Roy Blunt-How can He Lead in the Right Direction?

With Leaders like this in Washington its no wonder the USA is in economic turmoil.

Top Industries that pay for Representative Roy Blunt 2009 - 2010

Top 20 Industries contributing to Campaign Committee Slush Fund or is it a Hush Fund?)

Download: What is District Rank?View Top 20 | All

MemberRank	DistrictRank	Industry	Total	Indivs	PACs
1	10	Securities & Investment	$647,031	$588,031	$59,000
2	2	Retired	$518,964	$518,964	$0
3	43	Leadership PACs	$499,903	$0	$499,903
4	1	Lawyers/Law Firms	$368,864	$280,764	$88,100
5	3	Health Professionals	$357,595	$213,845	$143,750
6	4	Real Estate	$316,220	$279,320	$36,900
7	17	Insurance	$305,514	$143,114	$162,400
8	61	Lobbyists	$305,416	$300,416	$5,000
9	39	Oil & Gas	$300,300	$148,050	$152,250
10	20	Commercial Banks	$247,983	$149,883	$98,100
11	5	Misc Manufacturing & Distributing	$218,200	$176,300	$41,900
12	22	Republican/Conservative	$207,236	$163,236	$44,000
13	28	Food Processing & Sales	$198,950	$102,450	$96,500
14	19	Misc Business	$197,202	$189,702	$7,500
15	8	Mining	$193,553	$119,053	$74,500
16	6	Misc Finance	$192,995	$156,495	$36,500
17	52	Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$180,850	$45,850	$135,000
18	35	Food & Beverage	$173,850	$68,550	$105,300
19	12	General Contractors	$171,500	$140,500	$31,000
20	7	Automotive	$169,870	$107,370	$62,500

Sector Totals (see table)

Industry Favorite

Roy Blunt is a top recipient from the following industries for the 2009 - 2010 election cycle:

• Automotive  (#1)
• Business Assns  (#1)
• Chemicals  (#1)
• Coal mining  (#1)
• Commercial Banks  (#1)
• Food & Beverage  (#1)
• Food and kindred products manufacturing  (#1)
• Food Process/Sales  (#1)
• Food stores  (#1)
• Leadership PACs  (#1)
• Lodging/Tourism  (#1)
• Mining  (#1)
• Misc Services  (#1)
• Oil & Gas  (#1)
• Republican leadership PAC  (#1)
• Restaurants & drinking establishments  (#1)
• Trucking  (#1)
• Auto manufacturers  (#2)
• Dentists  (#2)
• Livestock  (#2)
• Pharmaceutical manufacturing  (#2)
• Dairy  (#3)
• Railroads  (#3)
• Meat processing & products  (#4)
• Poultry & Eggs  (#4)
• Candidate Cmtes  (#6)

Percent of Contributions Coded

	Coded	$8,981,702	(82.0%)
	Not Coded	$2,026,999	(18.4%)

METHODOLOGY

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2009-2010 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, February 28, 2011. ("Help! The numbers don't add up...") Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center. 

 If you are unable to read between the lines and determine what this information mean for the Average Missourian?  

• He receives an awful lot of money from sources that do not have your best interests at heart.  Many of the Contributors pay or should I say BUY Mr Blunts-votes on the issues that remove the safe guards that are protecting the Average Missourian.

Need I also mention the the Party he belongs too represents Big Business in all their voting affairs.  With Contributions that number in Multi-Millions how can someone keep a clear head and vote for responsible laws that dictate how the Americans Live.

 

View additional Articles in re to Roy Blunts Activities at the following web pages:

• Roy Blunt-Political News-Worst of Washington 

  MO Senator Roy Blunt on the EPA

  Note: I do not support Senator Roy Blunt.  I provided his latest email to me because I think my Fellow Missourian's deserve to know how he stands on the Environmental Issues Facing our State and Nation. Besides his stand with the Big Oil and Big Coal Industry with his fellow Republicans. I believe and the facts from his previous Lobbying / Lobbyist Activities not to mention the Earmarks he supported creates conflicts of Interest-Scotty" 
  
  
• Mr Blunts past behavior of
1. Ear Marks,
2. reckless and wasteful spending habits,
3. Lobbying Activities create Conflict of Interest,
4. He is Part of the Reason that "Washington is Broken"
• Mr Blunt supports Big Business. (from:http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2010/10/robin-carnahan-election-news-invitation.html)
  

Prior St Louis Renewable Energy Blog Posts in re to Roy Blunt:

• Roy Blunt-Political News-Worst of Washington Sep 19, 2010
• Re: Did Roy Blunt Hire an Illegal Worker? Oct 21, 2010
• Carnahan Election News-Message to Roy Blunt Oct 28, 2010
• A musing about Roy Blunt Oct 05, 2010
• Robin's Carnahan vs Roy Blunt Debate News Oct 14, 2010

Earmarks Data from Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/otherdata.php?cid=N00005195&cycle=2010)

Roy Blunt sponsored or co-sponsored 22 earmarks totaling $22,602,000 in fiscal year 2010, ranking 188th out of 435 representatives. See details. To learn more about earmarks, visit our Earmarks section.

Use the Following Link to -Find Your Elected Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician  

 

If your Elected Leaders do not know where you stand on the issues they will not be able to vote for the issues that are affecting: You, Your Family, Work, Health, Jobs, and Educational Needs.   

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

Find Additional News on Missouri's Nuclear Agenda Here

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

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

Presidential Campaign Slogan for 2012: It's Innovation Stupid! | KC_Donovan

*Big Oil spends $15 million each day advertising

Okay, so the winds blowing through Congress may set back any energy and climate legislation for years. But all is not lost: With the corporate world embracing innovation in clean energy, lawmakers will soon be forced to keep up with the times.


Of course, we're still up against a wall of doubt built by opponents.

We consistently see the anti clean energy media making the point that a transition to renewables will drive prices up, lose jobs and cause damage to an already fragile economy. It's a classic "denial" marketing strategy – trumpet exactly the opposite of reality.  Some leading this effort are experts at this strategy and earned their stripes after speweing decades of misinformation while working for the tobacco industry, and have moved to crafting the response for challenges to the status quo of energy production.
Certainly those currently making money in the fossil fuel industry have a lot at stake as they don’t want to become this century’s Black Smiths. Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out in an excellent interview with Grist.com that collectively, Big Oil spends $15 million each day advertising their "scary" message. By comparison, that’s about what the entire Clean Energy and Environmental Community spends in a year.

Little wonder why there is no legislation for clean energy and climate policy, that 25-30% of the public question Climate Change’s existence and that government subsidizes the oil industry to the tune of between between $130-280 billion annually. This last point seems patently absurd when you realize that three of the five largest companies on the planet are oil companies (Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP) – and they’re the most profitable. Even after paying out billions in Gulf Oil Spill damages in the summer of 2010, BP still was able to earn almost $2 billion in profit during the same period. Do these guys really need taxpayer financial support?  Sad when you consider that a new transmission line to bring the Mid West wind and Southwest Solar energy to our population centers would cost less than four years worth of that oil subsidy.

All of these inequities are bought and paid for – plain and simple.

We can go on and on ranting about the lack of common sense that goes into the energy hopper of public policy and discourse, or we can look enthusiastically at making a difference through innovation. Looking back through history, it has always been improvements in technology and business models that have brought about change.

It was the cotton gin and steam engine that spawned the industrial revolution (outlawing slavery in the British Empire also helped); harnessing electricity and oil was the key to such incredible growth in the 20^thCentury; and the interent created a vast network that formed the basis of our today's information-driven global economy. In every case it was the implementation of new technology that undid our past practices and ushered in greater waves of prosperity.

It will be no different this time.
We certainly have our Morgan’s, Carnegie’s and Rockefeller’s in our midst that pull the levers of power and retain most of the wealth. But this time around there are Gate’s, Khosla’s and Buffett's to balance out the Cheney’s, Koch’s, Blankenship’s and their ilk.

These and others have been powerful thought leaders in this sector. In addition, the efforts of clean energy opponents have been thwarted by giant companies like WalMart, Intel and GSK that have turned to renewable energy solutions to power their businesses. In addition, other giant conglomerates like GE, Siemens and Honeywell have become leading investors in clean energy solutions; GE has pledged to spend hundreds of billions in new energy technologies in the coming years, and recently announced that it would also buy 45,000 electric vehicles for its sales fleet.

The Carbon Disclosure Project, which reviews the Global 500 biggest companies and rates their climate and sustainability policies, recently reported that more than 80% of top companies are working on carbon emissions reduction and sustainability programs. In addition, a recent UN sponsored study conducted by Accenture of 766 global CEOs found that 93% say that sustainability will be critical to the future success of their companies.

With this kind of support from the corporate world, there's a real chance that we can continue our progress even without consistent support from Congress. As innovation keeps brewing, federal lawmakers will have no choice but to listen.

Nuclear Debacle – Not Clean, Not Safe | Renewable Energy News Article

Washington, D.C., United States – The recent earthquake in Japan and subsequent loss of 10% of Japan's electric power due to failures and explosions in at least two nuclear power plants, demonstrates the frailness of relying on any "one" energy source, particularly one that holds the extremely high risk of contaminating the air and water, and could be a target for terrorist acts. 

 

American citizens have been exposed to failures of policymakers and regulators in the past.  And these failures have placed enormous financial burdens on U.S. taxpayers and have had severe consequences for our economy and national security. The top three such failures include the savings and loan fiasco, which was caused by federal deregulation policy and banking deregulation; the recent economic meltdown caused by bad or ineffective policy on derivatives and regulation; and a catastrophic failure in homeland security on September 11th 2001 due to breaches at airports that was the result of a policy of restraint despite intelligence consensus was that the risk was "high."

Policymakers from both parties are following the same path for nuclear power -- placing arbitrarily low liability caps on nuclear power plant owners and operators (known as the Price Anderson Act) and subsidizing nuclear power RD&D, financing and loan guarantees with billions of dollars that will be paid for by taxpayer outlays.

As the U.S. public knows first hand, the arbitrary low penalty caps for oil spills seemed beyond comprehension after the mammoth BP Gulf oil spill. In this case, BP didn’t fight that battle and established a $20 billion fund. The financial market places penalties on technologies that have high technical and financial risks and this benefits taxpayers and ratepayers and is actually a safeguard for public security.

Technologies that present immense health, safety and security risks should not be cushioned, but rather the exposure and risks need to be transparent with those taking the risks, bearing the subsequent costs. The way it stands now everybody -- including you, the U.S. taxpayer -- that stands to bear the brunt of these damage costs if a nuclear failure happened on U.S. shores.

The public needs to remember and note the recent failures of nuclear power regulatory oversight:  1) a nuclear whistleblower at a PA plant complained repeatedly about sleeping nuclear control room employees, only to be fired even after he proved it by releasing pictures, 2) an unanticipated containment vessel (large) hole in an Ohio reactor, and 3) conflicts of interest by NIOSH on nuclear worker compensation -- all occurring within just the last few years.

In March 2007, John Jasinski sends the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a letter alleging guards are sleeping throughout the nuclear plant in York County, Pa. The NRC refers the concern to plant owner Exelon and security provider Wackenhut, who denies it and blames a nuclear employee of being disgruntled. The NRC accepts the statement. On Sept. 10th WCBS in New York informs the NRC that it has a videotape of guards asleep or nodding off in a “ready room” near the nuclear reactor. A newspaper documented one of the nuclear staff who worked more than 150 hours during a 14-day period, and averaged more than 54 hours a week for more than 10 months.  Finally on Sept. 21^st, an NRC inspection confirms that only the 10 guards caught on tape were sleeping — one of the four shifts is implicated. On Nov. 1^st Exelon terminates its contract with Wackenhut and takes over the plant’s security. Whistle-blower Kerry Beal, on leave during the investigation, is not among the Wackenhut guards rehired by Exelon. (Excerpt here.)

This is only one of numerous problems, in addition to reports that nuclear plants are not passing their mock security trials, and add to that even more ridiculous containment dome tests, when we all know that nuclear power plants can be compromised when their cooling towers, pumps and substations are impacted.

There is no question that Washington, DC will listen as the truth about the real risks come out about nuclear power in such horrid detail. Renewable energy again will show itself to be the safest bet, already attracting over $250 billion in global private sector investment in 2010, already installing more MWs per year in “clean and safe energy” than new nuclear power plants. And already providing electric power at lower costs than the multibillion-dollar proposed nuclear power plants on the drawing boards in the southeastern U.S.  Markets, and then policy, move to the safest, most reliable, and then lowest cost technologies. That bounty will fall on high value energy efficiency and the entire portfolio of renewable energy.

Swarms of nuclear lobbyists who have put hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign coffers are now in Washington, DC. They are claiming our nuclear power plants are different. Balderdash! The Federal Energy Management Administration (FEMA) website states that 39 states are susceptible to earthquakes, a good portion of the country could be exposed to category five hurricanes and tornadoes, and that doesn’t include the forest fires, natural gas pipeline explosions and other surprises that unexpectedly confront us every year.

In the mid-1980’s Amory and Hunter Lovins published “Brittle Power” (download the PDF here), which is mandatory reading for my sustainable energy course at George Washington University. In their piece, the Lovins’ make clear that we “undervalue risk.” In the preface, former CIA Director James Woolsey agrees in spades.

Twenty five years later, the nuclear industry says “trust us” and “it can’t happen here “ and then remind us “but keep those liability caps.” But hear me out -- legislated liability caps mean nuclear is not safe. It isn’t clean, and it isn’t cheap. The technology is a very expensive way to boil water, and my next column will deal with the immense national security concerns – the other “risk” we just overlook.

What we should have learned from the Challenger Disaster and the immense loss of life in three separate incidents on September 11th - is that the unthinkable does happen , and pretending that somehow nuclear power is exempt from that rule, is irresponsible and unqualified fantasy.

Scott Sklar is President of The Stella Group, Ltd., a strategic marketing and policy firm for clean distributed energy users and companies and is an Adjunct Professor at The George Washington University teaching a multi-disciplinary sustainable energy course.

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.

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 Tillerson, Boyce., Blankenship, O'Reilly, Lesar, 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

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. 

MO Senator Roy Blunt on the EPA

Note: I do not support Senator Roy Blunt.  I provided his latest email to me because I think my Fellow Missourian's deserve to know how he stands on the Environmental Issues Facing our State and Nation. Besides his stand with the Big Oil and Big Coal Industry with his fellow Republicans. 

I believe and the facts from his previous Lobbying / Lobbyist Activities not to mention the Earmarks he supported creates conflicts of Interest-Scotty" 

• Mr Blunts past behavior of
1. Ear Marks,
2. reckless and wasteful spending habits,
3. Lobbying Activities create Conflict of Interest,
4. He is Part of the Reason that "Washington is Broken"
• Mr Blunt supports Big Business. (from:http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2010/10/robin-carnahan-election-news-invitation.html)
  

Prior St Louis Renewable Energy Blog Posts in re to Roy Blunt:

• Roy Blunt-Political News-Worst of Washington Sep 19, 2010
• Re: Did Roy Blunt Hire an Illegal Worker? Oct 21, 2010
• Carnahan Election News-Message to Roy Blunt Oct 28, 2010
• A musing about Roy Blunt Oct 05, 2010
• Robin's Carnahan vs Roy Blunt Debate News Oct 14, 2010

Earmarks Data from Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/otherdata.php?cid=N00005195&cycle=2010)

Roy Blunt sponsored or co-sponsored 22 earmarks totaling $22,602,000 in fiscal year 2010, ranking 188th out of 435 representatives. See details. To learn more about earmarks, visit our Earmarks section.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Senator Roy Blunt wrote:

 

 
Dear Scotts Contracting:
 

Thank you for your email on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gases. 

The EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions are outside of the authority given to it by Congress.  It stretches the Clean Air Act to include emissions that the authors of the act never intended to regulate, and I will work to prevent the rule from being implemented and further harming our fragile economy. 

I am co-sponsoring the Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act (S. 228).  This bill restores Congress' role in the development and implementation of our nation's climate and energy policy by blocking backdoor attempts by regulatory agencies to regulate carbon emissions.

Environmental regulations, while important, should not place undue burdens on Missourians and all Americans, who depend on economically-priced energy on the job and at home.  Protecting our environment and jumpstarting our economy are not mutually exclusive goals. 

We can create better paying jobs at home by developing more American energy, relying on clean fuel alternatives, and promoting conservation.  I continue to support more reliance on alternative fuels and greater investment in research for our energy future. 

Again, thank you for contacting me.  I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country.  I also encourage you to visit my website (www.blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.

Sincere regards,

Roy Blunt
United States Senator

______________________________

Use the Following Link to -Find Your Elected Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician  

If your Elected Leaders do not know where you stand on the issues they will not be able to vote for the issues that are affecting: You, Your Family, Work, Health, and Educational Needs.   

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

Big Energy-Environmental Issues-House to Vote Friday

Some of the biggest energy and environmental policy votes in years are set for Friday – or Saturday – on the House floor.

Votes expected include amendments to the continuing resolution on: EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; offshore oil and gas drilling permits; mountaintop mining removal; and expanding the use of ethanol in gasoline.

The headliner in the time agreement reached late Thursday night is an amendment from Texas Republicans:

• Ted Poe
• Joe Barton
• John Carter 

to bolster the existing language in the bill that would handcuff EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases — Amendment 466: (page 66 of 220):

The Texas trio’s amendment appears to block funding for any EPA regulation of GHGs(Green House Gas Emissions) from stationary sources for the duration of the seven-month spending bill, while the existing language in the legislation bars such rules only if they are being regulated for their climate effects, according to a Clean Air Act attorney.

None of the Democratic measures that would strike the language in the spending bill that blocks federal funding for EPA’s climate greenhouse gas regulations were included.

There's three big amendments on offshore drilling:

• Louisiana Republican Steve Scalise has one blocking federal funds “to further delay the approval” of offshore energy plans in federal waters, the latest volley in an escalating fight between federal regulators and oil-state lawmakers in both parties following last year's BP spill.

• Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will offer an amendment that blocks funding for any new leases being granted to companies that own ones that are not subject to royalty relief limits. Markey has long fought to address Interior’s Gulf leases from the late 1990s that mistakenly omitted market-based price limits for the granting of royalty relief, which is meant to suspend such payments when oil prices are high.

• Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) has one blocking federal funds for the rejecting of permits in federal Arctic coastal waters.

On ethanol, Republicans John Sullivan and Jeff Flake will get their chance to cut federal goodies for the ethanol industry. Sullivan’s amendment strips funding for implementation of EPA’s recent decisions to allow the use of E15 in passenger cars and trucks for model year 2001 and up.

Flake’s amendment would block funding for installing blender pumps at gas stations that would be used to carry ethanol-blended fuels.

Other major amendments that will come up Friday:

• Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) blocking funds to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

• Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) blocking funds for implementation of new EPA water-quality guidelines for mountaintop mining that toughened the issuance of permits in six Appalachian states.

• Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) blocking legal funds used to enforce the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act as well as funding for an Interior Department climate change adaptation initiative.

House sets up big energy votes
by Darren Goode,Josh-Politico

6 Big Oil Companies Jump on Renewable Energy Bandwagon

Has anyone else noticed the influx of TV advertising for Companies who are now responding to the Green Initiative?  Specifically, the Big Oil Companies.

• Exxon Mobil
• Shell 
• Koch Industries (from my research they do not promote clean energy)
• BP
• Chevron
• ConnocoPhillips

Why would Big Oil companies join in the research and development of Renewable Energy Production?  (That was the question I started asking myself)  My Summary and Conclusion is at the end of Article. Scotty

I decided to nose around their websites and I've Posted information I found on the Big Oil Companies Web Sites. emphasis added by Scotty


The Following Information is from the Exxon Mobil's Energy Outlook.


EXXON MOBILE- Rex W. Tillerson, chairman and chief executive officer.-
"The growing use of natural gas and other less-carbon intensive energy supplies, combined with greater energy efficiency in nations around the world, will help mitigate environmental impacts of increased energy demand. According to the Outlook, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions growth will be lower than the projected average rate of growth in energy demand. 

“Our energy outlook clearly points to a growing demand for energy globally which reflects improving living standards for millions of people around the world. ExxonMobil will continue to invest in technology and innovation to develop new economic energy supplies to help meet this demand while looking for ways to reduce environmental impacts,” said Rex W. Tillerson, chairman and chief executive officer. 

“The forecasts also show a shift toward natural gas as businesses and governments look for reliable, affordable and cleaner ways to meet energy needs,” Tillerson said. “Newly unlocked supplies of shale gas and other unconventional energy sources will be vital in meeting this demand.”

Rising electricity demand -- and the choice of fuels used to generate that electricity -- represent a key focus area, which will have a major impact on the global energy landscape over the next two decades. According to the outlook, global electricity demand will rise by more than 80 percent through 2030 from 2005 levels. In the non-OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries alone demand will soar by more than 150 percent as economic and social development improve and more people gain access to electricity. 

According to ExxonMobil’s Outlook, efforts to ensure reliable, affordable energy while also limiting greenhouse gas emissions will lead to polices in many countries that put a cost on carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, abundant supplies of natural gas will become increasingly competitive as an economic source of electric power as its use results in up to 60 percent fewer CO2 emissions than coal in generating electricity. Demand for natural gas for power generation is expected to rise by about 85 percent from 2005 to 2030 when natural gas will provide more than a quarter of the world’s electricity needs. Natural gas demand is rising in every region of the world but growth is strongest in non-OECD countries, particularly China where demand in 2030 will be approximately six times what it was in 2005." Article Continues 

Next Clipped article from "Risk Factors"

Government sponsorship of alternative energy. Many governments are providing tax advantages and other subsidies and mandates to make alternative energy sources more competitive against oil and gas.  

Governments are also promoting research into new
technologies to reduce the cost and increase the scalability of alternative energy sources. 

We are conducting our own research efforts into alternative energy, such as through sponsorship of the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University and research into hydrogen fuel cells and fuel-producing algae. Our future results may depend in part on the success of our research efforts and on our ability to adapt and apply the strengths of our current business model to providing the competitive energy products of the future. See "Management Effectiveness" below. Continues


Shell Article Link

Shell is involved in 11 wind projects in Europe and North America with a total generating capacity of around 1,100 MW (Shell share 550 MW). Almost 900 MW of the total capacity come from some 722 wind turbines of eight wind projects in the USA that are part of a 50:50 joint venture. The biggest single one, the 264 MW Mount Storm wind project in West Virginia, USA, began operations in 2008.

We are also 50:50 partners in three joint-venture wind projects in Spain, Germany and the Netherlands. All in all, they involve a total of some 170 wind turbines with an aggregate capacity of some 200 MW Continues Here

  WATCH VIDEO: Oil Billionaires Fight Climate Legislation

Oil billionaires David and Charles Koch ...Koch Industries, the nation's second-largest private company with oil refineries and pipelines

LINK... each year, Koch Industries is likely responsible for about 300 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution every year. Flint Hills Resources, Koch's refining subsidiary, processes 300 million barrels of oil a year. This one company -- with its refining, pipeline, chemical, fertilizer, cattle, and forestry operations -- is involved in up to five percent of the entire United States 7-gigaton carbon footprint. Continues

Read more about Koch:
'Financial Kingpin' of Climate Change Denial Exposed: Koch Industries Outspends Exxon 3-to-1

BP 
"is contributing to the growing low-carbon energy sector by focusing on technologies that we believe we can build into substantial long-term businesses"
From Page: BP Alternative energy

Our low-carbon businesses

Developing large-scale businesses to compete with traditional forms of power and fuel

Biofuels

Working to provide sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels for transport

Wind power

Our growing US-based wind power business

Solar power

Focusing on efficiency and innovation in harnessing the power of the sun

Carbon capture and storage

Playing a leading role in one of tomorrow’s key energy technologies

   

Case studies 

 

Chevron and Solar

Harnessing the Sun's Energy link

Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), a Chevron subsidiary, is the nation's largest installer of solar energy systems

ConocoPhillips  is committed to protecting the environment that we share. We implement high environmental standards in order to ensure that our actions today will not only provide the energy needed to drive economic growth and social well-being, but also secure a stable and healthy environment for tomorrow. Health, Safety and Environmental Policy, Management System and Audits A comprehensive Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) policy governs our efforts to improve our health and safety performance as well as our environmental stewardship. read more... Climate Change At ConocoPhillips we believe climate change is occurring and that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is a contributing factor.  read more... Energy Efficiency Since the combustion of energy is a primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, we continually strive to make our operations more energy efficient. read more... Ever-Cleaner Energy ConocoPhillips believes that a secure energy future depends on utilizing a diverse mix of energy sources that are reliable, available and environmentally responsible. read more... Clean Air ConocoPhillips continues working to reduce air emissions from our operations read more... Clean Water ConocoPhillips recognizes that water management is an important worldwide issue and that it is critical to the sustainability of our business. read more... Biodiversity We recognize the importance of protecting and promoting biodiversity, particularly in sensitive areas. read more... Material Efficiency Being good stewards of the environment includes setting standards for waste management, minimization and decommissioning. read more... Remediation We give serious attention to our duty to restore properties impacted by our operations. read more... Environmental Fines and Penalties In 2008, environmental fines and penalties levied on ConocoPhillips totaled approximately $2.2 million. read more...

____________________________________________________

Summary

• Times are changing with the demand for clean energy.  The demands are coming in many forms: increase in population, carbon taxes, peer support, investor relations, Global Government Officials, customer requests, Clean Energy or Non-Polluting Energy Needs "World Wide", etc 
• When I read all that the Big Oil companies are getting involved with clean energy production.  It confirms my thinking and believe that: "Renewable Energy from Clean Energy Sources" will become an integral part of all Home and Business Energy Needs.  
• More to Come

Future Article: How did the Investments by Big Oil Companies Increase the Cost of Renewable Energy

email Scotty