Uncategorized

Big Oil suppressing biofuels? Obama thinks so.

Well well. Seems Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) agrees with ThinkProgress that Big Oil doesn't want you to know about biofuels.

Hot off the press-release presses:

U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) today asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate whether big oil corporations are knowingly restricting consumer access to alternative fuels like ethanol and biodiesel as a result of company policies.

"I believe that it is crucial for our national security and economic security that the United States lessen its dependence on foreign oil," said Senator Obama. "And if big oil companies are standing in the way of consumers who want to fill their vehicles with cleaner alternative fuels made here in the United States, then I believe the American people deserve to know why."

According to an internal memorandum from a major petroleum company obtained by Senator Obama's office, gas station franchise owners are prohibited from selling non brand name renewable fuels like E85 and B20 from fuel islands or underneath canopies bearing the oil company's name or logo. The memo also said that any alternative location of fuel pumps dispensing alternative fuels must be approved.

This could get interesting.

The Sierra Club’s singing bears

I've never been to Yellowstone, but I'm pretty sure the bears don't sing -- and they certainly don't look like this.

Regardless, you can sign the Sierra Club's petition to help keep Yellowstone's grizzlies on the Endangered Species List.

Energy prices will force a reevaluation of how much elbow room we really need

The Ashland Daily Tidings has an interesting (though brief) article exploring what exactly might happen in their corner of southern Oregon if oil prices keep going up. It's good to see people thinking more about this. Not just because it will help people prepare for the adjustments needed should oil become progressively dearer -- but also because it might help shift people's thinking about what kinds of transitions might be possible, even desirable, even if oil prices flatten out or decline.

But I do think a word of caution is in order -- if energy prices do continue to trend upwards, we're going to have to take a cold and steely-eyed look at our proposed solutions to help people cope. Some of them, however well-intentioned, just might not cut it.

Take a Toxic Load Off Annie

Environmental factors may cause many breast cancers, report says Up to half of all new breast cancers may be caused by environmental factors — including exposure to everyday chemicals — rather than heredity or lifestyle, a new report says. Released this week by the Breast Cancer Fund and Breast Cancer Action, “State of the Evidence” […]

Dropping Acid

EPA asks companies to phase out toxic chemical PFOA The U.S. EPA, having recently discovered that P stands for “protection,” has asked DuPont and seven other chemical companies to phase out use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical used in the manufacture of Teflon cookware, stain-repellant fabrics, microwave popcorn bags, and other scarily ubiquitous household […]

Another pundit on the take

Is every conservative pundit on the take?

Today Paul D. Thacker reports in The New Republic that Fox News columnist and junkscience.com proprietor Steven Milloy -- stalwart defender of tobacco and fossil fuels -- has been receiving hefty payments for years from, uh, tobacco and fossil-fuel companies.

However, unlike other news outlets that have dumped pundits after finding out they're receiving money from the subjects of their columns, Fox has been looking the other way (to put it charitably). Thacker concludes:

Perhaps the real reason the news organization tolerates Milloy is that his pro-industry, anti-environmentalist views dovetail nicely with those of its political commentators. Still, this misses an important distinction. Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further.

It’s biofuel realities that matter, not airy scenarios

All due respect to the intrepid folks at ThinkProgress, but I think this defense of biofuels falls a bit short. There's this:

First, developing a biofuel economy can actually help reduce hunger and poverty by diversifying agricultural and forestry activities, attracting new farmers, and investing in small and medium enterprises. Increased investment in agricultural production has the potential to boost incomes of the world's poorest people.

In what world does "investment in agricultural production" benefit "the world's poorest people"? The trend for the last half-century has been for agricultural investment -- read, subsidies -- to go to mega-agribusiness. If biofuel really catches on, if a robust global market develops, is there any reason at all to think that the same huge corporations won't dominate it?

I was browsing through this month's Atlantic Monthly; in the first 20 or so pages, I saw two advertisements touting the magic of ethanol. Guess who paid for the ads? Siemens and Archer Daniels Midland. Not exactly "small and medium enterprises."

And this:

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Over on Alternet, Traci Hukill has a nice and fairly comprehensive piece up about the U.N.'s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Worth a read.

Coal industry suggests more mountaintop mining; Bush appointee just walks out

Well, they've got balls, you gotta give them that: Coal industry flacks, in response to safety fears raised by the Sago mine accident (among others), say that hey, maybe we'd all be safer if we just blew off the tops of the mountains instead of sending people in.

"Technology has driven the fact that we can produce more coal with less workers, so there's fewer people exposed to hazards," said Joe Lucas, executive director of industry group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices.

The mind boggles.

In other mine safety/brass balls news, on Monday David Dye, the acting head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, was testifying before a Senate subcommittee about the administration's response to Sago. After an hour of questioning, he declared that he was busy and walked out. Seriously -- just walked out.

Senator Specter responded with frustration: "I can understand your pressing other business. It may well be that some of the senators here have pressing matters, too. We don't think we are imposing too much to keep you here for another hour."

After Mr. Specter added, "That's the committee's request, but you're not under subpoena," Mr. Dye got up and walked out.

"I can't recollect it ever happening before," Mr. Specter said of the departure. "We'll find a way to take appropriate note of it."

Think Progress has the video.

Where do they find these people?

Scientists find a new place for humans to destroy

Apparently there's a planet similar to Earth out there. Which is comforting, considering we might need a new one soon.