Like the legendary Northwest Passage and the lost city of Eldorado, explorers have long searched for a connection, or a contiguous thought of some kind, connecting what he says to any kind of empirical reality. Dr. Levy Pangloss of John’s Hopkins once determined a partial neural network from Trump’s speech center, through his limbic snake brain but lost it in a constellation of half-thoughts, notions, prejudices, brain farts and outright lies. In further investigation it was found that the facile lying of a sociopath, may interfere with the necessary feeling channels which, in humans, connects the ego to any kind of empathy toward other creatures, and a more complete world picture not, in fact, centered around the words, “me”, “I”, “mine”, and “Unbelievable!” Dr. Levy added, “ Of course, that assumes he has a working brain. It is rumored that he can dress himself, but we will need to do more study on that.”
At Nuremberg we hung Nazi’s whose crime was “only following orders.”
McConnell seeks to delay and derail any action on climate change, following orders from his sponsors and puppet masters, the Coal Companies. Inhoft denies science, claims “God” will take care of everything and brought a snowball into Congress to deny climate change. There’s a snowball’s chance of either of these guys acting in the public interest.
The Nazi’s, our image of pure evil, actually started as idealists and killed 70 million people “for a greater good for Germany”.
McConnell, James Inhof and their ilk, if successful in preventing action on climate change will be directly responsible for causing the deaths of millions, if not billions… and not for ideology, no matter how perverted, but for cold, hard cash. … for obscene profits for a few…to hold onto power…for personal gain.
Not even Hitler did that.
Some day there will be a Nuremberg Trial for climate deniers.. the Koch Brothers, Big Oil, Big Coal, and their minions and functionaries. Will McConnell and the others be sentenced as the Nazis were for their crimes against humanity? Will they ask for the blindfold or do they already have it?
Nuclear Fission (Nu Kle Ar, not Nu Ku Lar) is an obsolete and highly dangerous technology. One little mistake like Chernobyl or Fukushima and a vast swath of your country will be uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. It would cost your economy trillions of dollars. And there is no need for it.
If you will give up this dangerous idea, we western nations (the Coalition of the Concerned) would like to offer you double the primary energy production in the form of solar and wind technology. We will provide you with our latest technologies and the expertise to install them. We will train your technicians and guarantee that it costs less than you would spend on nuclear fission.
Solar and Wind technology is totally safe, clean and renewable. Production facilities do not become radiated and have to be replaced and entombed. There is no dangerous nuclear waste. Nobody will want to attack you because you are a threat to their existence. You can avoid a war, nuclear accident, or other incident that would kill hundreds of thousands of your people and destroy your economy.
You can export your excess capacity and the technology into the region and make friends.
There is no downside for you except that you will not be able to make nuclear weapons. So if you turn down this offer, it would show that that is really your intent.
Please get back to us soonest.
A few of the rational minds in the Western Powers…
Almost 3 billion gallons of oil industry wastewater have been illegally dumped into central California aquifers that supply drinking water and farming irrigation, according to state documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity. The wastewater entered the aquifers through at least nine injection disposal wells used by the oil industry to dispose of waste contaminated with fracking fluids and other pollutants.
High levels of arsenic, thallium and nitrates were also found in water-supply wells around waste-disposal locations. These, of course, have yet to be tested to find out the true nature of their relationship to the waste-management facilities nearby.
The state’s Water Board confirmed beyond doubt that at least nine wastewater disposal wells have been injecting waste into aquifers that contain high-quality water that is supposed to be protected under federal and state law.
Thallium is an extremely toxic chemical commonly used in rat poison. Arsenic is a toxic chemical that can cause cancer. Some studies show that even low-level exposure to arsenic in drinking water can compromise the immune system’s ability to fight illness. “Arsenic and thallium are extremely dangerous chemicals,” said Timothy Krantz, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Redlands. “The fact that high concentrations are showing up in multiple water wells close to wastewater injection sites raises major concerns about the health and safety of nearby residents.”
Paso Robles Aquifer Merlot delivers plenty of ripe rat poison flavors; juicy, full bodied and densely flavored; expresses notes of thallium and arsenic on the finish; perfect to serve with Clean Coal.
Warning: Drinking poison may cause cancer. Ask your doctor if cancer is right for you.
THE GLOBAL SUBSIDIES INITIATIVE | UNTOLD BILLIONS:
FOSSIL-FUEL SUBSIDIES, THEIR IMPACTS AND THE PATH TO REFORM
The IEA study estimated that the removal of consumer subsidies in eight non-OECD countries would increase
annual GDP on average in those countries by 0.73 per cent. Individual country results ranged from an increase in GDP by 2.22 per cent in Iran to 0.10 per cent in South Africa.
The IEA study suggested that the removal of subsidies in eight non-OECD countries would lower their CO2 emissions by 16 per cent due to a decrease in energy use by 13 per cent. Globally this would amount to a decrease of CO2 emissions of 4.6 per cent.
A 2004 study by leading American scientists found that by the year 2050 we will need at least three times the current primary energy and it will have to be three times as clean to avoid destroying the climate. It concludes that there are no earthly technologies capable of providing that power.
One of the leading scientists, Dr. Martin Hoffert, has called for an emergency crash program to replace fossil fuel; an effort similar to the Manhattan Project, which created the nuclear industry (and bombs) in three years, and the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Europe. This Earth Energy Project would cost $30 Billion a year.
Where could that come from?
Fossil fuel provides 81% of primary power. Over the two years 2010 and 2011, ExxonMobil reported $9,910 million in pretax U.S. profits. But it enjoyed so many tax subsidies that its federal income tax bill was only $39 million — a tax rate of only 0.4 percent.
US Fossil fuel companies reported $271 billion in profits in 2012. Why are we giving tax breaks to the very industries that are costing us hundreds of billions in damages and destroying the climate of the planet?
The Revenue Act of 1913 allowed oil companies to write off 5 percent of the costs from oil and gas wells. A century later, oil companies can now deduct three times this rate. At 15 percent the depletion subsidy increases when prices are high, when oil companies enjoy greater profit. It can even eliminate all federal taxes for independent producers.
A Center for American Progress report estimated that closing this tax break would save $11.2 billion over 10 years. President Obama has called on Congress to eliminate the percentage depletion allowance, along with a series of other tax breaks totaling $4 billion annually. Even Ronald Reagan once asked for the same in a 1985 speech on tax reform:
“Under our new tax proposal the oil and gas industry will be asked to pick up a larger share of the national tax burden. By eliminating this special preference, we’ll go a long way toward ensuring that those that earn their wealth in the oil industry will be subject to the same taxes as the rest of us.”
“Oil companies get to use a special method for calculating their deductions called “percentage depletion.” Instead of deducting the costs of an oil or gas well as its value declines, oil companies are allowed to deduct a flat percentage of the income they derive from it. Because the deductions are based on revenues, not costs, the subsidy actually increases at times when prices are high, when oil companies enjoy their greatest profits. American consumers have been waiting for the benefits of these tax subsidies to trickle down in lower gas prices. It hasn’t happened. In fact, these subsidies existed during the 2008 oil shock when prices hit a record $147 per barrel, yet did nothing to lower oil prices or increase production. And repealing them won’t increase prices at the pump. “Gasoline prices are a function of world oil prices and refining margins,” explains Severin Borenstein, co-director of UC-Berkeley’s Center for the Study of Energy Markets. Any incremental impact on production “will have no impact on world oil prices, and therefore no impact on gasoline prices.”
Oil tax subsidies are simply a waste of taxpayer dollars. Oil and gas companies make investment decisions based on the profit potential. Those decisions are driven primarily by market conditions, including the price of oil on world markets, not marginal tax incentives. “With $55 oil we don’t need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore,” said President George W. Bush in 2005.
“There are plenty of incentives.” According to research by GigaOm analyst Adam Lesser, in a 2011 report from the International Energy Agency fossil fuels currently receive subsidies via “at least 250 mechanisms.”
In 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy.
The study U.S. Government Subsidies for Energy Sources 2002-2008 calculated lost government revenues by each fossil fuel sector: The vast majority of federal subsidies for fossil fuels and renewable energy supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. The federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels—a mature, developed industry that has enjoyed government support for many years—totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers.”
We subsidize $18-21 billion a year in the U.S. alone. The US share of world GNP is approximately 27%. The European Union’s “Total energy subsidies in 2011 amount to €26 billion for fossil fuels (+ €40 billion for related health costs), €35 billion for nuclear power, and €30 billion for renewables. Out of a total of €131 billion, renewables which are still in need of support to enter the market get a 23% share – whilst mature, unsustainable and old-fashioned energies get a huge 77% slice of the energy subsidy cake. Equal to $137 billion, US.
A report from the National Research Council estimates “hidden” costs of energy production and use — such as the damage air pollution imposes on human health — that are not reflected in market prices of coal, oil, other energy sources, or the electricity and gasoline produced from them. The damages the committee was able to quantify were an estimated $120 billion in the U.S. in 2005, a number that reflects primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation. The figure does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize.
One technology capable of replacing fossil fuel is Space Solar Power: collecting the constant flux of energy from the sun, and beaming it down to earth, on time, on target, without need for storage or transmission lines. Pure, clean power beamed directly where needed, a constant source of energy and wealth.
The US could fund nearly two thirds of Dr. Hoffert’s estimate by merely eliminating tax breaks for atmo-polluters and directing that revenue to fund new jobs in high-tech aerospace and energy manufacturing. Additional jobs would be created in transitioning the transportation industry from fossil to clean electric propulsion. More jobs could be created in reforesting the earth to capture carbon and repair the damage.
With the addition of the EU de-funding the yearly amount for a Manhattan Project type crash course in renewable energy would be one and a half times as much as Hoffert’s estimate.
The world spends over half a trillion dollars giving tax breaks and subsidies to the richest companies and individuals in the world. They spend that money lobbying and propagandizing to deny they are polluting and changing the climate of the planet.
The problem is, it’s profitable to destroy the climate. Once it’s more profitable to produce clean energy, things will change…
For the Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry.
And the coal industry kicked back $2 Million to Mitch McConnell.
The Climate Cost Is Unknown.
Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property and transportation taxes and permit fees. The $643 million in expenditures includes $239 million for the coal haul road system, regulation of the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support for worker training, research and development for the coal industry (?), promotion of education about coal in the public schools (propaganda) and support of residents employed by coal. Total costs include $85 million to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.
The industry actually costs more than it brings to the state.
The coal industry generated revenues of $303 million while spending to support coal industry totals more than $270 million and off-budget tax expenditures add $85 million for a total of more than $355 million. The net direct impact of the industry on the state budget is an estimated (minus) –$52 million.
Coal employment accounts for only one percent of Kentucky employment. Direct employment in coal totals $83 million while coal workers’ share of state expenditures totals $73 million. The net impact of direct employment is $10 million. But revenues generated in supply industries total $142 million. Spending to support those workers totals $214 million. The net impact of indirect employment on the Kentucky state budget is –$73 million.
These figures do not include the many externalized costs imposed by coal including healthcare, lost productivity resulting from injury and health impacts, water treatment from siltation caused by surface mining, water infrastructure to replace damaged wells, limited development potential due to poor air quality, and social spending associated with declines in coal employment and related economic hardships of coalfield communities. Some of these externalities impose additional costs to the state. Others are borne by communities that mine and burn coal and by those outside the region.
Official sources project a significant decline in production as easy-to-mine coal is depleted with additional challenges as aging coal-fired power plants are retired and new laws on carbon emissions raise the price of coal relative to cleaner alternatives. Industry representatives and supporters embrace Carbon Capture and Sequestration, but these technologies face high costs, significant risk and uncertainty, are already utilizing large public subsidies, and there is no indication that they work.
Tax expenditures for the coal industry are a set of growing but largely hidden subsidies. Kentucky should examine its rate of taxation and use of subsidies and think strategically about the needs of the Commonwealth and the best path to a prosperous future.”
Oh, yeah, Mitch McConnell is bribed $2,020,466 per year.
Rand Paul is only bribed $234,755 per year