Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Cronyism Behind a Pipeline for Crude
Late last month, the Obama administration unveiled a new tool that lets anyone send a petition to the White House; get 5,000 signatures in 30 days and you’re guaranteed some kind of answer. My prediction: it’s not going to stop people from trying to occupy Wall Street. After the past few years, we’re increasingly unwilling to believe that political reform can be accomplished by going through the “normal channels” of democracy.
It’s easy to understand why. In the first few months of the Bush administration, the vice president’s staff held a series of secret meetings with energy company executives to come up with a new energy policy that, essentially, gave big oil everything it asked for. When journalists learned about the secret sessions, they became a scandal — environmental groups complained long and loud, right up to the Supreme Court, and rightly so. Important decisions should be made in the open, not behind closed doors by cronies scratching one another’s backs.
In 2008, Barack Obama promised to turn things around with new ethics guidelines and promises of transparency. But if two batches of e-mails released via the Freedom of Information Act — the first last month and the second on Monday — are any indication, he’s not delivering on that promise.
The e-mails, made available by the environmental group Friends of the Earth, show something just as tawdry as Dick Cheney’s backroom dealing: the State Department working with lobbyists to advance the interests of TransCanada, the company trying to build the Keystone XL pipeline from the tar sands of Canada across the center of the continent. Even as the State Department was supposedly carrying out a neutral evaluation of the pipeline’s environmental impact, key players were undermining the process.
One of the stars of this sordid drama was Paul Elliott, TransCanada’s chief Washington lobbyist for its pipeline project. Back in 2008, he was the deputy national campaign manager of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential bid. Around the time she became secretary of state, he was hired by TransCanada. Why did he get the job? Just ask Marja Verloop, a member of the diplomatic staff at the United States Embassy in Canada who oversaw environmental and energy issues. In one of the friendly e-mails between the diplomat and the lobbyist, Ms. Verloop reassured Mr. Elliott about an article that mentioned his possible conflicts of interest: “it’s precisely because you have connections that you’re sought after and hired.”
And how neutral was the State Department about the plan it was supposedly evaluating? Here’s Ms. Verloop again, in response to an e-mail from Mr. Elliott relaying the good news that he had persuaded Senator Max Baucus of Montana to back the pipeline: “Go Paul!” Clearly, these guys are on the same team, never mind that one of them works for the energy company and the other for the government agency overseeing it.
This comes, in one sense, as no big surprise. In a 2009 cable obtained by Wikileaks, another State Department higher-up was caught advising Canadian officials on how to spin their message to win favorable media coverage of Canadian crude. And when the State Department picked a consulting firm to help carry out the environmental impact statement on the Keystone pipeline, it chose a company called Cardno Entrix that listed among its chief clients ...TransCanada. The final report, which came out in late August, decided the pipeline would have “no significant impact” on the nearby land and water resources.
This is laughable — we’re talking about connecting a pipe to one of the largest pools of carbon on earth. Twenty of the nation’s top scientists sent the administration a letter this summer explaining what a disaster it would be. According to NASA’s chief climate scientist, James Hansen, if we tapped the tar sands heavily, it would be “essentially game over” for the climate.
But instead of listening to bright people like Mr. Hansen who know what they’re talking about, our government’s staffers are blowing kisses at lobbyists. That’s exactly why cronyism is such a problem. The people writing these e-mails don’t have expertise — they have connections. If this is happening in the State Department, why should we not assume it’s also going on in the Treasury Department’s dealings with the big banks, and just about everywhere else in government?
It really does seem extra shocking in the Obama administration. Dick Cheney’s sitting down with the energy barons was almost expected — he’d just quit as chief executive of the drilling company Halliburton, after all. But Barack Obama said he would “end the tyranny of oil”; he also said he was going to end back-room dealing. His decision about the Keystone pipeline project, which is expected by year’s end, seems like one last chance to show he actually meant it.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


30 Comments so far
Show AllPoor Bill! Another fellow who has had his head in the sand for too long - but as the waters are rising, it is a good idea to pull your head out, before you drown ....
Wonder if he will get more militant when Obama approves the pipeline - or will he just suggest another way for O to "prove" himself ....
This is so sad - how many good, smart people can be buffaloed for so long ....
This is just another very good reason NOT to vote for Obama in the forthcoming Presidential election. In many ways he is WORSE than the Republicans, and that is a strong condemnation.
Vote Green or Socialist or Progressive or whatever else is available.
Both major parties are incredibly corrupt.
Jim Shea
Jim Shea wrote:
This is just another very good reason NOT to vote for Obama in the forthcoming Presidential election. In many ways he is WORSE than the Republicans, and that is a strong condemnation.
Vote Green or Socialist or Progressive or whatever else is available.
Both major parties are incredibly corrupt.
* * * * *
My Reply:
Jim Shea,
And demand the establishment of genuine democracy in the United States by insisting that Plurality Voting be replaced by Category Scale Power Voting, and that legislation is enacted that will provide the legal argument that will overturn the unconstitutional Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
- -
See PuffinThrush @ Oct 10 2011 - 9:55am and Oct 10 2011 - 10:04am for examples of Category Scale Power Voting ballots.
If we do vote third party, it would then force us to confront the adage, "things only get changed when we are at the edge of the cliff", meaning if we don't vote for Obama, it will surely mean a win for a Republican. And if we take votes from Obama, they go to...who? Rick Perry? Michelle Bachmann? Herman Cain? Or...? Then, when that "train wreck' gets in, we will surely be awakened by the far-far right wing agenda whch will rain down upon us with a Halleluiah-like chorus from the evangelical, born-again faithful., giddy over having finally gotten that Negro out of the White House and foaming at the mouth with a "plan" to get "their" country back. So either way, we who are progressives, lose-for at least those next four years. Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong, nor am I saying I won't vote for a Green or Progressive; I'm just saying if we do, it'll put a right-winger in the White House for sure.
We already have a right -winger in the White House ...
The whole is system is corrupted. (bought and paid for) I get your point and I agree, it can get worse. Actually, it will get worse.
Thomas Gilbert-
When Bill McKibben says Dick Cheney had "secret meetings with energy company executives to come up with a new energy policy", it is only part of the story. One of the items discussed was Iraq. From the book "It's the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet" by Linda McQuaig:
>>"There’s something almost obscene about a map that was passed around among senior Bush administration officials and a select group of oil company executives in the spring of 2001. It doesn’t show the kind of detail normally shown on maps — cities, towns, regions. Rather its detail is all about Iraq’s oil. The southwest is neatly divided, for instance, into nine “Exploration Blocks.” Stripped of political trappings, this map shows a naked Iraq, with only its ample natural assets in view. It’s like a supermarket meat chart, which identifies the various parts of a slab of beef so customers can see the most desirable cuts … Block 1 might be the striploin, Blocks 2 and 3 are perhaps some juicy tenderloin, but Block 8 — ahh, that could be the filet mignon.
The map might seem crass, but it was never meant for public consumption. It was one of the documents studied by the ultra-secretive task force on energy headed by U.S. vice president Dick Cheney, and it was only released under court order after a long legal battle waged by the public interest group Judicial Watch.
Another interesting task force document, also released under court order, was a two-page chart titled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfields.” It identifies 63 oil companies from 30 countries and specifies which Iraqi oil fields each company is interested in and the status of the company’s negotiations with Saddam Hussein’s regime. Among the companies are Royal Dutch/Shell of the Netherlands, Russia’s Lukoil and France’s Total Elf Aquitaine, which was identified as being interested in the fabulous, 25-billion-barrel Majnoon oil field. Baghdad had “agreed in principle” to the French company’s plans to develop this succulent slab of Iraq. There goes the filet mignon into the mouths of the French!
What makes these documents particularly striking is the fact that, as we now know from several insider accounts, the Bush administration was actively focused from its first days in office on overthrowing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. So, at the same time that the White House was considering toppling Saddam, it was also keenly studying Iraq’s oil fields and assessing how far along foreign companies were in their negotiations with Saddam for a piece of Iraq’s oil. Dick Cheney, former CEO of oil services giant Halliburton Company, was masterminding both the task force deliberations and the push to invade Iraq."<<
Are we to believe that things are not THAT obscene and crass today? Even though there's no secret plan to invade Canada, building this pipeline could be just as disastrous, if not more dangerous, and the cronyism McKibben talks about is probably just as criminal viewed from an environmental point of view.
Obama is consigning untold thousands and probably millions to death by his willingness to ignore global warming and the rape of the environment. He thinks that words can make coal clean, or clean the poisons in the Gulf. He has unleashed drone warfare, and upped the bloodletting in Afghanistan. He is doing it for power he doesn't want or know what to do with because he is a gutless fake, and to continue his dream of being the best in his class. It's fun being president. He golfs more than George Bush and gets to hang out with CIA and Military people and watch live snuff movies. But he is so much better than George Bush. Isn't he? I mean, he can speak many sentences in a row without national linguistic embarrassment. Don't you feel the hope? Can't you see the great change?
-----Obama is consigning untold thousands and probably millions to death by his willingness to ignore global warming and the rape of the environment.------
why such restraint ???
Obama is responsible for the end of all life in the universe!!!!!!!!!!!
Use the system we have, to fix the system we have... and demand one simple law: make it a misdemeanor NOT to vote in federal elections.
well, that ought to take care of all our problems. Gee, thanks hyper. why didn't we think of that?
We have waited far too long for change; whatever happens now it is too late to save millions of species and hundreds of millions of people.
Yes, we should make it clear that we're voting Green this time, at every level. Let the Democrats try to round up votes after ignoring Republican election-stealing for a decade, ignoring the principled left and the interests of their constituents. Let them cry wolf once more and then panic as we refuse to buy the lies yet again.
If Obama wins, we'll have proven once again that the Democrats can piss on us, the country, and the world and still count on our support. They will do nothing or worse to stop climate change and then in 4 more years we will end up in the same dilemma: Gosh, do we vote for the Democrat or blah blah...and then 4 years later, and 4 years after that. (count that by 2s to include midterms) By then it will be too late. Our fate, and the fate of the planet will be sealed.
On the other hand, if we vote by the millions for Green Party candidates despite the Democratic pleas and scapegoating, the Republicans will win. It will be horrible; whatever agenda is left unfinished from the Cheney-Rove administration will be accomplished. The Consititution will be shredded once and for all; governmentof and for the people will be disemboweled; we will be living in a fascist state. but at least the power of the duopoly will be broken and we can revolt, however bloody it might be, and try to win back the country from fascists in time to devote our energies to transforming society. We can then pursue the solutions we should have started 40 years ago: renewable energy; localization; bioregionalism; local organic permaculture; rail, sail, scale and mail, the entire plains as a buffalo commons; etc.
At that point it won't be pretty, however. Imagine first the worst excesses of mob rage and revenge of the French Revolution--Jacobites, Robespierre, Marat.. the 24-hour guillotines... then imagine the worst deprivations the Soviet people went through in WWII. Our economy was great, since the new Deal and the war put the country back to work and deficit spending provided enough for everyone even with the war production. But Russia was far less developed and had already been at full employment so the only way to win was to sacrifice what few consumer goods and agricultural machinery they had for war production. We got guns AND butter; they gave up butter, bread, porridge and shoes for guns. That's what it will be like here after the fascists.
The insanity of both parties has now made this almost inevitable. (Unless of course it's worse, and we suffer unimaginable horror for a century or 3 before becoming extinct.) The only ways out are:
1. one of the 2 parties suddenly becomes the party of saving the world and rams through huge tax increases on the rich, green jobs programs, nationalization and shut-down of all fossil fuels and nuclear, massive subsidies to solar and wind both here and in the third world, equally massive revolution to transform agriculture, reforestation programs, revamping all of industry along biomimicry lines, etc. or
2. a massive popular revolution right now dedicated to radical ecological/ economic reform. We have to have a clear vision of the alternatives and the courage to do what we need to.
Great post, J4zonian. I think you should repeat these points every chance you get. It seems like there are still a whole lot of people with the "lesser of two evils" kind of thinking and "calculation". On the face of it, their argument makes sense. But it is based on fear of the unknown and that fear has not produced any good.
Thanks. I do repeat this often.
One thing I'd add (last paragraph) is that the change we make must be radical ecological/ economic/ Constitutional/ psychological reform. The founders based our government structure on the Iroquois League's. But they left out an institutionalized place for women and some other items that corrupted that democratic form to the form we have: more democratic for some than for others, and far too amenable to the expression of rage through war against nations, citizens and Nature. Any revolution now must insist on radical reform of a system that clearly has never worked (poverty, nature destruction, slavery, genocide, conquest...) and is not working even better now. Ecuador and Bolivia have Consitutionally recognized the rights of Nature; it's time we did the same.
And all that will be meaningless unless we address the root causes of all our problems--'civilized' psychology. We have a system now that while it's imperfect, could easily be used by active, mature people to provide an ecological, healthy, secure, meaningful life for eveyone, citizen, human and not. We don't use it that way, and we need to heal the individual and collective psyche to change that, or all the other changes will be corrupted as the system we have has been corrupted.
.
J4zonian (in part) wrote:
Yes, we should make it clear that we're voting Green this time, at every level. Let the Democrats try to round up votes after ignoring Republican election-stealing for a decade, ignoring the principled left and the interests of their constituents. Let them cry wolf once more and then panic as we refuse to buy the lies yet again.
- - - - -
The insanity of both parties has now made this almost inevitable. (Unless of course it's worse, and we suffer unimaginable horror for a century or 3 before becoming extinct.) The only ways out are:
- - - - -
J4zonian (in part) wrote:
1. one of the 2 parties suddenly becomes the party of saving the world and rams through huge tax increases on the rich, green jobs programs, nationalization and shut-down of all fossil fuels and nuclear, massive subsidies to solar and wind both here and in the third world, equally massive revolution to transform agriculture, reforestation programs, revamping all of industry along biomimicry lines, etc. or
2. a massive popular revolution right now dedicated to radical ecological/ economic reform. We have to have a clear vision of the alternatives and the courage to do what we need to.
* * * * *
My Reply:
J4zonian,
I agree with much of what you have said.
We need to support the massive popular revolution taking place around the world and dedicate our efforts to radical ecological / economic, and political reform.
Until the current system completely collapses among other things that means demanding that governments implement a Fee and Dividend system to put a premium on the price of fossil carbon; and in the case of the United States replace Plurality Voting with Category Scale Power Voting and overturn the unconstitutional Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC U. S. Supreme Court decisions.
- -
See PuffinThrush @ Oct 10 2011 - 9:55am and Oct 10 2011 - 10:04am for examples of Category Scale Power Voting ballots.
Halliburton is not a "drilling company". It is what is known as a "service company" in the oil industry. It has grown as a corporation over the years and expanded into different service areas, but it is mainly known as a cement company. A cement company pumps the cement down hole when casing is set at various depths, isolating various formations and their pressures, so that the hole can then be safely drilled deeper. Unfortunately, cementers are often the butt of many jokes on the oil platforms as they basically lay about doing what can appear as nothing inbetween cement jobs. They do occasionally service their units. Although the cementer has an extremely important job on a rig, if more people knew the social structure of the industry in the field, and how it determines the pscyhe of those in their offices, the absurdness of the George Bushes' administrations would no longer be such a mystery.
You cannot imagine what the service industry reps do to get work from the oil companies. Well, then again, look at what government has become over these past administrations.
Cronyism is definitely alive and well. I just finished an excellent book on just this subject with a concentration on the banks and going into everything from money laundering to secrecy, etc. It is sort of like an extension of what Nomi Prins and others have written with more emphasis on the worldwide aim of the global elites. Written by a Prof of Economics at U of Ottawa, Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew G. Marshall, a researcher at Centre For Research on Globalization. The book is "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century". l always thought "Prison Planet" was a bit too paranoid but after reading this I am not so sure.
"His decision about the Keystone pipeline project, which is expected by year’s end, seems like one last chance to show he actually meant it."
The idea that Obama is making the decision is hilarious.
And if McKibben actually believes the decision has not ALREADY been made -- even after reading all the emails -- he's hopeless.
Obama knows about the contents of the emails and the fact that he has said nothing about the totally unethical behavior of the state department officials involved -- to say nothing of fired them -- speaks volumes.
What simply amazes me about Obama supporters is their willingness to completely suspend their critical faculties when it comes to Obama time after time after time.
"Give him one more chance, just one more"
I can't for the life of me figure out what it is about Obama that makes some people become completely gullible fools.
Believing in "hope" and "change" is one thing, but allowing oneself to be completely manipulated by someone who is clearly a con artist is something else entirely.
Excerpt from "The Cronyism Behind a Pipeline for Crude" by Bill McKibben. NYT, October 4, 2011:
But instead of listening to bright people like Mr. Hansen who know what they’re talking about, our government’s staffers are blowing kisses at lobbyists. That’s exactly why cronyism is such a problem. The people writing these e-mails don’t have expertise — they have connections. If this is happening in the State Department, why should we not assume it’s also going on in the Treasury Department’s dealings with the big banks, and just about everywhere else in government?
It really does seem extra shocking in the Obama administration. Dick Cheney’s sitting down with the energy barons was almost expected — he’d just quit as chief executive of the drilling company Halliburton, after all. But Barack Obama said he would “end the tyranny of oil”; he also said he was going to end back-room dealing. His decision about the Keystone pipeline project, which is expected by year’s end, seems like one last chance to show he actually meant it.
* * * * *
My Comment:
Some years ago when I first heard Bill McKibben insist on the importance of political action to change government policy in ways which would enable a more effective, collective response to global warming and catastrophic climate change, I was encouraged. At the time many people, who were concerned about global warming, were primarily focused on what they could do as individuals to reduce their carbon footprint. This was before Barack Obama ran for presdient, and before 350.org was born, probably sometime before McKibben's 2007 Step It Up campaign.
At the time I never would have guessed that Bill McKibben would one day be so enamored by a politician that he would be unable to recognize what was plainly clear even before Barack Obama replaced John Edwards as the leading challenger to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary elections.
Barack Obama was too attached to the coal and nuclear power industries to believe that he would ever be a strong champion in the effort to reduce fossil carbon emissions and protect the environment.
What's more, Barack Obama had already declared his intent to pursue a bipartisanship that could only mean capitulating to Republicans or complete deadlock.
Is it really somehow possible that Bill McKibben will give Barack Obama yet another chance to prove himself even after Obama approves TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline project as Obama is all but certain to do?
How can Bill McKibben expect to make any progress without clearly indicating to Obama, that he and the rest of the folks at 350.org have some idea how they can effectively hold Obama and Democrats accountable, if Obama approves the Keystone XL pipeline?
What is needed now is a massive surge of support for the Green Party.
Bill McKibben should be participating in #OccupyWallStreet protests, talking about the Keystone XL pipeline, promoting a Fee and Dividend approach to putting a premium on the price on carbon while transferring the proceeds of the fee as a dividend from large corporations that import or extract fossil carbon to the people, promoting the replacement of Plurality Voting with Category Scale Power Voting, and urging support for the Green Party in 2012.
But, Bill McKibben is still struggling to get over the shock and come to grips with the reality that Barack Obama is not even genuinely sympathetic with the concerns of environmentalists, much less willing to actually fight for the ecological welfare of human beings and all the rest of the living species on the planet.
.
gardenernorcal wrote:
It's time we wised up to the fact that our votes are indeed a valuable commodity. They wouldn't spend so much on elections if they weren't.
* * * * *
My Reply:
gardenernorcal,
You make a good point here. But our votes would be more valuable to us and less valuable to them, if Plurality Voting were replaced with Category Scale Power Voting.
Plurality Voting severely restricts each voter's freedom of speech and freedom political association in ways that favor candidates supported by wealthy people and the corporations they control.
* * * * *
Category Scale Power Voting
Example 4: (Support for Nader, Gore preferred as lesser evil than Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- -
Previously posed under the article "The Politics of ‘Occupy Wall Street’: Sanders and Progressives Endorse, Ron Paul Sympathetic, Obama Silent"
by John Nichols, The Capital Times (Wisconsin), October 7, 2011.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/07-5
. .
Category Scale Power Voting
Representative Democracy - The Power of the Boss
Abolishing the Spoiler Effect and the Lesser of Two Evils dilemma (Part 1 of 2)
- - - - -
Category Scale Power Voting
Here are three of just five examples demonstrating the different ways that a single Ralph Nader voter could have cast his or her vote in the 2000 Presidential Election, focusing on the freedom of speech and freedom of political association of the Ralph Nader voter if Category Scale Power Voting had been used in the election.
Please note that in each of these five example ballots voters who support Ralph Nader are able to political associate together with voters who support Al Gore in their common opposition to George W. Bush by explicitly expressing their opposition to George W. Bush.
As is fitting in a genuine democracy characterized by free, fair and democratic elections based upon the consent of the governed, voters who support Ralph Nader may choose whether or not they also want to support or to oppose Al Gore.
For people who may not know, David McReynolds was the Socialist Party candidate for president in 2000, who was also endorsed by the Liberty Union Party of Vermont.
- - - - -
Example 1: (Equal support for Nader and Gore while opposing Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- - - - -
Example 2: (More support for Nader than Gore while opposing Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- - - - -
Example 3: (Support for Nader no support for Gore while opposing Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
. . .
Category Scale Power Voting
Representative Democracy - The Power of the Boss
Abolishing the Spoiler Effect and the Lesser of Two Evils dilemma (Part 2 of 2)
- - - - -
Category Scale Power Voting
Here are two more of the five examples demonstrating the different ways that a single Ralph Nader voter could have cast his or her vote in the 2000 Presidential Election, focusing on the freedom of speech and freedom of political association of the Ralph Nader voter if Category Scale Power Voting had been used in the election.
Please note that in each of these five example ballots voters who support Ralph Nader are able to political associate together with voters who support Al Gore in their common opposition to George W. Bush by explicitly expressing their opposition to George W. Bush.
As is fitting in a genuine democracy characterized by free, fair and democratic elections based upon the consent of the governed, voters who support Ralph Nader may choose whether or not they also want to support or to oppose Al Gore.
For people who may not know, David McReynolds was the Socialist Party candidate for president in 2000, who was also endorsed by the Liberty Union Party of Vermont.
- - - - -
Example 4: (Support for Nader, Gore preferred as lesser evil than Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- - - - -
Example 5: (Support for Nader, equal opposition to Gore and Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
* * * * *
Example 6: (None of the Above)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
.
Why Bill McKibben Should Vigorously Support Fee and Dividend
While Opposing TransCanada’s KeyStone XL Tar Sands Pipeline!
(Part 1 of 3)
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Canadian Arctic Loses Nearly Entire Ice Shelf" by Associated Press, September 30, 2011:
Two ice shelves that existed before Canada was settled by Europeans diminished significantly this northern summer, one nearly disappearing altogether, Canadian scientists say in newly published research.
The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say.
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Canadian Arctic Loses Nearly Entire Ice Shelf" by Associated Press, September 30, 2011:
Floating icebergs that have broken free as a result pose a risk to offshore oil facilities and potentially to shipping lanes.
The breaking apart of the ice shelves also reduces the environment that supports microbial life, and changes the look of Canada's coastline.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/09/30-5
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Ottawa Action Kills Notion of Ethical Oil", by Curtis Morrison, Waging Nonviolence, September 30, 2011:
According to Article 32 of the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Harper is required to cooperate in good faith to obtain:
free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting
their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection
with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other
resources.
“We’ve been informed and we do not consent.” said Chief Jackie Thomas of the Saik’uz First Nation, to the crowd during the rally. Her Nation is one of five nations making up the Yinka Dene Alliance. Enbridge Pipeline offered to give the Alliance a 10-per-cent ownership stake in the proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline, and the Alliance declined.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/30-6
* * * * *
My Comment:
It would be great if the Barack Obama administration or the Stephen Harper government would put a stop to the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline or the pipeline was somehow blocked by other means.
The Yinka Dene Alliance has rejected Enbridge Pipeline’s offer to give the Alliance a 10-per-cent ownership stake in the proposed North Gateway pipeline project from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat, British Columbia. But that is unlikely to deter Enbridge.
When the Arctic Ocean becomes largely free of sea ice year round, there will also be an incentive to build a tars sands pipeline from Alberta to Port Churchill, Manitoba on the Hudson Bay.
On August 20, 2009, the U.S. State Department issued a presidential permit for an Alberta Clipper Pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin. The pipeline will be capable of carrying up to 450,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries in the U.S.
Clearly, a more comprehensive approach to preventing extensive exploitation of the Alberta tar sands, as well as reducing our dependence on other fossil fuels energy sources, is needed.
Canadians and USans need to overcome the opposition within their respective countries to government action to counter global warming, catastrophic climate change and the direct destruction of the environment, and force their governments to enact Fee and Dividend legislation.
.
Why Bill McKibben Should Vigorously Support Fee and Dividend
While Opposing TransCanada’s KeyStone XL Tar Sands Pipeline!
(Part 2 of 3)
- - - - -
Excerpt from "A Primer on Class Struggle" by Michael Schwalbe, Common Dreams, March 13, 2011:
"The most important arena outside the workplace is government, because it’s here that the rules of the game are made, interpreted, and enforced. When we look at how capitalists try to use government to protect and advance their interests -- and at how other groups resist -- we are looking at class struggle."
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/31-4
- - - - -
My Comment:
Support Fee and Dividend
How about getting nasty and forcing the U.S. Congress to pass Fee and Dividend legislation that puts an economy wide premium on the cost of fossil carbon products collected at the point of importation or extraction, where the proceeds from the fee are periodically returned to the people throughout the year?
Placing a premium on the cost of fossil carbon products through a Fee and Dividend system is the best approach to reducing fossil carbon emissions.
Fee and Dividend is specifically designed to protect the poor and the middle class (what's left of it) from the rising cost of fossil carbon and to enable them more directly to participate in the choice of alternatives to fossil carbon consumption, including their own efforts to manage their consumption through conservation and lifestyle changes, by adding a large premium to the cost of fossil carbon through the payment of a fee by corporations that import or extract fossil carbon, and then distributing the proceeds of that fee as a dividend to the people in the form of periodic payments during the year.
Sure, corporations may still obtain windfall profits on steeply rising oil prices as the market price changes due to fluctuations in "available" supply, speculation, and the dynamics of peak oil; but the large premium added to the cost of fossil carbon products as a result of the fee is transferred from corporations to the people as a dividend. Corporate windfall profits on fossil carbon based energy should be taxed separately.
The fee adds a stable and predictable premium to the cost of fossil carbon. Usually, Fee and Dividend proposals include provisions for the steady increase in the amount of the fee on fossil carbon importation and extraction with the passage of time. Presumably, the increase in the fee per unit of fossil carbon will correspond with reductions in fossil carbon consumption as more alternatives are developed. The initial fee should be large enough to make current alternatives economically attractive and to encourage the development of new alternatives.
Rather than simply letting large corporations manage the increase in fossil carbon costs and the development of alternatives for consumers in ways which perpetuate corporate control, Fee and Dividend puts money in the hands of the people, who can then more easily make their own choices regarding alternatives to fossil carbon consumption including conservation and lifestyle changes.
Instead of a "trickle down" approach Fee and Dividend transfers money from corporations to people; giving people the "carrot" that works with the fee based premium on the cost of fossil carbon "stick" to generate market incentives for the development of innovative alternatives.
Given what was once a consumer driven economy, the great disparities in wealth and income in the United States, and the fact that large corporations are essentially withholding $2 trillion in liquid assets from the real economy, just about any transfer of the ill gotten gains of wealthy people and wealthy corporations to the middle class and the poor is more likely to stimulate the economy and generate jobs than another tax break for wealthy people, the super rich and large wealthy corporations. When that transfer of funds also puts a premium on the price of fossil carbon, then there is an additional incentive favoring the development of a healthy economy.
Fee and Dividend in a Nutshell
1. Corporations and other types of businesses that import or
extract fossil carbon pay a fossil carbon fee per unit of fossil
carbon and choose whether or not to pass on the increased
cost to consumers or possibly develop a new line of business.
2. Corporations and other types of businesses choose whether
or not to pay the increased cost of fossil carbon and
other products and pass on the increased cost to consumers or
find more suitable alternatives.
3. People periodically receive the proceeds from the fossil carbon
fee as dividend payments, which buffer the impact on them of
the increase in fossil carbon prices due to the fossil carbon
fee and enable them more easily to purchase alternatives.
4. People choose whether or not to pay the increased cost of fossil
carbon and other products or find more suitable alternatives
using what funds they have available including funds from fossil
carbon dividend payments as they see fit.
By the way, Fee and Dividend is the approach to putting a premium on the price of fossil carbon that is favored by NASA climatologist James Hansen and many economists.
If Canadians get nasty too, maybe they can force their government to enact Fee and Dividend legislation.
.
Alcyon (in reply to Puffin Thrush) wrote:
Excellent points, PuffinThrush. There are multiple benefits to be derived from a carbon tax based on a "fee and dividend" model, while addressing the biggest crisis of our times. This proposal from experts and supported by so many experts and activists needs to become mainstream, although I can easily foresee how it would be attacked and using what arguments. Maybe CD should publish some articles from time to time to get a buzz going here.
- -
Previously posted in the Comments thread under the article “Obama's Pipeline Quagmire” by Ralph Nader, Common Dreams, September 13, 2011.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/13-10
.
Why Bill McKibben Should Vigorously Support Fee and Dividend
While Opposing TransCanada’s KeyStone XL Tar Sands Pipeline!
(Part 3 of 3)
- - - - -
Bill McKibben, the rest of the folks at 350.org, along with other environmentalists and other people concerned about global warming, catastrophic climate change, mass extinction, massive releases of methane, and the possible complete destruction of life on Earth, need to do the following:
1. Demonstrate that they have a sound understanding not only of the ecological
catastrophe we face, but how power actually works in the United States and
around the world.
2. Act on that understanding (with extreme politeness if that is their preference or
fetish) by not simply declaring that the approval or disapproval of TransCanada’s
Keystone XL pipeline is the defining “litmus test” moment for Barack Obama
regarding his supposed commitment to seriously addressing global warming,
but also at the same time clearly and loudly indicating what must be done in
order to begin the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere
and to hold politicians in the United States and elsewhere, including Barack
Obama, accountable for their failure to act.
3. Loudly proclaim that the current political system is illegitimate and clearly state
that Plurality Voting is unconstitutional and must be replaced by Category Scale
Power Voting, that the Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC United
States Supreme Court decisions are unconstitutional and must be overturned,
that the enormous power of large corporations, particularly large energy and
financial corporations, is incompatible with democracy, a healthy economy, and
a healthy environment; and that these corporations must, through anti-trust laws
or other means, be broken up now into smaller corporations.
4. Clearly state that no one should support Democrats or Republicans in 2012 who
do not act now, with consistency and intensity, to revive the economy, to protect
the planet from global warming, and to establish genuine democracy in the
United States; and that the safe alternative is to support the Green Party of the
United States in the 2012 elections, and that the 2012 elections should and will
be closely monitored by the people.
5. Join and support the rest of the working class protesting and rebelling against
corporate power and the power of the wealthy 1%.
.
#OccupyOilRigs
What Bill McKibben Should Do
.
Excerpt from “Activists occupy oil rig in fight to prevent Arctic drilling” by John Vidal, Guardian (UK), April 2011:
The fight to stop the global oil industry exploring the pristine deep waters of the Arctic has been dubbed the new cold war, and early on Friday it escalated as environmental activists from 12 countries occupied the world's second largest rig on its way from Turkey to Greenland to drill among the icebergs.
Article URL: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/22/activists-occupy-arctic-oil-rig
* * * * *
My Comment:
Bill McKibben should team up with Greenpeace.
Environmentalists have been part of the #OccupyWallStreet and #OccupyEverywhere movement long before the first protesters appeared in Zucotti Park.
>>PuffinThrush: Bill McKibben should team up with Greenpeace.<<
I agree.
.
Excerpt from "Pipeline Risk: Who's Judging?" by Madeline Ostrander,
YES! Magazine, re-published by Common Dreams, September 3, 2011:
Last week, I wrote about John Stansbury, a civil engineering professor who, in July, released an independent report that reviewed the pipeline’s environmental risks. He found that TransCanada (the company that wants to build the pipeline) had underestimated the likelihood of spills. I spoke with him again today; he has just worked his way through the State Department’s eight-volume final environmental report.
“The Department of State seems to completely depend on what TransCanada says about [the pipeline],” Stansbury says. He says the numbers and assumptions that TransCanada used in its reports are nearly identical to those cited in both the draft and final EIS issued by the State Department. In other words, Stansbury believes the State Department lifted much of its data from TransCanada, rather than doing its own evaluation. And he says “nearly nothing” has changed between the draft and final versions of the environmental impact assessment.
Unsurprisingly, the assessments paint a rosy picture of the project. As an example, Stansbury points to how long they estimate it would take to shut down a pipeline valve during a spill. The final EIS estimates it would take 12 minutes. A report produced for TransCanada by the firm DNV Consulting estimates 11.5 minutes for a large spill.
"We've had several spills recently, and nobody gets pipelines shut down in 11 and a half minutes,” says Stansbury. “And even if they could, if their leak-detection system works perfectly … if the operators interpret the signals perfectly, it's not the worst-case scenario. That’s the best-case analysis. The worst-case scenario is, what if 25 years from now, that leak detection system isn't working perfectly? What if the operators—as happened in the case of the Enbridge spill—just plain misinterpret the alarms from the leak detection system?”
And of course, the oil industry doesn’t have a good track record for honesty about its failings and weaknesses. ExxonMobil told the public that it shut down the recent oil pipeline spill on the Yellowstone River in half an hour; later, federal documents revealed it took twice that long, according to reports by the Associated Press.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/03-6
- - - - -
Excerpt from "The Cronyism Behind a Pipeline" by Bill McKibben, New York Times, re-published by Common Dreams, October 4, 2011:
This comes, in one sense, as no big surprise. In a 2009 cable obtained by Wikileaks, another State Department higher-up was caught advising Canadian officials on how to spin their message to win favorable media coverage of Canadian crude. And when the State Department picked a consulting firm to help carry out the environmental impact statement on the Keystone pipeline, it chose a company called Cardno Entrix that listed among its chief clients ...TransCanada. The final report, which came out in late August, decided the pipeline would have “no significant impact” on the nearby land and water resources.
* * * * *
My Comment:
DNV Consulting and Cardno Entrix.
There are an plenty of opportunities to make a little money on the side, while defrauding the people.
Hey, Hillary! Doesn't James Hansen still work for NASA?
What about the scientists and engineers who work for the EPA?
.
Thanks for this post. I had missed the other CD article you've referred here. The audacity of the criminals is astounding.