Category Archives: Environment

Five Times The Distance. Five Times The Spills?

Posted on by

The debate over the Keystone XL pipeline is puzzling on many fronts. We hear that the pipeline will create jobs (although the number has been greatly exaggerated); that it’s safer than transporting oil by train; that it will lessen US dependency on foreign oil. Disregarding the fact that oil from the Alberta tar sands is foreign oil and the fact that most of the oil will be shipped to foreign markets, I have yet to hear anyone address the most obvious issue. The Alberta tar sands are located roughly 2,300 miles from the pipeline’s ultimate destination on the Gulf Coast. Yet the tar sands are just over 400 miles from the Pacific Ocean near Vancouver.

That’s more than five times as far, offering five times the opportunity for oil spills.

Even more puzzling is the fact that there is already a pipeline from the tar sands to Vancouver. If it doesn’t have the capacity to carry as much oil as Trans-Canada would like, why not increase its size? To equal the distance of the Keystone XL pipeline, they could increase the capacity of their Trans Mountain pipeline five-fold and eliminate the political conflict with their neighbor to the south. Instead, the Canadian company is asking US citizens to assume the risks of oil spills on our own pristine lands with few benefits to offset the risk.

This oil is even worse than the gooey, toxic stuff that has already despoiled our Gulf Coast. It’s even more toxic. Moreover, no one yet knows how to clean up the stuff. We’ve already experienced two spills of tar sands oil in US rivers and the so-called oil experts have no advice to offer other than to let it sink to the bottom. Worse yet, when the stuff is refined, one of the by-products is a fine, toxic dust that pollutes the entire surrounding area.

Seriously, Canada, I admire your country. I love your scenic beauty. I love your cosmopolitan cities. I love your people. But if you want to develop your tar sands deposits, you will reap the rewards. You should also reap the consequences.

Unreasonable Trade-Offs.

Posted on by

After seeing a headline by David Suzuki “Trading Water for Fuel is Fracking Crazy,” I started thinking about all of the trade-offs we’re being asked to make.  Yes, as Suzuki points out, we are being asked to trade the purity of fresh water in our aquifers that took hundreds and thousands of years to accumulate for the profits of gas and oil companies through the use of toxic chemicals for fracking.

And that’s only one of the trade-offs we’re being asked to make in order to benefit big business.

We’re being asked to trade the beauty of the Appalachians and the area’s pristine waters for the profits of the coal industry through the use of mountaintop removal mining. We’re asked to trade the natural taste and nutrition of fresh fruits and vegetables for the profits of Monsanto, Walmart and large agribusiness companies by allowing the increased use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) seeds. We’re asked to trade the effectiveness of life-saving antibiotics by allowing large cattle feeders, hog growers and poultry growers to increase profits by adding antibiotics to animal feeds.

In order to increase profits for manufacturers, we’re asked to purchase products made overseas that could be made by workers in the US. So that large corporations can pay employees less than a liveable wage, we are asked to help their employees with food stamps, child care and other safety net programs. In order to increase the profits of corporations, we are asked to lower their income taxes and increase ours.  In order to help billionaires avoid paying income taxes, we are asked to give them a large array of tax breaks, including greatly reduced capital gains taxes.

And, in what is probably the most questionable trade-off of all, we are asked to ignore the very real long-term consequences of climate change for the short-term profits of the fossil fuel industry.

All of these trade-offs and their consequences are avoidable. We simply need the will to change the way we allow corporations to operate. We should demand that they pay for all of the costs of their actions. And that the cost of government subsidies, including the costs to our environment and our health, be included in corporate expenses.

In other words, if corporations truly are people as the US Supreme Court has ruled, we should hold them accountable for their actions.

The Real Cost Of Fossil Fuels.

Posted on by

The chemical spill in West Virginia that polluted the drinking water of more than 300,000 people should remind everyone of the real cost of fossil fuels. As you know, conservatives are fond of saying that subsidies for research and the expansion of alternative energy are unfair; that they disguise the true cost of solar, wind and other forms of clean, renewable energy. Of course, they never mention the massive direct subsidies our government gives to the coal, oil and gas industries (estimated at $14 billion to $51 billion per year) or the indirect subsidies (the cost of damage to our environment; the cost of health problems that result from breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water; the cost of clean ups of spills; the cost of regulation).

If all of the indirect costs were added, the total subsidies for the fossil fuel industries are almost incalcuable and they’re certain to grow as we deal with the damages caused by climate change.

By comparison, the indirect costs of renewable energy are almost negligible. Wind generators require materials for manufacture and fossil fuels to transport them to their eventual sites. They also reportedly cause the deaths of some birds. But those deaths are dwarfed by the number of birds killed and endangered by oil spills and from drinking chemical pollutants. Solar panels also require manufacture and transportation. But that’s it.

Once in operation, neither add CO2 to the atmosphere. Neither can cause toxic spills. Wind and solar generation is decentralized so there’s less chance of widespread power outages. Both eliminate the need for daily trainloads of fuels. They require no pipelines. There is no need to remove entire mountaintops. No need to pump toxic chemicals into the earth in order to extract wind or sun. And there is no need for waste disposal. When the wind generators and solar panels become obsolete, most of their materials can be recycled.

Best of all, they create jobs in the US, and they would create a lot more if Congress would provide manufacturers with the incentives and protections needed to fend off state-sponsored manufacturers in China. They also reduce the need for fossil fuels, which should make our reserves of oil and gas last well into the future.

So why do Congressional Republicans continue to rubber stamp subsidies for oil, gas and coal while denying much smaller subsidies for alternative energy? The answer, as always, is money.

The majority of fossil fuels are extracted from red states, such as Alaska, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wyoming. Most refineries are also located in red states – Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas. Oil, gas and coal companies have very deep pockets from decades of favored political status and profiteering. They have one of the largest lobbying groups in Washington. The companies and their billionaire owners are willing to spend whatever it takes to retain their monopolies. Moreover, the Citizens United ruling by the conservative-dominated Supreme Court made it possible for corporations to offer large donations to political campaigns. And politicians are more than willing to accept them.

The Politics Of Division And Deception.

Posted on by

For many years, the GOP has used so-called “social” issues, such as proposed anti-abortion legislation and “sanctity of marriage” laws to divide the voting populace and fire up their base. The Democratic Party has focused on issues like social safety nets, minimum wages and availability of health care. And the debate has left our government largely paralyzed.

In some ways, arguing about the issues that divide the rank and file of the two political parties is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It’s not that the issues aren’t important. But compared to other issues, they are mere distractions…the political equivalent of a con artist bumping your shoulder while picking your pocket.

The con artists are working for large, multinational corporations and the very wealthy. In order to grow and thrive, these companies need two things: A plentiful supply of natural resources and cheap labor. Over the course of history, those needs have led the wealthy to finance exploration, nations to build wide-ranging empires, and corporations to destroy collective bargaining movements.

Following World War II, the desire for access to oil, rubber, timber, tin and other resources led the British, the US and the Soviet Union to attempt to divide much of the world culminating in the Cold War. The desire to acquire resources led us into conflicts in the Caribbean, Central America, South America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. It was the cause of the Spanish-American War, the war with Japan, the war in Vietnam, and the war in Iraq. It led our CIA to orchestrate the overthrow of elected leaders in Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

Similarly, the need for cheap labor led mining companies to create company stores and to build entire towns designed to trap workers into becoming hopelessly obligated to the owners. It caused companies to hire thugs to brutally beat striking workers. It led to shooting wars between corporate interests and labor unions. More recently, it led corporations to move factories to Southern “right-to-work” states then on to Mexico to China to India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

The executives behind these actions aren’t evil. They’re just doing business. They claim that it’s not their responsibility to worry about social or environmental problems. They believe that their only responsibility is to increase the return on investment for shareholders by decreasing costs and increasing productivity. To them, picturesque mountains merely cover the precious minerals they covet. Pristine forests are merely the lumber needed for construction. Impoverished people in distant lands are simply motivated laborers.

And so it goes.

While we argue over the debt ceiling, corporations and billionaires quietly park their profits in off-shore tax havens then lobby for a tax “holiday” that will allow them to bring the money home at greatly reduced tax rates. While we argue over extending unemployment benefits, corporations lobby for more subsidies and government giveaways. While we argue over food stamps, corporate agribusinesses pocket billions in taxpayer funds. While we argue over Social Security retirement benefits, too-big-to-fail financial institutions steal trillions from 401ks, IRAs, pension funds and foreclosed homes. At the same time, all of these corporations continue to lobby for reduced government regulation and oversight.

It is because of our inattention that a mere 85 individuals now own as much wealth as half of the world’s population…the equivalent of the populations of China, India, the United States, Indonesia and Brazil combined. It’s why unemployment has grown and why most salaries have not. It’s why a few corporations now control most of our food supply. It’s why those same corporations are able to poison the food supply in search of ever larger profits. It’s why the incidence of chronic disease has skyrocketed despite government-funded technology and research that give us the ability to end it. It’s why our climate is rapidly changing while we continue to subsidize the companies responsible for changing it.

As long as we focus on the distractions instead of the actions, things will only get worse.

An Irresponsible Corporation’s Last Resort.

Posted on by

Last Friday, it was announced that the company responsible for the chemical spill in West Virginia, Freedom Industries Inc., had filed for bankruptcy protection and is in the process of selling its assets to a newly created corporation headed by (you guessed it) the former CEO of Freedom Industries. What better way for a group of uncaring, money-grubbing individuals to maintain their incomes while avoiding the consequences of their actions? Or should it be inactions? After all, the chemical tank that leaked hadn’t been inspected in decades.

Not surprisingly, the company claims that the leak is not its fault. It claims that “an unidentified object pierced the affected tank” allowing the toxic, but largely unregulated chemical to flow into the river just upstream from the City of Charlotte’s water supply; a chemical that, if ingested, causes severe diahhrea and vomiting; a chemical that, in the words of West Virginia officials, is only good for “flushing.”

By filing for bankruptcy, the company owners are hoping to protect their assets while avoiding any lawsuits from those affected by the spill and fines from the Environmental Protection Agency. To be held accountable, courts will have to find that the former owners of Freedom Industries were guilty of negligence or malfeasance (difficult charges to prove). If not, the company owners will be able to go right back to doing what they were doing…soaking up large sums of money and sticking the public with any clean-up costs.

And that’s not all.

In its bankruptcy filing, Freedom Industries admits that it owes the IRS $2.4 million in back taxes. One assumes that sum is in jeopardy if the bankruptcy court allows the owners to abscond with the company assets while avoiding any and all liabilities. If nothing else, the corporation will likely be able to diminish its tax liabilities through a variety of tax write-offs. And don’t think for a moment that this situation is unique. This has become a common strategy for corporations facing lawsuits for irresponsible activities. Indeed, the advantage of incorporating a business is to create a “corporate veil” that the owners can hide behind if and when things go bad. The belief is that, without the corporate veil, no one would take the risk of starting a business…a belief that I don’t share.

It’s this very protection that belies the conservative fantasy that corporations are people. Yes, they are owned by people and they are run by people. But articles of incorporation give owners an opportunity to simply walk away from problems when they outweigh profits. Individuals and sole proprietorships have no such protections. And, as the result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, owners and managers of corporations now have more influence than ever before. They can contribute to political campaigns both as individuals and as corporate officers. Given this disproportionate influence, we are likely to see many more corporations like Freedom Industries.

That’s unlikely to generate any complaints from conservatives.

Conservative idealogues may insist on personal responsibility for individuals…especially those who ar impoverished. But they have no such demands for corporations. After all, they view corporations as “job creators” and they despise government agencies responsible for regulating corporations. Moreover, most corporate political contributions will benefit conservative candidates. Conservatives wouldn’t want to give up those.

Why Teapublicans Are Wrong About Government.

Posted on by

After all of the GOP talk of “freeing businesses from government regulation” and “shrinking government down to a size small enough to fit in a bathtub,” it’s time to force a dose of reality down their loudmouth throats. No matter how much they rant about the “evils” of government, we need government to do a variety of things the private sector can’t or won’t.

We need government funding and oversight to build and maintain infrastructure – roads, highways, airports, seaports, and more. We need government to protect our borders; to control our monetary system; to negotiate treaties. And, although we live in a nation built on capitalism, government has always been needed to prevent private businesses from taking advantage of our citizens. Whenever new industries are created by business, government eventually has to regulate them in order to keep them from running amok.

For example, before Ralph Nader and his book, Unsafe At Any Speed, American automakers paid little attention to safety. There were no seat belts, no air bags, no crumple zones, no crash tests…no safety standards at all.

Before the Food & Drug Administration, there was no labeling of ingredients for packaged foods ; no bans or warnings for ingredients known to cause harm. Before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), large corporations felt free to dump toxic chemicals in our streams and in our drinking water. Before the EPA, large corporations spewed tons of toxins into the air we breathe. Before the Securities Exchange Commission, financial institutions could engage in insider trading and sell any junk securities people could be bamboozled into buying. Before the Mine Safety Act, most miners died from tunnel collapses and black lung disease. Before the US Department of Agriculture and the US Forest Service, lumber companies felt free to clear cut our forests destroying critical habitat for many species and mortgaging our future. Before the Department of Labor, businesses thrived on child and slave labor.

Do you really want to go back to the days of allowing corporations to regulate themselves?

Would you buy meat for your family that had not been inspected? Would you drink water that hadn’t been tested for bacteria and other contaminents? Would you give your child pharamceuticals that were untested? Would you strap your child into a car that had not passed basic safety tests? Would you place your life savings in a bank that did not insure your deposits?

We already know what happens when you replace government functions with private companies. We have abundant evidence that contracting with corporations to operate prisons costs more than publicly-operated prisons. Private prisons have also proven to be less secure. We also know that, on the whole, students in private schools perform no better, and often worse, than those in public schools.

Contrary to President Reagan, government isn’t the problem. Often it’s the solution. Instead of trying to reduce government to some arbitrary size, we should be trying to improve it. Apparently, Teapublicans have never considered that.

CBS’ “60 Minutes” Fails Again!

Posted on by

After its well-publicized failure to report the truth about the attack on our Benghazi consulate, one would expect that CBS, particularly its 60 Minutes crew, would be careful to assure accuracy in future reports.

Yet, this past Sunday, just 10 weeks after its Benghazi debacle, 60 Minutes failed again.

In attempting to uncover government waste on the part of the Obama administration’s clean energy loan program, Leslie Stahl displayed her apparent bias and ignorance of the subject. Under the label “clean tech,” she conflated high-tech companies with clean energy companies. (Not every clean energy alternative is high tech.) She also conflated the failure of venture capital-backed start-ups with the failure of companies receiving federally-backed loans. In doing so, she implied that a majority of loans to clean energy companies were lost. She also implied that clean energy is a fool’s errand.

Further, Stahl failed to provide real context for her story.

She failed to report that when a federally-backed company fails it doesn’t always default on the loans. That’s because the loans are often recovered through the sale of assests. She failed to report the failure rate of federally-backed loans which, according to congressional testimony by the former head of the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program, is less than 3 percent. She failed to report that the loans to Solyndra began during the Bush administration. She failed to report that even companies that fail often create products and technologies that eventually benefit us all. She failed to report that, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, 2013 was a huge success. She failed to mention that nine states now get 10 percent or more of their electricity from wind and solar; that wind is now the dominant energy source in Spain; that solar and wind compete head-to-head with coal in places like South Africa.

Stahl also failed to report that approximately three-quarters of all venture capital-backed businesses fail. That’s across all industries. Not just in the clean energy sector. She didn’t recognize the ecological consequences of making fuel from trees (one of the “clean tech” start-ups she covered in her story). She failed to report the ecological consequences of basing our future on oil, most especially tar sands oil. More important, she failed to report the staggering amount of money that the federal government gives to the carbon-based energy sector with no expectation of repayment (estimates range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually).

Stahl suggests that taxpayers should expect more from our government than failures such as Solyndra (which was a superior technology that failed primarily because of our long-standing trade policies with China).

I’d suggest that we should expect better…much better…from Leslie Stahl and 60 Minutes.

Good News/Bad News For 2014 And Beyond.

Posted on by

For the New Year, I thought it appropriate to list a few of the accomplishments from 2013. First the good news:

1 – Millions more Americans now have health insurance thanks to Obamacare. More than 2 million have signed up on the federal and state exchanges, tens of millions more will benefit from Medicaid expansion.

2 – US demand for electricity dropped in 2013. Some utilities reported a decrease in residential demand by as much as 9 percent and up to 5.9 percent overall. This is likely the result of conservation measures, such as CFL and LED light bulbs, new green construction techniques, and growth of solar and wind energy. Imagine what would happen if we ever took conservation and alternative energy seriously.

3 – The US continues to shift electricity production away from coal-burning power plants. Just this week, Arizona Public Service Co. closed three 1960s era coal-fired generators in the Four Corners region near Farmington, New Mexico. These old generators were among the nation’s dirtiest.

4 – According to the Census Bureau, the US population is growing at the slowest rate since the Great Depression – just 0.72 percent. Even if it’s the result of the Great Recession, it’s definitely good news. There will be fewer demands on our natural resources and our infrastructure. Of course, large corporations think this is terrible news since there will be more competition for customers and (gasp) workers.

Now the bad news:

According to a new study published in Nature: The International Journal of Science and reported by HuffPost, climate change could pose more significant problems than previously thought. Climate sensitivity models show that global temperatures could rise as much as 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100! The result of such an increase could be worse than the extreme storms and rising sea levels already predicted. It could be catastrophic.

Happy New Year, everyone! Be sure to stock up on sun block.

Environmental Suicide.

Posted on by

Many years ago, a scientist named Paul Ehrlich convinced me of the dangers of uncontrolled population growth. He helped create an organization named Zero Population Growth (ZPG) which called for couples to have no more than two children – the number needed to replace the parents while maintaining the existing population. At the time, the world’s population stood at approximately 3.6 billion.

In 2011, the world population exceeded 7 billion!

Even today, few of the world’s governments have taken serious action to limit population growth. Discounting the effects of our never-ending wars, the exception is the one baby policy instituted by China and Indonesia. By enforcing a policy of one baby per couple, the governments hoped to improve economic conditions for their people while preserving dwindling resources. Although the populations of China and Indonesia have continued to grow, by most accounts, the policy has worked. China claims that 400,000 births have been averted. As a result, it recently announced that it will begin to relax the policy.

It seems that one of the biggest obstacles to population control is the lack of access to contraception. Population Action International estimates that as many as 215 million women around the world who want to prevent pregnancy need contraception. Many of these women are denied access to education and contraceptives by religion. This is even a problem in the Americas, especially Latin America.

That’s because the Vatican and other religious leaders have called for a ban on contraceptives and family planning. (It seems they believe that only God can decide the number of children to be born.) These religions often consider science the enemy of faith. Further, many of the same religions tell us that we have nothing to fear from over-population; that if the Earth is destroyed, the faithful will all end up in heaven. Indeed, some religious leaders are anxiously awaiting the “Rapture.”

The attitudes of politicians and corporations are nearly as bad.

In the US, some conservative politicians are trying to ban access to both contraception and abortion. In addition, many corporations see population control and environmental regulations as threats to sales growth. Any real effort to stop global warming would curb the sales of the oiligarchy. And how would corporations continue the escalation of their share prices if they couldn’t clear-cut forests, extract minerals, pillage our oceans, and create sprawling subdivisions?

Large profits require large populations.

Meanwhile, scientists the world over are screaming about the effects of over-population and the increased burning of fossil fuels. They point to alarming evidence that our environment may soon reach a tipping point. They cite statistics of rising temperatures, rising sea levels and shrinking ice shelves. They warn that lost species are like canaries in the coal mine; that the extinction of such species is a precursor to the extinction of our own.

If none of that alarms you, maybe this video will. The scientist in the video makes one of the most compelling (and frightening) arguments yet.

Affluenza: Too Rich To Jail.

Posted on by

The young Texas boy who was given probation for killing four pedestrians and critically injuring two of his companions while driving drunk is less the exception than you may think. Certainly, his defense of pleading guilty to being a spoiled brat is unique. But the end result was not. Instead of going to jail, the Texas youth will be forced to suffer the indignity of attending a $450,000/year California treatment program complete with martial arts lessons and private chef. The horror!

Fact is, the rich and the privileged have always received special treatment.

Likely, most of us can recall at least one incident when someone in our school or community was treated differently because his or her family had money or knew the “right” people. It might have been an athlete before a big game. It might have been the child of a community leader who got a grade they hadn’t earned. Those kinds of things are bad enough. But when they extend to our justice system?…

There are people from poor communities who received life sentences for petty, non-violent crimes while the Wall Street goons who stole trillions from homeowners and investors received six and seven figure bonuses. (Most have not even faced charges, and likely never will.) While the poor rot in prison after being caught with crack cocaine, the rich caught snorting powder cocaine are released with a fine and probation…or sentenced to a spa-like treatment center. Many of the wealthy have even gotten away with murder thanks to their highly-paid “dream” teams of attorneys and consultants.

In some cases, the perps don’t even have to be rich to receive special treatment. After finally being indicted for shooting an unarmed boy, George Zimmerman was allowed to get away with murder thanks to his team of lawyers paid for by the gun lobby.

Of course, the same kind of special treatment extends to large corporations.

After it was determined that a Koch refinery carelessly spilled aviation fuel into the ground water and tried to cover it up, the company was fined…wait for it…a sum equal to less than one day’s net profit from the refinery. And, while BP was forced to pay more than $42 billion for the Gulf oil disaster, a US district court ruled that the company originally responsible for the leak and ensuing explosion, Halliburton, will not have to share in the costs. (It wouldn’t have anything to do with Halliburton’s connection to former V.P. Richard “The Dick” Cheney, would it?)

I guess money and influence can buy happiness, after all. Obviously, they can buy special treatment.