Saturday, April 2, 2022
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Feds Approve More Fracking off California Coast
Sounds horrible, doesn't it?
On May 27, 2016 two bureaus of the federal government - BOEM and BSEE - both tasked with protection of offshore waters and the promotion of energy from those same waters, announced approval for well stimulation treatment (WST) to increase the extraction efficiency of existing oil wells off the California coast. Most of these wells have been producing oil for many years but are now faced with depletion rates that make further extraction unfeasible unless they are allowed to use newer techniques and technologies. Among those techniques are different forms of what is commonly known as "fracking." As most people concerned with environmental issues know, fracking is potentially dangerous and harmful to the environment if improperly regulated. We also know that drilling in ocean waters is fundamentally more difficult and dangerous than drilling on land. That said, it bears examination as to whether the concerns of those wishing to prevent further oil extraction are not exaggerated, in this case.
Some of the deepest roots of today's environmental movement trace themselves to the disastrous Santa Barbara oil spill the 1969, when nearly 100,000 barrels of oil polluted the shores of Santa Barbara to Ventura and the Channel Islands, killing thousands of sea life and blocking the enjoyment of the natural world. It remains the third largest oil spill in US history, after Exxon Valdez and the Gulf. The disaster also gave rise to the Clean Water Act, the birth of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and numerous environmental advocacy groups throughout America. These groups and agencies continue to ensure that corporations comply with environmental protections and do a great deal to both educate the public and protect those public lands that we are all entitled to enjoy.
More importantly, perhaps, the consciousness of America was greatly impacted. A sudden realization took hold of an increasingly large portion of people that America was beset by a different sort of threat, a potential suicidal urge that would destroy the quality of life to the extent that we are in danger from the way our society operates and produces wealth. The oil spill and many similar disasters changed perceptions of our responsibilities and altered our view of values long accepted as good and virtuous: that the pursuit of wealth is the highest good; that the natural resources of the world are ours to exploit and to use in any way we see fit; that the natural world is our servant and obliged to disgorge all its wealth, whenever we call, for our benefit. Those assumptions no longer have any legitimacy, even within the oil industry.
The industry has been turned on its head. It is now accepted that some kind of carbon tax, which accurately costs the pollution created by extraction and burning, is inevitable. It has long been known that most conventional reserves have been depleted and it is only a matter of years before shale deposits - the same that must be extracted using fracking - will soon be exhausted. A cross current of objectives and reality occurs: while trying to exploit as much as possible, the oil industry is preparing for the day when their industry must inevitably and is already, changed. Every drop of oil is now harder to get and because capital investment costs are so high, the need to extract every drop to pay off debt becomes an enormous pressure to keep drilling for harder to get oil. Unfortunately, as more oil reaches market under these economic pressures, the price of oil drops creating more financial pressure to keep fracking and drilling. And to this increasing pressure from government agencies to enforce strict safety measures and increasing pressure from the environmental movement to stop drilling altogether, the oil industry is headed for oblivion.
Government policy has a two headed dragon to contend with here: On the one hand, there must be strict rules to prevent further accidents and protect the environment but on the other hand, the resources of the natural world do contribute to the economic well being of its citizens.
Which bring us to the approval for drilling off the coast of California. The approval to use fracking by BOEM and BSEE, limit the approval to existing wells that are already producing oil but at decreasing levels - 42 wells to be exact. The agency expects the industry to use WST at about 5 wells, according to their reports. There is an obvious conclusion to be made here: the oil to be extracted doesn't amount to much and the request for fracking techniques is merely to give a few existing wells a few extra years of production so that as much profit can be had as possible.
But in granting license to the industry to use WST on a few existing wells, what does the government demand in return? According to the BOEM:
An Environmental Impact Study must be prepared;
Companies must provide bonds to cover financial loss;
Drilling is limited to existing locations previously approved by the government;
There must full and complete compliance with safety regulations and environmental protections;
Techniques and technologies used must comply with federal and state standards and are subject to periodic inspection and improvement, if necessary;
There must be fair market value returned to taxpayers for the right to drill offshore;
And, in the event of a spill, liability for clean up is laid strictly upon the industry.
The point of all this discourse is to illustrate that while some industrial practices like fracking can be potentially dangerous, the government is vigilant. There are obstacles that the industry must overcome if they want and need to do this sort of production. In other words, the government is doing its part.
Which begs the question: Are we doing our part? It's not enough to protest a rule or a process that is already underway. There are many opportunities for citizens to have their voices heard during these hearings that lead to rule making but they require the same vigilance we demand of our government. Howling before the fact is what matters, not complaining afterwards. People may protest that their lives are busy and it's hard to know which agency to lobby and how can anyone find out what's being planned before it happens, anyway?
The answer is simple: join an nonprofit environmental organization that speaks to the issues you want addressed: There are hundreds to choose, from the Sierra Club to a local beach protection nonprofit.
Follow this link to discover some of the better known organizations that can use your support and are committed to protecting the lands and waters we all share and revere:
http://www.skidmore.edu/~bturner/envgroup.html
On May 27, 2016 two bureaus of the federal government - BOEM and BSEE - both tasked with protection of offshore waters and the promotion of energy from those same waters, announced approval for well stimulation treatment (WST) to increase the extraction efficiency of existing oil wells off the California coast. Most of these wells have been producing oil for many years but are now faced with depletion rates that make further extraction unfeasible unless they are allowed to use newer techniques and technologies. Among those techniques are different forms of what is commonly known as "fracking." As most people concerned with environmental issues know, fracking is potentially dangerous and harmful to the environment if improperly regulated. We also know that drilling in ocean waters is fundamentally more difficult and dangerous than drilling on land. That said, it bears examination as to whether the concerns of those wishing to prevent further oil extraction are not exaggerated, in this case.
Some of the deepest roots of today's environmental movement trace themselves to the disastrous Santa Barbara oil spill the 1969, when nearly 100,000 barrels of oil polluted the shores of Santa Barbara to Ventura and the Channel Islands, killing thousands of sea life and blocking the enjoyment of the natural world. It remains the third largest oil spill in US history, after Exxon Valdez and the Gulf. The disaster also gave rise to the Clean Water Act, the birth of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and numerous environmental advocacy groups throughout America. These groups and agencies continue to ensure that corporations comply with environmental protections and do a great deal to both educate the public and protect those public lands that we are all entitled to enjoy.
More importantly, perhaps, the consciousness of America was greatly impacted. A sudden realization took hold of an increasingly large portion of people that America was beset by a different sort of threat, a potential suicidal urge that would destroy the quality of life to the extent that we are in danger from the way our society operates and produces wealth. The oil spill and many similar disasters changed perceptions of our responsibilities and altered our view of values long accepted as good and virtuous: that the pursuit of wealth is the highest good; that the natural resources of the world are ours to exploit and to use in any way we see fit; that the natural world is our servant and obliged to disgorge all its wealth, whenever we call, for our benefit. Those assumptions no longer have any legitimacy, even within the oil industry.
The industry has been turned on its head. It is now accepted that some kind of carbon tax, which accurately costs the pollution created by extraction and burning, is inevitable. It has long been known that most conventional reserves have been depleted and it is only a matter of years before shale deposits - the same that must be extracted using fracking - will soon be exhausted. A cross current of objectives and reality occurs: while trying to exploit as much as possible, the oil industry is preparing for the day when their industry must inevitably and is already, changed. Every drop of oil is now harder to get and because capital investment costs are so high, the need to extract every drop to pay off debt becomes an enormous pressure to keep drilling for harder to get oil. Unfortunately, as more oil reaches market under these economic pressures, the price of oil drops creating more financial pressure to keep fracking and drilling. And to this increasing pressure from government agencies to enforce strict safety measures and increasing pressure from the environmental movement to stop drilling altogether, the oil industry is headed for oblivion.
Government policy has a two headed dragon to contend with here: On the one hand, there must be strict rules to prevent further accidents and protect the environment but on the other hand, the resources of the natural world do contribute to the economic well being of its citizens.
Which bring us to the approval for drilling off the coast of California. The approval to use fracking by BOEM and BSEE, limit the approval to existing wells that are already producing oil but at decreasing levels - 42 wells to be exact. The agency expects the industry to use WST at about 5 wells, according to their reports. There is an obvious conclusion to be made here: the oil to be extracted doesn't amount to much and the request for fracking techniques is merely to give a few existing wells a few extra years of production so that as much profit can be had as possible.
But in granting license to the industry to use WST on a few existing wells, what does the government demand in return? According to the BOEM:
An Environmental Impact Study must be prepared;
Companies must provide bonds to cover financial loss;
Drilling is limited to existing locations previously approved by the government;
There must full and complete compliance with safety regulations and environmental protections;
Techniques and technologies used must comply with federal and state standards and are subject to periodic inspection and improvement, if necessary;
There must be fair market value returned to taxpayers for the right to drill offshore;
And, in the event of a spill, liability for clean up is laid strictly upon the industry.
The point of all this discourse is to illustrate that while some industrial practices like fracking can be potentially dangerous, the government is vigilant. There are obstacles that the industry must overcome if they want and need to do this sort of production. In other words, the government is doing its part.
Which begs the question: Are we doing our part? It's not enough to protest a rule or a process that is already underway. There are many opportunities for citizens to have their voices heard during these hearings that lead to rule making but they require the same vigilance we demand of our government. Howling before the fact is what matters, not complaining afterwards. People may protest that their lives are busy and it's hard to know which agency to lobby and how can anyone find out what's being planned before it happens, anyway?
The answer is simple: join an nonprofit environmental organization that speaks to the issues you want addressed: There are hundreds to choose, from the Sierra Club to a local beach protection nonprofit.
Follow this link to discover some of the better known organizations that can use your support and are committed to protecting the lands and waters we all share and revere:
http://www.skidmore.edu/~bturner/envgroup.html
Friday, June 17, 2016
Is the 2nd Amendment Relevant?
The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own and bear arms - for recreation and personal protection, the Supreme Court now says, an opinion penned by Anton Scalia. However, the original intent was to provide a resource for State militias, regulated and controlled by those States, in order to contribute to a National Army when needed.
Neither of those rationales are true any longer. First of all, the US maintains a standing military force, rendering the need for state militias moot. Since there is no longer any need for state militias to provide soldiers, the Court had to come up with the rationales of, one, recreation and, two, self protection, despite the fact that neither is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
The notion of recreational use of guns has always been assumed, as most people used shotguns and squirrel rifles for hunting in the early days of the Republic and brought those same guns when called upon by their states to form militias for Indian uprisings, emergencies, etc. Indeed, many southern states were unable to arm their early volunteers from lack of a decent arms industry and had to rely upon a volunteer's personal weapons to fill out their ranks with something other than pikes and axes, in the first year of the Civil War. As the war progressed the arms industry caught up with the needs of the various armies and provided rifled muskets that were becoming common throughout the world. However - and this is important - after the war, none of these weapons were allowed to be kept by discharged soldiers. They were only allowed to keep their original hunting guns and sidearms for officers. This prohibition of keeping military weapons out of the hands of discharged soldiers has been in effect ever since that time. There was a simple reason for that prohibition: the national government wanted to eliminate the possibility of another Civil War or any other uprising that could tear the country apart again.
Of course, by the end of the war the gun industry had grown so much that maintaining that market share through private purchase to replace the large government contracts it was going to lose become paramount in their plans. Guns and rifles were produced for protection against Indians and outlaws in the West and against gangs formed by and against immigrants in the urban centers of the East. It became the goal of the gun industry to promote the idea of self protection and continuing conflicts between various groups in order to keep gun sales growing. And the government still bought weapons, of course. Weapons for the Indian Wars, smaller wars for expansion in the Pacific that culminated against the Spanish Empire, and for protection of borders and for the use of various police agencies throughout the country.
Ironically, the notion of self protection against that same peace keeping government, gained increasing currency after the Civil Rights movement when increasing numbers of radical conservatives and white racists began accumulating military style weapons to protect themselves against what they viewed as the encroachment of tyrannical governments imposing its views upon their lives. It was no longer the belief that government would protect people against criminals and other potential foreign enemies. It became the belief that government, itself, was the enemy. It hardly matters whether this view is true or not, it only matters that some people believe it is true. As various groups like the Aryan Nation and older groups like the KKK regained popularity they began to accumulate weapons for protection against an imagined tyranny or worse, a race war, or both. Those sentiments have now metastasized to include anti-gay groups, anti-immigrant groups, and radical religious groups expecting a coming Apocalypse.
It's only a small step in logic to combine the two reasons of recreation and self protection to rationalize owning not just squirrel rifles and shotguns but military style weapons whose only purpose is to kill other human beings and create mayhem on a scale that threatens the security of local and state governments. These are clearly offensive weapons designed for war and insurrection. The nature of these weapons pose a direct threat to the national government since they can be used effectively in military styled attacks against a civilian target in order to cause mayhem and disorder. It is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens from attack, to maintain order and to preserve a social system that benefits all and not just a few. Therefore, a ban on military style weapons protects not only the public welfare but is also a prudent defense against insurrection. And if any doubt that insurrection and rebellion do not pose a threat remember that this country was torn apart in civil war in the mid 19th century, and its effects still linger in bigotry and racism throughout the nation. Weapons control is imperative to preserving our national integrity and furthering public safety.
The rationale that the 2nd Amendment protects an imagined right of the people to kill other people and throw parts of the country into chaos is now what underlies the belief that ownership of all weapons should be protected by the Constitution and any use of those weapons is justified, no matter the consequences to security, other peoples' liberties, and social order. Its reductio ad absurdum justifies every negative consequence in the pursuit of one right.
In other words, and to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: "Shall all the laws, but one, go unenforced and the government, itself, go to pieces, so that one law be preserved?"
The notion of recreational use of guns has always been assumed, as most people used shotguns and squirrel rifles for hunting in the early days of the Republic and brought those same guns when called upon by their states to form militias for Indian uprisings, emergencies, etc. Indeed, many southern states were unable to arm their early volunteers from lack of a decent arms industry and had to rely upon a volunteer's personal weapons to fill out their ranks with something other than pikes and axes, in the first year of the Civil War. As the war progressed the arms industry caught up with the needs of the various armies and provided rifled muskets that were becoming common throughout the world. However - and this is important - after the war, none of these weapons were allowed to be kept by discharged soldiers. They were only allowed to keep their original hunting guns and sidearms for officers. This prohibition of keeping military weapons out of the hands of discharged soldiers has been in effect ever since that time. There was a simple reason for that prohibition: the national government wanted to eliminate the possibility of another Civil War or any other uprising that could tear the country apart again.
Of course, by the end of the war the gun industry had grown so much that maintaining that market share through private purchase to replace the large government contracts it was going to lose become paramount in their plans. Guns and rifles were produced for protection against Indians and outlaws in the West and against gangs formed by and against immigrants in the urban centers of the East. It became the goal of the gun industry to promote the idea of self protection and continuing conflicts between various groups in order to keep gun sales growing. And the government still bought weapons, of course. Weapons for the Indian Wars, smaller wars for expansion in the Pacific that culminated against the Spanish Empire, and for protection of borders and for the use of various police agencies throughout the country.
Ironically, the notion of self protection against that same peace keeping government, gained increasing currency after the Civil Rights movement when increasing numbers of radical conservatives and white racists began accumulating military style weapons to protect themselves against what they viewed as the encroachment of tyrannical governments imposing its views upon their lives. It was no longer the belief that government would protect people against criminals and other potential foreign enemies. It became the belief that government, itself, was the enemy. It hardly matters whether this view is true or not, it only matters that some people believe it is true. As various groups like the Aryan Nation and older groups like the KKK regained popularity they began to accumulate weapons for protection against an imagined tyranny or worse, a race war, or both. Those sentiments have now metastasized to include anti-gay groups, anti-immigrant groups, and radical religious groups expecting a coming Apocalypse.
It's only a small step in logic to combine the two reasons of recreation and self protection to rationalize owning not just squirrel rifles and shotguns but military style weapons whose only purpose is to kill other human beings and create mayhem on a scale that threatens the security of local and state governments. These are clearly offensive weapons designed for war and insurrection. The nature of these weapons pose a direct threat to the national government since they can be used effectively in military styled attacks against a civilian target in order to cause mayhem and disorder. It is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens from attack, to maintain order and to preserve a social system that benefits all and not just a few. Therefore, a ban on military style weapons protects not only the public welfare but is also a prudent defense against insurrection. And if any doubt that insurrection and rebellion do not pose a threat remember that this country was torn apart in civil war in the mid 19th century, and its effects still linger in bigotry and racism throughout the nation. Weapons control is imperative to preserving our national integrity and furthering public safety.
The rationale that the 2nd Amendment protects an imagined right of the people to kill other people and throw parts of the country into chaos is now what underlies the belief that ownership of all weapons should be protected by the Constitution and any use of those weapons is justified, no matter the consequences to security, other peoples' liberties, and social order. Its reductio ad absurdum justifies every negative consequence in the pursuit of one right.
In other words, and to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: "Shall all the laws, but one, go unenforced and the government, itself, go to pieces, so that one law be preserved?"
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Coal Country and the Elections
As usual, the Presidential cycle focuses upon what the likely candidates will do to address the disappearing jobs in older industries like King Coal.
As part of her 2016 primary campaign, Hillary Clinton visited West Virginia to listen to the concerns and complaints of coal workers who have lost, or fear to lose, their jobs because of shrinking demand for coal. The usual villains, according to Republicans, are subsidies to domestic renewable energy companies, increased competition from lower cost producers overseas, and most notably, new clean power regulations from the EPA, better known to Donald Trump as the "D.E.P." (Department of Environment, whatever that is). Before the EPA even formulated the new rules prominent Republicans from traditional coal producing States have been attacking President Obama's so-called "War on Coal." They waged this "war" despite increasing evidence that mining, transporting, burning, and disposing of coal and coal ash is probably the most polluting industry in the world and the biggest contributor to global warming and climate change. Besides the obvious pollution that coal by-products like sulfur contribute to air pollution and acid rain, coal ash is also radioactive (1). Coal production has also been linked to increases in mercury pollution downstream to fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, and contributing to the increase of autism in children (2).
Ironically, many coal workers understand the dilemma, despite Hillary Clinton's loss to Bernie Sanders in the West Virginia primary. Still, the Democratic primary indicates a change in the wind for many, if not all, coal industry workers. They know they are facing a crossroads. The big question for workers, who have long understood the risks of cave-ins and black lung, and many of whom accept that climate change is real and their industry contributes mightily to it (3), is what kind of jobs they can land, using the skills they already know, once King Coal is dead and gone?
Ms. Clinton's approach to the concerns of workers is currently the only viable one and the only one that indicates any effort to address it. The Republicans want to put the coal industry on life support forever and Bernie Sanders would like to kill it overnight in favor of renewable energy. The Republicans' solution merely perpetuates the problem at taxpayer expense and the Sanders' prescription, while desirable and inevitable in the medium and long term, does nothing to put unemployed workers back to work now. Yet Clinton has drawn the most criticism for her approach. The political and psychological reasons for this mass rejection are fascinating to consider but there is one thing that seems paramount: it simply isn't big enough. And this, I think, is why Ms. Clinton had such a hard time in West Virginia, despite her many good ideas of retraining, business development and education (4).
Historically, Americans are about big challenges, big ideas, and big risk. We don't just want to solve a problem; we want to bury it for good and all. We wanted to win our independence from a great European power and we did. We wanted to save our country from disunion and free the slaves in the bargain, and we did. We wanted to walk on the Moon before anyone else and we did. We want, despite our many mistakes and backsliding, to make progress for the whole world. What we really want, as FDR put it at the beginning of WWII, is to "...win through to absolute victory."
Since 1977 coal companies have been required to comply with the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (5) by paying fees that are turned around to communities and States to clean up old mines. The funds have financed health needs of former workers and residents near mines, provided money to invest in reclaiming damaged land to its former state, and provided seed money for commercial, agricultural or other developments. Unfortunately, while about $8 billion has been spent in reclaiming the lands, at least $4 billion more must be invested to meet the obligations of the law. Clinton proposes unlocking resources available to meet these needs and attract private investment in the reclaimed lands. The difficulty is that the need far outweighs whatever resources have or can presently be allocated and these funds do not necessarily guarantee that former employees of the coal companies will or can be hired to lend their skills to such reclamation.
It's always a temptation to throw more money at a problem and hope it can be solved that way. In this case, however, it seems in comparing the costs of reclamation against the public health costs associated with clean up of polluted waterways, reducing air pollution, the spiraling costs of natural disasters related to climate change and a burgeoning increase of autism associated with mercury exposure, the costs of doubling, tripling or any other multiple pales in comparison to the costs we now bear in cleaning up after the coal companies. The exteranal environmental and public health costs of cleaning up after the coal industry has been estimated at $330 to $500 billion annually (6) (7).
Conversely, investing in land reclamation and shutting down coal mining in favor of renewable energy is smart for a number of reasons:
As part of her 2016 primary campaign, Hillary Clinton visited West Virginia to listen to the concerns and complaints of coal workers who have lost, or fear to lose, their jobs because of shrinking demand for coal. The usual villains, according to Republicans, are subsidies to domestic renewable energy companies, increased competition from lower cost producers overseas, and most notably, new clean power regulations from the EPA, better known to Donald Trump as the "D.E.P." (Department of Environment, whatever that is). Before the EPA even formulated the new rules prominent Republicans from traditional coal producing States have been attacking President Obama's so-called "War on Coal." They waged this "war" despite increasing evidence that mining, transporting, burning, and disposing of coal and coal ash is probably the most polluting industry in the world and the biggest contributor to global warming and climate change. Besides the obvious pollution that coal by-products like sulfur contribute to air pollution and acid rain, coal ash is also radioactive (1). Coal production has also been linked to increases in mercury pollution downstream to fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, and contributing to the increase of autism in children (2).
Ironically, many coal workers understand the dilemma, despite Hillary Clinton's loss to Bernie Sanders in the West Virginia primary. Still, the Democratic primary indicates a change in the wind for many, if not all, coal industry workers. They know they are facing a crossroads. The big question for workers, who have long understood the risks of cave-ins and black lung, and many of whom accept that climate change is real and their industry contributes mightily to it (3), is what kind of jobs they can land, using the skills they already know, once King Coal is dead and gone?
Ms. Clinton's approach to the concerns of workers is currently the only viable one and the only one that indicates any effort to address it. The Republicans want to put the coal industry on life support forever and Bernie Sanders would like to kill it overnight in favor of renewable energy. The Republicans' solution merely perpetuates the problem at taxpayer expense and the Sanders' prescription, while desirable and inevitable in the medium and long term, does nothing to put unemployed workers back to work now. Yet Clinton has drawn the most criticism for her approach. The political and psychological reasons for this mass rejection are fascinating to consider but there is one thing that seems paramount: it simply isn't big enough. And this, I think, is why Ms. Clinton had such a hard time in West Virginia, despite her many good ideas of retraining, business development and education (4).
Historically, Americans are about big challenges, big ideas, and big risk. We don't just want to solve a problem; we want to bury it for good and all. We wanted to win our independence from a great European power and we did. We wanted to save our country from disunion and free the slaves in the bargain, and we did. We wanted to walk on the Moon before anyone else and we did. We want, despite our many mistakes and backsliding, to make progress for the whole world. What we really want, as FDR put it at the beginning of WWII, is to "...win through to absolute victory."
Since 1977 coal companies have been required to comply with the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (5) by paying fees that are turned around to communities and States to clean up old mines. The funds have financed health needs of former workers and residents near mines, provided money to invest in reclaiming damaged land to its former state, and provided seed money for commercial, agricultural or other developments. Unfortunately, while about $8 billion has been spent in reclaiming the lands, at least $4 billion more must be invested to meet the obligations of the law. Clinton proposes unlocking resources available to meet these needs and attract private investment in the reclaimed lands. The difficulty is that the need far outweighs whatever resources have or can presently be allocated and these funds do not necessarily guarantee that former employees of the coal companies will or can be hired to lend their skills to such reclamation.
It's always a temptation to throw more money at a problem and hope it can be solved that way. In this case, however, it seems in comparing the costs of reclamation against the public health costs associated with clean up of polluted waterways, reducing air pollution, the spiraling costs of natural disasters related to climate change and a burgeoning increase of autism associated with mercury exposure, the costs of doubling, tripling or any other multiple pales in comparison to the costs we now bear in cleaning up after the coal companies. The exteranal environmental and public health costs of cleaning up after the coal industry has been estimated at $330 to $500 billion annually (6) (7).
Conversely, investing in land reclamation and shutting down coal mining in favor of renewable energy is smart for a number of reasons:
- The faster the cleanup is underway, the less damage will result from residual effects of abandoned mines, dangerous coal ash levees - always in danger of bursting and polluting waterways - and increasing the increasing health costs of ignoring diseases in their infancy.
- The workforce is available to undertake a massive cleanup of mines and levees. This labor force has an inherent stake in restoring the land to its former beauty because they live on it or near it. It's part of their collective experience and, very often, part of their familial heritage.
- A big infusion of money can also save and transform the coal industry from an extraction industry to a restoration industry, providing a path of growth and purpose to employees, investors and the public for a more socially conscious and profitable industry.
The end of the coal industry doesn't have to mean the end of job opportunities for workers in that industry. It also doesn't have to mean the end of energy generation for millions of homes and businesses. What it can mean are new opportunities in both without damage to public health or steep environmental clean up costs. In short, the death of King Coal provides an excellent opportunity to transform an industry that has caused so much damage to one that can accelerate a return of healthy living areas for people and the land and lay the foundation for economic growth in the years ahead.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
"And, behold, one young man came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?.....
....And Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions." [Matthew 19:16, 19:21-22]
Philanthropy and Flim-Flammery
....And Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions." [Matthew 19:16, 19:21-22]
Philanthropy and Flim-Flammery
In 2009, it was reported that Warren Buffet, Bill & Melinda Gates, Oprah Winfrey and other well-known billionaires met in New York to see "how they could help."
Allow me to point out the obvious.
It is well known that Oprah Winfrey did a great deal to bring Barack Obama to the attention of America during the presidential campaign by interviewing him on her show. It's also pretty well known that Warren Buffet and George Soros were in contact with the Obama transition team offering economic and financial advise about the rapidly deteriorating banking situation. All of these people and others are very generous in their charitable giving.
They should be commended.
But how did these people create so much wealth for themselves? And what might they do in changing their own business and personal practices that could really change the World, to the extent that charitable giving could actually help in situations that are not simultaneously being maintained by the very wealth creation practiced by 'philanthropists'? For instance, bill Gate's Microsoft Corporation has donated computers to various school districts but has fought ferociously to expand the protections of copyright laws and break down the protections of privacy laws to the extent that personal and private information of all their customers, clients and partners is available to them. Such access not only gives them marketing advantages and built-in revenue streams but, more importantly, it establishes legal precedence in copyright law to prosecute anyone, children included, who download shared music that has already been purchased at retail price. It also establishes precedence in stripping away privacy protections that open the door for others - credit card companies, banking institutions, and others - to intrude into a person's personal life beyond anything ever imagined by J. Edgar Hoover.
And if a corporation can reach into your back pocket and pull out your underwear while looking for your wallet, what do you suppose various government police agencies are capable of?
Warren Buffet has invested in industries that promise to reshape the energy use in this country in positive directions. His company, MidAmerican Energy, has invested in renewable electricity production in Iowa and lithium car battery production in China. Yet Buffet's MidAmerican Energy ranks 8th in the nation's biggest polluters of CO2. Why? Because a majority of their power plants still burn coal, probably the most dangerous fossil fuel in the world. The extraction and use of coal pollutes the Earth all along its production stream. When mined (or blown out from the top of mountains), it pollutes nearby streams from the coal ash that is stored nearby; it pollutes the air from the great amount of pollutants the burning produces, and it produces mercury as a byproduct that pollutes ocean fish and may even be a cause of autism in children.
And what about George Soros and his philanthropic efforts in Kosovo after the war? Soros' reconstruction foundation, the Open Societies Institute, which dots Eastern Europe with projects and offices, no doubt does a great deal of humanitarian work in raising the educational levels of poorer countries and promoting democracy throughout the region. But Eastern Europe has had a long history of regional conflicts. Now, these power struggles repeat themselves between NATO and Russia in various "Color Revolutions". Underneath the seemingly ideological battles lies Oil. Oil in the Caspian Basin, and beyond, that is bound for Western markets. Oil that also, and inconveniently, resides within the old Soviet borders and in Russia's present sphere of influence.
After the Kosovo war the Caspian and Baku pipelines were built through Georgia, right under Russia's nose and without their cooperation. People tend to forget that George Soros was one of the principle backers of Georgian president, Mikhail Saakashvili, he of the recently stupid move to intrude into South Ossetia, thus inviting Russia to counter-attack, re-establish their influence over their old satellite, and make a point to the West in the process: "We control access to this oil and can shut it down any time we want!"
All this begs the question: How do these people really help?
"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:23
Allow me to point out the obvious.
It is well known that Oprah Winfrey did a great deal to bring Barack Obama to the attention of America during the presidential campaign by interviewing him on her show. It's also pretty well known that Warren Buffet and George Soros were in contact with the Obama transition team offering economic and financial advise about the rapidly deteriorating banking situation. All of these people and others are very generous in their charitable giving.
They should be commended.
But how did these people create so much wealth for themselves? And what might they do in changing their own business and personal practices that could really change the World, to the extent that charitable giving could actually help in situations that are not simultaneously being maintained by the very wealth creation practiced by 'philanthropists'? For instance, bill Gate's Microsoft Corporation has donated computers to various school districts but has fought ferociously to expand the protections of copyright laws and break down the protections of privacy laws to the extent that personal and private information of all their customers, clients and partners is available to them. Such access not only gives them marketing advantages and built-in revenue streams but, more importantly, it establishes legal precedence in copyright law to prosecute anyone, children included, who download shared music that has already been purchased at retail price. It also establishes precedence in stripping away privacy protections that open the door for others - credit card companies, banking institutions, and others - to intrude into a person's personal life beyond anything ever imagined by J. Edgar Hoover.
And if a corporation can reach into your back pocket and pull out your underwear while looking for your wallet, what do you suppose various government police agencies are capable of?
Warren Buffet has invested in industries that promise to reshape the energy use in this country in positive directions. His company, MidAmerican Energy, has invested in renewable electricity production in Iowa and lithium car battery production in China. Yet Buffet's MidAmerican Energy ranks 8th in the nation's biggest polluters of CO2. Why? Because a majority of their power plants still burn coal, probably the most dangerous fossil fuel in the world. The extraction and use of coal pollutes the Earth all along its production stream. When mined (or blown out from the top of mountains), it pollutes nearby streams from the coal ash that is stored nearby; it pollutes the air from the great amount of pollutants the burning produces, and it produces mercury as a byproduct that pollutes ocean fish and may even be a cause of autism in children.
And what about George Soros and his philanthropic efforts in Kosovo after the war? Soros' reconstruction foundation, the Open Societies Institute, which dots Eastern Europe with projects and offices, no doubt does a great deal of humanitarian work in raising the educational levels of poorer countries and promoting democracy throughout the region. But Eastern Europe has had a long history of regional conflicts. Now, these power struggles repeat themselves between NATO and Russia in various "Color Revolutions". Underneath the seemingly ideological battles lies Oil. Oil in the Caspian Basin, and beyond, that is bound for Western markets. Oil that also, and inconveniently, resides within the old Soviet borders and in Russia's present sphere of influence.
After the Kosovo war the Caspian and Baku pipelines were built through Georgia, right under Russia's nose and without their cooperation. People tend to forget that George Soros was one of the principle backers of Georgian president, Mikhail Saakashvili, he of the recently stupid move to intrude into South Ossetia, thus inviting Russia to counter-attack, re-establish their influence over their old satellite, and make a point to the West in the process: "We control access to this oil and can shut it down any time we want!"
All this begs the question: How do these people really help?
"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:23
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)