Internet Articles (2015)
he sky is falling. Fossil fuel emissions cause global warming. Worse yet, there is no Santa Claus. And, worst of all isn't the myth about Santa Claus or the Easter bunny. Worse are ecoalarmist Congressmen and Senators who actually believe that the sky is falling, and that the greenhouse gases that are behind global warming may also be the primary catalyst in precipitating a new ice age. Why are they worse? Because they have the power to create "corrective" legislation that will ultimately be harmful to the people and to the economy of the United States. Like most things Congress does, the cure is always worse than the disease.
Thirteen percent of the scientists in the world are convinced the sky is falling not because solid scientific evidence says it is, but because the richest man in the worldDavid Rockefellerbelieves it is. Of course, in 1962 Rockefeller, a young man of 47 years who oversees the wealth of the richest clan in the worlda fortune so immense that it exceeds the collective wealth of all Americans combined regardless of their station in lifewas convinced that by the year 2000 the world would be so overpopulated that half of Earth would be starving to death and the other half would be killing each other for what food was left.
Because Rockefeller was convinced that there were simply too many people in the world consuming too much of the earth's meager natural resources, a nod from himand a few million in educational grants from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the Carnegie Trustset into motion a media blitz that generated a groundswell so great that nine old men on the US Supreme Court felt they had the right to usurp their constitutional authority by caving in to purely fabricated public pressure.
The men in black legislated a heretofore nonexistent constitutional "right" for women to kill their own babies for daring to violate the privacy of their wombs. That was the old myth. The globalists now realizet they made a mistake since since the industrialized world is no longer producing enough people to keep the wheels of commerce turning. Social security is threatened. So, in fact, is the Federal Reserve itself. As a result the Utopians were forced to abandon the myth that half the people would be dying of starvation by 2000 and the other half would be killing them for what little food remained on their table. They simply exchanged the old myth for a new one. Three-fourths of the population of the world is without a job while the other quarterthose in the industrialized nationsnot only have jobs, but the workers possess vast surpluses of savings they are unwilling to share with those who have nothing.
The new myth has been artfully used thus far to transfer over 4.5 million jobs out of the United States and into the overpopulated, consumer product-deprived third worldunder the guise of lessening the impact of global warming by spreading fossil fuel emissions over the entire planet (and then persuading a gullible world that carbon emissions like those from Houston, Texas or Gary, Indiana won't create greenhouse gases when they are emitted from places like Mexico or Shanghai). The truth is, as these photos show, fossil fuel pollution is as much a fact of life in the third world as it is in the industrialized nations. The globalistsand the governments they controlhave been lying to the American people about how air pollution, carbon fuel emissions, and greenhouse gases affect our planet almost since the phrases were coined to describe these "catastrophic" albeit fictitous events. Just as encouraging immigration from the overpopulated third world countries to the population-starved industrialized nations with people-replenishment levels as low as .5 to .7 was toted as good for the economies of the industrialized nations. Envrionmentalists like The Nature Conservancy has argued that big business destroyed the environment by cutting too many trees, mining too much coal and polluting the air with too much fossil fuel. The Nature Conservancy and other environmentalist organizations like The Sierra Club fueled public opinion sufficiently that the world's industrialists are now moving "fossil fuel-polluting" factories from the ecologically impure industrialized nations to the pristine, human capital-rich countries in the third world which possess neither worldly goods nor the money with which to buy them.
Most Americans don't knowand probably won't believe it even when they read it herebut most of the environmental and ecology advocacy groups who are beating the war drums against big oil, big coal and big lumber (nature's biggest greenhouse gas creators) are funded by them, and from time to time the environmentalists climb into bed with them. The Arlington, Virginia-based Nature Conservancy (which has become known as "Big Green") has amassed $3 billion in assets by pledging wealthy donors they will protect the 7-plus million acres of America's forests and streams under its control. Only, far too often they don't quite match the rhetoric of their words. The Sierra Clubwhich is only about a tenth the size of The Nature Conservancyis the second largest environmentalist group in the country. It is funded by many of the same donors who finance almost all of the envirnomental groups. Only, the Sierra Club believes global warming is real. The Nature Conservancy does not.
Among The Conservancy's leadership council includes senior executives from Exxon-Mobil and British Petroleum (two of the Seven Sisters). E. Linn Draper, Jr., chairman of American Electric Powerthe nation's largest electricity producerand the nation's biggest air polluter, sits on the board of directors of the Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy remained mute when the Environmental Protection Agency filed a lawsuit against AEP for violations of the Clean Air Act. Other board members include one of the biggest fossil fuel polluters in AmericaJohn F. Smith, Jr., the chairman of General Motors, the world's largest car manufacturer. Another board member is A.D. Pete Correll, chairman of Georgia Pacific. In 2000 The Conservancy paid $7.5 million to a Georgia Pacific subsidiary for 9,500 acres of prime Louisiana timberland to "preserve it" for future generations. The land, however, had been clear-cut and was virtually treeless. Also sitting on the Conservancy's leadership council are other known pollutersL Dow Chemical, Pacific Gas & Water, International Paper, Eastman Kodak, Centex Construction, and Enron.
The non-profit environmentalist group has loggd thousands of acres of prime forests entrusted to them to preserve. They drilled for oil along the Texas Gulf Coast. And, they sold hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of natural gasthat was actually owned by someone elseand placed the proceeds of the sale in their general treasury. (The Conservancy settled a lawsuit last year for $10 million in the natural gas matter.)
The new myth is also being used just as skillfully to manipulate the price of oil by forcing the closure of over three-fourths of the nation's oil refineries over the past two decades as the demand for more gasoline increased nationwide.
During the Bush-41 and Clinton years, most of the refineries owned by the nation's second and third tier oil companies were forced by costly and burdensome Environmental Protection Agency regulations, to cease operations. Further compounding the supply and demand dilemma are the myriad of environmentalist State laws that mandate either octane or emissions standards different than other States; or, in several farm States, that a certain percentage of the gasoline sold within that State must contain ethanol. Or that it must contain a greater or lower amount of some type of oxygenate than exists in the gasoline formulated for other States. Bumping into so many conflicting State laws created a logistical nightmare and a production bottleneck for the refineries. Based on the reality of supply and demand, tight supply mandates higher prices even if there is ample crude oil available for refiningwhich there is at the present time, even with the growing demand for oil from the emerging economies. The crude oil storage tanks at every refinery in the United States are full.
As the US Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee tweaked the Energy Policy Act of 2005 before sending it to the floor for a vote, it was hard not to notice that the Senate version of the bill excluded any mention of opening any portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] to oil exploration and drilling. The House of Representatives passed the bill a couple of weeks ago and many Americans, reading the headlines in their local newspapers believed that well drillers were already on their way to ANWR to bring down the rapidly rising cost of gasoline. In fact, when the bill jumped the hurdle in the House, the cost of gasoline at the pump dropped some 10 cents a gallon. It should be noted that while most environmental groups oppose drilling in ANWR, The Nature Conservancy does not. Nor does Exxon-Mobil today, even though Exxon-Mobil and the Seven Sisters bought most of the oil leases along the Northern Slope of Alaska and held them as the environmental advocacy groups funded by them successfully lobbied the ban against drilling in ANWR.
The House version of the bill which passed by a 249 to 183 vote, was denounced by Congressman Edward Markey [D-MA] who claimed in a CNN interview that weekend that the energy bill would raise rather than lower gasoline prices since, he said, there was nothing in the bill that forced auto makers to make carsand in particular, sports utility vehiclesmore fuel efficient. Markey insisted that the House version of the Energy Policy Act subsidized oil companies (since it protected oil companies from liability lawsuits over the gas additive MTBE [methyl tertiary butyl ether] and it offered them tax incentives to drill in ANWR) but did nothing to reduce or eliminate America's dependence on foreign oil (since it didn't mandate more stringent fuel emissions standards on the auto industry that would both increase the cost of your next new American carand increase the cost of gasoline at the pump through new taxes to pay for the $12 billion in tax cuts offered to oil companies who drill in ANWR). "We can't afford to continue to pursue such a failed energy policy," he said later on the Democratic Party's weekly radio address. "If we fail to reduce our dependence on OPEC oil, we remain beholden to events in dangerous, unstable parts of the world. If we fail to reduce the cost of energy, businesses will suffer, farms will fail and families [will] find it more difficult to make ends meet." Since it was true, Markey could have added, "...and then we will get a Democrat in the White Houseand we'll likely regain control of the House and Senate. At least," he also didn't say, "that's the plan."
In point of fact, that was the plan. Markey, like the rest of America, watched how fast Bush nose-dived in the polls when the price of gasoline shot up over $2.00 a gallon. Without drastic curtailment of oil usage worldwide, or greatly increased production and distribution by Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Russia, many economists are now predicting that gasoline prices will reach or exceed $3.00 a gallon no later than next spring, but more likely in the fall or winter of this year. If it does, it will make a lot of Republicans and a few Democrats vulnerable next year.
Markey, like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], knows if oil prices do not stabilize at or below $2.00 a gallon by late fall, high oil prices will very possibly translate into Democratic gains in both the House and Senate during the mid-term elections.
To prevent that from happening, three things must occur:  America must tap into its known but unexploited domestic oil reserves;  America must either reopen the refineries it spent two decades closingor very quickly build new ones to accommodate the rapidly growing demand for gasoline at home; and  America must expand the research, development and use of synthetic gasolineboth Ethanol and soybean-derived biofuelsas the nation develops alternative transportation power sources such as hydrogen and electricity.
Bush reacted immediately to the trepidation of the American people when the price of gasoline skyrocketed, gaining in days what would normally take three or more weeks. (Of course, without the American and European jobs that are being transferred to those nations, there would be no increased demand, and thus, no shortagesand no gas price spikes.) High gasoline prices, Bush noted, "...have been decades in the making" because of the sudden demand for oil in the emerging economies of China and India. "That drives up the price of oil," Bush said, "and that makes prices at the pump even higher for American families and businesses and farmers...I wish I could wave a magic wand and lower the price at the pump. I'd do that. But, that's not how it works." How it works is finding alternate sources of oiland gasolinenot expensive pie-in-the-sky alternatives for the next generation, but real solutions that will fill gas tank today and curb the escalating price of oil as tomorrow's alternative fuels are developed and strategically fed into the market. Biofuels and liquid hydrogen are just two of those alternatives.
The House version of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained a provision to allow drilling in ANWR. The legislation also offered tax incentives to biodiesel fuel producers. Currently there are nine biofuel companies in the United States. Bush noted that in 1999 "...biodiesel producers sold about 500 thousand gallons of fuel. Last year, biodiesel sales totaled 30 million gallons. That's a sixtyfold increase in five years. More than 500 operators of major vehicle fleets now use biodiesel." (There are now 300 public biodiesel fuel gas stations operating in the United States. Most are in the farming states where soybeans and beets are grown and where the manufacturing plants are located.)
While the Senate version of the Energy Policy Act incentivizes renewable fuel manufacturers who create very expensive synthetic gasoline from everything from soybeans to restaurant grease waste, there was no mention in the Senate version of drilling in ANWRwhich is the most important portion of the energy bill since tomorrow's dreams of alternate energy sources do nothing to ease the demandor the financial burden on the consumerstoday.
Markey, a member of the House Energy & Natural Resources Committee, scoffed at the GOP version of the energy bill that ultimately passed in the House, remarking on CNN that the Democrats "...offered a more hopeful vision of our energy future..." that would have moved America away from an oil-independent past to a "...technologically advanced and renewal energy future." Windmills, hydrogen-powered automobiles, cars propelled by ethanol and biodiesel fuels definitely have a place in America's future, but they will not replace fossil fuel-generated electricity and transportation anytime soon.
In the meantime America is facing a genuine crisis because long before the gasoline is pumped into the gas tank of the family automobile, the price of crude oil will have already impacted the economy. Over the last four years the Democrats have had five chances to join with their colleagues on the other side of the aisle and create a bipartisan energy policybut they chose instead to chase windmills like Don Quixote in the mistaken belief that no real energy policy is better than drilling for new oil supplies in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge since high oil prices benefit more than just those working for Standard Oil and the Seven Sisters. On election day, it benefits the Democrats as well.
The Standard Oil/Seven Sisters alliance and the global oil moguls know a couple of things about oil that you should know. First, oil is still believed to be a non-replenishable commodity. When its gone, its gone. Second, because of the efforts of the emerging New World Order to develop the impoverished countries with our jobs in order to create tomorrow's consumer, demand for oil for commercial and consumer use in the third world is skyrocketing far beyond the ability of the existing oil industry to produce and refine it. The only alternative is to find other forms of fueland modes of transportation that burn something other than fossil fuels in something other than a traditional internal combustion engine.
The experimental hydrogen car, propane-propelled buses, taxis and commercial fleets, and hybrid electric cars are an example of the latter alternative. Ethanol (biofuels) and soybean fuels (biodiesels) are examples of the former.
Currently, in cooperation with the oil industry, hydrogen fuel cell engines are being developed by DaimlerChrysler AG in Stuttgart-Mohringen, Germany; Ford Motor Co. in Dearborn, Michigan; General Motors in Detroit, Michigan; Honda Motor Company Ltd in Tokyo, Japan; PSA Peugeot Citro‘n in Paris, France; Renault-Nissan Alliance, Paris/Tokyo; and Toyota Motor Corporation in Toyota City, Japan.
Hydrogen, which is a highly flammable element, is also the most abundant chemical element in the universe. There is no doubt that hydrogen will ultimately propel all standard modes of ground transportationcars, trucks, taxis, buses and even trains. More than likely, hydrogen will also be used to fuel airplanes just as it is used today to propel space vehicles. However, the technology has not advanced sufficiently to "mass produce" hydrogen cars on an assembly line. Nor are there enough hydrogen filling stations in the United States to accommodate any demand. Hydrogen, when used today, are used in fleet vehicles simply because the fleet vehicles have a "home base" which provides the fill-ups required for the fleet.
Refueling is the single biggest drawback to the transition from fossil fuel to vehicles powered by ethanol, biodiesel, or hydrogen. To date, there are only 300 biofuel stations in the United States. The biofuels industries (biofuel [grain] and biodiesel [oil seeds and animal fat]) grew out of economic and environmental fear. In 1999 the biodiesel industry sold 500 thousand gallons of soy-derived fuel. Last year it sold 30 million gallons.
Today, 73 ethanol plants in the United States produce 1.5 billion gallons of grain fuel. Fired up to capacity, those plants can annually produce 2.85 billion gallons of biofuel. By 2012, ethanol use in the United States will offset about 250 thousand barrels of oil per day. The problem with both biofuel and biodiesel fuels is that its far too expensive to make. Both ethanol and seed oil fuels are heavily subsidized to bring their price in line with traditional fossil fuel gasoline. Until gasoline reaches $5.00 a gallon, biofuels of any type will not be competitive without a government subsidy. The nice thing about biofuels is that they burns 75% cleaner than petroleum-based fuels.
When Congress mandated the removal of lead from gasoline in 1979, it required the oil industry to reformulate gasoline by oxygenating it. The precise oxygenation devise was left to the industry. In the mid-1970s Shell Oil and Atlantic Richfield [ARCO] were experimenting with an oxygenate to increase the octane of gasoline and to help it burn hotter with less exhaust. The oxygenate chosen by ARCO was methyl tertiary butyl ether [MTBE]. Shell Oil and Exxon discovered in 1985 that MTBE greatly reduced air pollution.
When the EPA adopted the regulations of the Clean Air Act of 1990, MTBE became the yardstick the government used to determine compliance with the RFG program. The decision was based on the likelihood that MTBE would be the most widely used oxygenate in the world. Congress mandated that gasoline contain at least 2.7% oxygen by weight. When Congress ordered the EPA to write the regulations that would deliver the greatest reduction in volatility and toxic air emissions under Clean Air Act standards (42 USC ¤ 7545[k]), the legislative record makes it clear that Congress intended gasoline refiners to use MTBE to comply with the RFG program.
As the debate over the Energy Policy Act of 2005 raged in the House and Senate, the Democrats insisted their opposition to the energy bill was not due to drilling provisions in ANWR but was the result of a provision in the legislation that granted immunity to Standard Oil and the Seven Sisters from MTBE the class action lawsuits. The first such lawsuit, filed against Atlantic Richfield over ground water contamination from 143 ARCO stations, resulted in an $8 million judgment against one of the lesser known Seven Sisters.
As Congress began to debate a provision in the 2005 energy bill that would grant the oil industry immunity from MTBE lawsuits, 62 cities filed actions against 47 oil companies that included every American gasoline brand. The new class action lawsuit, filed by Barton & Budd of Dallas, Texas, alleges that the oil industry knew or should have known that [a] MTBE was a carcinogenic and [b] that methyl tertiary butyl ether was escaping into the atmosphere and seeping through gasoline storage tanks into the soil and ultimately, into our drinking water, and that the oil industry did little or nothing to stop the practice.
Senate Democrats vigorously opposed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for two reasons. First, the trial lawyers were opposed to it. Scott Summy and Celestine Evanelisti who are heading up the lawsuit against the oil industry for Baron & Budd and the 14 other toxic tort law firms involved in the MTBE litigation are convinced they will share a hundred billion dollar windfall when Standard Oil and the Seven Sisters are forced to settle to avoid trial. Second, the environmentalist liberals in the House and Senate Energy Committees who are opposed to drilling in ANWR are also opposed to sending an energy bill containing anything but alternative energy solutions to the president for his signature. And finally, the anti-big business liberals want the oil industry exposed to liability even though theyCongressspecifically mandated that an oxygenate be added to gasoline in whatever levels were necessary to reduce air pollution. In the least, it makes Congress culpable. At best, it makes them responsible.
Republicans countered that since the oil industry was required by law to use the additive MTBE, it is only fair that the industry be held immune from lawsuits seeking recovery for damages. For that reason, the proposed Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained a provision that made the federal government liable for cleanups (with a fund provided by the oil companies). Since consumers cannot sue the federal government, the Energy Policy Act would potentially cost the trial lawyers hundreds of billions of dollars in fees.
"The MTBE liability protection is aimed at product defect claims only," Scott Segal of Brace Giuliani, the law firm representing the oil interests, said in a press conference. "No [individual personal injury] lawsuits will be thrown out, wiped away, or off the hook." He added that the estimated cost to clean up of MTBE would be around $15 billion (even though toxic tort lawyers were suing for four times that amount for cleanupand ten to a hundred times that amount for environmental and personal injury damages, not including what they hoped to gain in punitive damages to "punish" the oil industry.
The Democrats conceded that even though the oil industry was required to add oxygenates to gasoline, the Clean Air Act of 1990 only required that gasoline contain 2.7% oxygen by weight. However, to achieve 2.7% oxygen, gasoline producers had to add MTBE in concentrations of 15% by volume. Thus every liter of gasoline actually contained 150mL MTBE (EPA, 1998). The Democrats argue that since the law only required 2.7% and the industry used 15%, they should be liable, and that the Democrats were prepared to filibuster any energy bill that offers immunity from lawsuits for the oil industry.
The argument of the toxic tort law firms is that because MTBE is a carcinogenic, thousandsif not millionsof people risk getting kidney cancer from exposure to MTBE through groundwater wells and perhaps even though municipal water systems; and that the oil industry should be forced to establish an escrow account containing trillions of dollars to cover this calamity when it surfaces 20 to 50 years from now.
While former California Gov. Gray Davis banned MTBE in gasoline sold in the State in 1998 because the State legislature ruled that it was a carcinogenic, the simple truth, according to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Center for Disease Control, it is not. There is no evidence that MTBE causes cancer in humans even though rats breathing high levels of MTBE for long periods may contract kidney cancer. Another study with mice found that breathing high levels of MTBE for long periods may cause liver cancer. Of course, a myriad of studies have shown that just about anything in large enough doses will have adverse affects on someone or something, rather a lab rat, a guinea pig or a person. However, no federal agencyDepartment of Health & Human Services [DHHS], the International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC], or the EPAhas ever classified MTBE is a carcinogenic in people.
MTBE has been shown to cause lymphomas and leukemias in lab rats, as well as cancers of the kidney, liver, testicles, and uterus. In another study, rats and mice were exposed to MTBE vapors. After chronic inhalation of MTBE, a majority of the female rats subjected to the test were found to have grown liver tumors (hepatocellular adenomas) at MTBE concentration levels of 8,000 parts per million. Another study (by the same group) examined long-term oral administration of various concentrations of MTBE. A dose-response relationship was seen in female rats, whose risk for lymphomas and leukemias increased with increasing concentrations of MTBE (Belpoggi, 1995).
The MTBE toxic tort lawyers found no trouble linking the rat test to humans and made a fantastic but illusionary leap to tie the rat research to their clients. Cancer is the magic word that word automatically quadruples the size of any compensatory judgmentand multiplies tenfold to a hundredfold the value of any punitive damages awarded by a jury. When the plaintiff of such an action is the richest interlocking corporation in the world it is only logical to believe that the judgment awarded to the defendants of such a lawsuit would total not millions or billions, but trillions of dollars. The law firm that successfully prosecuted such a lawsuit would earn fees in the hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars.
While the oil industry was required to by law to add an oxygenate to gasoline, its clear to anyone who knows how lobbyists work inside the DC beltway, and how much power Standard Oil and the banks it controls has in Congress. Not much happens in Washington, DC that Standard Oil or the Rockefeller Foundation doesn't want to happen. The MTBE provision was inserted in the Clean Air Act of 1990 because the Seven Sisters wanted it there. Should the oil industry be immune from liability for the cleanup of MTBE? No. Should the oil industry be immune from lawsuits for claims by anyone who injured by MTBE? No. Should any part of the cost of the cleanup be assessed to the taxpayers of the United States? No.
Clearly, just as David Rockefeller was convinced in 1962 that the world would be so overpopulated by 2000 that half the people would be starving to death and the other half would be killing each other for whatever food was left, he was equally persuaded that fossil fuels were responsible for the greenhouse gases that people of the ecoalarmist ilk believed was converting the world into a large atrium where, over the next decade or two, ground temperatures will melt the polar caps and cause the sea level portions of all the nations of the Earth to flood, killing millions, destroying food sources and ultimately triggering a new ice age. Yes, the sky is falling. The oil giants, who control the wealth of the world, can afford the cleanupand should pay for it. They caused it because they promulgated the global warming myth that brought about the MTBE mandate.
The Republicansin particular House Majority Leader Tom DeLay [R-TX] and W.J. Billy Tauzin [R-LA], Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist [R-TN] and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici [R-NM]need to jerk the MTBE immunity clause out of the energy bill and stop playing politics with the finances of the American people. We need ANWR opened for drilling. And, not only do we need a fuel source for the 21st century other than Muslim-owned or Seven Sisters-controled petroleum, we need an alternate fuel that the major oil companies are banned, by law, from owning or controlling. Then, who knowstwenty years from now Post, General Mills and Kellogg's could be the new fuel barons and the "tiger" in your tank just might be Tony.