Showing posts with label Big Coal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Coal. Show all posts

Wednesday

Another BigBusiness Bailout in Missouri

$ buys Politicians More #BigBusiness financial support on the "backs" of the People

Only this time its a #DirtyCoal burner who gets the bailout and not the Banks, Wallstreet, or the Auto Industry.

What really irks me is that: MoLeg sells public to the same  Electric Company who doesn't want Missourian's to have #Solar

That's right more SOLAR + Energy Storage wouldn't require Ameren to buy it burn coal for 20years!

$80 million of one company's electric costs onto the backs of other ratepayers MBEF Statement on MoLeg PSC Vote 

Jefferson City, MO - Missourians for a Balanced Energy Future (MBEF) expresses sincere disappointment with the perceived bailout for Noranda Aluminum granted today by the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC).

Executive Director Irl Scissors released the following statement:

"To shift approximately  $80 million of one company's electric costs onto the backs of other ratepayers in Ameren's service territory is simply unfair and unjust."

"We remain encouraged that the order is expected to contain significant consumer protections to the benefit of Missourians.  The Commissioners' comments also indicated that this should be the last handout granted to Noranda and anything beyond this rate shift should be addressed by the General Assembly and the Department of Economic Development.”

News Tribune: Noranda gets rate cut, other Ameren consumers see increase

Post-Dispatch: Rates rising for Ameren Missouri customers, except Noranda

$ buys Politicians http://klou.tt/gdvk4y5 More #BigBusiness financial support on the "backs" of the People. 

Tuesday

Yes Old Dog New Tricks-DirtyEnergyDuke and Solar

Another Dirty Coal Company jumping on Clean Energy from Solar Bandwagon 'proof' that Solar Energy has been adopted as the preferred energy source of the Future.

2 Universities in DC Make Deal to Buy Solar Power (abcnewshidden in the text of the document: 'Duke Energy Renewables'


"Whats this I asked?" 


I know Duke Energy is known for #DirtyCoal... 


a quick google search on Dirty Duke Energy led me to a page that downplays the Dirty Coal aspects of Dirty Duke Energy Company and preaches clean energy aspects.  They even downright admit clean energy is best for all.

 Coal Company jumping on Clean Energy from Solar Bandwagon 

'proof' that Solar Energy has been adopted as the 

preferred energy source of the Future. Scotty

What I found most interesting is: "This Dirty Coal company has jumped on the #Solar bandwagon-which means that even dirtydukeenergy has realized the importance of clean energy production from non-polluting sources." Further proof that #SolarEnergy has been adopted as the preferred energy source of the Future.
Even here in #StLouis the local #DirtyCoal company #Ameren is building a big solar energy plant. Once again proof that #cleanenergy from solar is both profitable for the owner and is the Future!
  • Do you realize that the same #BigBusiness #dirtycoal  companies that are fighting and supporting negative ad campaigns with #dirtyenergymoney against #CleanEnergy  are then investing $$$ #Money   ' IN ' #solarenergy  .  This should show you what is going on behind closed doors (in the Energy Industry) in regard to the future of energy and where it will come from.  
  • Solar is the Future.  Dirty Energy realizes it and soon you will too. 

Build Green,
Scotty

Dirty Coal jumping on Solar Bandwagon for profits from clean energy production
Solar-Good Enough for Dirty Coal Company good enough for me!

Thank You for stopping by-Share and Comment below. If additional information in needed or you have a question let me know. Together we can make a difference. Build a Green StLouis Get Your Green Building Tips and Resources at St Louis Renewable Energy Green Blog
-->

Wednesday

Voters are Responsible for Shutdown~Lesson Learned~BlameGame

Yes I said and do mean that.  The Tea Party and their fellow GOP cronies were elected by the People.  So I point the finger in the blame game back at 'We the People' the Voting Public for electing these clowns into office.

I will admit that when I first learned about the Tea Party. I believed they were making a few valid points.  Though it was not enough for me to contribute $Money$ to support their political endeavors.  Some of the info was at least worth looking into.

Like any informed Voter studying the Issues that are affecting the USA and its Interests.  I want the facts-not the hype from the Media Networks.  I learned long ago when I started studying the effects of Climate Change that it was the Humans Fault. (IPCC-The IPCC report shows the Man Made CO2 is creating warming temperatures Worldwide )

I've written many green blog posts on Climate Change and the Causes and never understood why more efforts to end wars over Oil, Clean Energy Jobs, and protecting America's Greatest asset "We The People" were not adopted and enacted by our Elected Officials.

I had to know why wouldn't any elected official who campaigns on what's best for the American Public and then FAIL to:create and enact laws and regulations to support the endeavor.  To understand and research this topic I luckily found the websites: Open Secrets and Follow the Money.

I had the Ah-hah Moment

I honestly couldn't believe the amount of money Big Business and the Oil Industry was giving to our Elected Officials.  And when I look at the Government Shutdown created by the GOP and the Tea Party Members.  I realized these are the same people who are taking the most money from the Fossil Fuel Industry.

Coincidence or Fact learn for yourself from the people at: Open Secrets and Follow the Money.

I rest my case.

Sincerely,
Scotty
Scotts Contracting, StLouis Renewable Energy


Roy Blunt Missouri Senator is a perfect example of Big Business and Dirty Energy Money in Politics
Roy Blunt Missouri Senator is a perfect example of Big Business and Dirty Energy Money in Politics
Roy Blunt Missouri Senator is a perfect example of Big Business and Dirty Energy Money in Politics





Thank you for stopping by St Louis Renewable Energy. Feel free to comment in the section below or contact Scotts Contracting- St Louis Home Improvement Projects and Energy Reducing Needs Get Your Green Building Tips and Resources at St Louis Renewable Energy Green Blog

Thursday

Res 37 Toxic Air Bill by Sen J.Inhofe


I am writing you today in vehement opposition to the toxic air bill offered by Senator James Inhofe, S.J. Res 37.

The Online Petition I signed via the Environment Defense Action Fund is listed to follow and emailed to Sen R.Blunt and Sen C.McCaskill.


  • My notes to Dirty Oil Roy Blunt are at the bottom of the Post.


This bill would use the obscure Congressional Review Act to block EPA's new emission standards for hazardous mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants. If enacted, this bill would also forever prohibit the EPA from adopting substantially similar clean air standards in the future.

These standards, which the 1990 Clean Air Act specifically authorizes, have been in the works for more than two decades. They will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths every year and protect our kids from dangerous exposure to toxic mercury pollution, which can cause brain damage in infants and young children.

They will also save the American economy tens of billions of dollars in avoided health costs while likely leading to the creation of 117,000 jobs installing pollution control technologies between now and 2015.

Last year, more than 800,000 Americans submitted public comments in support of this rule. But now, a few of America's largest corporate utilities have launched an aggressive campaign to block these standards. And Sen. Inhofe's toxic air bill would do just that.

Please stand up for the health and safety of our kids and communities and reject the Inhofe bill.

Please take action today. Help us stop the Inhofe toxic air bill, which would wipe the EPA's life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards off the books and punch a huge hole through our clean air protections.

My Notes:

Mr Blunt in an email I received yesterday from you.  You wrote:
"Job creators in Missouri tell me that overreaching new regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency are one of the biggest obstacles to getting our economy back on track.  Regulations like these threaten to make the cost of electric power skyrocket for most Americans and will sack families and workers with new costs, reducing their disposal income and ultimately threatening their standard of living."  

I'd like to point out the simple fact that-
"All the jobs in the world won't help when Pollution kills the world."  

As you know here in St Louis- Ameren UE (Union Electric) uses Coal for producing our Electricity.  This pollution from Coal Fired Power Plants is a leading cause of Asthma and Cancer.  WebMD just reported last week that St Louis is Number 7 on the list  of leading cities with Asthma Problems.
"The study also points out that recent statistics indicate asthma causes more than 3,300 deaths annually in the U.S. and is a factor in another 7,000."  
It  would seem to me the more healthy people there are working equals more people paying taxes- ie: Income for the US Government.

If you are serious about creating jobs consider this: Energy Efficiency and Renewable "Non Polluting" Energy.

Steve Kidwell, Ameren Missouri Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, said:

"If we went after the potential that we've seen in our own study,  we wouldn't have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we'd be OK.  But we'd lose  $30 million a year. And we just can't do that. It's that simple."
 (This was a St Louis Post Dispatch Article that talked about making homes energy efficient through weatherization.)

On another note about Energy Efficiency and Nuclear Energy- I'd like to share this info:
"For 1/2 the cost of replacing one nuclear power plant, we can retrofit 1,600,000 homes for "Energy Efficiency" and create 220,000 new jobs- which is 90 times more jobs than you'd get from a power plant replacement."  
ie: how much taxes that are needed for the USA would come from the 220,000 employees?

So basically I'm asking you to do the right thing and leave the EPA alone as the USA is making strides to curb its energy use which reduces the Pollutants in the Air, Land, and Water.

Through the various reporting agencies on Political Contributions. (1 & 2) I know you receive the bulk of your money from Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Business.  In the future who will be left to buy their products if the population is killed off from Fossil Fuel Pollution.  I'm not even going to mention the fact that we can reduce our reliance on Foreign Oil (which is the root cause of the ongoing wars in the Middle East.  ie: if they don't have any money they cant fight us).

Thank you, looking forward to your Reply.

Sincerely,
Scotty

Help us stop the Inhofe toxic air bill, which would wipe the EPA's life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards off the books and punch a huge hole through our clean air protections.

Thank you for stopping by St Louis Renewable Energy. Feel free to comment in the section below or contact Scotty for any Home Improvement Projects or Energy Reducing Needs and Scotty, Scotts Contracting will respond ASAP. Company Web Address: http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com


Tracking two important EPA pollution rules

Tracking two important EPA pollution rules

In the past few weeks, new information has become publicly available about two important pending rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). One rule would set the first-ever, national standards for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Know as the greenhouse gas New Source Performance Standard (GHG NSPS) rule, EPA announced on October 29 that it would undergo further delay before publication. This delay is the third such delay since the GHG NSPS rule was originally due last summer. But this time, the delay is not entirely bad news. Environmental groups and states have agreed to extend the deadline to November 30, 2011. The groups agreed to the delay in a letter sent to the Justice Department and said in the letter that this was reasonable, “In light of the progress made to date.”
EPA proposed another important rule in March of this year. This rule, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics rule or Mercury MACT rule, will set national emission standards for mercury and other hazardous air pollution from coal-fired power plants. EPA also recently announced a new date for finalization of the Mercury MACT rule. Previously, the deadline for the rule was November 16, but EPA now plans to release the final rule on December 16. Once again, this is seen as a generally positive development since it sets a date certain in the very near future. Moreover, utilities and some states were pushing to have the rule delayed by a full year, a proposition that the federal court explicitly rejected.
Mercury emissions from power plants
This minor delay is really a big win against those who are trying to push the rule indefinitely into the future. As currently proposed, the mercury rule will prevent 91 percent of mercury in coal burned at power plants from being released to the air, which will have a significant impact on human health and the environment. Given that the Southeast is home to almost 300 coal units that have collectivelyemitted over 20,000 pounds of mercury into the air in a single year, this rule would be a huge step forward in cleaning up the air and water in numerous states. Meanwhile the GHG NSPS rule would be a crucial first step in reducing our contribution to global climate change.
Together, these two policies represent significant steps forward in protecting human health and the environment. If these minor delays provide EPA with needed time or help to deflect unwarranted criticism, then it is a small price to pay.
Tracking two important EPA pollution rules

Friday

EPA Creating Jobs while Protecting the USA

  • the E.P.A. will continue to do its job, which is to protect the health of the American people 

    jobs are being produced through this environmental clean-up work 

    •  17,500 properties have been cleaned up recently, creating 70,000 jobs

    60 percent of Americans believe the E.P.A. “needs to hold polluters accountable,”

    • 75% or three-fourths of Americans favor tougher regulations on pollution in order to protect our air and water
     
  • the contamination of our soil and water is the number one issue for Americans
  •  Protect the EPA from Republican Polluters

E.P.A. Administrator Jackson Fights Back

EPA Admin Lisa Jackson

At the national Brownfields conference in Philadelphia, which was attended by more than 7,000 national and local policymakers, engineers, designers, and artists, E.P.A. Administrator Lisa Jackson said Republican members of Congress are trying to cut funding to the E.P.A. and limit its ability to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Jackson said some members of Congress see the E.P.A. as “over-reaching and only out for power.” While this “back and forth is important to our democracy,” the E.P.A. will “continue to do its job, which is to protect the health of the American people, while moving ahead.”

Jackson said much of the country is scaling back due to the tough economic times and the federal government “also needs to take responsibility.” However, she believes there’s a “reasonable way to scale back.”

While some Republicans are convinced that the E.P.A. is trying to “grab power” and any attempt to regulate the GHG emissions will, in effect, cost jobs, Jackson said Republicans should just look at the work local communities are doing to restore brownfield sites and see how many jobs are being produced through this environmental clean-up work.  Jackson said, “if they could only see the before and after of this vital brownfields work.”

According to a recent poll by USA Today, some 60 percent of Americans believe the E.P.A. “needs to hold polluters accountable,” said Jackson. In addition, some “three-fourths of Americans favor tougher regulations on pollution in order to protect our air and water.” She believes “the contamination of our soil and water is the number one issue for Americans.” If there’s more pollution, we’ll only “see more sickness and more contaminated sites.”

Within the E.P.A., brownfield work is a “point of pride.” Some 17,500 properties have been cleaned up recently, creating 70,000 jobs. Jackson said she would make brownfield remediation a continued priority. She added “brownfield redevelopment can be a part of conservation efforts as well.”

Jackson also highlighted the new sustainable community building block program that is a part of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, which was formed with the U.S. Department of Transporation and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Some 32 communities just received grants that will bring in private sector experts to help conduct “walkability audits.” Both large cities and small communities won grants.

Before getting her second standing ovation, Jackson said, “these are challenging times but we need to uphold the environmental laws of this country.”

 crossposted Image credit: E.P.A. Administrator Lisa Jackson / DC Streets  Blog

Saturday

Disgusted with the Politicians

? not happy with the Politicians and their Back Room Deals with Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Business.  I suggest to everyone to check out the site.  It is full of valuable information about who is donating and to whom.  After viewing the information- You to will then have an idea (A-Ha Moment!!!) of why the politicians vote as they do.

In regard to Climate Change and Global Warming- the Biggest Polluters Donate the most money to the Politicians.  The Majority of the Republican Party receives Donations (Numbering in the Millions) to their piggy banks in the form of Lobbying $ Money $, campaign re-election funds, etc


The only viable solutions I can see is to: 
1) End lobbying activities by Big Business;
2) Don't Vote Republican (in the upcoming elections-I will be voting a Straight Democratic Ticket Democratic Ticket for the 1st time in my life- and I personally am still in shock when I say this);
3)Get serious about Reducing Energy Use- by Weatherization, Recycling, and Renewable Energy in your Home and Work.

Sincerely,

Scotty 
both for the same reason.
Diapers and Politicians should be changed often-Both for the same reason.
 Scotts Contracting, StLouis Renewable Energy

PS: a house is built one piece at a time, each stage of the Building Process is built on the preceding one. The same technique can be applied to Building a Less Polluted and Better World for everyone.

Article also posted here:  http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/corporations-or-politicians-hurting-america/question-1452293/comment-54728007/ and Repower America



  • blog updated and bad links repaired 10/2/2013 scotty
  • Politician Joke added 6/20/2014.  Proud to say I am and will continue voting a Democratic Ticket as well as promoting all the atrocities of the GOP- Wars Over Oil being my Number One Issue.

Thursday

Latest News on Missouri Nuclear Reactor Agenda

Nuclear siting bill awaits committee action (AUDIO))
by Bob Priddy on March 31, 2011 cross-posted via: Missourinet
 
Four bills focused on how to pay to pick a site for a second commercial nuclear power plant are stuck in a Senate Committee.  Senator Jason Crowell, the sponsor of one of the bills, chairs the committee that held a seven-hour public hearing about three weeks ago. The committee has not considered whether to recommend full senate debate.
For him, the big issue is who will pay for the site selection.  He thinks the utility company and its stockholders should bear that cost.

The sponsor of one of the proposals, Jefferson City Senator Mike Kehoe, thinks most senators are comfortable with having consumers pay for the site selection—but be repaid if no site is picked or no plant goes into operation.

Crowell worries that having consumers pay for the site selection is the first step toward repealing the construction work in progress law that says consumers won't be billed for construction costs until the plant is running.  Kehoe says he favors whichever approach is the most economical way to build the plant.

Kehoe comments 7:38 mp3                   crowell comments 4:03 mp3


--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Wednesday

Ameren UEs Greed-Missouri-Nuclear Reactor-

Here is some of the latest news on Energy (Electricity) Issues affecting the St Louis Area, Ameren UEs Nuclear Reactor Agenda is just plain GREEDY and will cost us the rate payers now and in the future.


  • Amerens goal is to charge the people of the St Louis Area, the ratepayers, millions of dollars up front for an unnecessary, risky, and expensive Nuclear Power Reactor Plant rather than investing in the cheapest energy resource available, energy efficiency
  • The proposed legislation would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.
    • The proposed legislation-SB 321 and SB 406- would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.
  • To understand the many other reasons why SB 321 and SB 406 are bad public policy, read Senator Joan Bray's guest column in the Joplin Globe last month.                                                                                                                                                                                        
  • Ameren admits it cannot find investors to fund the Nuclear Plant because it is too risky and expensive.
    • Scotts Contracting/Facebook Page Latest Estimated Costs for Nuclear Reactor is $10 Billion. we'll have to pay an additional $4 Billion Dollars                                             
  • Therefore, Ameren must pass SB 321 or SB 406 which shifts the financial risk of investment of a new nuclear plant from shareholders to ratepayers.  But while shareholders dodge the risk, they still receive a financial windfall if/when the reactor comes online and Ameren then sells the excess electricity out of state for a premium                                                                                                                                                                          
  1.  
    "If we went after the potential that we've seen in our own study,  we wouldn't have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we'd be OK.  But we'd lose  $30 million a year. And we just can't do that. It's that simple."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Join the Movement and Contact the Missouri Legislative Department Here


-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat,
and Let Your Voice BE HEARD!     
Active Participation is Suggested
Tell My Politician



--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Sunday

Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?

Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?
March 26, 2011

Powder River Basin Distribution Legend Low Res

This weekend’s question may have no good answer.

On Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced plans to auction off 758 million tons of coal in Wyoming over the next few months. Then on Friday, the Bureau of Land Management explained they will be selling off another 1.6 billion tons of coal at a future date.

Salazar claims coal could play a role in the “clean energy future,” but that isn’t true, of course — except in an alternative universe where CO2 has a high and rising price and carbon capture and storage pans out — neither of which seems likely even if Obama weren’t now indifferent to serious climate action (see Harvard: “Realistic” first-generation CCS costs a whopping $150 per ton of CO2 — 20 cents per kWh! and Studyfind leaks from CO2 stored deep underground could contaminate drinking water).

The coal represents a staggering amount of future CO2 emissions, as Wild Earth Guardians, Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife explain:

When burned, the coal threatens to release more than 3.9 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, equal to the annual emissions from 300 coal-fired power plants, further cementing the United States as a leading contributor to climate disruption … Salazar’s announcement is a stark contrast to his call for clean energy. Interior, for example, touted that in 2010, 4,000 megawatts of renewable energy development were authorized. And in today’s press conference, Secretary Salazar announced Interior’s intent to authorize more than 12,000 megawatts of renewable energy by the end of next year … Yet in opening the door for 2.35 billion tons of coal mining, Salazar’s announcement effectively enables more than 300,000 megawatts of coal-fired energy — 30 times more dirty energy development than renewable energy.

Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from coal combustion lasts a long, long, long time (see Fossil CO2 impacts will outlast Stonehenge and nuclear waste). And that’s a major reason unrestricted burning of coal is just bad for humans (see Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add “close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated” and A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice).

So this decision just makes no sense, though Grist offers one explanation for cynics: Obama administration can’t wait to sell China all the coal it can burn.

This decision certainly eviscerates Salazar’s green street cred that he had developed by aggressively pushing renewable energy on public lands. It fits into an emerging pattern with offshore drilling and the continued embrace of uber-expensive nuclear power and the abandonment of any effort to pass serious climate legislation that suggests perhaps Obama really doesn’t get it at all. If so, it’s time for people like science advisor John Holdren to contemplate resigning and moving on to a job where he can do more good — like leading a national effort of scientists to inform the public about the extreme dangers of burning all that coal.

What do you think? Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?      Burning The Future - Coal In America  Factors Affecting Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Combustors       Methane emissions from gassy coals in storage silos

Friday

News: US EPA and Budget Cut

Congress' Failure to Pass Spending Bill Creates Chaos in Agencies
Mar 24, 2011 New York Times

EMILY YEHLE of Greenwire

As federal agencies enter their sixth month without Congress approving a long-term spending bill, some employees are digging into their own pockets for everything from a spiral-bound notebook to an airplane ticket.

Last week, Congress passed the fifth continuing resolution (CR) of this fiscal year, cutting about $6 billion from current spending. Lawmakers say a budget is forthcoming, but concern over a possible shutdown is palpable; 54 Republicans in the House voted against their own party's CR, with many claiming the cuts were not deep enough.

At U.S. EPA, employees say the uncertainty has translated to a decline in morale and a preoccupation with the possibility of staff cuts.

"I am seeing a lot of people frustrated with management and the Agency for not giving more information on what, if any, cuts will be coming and which programs will be impacted," said EPA scientist and union representative Edward Gusterin an email. "A lot of people are fearful of being moved to another position, losing their job or not getting the training they need."

EPA officials have cause to be especially on edge. House Republicans have taken aim at the agency, with many hoping to resuscitate a long-term CR that passed the House last month and would cut EPA's budget by $3 billion. The same bill would cut $1 billion from the budget of the Department of Energy, which Republicans have criticized recently for slow stimulus spending and flawed oversight.

Some Republicans also hope to restrict the administration's authority over key environmental issues, making agencies' future missions even more unclear.

Last week, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees Interior Department and EPA funding, said the short-term budget process makes agencies' work "extremely difficult" (E&E Daily, March 14).

"If I were a program manager," Moran said, "I don't know how I would cope with the situation."

Spokesmen from EPA, DOE and Interior declined to comment on how the CR has affected their agencies, currently or in the past. DOE spokeswoman Katinka Podmaniczkysaid in a statement that the department "continues to work with both sides on Capitol Hill to fund the government and keep its vital services and functions operating."

But a 2009 report from the Government Accountability Office provides some insight on how such uncertainty can limit management flexibility and increase employees' workload.

Denise Fantone, a GAO director of strategic issues who worked on the report, said her agency has not studied the current situation. But the report studied data from 1999-2009 to come to some conclusions about the overall effect of continuing resolutions on government operations.

Each agency is affected differently, Fantone said in a recent interview. Regulatory agencies, for example, may collect funding from nongovernment sources and thus feel the effects of a short-term CR less.

But CRs can affect contracts and hiring significantly. Short-term federal budgets can mean short-term agency planning with officials eventually compelled to quickly obligate any remaining funds at the end of a fiscal year. Employees might also have to issue contracts for shorter periods of time, repeating parts of the bidding process under each CR.

Such planning also affects hiring and training, Fantone said.

"Everything gets delayed and pushed back," she said. "You could hire at the end of the year, but that may be out of cycle with training cycle. ... There were certain opportunities that were missed."

EPA employees

John O'Grady, EPA Region 5 president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Council 238, said EPA has limited travel expenditures to 42 percent of the annual budget, causing employees to miss out on training opportunities.

One employee, he said, told him she would be paying her own way to a free training opportunity because she could not get her travel budget approved in time.

"The impact of this budget mess is that employees either miss out on free training that is of benefit to the government or the employees who need the training have to pay for the travel out of their own pocket in order to get the training," O'Grady said.

"While the training is not immediately mandatory for the employee, it is needed if they employee wants to advance in her profession and be on a level playing field with co-workers who have already received the training."

O'Grady said the CR's effects also have trickled down to mundane supplies. After he was told the agency could not afford to buy an 8.5-by-11-inch spiral notebook for air-enforcement inspections, he bought one himself. A handful of file folders, meanwhile, took more than a month to obtain, he said.

The lack of firm deadlines has also put research projects, regulation implementation and contracted jobs on hold, he said.

But the threat of job loss is what mainly haunts employees, some of whom experienced the government shutdown 15 years ago. Agency officials have been silent on their plans for that possibility, much to employees' chagrin.

"I have been getting questions on if employees can take on another job if they are furloughed, will they still have medical, etc.," Guster said, who is EPA Region 2 president of AFGE 238. "This time could be spent on their program work."

Copyright 2011 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

Sunday

How Much Tax Money Goes to Fossil Energy Companies

Q:just how much of our tax money is going to ExxonMobil, Massey, etc.? With the new deficit hawks in Congress going after insignificant items like bottled water expenses, you'd think they'd want to know the size of the really wasteful stuff, right?

A:
There have been counts, ranging from $10 billion a year by the Environmental Law Institute, to the more comprehensive, $52 billion a year by Doug Koplow of EarthTrack. But, do taxpayers even have a widely accepted, comprehensive inventory of how of our money is being handed to the dirty energy lobby by politicians?  That includes state-level subsidies, by the way, such as the $45 million that Virginia gives to the coal industry

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested  TellMyPolitician

Why We Still Don't Know How Much Money Goes to Fossil Energy

By Mike Casey   |   February 16, 2011  

The national conversation about wasteful welfare for highly profitable dirty energy corporations has gone from the dramatic statement by the Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency that fossil fuel subsidies are one of the biggest impediments to global economic recovery ("the appendicitis of the global energy system which needs to be removed for a healthy, sustainable development future"), to a speech by Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch (in which he called the fossil fuel industry "grotesquely oversubsidized"), to a call by President Obama to cut oil company welfare by $4 billion.
 
Not to be outdone, House Democrats are now calling for a $40 billion cut.
Dirty energy welfare defenders have, predictably, responded with ridiculous, Palin-esque denials of reality, but the voter demands that wasteful spending be cut begs the question: just how much of our tax money is going to ExxonMobil, Massey, etc.? With the new deficit hawks in Congress going after insignificant items like bottled water expenses, you'd think they'd want to know the size of the really wasteful stuff, right?

The problem is, we've long suspected that no one really knows how much of our money goes to dirty oil executives like Rex Tillerson and Gregory Boyce. There have been counts, ranging from $10 billion a year by the Environmental Law Institute, to the more comprehensive, $52 billion a year by Doug Koplow of EarthTrack. But, do taxpayers even have a widely accepted, comprehensive inventory of how of our money is being handed to the dirty energy lobby by politicians?  That includes state-level subsidies, by the way, such as the $45 million that Virginia gives to the coal industry.

Energy trends analyst Chris Namovicz of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) was the latest speaker in our "Communicating Energy" lecture series. We took the opportunity to ask one of the top, neutral energy trends analysts in the country the question, "Do you know if someone has actually done a credible, comprehensive, definitive count of how much taxpayers underwrite fossil fuels in this country?" We added the thought that "there's no one really widely available number whereaverage citizens can say, yeah, this much of my money goes to pay ExxonMobil.
According to Namovicz, there really isn't such a widely available, definitive, comprehensive number.

http://www.youtube.com/v/2B4tgpqjXuY&amp
Right…we're not accounting for the nuclear insurance subsidy, we're not accounting for military oil shipping, we're not even accounting for the tax depreciation benefits that some resources get over others...
The fact is, there is a wide array of government subsidies, both implicit and explicit, that are doled out every year to fossil fuel companies. One estimate, by the Environmental Law Institute, finds that dirty energy companies in the United States alone have run up a $72 billion tab at the taxpayer's bar from 2002 to 2008. Worldwide, it's far worse; as this study by the OECD explains:
The [International Energy Agency] estimates that direct subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by artificially lowering end-user prices for fossil fuels amounted to $312 billion in 2009. In addition, a number of mechanisms can be identified, also in advanced economies, which effectively support fossil-fuel production or consumption, such as tax expenditures, under-priced access to scarce resources under government control (e.g., land) and the transfer of risks to governments (e.g., via concessional loans or guarantees). These subsidies are more difficult to identify and estimate compared with direct consumer subsidies.
As we pointed out in a recent post, these subsidies aren't just reckless and stupid, they aren't even what people want. In fact, only 8 percent of Americans prefer their tax money be given to highly profitable, mature industries such as ExxonMobil and Massey Energy.

Shouldn't there be a definitive count of energy subsidies? As we're looking at cutting waste from our federal (and states') budgets, shouldn't there be a credible accounting of all the ways we pay to grease the way for these mature, highly profitable industries? We're not talking about one done by dirty energy lobbyists or their hired "experts," by the way, but a real inventory done by those who wouldn't profit by a lower or incomplete count. Such an accounting should include:
  • Tax breaks
  • Dirty subsidies
  • The costs of government agencies that are set up to perform functions that these industries should pay full cost for doing – such as figuring out how to stuff their pollution underground instead of wasting it on exorbitant, fantasy projects like "FutureGen."
  • Military expenditures to protect oil shipping lanes.
  • Pollution forgiveness or remediation
  • Rock-bottom priced access to public property – mountains, subsurface property, aquifers, ocean waters -- which fossil energy companies routinely wreck and pay comparatively little to fix.
We need to force politicians to be aggressively honest about how much of our money is going to TillersonBoyce., BlankenshipO'ReillyLesar, etc. Until they do, the anti-clean energy bigmouths in Congress who are bashing clean energy policy support need to back way off. And, the dirty energy lobby mouthpieces who propagandize how "cheap" dirty energy is, should do the same. Directly or indirectly, we're paying their salaries.

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician

Article by: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/02/top-eia-energy-trends-watcher-no-definitive-count-on-dirty-energy-welfare?cmpid=WindNL-Thursday-February24-2011
Westinghouse, Westinghouse Solar Systems, Solar Panel, Solar Electricity, Solar Systems, Inverter, Installation Guides, Facts, Solar Warranty Information, Deals of the Week, Solar Panel Electric Systems, Battery, Grid Tie, Off Grid
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Friday

Global Warming ie: Climate Change is Science the GOP can’t wish away

Many months ago I posted -EPA denies climate change challenges- that the Climate Scientist Reported: stolen emails undermined the Climate Change Reports.

So I thought it was especially appropriate to include the following email I received from the Alliance to Save Energy-News You Can Use-via New York Times

Before you read the article I have to put my two cents in as I don't feel it takes a report from Climate Scientist to tell me that warmer temperatures are affecting the World.  I use my personal experiences instead and the Climate Scientist's can vouch for my observations.
  • I can remember when I was young growing up on the Family Cattle Ranch in North Missouri.  The Winters were long and the Snow Drifts were Huge- (way over my head creating perfect opportunities for Snow Forts and Tunnels in the Back Yard).  
  • It seems that the Bad Weather Started in November and Lasted until the month of March (4 months of Brutal Weather).
  • Since the early to mid 80's I do not feel we have had extended periods of cold temperatures that keep the snow that falls from thawing out.  
  • It seems to me that: the percipitation we now get in our area has more Ice with less Snow and seems to melt within weeks- now seems faster melting times than ever.
  • We now know the major cause of the warmed temperatures: Global Warming ie: Climate Change caused by "Exhaust Gases or GHG's Emissions" from using Fossil Fuels from Coal and Oil
So I asked myself- "Why don't the Governments and Politicians of the World act to reduce these GHG Emissions?" I can't speak for the other countries in the World, but I will point out some facts I have been preaching now for months.


The Rich and Powerful Fossil Fuel Industry supports Politicians both Democrat and Republican.  All of which keep the Politicians in-line and in the Pockets of the Coal and Oil Industries- though Donations for Re-Elections, Pet Projects, etc. Read and Research for yourself at: Dirty Energy Money http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=congress

 Global Warming and Climate Change is Science the GOP can’t wish away-  Step away from the Monetary Feed Trough filled by Big Oil and Big Coal  

The National Academy reports concluded that "scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming." Party affiliation does not change that fact. Link Here-http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/all-republicans-in-office-take-heed.html


Now on with the Article via the New York Times- Emphasis Added by Scotty
Scientists Are Cleared Of Misuse Of Data

Feb 25, 2011

by: LESLIE KAUFMAN

An inquiry by a federal watchdog agency found no evidence that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manipulated climate data to buttress the evidence in support of global warming, officials said on Thursday.

The inquiry, by the Commerce Department’s inspector general, focused on e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 (NOAA is part of the Commerce Department). Some of the e-mails involved scientists from NOAA.

Climate change skeptics contended that the correspondence showed that scientists were manipulating or withholding information to advance the theory that the earth is warming as a result of human activity.

In a report dated Feb. 18 and circulated by the Obama administration on Thursday, the inspector general said, “We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data.”

Nor did the report fault Jane Lubchenco, NOAA’s top official, for testifying to Congress that the correspondence did not undermine climate science.

The finding comes at a critical moment for NOAA as some newly empowered Republican House members (see prior post here) seek to rein in the EPA- Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, often contending that the science underpinning global warming is flawed. NOAA is the federal agency tasked with monitoring climate data.

The inquiry into NOAA’s conduct was requested last May by Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, who has challenged the science underlying human-induced climate change. Mr. Inhofe was acting in response to the controversy over the e-mail messages, which were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, a major hub of climate research.

Mr. Inhofe asked the inspector general of the Commerce Department to investigate how NOAA scientists responded internally to the leaked e-mails. Of 1,073 messages, 289 were exchanges with NOAA scientists.

The inspector general reviewed the 1,073 e-mails, and interviewed Dr. Lubchenco and staff members about their exchanges. The report did not find scientific misconduct; it did however, challenge the agency over its handling of some Freedom of Information Act requests in 2007. And it noted the inappropriateness of e-mailing a collage cartoon depicting Senator Inhofe and five other climate skeptics marooned on a melting iceberg that passed between two NOAA scientists.

The report was not a review of the climate data itself. It joins a series of investigations by the British House of Commons, Pennsylvania State University, the InterAcademy Council and the National Research Council into the leaked e-mails that have exonerated the scientists involved of scientific wrongdoing.

NOAA welcomed the report, saying that it emphasized the soundness of its scientific procedures and the peer review process. “None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA’s understanding of climate change science,” Mary Glackin, the agency’s deputy undersecretary for operations, said in a statement.

But Mr. Inhofe said the report was far from a clean bill of health for the agency and that contrary to its executive summary, showed that the scientists “engaged in data manipulation.”

“It also appears that one senior NOAA employee possibly thwarted the release of important federal scientific information for the public to assess and analyze,” he said, referring to an employee’s failure to provide material related to work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a different body that compiles research, in response to a Freedom of Information request.

                                          __________________

Don't let the GOP pull the Wool over your Eyes on the Climate Change Issue-Scotty
__________________

So If you are as sick as I am of the Denial and the GOPs inaction to curtail GHG Emissions.  I encourage everyone to contact your Elected Leaders and tell them: Act to Save Our Planet from Global Warming ie: Climate Change caused mainly by the Exhaust Gases from Fossil Fuels.  For your Convenience You can find your Elected Leaders Information at:

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested #VOTE

Need I mention again that Clean Energy Production will also create JOBS? and Lessen the Demand the US has on Imports of Oil from the Middle East?  It really pisses me off to think about all the prior Service Men and Women who have given so much to protect our Nation from the Damage created from the consumption of OIL, especially from Nations that oppose the Freedoms the USA is best know for.  We can lessen this demand and create Clean Energy Jobs for the USA. 

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter Google Plus Tumblr LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest

Featured Post

Solar Water Pump Information

Solar Water Pump Inverter (hybrid) Hober is professional manufacturer of solar pump inverter (7 years)  Solar Pump Inve...