Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A Better Question: Will Fossil Fuel Companies Face Liability for Climate Change? It is one thing to do your own research, but it is another to deliberately deceive people, POISONING THE PLANET just to retain PROFITS.

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 16, 2012, 10:13 a.m. EST by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Sooner or Later, One Way or Another, We Will be Moving Away from Fossil Fuel to Cleaner and More Efficient Fuel/Energy ~ Move Over BIG GREED ~ Let's Get It ON!!!

http://www.alternet.org/environment/153637/will_fossil_fuel_companies_face_liability_for_climate_change/

Conducive Chronicle / By Christine Shearer

Will Fossil Fuel Companies Face Liability for Climate Change? It is one thing to do your own research, but it is another to deliberately deceive people, contributing to widespread harm primarily to retain profits. January 2, 2012 |

[What did they know, and when did they know it?]

In a recent article in National Journal, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) President Tim Phillips said there is no question that AFP and others like it have been instrumental in the rise of Republican candidates who question or deny climate science: “We’ve made great headway. What it means for candidates on the Republican side is, if you … buy into green energy or you play footsie on this issue, you do so at your political peril.”

AFP is a section 501(c)(4) organization, meaning it does not have to disclose its donors, but has been tied to significant funding from the Koch Family Foundations - founded by the billionaire Koch brothers of Koch Industries – as well as smaller donations from companies like ExxonMobil. Koch Industries and ExxonMobil are among the largest funders of studies questioning climate change science, often drawn upon by conservative politicians to legitimize their view that regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is not needed because the science is still under debate.

These organizations and their supporters say they are just funding their own independent studies of climate change science. Yet these studies almost all go against observable scientific data to question global warming – so much so that one study funded in part by the Kochs that confirmed a rise in average world land temperature was regarded as an anomaly. Which raises the question: if these studies are largely designed not to shed light on climate change, but to create doubt and confusion to delay greenhouse gas regulations, why is it legal, and do those deliberately spreading misinformation face liability?

The first question, as far as I can tell, apparently boils down to: it’s legal because we have yet to make the deliberate manipulation of science illegal.

Yet while people and companies enjoy the First Amendment right to free speech, legal scholars have argued that right does not extend to influencing people under false pretenses. According to former tobacco industry lawyer Stephen Susman, when it comes to fossil fuel companies and supporters funding their own research on climate change, if “they knew the information they were spreading was false and being used to deliberately influence public opinion—that would override their First Amendment rights.”

This question may soon be playing out in the courts.

History of the science

Research on climate change goes back over a century. Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming lays out the long trajectory: from realizing GHGs trap heat and help warm the planet, to identifying them, to tracking GHG emissions into the atmosphere and oceans from the burning of fossil fuels, to measuring the effects.

The research was developed enough that a 1965 report to the Johnson administration,Restoring the Quality of Our Environment, discussed the increase in global carbon dioxide emissions and the possible dire effects. In a 1969 memo, President Nixon’s Democratic adviser, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote that it was “pretty clearly agreed” that carbon dioxide levels were rising fast and would increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface, and that such dangers justified government action.

Attempts to water down the implications of the science soon followed. Science historian Naomi Oreskes and others found that, in 1983, a committee of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences chaired by physicist William Nierenberg reframed the growing consensus around anthropogenic warming as a “nonproblem” that would have limited effects humans could adapt to, as with past changes in human history. Nierenberg was cofounder of the conservative George C. Marshall Institute, and – as documented in Oreskes and Eric Conways’s Merchants of Doubt (2010) – part of a group of government scientific advisers that went from Cold War warriors supporting nuclear weapons to staunch corporate defenders questioning the science on tobacco smoke, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, and eventually climate change science, among other issues.

Yet the science marched on. In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified to the U.S. Congress that he believed with 99 percent confidence that substantial global warming was under way, and would rise significantly unless greenhouse gas emissions were reduced. That same year, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of about 2,500 international climate scientists who evaluate the research on climate change (which often end up being conservative estimates of likely effects, arguably because of the need for agreement among government representatives).

In 1990, IPCC scientists completed their first assessment report for policymakers, stating they were certain human activities were increasing greenhouse gas emissions and warming, with the second report, in 1995, concluding there was a discernible human influence on climate.

The stage seemed set for an international treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

History of the nonscience

That’s when fossil fuel companies and their supporters sprang in to fund their own research. In 1988 the coal industry founded the Western Fuels Association (WFA), headed by Fred Palmer, who later became vice president of Peabody Energy, the largest private coal company in the world. As outlined in Ross Gelbspan’s The Heat Is On (1998), the WFA actively sought to refute the growing consensus on climate change, stating in its report that “when [the climate change] controversy first erupted at the peak of summer in 1988, Western Fuels Association decided it was important to take a stand.… [S]cientists were found who are skeptical about the potential for climate change.”

A 1998 memo leaked from the National Environmental Trust to the New York Times detailed that a dozen people working for big oil companies, trade associations, and conservative think tanks had been meeting at the American Petroleum Institute’s Washington headquarters to propose a $5 million campaign to convince people that global warming science was riddled with controversy and uncertainty.

Industries like oil and large manufacturers created the lobbying group Global Climate Coalition (GCC) in 1989, with the stated purpose of “cast[ing] doubt on the theory of global warming.” A Freedom of Information Act request unearthed 2001 U.S. State Department documents to the GCC suggesting former President George W. Bush’s decision to pull out of UN international negotiations on climate change had been shaped in part by GCC and Exxon.

The George W. Bush Administration not only resisted GHG regulations, but actively edited government reports to question the science of climate change, one time drawing upon research funded in part by ExxonMobil. As documented by Greenpeace and others, ExxonMobil and Koch Industries went on to become major donors of such research, finding a platform in conservative think tanks and media.

The result? The U.S. perception of scientific consensus about climate change went down in line with the growth of corporate-funded research, particularly among Republicans, even as the science became more clear and the effects more apparent. While the awareness of a consensus is inching back up (although there is still much more confusion than there arguably should be over whether humans are a factor), the U.S. has yet to regulate greenhouse gases, even as the International Energy Agency warns that we may be five years away from being deadlocked into runaway warming.

CONTINUED: http://www.alternet.org/environment/153637/will_fossil_fuel_companies_face_liability_for_climate_change/

Liability?

In 2008, the small Inupiat nation and city of Kivalina, Alaska, filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil and 23 other fossil fuel companies for federal public nuisance – the damage of their homeland, which will be uninhabitable within a few decades, as sea ice no longer sufficiently buffers the barrier reef island against erosion from fall storms. Their claim argues that Kivalina has an identifiable, discrete harm, traceable to greenhouse gas emissions, of which the defendant companies are among the world’s largest contributors. They seek damages: their relocation costs. CONTINUED:

Defendant companies argue that climate change is not a matter for the courts – the problem is too big, and we are all responsible. Yet we have not all embarked on multi-million dollar campaigns to fund our own research and prevent change. It is these secondary claims that could be the crux of establishing whether fossil fuel companies will eventually bear liability for harm from greenhouse gas emissions. As prior cases involving lead, asbestos, and tobacco lawsuits show, people seem to think it is one thing to do your own research, but it is another to deliberately deceive people, contributing to widespread harm primarily to retain profits.

Christine Shearer is a researcher for CoalSwarm, part of SourceWatch, and a postdoctoral scholar at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at UC Santa Barbara. She is managing editor of Conducive, and author of the book, "Kivalina: A Climate Change Story" (Haymarket Books, 2011).

http://www.alternet.org/environment/153637/will_fossil_fuel_companies_face_liability_for_climate_change/

39 Comments

39 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

There is a pretty good treatment here of a global warming debate that gets little coverage: how likely is it that global warming is a huge problem and how does that problem rank relative to other issues that we face:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/movies/12cool.html

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Not impressed. Nothing is 100% and focusing on minute flaws is stupid. It's the Con tactic of pettifogging.

"Global Warming" is a label for the environmental effects of pollution.

We need to stop polluting the world!

Fossil fuel is obsolete as it is used today. Clean fuel/energy will replace it.

The only reasons we still use FF is GREED and STUPIDITY!

Get with the program or get out of the way!!

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Lomborg seems to have some pretty good points. He does not deny warming he just points out the costs of making changes that will actually help and how the money could be better spent feeding the worlds hungry, treat disease, and ease human suffering. They are all pretty worthy goals.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Other concerns and causes are not mutually exclusive. That's a Con game.

We need to stop polluting the world!

Fossil fuel is obsolete as it is used today. Clean fuel/energy will replace it.

The only reasons we still use FF is GREED and STUPIDITY!

Get with the program or get out of the way!!

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Well he points out that if you are bleeding from a neck wound and severed leg artery they must be attended to before the broken finger. He wants to prioritize our problems and work on the critical ones first.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Con Game!!

We've known FF was a dead end for at least 4 decades.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

But they just discovered 100 years worth of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. Gas burns with a lot less CO2. Isn't it worth moving to more natural gas?

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

How about zero emissions.

Con Game!!

We've known FF was a dead end for at least 4 decades.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Well nuclear power has no emissions. Should we build more plants?

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Fukushima.

Con Game!!

We've known FF was a dead end for at least 4 decades.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

No one died at Fukishima. We have killed 87 people in the last 10 years at wind turbine sites. There has never been a single fatality at a US nuclear power plant.

We have not built a new nuclear power plant in 35 years and we are on the verge of a nuclear renaissance. The events at Fukashima will actually help speed the development of new US plants.

We have the opportunity to do what Germany and Japan did after WWII in replacing their devastated infrastructures. We can leap frog the rest of the world by building the safest and most efficient plants using the latest technology.

These plants are small (100 square miles of ugly windmills vs a nuke the size of a Wal-Mart), are located near water which is also convenient for major cities where most energy is consumed, provides energy independence, produces no green house gasses, and can provide electricity and heat for all sorts of new technology like electric cars.

There are three new plants under construction now with another 20 or more on the books. This work would fix so many problems. We just need the courage to do it.

I really credit President Obama for having the guts to push ahead in the face of much opposition.

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Quit the Con Game!

Nuke plant builders don't put them in their back yard or insure them for a reason:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/chernobyl-deaths-180406/

Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated On this page • The real face of the nuclear industry • Support us Feature story - April 18, 2006 A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers. zoom In the cancer ward of a Kiev hospital in the Ukraine, 19-year-old Elena is being treated for her second case of thyroid cancer in just 3 years Our report involved 52 respected scientists and includesinformation never before published in English. It challenges the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering. The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000. The report also looks into the ongoing health impacts of Chernobyl and concludes that radiation from the disaster has had a devastating effect on survivors; damaging immune and endocrine systems, leading to accelerated ageing, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological illnesses, chromosomal aberrations and an increase in foetal deformations. The real face of the nuclear industry Each one of these statistics has a face. Many people are paying a price for the negligence of a dirty and dangerous industry: This is just a selection of pictures from a new photography exhibit opening in 30 cities worldwide. The exhibition features poignant portraits of individuals and families, and the stories of their suffering due to Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters. Greenpeace statement on the anniversary of Chernobyl, from Executive Director Gerd Leipold These powerful images are a timely reminder that human lives are more than just numbers. For each statistic there is a person paying the ultimate price. Anyone who doubts the dangers of nuclear power should visit the exhibition and see for themselves one of the reasons why we oppose nuclear power. Twenty years on, every nuclear power plant bears the legacy of the nuclear industry's victims; and every nuclear power plant represents the threat of becoming the next Chernobyl.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/health-wellness/1477348-fukushima-radiation-spreads-worldwide.html

RERF admitted radiation may cause deaths due to non-cancer disease Posted by Mochizuki on January 8th, 2012 • 4 Comments Radiation Effects Research Foundation (A cooperative Japan-US research organization) secretly published the report about deaths due to non-cancer disease caused by radiation on 9/30/2011. <Start> Deaths due to non-cancer disease Analyses of the Life Span Study (LSS) mortality data (1950-1997) show a statistically significant dose-response pattern for death from diseases other than cancer. The excess does not seem limited to any particular disease. Among the 49,114 LSS survivors with colon doses of at least 0.005 Gy (DS86), 18,049 non-cancer deaths occurred (excluding deaths attributed to diseases of the blood). Circulatory diseases account for nearly 60% of these deaths, with digestive diseases, including liver diseases, and respiratory diseases accounting for about 15% and 10%, respectively. Aside from diseases of the blood, the number of excess non-cancer deaths associated with A-bomb exposure is estimated at 150 to 300 cases. The death rate following exposure to 0.2 Gy (the mean radiation dose for the 49,114 survivors with doses >0.005 Gy) is increased by about 3% over normal rates. This is less than the death rate increase for solid cancers, where corresponding increases are 7% in men and 12% in women (age 30 ATB). The dose-response pattern is still quite uncertain (Figure 1).

A significant radiation dose-response pattern was also seen for non-cancer blood diseases. Such diseases were studied separately since they may represent various hematologic malignant or premalignant conditions. Among the 128 deaths for which medical records were available and in which hematologic reviews were performed, about 45% were clearly classified as non-neoplastic blood diseases, 6% were diagnosed as leukemia or other hematopoietic cancers, and the remainder were potentially preneoplastic. In the absence of known biological mechanisms, it is important to consider whether these results might be due to biases or to diagnostic misclassification of cancer deaths. Investigations have suggested that neither of these factors can fully explain the findings, especially for circulatory diseases that have been investigated more fully. The Adult Health Study (AHS) incidence studies of non-cancer diseases show relationships with A-bomb dose for benign uterine tumors, thyroid disease (e.g., thyroid nodules), chronic liver disease, cataract, and hypertension (Figure 2). The LSS mortality data also show dose-related excesses for respiratory diseases, stroke, and heart diseases (Figure 3).

http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/01/radiation-effects-research-foundation-admitted-radiation-deaths-non-cancer-disease/

Although the LSS data on heart disease mortality suggest that radiation is associated mainly with hypertensive and congestive heart disease, AHS data also suggest an association with myocardial infarction, as well as with a measure of atherosclerosis (aortic arch calcification). There is particular evidence, therefore, from both AHS clinical data and LSS mortality studies, that the rates of cardiovascular disease are increased in A-bomb survivors, especially, it appears, for persons exposed at young ages. Studies regarding possible underlying biological mechanisms are being conducted. References: Preston DL, Shimizu Y, et al.: Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13. Solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950-1997. Radiation Research 2003; 160:381-407 Yamada M, Wong FL, et al.: Noncancer disease incidence in atomic bombs survivors, 1958-1998. Radiation Research 2004; 161:622-32 (Source)


We removed the ads for your ease of reading, please consider donating instead. We thank you all for your much appreciated support this past year.


Thank you for your donation


Recurring Donations

Posted in Background, Daily News, self-defense Tags: deats due to radiation, radiation disease, radiation effects « M5 at offshore Iwate Another Fukushima worker suffered cardiopulmonary arrest » You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Your citations only strengthen the argument for the use of nuclear energy. Deaths related to nuclear energy conversion including Chernobyl are a tiny fraction of the people killed every year in coal, oil, solar, hydro, wind, and natural gas production of electricity, A tiny fraction. There have been no deaths at all in US nukes. It is negligent to continue to let people die because we don't have the courage to solve the problems associated with nukes. The good news is that our generation has the opportunity for the first time in 35 years to make these improvements a reality. We just need the guts to do it.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by luminol (2) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I never thought about it like that. I certainly hope so. If the tabaco industry did I see know reason why energy company's who deliberately mislead the public on the adverse effects of say oil shouldn't face the same retribution. OT but Ronald McDonald is in the same category as Joe Camel. Good idea.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Why not? Libs are supposed to be broad ~ open Minded. If you don't use it you lose it. Greed has no boundaries. See "There Will Be Blood" in this frame of mind, understand why it didn't win an Oscar.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 2 years ago

Ever since 1885, when corporations were first given the right to free speech by the courts, they've been lying and destroying environement. Or worse, telling us it doesn't matter then we do it ourselves.

They've actually released very toxic chemicals through national legislation and conspiracy to punish states that are environmental. The idea is to destroy so much environment, there's nothing left to fight for, they win. Of course media is complicit, the oil companies couldn't do it without them. How else could we destroy our atmosphere and water each day and not know it?

Environmentalists are there to make sure it is slow enough so we don't notice.

If we figured out how to control our own behaviors, neither corporatiosn or the government would allow it. Not only would they not get to reduce us to pitiful dying slaves, they would have a proper prison state to manage.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

So it's really true that any fucked up thing we can think of, they are actually doing?

I wrote a script like that.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 2 years ago

Or, to be more accurate in another way, getting us to do them, then pointing at us and saying, "Look how F'd up they are. They need to be controlled."

They are getting a part of the people watching TV to think one thing, that justifies in their minds, taxation to control the other part of the people, those using alternative media who think a bunch of different things, perhaps closer to correct. Neither group knows what's really going on so are unaware of the deception.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Another great post. I had a SUE THE KOCHS post that tried to encourage people to understand that the verdict on Global Warming has been in for some time now, but a web of deceit, misinformation and propaganda was preventing significant action. The harm that results will be on such a significant scale that the deceivers will have committed a major crime against humanity. The idea that the crime is too big doesn't wash.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I posted these last night and they were ignored.

So I'll try again, as it seems the actual "conspiracy" is with the "antis".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/heartland-institute-leaked-documents_b_1278059.html?ref=science

The fundies are involved too.

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/the-green-dragon-slayers-how-the-religious-right-and-the-corporate-right-are-joining-fo

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Often it's in how you post it. Find one of the most compelling themes in the link and play it up, create an attention grabbing headline. For example consider this from your link: In an American science education crisis, where American students are ranking far down in international science rankings, this strategy should be inviting calls from congress for an investigation. Who is this Heartland Institute, who are their funders, what schools are adopting this curricula, and who is the mysterious "Anonymous donor" who is funding much of the miseducation of America's students? What other misinformation for political ends is being pushed into American science classrooms?

Now that would be the body of my post followed by the link. The headline: Corporate America Caught Brainwashing American Students!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'll give it a shot and hope it's not considered spamming.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Go for it!

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

The greed has no boundaries, but where it gets thin, stupidity and end times takes over. The crazy power of belief. These are cultists and their Manson is Big $$.

It will be easier to roll over these nuts when we have fewer cons throwing wrenches in the gears.

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

This article is about the peppered moth's significance in evolutionary biology. For its evolutionary ancestry, see Insect evolution. Biston betularia f. typica, the white-bodied peppered moth. Biston betularia f. carbonaria, the black-bodied peppered moth.

The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Not sure if this is a Red Herring or a Straw-Man or a Non Sequitur?

But I am sure it's BS!!

No grid shut down. Upgrade, R&D, source replacement, of course. It's dying from neglect. Neglect is what Cons do when they're not deregulating and cutting taxes for the 1% (Oil ~ Coal), and sabotaging Dems trying to take care of the country.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22361) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Another example of non-functioning ( or collusive? ) government.

Where is the EPA and the FCC when blatant lies are aired on TV.

Clean Coal? Hah - aint no such thing.

Clean natural gas ( fracking poison ) - Hah - aint no such thing.

To top it off claiming for a healthy environment in a healthy economy. Hah - pure BS.

Which brings to mind another post about price caps. You know (?) the only effective and good price caps that ever were (?) were on Oil and Gasoline? It was after these caps were removed that Oil and Gas prices began shooting through the roof. Anyone remember the gas lines at stations during the supposed gas shortage? Then having removed the price caps they left in place Federal subsidies to support an industry that no longer needed them. Oh and By the Way, and this goes for power companies too. Isn't it supposed to be in business that as your consumer base grows that your costs to manufacture drop? How is it then that with the influx of new consumers and subsequently more revenue that gas and oil prices sky-rocket. This even when the price of crude is stable or has dropped, or that power generation costs spike? Should not these infrastructures be getting larger stronger more efficient? Where are the improvements from reinvesting profits? Its a vicious circle that no one is monitoring or doing anything about. Talk about the fleecing of America!

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

See Network and the scene with Ned Beatty, governments don't run things like you might think they do. Big Money does. Nasty fact of life as it is today.

Control and policy and big changes (oil and coal are big and entrenched, like military) are like catching a 30lb fish on 5lb test. It takes a lot of finesse.

Greed is governing the gouging.

Change is coming, but they are not going to be nice about it.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22361) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No they will not be nice. Does not matter if everyone comes together in common cause.

[-] -2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

"Everybody" never does. Yet progress continues.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22361) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Education and awareness grows. So does the support for change. We carry on.

[-] -2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

That's the spirit!

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] 0 points by Nevada1 (4835) 2 years ago

Hi JIFFY, Thank you for post and links. The fight is on. Have been working on the fracking thing. Please see anti-frack petition http://signon.org/sign/repeal-the-halliburton

Best Regards, Nevada

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Keep up the good work. Remember getting Cons the hell out of government will make things a lot easier.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22246) 2 years ago

Great post, JiffySquid92. Thanks. I certainly hope we can make them pay before we all have to pay.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Let's get out the VOTE!!

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

About as much chance as Obama stands to be charged for slipping his campaign donors 3.9 billion in now defaulted green company loans.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

The Trillions Bush-Cheney let get stolen come first.

R&D, new tech, change costs money, dildo!

Unite and Win! Unite and Wins! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[Removed]