by Stephen Lendman

On February 6, Obama chose Jewell as new Interior Secretary. More on her below.

She’ll replace Ken Salazar. He supported BP’s Deepwater Horizon operation. He ignored environmental risks. He approved BP’s exploration plan with no environmental analysis.

His negligence permitted Gulf of Mexico disaster. After BP’s rig exploded, he granted “categorical exemptions” to expand offshore drilling. He surpassed Bush administration policies.

He and Obama share culpability. They back dangerous nuclear expansion. They’re beholden to oil and gas interests. Drill, drill, drill is official policy. Lip service alone is paid to environmental concerns.

Salazar’s environmental record was deplorable. As junior Colorado senator, he opposed fuel efficiency. He supported unrestricted oil and gas drilling on federal lands.

He voted against Gulf of Mexico drilling protections. He fought them as Interior Secretary.

Center for Biological Diversity’s Kieran Suckling accused him of being “very closely tied to ranching and mining and very traditional old time, Western, extraction industries.”

He proved it throughout his tenure. Expect no change from Jewell. Suckling remains “guarded.” She’ll withhold judgment for later.

“America’s public lands and endangered species are in dire need of visionary leadership,” she said.

She hopes Jewell will reverse Salazar’s damage. It’s hard imagining how.

Her “challenge is whether she will value our wildlands and wildlife in the face of endless pressure by industry to drill for fossil fuels in areas within Interior’s jurisdiction.”

“Nature needs a true champion at this point in history.” Obama has other priorities. Jewell was chosen to serve them. Expect no positive changes on her watch.

Suckling’s colleague, Bill Snape, said he’s “not joining the (Jewell) love fest.”

“Our public lands are not a publicly-traded commodity on Wall Street.”

Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit called on Obama to set aside one acre for conservation permanently for each one devoted to oil and gas development.

“So far under Obama,” he said, “industry has been winning the race as it obtains more and more land for oil and gas.”

“Over the past four years, the industry has leased more than 6 million acres, compared with only 2.6 million acres permanently protected. In the Obama era, land conservation” got short shrift.

Speaking in the White House State Dining Room, Obama announced Jewell’s appointment.

She’s Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI) president and CEO. It sells outdoor gear and sporting goods. It does so through dozens of US retail outlets. Its sales approach $2 billion annually.

“Sally spent the majority of her career outside of Washington,” said Obama. She’s “an expert on the energy and climate issues that are going to shape our future.”

Obama thanked Ken Salazar. He “cracked down on waste,” he said. He claimed he improved Interior’s management. He “ushered in a new era of conservation for our land, our water and our wildlife.”

He spent four years wrecking them. He gave industry free reign. Expect no change from Jewell. She was chosen to serve industry interests. She won’t disappoint.

She’ll be low key and soft spoken. She’ll conceal official policy. Whatever Big Oil wants it gets. Jewell’s their Washington representative.

She’ll oversea oil and gas production. She’ll give industry free reign. She’ll back Keystone XL Pipeline System construction. Word is Obama supports it. He hasn’t officially said so.

It’s a controversial 1,661-mile Alberta, Canada to Port Arthur, TX pipeline. It’ll carry toxic tar sands oil from Western Canada to refineries on America’s Gulf coast. It’ll pass through environmentally sensitive areas in six states.

They include waterways and the Ogallala Aquifer. It’s one of the world’s largest. In America, it supplies about 30% of the nation’s irrigation ground water. It’s also used for human consumption.

Friends of the Earth says Keystone XL “will carry one of the world’s dirtiest fuels: tar sands oil.”

Its route “could devastate ecosystems and pollute water sources, and would jeopardize public health.”

It’ll double America’s dirty tar sands oil supply. Doing so will increase environmental toxicity exponentially.

No matter the stakes, Big Oil wants it. So do Republicans, many Democrats and Obama. Expect Jewell to support it. It’s part of her mandate at Interior. She won’t disappoint.

She was chosen not to. Her background shows why. It includes banking and Mobil Oil employment.

From 1978 – 1981, she performed oil field engineering services. From 1981 – 1992, she was a Ranier Bank/Security Pacific executive.

From 1992 – 1995, she was WestOne Bank president. From 1996 – 2000, she was Washington Mutual (WaMu) commercial banking group president. Before collapsing, it was the nation’s largest mortgage lender.

It was one of the biggest option-ARM mortgage issuers. They let borrowers make unreasonably low payments. Doing so increases indebtedness exponentially. It compromises the ability to repay.

WaMu was rife with fraud. Senate investigators discovered gross deception. Loan officers got bonuses for speedy subprime mortgage closures, overcharging, and levying stiff prepayment penalties.

Senior bank executives knew all about fraudulent practices. Nothing was done internally to stop them. Bottom line priorities came first.

High-risk subprime loans were prioritized. They were securitized as toxic junk. They were sold to unwary buyers. Doing so was the bank’s undoing. It profited hugely until its house of cards collapsed. Accountability never followed.

Environmentalists and conservationists express caution about Jewell. They have good reason to do so. She wasn’t chosen to be a friend of the earth. Responsible stewardship’s excluded from her mandate.

Western Energy Alliance president Tim Wigley said he hopes Jewell’s background translates into expanded oil and gas drilling on federal lands.

“We hope to see a better balance of productive development on non-park, non-wilderness public lands that enhances the wealth of America and creates jobs while protecting the environment” on her watch, he said.

Left unsaid is you can’t have one with the other. Drill, drill, drill runs counter to good stewardship.

Bush administration Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, praised Jewell. He knew her from earlier consultations. “She was always someone I wanted there because she’s a catalyst,” he said.

In other words, she supported Big Oil administration policies. She’s well suited for Interior, added Kempthorne.

She’s “effective and time-tested on taking on a variety of issues, deciphering them, and determining what is the most important and making a decision.”

Big Oil’s in good hands with Jewell. Friends of the earth have good reasons for concern.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.  http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/big-oils-in-good-hands-with-sally-jewell/

EarthTalk®
E – The Environmental Magazine

EarthTalk®
E – The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What are some tips for keeping my dogs and cats healthy?
Believe it or not, our pets may be exposed to more harsh chemicals through the course of their day than we are. Researchers at the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that pet dogs and cats were contaminated with 48 of 70 industrial chemicals tested, including 43 chemicals at levels higher than those typically found in people.

“Just as children ingest pollutants in tap water, play on lawns with pesticide residues or breathe in an array of indoor air contaminants, so do their pets,” reports EWG. Since they develop and age seven or more times faster than children, pets also develop health problems from exposures much faster, EWG adds.

“Average levels of many chemicals were substantially higher in pets than is typical for people, with 2.4 times higher levels of stain- and grease-proof coatings (perfluorochemicals) in dogs, 23 times more fire retardants (PBDEs) in cats, and more than five times the amounts of mercury, compared to average levels in people,” reports the group. Their 2008 study looked at plastics and food packaging chemicals, heavy metals, fire retardants and stain-proofing chemicals in pooled samples of blood and urine from 20 dogs and 37 cats tested at a Virginia veterinary clinic.

In its Pets for the Environment website, EWG lists dozens of ways for pet owners to ensure that dogs and cats are as safe as possible in this dangerous world we inhabit. Among other tips, EWG recommends choosing pet food without chemical preservatives such as BHA, BHT or ethoxyquin, and looking for organic or free-range ingredients rather than by-products. As for drinking water, EWG suggests running tap water through a reverse osmosis filter—either faucet-mounted or pitcher-based—before it goes into a pet’s bowl to remove common contaminants. Also, replacing old bedding or furniture, especially if it has exposed foam, can prevent pets from ingesting fire retardants. From avoiding non-stick pans and garden pesticides to choosing greener kitty litter and decking material, the list of tips goes on.

Taking steps to ensure a safer environment for pets—some 63 percent of U.S. homes have at least one—will mean a safer world for humans, too. EWG concludes that our pets “well may be serving as sentinels for our own health, as they breathe in, ingest or absorb the same chemicals that are in our environments.”

CONTACT: EWG Pets for the Environment, www.ewg.org/PetsfortheEnvironment

earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. FreeTrial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: Why is it that airplane exhaust is so much worse for the environment than engine emissions on the ground? — Winona Sharpe, New York, NY

While air travel today accounts for just three percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, the carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants that come out of jet exhaust contribute disproportionately to increasing surface temperatures below because the warming effect is amplified in the upper atmosphere.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the United Nations (UN) to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of the risk of human-induced climate change, reports that CO2 emitted by jets can survive in the atmosphere for upwards of 100 years, and that its combination with other gas and particulate emissions could have double or four times the warming effect as CO2 emissions alone.

Modern jet engines are not that different from automobile engines—both involve internal combustion and burn fossil fuels. But instead of gasoline or diesel, jet fuel is primarily kerosene, a common home heating fuel used around the world. Just like car engines, jets emit CO2, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and soot.

Beyond their contributions to global warming, airplane emissions can also lead to the formation of acid rain and smog, as well as visibility impairment and crop damage down on the ground. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that aircraft engines contribute about one percent of total U.S. mobile source nitrogen oxide emissions and up to four percent around airports in some areas.

What worries environmentalists is the fact that the number of airline flights is on the rise and is expected to skyrocket by mid-century, meaning that if we don’t get a handle on airplane emissions, our other carbon footprint reduction efforts could be for naught. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reports that commercial flights grew nine percent from 2002 to 2010 and will rise another 34 percent by 2020.

Jet emissions standards are based on guidelines established under the U.S. Clean Air Act and are set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Current standards were created in 1996 and updated in 2006, but environmental leaders want even stricter limits on greenhouse gas and other emissions.

In regard to economic measures, the European Union (EU) is leading the way with new rules that assess fees on foreign airlines based on their CO2 emissions. The new system, which would require airlines using an airport in Europe to trade for or purchase permits corresponding to the amount of greenhouse gases they emit, was supposed to go into effect in 2013 but has been postponed due to intense opposition from foreign governments which consider it a barrier to trade. EU officials have threatened to put the plan into effect nonetheless if airlines or their governments can’t agree on new stricter emissions limitations.

CONTACTS: IPCC, www.ipcc.ch; FAA, www.faa.gov; ICAO, www.icao.int.

(www.emagazine.com). Send questions to:earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. FreeTrial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

The Political Economy of Climate Change
by ROB URIE

Thanks to growing marine dead zones that are caused by global warming, there’s been a huge spike in dead sea life in recent years–and it often washes up on shore, providing us with an unsubtle reminder. (Source: Treehugger)

By reports, 2012 was the warmest year in recorded history in the U.S. The last decade was the warmest on record globally. Even for those arguing other hypotheses also fit the warming climate, the consistency of warming, the joint probability in statistical terms, must give pause because the consequences are (1) very far along already and (2) potentially catastrophic in excess of previous human experience. Alternative hypotheses not only need to be plausible in a general sense, they require specific explanations of how consistently the climate has warmed. In fact, there are no other plausible explanations of both the direction and consistency of climate change.

The ‘man-made’ warming hypothesis fits the timeline of the growth of industrial capitalism reasonably well. Non-capitalist industry, more recent in history but existent nonetheless, has accompanied capitalist imperialism- the spread of global capitalism as a system of domination, control and expropriation. To some extent the growth of non-capitalist industry has been a reaction to the threat of capitalist imperialism. It poses both an internal and external threat to non-capitalist economies, to the extent they still exist. In fact, capitalism was conceived to bring about an alternative political order and it appears to have done so quite successfully.

Capitalism is put forward as a mode of social organization that creates vast wealth. Capitalist imperialism has managed to expropriate vast wealth–that much is evident. If the catastrophic consequences of global warming come to pass even this wealth will have proved an illusion. In a philosophical sense, it seems a metaphor—we enter this world with nothing and leave it with nothing, why then would the devotion of entire lives to material acquisition constitute a plausible explanation of existence as capitalists have it? And why would a system based on local rationalities, personal economic striving, such as Adam Smith’s petite bourgeois shopkeeps organized into global corporations, be expected to lead to global rationalities—positive collective outcomes, outside of the internal logic of capitalist ideology?

A wee bit of arithmetic helps explain a lot. Revenues – Costs = Profits. Profits rise if costs borne by producers fall. The profit motive in capitalist production guarantees costs of production will be forced onto others unless the capitalist is forced to bear them. And unless one wishes to argue the world’s creatures need no place to live, no food to eat and no clean water to drink, the destruction of these in capitalist production is a cost to either be borne by the producer or to be borne by others. Even the most radical ‘free-market’ capitalist economists agree that this set of relations is a prerequisite for capitalism to in any sense ‘work.’ And production that threatens to end the world, as global warming does, means ‘profits’ from said production would not exist if capitalists were forced to bear their true costs.

Those who have even casually passed through regions of capitalist extraction and / or industrial production have seen that capitalists have almost never been forced to bear the costs of capitalist production. From the coal regions of Pennsylvania to the abandoned industrial sites of the ‘rust belt’ to the poisoned resource extraction sites in the West to mountain top removal in West Virginia to the ‘tar sands’ regions of Canada to coal mines in Mongolia, costs in terms of subsequent un-inhabitability of the land and destruction of the planet’s bounty remain while profits accrue. After depleting resources and causing ancillary destruction capitalists have historically simply moved on to as yet un-depleted and un-destroyed territories. The ‘tragedy of the commons’ used in capitalist property theory would be a minor inconvenience next to the ‘tragedy of private property’ perpetrated by capitalism, even if it weren’t already a cynical lie (see the last fifth of Marx’s Capital, Vol. I for context).

But this isn’t a morality tale. Nor is global warming an accident of history for which none bear responsibility. It is the epic social struggle of our time. Capitalism is a form of economic imperialism from which specific people have benefited and continue to benefit from the destruction of the planet. The ‘rational individuals’ of capitalist theory have aggregated to collective insanity. And as history is in the process of demonstrating, Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ is an illusion—a world of people acting in their own narrow economic interests has resulted in a world where people act in their own narrow economic interests to collective suicide.

Long before global warming was identified, the problem of ‘externalities,’ or the tendency of capitalists to force their costs of production onto people who see no benefit from it, was identified and remedies were sought. Before he became a bought-and-paid-for tool of Papa Koch, father of the infamous ‘Koch Brothers’ and founder of the John Birch Society, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek argued the legitimate role of government was to correct ‘market failures’ such as environmental destruction. Later in his life, when he was fully a bought-and-paid-for tool of Papa Koch, he conveniently (for Papa Koch’s sake) argued capitalism was such a blessing to humankind that ‘market-based’ solutions to externalities were preferred.

But market based solutions to externalities are a cynical hoax in several dimensions. In the first, they presuppose environmentally destructive production is eternal fact and the purported goal of ‘solutions’ is to limit growth to a trend level that remains collectively suicidal. In the second, in the face of all historical experience to the contrary, market-based solutions assume the same capitalists who have spent three centuries profiting from forcing their costs onto others will comply with rules they, themselves, have largely written with full knowledge there does not exist, and there are no plans to create, a credible enforcement system. In the third, even if such an enforcement system were conceived and developed, ‘private’ capture of state institutions would neutralize enforcement capability (‘Citizens United’ anyone?). Finally, debt financed production creates both financial and institutional leverage. Creditors benefit when costs of production are shifted to others because it improves their probability of repayment—and creditors control the money in a debt based economy. The contention that more capitalism is the solution to the catastrophes capitalism creates only works in a closed logical system—there is no level of catastrophe that would render ‘more capitalism’ illogical within the internal rules of this logic.

Likewise, the contention individual ‘consumers’ can solve global warming through choosing environmentally ‘friendly’ products begins with the premise that consumers cause externalities through their ‘choice’ of products. In the first, this assumes all consumers know the production processes that go into producing goods and services, are able to quantify the proportion of costs embedded in the price of the products versus those that aren’t, and truly have choices. In the second, it assumes consumers have no material needs. Western agriculture, from whence the food most Westerners eat comes, is a major contributor to greenhouse gases. Shifting to sustainable agricultural practices implausibly assumes consumers both understand the impact of existing practices and can force a shift from below. In the third, it once again assumes capitalism is the solution to the catastrophes capitalism creates—that individuals acting in their own economic self-interest will aggregate to serve the collective interest when they have so spectacularly not done so historically. In fact, the premise of consumers foregoing their own economic self-interest to serve the collective good puts a lie to thefundamental premise of capitalism. In other words, once it is granted that ‘consumers’ could and would act in the collective interest, the internal logic of capitalism quickly fades away.

Capitalist imperialism is destroying the planet, largely for beings that see little benefit (and often great harm) from the system. The only way this won’t constitute mass murder on a scale never before imagined in human history is if global warming isn’t really a threat; capitalist production isn’t behind it, or some combination of the two. Capitalist apparatchiks are pursuing two tracks in response—to replace social discourse around the issue with a commercial response—one that uses all means available to persuade people the problem isn’t real and / or the people responsible for it are not the people responsible for it. The second track is to propose solutions that (1) don’t call into question the nature of the problem—the political economy of capitalism is responsible for global warming and (2), provide the appearance of action toward a solution without effective action taking place.

Those looking to Western governments for an effective response face two challenges. In the first, in the face of global warming, the premise of capitalism, that individuals acting in their individual interests produce good collective outcomes, is demonstrably false. This system has apparently produced the worst of all possible outcomes—catastrophic environmental failure that threatens most life on the planet. If the theory of individual interests accumulating to collective good is false, so is the classical liberal conception of the state. If the state’s role, as imagined in capitalist theory, is the protection of ‘private’ interests and private interests are driving the world toward collective suicide (or rather capitalist homicide), the state must be recovered to serve collective interests. As the private interests currently in control of the state are tightening their grip on power through the build out of the corporate police state, I leave it to readers to propose non-confrontational counter-measures likely to be effective. Otherwise, global warming is the confrontation forced upon us.

Finally—Thomas Malthus was proved a captive of his ideology with his prediction of entropy, mass starvation as a growing population faced a static food supply. Mr. Malthus was writing in the early stages of global capitalism’s expanding reach. The agricultural technologies tied to capitalist production expanded the food supply to feed the growing population. In fact, capitalism re-engineered ‘the world’ to be dependent on capitalist production. Technological solutions to global warming will no doubt be put forward and tried. But technology is inexorably tied to the logic of capitalist production as capitalism is emerging as ‘the problem.’ Only a fundamental shift away from the premises of capitalism will provide workable solutions. And global warming is a gradual problem in a political system that responds to crisis. A politics of crisis around global warming must arise for effective political action to coalesce.

Rob Urie is an artist and political economist in New York.

The Lies of Big Oil and Coal

by JOSHUA FRANK, Counterpunch
Whether it is the hucksters pushing for the Keystone XL pipeline to cut across the Heartland, or the coal barons who are ramping up their exploits in Powder River Basin, a familiar refrain can be heard echoing throughout their propaganda: America must produce its own energy and stop relying on “terrorist” countries to keep our homes heated, cars running and economy kicking.

“The United States consumes 15 million barrels of oil per day and imports 11 million,” Russell K. Girling of the TransCanada Corporation, which is to build the Keystone pipeline, wrote in The Hill. “Keystone XL offers Americans the choice of receiving their oil from a friendly, secure supplier in Canada, instead of importing crude from unstable, volatile foreign nations such as Venezuela, Libya and other areas of the Middle East.”

Despite popular belief, Keystone XL, which is to transport tar sands from Alberta, Canada to Port Arthur, Texas, will not be used domestically. Refiners based in Port Arthur, where the oil will end up, are focused on exporting oil to Europe and Latin America. The majority of the heavy tar sands oil extracted in Alberta will never end up being burned in the United States.

“To issue a presidential permit for the Keystone XL, the administration must find that the pipeline serves the national interest,” says Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International. “An honest assessment shows that rather than serving U.S. interests, Keystone XL serves only the interests of tar sands producers and shippers, and a few Gulf Coast refiners aiming to export the oil.”

Additionally, Valero, which is to be one of Keystone XL’s main customers, purchasing 76 percent of initial production, has detailed to its investors that the crude it is to buy is mainly set for export. To top it off, Port Arthur, where the dirty oil is to be refined, is in a Foreign Trade Zone, where the company can operate without paying any U.S. taxes. Valero’s contract is to last until 2030 and the company is to take around 100,000 barrels of tars sands per day.

Despite an outpouring of opposition to the proposed pipeline, which culminated in over 1,200 arrests in late August and early September 2011 outside the White House and ongoing protests in Texas, the Obama administration is slowly moving forward with the deal. President Obama’s jobs advisers are lending support for the pipeline and he is also likely getting pressure from within his own party to give the project a green light.

In 2008 Paul Elliot, who now serves as TransCanada’s chief Washington lobbyist for Keystone XL, served as a national campaign manager for Hillary Clinton’s presidential race. Additionally, as was discovered by anti-Tar Sands activists from Nebraska as they prepared for hearings on the matter at the State Department, the hearings were being held by a company called Cardno Entrix. It turns out that Cardno Entrix is contracted to run the environmental-review for the Keystone XL pipeline, but lists TransCanada as one of its major clients on its website.

“The pipeline company recommended the firm they wanted to review them, a firm that listed the pipeline company as one of their major clients,” writes Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein. “Perhaps–just perhaps–that explains why the review found that Keystone XL would have ‘limited adverse environmental impacts,’ a finding somewhat at odds with the conclusion of 20 of the nation’s top scientists who wrote the president this summer to say it would be an environmental disaster.”

It appears that TransCanada is doing all it can to impact the Obama administration’s decision on the matter by hiring a former Democratic campaign manager, and has certainly pushed Obama’s State Department to hire a company with close ties to the very company it is supposed to independently review. Additionally, some have criticized the job numbers for the project. In 2010, TransCanada said that, “During construction, Keystone XL would create 13,000 jobs and further produce 118,000 spin-off jobs.” But a report from Cornell University says these numbers are inflated, writing that the project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary construction jobs for two years based on the data TransCanada has given the State Department.

Not only will hundreds of thousands of jobs not be created, and not only will tax revenue not help the country get back on track, the majority of the oil from the tar sands will end up not even being used in the United States. Debunking these myths are just one part of the fight for a clean energy future.

And it is not just the tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline facts that need to be straightened out; the coal industry is currently on a major PR push to pressure the public into believing that locally produced coal is a crucial part of the U.S.’s energy independence. The U.S. is the fourth largest coal exporter in the world and companies are working hard to increase production and shipments.

“America’s abundant coal reserves — and our continued use of coal to generate electricity — also promote greater U.S. energy security,” said American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a front group that is made up of over 40 coal industry companies. “The reason is simple: The coal we rely upon is found right here at home, and we have a more than 200-year supply based upon today’s rate of usage.”

While it may be true that the U.S. has some of the world’s largest reserves, along with Canada a total of 29 percent of the globe’s recoverable coal, major companies like Peabody and Arch Coal are looking more and more at oversees markets and mines to turn a profit. They know the jig is up here at home, where dozens of new coal plant proposals are being tossed in the trash. As such, Asian countries are increasingly coming into play, as China continues to build two mid-size power plants a week. In 2007 the Energy Watch Group reported that China could reach maximum production by 2015, which means they will have to get much of their coal from elsewhere.

This is why companies operating in the coal-rich Powder River Basin are increasingly eyeing potential coal export facilities up and down the West Coast. There are only two coal terminals that ship coal to Asia; one in Seward, Alaska and another major terminal in Vancouver, B.C. Coal exports from the U.S. to Asian markets during the first six months of 2010 increased almost 400 percent compared to the entire year of 2009. It’s one of the only shimmering lights on the horizon for the struggling coal industry, which is facing increased opposition in the U.S. as old power plants are shuttered and new proposals are being met with stiff resistance.

This hasn’t stopped the Obama administration from pumping hundreds of millions into “clean coal” projects or from allowing the Bureau of Land Management from opening up public lands in the Powder River Basin for coal mining. Nonetheless, as awareness of coal’s contribution to global warming and human health impacts grows, American coal companies are going to fight to keep the mines operating and the coal burning. Even it if means helping to fuel one of our country’s main economic rivals, China.

This brings us to the curious case of natural gas, the one fossil fuel that continues to be deemed a clean energy source by many despite the fact that its extraction through fracking could have catastrophic impacts, not to mention global warming causing emissions from leaks and carbon from its burning. There is no doubt there is a natural gas boom taking place across the country, with proposals for new fracking operations spreading from California to New York. But how much of this proposed natural gas will actually be used in the United States in the future is a question that has yet to be answered.

The first natural gas export from the United States was approved for Cheniere Energy in March 2011 by the Department of Energy. It will be the first large natural gas export out of the Gulf of Mexico, with other proposals in the pipeline by companies wanting to sell American natural gas to the global market. Their loyalty isn’t to America, but to their bottom line.

The Keystone XL pipeline saga and the recent misinformation about coal development illuminate how these resource profiteers market their destructive endeavors to normal Americans — as a means of energy independence and national security. Nonetheless, as the U.S. public looks to wean the country off of dirty fossil fuels, it’s a safe bet that the extraction industry will have little problem selling their dirty products to anyone who’s ready to buy.

Joshua Frank, Managing Editor of CounterPunch, is the author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland, and of Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. Hopeless is now available in Kindle format. He can be reached at brickburner@gmail.com.

By Gail Zawacki. Republished with author permission from Reader Supported News.
SUGGESTED BY OUR COLLEAGUE ROWAN WOLF } REPOSTED FROM CYRANO’S JOURNAL TODAY

Photo by Rowan Wolf of tree death due to beetle blight in the region of Crater Lake, Oregon.

I live in New Jersey where it looks like the ecopocalypse has arrived.

It seems obvious that the sea-level rise and the size of the storm are related to the energy humans are adding to the system by burning fuel and releasing millions of tons of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases into the atmosphere. That’s high school science and as obvious as plate tectonics. Remember when that was a controversy? Or that seat belts in cars, or helmets for bikes save lives? Asking if climate change has something to do with Sandy is like asking if smoking has something to do with lung cancer. Remember when people could say with a straight face that it didn’t?

Having said that, there is a very large story that isn’t being reported which has little to do with climate change although it derives from the same processes.

What is being ignored in this storm (and Irene as well) is the real source of the massive power outages that are so disruptive – which is all the trees that are falling on the lines. Trees didn’t used to fall with regularity on power lines – or people, cars and houses. The winds in both those storms were not extraordinary, nothing that a healthy tree shouldn’t be able to withstand.

Why are they falling now? 

The answer is pretty obvious if you trouble to actually LOOK at them. They are all dying. Every species, every age, every location. They have obvious symptoms – broken branches, cankers, splitting bark, holes, thin crowns, early leaf drop, lack of autumn color, yellowing needles, bark covered with lichens and fungus. You can’t find a healthy tree anymore.

So the question becomes, why are they dying? Most foresters and scientists will say, climate change and/or invasive pests. But those explanations don’t fit the empirical evidence which is that even native pests and diseases have run amuck, and even young trees grown and watered and fertilized in nurseries exhibit the identical symptoms of decline. Even annual, tropical ornamentals in enriched soil in pots that like heat, and aquatic plants in ponds have injured foliage and stunted growth.

What do all of these plants have in common? 

The answer is, the composition of the atmosphere. Most people don’t realize it, because it’s invisible, but the background level of tropospheric ozone is inexorably increasing. Precursors from Asia travel across oceans and continents, and the persistent concentration has reached a threshold that is intolerable to the plants that absorb it when they photosynthesize. Agricultural yield and quality are reduced, and especially trees that are exposed to cumulative damage season after season are universally – around the world – in decline.

This process has been well known to foresters and agronomists for decades, and demonstrated in field observations and controlled fumigation experiments. They just don’t want to publicize it, or even admit it, because the source is the emissions from industrial civilization itself. They would rather point to drought, insects, fungus and disease EVEN THOUGH it is well known that ozone debilitates plants causing their root systems to shrink as they allocate more energy to repairing damaged foliage, rendering them more vulnerable to drought and wind…AND impinges on their natural immunity to attacks from insects, disease and fungus, which exist precisely to break down dying trees, not destroy healthy trees.

Most of the trees that fell during Sandy were rotted inside. Photos here: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com – At Wits End

______________
Gail Zawacki has an excellent photo documentation with her discussion in this post – This Imposter at her blog At Wits End.

//