SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The New York Times and HuffPost and many others report on EPA abruptly blocking three agency scientists from giving talks on climate change - specifically in the context of a Rhode Island event, with the subject of discussing a report on current conditions in Narragansett Bay and future threats that include climate change.
The New York Times (the origin)
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled the speaking appearance of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss climate change at a conference on Monday in Rhode Island, according to the agency and several people involved.
John Konkus, an E.P.A. spokesman and a former Trump campaign operative in Florida, confirmed that agency scientists would not speak at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed program in Providence. He provided no further explanation.
Scientists involved in the program said that much of the discussion at the event centers on climate change. Many said they were surprised by the E.P.A.'s last-minute cancellation, particularly since the agency helps to fund the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, which is hosting the conference. The scientists who have been barred from speaking contributed substantial material to a 400-page report to be issued on Monday.
...
Monday's conference is designed to draw attention to the health of Narragansett Bay, the largest estuary in New England and a key to the region's tourism and fishing industries. Rhode Island's entire congressional delegation, all Democrats, will attend a morning news conference. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, an outspoken critic of Mr. Pruitt, will be among the speakers.Scientists there will unveil the report on the state of the bay, which E.P.A. scientists helped research and write. Among the findings will be that climate change is affecting air and water temperatures, precipitation, sea level and fish in and around the estuary.
The HuffPost article provides some context:
The researchers were booked to appear Monday in Providence at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed workshop, an event highlighting the health of New England's largest estuary, where temperatures have risen 3 degrees Fahrenheit and water has risen up to seven inches over the past century.
...
The move comes days after the EPA scrubbed dozens of links from its website to materials that helped local governments deal with the effects of climate change. Administrator Scott Pruitt has said he does not believe greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels cause climate change, and has scrapped or proposed eliminating numerous regulations to reduce emissions. Two weeks ago, he proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan, the federal government's primary policy for slashing utilities' output of planet-warming gases.
...
The sudden cancellations on Sunday inflame concerns that the agency is muzzling scientists to further the White House's political interests.
I have a hunch Rhode Island isn't included in Trump's list of American places to be "made great again".
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:43PM (29 children)
Then where's the evidence? I'll note to the contrary, the one-sided propaganda spending against fossil fuels and the subsidies to renewables.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:36PM (28 children)
Do we need a scarlet letter for you" A big "S" for shill? You're asking for evidence of a blatantly obvious truth, then claim some persecution by "one-sided propaganda"? You really are a tool, a douche, a one legged moose.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:48PM (27 children)
Then, of course, we have the accusations of "shill" from an AC because obviously, reason, logic, and evidence are tools of the evil fossil fuel corporations. Can't have that without a warning label, right?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:31PM (8 children)
No, reason logic and evidence are the tools of everyone else. Fossil fuel corps have been using the exact opposite along with a bunch of marketing drivel in order to safeguard their profits. You are 100% a shill, whether they pay you or not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:43PM (7 children)
How much are they spending on that marketing drivel?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:46PM (4 children)
khallow you're intellectually bankrupt, get a life. I know you're a shill based on your other intelligent posts and how they contrast with the bullshit you shovel at all other times. To address your question I'll respond with another: are you blind deaf and dumb? You need citations for oil companies pushing bad science to minimize public outcry about global warming? Bankrupt is your mind.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:06PM (3 children)
Let's hear a dollar amount of what the oil companies put in while you get those cites? Meanwhile, here's a single example [leftexposed.org] of federally funded, climate change junk science which will outspend (at least $81 million since 1991) the examples you come up with.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:56PM
from an opinion piece in the New York Times [nytimes.com]:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:59PM (1 child)
according to Greenpeace [greenpeace.org]:
The Koch brothers are in the oil business, among others.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @03:11AM
In addition, most of these are advocacy groups who don't do actual research. I was thinking of research like that of Wei-Hock Soon [washingtonpost.com] who actually is documented as receiving over a million dollars to research his peculiar stuff.
Meanwhile the $81+ million I mentioned was explicitly for climate change research that just so happens to propagate a particular alarmist point of view.
And let us note that Greenpeace International gets 240 million Euro [wikipedia.org] a year (as of 2011) to say things like that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday October 27 2017, @02:04AM (1 child)
Calm down, khallow. You are being provoked. This is not a serious argument. Everyone already knows you are a petro-shill, so the only reason to bring it up is to get a rise out of you. Do not feed the troll, khallow. I know how this works, I have done it to you many times myself, though with a bit more finesse. So stop, before you embarrass yourself any further. We're pulling for you, bro!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:26AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:33PM (1 child)
You can lose full control of a few congressmen and still have nearly full control of the federal government.
Come up with a better argument.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:53PM
Classic moving the goalposts. It's not just a few congressmen tilting at windmills. It's the considerable federal funding for these renewable energy projects.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:51PM (8 children)
You're not aware of the push-back against renewable energy in state governments? Here are a couple of stories that made it to SoylentNews (quotes are from the original articles at the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor):
Koch Brothers Attack Solar Energy [soylentnews.org]
Wyoming Bill Would Fine Alternative Electric Generators [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @03:20AM (7 children)
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 27 2017, @05:33AM (1 child)
So if I attempt to kick you in the head and miss, no harm no foul since I didn't actually give you a skull full of steel-toed workboot? Pretty sure that's not how it works.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @11:37PM
Assault is a crime and further, you have no justifiable reason to kick me in the head. Meanwhile lobbying is legal (and should be legal by the First Amendment which explicitly grants the right to petition government for redress!), and they have a justifiable interest in these things that they have lobbied for.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @06:37AM (4 children)
The original claim was: "Fossil Fuel industries fully control the federal government, and many of the most powerful statehouses." The discussion was about the fossil fuel lobby, not about climate change. The quotes that were offered concern state measures to hamper renewable energy. They speak directly to the original claim.
The quote which uses the word "tax" comes from a New York Times opinion piece [nytimes.com] which in turn refers us to NewsOK [newsok.com]:
The governor did sign that into law [npr.org]. You're correct when you say it's not a tax. It's a charge requested by the electric utilities and imposed by the state government. The money goes from the ratepayers to the utilities, not to the government. However, you've ignored the pertinent fact that the state government approved the charge, which favors the operators of fossil-burning stations over small producers that are often wind or solar. Whether it's a tax or a fee is irrelevant.
That New York Times opinion piece also cites a story [bizjournals.com] about Ohio Senate Bill 310 [ohiomfg.com], introduced by Troy Balderson. Ohio had mandated that 2.5% of electricity come from renewable sources, including 0.12% from solar energy, with those amounts increasing over time. Balderson's bill sought to freeze those amounts for two years. The governor had said he would veto it.
It isn't the best example, because it didn't have enough lobbying support to pass. That's not the same as having none. Another article [theguardian.com] mentioned in that NYT opinion piece says ALEC "sponsored at least 77 energy bills in 34 states" in 2012. They're still active in that area. For instance, at their 2016 meeting, John Eick [alec.org] gave four speeches to four meetings of the Energy, Environment and Agriculture subcommittee.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @11:32PM (3 children)
You have a very broad definition of "fossil fuel industry". The electricity utilities also have renewable sources as well (hydro and wind power in particular). What is missed here is that it is the distributed nature of these sources not that they are non-fossil fuel that is the threat to the utilities. And the utilities would still have this interest and influence even if they were purely non-fossil fuel sources. Thus, it is in error to attribute this to fossil fuel industry when instead it is a typical threat of a distributed system to a more centralized one with political influence.
Quite the exercise of fossil fuel strength there. A bill that would slightly favor fossil fuel use isn't getting anywhere.
I'm not sure how we've gone from "fossil fuel industry fully controls" to "fossil fuel industry lobbies", but I have never claimed that they don't lobby for their interests. Instead, it's the pretense that the fossil fuel industry fully controls the federal government and various state governments that I called in question. I believe these examples you give provide further support since lobbying failures in particular are a strong bit of counterevidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @08:47AM (2 children)
>I'm not sure how we've gone from "fossil fuel industry fully controls" to "fossil fuel industry lobbies", but I have never claimed that they don't lobby for their interests.
You wrote of "an indication that it didn't have lobbying support," that's how.
>Instead, it's the pretense that the fossil fuel industry fully controls the federal government and various state governments that I called in question.
The secretary of state worked for Exxon from the time he graduated from college until taking his current office.
The president has moved to lift limits [donaldjtrump.com] on carbon dioxide releases from coal power plants:
A moratorium on new leases for coal mining on federal land has been lifted [denverpost.com].
The Congressional Research Service recently wrote of [archive.org] "a long line of attempts by
Members, primarily in the House, to limit EPA’s authority to implement GHG emission requirements for power plants." The same report says:
Yes, 27 states actually sued to prevent cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases, and the Supreme Court issued a stay.
"Fossil [f]uel industries fully control the federal government, and many of the most powerful statehouses" was the original claim. The more I look into it, the less exaggerated it seems.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:30AM
And it didn't pass. Meaning it didn't have lobbying support from an entity that "fully controls" the situation, because otherwise that wouldn't have been a possible outcome.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:33AM
Pushback is not "fully control". The EPA abused its power here. Congress should be the ones deciding GHG emission requirements.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 27 2017, @08:18PM (6 children)
I did say the changing tune of representatives from those states is what it will look like as the underlying economics of the energy sector shift. For the moment, though, fossil fuel interests still do control the federal government.
I was describing a state change, while you were casting it as more of a static binary, where it can only be "on" or "off." I thought i was clear about that, but maybe i wasn't.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 27 2017, @11:53PM (5 children)
Sounds like that statement doesn't mean much then.
No, I was pointing out that the fossil fuel interests aren't that powerful. After all, the reason those congress people are interested in renewable energy is because there is a lot of federal money to be had in government subsidies and other funding. That comes from the lack of control over the situation by fossil fuel interests. Just because Trump is an ally of various fossil fuel interests doesn't mean that they control things "fully". And once Trump goes away, where's even their current limited influence going to go?
It's a ridiculous narrative to spin. Fossil fuel industries "fully control" the federal government, but somehow can't manage simple stuff like blocking renewable energy subsidies or the EPA's machinations. And the federal government has a $3 trillion cash flow. Full control would mean being able to loot the biggest cash hog on the planet. I don't mean with the little crap that they do. I mean things like setting up and filling a strategic oil reserve three orders of magnitude larger than present and a price floor on what US oil is sold for. But instead we see things like, lobbying for lower payments for net metering and not getting the votes to make it happen. That's not full control in any sense of the word.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:58AM (4 children)
If you want to view it through the lens of government subsidies, then here you go [cleantechnica.com]. See that giant grey 67% share of the pie of federal subsidies? That's oil & gas. See the tiny green wedge that's 0.9%? That's the renewables.
What is ridiculous is to try to spin the narrative that that's anything less than a solid lock on government when it comes to the energy sector. It's commanding. By any definition in any economics course for any industry, that's market power.
It's understandable that you might be tempted to compose apologia for the fossil fuel industries because you associate burning dinosaurs with manly men or real Americans or something, and that you might likewise be tempted to savage and disparage renewable energy at every turn because you associate it with libtards or SJWs or something, but acknowledge that's why you're doing it rather than that you're partisan about where your electrons come from. I mean, otherwise, what do you do, stop each electron wanting to enter your home and run your flatscreen TV and interrogate each one to find out if it's a red-blooded American electron born from pappy & mammy dinosaur, and turn away all the illegal immigrant ones that come from--pfah!--the sun, or the wind, or some damn dam?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:16AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:08AM (2 children)
The depletion allowance for geothermal sites is limited to 15% of gross income [cornell.edu]. For oil and gas wells it's limited to 100% of the income from the property or 65% of the income from all sources [irs.gov] and carrying over from one year to the next is allowed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:23AM (1 child)
Anything past a threshold of 1000 barrels is considered not depletable.
In practice, I imagine the oil businesses have figured out how to get 15% as much as possible, but it probably involves some impressive accounting games which cut into the depletion allowance return.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:55AM
There are some other constraints, like being related business-wise to a large refinery that in theory can void the depletion allowance as well though I bet those are at least as toothless as the above constraint.