Friends is just not for the Willamette Valley, but works all over Oregon to help with various projects in rural areas as well. I just read their 2022 account of achievements all over Oregon tonight. I might add as a side note that the county commissioners In, I think Wasco County, decided to thumb their noses at the land use commission some years ago and they ended up with the Rajneesh compound with such personages as Ma Anan Sheila. Oops.
They sure did, and that served them really well! One of the nurses I work with was a victim of the Rajneesh bioterrorism attack when they deliberately contaminated salad bars at 10 restaurants in The Dalles with Salmonella. Their goal was to incapacitate the voters in the city so their candidate would win. They should not have thumbed their noses at the land commission. And 1000 Friends is a great organization.
They also took over the nearby town of Antelope and everyone there was very unhappy although I would bet they supported the commission's decision to allow the place in the first place.
The people I knew weren't happy. Some moved. Some fought. Many helped with the investigation that brought the Rajneeshi's down. The lesson there is so similar to the places whose leaders think that allowing fracking or oil pipelines is a good thing for their economies.
I have several classmates (high school) who joined the Rajneeshies. Their accredited police department (Rajneeshpuram Peace Force, I kid you not) has at least one member who earned the “top student” award at the Oregon Police Academy several classes ahead of mine.
One of my LMTs at the time was a member also as well as his wife. I said nothing because they were and still are all for alternatives. Of course, they didn't get the vaccine which ended a couple people I know from continuing to go them. My feeling is that sometimes in the medical field, alternatives work for certain things until you need your knee replaced, etc.
I wondered if anyone would remember that part of the story. One of my fundamentalists colleagues for not happy about what the commission had done, but only because it was not a "Christian" project. She had no idea about the land use issues. I did try to educate her on what the real issues were when they initially were given permission. This is central Oregon where anything from west of the Cascades is ipso facto bad.
You Oregonians were infamous for stomping on those poor innocent Rrrragneeeeshehes. Their freedoms were impinged on. Have you no shame for exposing their automatic weapons caches, their right to spread deadly salmonella to subvert the vote. Their jamming the voting roles with homeless and toxic strangers. All they wanted was freedom from you Oppressive Oregonian Ogres. Or was it progressive Oregon realists who politically rallied to save central Oregon from itself. Even coach put on his running shoes.
Oh yeah, feeling loads of shame. I am happily one of those Oppressive Oregonian Ogres. Great label. And yes, it was as you describe at the end of your post.
I suppose that's why these politicians are paid the big bucks. Everyone knows green renewable energy is the way to go. I'm glad Biden is one who is at least dragging us kicking and screaming into the future. And he's doing this temporarily by appeasing/negotiating people like Joe Manchin and events like the invasion of the Ukraine. Thank you for your analysis Dr. Richardson.
Yes, they replaced their domestic production with Russian gas because that was more politically expedient than supporting their domestic hydrocarbon production. They are being forced to do without sufficient energy, shutting down factories. In other words, going green is great, but losing one source of energy before an alternative source is ready means people freeze and lose jobs.
“Supporting their domestic hydrocarbon production” in Germany means continued reliance on coal. That is clearly suicidal. As a result of Chernobyl contaminating German agricultural lands they chose to reduce reliance on nuclear power production and pursued a two pronged strategy—bet that Russian natural gas would be a stable and less CO2 intensive power source while building out green energy sources. Hindsight being 20/20 it’s become clear that betting on Russia was a mistake—as many thought it could be.
Their reaction to Chernobyl was irrational. So was their decision to shut down the Groningen gas extraction operations (In in the minority on that 2nd issue, I lnow)
Groningen is in the Netherlands and expected to stay in production for another 3-6 years. Not sure how that directly involves Germany’s choices. Given the present realities I wouldn’t be surprised if that decision is revisited.
I was living in Germany at the time of the Chernobyl disaster. The main warnings I remember concerned wild mushrooms and milk from cows grazing on contaminated pastures.
Chernobyl was poorly designed and likely not well run and I agree that deciding to avoid nuclear power on that basis was irrational. It may have been a crisis too good to waste for the Green Party at the time and zeitgeist.
Thank you Professor Richardson. If it wasn’t for you, I would’ve never known the sequence of destruction & obstruction that demonstrates the struggle we’ve been facing between our choice to run this magnificent world to the ground or fill the coffers of those who don’t care about the world. I’m with our Native Americans, Obama & Biden. There are other better gentler ways to move a vehicle boat, or train. Suborn narcissistic egomaniacs need Threapy. This nation needs to train more mental health professionals. Actually reform prisoners. Teach actual history in schools, and stop greedy bullying nasty human men from ruining it all!!!
Most likely. Silhouette of guy in business suit with devil horns and tail? Yep, that’s the one. View whole thing including any extra features. Eye opening.
Also "In case you missed it": The ongoing Red Hill Hawaii disaster here on the island of Oahu, in which the US Navy has since the 1940s stored millions of gallons of jet and other fuels in huge underground tanks located only 100 FEET (no typo) over the main aquifer of the island. This aquifer is the primary source of water for the island. Over the years the Navy gambled and tolerated numerous "small" leaks, but a major leak in December 2021 contaminated a Navy well and sickened over a thousand military personnel, dependents, and civilians. The Honolulu Board of Water Supply has shut down several of its wells to try to prevent fuel from reaching the aquifer, resulting in diminished supply for Honolulu and East Oahu. While the Navy--under severe pressure--has committed to defueling the tanks, there is no guarantee that a major breach cannot occur either before or during the defueling. This is a vast over-simplification of a complex and extremely serious situation. Search "Red Hill Hawaii" for much more.
51 years now since the first United Nations Conference on the Environment...
That came up with a fine principle:
THE POLLUTER PAYS
Another empty slogan. The reality, we all know:
POSTERITY PAYS.
And it didn't take 50 years for posterity to start paying in Oahu. (Or worldwide.)
I used to read with horror of the extraordinary damage the Soviets did to the environment. Especially the military. But they were just the tip of the iceberg.
The Oahu disaster makes a painful political point:
We like to contrast Soviet Communism and our triumphant Free Enterprise capitalism. It might be more useful to look at both as the two faces of the same counterfeit coin...
Think about it.
Maybe it will take years to get the point, this truth is a slow-delivery medicine.
Only... everywhere in the world, things are falling apart faster than the sluggish workings of our self-satisfied minds.
A new world in gestation... birth pains beginning?
How many sneaky companies and institutions have used the ocean as a dumping ground, thinking it didn’t matter?
The nation’s largest DDT manufacturer once dumped its waste into the deep ocean. As many as half a million barrels could still be underwater today, according to old records and a recent UC Santa Barbara study that provided the first photos of this pollution bubbling 3,000 feet under the sea. Possibly hundreds of thousands of barrels and DDT-laced sediment were dumped just 12 miles off the coast. How many companies have illegally dumped waste into the ocean and will they ever be held accountable?
DDT waste barrels off L.A. coast shock California scientists - Los Angeles Times
Horror that our minds can barely begin to encompass. Our Law, our institutions, all human justice seems so puny when it comes to imagining how the perpetrators of such crimes could ever be held adequately to account. It is simply not conceivable.
Nor will it do to tell ourselves that this and all the immeasurable disasters of so-called peace, following close behind the hellish disasters of war, are a matter for Divine Justice. That is only to compound irresponsibility with transcendant irresponsibility.
We can but take collective responsibility for the actions and inaction of mankind, committing ourselves to learn from errors both past, present and planned. Education, education, and more education.
That entails humility, a virtue now, more than ever, despised by the powerful. A virtue that flows from love, that unquenchable yearning for universal happiness -- likewise despised by today's much admired narco-narcissistic nihilists... Yet, even they may have some feelings for their children... and so may sometimes develop concern for the future to which they are exposing their own flesh and blood... And that could open the door a crack to awareness of responsibility.
Whether we or they like it or not, whether we sleep on or awake, the bills are already trickling in for what we have done and for what we have failed to do. And soon the trickle will be followed by tsunamis.
Many people have no idea what is coming or is already here. Just yesterday, my reliably R "Christian" ex h.s. classmate posted a long list of wing nut nonsense which of course, includes dreck about fossil fuel and of course, lots of misinformation and hatred directed at anyone who is different than they are. It was too long a list to answer each item, but I did answer the power bs by observing that we have a hybrid that, since we rarely drive out of the city, gets about 1000 mpg and the electricity for it comes from our solar panels on the roof. I also mentioned that the excess goes back into the grid to help others and noted that is probably the dreaded socialism. And yes, I do know that there are problems with renewables too. But when we had the dreadful fires in 2020, I did not see it as something God did.
I hope, I hope, I HOPE I am mistaken, but I see everything we have witnessed to date as a trickle by comparison with what's to come.
We have forgotten that we are part of Nature, we have come to treat the planet as an object to be mined and otherwise exploited and, in so doing, we have transformed ourselves into alien parasites.
I don't doubt that in all likelihood the consequences of fossil fuel use, ingrained human 'practice', capitalism as it has been practiced for the past 45+ years (others, may more detailed and precise) and additional factors will make life on earth and earth itself more endangered; what's more, I think that we have been paying for it.
Aw, but the people making these decisions think their money is going to save them. In the meantime, keep the peons stirred up with lots of cultural issues among other things.
Thank you for this info....so much of this going on everywhere....storing dangerous things in underground tanks. This is has also happened at Hanford in Washington, a nuclear site near the Columbia River.
We should bundle up this little Letter and tie it with a bow and give it as a Christmas present to all the loudmouthed right-wingers in our environs who still keep nattering on about this stupid pipeline. Even expert oilmen have admitted this thing would have been a huge mistake and would not at all have been of much benefit to this country. You'd never know it to hear voices on the right bang on about this thing. Back when prices were much higher they made it sound like this pipeline would be the answer to ALL our gasoline woes! That is basically laughable, or course. In any event, good to see the prices down lower now than a year ago, which has, thankfully, shut them up. This is an excellent summary.
There is a related element to this story on which I would like to hear Heather's take. As far as I know, unlike the writings of Plato, Hobbes, Locke, and others on the philosophy of human organization and governance, I do not think we have a similar corpus on the proper structure and purpose of non-human entities such as corporations.
Ever since the days of VOC (the Dutch East India Company), at best, the chartering and governance of corporations has been inconsistent and all over the map, with no real sense of aspirational values. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are silent on the rights and responsibilities of corporations. The 1886 high jacking of the 14th Amendment by Morrison Waite and Bancroft Davis in their head note to the Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific decision is about all there is, and sadly, it would seem that there has been quite dramatically more SCOTUS references to the 14th Amendment in cases of business law than cases involving human bondage. With the exception of the American Red Cross, virtually all corporate charters are granted at the state level, with no oversight by the state Attorneys General other than seeing that they pay their annual registration fees along with the meaningless accompanying report. So exactly how are we to hold the oil companies and others that behave similarly to account? What would it take to revoke their charters? They come into existence with a simple stroke of the pen, so why can't they be done away with just as easily? Is there some sort of right to corporate life or some such?
Corporations are are just a group of people with a license to conduct business in certain ways. Said people have the same rights and responsibilities of anybody else, but are personally shepherded from the debts of the corporation. That makes some sense, but the current lack of accountability for corporate conduct is bananas. Said past AG Eric holder:
"But it remains true that, at some institutions that engaged in inappropriate conduct before, and may yet again, the buck still stops nowhere. Responsibility remains so diffuse, and top executives so insulated, that any misconduct could again be considered more a symptom of the institution’s culture than a result of the willful actions of any single individual. "
Rubbish. The emperor is naked. If a driver runs over a pedestrian, we don't arrest the car.
Wow. Thanks for the repost Hugh. As a child of Dow Chemical Company, I declared as a teenager that "Corporations have NO Conscience." I thought having women, stern mothers, on the Board would help. No. We, The People (All of Us This Time) must vote in stern officials who set up and enforce the rules and guardrails for the capitalism game. And oust the Supreme Court Judges purchased by owners and investors.
Dioxin is among other pollutants (many unknown then) that my dad, as an environmental engineer at Dow from 1951 to 1981, tried to prevent or ameliorate. He told the story of how in the 50's, to assess how much toxic waste was being dumped in the Titabawassee River, they had a free fish fry lunch for employees each week, with catch from the river downstream. If the employees complained that the fish didn't taste good, the "sanitary engineers" knew too much toxin had been dumped. Then there were the weeks when suddenly, there were no fish to catch. More than once, my dad made secret calls to the State Health Department to ask for spot inspections of the waste treatment facilities.
He left Dow in 1981, with their blessing and contribution to the Chemical Manufacturing Association, to become a key industry lobbyist on writing regulations for Superfund. It was important work, since environmentalists had little understanding of the depth and breadth of the problem (or how to measure it). And industry literally needed a buy in since they were required to fund it. My dad was always between a political rock and a hard place. At one point, he and my mom "disappeared" for 3 weeks after it was revealed by Tom Brokaw that my dad had lunch with Asst EPA Director Rita Lavelle 11 times. After he retired, my dad wrote a book called, "Too Soon Green," but it has never been published since Dow's lawyers have threatened to sue. I am retiring soon and hope to give it one more edit. Hoping it's not "Too Late" to publish.
P.S. In his last years at Dow he became their Global Environmental Engineer, and prevented a "Love Canal" (scraping off the clay cover of toxic waste dump when building a school on the site) and a "Bhopal" (mass cyanide poisoning) from happening.
Background:
"1978: Scientists at Dow Chemical publish the first study of dioxin carcinogenicity in laboratory animals (Kociba 1978). In the same year, the New York Times publishes a story on the plight of residents near Love Canal, N.Y., where industrial dumping released dozens of toxic substances, many suspected carcinogens.Jul 13, 2010."
I’m from Saginaw. Grew up with the stuff Dow put into the river systems. I can remember traveling north going near Midland. The air took on a decidedly foreign oder until you got upwind. I remember the huge dioxin battles Dow had with property owners living on the Tittabawassee But hey, Dow Gardens. I feel empathy for your dad
I suggest a book i just finished called The Legacy of Violence about the British Empire for the story of the East India Company and other ways that Europeans formed empires all over the world.
Craig, as you have said so well, the issue of responsibility within a corporation is deliberately fuzzy to protect the oligarchs from the horrors and nefarious deeds of the companies they lead. But I think this really just comes down to political and legal WILL.
If a CEO instructed a CFO or treasurer to steal money for him and/or to kill a competitor...would not the the CEO be held legally responsible and charged with a crime? And if that CEO were to prove that his instructions were vague and yet the victim still dies, could he still not be charged with involuntary manslaughter? No corporate charter or employment contract could protect him.
Therefore, why couldn't the CEO of an oil company that had explicitly recognized the damage their product is doing to the planet and it's inhabitants - why couldn't that CEO be charged with multiple counts of homicide?
The answer is a lack of political WILL. At the 2011 Iowa State Fair, Mitt Romney said: "Corporations are people, my friend". People are not supposed to kill people.
As an aside, and an example of hiding from responsibility, the classic case of "getting away with it" is Senator Rick Scott. He was CEO of a major health corporation that was convicted of one of the largest Medicare Fraud schemes in history. But he got away "Scott free". I guess he took a page out of the Reagan Iran Contra playbook.
Romney was wrong, but if a corporation operates within the law and does what it was incorporated to do, then it's not murder. However, if that corporation mismanaged an operation and someone gets hurt or killed, or land or resources are destroyed, then there is clear liability for that corporation. The problem is a lack of enough regulation to establish and enforce boundaries on corporations.
Let me add that I do not think that the idea of a corporation is a bad one, it's just one that we need to domesticate. Right now it's far too much of a wild beast. The good that can come from people working together in very large and well run businesses is significant. We can create products and services that would otherwise be impossible. We can profitably employ people with very narrow specializations. And, we can provide a means for savings to be put to work instead of lying idle as in the biblical story. But, right now, much of this good is being outweighed by the bad.
To a certain extent, I would even buy into the concept of limiting liability for passive investors. But, governance and leadership should not be controlled by the interests of greed and avarice.
There is a parallel in accounting. If you ask any business owner or CEO to list their three most important assets, the responses are quite predictable. They will be the people, and things like special relationships with customers or the communities in which they do business, perhaps the physical environment of those locations. They are all things that are not reflected in the financial statements, and of which the stockholders have zero ownership interest, but a huge fiduciary responsibility.
I think that the direction we should work toward codifying at the constitutional level is some sort of bill of responsibilities and rights for non-human entities. The way to overcome the SCOTUS mess with respect to the way they have abused the 14th amendment would seem to me to replace it with something unambiguous in both its intent and specifics. Also, it would have to include a far more rational chartering and oversight approach compared to the blank check system we now have in place. It could stay at the state level, but it there would have to be some minimal requirements not unlike those we impose on the proposed constitutions in the statehood admissions process (I may be showing my age on that one).
Very much agreed. As always, when things become complex, the devil is in the details. Reagan's "government is the problem" is BS and so is "corporations are the problem". Well, what kind of government? What are the practices and regulations defining the corporation? Including anti-trust? Any human organization can become irresponsible or predatory; it's people after all.
We have known for a long time just how bad corporations can be. Look at the history of "company towns" or the East India Company. Much of the 20th century could boast crafting policies that better "civilized" corporations and improved the lot of the many, until "Reaganomics" began the roll-back. I see private enterprise as a component of liberty, and a potential win-win proposition so long as we promote fair trade. Monopolistic manipulation of labor and markets is where the big money is, but it rips off society and erodes democracy. That ought to stop.
The idea that those who greatly impact society, motivated by the "love of money", should be freed of accountability and regulation makes no more sense than rolling back regulations on automobile traffic. The speed demons will be thrilled, but the carnage immense.
Too bad we have to keep hauling pipeline issues out … even with the managers of the oil industry ‘owning’ the fact that their industry is a climate destroyer…it’s too late at night for this conversation, but never too late to ask for Guidance & Power to make better choices. Thank you Heather for continuing to enlighten all of us…
The oil companies have the world by the throat and are strangling us day by day. We need to eliminate our dependence on oil instead of complaining about the price of gas.
Does anyone remember this?
“What if I told you that a multinational oil company allegedly polluted the Amazon for almost three decades? And that the oil company has spent even more years refusing to accept liability? Or that a US attorney who agreed to represent thousands of Ecuadorian villagers in a lawsuit against that oil company has lost his law license, income, spent hundreds of days under house arrest in New York, and in 2021 was sentenced to six months in prison?”
This lawyer should be world-famous for his battle with Chevron – but he’s in jail | Erin Brockovich | The Guardian
Kristin, thank you for sharing this story. It’s outrageous and almost unbelievable that corporations like Chevron and DuPont and Monsanto will always have enough money and power to basically exploit people, land and countries with little accountability. They are so wealthy with money and power they will go on forever unless they are held accountable by the law. “Massive corporations can fund endless litigation against activists or critics. They don’t even need to win in court, because they can intimidate or bankrupt their opponents in legal fees.”
In Mexico I saw Monsanto graffiti with skull and crossbones all over. People vs. Corporations. How does it end? We know. Unless laws change there will be no end to the power of corporations over people.
Laws can change. Laws can be strengthened. New laws can be made. New language can be finessed to more accurately pin-point target the exact nature of the offense we are trying to eliminate. BUT if the enforcing arm of these laws is weak - as they always are- nothing of consequence happens. Our ability to enforce the laws and norms already around us fail because the enforcing arm of law is mostly made up of buddies of those they are tasked with enforcing. This happens in all areas of life, from gun law enforcement to environmental policy, to banking regulations, to political corruption. Power plays by different rules.
MLRGRMI, Your first line hooked me, but almost immediately my own rebuttal is yours. It’s possible but not probable. Your last line, “Power plays by different rules.”
The same legal system that batted down Trump's b.s. election lawsuits decided that the lawyer for the Ecuadorians falsified evidence. Erin Brockovich did great work on fighting those responsible for contaminating ground water, but that was a very different situation.
I remember back in the mid 70’s I was working for a engineering company in Fullerton Ca. One of the projects was to do a study on a pipeline from Canada through California to Midline Tx. Looking at the documents I was appalled at the fact so much of the project went through reservations in California.
Yes, reservations and land in poor neighborhoods. Even now, laws are being introduced and passed to stop the drilling in populated areas. It’s about time. So much pollution and disease caused by and from industry and corporations. And many residents are victims as it takes years and money to fight against these corporate and industrial polluters.
Petroleum is used in so many products that weaning Americans off it will be extremely difficult indeed. Clothing, packaging, appliances, automobiles all have plastic components derived from petroleum. Still nearly 75 percent of a barrel of petroleum is converted to fuels for motor vehicles. It is long past time to abandon the internal combustion engine and convert to much less environmentally damaging transportation technology.
Carmen, yes! “It is long past time to abandon the internal combustion engine and convert to much less environmentally damaging transportation technology.”
So true and the auto industry has driven the policies with lobbyists and lies. I bought my 2012 Prius hybrid and it has almost 100,000 miles on it. Best mileage is long distance, so commuters can get more than 50 mpg. Purchase price was more than the cheaper Corolla but was a luxury car compared to it. It’s possible only government mandates that force change will actually create that change. We’ve waited long enough for corporations to “do the right thing.”
My newest grandchild will be getting a cuddly doggie from the Steiff store here in Wiesbaden. It is made of 100% recycled plastic. I wonder how much more we can do with the plastic that is clogging the entire world...
Carmen you are right on target with the recognition that SO MUCH and SO MANY derive "benefit" (profit, careers, making a living) from the products of these large corporations.
Sadly, it isn't just "THEM," it is us and our neighbors and our friends and acquaintances who derive benefit; the car dealers, mechanics, recreational vehicle sellers, motorboats, jet skis, snowmobiles, quads, motorcycles, snowblowers, lawnmowers, powered gardening and lawn maintenance tools, race cars... It isn't easy to give up one's livelihood and perhaps one's sense of accomplishment for what has seemed to so many merely an abstract threat.
Perhaps the recent spate of weather "extremes" in the forms of high (or low) temperatures, droughts, wildfires, storms, rain, etc. will help bring home to more of us just how real these threats are to our environment & our world. I fear the current younger generations are "getting it" with their rising rates of anxiety, depression, drug addiction and suicide.
We must continually remind ourselves that it is US, not just "THEM!"
Truly problematic. Transitioning to lifestyles that would be much friendlier to the environment is a hard sell. Rather than having lawns, an already problematic use of land, we could learn to plant gardens, not just vegetable gardens, but native plant flower gardens to help with the ecosystems. In the small town I inhabit, I have seen much habitat destruction as "developments" - an oxymoron if ever there was one - encroach on numerous forms of wild life. Years ago, I thought how much more pleasant a small lake I visited would be if only non-motorized vessels were allowed. On the small body of water, all the competing engine powered craft roiled the water, spewed unpleasant fumes, and definitely offended my ears. There are probably technologies now available that could supplant all the engine powered devices we use, so snowmobiling could be quieter, motorboats less smelly, etc. But at the same time, I realize that what may seem like simple solutions are nothing of the sort. Noise from recreational vehicles and vessels helps wild life and human life get out of the way. Not all of us would have the inclination to garden - an endeavor I keep trying, but alas, I seem to have little talent for producing the kind of garden I envision as I plant my seeds each spring. Revolutions in culture and industry have and likely will occur. What form, and when? Ah, we know not. I keep hoping nonetheless.
Professor Richardson, today’s letter includes important information Americans need to know. Our environment and our Democracy are endangered by the destruction and pollution of land and water, as well as the rights of Indigenous peoples to preserve historic lands. Connecting the use and the corporations, “Oversight and Reform released documents from executives at major oil companies revealing that they recognize that their products are creating a climate emergency but that they have no real plans for changing course.” This statement is released, but these corporations have admitted way before now that they know they are destroying the land. And when repubs are in power the destruction is approved. It seems it may be more than just repubs. Isn’t it all of us as we watch our land destroyed? Now is the time to stop all drilling and pipelines and make climate friendly power required. We have the technology and human power to harness Sun and Wind NOW. And our transportation systems. Not making it a choice but a requirement. Big business is powerful. A friend of mine protested at the Dakota Pipeline near Standing Rock and water protectors/ protestors were frequently arrested, jailed or mistreated. Officers would often prohibit food being brought in. Some protesters stayed all seasons including winter. A leak was feared and expected. How many reasons and facts do the people, voters, need to understand what irreversible damage will mean to our children and the future generations? Corporate power in full sight and often approved by repubs.
Thanks for that Guardian link. Unfortunately we CANNOT continue our current lifestyle with renewable energy. - there are too many of us, with increasing expectations. The times they are a-changing, radically.
Only an astute professional historian like HCR could pull all of this together, and it should be on the front pages of the NYT & WAPO! 🙏
And especially the Wall Street Journal!
With a skew that only Rupert could provide
Tony, the spill is being covered, including by the NYT & WAPO. See HCR's NOTEs at the end of the Letter for news reports used for today's Letter.
The following are reports at the site of Keystone’s spill.
‘The Keystone pipeline spill in a creek running through rural pastureland in Washington County, Kansas, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) northwest of Kansas City, also was the biggest in the system’s history, according to U.S. Department of Transportation data.’
‘Environmentalists said the heavier tar sands oil is not only more toxic than lighter crude but can sink in water instead of floating on top. Bill Caram, executive director of the advocacy Pipeline Safety Trust, said cleanup even sometimes can include scrubbing individual rocks in a creek bed.’
“This is going to be months, maybe even years before we get the full handle on this disaster and know the extent of the damage and get it all cleaned up,” said Zack Pistora, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club at the Kansas Statehouse.'
‘The spill raised questions for environmentalists and safety advocates about whether TC Energy should keep a federal government permit that has allowed the pressure inside parts of its Keystone system — including the stretch through Kansas — to exceed the typical maximum permitted levels. With Congress facing a potential debate on reauthorizing regulatory programs, the chair of a House subcommittee on pipeline safety took note of the spill Friday.’ (CNBC)
‘Past Keystone spills have led to outages that lasted about two weeks, but this outage could possibly be longer because it involves a body of water, said analysts at RBC Capital Markets in a note to investors.’
‘Chris Pannbacker said the pipeline runs through her family's farm. She and her husband drove north of their farmhouse and across a bridge over Mill Creek.’
“We looked at it from both sides, and it was black on both sides,” said Pannbacker, a reporter for the Marysville Advocate newspaper.'
Junior Roop, the sexton of a cemetery near the spill site, said people could smell the oil in town.“
"It was about like driving by a refinery,” he said. (abcNEWS)
There is a sequence in the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still where Keanu Reeves, playing the alien is meeting with one of his own who has lived most of his life on Earth and in his report to Klaatu (Reeves) says: "The tragedy is, they know what's going to become of them. They sense it. But they can't seem to do anything about it."
This is but just one of many examples of this reality. It was always known that there will be leaks. It's a given. Running a pipeline filled with a substance toxic to life for thousands of miles over, under, lakes, rivers, streams and farmland over time Will result in tragedies like this. But, as was said in the fictional (but realistic) movie of others observing us, "(we) can't seem to do anything about it", esp when put up against the more sensible option of just "using less" or other equally preferable alternatives.
How we got here is a long, complex subject but, for those of you interested more in the role of capitalism, corporate greed and even academia in these issues from the viewpoint of a former member of the respected Rocky Mountain Institute this link is a 2021 paper with relevant issues to our current state. Those of you old enough, like me will remember it goes back to the 1970 "Crying Indian" ad to "Keep America Beautiful" (link below also)
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_complicity_of_corporate_sustainability
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7OHG7tHrNM
I disagree with the movie quote. It's not that they CAN'T seem to do anything about the problem of climate change. It's that they WON'T do anything to change things because making significant changes would hurt somebody's bottom line. It's always about the money.
No, "can't" is correct. The people who care only about money are making it impossible for those who want the changes to make them happen. We already know that more than half the population knows they want change, but just like the cigarette companies before them, the oil companies don't want to cut off their cash cows before they grab up the alternatives and force those prices up, too. Just saying.
I will read those links. Thanks. But I already know a thing or two about humans' addiction to fossil fuel. It is not hard to understand, but there are many moving parts. Humans are no different than any other species in that we are opportunistic, and will do things (or not do other things) that benefit us directly. That along with genetic variation is how evolution works. We have reasoning brains that have over geologic time taken the place of instincts much more so than other species, but those brains remain hard wired to place importance on basic near term benefit. What we are not hard wired for is very long term benefit (like doing what is necessary to save our climate). It takes another kind of reasoning to accomplish that - something we need much more of. Add in greed, willful ignorance, lazy intellect (or just plain anti-intellectualism) which are stoked by those greedy leaders who wish to maximize power, and unfortunately are characteristics all too common in the human psyche, and the voices of reason from our scientific community get drowned out. It does not help that haphazard weather patterns can drown out the gradual climate trends that our scientists see, but most average people do not yet see. It also doesn't help that the phenomenon of climate change from increases in CO2 is such that we can go beyond the point of no return without realizing it, and once realized, mitigation cannot immediately reverse the effects. One must place some trust in warnings from science that this is true, for it is not taking place before our eyes (at least not obviously). Too many do not have that trust, especially when egged on by the denialist community (which includes BTW the entirety of the Republican Party). And it also is extremely unhelpful that our faith community has largely failed to place any importance on the issue - perhaps believing that God would never do that to us, or worse that climate change is nothing but what has been prophesized in Revelations or some other prediction of humankind's doom, and nothing can or should be done about it. And BTW - humankind's proclivity for believing in religious teachings in the absence of evidence is everywhere.
Fossil fuels are like a great big present to humanity. Oil and coal are energy packets ripe for the taking. Oil pumped out of the ground, or coal mined from deposits in the ground or in mountains give mankind the ability to release energy (and waste products that go with it) in a geological instant that has taken eons to lay down. No wonder the earth's atmosphere is going to react in surprising ways! That alone is a scary thought, unless you are of the belief that God has provided this to us. Big Oil has made alot of great things happen, and has raised the standard of living for millions of people. For quite a while now. Nobody, including climate activists, are happy to go backwards when it comes to those benefits. The difference is, some people recognize the long term costs of continuing on with fossil fuel burning (and they are very scary), and some other people either don't care because they will be dead before the worst of it comes, or just cannot fathom giving up some of the benefits of a fossil fuel burning society (not even a little) and welcome the words of denial and spin that are everywhere, spewed out by those who's interests get damaged by climate action.
Quoting James:
"Oil pumped out of the ground, or coal mined from deposits in the ground or in mountains give mankind the ability to release energy (and waste products that go with it) in a geological instant that has taken eons to lay down. No wonder the earth's atmosphere is going to react in surprising ways!"
The hydrocarbons that we are able to recover make up a miniscule fraction of those laid down over the eons. The majority of hydrocarbons are not recoverable. Your imagery of pulling eons of carbon deposits into the atmosphere is patently false. It's a product of vivid imaginations, programmed by individuals seeking to skim a profit from the commodity.
The IPCC was not formed by the United Nations to prove or disprove that climate catastrophe is imminent. It's in their initial statement of formation. It was formed under the preconceived notion that that debate is over, and that we must take strong action to halt climate change. Al Gore claimed the debate is over as well. If that were the case, then why are so many research papers submitted to the IPCC still attempting to prove the preconceived notion?
The reason is that most real climate scientists themselves are not convinced that there is a crisis. They submit papers with caveats stating things like "the action of clouds cannot be modeled at this time". The caveats are ignored by the political appointees (in the summaries for policymakers) who are there to advise governments on how to deal with the preconceived notion. They are not there to debate whether the problem even exists.
The fact that the action of clouds is the most dominant cooling forces in our atmosphere either escapes the writers of the summaries for policymakers, or they are being intentionally deceptive. One or the other. I'm inclined to believe the latter for various reasons we can discuss.
The action of clouds (convection) is the most dominant cooling force in our atmosphere. Heat is carried aloft and radiated into space in the form of Infrared radiation. You can see an example of this radiance in Infrared imagery of a Hurricane. What you see is infrared energy being radiated into space. Climate models are not able to account for this, and that is the primary reason that the models have been wrong historically. The models predict ever rising temperatures, but the measurements have proven them wrong every time. The obvious reason is that the models are not accounting for a huge amount of energy being radiated into space.
The radiation from the top of the atmosphere is triggered by warming itself, and acts as a sort of thermostat moderating the temperature of the planet to a narrow range of extremes. Convection increases with warming, and decreases with cooling. Fortunately for us, that narrow range has been suitable for the evolution of all creatures on earth, including ourselves. In a sense, through natural selection, we are "designed" by the climate that exists on earth to be the way that we are. Same for all the other living things.
I don't even know where to start in a response except to say your statements seem to come straight out of a climate denialism website or something. I have seen such statements over the years, every one of them debunked by climate scientists who are actually experts.
"The hydrocarbons that we are able to recover make up a miniscule fraction of those laid down over the eons." Where did you get that????
"The IPCC was not formed by the United Nations to prove or disprove that climate catastrophe is imminent. It's in their initial statement of formation. It was formed under the preconceived notion that that debate is over, and that we must take strong action to halt climate change." That will be news to the scientists who contribute to the IPCC efforts. In fact, assessment of findings and claims is a big part of the IPCC. You sir appear to find fault with the IPCC because their assessments seem at odds with what you want to be true.
"....most real climate scientists themselves are not convinced that there is a crisis." Dude- that is just effin' laughable if it weren't so tragic. Where on earth did you find that gem? Do you actually believe it? It is the evidence itself that they are continuing to uncover and further understand that drives climate scientists to go to work every day. Your suggestion here is that there is some sort of skullduggery going on here. Patently false.
"The fact that the action of clouds is the most dominant cooling forces in our atmosphere either escapes the writers of the summaries for policymakers, or they are being intentionally deceptive." Again, where did you get this? I mean, just YESTERDAY alot of disturbing news came out from the climate science community that there is more evidence that as a whole, cloud cover and how it is affected by climate change is actually CONTRIBUTING to warming, not cooling. It is really bad news, but news none the less. For several years now, the notion that clouds are cooling us (as they always have), and therefore there is no global warming, has been steadily invalidated. Much as mankind would hope this to be true, it appears to not be so.
"In a sense, through natural selection, we are "designed" by the climate that exists on earth to be the way that we are. Same for all the other living things." Isn't that the point??? BTW, humans are singularly able to adapt to climate changes due to our ability to respond through reason (make appropriate clothing, move to other places, build more appropriate shelters, etc). Stuff the animal kingdom cannot do, except to evolve to handle it. And what we are doing to our climate is happening too quickly by several orders of magnitude for that evolution to occur. Hence the danger. It's going to upset the entire balance.
Look - I feel like I am trying to respond to a "Gish Gallop". I am not an expert, and neither are you. But I do read a good bit about the science, as you probably do. I also am a great believer in the scientific method as the prime force for moving humanity forward, a notion you in all likelihood do not share for some reason. For that is why, I believe, you refuse to acknowledge the consensus view of climate science. In a world where objective truth is harder and harder to recognize, due to advancements in communication, and due to the power of disinformation, I have chosen science (real science, not fringe science) to guide my understanding of the world. It is a pretty sure bet. You have chosen something different, along with way too many of your cohorts. You know - have you considered that maybe you are wrong? What if you are? And what if you win out, and nothing is done, and climate science is proved correct. Then, in all likelihood your grand children (and mine) will be doomed to live in a dystopian world of climate catastrophe. That outcome is not at all unlikely, much as I wish it were not so.
You can fetch for yourself if you care to learn. I can repeat all of your ad hominem attacks about you, but what's the point? Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
You will not change your mind, and I will not change the minds of the policymakers. I'm just here to state an opinion. You are free to agree or disagree, it make me no difference.
Your last question being "What if you are wrong" can also be placed right back in your lap.
The next major glacial advance could be beginning today, or last year, and we would not know it. If the cycles we see hold true, it can begin at any time in the next 10,000 years or so, including today, or last year. The drought of this summer, and the drying up of the Mississippi River could easily be the first sign of it.
Won't it be funny (or tragic) for our descendants to look back at the time we wasted trying to stop climate change, when in fact there is really no stopping climate from changing? If the planet is now descending into the next glacial advance, we will begin to see drier and colder conditions more and more often, until most of the moisture is locked up at the poles and what is not under ice is essentially desert except for a small band near the equator. That is the band of earth from which humans emerged during the current 20,000 year warm "vacation" from normal glacial domination. Humans and other animals will decline in population due to a lack of food. One can only wonder if our civilization will completely break down, and we will go back to beasts fighting for mere survival.
So if we do nothing, and simply make the most of the current climate "vacation" we will probably be doing the best thing we can do for ourselves, our planet and our descendants. We certainly should not be limiting the resources so desperately needed by so many people poorer than ourselves. Intentionally making fossil fuel more expensive in order to make weaker "alternatives" appear to be cheaper is hurting the poorest of the poor most of all.
Our children will look back on this age as one of selfish hubris, where people really were convinced that we could hold back climate change, and tried to do so at the expense of our most vulnerable brothers and sisters.
I will furnish you with one tidbit backing up my statement about IPCC scientists acknowledging the frailty of climate models. I will not do the rest of your work for you. It's up to you to learn or deny science. Science does not care how you feel about it.
The following quote expressly states that the models are still needing work to effectively model cloud feedbacks. It also states the most recent revisions have resulted in LESS positive feedback. If you can follow the Science article, and then read the paper in question (second link). You may understand better the importance of the error in climate models. Feel free to come back and comment further after reading the article and paper.
"Bretherton says more cloud-resolving models are on their way. "Within the next few years, we will have global models that will do what [Schneider's] does in a more defensible way." Bretherton is the midst of developing such a model himself, which also relies on eddy simulations to power its simulations. To his surprise, he added, initial runs seemed to suppress the warming feedbacks for these clouds more than expected."
https://www.science.org/content/article/world-without-clouds-hardly-clear-climate-scientists-say
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018MS001409
Quoting James:
"humankind's proclivity for believing in religious teachings in the absence of evidence is everywhere."
Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith. Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere near the point that it could not sustain humans. To the contrary, the Earth has tended to be much cooler than today for much longer periods of time. Glaciers covered New York City for over 200,000 years in the last glacial advance. The current melt began about 20,000 years ago, and is expected to only last only for a short while, perhaps if we are lucky another 10,000 years. The entirety of civilization has developed during the last 10,000 years of glacial retreat. Humans and other creatures have thrived during this warmer and moister climate "vacation".
You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science. It's understandable that politics would be involved if you assume that some regulatory steps must be taken, and that such steps would effect the rising of the oceans or the warming of the atmosphere. That makes perfect sense if you believe the premise.
Regardless of whether or not you buy the argument of human caused climate catastrophe, the actions being proposed will be harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable more than anyone. Making fossil fuel less affordable in order to make alternatives appear affordable makes everything, not just energy, more expensive for everyone. That in and of itself enriches the fossil fuel companies you seek to eliminate. It's a fools errand and does more harm than good.
"You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science." First, I object to your term "skepticism". Another standard trope from the world of climate denial. Skepticism, when used in scientific inquiry is a way of taking scientific findings to a high level, where it must pass muster among experts who have questions. Is the logic good? Where the experiments legit? Etc. But there is a point where legitimate skepticism ends and a consensus is reached. That has occurred for nearly all climate science today - did a long time ago. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Any contrarian views must now be subjected to "skepticism" from the scientific community. Including yours. See if it holds up. So far it has not. For the sake of the world, I hope such claims are right. But I think I know better. Follow the money. Second, I did not say that skepticism (I would correct that to say "contrarianism") is rooted in anti-intellectualism. It is a factor for sure, but I believe the real reason is greed and want of riches and power.
As for a discussion with you, I am not expert enough. And neither are you. And in the absence of true understanding, true expertise, it comes down to who do you trust. I trust climate science to reveal the true nature of what is happening to our atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning at a prodigious rate. You do not - you are on a different page. We are not going to get past that. So no thanks.
"Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith." False - it does not rely upon faith. It relies upon scientific study of climate history, and our increasing understanding of the mechanisms involved in such a possibility. BTW - are you an earth scientist, steeped in the research where such concerns are coming from? If so, please educate me.
"Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere near the point that it could not sustain humans." Go back far enough and most certainly the earth had an unsustainable climate. That aside, some form of human society can no doubt sustain nearly anything. So can cockroaches. The rest of our ecosystem as currently configured? Not so much. Look, Climate Science is not predicting a total Venusian meltdown - a range of scenarios are predicted and that range narrows the more the science advances. Inside that range however are scenarios where humankind sustains a shit ton of suffering. A world I don't want my progeny to live in and neither would you. Rising seas, failed ecosystems, mass extinction, flooded cities, mass migrations, ever increasing weather catastrophes, entire latitudes of earth largely unlivable (as some areas are already), more chance of world war likely nuclear, food shortages. Can humans live in it? Yes. Is the possibility worth just keepin' on keepin' on? I think not. It must be avoided.
"..the Earth has tended to be much cooler than today for much longer periods of time. Glaciers covered New York City for over 200,000 years in the last glacial advance. The current melt began about 20,000 years ago, and is expected to only last only for a short while, perhaps if we are lucky another 10,000 years. The entirety of civilization has developed during the last 10,000 years of glacial retreat. Humans and other creatures have thrived during this warmer and moister climate "vacation"." All true. However has nothing to do with current global warming trends, human caused. The point is that humankind's burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented in world history, except possibly ancient (millions upon millions of years ago) cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. Which by the way, strongly appear to have had significant and rapid climate effects. All that climate history you quote can be explained by astronomy and earth sciences, and has. We are in new territory with man-made global warming, which can trump the slow moving trends of the past, at least for the next few millenia.
"Regardless of whether or not you buy the argument of human caused climate catastrophe, the actions being proposed will be harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable more than anyone. " And that, for all reading this response, is one of the biggest excuses for doing nothing, presented by the climate denial community. Taken straight out of the Competitive Enterprise Institute playbook.
On the contrary, the effects of climate change will be (and currently is already) felt the most by the poor and vulnerable among us. Furthermore, this move away from fossil fuels can be done in such a way as to minimize human impacts. It is so very very unfortunate that this "gift" of oil in the ground, which is making life easier for (presumably) all of humanity, is in actuality, with the rate we are burning it, leading humanity to doom. But that is the case. Therefore, despite this claim, humanity must seek an alternate course, and soon. In the long run, the poor and vulnerable among us will benefit as well as all of humanity.
What we have here is a textbook example of a climate denialist. none of my arguments will have any effect at all, no matter how well supported by the science.
Look in the mirror "GandalfGrey" - who do you really stand for? The science is clear, and getting clearer. The motivations of the big oil companies is as clear as abell, especially with the revelations piling up WRT the decisions made in boardrooms. They have placed their profits over the fate of the world, and will continue to do so if not stopped. What is your motivation for continuing to deny it, at our peril? I'd really like to know.
You have already claimed that you are not qualified to discuss climate science. How then can you claim to know who is qualified?
"The point is that humankind's burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented in world history, except possibly ancient (millions upon millions of years ago) cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. Which by the way, strongly appear to have had significant and rapid climate effects."
Volcanic eruptions tend to cool the atmosphere by blocking sunlight from reaching the surface. They also emit huge amounts of CO2, which if the climate change theory held water, should have caused warming once the haze cleared. That has not been the case. Most volcanic eruptions cause very rapid but short term climate effects and the climate quickly recovers to normal. It's water vapor and convection that are the primary drivers, and this action quickly corrects the short term temperature imbalance.
You may ask: "Why would the planet have a certain balanced range of temperature?" The reason is complex, but it has to do with our proximity to the sun, the total surface area of the planet, the density of the atmosphere and surface pressure (determined by mass of planet and volume of atmosphere).
A black body when warmed tends to radiate more heat than when it was cooler. How rapidly it radiates depends upon the surface area of the black body. The biggest factor which maintains a steady range of temperature on Earth, and not on Venus for example, is water vapor in the atmosphere. This is one reason that scientists look for solid, liquid and gaseous water when searching for distant planets which may inhabit life. The planet has to be the correct size, the correct distance from a star, and it must have water in three phases, solid, liquid and gas. The water is a transport mechanism for heat. When it is gaseous, it absorbs Infrared radiation coming from the ground like a blanket. Unlike a blanket though, it has many holes where convection carries the heat aloft and radiates it into space.
When you hear a climate scientist say that the "greenhouse gases" act like a blanket or greenhouse, they are giving you a climate change sales pitch. They know most people are ignorant enough to but the blanket image. Most climate scientists would never describe the atmosphere as a blanket or greenhouse. Neither has any opening for convection because they are designed to keep heat inside. The atmosphere is not like either one of them. It constantly circulates from low altitude to high altitude, carrying heat with it to be radiated into space. That action is what the climate models cannot adequately model. The modelers all admit this in the fine print.
Interestingly, what is not known at all, is why we have this odd cycle of 20,000 years of warming, then 200,000 years of deep glaciation. No one knows what triggers either change, but this fairly regular cycle is observed in the geologic record. We are nearing the end of this warm cycle as we speak.
What will happen to civilization in the next deep glaciation no one can predict. Certainly our population will have to decline. The habitable zone will be dramatically decreased. Our energy needs will rise, because it's much harder to survive severe cold than severe heat. Food will become an issue.
If you still don't get the point about enjoying these favorable conditions while we have them, then I have little sympathy for you, and neither does science. It does not care one iota about how you feel. It will go on, we may not. In fact, most assuredly the sun will engulf the earth one day and humankind will cease to exist.
Make the best of the time you have, earth will be here long after we are gone. Enjoy the gifts she provides while you are here.
Thank you for the link, BK...the struggle for balance in our moral accountability on and with this planet is a constant but necessary one.
Those of us who ignore it must MUST learn to step back from capitalism's bulldozers and take in the gifts of beauty and nature's home before it is totally destroyed 🌿
Thank you, I didn’t express myself very well. What I meant to comment was that the reports I’d read in the news didn’t contain the deeper context that HCR provided. 😺
Thank you, Tony. One or two articles that I read did provide a worthwhile context. I agree that HCR's decision to make the pipeline spill the subject of the Letter given that life on the planet and the planet itself are endangered as result of the manner in which capitalism has been practiced, its pivotal connection to the fossil fuel sector, what has been ingrained human practice...It's our MAJOR!
😧😢🥺
😡
I grew up in MI so I often find myself interested in all things MI. There is a pipe line that runs along the Mackanaw Bridge. There is a group I write letter for sometimes but I can not make to protests or committee meetings as I live in CA. The group is: oilandwaterdontmix.org There is a new proposed tunnel to run under the lakes, yikes. After the Kalamazoo River accident you would think one would question why ever endanger The Great Lakes.
Yes. Thanks for writing the letters and supporting Oil and Water Don't Mix!!! Enbridge has conned folks in the U.P. into believing that without Line 5 they will freeze to death when most of the natural gas in the pipeline goes from Canada, across the north part of the state and eventually back to Canada in the east. Two of my friends lives closest to where the pipe enters Lake Michigan at St. Ignace and have been very politically active. Scary stories they tell of anchor strilkes from big steamers. And yes. after the Kalamazoo spill you'd think we Michiganders would have more sayso, but Big Oil bought our seditionist U.S. Representative, Jack Bergman, his seat (he actually lives in Louisiana). We fought hard to get the fabulous Democrat, Dr. Bob Lorinser from Marquette, elected in his place, but couldn't compete with the lying campaign commercials Big Oil bought for him. Not giving up though! Thanks for your support!!
I saw it on CBS News last nite, with an aerial view of the destroyed creek full of crude oil.
Just another Morlock attack on the Eloi in our dystopian present.
Thanks, Fern. I appreciate the recap from those sources.
Thank you, Mary.
It's remarkable. She seems to have 100 eyes.
Totally agree - although that often is “preaching to the choir”. These letters should be syndicated to every major city newspaper particularly in the red states and required reading for Congress. But, education is clearly not in the best interest of the republicans! I remember when Paul Ryan spoke those words and it was abundantly clear the republicans had and have a total lack of understanding of climate change, the rights of Indigenous people, economic realities (alternative energy sources are huge job creators). Their sole end game is power with the ugliest of overtones and consequences.
Perhaps naive of me, but I have often wondered why these wonderful letters and rich commentary are not distributed in
frequent syndicated columns in the major news outlets. Seems to me that this historian would be a terrific author/advisor to some contemporary version of "The Fireside Chats".
I used to write many letters to the editor every day when I was engaged in activism about 10 years ago. What I've long suspected is that letters like mine that did not reflect the newspaper's editorial policies weren't published.
My prolific Op-Ed letter writing in the 1980s & '90s frequently got published in the Gainesville Sun FL, Miami News (while it lasted) & Miami Herald (less frequently in that stodgy rag). Of course the free weeklies and college aimed papers were my forte, Preaching to the Choir on local issues.
And it won’t be. Mary Pipher( author) wrote a fabulous book “The Green Boat” . This is a description of the fight Nebraska organized to keep TC pipeline out of their state in order to protect the “Sandhills “ against major pollution of their ground water.
An important read for those who understand that “big oil” doesn’t care about the damage done by their industry.
As Mary Pipher points out... this will only change with grassroots organizing. Big industry needs to be stood up to.
A while ago I lived in the NW. Protestors there managed a colorful and very dramatic demonstration against Shell Oil which was attempting to open digging in the Arctic circle. The demonstrators lower themselves and long banners from a high bridge so that they dangled just above the rigs setting sail for Alaska. Shell quit.
Yes, Tony, it should be on the front page and the entire front page of the NYT & WAPO, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they 'ain't a gonna do it.' They are both corporate owned media.
Another barnburner of a closing from Professor Richardson. What an astute historian.
🗽
Amen to Heather! Obviously, hell will freeze over before that last clause happens.
Amen🌿
"...the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released documents from executives at major oil companies revealing that they recognize that their products are creating a climate emergency but that they have no real plans for changing course."
The oil companies and the executives who run them will be remembered as killers — of untold millions of people, countless animal species, and perhaps one day the Earth itself. And for what? Money, of course. It's their god. And their dollars feed Republicans in Congress, who eagerly lap up what their masters serve them.
Loosely regulated capitalism is a doomsday machine.
Thank you, Heather. I don’t know how I missed the news about the Keystone Pipeline rupture, but I did, and you did not. Thank you for clarifying the distinction between Keystone, XL, and DAP. 
Michael, that was the sentence that leapt out at me too! It’s sickening, no? “No real plans for changing course” and making sure the Earth does disappear, us and everything else along with it. We are facing doomsday, as you note. I wonder where they think they are going to spend all that money? Such a depressing way to begin this week. Have a good one, anyway.
I was an environmental consultant for pipeline companies, I retired early because of that last sentence
Doomsday yes, but let’s make sure we keep Disney World open, the NFL going and wave the American flag!
And the guns and bibles.
yes, so sad......
OMG isn’t that the truth.
Elisabeth,
"No real plans for changing course".
But, who DOES have a real plan for changing course? Do you plan to drive your car today Elisabeth? Do you plan to drive tomorrow as well? The day after?
See the conundrum Elsabeth?? As long as YOU need to drive you car, the oil companies need to provide you with fuel. Correct?
Otherwise, Elisabeth, you will starve to death. No lie.
Imagine if the oil companies closed up shop and walked away TODAY to "save the planet"??
Three, maybe four weeks from now your neighborhood would smell awful. Dead, starved bodies everywhere. Because, the Trucks and Trains that bring food to your store?
They would stop running Elisabeth. Even if you can walk to your grocery store it would not matter.
So, OF COURSE the oil companies don't have a plan to change.
Because, neither do you or I.
We are stuck.
As Americans.. we must DEMAN public transportation using non-petroleum or coal energy options. Where I live in Texas, there aren’t even bike paths let alone busses or trains. I have no option to walk to a grocery store or any kind of store. Also .. I live in a subdivision and can’t have a horse here. We need public transportation, nationally.
Your observation is taken by me not as a criticism of Elisabeth (us), but to make the point that things don't change unless there is a desire down the consumption line. I observe that we make our choices, our plans, more from the options actually presented to us by the entities (policy makers, industries, scientists do development, those selling products) that are engaged in providing us a needed resource. Because the energy sector has resources to design the alternatives, I feel justified in calling them out and expecting them to make plans for switching to energy sources that don't cripple the world or result in the scenarios you suggest. Maybe, our part in demanding the alternatives is underplayed because our expectations for change are too low or simply we too readily settle for choices between the brands of beer available at the local Quick Trip.
I have been listening to the same logic for 50 years. Meanwhile, the earth is on fire. Like a frog being boiled in a pot of water. Enough is enough...then belittle a child that is trying to change. Boil away
Me too. Can't decide whether I am a sacrificial frog, to old and tough to bother removal from the pot in an age of microwave cooking.
No. I am belittling no one.
I am pointing out a reality.
We are all guilty. Not just those evil oil companies.
Every human being who still believes in capitalism is to blame for where we are now.
I believe in community.
Fred. Excellent response and thank you. No. I was not criticizing anyone. But. I was criticizing everyone.
Your argument that we are subject to big oil and so we drive sort of works. But. When the first car was invented it was universally viewed as a Godsend.
Everyone ran toward them. And here we are.
Guess what. They still are a Godsend. If you have a heart attack, would you want to wait for the bus?
Speaking of conundrums, how and why are fossil fuel products like gasoline and diesel priced so low in comparison to their real costs? Elizabeth doesn’t pay the lobbyists and donate millions to API and other fossil fuel PACs. Methinks you are blaming the wrong people. If Elizabeth grew up and lived in a world where those socialized costs were borne directly by the producers and consumers of fossil fuels we would be living in a safer and more sustainable world today. It is not impossible but there are greed driven forces that make it very difficult. There are reasonable enough solutions to all of your above horrors intended only to frighten.
What about the 120,000 abandoned oil wells in the USA that need to be properly decommissioned? Some of those leak a lot of methane into the air. Other marginal and end-of-life wells are sold off to paper entities without assets to offload the potential financial risk from large companies.
We do need energy and it is clear that fossil fuels bootstrapped us to the life and longevity we enjoy today, but it’s not a free lunch.
This goes directly to the flaw of subsidies continuing beyond development of a legacy resource. Well said.
Correct.
Excellent observations.
The problem is: At the outset nobody could see the environmental catastrophe that would unfold.
Now that we can our entire society is underpinned by?
Fossil Fuel.
Instead of looking early, as we had the perfect in fossil fuels, innovation concentrated on exploiting that resource rather than (except with some exceptions like nuclear) looking to potentially viable new sources. Difficult to replace the viable, the marketable, with something farfetched, like ... well electric or wind when it's easier to be creative, rather than inventive, with the resource or medical practice or drug or food source like beef for a sustainable solution to need we are familiar with. There is need to turn our collective minds and attitudes and probably value criteria 30° if we are to get out of most the messes of legacy solutions.
Actually, Mike, I don’t own a car….
Yes, we must reduce dependence on oil as fast as possible, but there is no way to do it instantly. There has to be a transition period else millions of people dependent on that source of energy will die. Your asking oil companies to "just stop" producing oil and convert themselves into green energy companies overnight using technologies that are great and improving but not yet profitable. In other words, your asking them to commit suicide.
I really don't think you understand the scale of the challenge. Your heart is in the right place on caring for the planet and the life that dependsonit, but it's been emotionally hijacked.
Like Trumpists that swallowed his b.s. whole.
Obviously the transition cannot take place overnight, but it is past time to start treating the climate emergency as if it were an emergency.
JL,
Although nobody wants to say it, the only real solution to the "climate emergency" is dramatic, fantastical reduction of the human population.
Because, no matter WHAT we use to power ourselves to the grocery stores and no matter what the trains/trucks use to bring food to your grocery store and no matter what tractors use to plow the fields?
The fact is, the processes of keeping 8 Billion people alive on this earth are killing the planet. IF the human population is not substantially reduced, I mean, "A LOT" as Trump might say, then, our environment will continue to be destroyed. Not even slowly.
Have you seen a Nickel mining operation?? (Nickel is key to Lithium batteries).
Have you seen Lithium mining operations? (Lithium is key to the EV transition)
EV is not ECO friendly. That is not true. Transitioning to EV? That will present other problems.
Humans need to recognize the ROOT CAUSE of the destruction of our ecosphere.
US. Too, too, too many of US.
Mike, when one country with a fraction of the world's population can use natural resources at a level that exceeds that of most of the rest of the people on earth, your statement sounds pretty hollow. The US alone has contributed the bulk of what is already causing climate change that impacts most of all the people who had literally nothing to do with it but who are paying the price for our actions. I agree that EVs are not a solution: it is merely a way for people to avoid making real changes in how they live. In Greta's memorable words, it is all blah blah blah. And so is your claim that the problem is too many people. The actual problem is culture of people who do not want to give up their entitlements.
Is it not a matter of both? There are thresholds of unsuitability and both the number and size of the footprints contribute to total impact. Both the number and size of dried beans limit how many you can force into a jar.
😊. A good summary of our challenge.
Please keep our transportation history in mind. By the time automobiles became widely available large cities were drowning in horse manure.
The public transportation system built around trolleys and commuter rail was undone by auto manufactures and tax dollars spent on roads. That we did not evolve more available, convenient, and flexible public transport was obviously a missed opportunity in hindsight. However, the fact remains that creating those systems that could compete with consumers’ desires that automobiles fulfilled were and would be very expensive.
I’m not clear about what you consider an “entitlement.” Healthcare including pharmaceuticals, safe and plentiful food, robust education options, social/economic mobility — these things are possible only due to abundant energy resources. We won’t willingly go back to a largely agrarian lifestyle.
Breaking the plutocratic political roadblock to high speed rail would be a step in the right direction. Total travel time between some major US cities would be reduced compared to air by fast rail. Poor, unreliable Amtrak takes a backseat to freight. I got around urban and rural Japan with ease on a variety of trains, so it is not a pipedream. Modern Republicanism puts corporate profits first and public (including environmental) interests last.
Correct. We are unlikely to return to an agrarian lifestyle.
But even that is too high of an impact.
Farming is really the root cause of global warming.
Just look at the former “Fertile Crescent” of the world where farming originated.
Desert now.
Only when humans were unvaccinated hunter gatherers were they in harmony with nature.
Ok. Rational point taken and I agree.
But. I would also argue that the high density living that occurs in all countries in cities, occurs as a result of farming.
And. Industrial farming occurs because of oil.
Oil certainly allowed the development of industrial level farming- which is actually one of the most energy intensive and inefficient forms of farming. I follow developments in farming closely (habit left over from my professional life), and it is encouraging that the trend is toward small farms using sustainable practices. Possible even with grain: there are a number of small grain growers in my state, and this trend is not unusual. Even larger grain farmers have swung to the same lower-input methods. All in all, higher productivity, and lower costs. Add in the increasing growth of alternative methods of delivery to consumers. We are reversing the Earl Butz approach to farming (he was the worst thing that ever happened to American farming, and by extension, destroyed traditional and efficient ways of food production all over the world).
BTW, I would posit that the promotion of industrial farming was a factor in forcing people to move to cities, among other factors. Now there are programs to enable young people who want to farm to have access to farms and markets. Including within cities, as used to be the case.
You use the word use loosely, it in fact should be waste. We spend a dollar to save a dime
Lithium looks like it will not be necessary much longer for EV transition....
Thanks for bringing that up. I read about that the other day and eager to learn more- can't remember details now, except that it is cheaper, does not require mining, and could be readily available. Still in R&D, but promising. I still think EVs are not best use for this, but wouldn't it be great for community self-reliance, and for powering long-range public transportation?
AND new News on Hydrogen Cells for vehicles, planes, etc. 3 breakthroughs reported in 1 week. Breaking H out of a supply of ammonia (NH3) is the one I remember.
You are certainly correct that our environmental sustainability problems are ultimately a knock on effect of overpopulation, although the earth can sustain far more environmentally frugal people than profligate ones. Right now our "only corporate social responsibility a company has is to maximize its profits" orientation of priorities is exacerbating our impact. Yes, we will not get through this without talking about and doing something about moderating population, voluntarily, despotically, and/or catastrophically. The population crash cycles we observe in other species certainly apply to us, and our technology can exacerbate the scale, and is doing so, although we don't call it that.
There is a known way that is very effective when applied. It is used now, but requires a rethinking of how we approach economic development. Too often, our projects end up increasing wealth gap and leaving the less well-off even less well-off - and leaving women in the dust.
But time and again it has been shown that by increasing the well-being of women, and by extension, their families, that birth rates go down, and the local economy improves. The community begins to prosper in local terms, and this has a propagating effect in the culture as women become an active part of it. Perhaps we need to stop thinking in terms of western historical patterns, and take a look at supporting local processes. In many traditional cultures, women played not only a respected economic role, but were also an integral part of the decision-making process.
When Euros came in, they replaced that with the assumption that only men could be economic and political leaders, and destabilized many cultures. We should still provide ecoomic support, especially to cultures now in distress, but we also can direct it to those most likely to be in a position to change the direction of that culture so that it accommodates their needs. Women.
There are traditional cultures right now who are taking the initiative to prepare their communities for climate change. We are starting to learn from them. When we learn how to become indigenous, we will be able to make more rational decisions about how to use the technologies we develop. A different kind of future is possible-- if we are willing to find the ways that lead to it.
I completely agree with your astute observation that only indigenous hunter gatherers are in sync with their environment!
Brilliant. Farming is the root cause of climate change because it enables high density living.
As the GOP forces birth and denies contraception.
Yes. We are currently overshooting the earths carrying capacity for the human population.
Yeah, whatever happened to ZPG in the 1970s? What a sound idea.
I look at the earth fotos from space at nite and think of a petri dish with a fungus spore, ever spreading, consuming the gel until it reaches the edge of the dish, then starts dying from its own waste, all that remains.
Look at that foto of the East Coast of the U.S. or Europe and see the spores growing into each other, consuming all the space.
But before we consume all of the space we will damage or destroy habitability. But yes, the same principle. Yeast dies in a wine barrel when it changes it's environment too much to be sustainable.
As a lifelong environmental activist who has spent the better part of the last 40 years working on energy policy, I must gently protest your comment, Jerry and offer a little context.
You are correct in saying we cannot convert instantly. The problem is and always has been that the federal government provides incentives to oil, gas and coal - much out of proportion to the meager incentives that are sometimes available and sometimes cancelled for wind, solar and geothermal. Oil companies have one of the best funded and most effective lobbies in D.C. and have buried policy that favors renewables so often I no longer keep track. I just continue to work on climate.
We have no oil or coal resources here in MN where I live. But. We have solar resources as good as Houston, TX and wind resources second to none on the planet. Read that again. In order for Minnesota's economy, one of the best in the nation throughout my nearly 70 years on this planet, we require energy to power it and have tried, repeatedly, to create policies that FAVOR renewables in order for wind and solar developers to be able to compete with the tax breaks the federal government continues to provide oil, gas and coal.
In 2007, we passed one of the strongest Renewable Energy Standards in the country (yes, California, as usual, was ahead of us, smart folks that they are.) North Dakota, which has both oil and coal, sued Minnesota under Interstate Commerce laws to force Minnesota legislators to reduce the incentives for renewables and continue to allow MN utilities unfettered access to ND oil and coal. Fortunately, the lawsuit failed and the RES was implemented.
The original RES goal was 20% of energy would be from renewable sources by 2020. Our biggest utility exceeded that goal by 2012 - within just five years! Not instant but about as quick a transition as could be built out, given the transmission issues with distributed energy sources such as wind turbines and solar roofs/fields (vs. a single power plant.)
I understand and respect the dangers of loss of electricity better than most - the Polar Vortex that took down the Texas grid hit us first and way harder. It was -18 below in my back yard the first morning. But because this is MN, because we understand and live through brutal winter weather often, no one here lost power. We are built to federal standards, MISO regulated transmission build outs and maintenance, wind turbines built to withstand ice storms and 80 mile per hour devastating north winds. Texas does not build or maintain to federal standards - and how many died because of that greed and hubris? Hundreds - the most vulnerable among us.
We have long had the technology and ability to build a robust renewable energy grid in this country. But oil company execs - and power company execs, who have long known about the dangers of the now emergency climate crisis, favored profits over anything else. Time to call bullshit on greed.
The theory of the "greenhouse effect" was postulated in the 1860's by Irish physicist John Tyndall. We've had more than 160 years to work on this. I'm not certain we have another 160 years to fix what we've broken. So you'll have to forgive me for being over-the-top emotional at the rates of extinction, loss of habitat, loss of arable land for food production and continually watching crises like Yemen's famine and the floods that covered more than one third of Pakistan earlier this year in standing water. Not getting emotional and acting as if this is an emergency is suicide in my opinion - but a pretty damn well informed one.
So much I didn't know here (like about ND suing MN -- with the current SCOTUS I'm afraid they would have won) -- thank you, thank you!
Last year, a project I was working on took me back to the late 1970s, especially the time around the Three Mile Island accident. I was a politically engaged adult at the time (in my mid/late 20s), but I was startled by how much information about climate change and the hazards of fossil fuels as well as nuclear power was in the popular press. We knew, goddammit, we knew -- and then the Reagan administration and its successors (look at where the Bushes came from!) pretty much shut it down. So it seems in retrospect, at least. We have lost so much time.
"Time to call bullshit on greed" is right.
The "Reagan Revolution" was the political weaponization of media and the triumph of quasi-feudalistic plutocracy. Both Carter and even corrupt Nixon were environmentally oriented. Nixon established the EPA and Carter the Dept. of Energy, which Republicans since Reagan have decried and vowed to dismantle. Nixon was the last environmentally concerned Republican president:
"I hope the automobile industry's present determined effort to make the internal combustion engine sufficiently pollution-free succeeds. But if it does not, then unless motor vehicles with an alternative, low-pollution power source are available, vehicle-caused pollution will once again begin an inexorable increase... I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered, virtually pollution free automobile within five years." -Nixon
"Therefore, I urge again that the energy measures that I have proposed be made the first priority of this session of the Congress. These measures will require the oil companies and other energy producers to provide the public with the necessary information on their supplies. They will prevent the injustice of windfall profits for a few as a result of the sacrifices of the millions of Americans. " -Also Nixon. A Republican?!!
An excerpt from an AT&T TV science special, 1958:
Dr. Frank C. Baxter: "Even now, man may be unwittingly changing the worlds climate through the waste products of his civilization. Due to our release through factories and automobiles every year of more than 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide, which helps air absorb heat from the sun, our atmosphere seems to be getting warmer."
Richard Carlson: "This is bad?"
Dr. Frank C. Baxter: "Well, it's been calculated a few degrees rise in the earths temperature would melt the polar ice caps. And if this happens, an inland sea would fill a good portion of the Mississippi valley. Tourists in glass bottom boats would be viewing the drowned towers of Miami through 150 feet of tropical water. For in weather, were not only dealing with forces of a far greater variety than even the atomic physicist encounters, but with life itself."
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/frank-capra-warns-of-global-warming-1958
So well said, thank you.
Two side points:
"Oil companies have one of the best funded and most effective lobbies in D.C. and have buried policy that favors renewables so often I no longer keep track."
My mainstream news sources regularly report that popular initiatives are blocked by one or another "powerful lobby". They also speak of lobbies writing legislation that legislators dutifully pass, all implicitly normal and acceptable, like the sun in the morning and the moon at night. But if we actually believe in governance of, by and for the people, are not we speaking here of industrial scale corruption? Are not these interventions patently anti-democratic? Patently a betrayal of the common good? If I want to write my legislators, they want me to tick off an "issue". Why is this not even an "issue"?
"Texas does not build or maintain to federal standards - and how many died because of that greed and hubris? Hundreds - the most vulnerable among us."
When we vote or not vote, we are not just expressing a personal opinion (the side of voting that public interest announcements seem to emphasize, our share of choice, but also managing our inherent share of democratic responsibility for outcomes, not only for ourselves, but for the whole society, and increasingly, the whole planet. Our selfish, or careless choices always seem to impact the already unjustly deprived the hardest. Responsible politics is not a narcissistic, competitive sport, it is about charting survival, fulfillment, and maximizing decency within our societies, ourselves included. The pages of history are filled with ugly scenes of what happens when it's not the latter. We become our species' own worst enemy.
I may be simplifying things a bit, but there's a big hulking power out there for which there are virtually no checks and balances in the Constitution: corporate and financial power. The Reagan administration managed to dismantle most of the checks put in place during and after the New Deal, and the SCOTUS has demolished most of the rest, while gutting access to the ballot in their spare time. And, as HCR points out from time to time, as soon as the subject of regulation comes up, Certain Interests are quick to cry "Socialism! Un-American! Stifling competition!" They're the ones stifling competition, but never mind: too many USians fall for it Every. Single. Time.
Virtually all of the independent grocers in my area where bought out by a big local chain, then two national corporations bought essentially all of the locally present chains, and now the two are trying to merge. Some competition.
Correct. Corporations are legal entities for which almost no laws apply.
So. If they want to build an Agent Orange plant in a black neighborhood?
No problem. Just payoff the local white politicians.
Absolutely great writing. Thank you.
Worth reading more than once! Thank you.
Thank you, Sheila! What an impressive record Minnesota has in transitioning!
As a child I remember when streetcars were common in St. Louis, but because of pressure from GM diesel buses were replacing them. I also remember when a Greek revival building downtown was sandblasted. It was grey and there is the grey granite, which I always thot it was made of, but it was actually pink granite. A byproduct of particulate matter from diesel buses & trucks.
You are right that Minnesota has approached this more rationally than Texas. First hand, since I live in TX and almost lost 2 family members to that cold snap. Texas politicians are currently a unique brand of stupid, and I try to vote them out each election cycle.
What you describe to have happened in Minnesota is new info to me. The politics thee are different, obviously. Why haven't those successes been exported to other states?
Jerry, read more. Please don't assume that Texas is the norm. It is regarded as well behind the curve.
Vermont produces more electricity than we use and exports the excess. Because much of what we currently produce is solar, and because we are part of a regional grid, at night we get largely hydroelectric power from the regional grid. Not all of it is hydro, though, so we end up unfortunately using electricity still produced by gas. One of the solutions: my electrical utility is actively working to build up a network of batteries located in homes and businesses to absorb that daytime excess for nighttime use. Various organizations join together to create publicly owned non-profit energy production. This is a just one example. I grew up in the Pac NW and both WA & OR have made huge strides to both reduce use of electricity and are well-along in changing to wind and solar power. Almost every week we hear more of these stories.
The people with power in some states are not so willing to make those moves. But at this point, I think there are some projects programs in place in every states, and many have regional compacts. A great many small projects are done at the community level, in every state.
It's just that we lost a lot of time through the willful ignorance and greed of people who held power. As others have pointed out, every region in the country had offices dedicated to research and development of reducing dependence on oil and other non-sustainable energy sources. We were on our way to sane environmental practices. I should add that this as also the era in which social goods were also being focused on. Reagan dismantled it all within 3 months of taking office. But our situation would be much worse if many states had not kept going, and if NGOs and individuals hadn't kept working on those issues. Because of them, we still have a chance.
It's clear you care. But it is also clear you are not aware of what has been going on for decades in states other than Texas. There are entire publications devoted to that kind of information. There are books. There are organizations (350.org comes to mind, but that is only one) who are actively working to inform, educate, organize, lobby, create.
We need you. TEXAS needs you. You have an opportunity to become a nexus of folks who want to work on things like this.
Thank you. I will read more.
Jerry, Dr. James Hansen, the former head of the Goddard Space Center of NASA testified about the dangers of climate change in front of Congress in 1988. Not long thereafter, several national energy related agencies including the EPA, developed more stringent standards for electricity generation and included temporary, minimal incentives to developers of renewable (more about wind at that time). Taking advantage of the money and tax benefits, Texas utilized those incentives and produced more wind-generated electricity than any other state. Iowa was a close second. Farmers and ranchers could generate passive income in their fields - wind above, crops or cattle on the ground. When those incentives were dropped from the budget (by intense lobbying from the oil industry) renewable energy generation floundered. It takes big picture policy, at the federal level, to push everyone in the same direction. Incentives were critical.
Here in MN, several key individuals understood that it takes good policy to even out the playing field. Texas has oil and gas. We have wind and sun. Oil is a finite resource as well as having toxic side effects. Wind and sun are endless (if a bit more fickle). In order to keep the standard of living high, in order to keep the lights on, in order to protect the climate (agriculture is still the number one industry in MN), policy makers figured we needed to transition to renewables. Texas Republicans made the choice for oil and gas - knowing the risks.
there was bipartisan support for the RES. Perhaps it was the incentives/tax breaks for those who built it. In part, Xcel Energy, the biggest utility in MN, made the business decision that renewables were the future. Hard to bust through that in Texas, especially with George Bush as president and the oil companies lining the pockets of so many politicians nationally.
Texas has access to plenty of reasonable policy ideas regarding renewable energy. Oil $$ stand in the way.
Thanks again, Sheila B. It does put Reagan's "government is the problem" mantra in a clearer light, doesn't it? And the point you made here and elsewhere about some states and regions taking the lead on the transition is so important.
Not just oil money. A decades-long disinformation campaign amply covered by Dr. Richardson in many other posts. Enough of Texans have swallowed the b.s. whole, with local beer, that it will take more effort to turn this potentially great state Blue.
The better question is "Why haven't those successes been *imported by* other states?" And you've pretty well answered it as far as Texas is concerned, although I'm guessing that oil has at least something to do with the stupidity.
My state government (MA) is nothing to write home about, but like other states we're working on our own solutions based on our own resources. (Wind is big here too, and since we've got a lot of coastline it's hard to ignore sea-level rise or what's happening to the fisheries.)
Very well written and thank you.
It is ok to be emotional. Our life support systems are being destroyed and 2/3 of American males are driving pickup trucks back and forth to the car wash.
You are correct that lack of vision in government is the root cause.
And. The root cause of the lack of vision?
Bought representatives by big oil.
Worth repeating everywhere!
Jerry, alternative renewable energy sources have been explored at least since the oil embargo of the 1970s. Back then, the Federal govt subsidized electric utilities to explore cutting edge tech like solar, wind, battery storage, pumped hydro, photovoltaics, geothermal. Research and development was extensive with shortage of oil, but when embargo lifted, and Reagan admin came to office, govt resources stopped and research petered. Conversion to alternatives is anything but “instant.” Change is slow but work has been going on for 50 years.
Not only that. In the early 1900s, you could take electric based public transportation from Boston to Philadelphia for low cost, among many places. These lines were bought and closed by men expecting to get rich selling cars...
I concur that the anti-green Reagan revolution was disastrous for progress.
Wow, we can’t have oil companies committing suicide, better all of us.
Jeri, it's not either/or. That rhetoric feels good to spout but has delayed constructive cooperation and real progress in greenhouse gas reduction.
And see Look at the environmental costs of producing car batteries.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries
The lithium and other metals in EV batteries can be recycled, unlike the fuel that powers combustion engines. And, as your linked article points out, EV’s cause less greenhouse gas production than fossil fuel powered vehicles in any cradle to grave analysis.
On balance and over the long term, batteries are the better choice for combatting the threatening climate changes.
Paul-thank you for providing that article!
I don’t see a call to “stop instantly” in Heather’s letter. I believe what is wanted is a good faith effort and facing up to sincere truths—none of which is happening in the fossil fuel sector. Most egregious are the power plays by several state governors to punish the banks that provide the capital to finance fossil fuel projects when those banks curtail their investments in fossil fuels.
The oil companies were onto the dangers in the 1970s, but of course they covered it up. Then along came the Deregulation Administration. Jerry, I'm not sure you understand how long this has been going on. We've lost more than four decades of "transition period."
As a liberal voter since the late 70's, I understand very well how long this has been going on.
Nobody is asking oil companies to "just stop". I see that you are using logical fallacies to undermine the basic argument (over generalizing - "just stop' producing") and ad hominem ("you don't understand"). This is what the trolls do.
Margaret, I was responding to the specific language in a specific comment. I also really do believe that many of the commenter here understand only one side of the equation and dismiss the other. That is not trolling. Calling me a troll is.
No. He just had a different perspective. He was not disrespectful.
Nothing happens instantly in any deal. However, the lack of cooperation and planning on the part of big oil has now made it the citizenry’s problem to drive serious policy to save ourselves. In that light, we have to get policy passed as close to -instantly - as possible because it will take time to implement the policy. Especially, if court filings from big oil stop any requests the citizenry wants.
The oil companies have dawdled long enough.
Well said.
Michael, it is primarily R's fed by the extractive industries like petroleum, coal, etc. ; we have a some in the D and independent political categories too.
Do we ever Manchin
Manchin is a DINO, isn’t he?
He is a self serving narcissist asshole!
The earth Protectors motto is ‘Love Water not Oil’.
We have no memory - no one will be remembered for any of this. But the earth will not forget. 😭
"Loosely regulated capitalism is a doomsday machine"....a meritorious national billboard message.
Michael,
"The oil companies and the executives who run them will be remembered as killers"
Let me guess: You drive a car?? Yes?
The people working in the production and refining of oil? Those folks are providing you what you need and billions of people worldwide need just to get to the grocery store.
IF you want to blame someone as killer Michael, go take a look in the mirror. Whenever you crank your car and drive to get groceries? You are blasting more CO2 into the air than you will breath out for (a year? five years? ten years if you drive for half a day?).
Why blame someone else for something that you are doing?
Stop driving Michael. You are killing people and killing the environment.
Go ahead. Stop driving your car. Save the planet.
See the conundrum Michael? Don't blame somebody for giving you what you need to stay alive.
The ability to crank you car.
Mike A chicken & egg situation? Generally, the American public transportation system is much worse than that available in Western Europe. I remember in the early 1970s with the oil crisis that wide ranging car pools were established. ATT and Long Lines in NJ established shared-rider organizations and provided bus service as far away as Lawrenceville to Basking Ridge.
EV may provide a possible amelioration a decade or more hence, though the obstacles are substantial. Meanwhile, most oil companies and our ‘Arab friends’ are bent on maintaining the petroleum society.
As for personal driving, I have a 2011 car with 40,000 miles over the past 11 years.
As Marie Antoinette might have said “Let them drink petroleum, since with impeding climate change the world will be flooded, scorched, and, perhaps, unlivable for billions.’
Keith. Very good on generating low miles. But imagine 8 billion people with low miles automobiles? Gigantic carbon into the air.
We are drinking petroleum!
My take? The world’s species and ecosystems will only be saved if a pandemic wipes out 90% of humans.
First, I've been driving an EV since 2016. Do I have a carbon footprint? Yes, but I continue to work to reduce it.
I wouldn't be so strident in my views about oil companies if they would have done anything substantial to ease the dire problem they cause. As another poster said, they could have long ago been working to transition to renewable energy.
Climate change isn't a death sentence if the crisis is met with aggressive action immediately to help solve it. Not taking such action is suicide.
Understood.
But. We are ALL not taking action. Not just oil company execs.
In some real ways we are trapped.
Our entire society and survival are built on fossil fuel use.
Well phrased: "Loosely regulated capitalism is a doomsday machine." It sums up the state of the problem today---without regulation human greed, ignorance, and downright immorality in running businesses all provide the ingredients for destruction.
We are all complicit, Michael.
Michael There was a book on Exxon ‘private empire’ some years ago that documented how Exxon was two faced on ‘climate change.’ Reminds me of cigarette companies for decades on cancer in cigarettes.
A few oil companies (BP?) seem to making at least a half-hearted effort to adopt to a less-petroleum world. Exxon clearly is NOT part of this group. Ditto with Arabian peninsula authoritarianism countries.
Regarding ‘climate change,’ I imagine myself as captain of the Titanic as the ice berg was spotted. ‘What possibly could happen?’ NEARER TO GOD IS THEE.
Michael The book was Stephen Coll’s Exxon: Private Empire 2012. See also Daniel Yergin’s The Prize on the development of the petroleum industry.
I trust we've all seen the movie "There Will Be Blood" -- about the birth of the oil industry in the United States. Fascinating. Frightening. Not strictly historical, but not far off the mark.
Exactly! In MT both R congressional rep keep throwing this out as red meat for the people here that they swallow bc it is coming from a R. Daines is especially loud about how the President is killing the economy & upping inflation by curtailing oil & gas drilling & hurting MT.
Reminiscent of tobacco companies decades earlier with the loss of so many lives.
You don't have to say anything else. "Loosely regulated capitalism is a doomsday machine."
Thank you Heather. I am so glad you wrote about this. I have a life long friend who is a trump supporter.. she and her 90+ year old Mother, who I’ve known since I was 14... for 44 years... both called me a liar when I tried to explain all this to them. They called me a liar when I told them thd Keystone Pipeline was fully functional. They called me a liar when I explained it was an extension to the Keystone that was halted. They called me a liar when I pointed out DAP was endangering sacred indigenous land and both it and the extension (XL) were at risk for contaminating watershed as well. It’s pretty much destroyed our relationship. I appreciate your documenting all of this, as when I attempted to show them the pipeline maps and documentation, they claimed it was all made up leftist propaganda. Thank you!
Since my husband has Lakota ancestry, Sans Arc band, his relatives have made us aware of all the problems, particularly in South Dakota. All this activity and the threat it presents does not only contribute to climate change, but also may ruin the aquifer which many, including white ranchers rely on. Right now one of his cousins who has a large acreage ranch on the Pine Ridge is worried about the lack of rain and snow, so there's that too. Finally, the total lack of respect for sacred sites is a travesty, no matter where they are located.
All you say is true. I'd like to add that while pipelines are necessary for a little bit longer as we transition to a lesser dependence on oil, but ignoring promises and treaties and riding roughshod over indigenous people's rights is inexcusable and tragically unnecessary.
The XL pipeline should've been designed with a longer or different route.
So what else is new? We’ve been trampling on indigenous people since we arrived!
We really need to be exporting oil from our Gulf coast made from Canadian tar sand? I think that’s ludicrous.
Exactly the truth.
No, of course we don't "need" to do so. It's just economically more efficient because there's a concentration of refining capacity around Houston that can efficiently handle the specific chemistry of the Canadian Alberta tar sands.
Jerry, your argument stuns me. You have really bought into the oil companies' mindset, haven't you? You talk of "efficiency" and routing pipelines as if they were givens and as if other people here had no idea how that works. For many of us, those were the starting points. In Vermont, we were fed those same arguments about a natural gas pipeline (by company within same holding company as the midwest pipelines, about costs and about the "efficiency" argument, including the supposed "transition" argument. We did the research and proved the companies were lying. Not merely wrong. Lying. Though the corporations managed to stave off the challenges for a while, time proved us right. ULtimately we won, but not before a lot of damage was done and people's lives upended.
The pipelines are dangerous no matter where they are put. And they are costly no matter where they are built: every single one has huge cost overruns. I've been in the tar sands and in the fracking fields. They are ugly, and they are toxic, in addition to being disruptive (understatement) to the communities they are near.
Ultimately, their product is not needed. These pipelines are not "interim solutions". We already have the technology to completely replace the oil. It is irrational to ship (by any means) toxic sludge from Canada to Texas for refining - except for the corporations who buy off politicians so they can keep alive their cash cow.
What if Texas began to willingly transform from allowing itself to be economically dependent on a technology that is dirty, affects human health, destroys ecosystems both directly and indirectly? What if Texas took advantage of the other sources of energy it has access to (wind and solar, for instance) and began to built a multi-state grid that benefited all Texans and not just a few? That's the real transition: recognizing the historical reality of how oil companies do things, and choosing to shift away from being complicit.
Texas's disaster wasn't the storm. Texas's disaster was its own decision to ignore the needs of its people, and put the interests of big corporations above their responsibility to both human beings and the environment.
Something maybe for you to think about. I have friends in Texas. They get it.
“we already have the technology to replace oil”
Oil conversion to CO2 by combustion has only one peer where energy is relevant.
Nuclear.
I wasn't arguing, only repeating the oil companies' logic. I intimately understand their approach because I worked in that industry. That doesn't mean I agreed with everything.
However, you keep wanting to blame oil companies for the public's demand (thirst) for oil. To meet that demand, pipelines are necessary. Yes they could be safer as a group, but it's not a given that a given pipeline is unsafe. It IS a given that pipelines are a safer means of transport than rail. For the time bring, transport is necessary.
I agree we need to accelerate transition to renewable and Texas could lead there (Houston is working to create a green energy tech hub). But demand is where the challenge lies. That is a global issue, and even if the transition to green goes as fast as possible, global demand for oil and gas will continue to rise for a couple of decades or more.
Note that I'm not trying to protect oil and pipeline companies (they're often separate). Sheer scale of human demand for energy will fo that.
Yes it is and most people have no idea about that.
If I am remembering correctly, it was supposed to go on a different route, but white folks objected, so... I had a unpleasant encounter with a Lakota this last week, and I do understand his anger. He accused me of all sorts of things including racism which is not one of my faults. We were on a thread of one of my husband's Lakota relatives who thankfully defended me and blocked him. I don't know what he does about his first name which sounds English or his surname which sounds Scotch-Irish. One of the things I told him is that I could write a book on how this country was built on slavery, genocide, and stolen land. I personally am mindful of the latter and also the sacredness of the earth. I have gardened for over 50 years with that in mind and have gratitude for what I am able to harvest and often share with others.
What a difference with the "respect" for other religions, isnt it? But indigenous people - their ways and religions are looked down upon & ignored. Of course, the larger church organizations produce a great deal of money - for whatever purpose! And money seems to be what matters.
This has been part of the European mantra for centuries. We are going to redeem these "savages" and save them. That is part of the novel Things Fall Apart which takes place in Nigeria as missionaries arrive. My time in the Peace Corps was work in a Irish Catholic run boys' school. The boys were Catholics at school and also retained their own beliefs as well. There was lots of "juju"around including certain items put next to rice fields. Another good novel about this is The Poisonwood Bible where what the missionaries thought was happening was quite different in the eyes of the Africans. I did laugh. Just this week my husband was reading something which said the Catholic Church in West Africa supported itself through the slave trade.
Not a surprise. Its downright amazing how really lousy the "redeeming & saving" was & still is to this day. The Catholic Church "organization" was responsible for so much abuse & cruelty. And really never has accepted the blame they deserve. And its not only them. Strange how religion - evangelical & otherwise - seems to believe that they & only they (familiar?) can save these "poor" people. I've heard of the Poisonwood Bible - never read it - I'll look for it, Michele - thanks.
I read a lot of history and I am amazed at what cruelty we inflict on each other for no really good reasons. You might also try At Play in the Fields of the Lord which takes place in South America. I did laugh at parts of that too. The person I find most grounded among my friends is a devout Christian who walks, but doesn't talk. I feel serene just being around her. So it possible to be a person of faith and not destroy everything in sight and promote hatred. I also like the writing of Marilynne Robinson who is also a Christian and writes excellent fiction and nonfiction.
I admit I dont read a lot of non-fiction - the truth part of what mankind does is usually much much worse than fiction! Thanks for titles to ask for at the library - I appreciate it.
Nice. “Supported itself with the slave trade”.
Quite disgusting.
Yes, that was new to me. But after reading a lot of history, nothing much surprises me.
I know people and politicians who are
Just like your friend. It is sad, but it is also so damaging.
Thanks for your perseverance. Very hard.
Rupert is good at blaming others for what he is doing. No need to ask if they watch Fox. The lies and spin have fried the brains of half our population. Sort of like the destruction of the pipeline, only worse.
It often occurs to me that the favored Trumpist response to facts they don’t like reduces their argument to Grade School Triumph; “nuh uh”
The “executives at major oil companies” are stupid, lazy, and arrogant They could have rebranded as general energy services companies years ago and diversified into renewables. It’s not like that suggestion wasn’t offered. But instead of investing in the future they invested in greed and greenwashing.
They know exactly what they are doing and what the consequences will be and are already starting to be, but they think their money will save them.
Exactly
Sorry, they are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live. They're not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies. Their shareholders would revolt.
The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10 years. If you think they don't care and aren't worrying about the inevitable transition, then you're blinded by emotional name-calling. Lazy? Nope.
Lordy, I am old, been hearing of these problems for decades, and seeing the intransigence of the “power that be” republicans over many years. Money ruled, rules, and will rule. You make excuses for what is “inexcusable and tragically unnecessary.” Old alliances do die hard, even when one tries…
Is not "excuses". It's scientific and economic reality. Your emotional ourburst gets many more "likes" on this forum, and feels good, but is part of an "old alliance " itself that causes its own intransigence.
The reality is that if your wishes were granted today, economic upheaval would cause immediate and severe human suffering, and the political backlash would set environmental progress back by decades.
Jerry, you write
1.) that they (the oil companies) “are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live.” You (I assume) would also include coal and natural gas* in the same category. And, you are correct their efforts provide energy in a variety of forms and has been/is/and will be a very important aspect of all of our lives.
(* atomic energy should be considered in a separate category.)
2.) You also write that they are “not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies.” Are you saying that IF those technologies (the Green ones) were profitable the Fossils would adopt those technologies? (Please note that United States is estimated to provide a total of $20 billion in fossil fuel subsidies every year. Approximately 70 percent of these subsidies come from the federal government, and another 30 percent come from the state government.)
3.) If the Fossils and the Greens could BOTH be profitable (including with government subsidies). Would any of the “shareholders … revolt”? (Please note: According to Congressional Budget Office testimony in 2016, an estimated $10.9 billion in tax preferences was directed toward renewable energy, $4.6 billion went to fossil fuels, and $2.7 billion went to energy efficiency or electricity transmission.)
4.) You write: “The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10 years.” Correct, Jerry. This is a very long term project. BUT, it is (as you say) also INEVITABLE.
5.) “If you think they don't care and aren't worrying about the inevitable transition, then you're blinded by emotional name-calling.” The FOSSILS should quit “worrying” about the transition and get going on helping to provide a solution. It appears to me that both the FOSSILS and the GREENS are in a winner-take-all stance. So are our politicians. We, the People need to push the corporations and the politicians into a better mindset. Everyone CAN be winners in this matter. EXXON (not to just pick on them) can find itself in the position of being a leading producer of energy - past, present, and future. And government can lead the way, using the traditional “carrots and sticks.” We, the People need to demand more of corporations and government in this matter. Remember that those subsidies are OUR money.
6.) Jerry, you ask “Lazy?” I agree, none of the “players” are probably lazy. Unmotivated, uninformed, uncourageous, unambitious, unaccountable, uneducated, uncommitted, un-American? (Sorry, I couldn’t UN-plug myself….)
Long but very well written.
Oh, my…too many words on an extremely important matter to the entire planet. Sorry to inconvenience you, Mike S.
Jerry is partly correct but so are you.
Oil companies actively try to prevent alternatives by garnering tax breaks and subsidies.
But. Oil companies are indeed supporting our American life.
So are the Greens, Mike. Think about it. This really shouldn’t be a Fuel Feud. It’s not just about dollars and cents and who can con the politicians out of more Taxpayer Money.
Yup, Jeri. Exactly!!
Jerry, your several comments today have mentioned “transition,” a concept that make total sense but lacks a plan. I have mentioned on this site several times a way to merge the Fossils and the Greens into cooperative ventures. Yea, it will take government subsidies. (Reminder: the money of We, the People.)
You have mentioned “the shareholders.” Good point. Would EXXON’s shareholders reject the Huge Carrot that We, the People could provide by to EXXON by encouraging them (monetarily) to erect wind turbines and solar panels on the same piece of land where the pumpjacks are incessantly moving up and down, pumping the oil out of the ground? And the solar and wind companies would help construct and manage that merger of ideas and technology and change. EXXON could actually have a FUTURE rather than be seen as a dying entity. Furthermore, when you pull your car into an EXXON gas station, you could get gas or power for your EV, both of which would be produced by EXXON.
Yes, this is just one aspect of this attempt at ending the FOSSIL vs GREEN feud. This is something that We, the People, with our voices and our pocketbooks can demand from “the powers that be.” Fossils and Greens can both be winners. If we don’t do/demand change/cooperation/merging of ideas, etc., Fossils, Greens, and We, the People will be losers.
Paul, your vision makes sense, at least the part about gas stations providing charging stations like many currently provide air pumps next to the gas pumps. If you drive through parts of West Texas, you will see both active pump jacks and wind mills interspersed, salted with beef on the hoof grazing on dry grass.
But we can't have wind power generated everywhere (at least yet). There's been more progress towards personsl solar power front so far. But the sheer scale of global power needs means it will take decades to transition, and it will never be a total transition. The physics don't support it, and human demand, especially in 2nd and 3rd world counties, prevent this.
We the People need energy to live. That demand is persistent and inflexible.
"Persistent and inflexible"? Only to some Americans, it seems. We are talking already existing change to a more sustainable energy, and reducing our "demand" to a more rational level. Jerry, even so-called "underdeveloped" countries are on board with that more than you seem to grasp. Like I said, read more so you aren't just repeating what the oil companies want you to believe. It's getting tiresome. Our wastefulness is an embarrassment. And as for "3rd world"... some parts of our country are doing no better than many "3rd world" nations. And that's not so much an economic issue as it is a social one that arises out of a distorted economic system.
Jerry, you write
1.) that they (the oil companies) “are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live.” You (I assume) would also include coal and natural gas* in the same category. And, you are correct their efforts provide energy in a variety of forms and has been/is/and will be a very important aspect of all of our lives.
(* atomic energy should be considered in a separate category.)
2.) You also write that they are “not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies.” Are you saying that IF those technologies (the Green ones) were profitable the Fossils would adopt those technologies? (Please note that United States is estimated to provide a total of $20 billion in fossil fuel subsidies every year. Approximately 70 percent of these subsidies come from the federal government, and another 30 percent come from the state government.)
3.) If the Fossils and the Greens could BOTH be profitable (with government subsidies). Would any of the “shareholders … revolt”? (Please note: According to Congressional Budget Office testimony in 2016, an estimated $10.9 billion in tax preferences was directed toward renewable energy, $4.6 billion went to fossil fuels, and $2.7 billion went to energy efficiency or electricity transmission.)
4.) You write: “The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10 years.” Correct, Jerry. This is a very long term project. BUT, it is (as you say) also INEVITABLE.
5.) “If you think they don't care and aren't worrying about the inevitable transition, then you're blinded by emotional name-calling.” The FOSSILS should quit “worrying” about the transition and get going on helping to provide a solution. It appears to me that both the FOSSILS and the GREENS are in a winner-take-all stance. So are our politicians. We, the People need to push the corporations and the politicians into a better mindset. Everyone CAN be winners in this matter. EXXON (not to just pick on them) can find itself in the position of being a leading producer of energy - past, present, and future. And government can lead the way, using the traditional “carrots and sticks.” We, the People need to demand more of corporations and government in this matter.
6.) Jerry, you ask “Lazy?” I agree, none of the “players” are probably lazy. Unmotivated, uninformed, uncourageous, unambitious, unaccountable, uneducated, uncommitted, un-American? (Sorry, I couldn’t UN-plug myself….)
What about the millions (billions?) of taxpayer “corporate welfare” currently being paid to the oil industries? And if their shareholders revolt will they be assaulted with water cannons or just have to diversify their portfolios? Stop making excuses for corporate greed.
Both “sides” - FOSSILS and GREENS are recipients of “corporate welfare,” Donna. The problem is not that the “carrots” are scare. The problem is that the “sticks” don’t demand cooperation, unity of purpose, or the interest in America’s future. The “stick” that We, the People should demand is ending the FOSSILS vs GREENS feud. Every energy company can be a winner and have a future - even the Fossils.
The oil industry, a mature industry if ever there was one, still receives subsidies from the US government. Renewables have lost much of their subsidies, especially at the state level, yet are still able to compete price-wise with fossil fuels. Scaling them up is already happening, and will continue to happen regardless of what party controls our elected branches of government. I pay significantly less per kWh than my neighbors because I have solar panels on my roof, not the other way around. This trend is going to continue. It can leave big oil in the dust, or not. It's up to them.
How much did your solar setup cost? I'm curious because in my area, even with subsidies, it would take well over a decade to recoup those costs through savings. I don't plan on staying in one address that long. I also didn't have enough cash for the upfront costs I would have faced when au looked at this year's ago. Maybe it's different now.
I have had my solar panels since 2015, when I got a sweet deal from Solar City (Tesla). Free installation. I will own them after 20 years. I pay Tesla for the power they generate - locked in at 2015 electricity prices (NH has some of the highest electricity rates in the US, and they've increased significantly over the past 7 years). Essentially, I have 2 electric bills, one to Tesla, and one to my local utility if my panels don't supply my needs. This is the case in Nov, Dec, and Jan, when NH doesn't get much sun. However, the panels generate a surplus May - Sep, which, under NH state law, my utility has to buy from me, my meter actually runs backward during that time.
I was looking into this in 2015. I decided against this because I was moving houses and didn't think I'd only be in the current house for 20 years. Now I think we'll be here much longer, but the local deed restrictions currently limit use of solar. The challenges are many.
That said, I'm glad you and other really adopters are finding satisfaction with the transition because your successes lead to a change in local ordinances and to a drop in unit price.
Nice setup.
…and up to us as well, don't you think?
Fern, outside of NYC, it's hard to live without a car. Within NYC, it would be impossible to live without public transportation and an energy infrastructure. Some individuals in some places can live off grid. Most of us can't.
Jerry, your reply to me has nothing to do with my thoughts about what 'we' need to do, does it?
Fern, I reread the thread, and yes it does. While I agree it's up to us, not all of us can choose lifestyles that force change, except for vote. It's easier to be more efficient and greener in dome locations more than others.
So, I really wasn't disagreeing at all, just adding a comment.
They have no plans to make changes. That calls out the error in your statement.
You can't make an elephant turn into a hyena. Even if they want to, there is no profitable way for that to change. At most, you can make oil companies less relevant. But that takes time.
Correct.
“Their shareholders would revolt”. That says it all. The greed model is unsustainable. Humanity is on a path to its own destruction and sad to say it’s likely too late to reverse. Hope to be wrong.
This is such a huge disaster if only for the poisoning of the soil. Are we capable of coming to terms with the work we must do to “make do” with less? We did it in WWII, but this America seems too drugged, too undereducated (do we get free college like France? free medical school for the qualified so we can survive the diseases of climate change?), too “exceptional” to find the flexibility for the democracy to survive, particularly given the Republican base.
Having just watched the MSNBC movie on student loans, I read about the oil spill and felt the most discouraged about US in days. If the Republicans do even a few of the horrors they plan, I fear that the America I have loved and voted for will be history.
Meanwhile we have to eat. Destroying farmland or even potential farmland needs to be criminalized. Where is the will to do that? To clean rivers and other water sources?
Fritz Hollings, 2004:
"But the main culprit, the cancer on the body politic, is money: Money,
money, money. When I ran 6 years ago, in 1998, I raised $8.5 million.
That $8.5 million is $30,000 a week, every week, for 6 years. If you
miss Christmas week, you miss New Years week, you are $100,000 in the
hole and don't you think we don't know it and we start to work harder at
raising money.
As a result, the Senate doesn't work on Mondays and Fridays. We have
longer holidays. The policy committee is adjourned and we go over to the
campaign building because you can't call for money in the office. So we
go over to the building and call for money and obviously we only can
give attention to that. We don't have time for each other. We don't have
time for constituents, except for the givers. Somebody ought to tell the
truth about that. Unless and until we excise this cancer, the Congress
and Government is going to languish alone because it has to be done."
The cancer has spread all around, republicans are eaten up with it, Dems are in treatment, but the cure is about as unpalatable as the disease. Sad to say
OH. In 2004. So for 2024?
Spot on
We have wonderful farmland here in the Willamette Valley and an organization called 1000 Friends of Oregon devoted to saving it. There is a local chapter here in Marion County which we belong to. One of the problems here is that most county commissioners except in Portland are Rs and they have never seen a development they didn't love. We are having New Year's Eve out with a couple friends who are very active in saving farm land and we will catch up with what is going on. It is a constant task to keep up with all the nefarious schemes. 1000 Friends is just not for the Willamette Valley, but works all over Oregon to help with various projects in rural areas as well. I just read their 2022 account of achievements all over Oregon tonight. I might add as a side note that the county commissioners In, I think Wasco County, decided to thumb their noses at the land use commission some years ago and they ended up with the Rajneesh compound with such personages as Ma Anan Sheila. Oops.
They sure did, and that served them really well! One of the nurses I work with was a victim of the Rajneesh bioterrorism attack when they deliberately contaminated salad bars at 10 restaurants in The Dalles with Salmonella. Their goal was to incapacitate the voters in the city so their candidate would win. They should not have thumbed their noses at the land commission. And 1000 Friends is a great organization.
“Deliberately contaminated salad bars…to incapacitate the voters in the city.” Holy Schitt, so much insanity with a purpose…
The leaders went to jail for it. And other things.
They also took over the nearby town of Antelope and everyone there was very unhappy although I would bet they supported the commission's decision to allow the place in the first place.
The people I knew weren't happy. Some moved. Some fought. Many helped with the investigation that brought the Rajneeshi's down. The lesson there is so similar to the places whose leaders think that allowing fracking or oil pipelines is a good thing for their economies.
This also smelled of the county commissioners wanting to score one against LCDC
No doubt they did.
I have several classmates (high school) who joined the Rajneeshies. Their accredited police department (Rajneeshpuram Peace Force, I kid you not) has at least one member who earned the “top student” award at the Oregon Police Academy several classes ahead of mine.
They were some scary folks.
One of my LMTs at the time was a member also as well as his wife. I said nothing because they were and still are all for alternatives. Of course, they didn't get the vaccine which ended a couple people I know from continuing to go them. My feeling is that sometimes in the medical field, alternatives work for certain things until you need your knee replaced, etc.
😳
Netflix has a great documentary series on it called “Wild Wild Country “ It is well worth watching if you haven’t seen it.
I’ll give that a watch!
I wondered if anyone would remember that part of the story. One of my fundamentalists colleagues for not happy about what the commission had done, but only because it was not a "Christian" project. She had no idea about the land use issues. I did try to educate her on what the real issues were when they initially were given permission. This is central Oregon where anything from west of the Cascades is ipso facto bad.
You Oregonians were infamous for stomping on those poor innocent Rrrragneeeeshehes. Their freedoms were impinged on. Have you no shame for exposing their automatic weapons caches, their right to spread deadly salmonella to subvert the vote. Their jamming the voting roles with homeless and toxic strangers. All they wanted was freedom from you Oppressive Oregonian Ogres. Or was it progressive Oregon realists who politically rallied to save central Oregon from itself. Even coach put on his running shoes.
Oh yeah, feeling loads of shame. I am happily one of those Oppressive Oregonian Ogres. Great label. And yes, it was as you describe at the end of your post.
They also bused in homeless people from all over to add to there voting base.
Not on republican agenda, revenge is in the air
I suppose that's why these politicians are paid the big bucks. Everyone knows green renewable energy is the way to go. I'm glad Biden is one who is at least dragging us kicking and screaming into the future. And he's doing this temporarily by appeasing/negotiating people like Joe Manchin and events like the invasion of the Ukraine. Thank you for your analysis Dr. Richardson.
Going green is also an economic boon. Germany has added hundreds of thousands of new jobs this way.
Yes, they replaced their domestic production with Russian gas because that was more politically expedient than supporting their domestic hydrocarbon production. They are being forced to do without sufficient energy, shutting down factories. In other words, going green is great, but losing one source of energy before an alternative source is ready means people freeze and lose jobs.
Drum beat, drum beat
“Supporting their domestic hydrocarbon production” in Germany means continued reliance on coal. That is clearly suicidal. As a result of Chernobyl contaminating German agricultural lands they chose to reduce reliance on nuclear power production and pursued a two pronged strategy—bet that Russian natural gas would be a stable and less CO2 intensive power source while building out green energy sources. Hindsight being 20/20 it’s become clear that betting on Russia was a mistake—as many thought it could be.
Their reaction to Chernobyl was irrational. So was their decision to shut down the Groningen gas extraction operations (In in the minority on that 2nd issue, I lnow)
Groningen is in the Netherlands and expected to stay in production for another 3-6 years. Not sure how that directly involves Germany’s choices. Given the present realities I wouldn’t be surprised if that decision is revisited.
I was living in Germany at the time of the Chernobyl disaster. The main warnings I remember concerned wild mushrooms and milk from cows grazing on contaminated pastures.
Chernobyl was poorly designed and likely not well run and I agree that deciding to avoid nuclear power on that basis was irrational. It may have been a crisis too good to waste for the Green Party at the time and zeitgeist.
Thank you Professor Richardson. If it wasn’t for you, I would’ve never known the sequence of destruction & obstruction that demonstrates the struggle we’ve been facing between our choice to run this magnificent world to the ground or fill the coffers of those who don’t care about the world. I’m with our Native Americans, Obama & Biden. There are other better gentler ways to move a vehicle boat, or train. Suborn narcissistic egomaniacs need Threapy. This nation needs to train more mental health professionals. Actually reform prisoners. Teach actual history in schools, and stop greedy bullying nasty human men from ruining it all!!!
The video “the corporation”, which draws the parallel between corporation and the sociopath, is imo mandatory viewing.
Is this the one you refer to? It looks interesting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(2003_film)
Most likely. Silhouette of guy in business suit with devil horns and tail? Yep, that’s the one. View whole thing including any extra features. Eye opening.
Also "In case you missed it": The ongoing Red Hill Hawaii disaster here on the island of Oahu, in which the US Navy has since the 1940s stored millions of gallons of jet and other fuels in huge underground tanks located only 100 FEET (no typo) over the main aquifer of the island. This aquifer is the primary source of water for the island. Over the years the Navy gambled and tolerated numerous "small" leaks, but a major leak in December 2021 contaminated a Navy well and sickened over a thousand military personnel, dependents, and civilians. The Honolulu Board of Water Supply has shut down several of its wells to try to prevent fuel from reaching the aquifer, resulting in diminished supply for Honolulu and East Oahu. While the Navy--under severe pressure--has committed to defueling the tanks, there is no guarantee that a major breach cannot occur either before or during the defueling. This is a vast over-simplification of a complex and extremely serious situation. Search "Red Hill Hawaii" for much more.
51 years now since the first United Nations Conference on the Environment...
That came up with a fine principle:
THE POLLUTER PAYS
Another empty slogan. The reality, we all know:
POSTERITY PAYS.
And it didn't take 50 years for posterity to start paying in Oahu. (Or worldwide.)
I used to read with horror of the extraordinary damage the Soviets did to the environment. Especially the military. But they were just the tip of the iceberg.
The Oahu disaster makes a painful political point:
We like to contrast Soviet Communism and our triumphant Free Enterprise capitalism. It might be more useful to look at both as the two faces of the same counterfeit coin...
Think about it.
Maybe it will take years to get the point, this truth is a slow-delivery medicine.
Only... everywhere in the world, things are falling apart faster than the sluggish workings of our self-satisfied minds.
A new world in gestation... birth pains beginning?
How many sneaky companies and institutions have used the ocean as a dumping ground, thinking it didn’t matter?
The nation’s largest DDT manufacturer once dumped its waste into the deep ocean. As many as half a million barrels could still be underwater today, according to old records and a recent UC Santa Barbara study that provided the first photos of this pollution bubbling 3,000 feet under the sea. Possibly hundreds of thousands of barrels and DDT-laced sediment were dumped just 12 miles off the coast. How many companies have illegally dumped waste into the ocean and will they ever be held accountable?
DDT waste barrels off L.A. coast shock California scientists - Los Angeles Times
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-04-26/ddt-waste-barrels-off-la-coast-shock-california-scientists
The horror.
Horror that our minds can barely begin to encompass. Our Law, our institutions, all human justice seems so puny when it comes to imagining how the perpetrators of such crimes could ever be held adequately to account. It is simply not conceivable.
Nor will it do to tell ourselves that this and all the immeasurable disasters of so-called peace, following close behind the hellish disasters of war, are a matter for Divine Justice. That is only to compound irresponsibility with transcendant irresponsibility.
We can but take collective responsibility for the actions and inaction of mankind, committing ourselves to learn from errors both past, present and planned. Education, education, and more education.
That entails humility, a virtue now, more than ever, despised by the powerful. A virtue that flows from love, that unquenchable yearning for universal happiness -- likewise despised by today's much admired narco-narcissistic nihilists... Yet, even they may have some feelings for their children... and so may sometimes develop concern for the future to which they are exposing their own flesh and blood... And that could open the door a crack to awareness of responsibility.
Whether we or they like it or not, whether we sleep on or awake, the bills are already trickling in for what we have done and for what we have failed to do. And soon the trickle will be followed by tsunamis.
…more than a trickle, Peter, when it comes to the devastation -- the effects on land, water, life, costs; the sum of all, so far.
Many people have no idea what is coming or is already here. Just yesterday, my reliably R "Christian" ex h.s. classmate posted a long list of wing nut nonsense which of course, includes dreck about fossil fuel and of course, lots of misinformation and hatred directed at anyone who is different than they are. It was too long a list to answer each item, but I did answer the power bs by observing that we have a hybrid that, since we rarely drive out of the city, gets about 1000 mpg and the electricity for it comes from our solar panels on the roof. I also mentioned that the excess goes back into the grid to help others and noted that is probably the dreaded socialism. And yes, I do know that there are problems with renewables too. But when we had the dreadful fires in 2020, I did not see it as something God did.
I hope, I hope, I HOPE I am mistaken, but I see everything we have witnessed to date as a trickle by comparison with what's to come.
We have forgotten that we are part of Nature, we have come to treat the planet as an object to be mined and otherwise exploited and, in so doing, we have transformed ourselves into alien parasites.
This will be paid for. By posterity.
I don't doubt that in all likelihood the consequences of fossil fuel use, ingrained human 'practice', capitalism as it has been practiced for the past 45+ years (others, may more detailed and precise) and additional factors will make life on earth and earth itself more endangered; what's more, I think that we have been paying for it.
Good lord, ticking time bomb
Never heard of this, probably a million more disasters waiting to happen all over the land…
The callous disregard for the potential poisoning is stunning!
Aw, but the people making these decisions think their money is going to save them. In the meantime, keep the peons stirred up with lots of cultural issues among other things.
Thank you for this info....so much of this going on everywhere....storing dangerous things in underground tanks. This is has also happened at Hanford in Washington, a nuclear site near the Columbia River.
Stephen-thank you for including the info re HI-I had no idea.
We should bundle up this little Letter and tie it with a bow and give it as a Christmas present to all the loudmouthed right-wingers in our environs who still keep nattering on about this stupid pipeline. Even expert oilmen have admitted this thing would have been a huge mistake and would not at all have been of much benefit to this country. You'd never know it to hear voices on the right bang on about this thing. Back when prices were much higher they made it sound like this pipeline would be the answer to ALL our gasoline woes! That is basically laughable, or course. In any event, good to see the prices down lower now than a year ago, which has, thankfully, shut them up. This is an excellent summary.
There is a related element to this story on which I would like to hear Heather's take. As far as I know, unlike the writings of Plato, Hobbes, Locke, and others on the philosophy of human organization and governance, I do not think we have a similar corpus on the proper structure and purpose of non-human entities such as corporations.
Ever since the days of VOC (the Dutch East India Company), at best, the chartering and governance of corporations has been inconsistent and all over the map, with no real sense of aspirational values. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are silent on the rights and responsibilities of corporations. The 1886 high jacking of the 14th Amendment by Morrison Waite and Bancroft Davis in their head note to the Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific decision is about all there is, and sadly, it would seem that there has been quite dramatically more SCOTUS references to the 14th Amendment in cases of business law than cases involving human bondage. With the exception of the American Red Cross, virtually all corporate charters are granted at the state level, with no oversight by the state Attorneys General other than seeing that they pay their annual registration fees along with the meaningless accompanying report. So exactly how are we to hold the oil companies and others that behave similarly to account? What would it take to revoke their charters? They come into existence with a simple stroke of the pen, so why can't they be done away with just as easily? Is there some sort of right to corporate life or some such?
Corporations are are just a group of people with a license to conduct business in certain ways. Said people have the same rights and responsibilities of anybody else, but are personally shepherded from the debts of the corporation. That makes some sense, but the current lack of accountability for corporate conduct is bananas. Said past AG Eric holder:
"But it remains true that, at some institutions that engaged in inappropriate conduct before, and may yet again, the buck still stops nowhere. Responsibility remains so diffuse, and top executives so insulated, that any misconduct could again be considered more a symptom of the institution’s culture than a result of the willful actions of any single individual. "
Rubbish. The emperor is naked. If a driver runs over a pedestrian, we don't arrest the car.
Guess i have to repost this:-
"This paragraph seems to sum, in addition the dilemma we face as the nature of some of the “beasts”
“That is what companies are for.
They are designed to multiply capital; what they make is irrelevant.
Torpedoes, food, clothes, furniture. It is all the same.
To that end they will do anything to survive and prosper.
Can they make more money employing slave labour?
If so, they must do so.
Can they increase profits by selling things which kill others?
They must do so again.
What if they lay waste the landscape, ruin forests, uproot communities and poison the rivers?
They are obliged to do all these things, if they can increase their profits.”
“A company is a moral imbecile.
It has no sense of right or wrong.
Any restraints have to come from the outside, from laws and customs which forbid it from doing certain things of which we disapprove.
But it is a restraint which reduces profits.
Which is why all companies will strain forever to break the bounds of the law, to act unfettered in their pursuit of advantage.
That is the only way they can survive because the more powerful will devour the weak.
And because it is the nature of capital, which is wild, longs to be free and chafes at each and every restriction imposed on it.”
from Stone’s Fall by Iain Pears
(great book by-the-way)
Wow. Thanks for the repost Hugh. As a child of Dow Chemical Company, I declared as a teenager that "Corporations have NO Conscience." I thought having women, stern mothers, on the Board would help. No. We, The People (All of Us This Time) must vote in stern officials who set up and enforce the rules and guardrails for the capitalism game. And oust the Supreme Court Judges purchased by owners and investors.
Dioxin, huh?
Dioxin is among other pollutants (many unknown then) that my dad, as an environmental engineer at Dow from 1951 to 1981, tried to prevent or ameliorate. He told the story of how in the 50's, to assess how much toxic waste was being dumped in the Titabawassee River, they had a free fish fry lunch for employees each week, with catch from the river downstream. If the employees complained that the fish didn't taste good, the "sanitary engineers" knew too much toxin had been dumped. Then there were the weeks when suddenly, there were no fish to catch. More than once, my dad made secret calls to the State Health Department to ask for spot inspections of the waste treatment facilities.
He left Dow in 1981, with their blessing and contribution to the Chemical Manufacturing Association, to become a key industry lobbyist on writing regulations for Superfund. It was important work, since environmentalists had little understanding of the depth and breadth of the problem (or how to measure it). And industry literally needed a buy in since they were required to fund it. My dad was always between a political rock and a hard place. At one point, he and my mom "disappeared" for 3 weeks after it was revealed by Tom Brokaw that my dad had lunch with Asst EPA Director Rita Lavelle 11 times. After he retired, my dad wrote a book called, "Too Soon Green," but it has never been published since Dow's lawyers have threatened to sue. I am retiring soon and hope to give it one more edit. Hoping it's not "Too Late" to publish.
P.S. In his last years at Dow he became their Global Environmental Engineer, and prevented a "Love Canal" (scraping off the clay cover of toxic waste dump when building a school on the site) and a "Bhopal" (mass cyanide poisoning) from happening.
Background:
"1978: Scientists at Dow Chemical publish the first study of dioxin carcinogenicity in laboratory animals (Kociba 1978). In the same year, the New York Times publishes a story on the plight of residents near Love Canal, N.Y., where industrial dumping released dozens of toxic substances, many suspected carcinogens.Jul 13, 2010."
I hope you can get your dad's book published, MaryPat. I knew there had to be a particular reason I felt connected to you. Now I have an idea why.
I’m from Saginaw. Grew up with the stuff Dow put into the river systems. I can remember traveling north going near Midland. The air took on a decidedly foreign oder until you got upwind. I remember the huge dioxin battles Dow had with property owners living on the Tittabawassee But hey, Dow Gardens. I feel empathy for your dad
Corporations are, after all, people. All of history is stained by economic greed.
I suggest a book i just finished called The Legacy of Violence about the British Empire for the story of the East India Company and other ways that Europeans formed empires all over the world.
Craig, as you have said so well, the issue of responsibility within a corporation is deliberately fuzzy to protect the oligarchs from the horrors and nefarious deeds of the companies they lead. But I think this really just comes down to political and legal WILL.
If a CEO instructed a CFO or treasurer to steal money for him and/or to kill a competitor...would not the the CEO be held legally responsible and charged with a crime? And if that CEO were to prove that his instructions were vague and yet the victim still dies, could he still not be charged with involuntary manslaughter? No corporate charter or employment contract could protect him.
Therefore, why couldn't the CEO of an oil company that had explicitly recognized the damage their product is doing to the planet and it's inhabitants - why couldn't that CEO be charged with multiple counts of homicide?
The answer is a lack of political WILL. At the 2011 Iowa State Fair, Mitt Romney said: "Corporations are people, my friend". People are not supposed to kill people.
As an aside, and an example of hiding from responsibility, the classic case of "getting away with it" is Senator Rick Scott. He was CEO of a major health corporation that was convicted of one of the largest Medicare Fraud schemes in history. But he got away "Scott free". I guess he took a page out of the Reagan Iran Contra playbook.
Romney was wrong, but if a corporation operates within the law and does what it was incorporated to do, then it's not murder. However, if that corporation mismanaged an operation and someone gets hurt or killed, or land or resources are destroyed, then there is clear liability for that corporation. The problem is a lack of enough regulation to establish and enforce boundaries on corporations.
That and a lack of jail time.
Let me add that I do not think that the idea of a corporation is a bad one, it's just one that we need to domesticate. Right now it's far too much of a wild beast. The good that can come from people working together in very large and well run businesses is significant. We can create products and services that would otherwise be impossible. We can profitably employ people with very narrow specializations. And, we can provide a means for savings to be put to work instead of lying idle as in the biblical story. But, right now, much of this good is being outweighed by the bad.
To a certain extent, I would even buy into the concept of limiting liability for passive investors. But, governance and leadership should not be controlled by the interests of greed and avarice.
There is a parallel in accounting. If you ask any business owner or CEO to list their three most important assets, the responses are quite predictable. They will be the people, and things like special relationships with customers or the communities in which they do business, perhaps the physical environment of those locations. They are all things that are not reflected in the financial statements, and of which the stockholders have zero ownership interest, but a huge fiduciary responsibility.
I think that the direction we should work toward codifying at the constitutional level is some sort of bill of responsibilities and rights for non-human entities. The way to overcome the SCOTUS mess with respect to the way they have abused the 14th amendment would seem to me to replace it with something unambiguous in both its intent and specifics. Also, it would have to include a far more rational chartering and oversight approach compared to the blank check system we now have in place. It could stay at the state level, but it there would have to be some minimal requirements not unlike those we impose on the proposed constitutions in the statehood admissions process (I may be showing my age on that one).
Very much agreed. As always, when things become complex, the devil is in the details. Reagan's "government is the problem" is BS and so is "corporations are the problem". Well, what kind of government? What are the practices and regulations defining the corporation? Including anti-trust? Any human organization can become irresponsible or predatory; it's people after all.
We have known for a long time just how bad corporations can be. Look at the history of "company towns" or the East India Company. Much of the 20th century could boast crafting policies that better "civilized" corporations and improved the lot of the many, until "Reaganomics" began the roll-back. I see private enterprise as a component of liberty, and a potential win-win proposition so long as we promote fair trade. Monopolistic manipulation of labor and markets is where the big money is, but it rips off society and erodes democracy. That ought to stop.
The idea that those who greatly impact society, motivated by the "love of money", should be freed of accountability and regulation makes no more sense than rolling back regulations on automobile traffic. The speed demons will be thrilled, but the carnage immense.
Thom Hartmann has been making the same point for years. And yes, corporations are “people”: they are sociopaths. (See the video “the corporation”.)
Too bad we have to keep hauling pipeline issues out … even with the managers of the oil industry ‘owning’ the fact that their industry is a climate destroyer…it’s too late at night for this conversation, but never too late to ask for Guidance & Power to make better choices. Thank you Heather for continuing to enlighten all of us…
The oil companies have the world by the throat and are strangling us day by day. We need to eliminate our dependence on oil instead of complaining about the price of gas.
Does anyone remember this?
“What if I told you that a multinational oil company allegedly polluted the Amazon for almost three decades? And that the oil company has spent even more years refusing to accept liability? Or that a US attorney who agreed to represent thousands of Ecuadorian villagers in a lawsuit against that oil company has lost his law license, income, spent hundreds of days under house arrest in New York, and in 2021 was sentenced to six months in prison?”
This lawyer should be world-famous for his battle with Chevron – but he’s in jail | Erin Brockovich | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/08/chevron-amazon-ecuador-steven-donziger-erin-brockovich
Kristin, thank you for sharing this story. It’s outrageous and almost unbelievable that corporations like Chevron and DuPont and Monsanto will always have enough money and power to basically exploit people, land and countries with little accountability. They are so wealthy with money and power they will go on forever unless they are held accountable by the law. “Massive corporations can fund endless litigation against activists or critics. They don’t even need to win in court, because they can intimidate or bankrupt their opponents in legal fees.”
In Mexico I saw Monsanto graffiti with skull and crossbones all over. People vs. Corporations. How does it end? We know. Unless laws change there will be no end to the power of corporations over people.
You can add Dow Chemical to that list too.
Yes! A real oversight. Dow with DuPont and Monsanto plus how many more?!
Laws can change. Laws can be strengthened. New laws can be made. New language can be finessed to more accurately pin-point target the exact nature of the offense we are trying to eliminate. BUT if the enforcing arm of these laws is weak - as they always are- nothing of consequence happens. Our ability to enforce the laws and norms already around us fail because the enforcing arm of law is mostly made up of buddies of those they are tasked with enforcing. This happens in all areas of life, from gun law enforcement to environmental policy, to banking regulations, to political corruption. Power plays by different rules.
MLRGRMI, Your first line hooked me, but almost immediately my own rebuttal is yours. It’s possible but not probable. Your last line, “Power plays by different rules.”
Thanks for this reminder, Kristin.
Yes, thank you, Kristin. I remember this very well.
The same legal system that batted down Trump's b.s. election lawsuits decided that the lawyer for the Ecuadorians falsified evidence. Erin Brockovich did great work on fighting those responsible for contaminating ground water, but that was a very different situation.
I remember back in the mid 70’s I was working for a engineering company in Fullerton Ca. One of the projects was to do a study on a pipeline from Canada through California to Midline Tx. Looking at the documents I was appalled at the fact so much of the project went through reservations in California.
Yes, reservations and land in poor neighborhoods. Even now, laws are being introduced and passed to stop the drilling in populated areas. It’s about time. So much pollution and disease caused by and from industry and corporations. And many residents are victims as it takes years and money to fight against these corporate and industrial polluters.
And the genocide goes on
Petroleum is used in so many products that weaning Americans off it will be extremely difficult indeed. Clothing, packaging, appliances, automobiles all have plastic components derived from petroleum. Still nearly 75 percent of a barrel of petroleum is converted to fuels for motor vehicles. It is long past time to abandon the internal combustion engine and convert to much less environmentally damaging transportation technology.
Getting rid of the just-burning-it portion is the most important for combating global warming via reducing CO2 emissions.
Agreed.
Carmen, yes! “It is long past time to abandon the internal combustion engine and convert to much less environmentally damaging transportation technology.”
So true and the auto industry has driven the policies with lobbyists and lies. I bought my 2012 Prius hybrid and it has almost 100,000 miles on it. Best mileage is long distance, so commuters can get more than 50 mpg. Purchase price was more than the cheaper Corolla but was a luxury car compared to it. It’s possible only government mandates that force change will actually create that change. We’ve waited long enough for corporations to “do the right thing.”
My newest grandchild will be getting a cuddly doggie from the Steiff store here in Wiesbaden. It is made of 100% recycled plastic. I wonder how much more we can do with the plastic that is clogging the entire world...
Carmen you are right on target with the recognition that SO MUCH and SO MANY derive "benefit" (profit, careers, making a living) from the products of these large corporations.
Sadly, it isn't just "THEM," it is us and our neighbors and our friends and acquaintances who derive benefit; the car dealers, mechanics, recreational vehicle sellers, motorboats, jet skis, snowmobiles, quads, motorcycles, snowblowers, lawnmowers, powered gardening and lawn maintenance tools, race cars... It isn't easy to give up one's livelihood and perhaps one's sense of accomplishment for what has seemed to so many merely an abstract threat.
Perhaps the recent spate of weather "extremes" in the forms of high (or low) temperatures, droughts, wildfires, storms, rain, etc. will help bring home to more of us just how real these threats are to our environment & our world. I fear the current younger generations are "getting it" with their rising rates of anxiety, depression, drug addiction and suicide.
We must continually remind ourselves that it is US, not just "THEM!"
Truly problematic. Transitioning to lifestyles that would be much friendlier to the environment is a hard sell. Rather than having lawns, an already problematic use of land, we could learn to plant gardens, not just vegetable gardens, but native plant flower gardens to help with the ecosystems. In the small town I inhabit, I have seen much habitat destruction as "developments" - an oxymoron if ever there was one - encroach on numerous forms of wild life. Years ago, I thought how much more pleasant a small lake I visited would be if only non-motorized vessels were allowed. On the small body of water, all the competing engine powered craft roiled the water, spewed unpleasant fumes, and definitely offended my ears. There are probably technologies now available that could supplant all the engine powered devices we use, so snowmobiling could be quieter, motorboats less smelly, etc. But at the same time, I realize that what may seem like simple solutions are nothing of the sort. Noise from recreational vehicles and vessels helps wild life and human life get out of the way. Not all of us would have the inclination to garden - an endeavor I keep trying, but alas, I seem to have little talent for producing the kind of garden I envision as I plant my seeds each spring. Revolutions in culture and industry have and likely will occur. What form, and when? Ah, we know not. I keep hoping nonetheless.
Professor Richardson, today’s letter includes important information Americans need to know. Our environment and our Democracy are endangered by the destruction and pollution of land and water, as well as the rights of Indigenous peoples to preserve historic lands. Connecting the use and the corporations, “Oversight and Reform released documents from executives at major oil companies revealing that they recognize that their products are creating a climate emergency but that they have no real plans for changing course.” This statement is released, but these corporations have admitted way before now that they know they are destroying the land. And when repubs are in power the destruction is approved. It seems it may be more than just repubs. Isn’t it all of us as we watch our land destroyed? Now is the time to stop all drilling and pipelines and make climate friendly power required. We have the technology and human power to harness Sun and Wind NOW. And our transportation systems. Not making it a choice but a requirement. Big business is powerful. A friend of mine protested at the Dakota Pipeline near Standing Rock and water protectors/ protestors were frequently arrested, jailed or mistreated. Officers would often prohibit food being brought in. Some protesters stayed all seasons including winter. A leak was feared and expected. How many reasons and facts do the people, voters, need to understand what irreversible damage will mean to our children and the future generations? Corporate power in full sight and often approved by repubs.
Article from The Guardián about Corporate Crime and the Environment https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate-crimes-oil-and-gas-environment
Thanks for that Guardian link. Unfortunately we CANNOT continue our current lifestyle with renewable energy. - there are too many of us, with increasing expectations. The times they are a-changing, radically.
At least not with the renewable energy available now.
The Indian wars - or rather the war on Indians - has never stopped.