January 20, 2013

The Top 20 Climate Killer Banks

A new report titled “Bankrolling Climate Change” calls out the top 20 banks that are financing the dirty coal industry.

The top three “climate killers” will not come as much of a surprise: JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and none other than Bank of America top the list with $22 billion, $18.27 billion, an $16.79 billion invested in coal since 2005, respectively.

As officials from around the world are assembling in Durban, South Africa to discuss ways to combat climate change, banks around the world are busy trying to figure out how they can profit off of making the climate crisis worse.

In fact, between 2005 — the year the Kyoto Protocol went into effect — and 2010, funding for coal nearly doubled. Yes, you read that right: As the world’s leaders have been trying to get their act together and deal with the most urgent existential crisis humanity has ever faced, the biggest banks in the world have been busy sinking as much money as they can into the single largest cause of that crisis (emissions from coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of man-made carbon pollution).

As the report notes, these banks are not unaware of the climate crisis. It’s just that they see it more as an opportunity for some great PR than a problem they have a stake in solving even if it means leaving money on the table. All of the top 20 coal bankrollers have made climate commitments that are drastically contradicted by where they’re actually investing their money.

JP Morgan Chase claims it’s “Helping the world transition to a low-carbon economy”, for instance. Citi holds itself out as the “Most innovative bank in climate change” — which sounds more like Citi is gunning for Chase’s number one spot than trying to help solve the climate crisis, but who am I to quibble with how Citi chooses to word its greenwash.

Bank of America has declared that “The most formidable challenge we face is global climate change.” A fittingly purposeless statement, given that BoA has invested $4.3 billion in the US coal industry, making it the single largest underwriter of America’s coal problem.

Here is a chart showing which banks made the top 20, and the amount they’ve invested in companies that are polluting our communities and wrecking our climate:

Bank in billion Euro Ranking
JP Morgan Chase 16,540 1
Citi 13,751 2
Bank of America 12,590 3
Morgan Stanley 12,117 4
Barclays 11,514 5
Deutsche Bank 11,477 6
Royal Bank of Scotland 10,946 7
BNP Paribas 10,694 8
Credit Suisse 9,495 9
UBS 8,217 10
Goldman Sachs 6,770 11
Bank of China 6,323 12
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China 6,182 13
Crédit Agricole / Calyon 5,637 14
UniCredit / HVB 5,231 15
China Construction Bank 5,110 16
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group 4,980 17
Société Générale 4,742 18
Wells Fargo 4,523 19
HSBC 4,432 20

Data provided by Profundo

An international coalition of NGOs came together to release this groundbreaking report, including urgewald, a German environmental organization; groundWork and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, two South African social and environmental justice organizations; and BankTrack, an international network. RAN contributed research to the report.

A full copy of the study with a ranking of all the researched banks can be downloaded here. The underlying data for this research were provided by Profundo economic research.

Source: https://www.care2.com/causes/the-top-20-climate-killer-banks.html#ixzz1fPhJU9uj

The Future Of Free Energy Is Here Now! The End Of Oil, Coal And Nuclear Pollution

Over 9 Hectares Of Forests Lost Per Minute: Report

ROME - More than nine hectares of forests were lost per minute between 1990 and 2005, aperiod when the world’s deforestation rate accelerated, shows a UN survey issued onWednesday.

The net loss of forests - deforestation offset by afforestation or natural expansion - totalled 72.9 million hectares during the 15-year period, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

In other words, the net loss averaged 4.9 million hectares per year, or 9.3 hectares of forests per minute over the 15 years.

The new data also shows that the net loss of forests increased from 4.1 million hectares peryear between 1990 and 2000 to 6.4 million hectares between 2000 and 2005.

The survey also shows that the worldwide net loss in forest area between 1990 and 2005 was
not as great as previously believed, since gains in forest areas are larger than previouslyestimated.

The net loss was only two thirds of the previous figure of 107.4 million hectares, according to the survey.

The world’s deforestation averaged 14.5 million hectares per year, consistent with previous estimates.

Deforestation, which occurred mainly in the tropics, may be attributed to the conversion of forests to farmland.

“Deforestation is depriving millions of people of forest goods and services that are crucial torural livelihoods, economic well-being and environmental health,” said Eduardo Rojas-Briales,FAO Assistant Director-General for Forestry.

The satellite imagery-based survey shows that the world was covered by 3.69 billion hectaresof forests in 2005, or 30 percent of the global land area.

 

Source: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-12/01/content_14196567.htm

Gulf Coast Stories: Oil, Chemicals, And Illness Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&

Who Will Be Heard In New York’s Hydrofracking Hearings?

If public consultation is to be meaningful, we need expert views, not lobbyists’ millions, to rule New York’s decision on fracking

In New York state, where I live, emotions are running hot. We are holding public comment hearings to find out whether the regulations proposed to oversee the relatively new and extreme form of fossil fuel extraction called hydrofracking would meet the expectations of our citizens. The hearings are meant to give the people whose lives will be affected by this type of extraction a place to voice their concerns and fears. This all seems sensible. Actually, it is quite democratic in concept, unless, of course, emotions and not facts rule the day.

Today, we stand in the warm glow of watching people waking up to the understanding that very few of the safeguards, regulatory agencies, politicians and democratic processes that have been put into place to protect us are actually still doing that. I say “warm glow” because there are actual signs that 99% of the people who have been let down by these safeguards are coming back to life and their hearts are beginning to beat again with the promise of something new.

In New York state, we have seen record numbers of people commenting on whether we should begin to drill for natural gas in our state. We have people engaging and even willing to use their bodies to stop this from moving forward. We have the dismal example of Pennsylvania and its thousands of well contaminations and regulatory infractions to let us into a glimpse of what is in store for New York state. There are homes exploding from methane gas migration; there are animals mysteriously dying; people becoming mysteriously ill; and whole rivers and streams with every form of life in them dead.

Entire neighborhoods are engaged in class action lawsuits against drilling companies. One beloved river is now bubbling methane from a gas well that runs directly under it.

The gas industry responds with widespread denial every time a person’s health, water or quality of life is disrupted from this mass industrialisation. It would be one thing if every time there was a problem, these “good neighbors” would actually do the right thing, accept responsibility for their transgressions and right them. But that has, sadly, not been the case.

One of their favorite mottos goes: “Hey, if you want energy, there are going to be problems, but the benefits outweigh the costs” – unless, of course, it is your well that is fouled, or your animals that die, or your children that become sick, or your property value that plummets, or your ability to get a mortgage on your home that is denied. Then the costs far outweigh the benefits.

If you own a lot of property and stand to make a good deal of money leasing it, or are someone who works for the gas industry and doesn’t live near the drilling (most workers are brought in from out of state), you are for drilling. Everyone else seems to be pretty much against it. Unless, that is, you are a politician who has a lot of lobbyists come and visit your office.

As of the beginning of this year, the gas industry has dumped $3.2m on our state capital (Albany). That is a $3.15m jump from the level of lobbying spend before we thought of drilling in this state; $150,000 of that went directly into our governor’s campaign chest.

What does that kind of money buy? There is a lot of talk from our state leaders to let the science and facts rule the day, rather than emotion and fear. Yet, there are two things missing from our proposed regulations and the “blue ribbon panel” our governor has put together to help guide us in all things drilling: scientists and health professionals are the missing ingredient.

There has been no long-term environmental impact study done on horizontal hydrofracking and no long-term health impact study done. Most of the comments that our state will be hearing in the next few days will be based only on science – and a demand for these two strands of advice to be included in all decision-making for regulations.

Will they listen? That would depend on whether or not the emotion of selfishness, or love of money, gets in the way. We will see.

Source: https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/30/new-york-hydrofracking-hearings-mark-ruffalo

How Cordless Phones, Wi-Fi And Other Forms Of High-Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation Cause Cancer

Many people are aware that prolonged cell phone use has been associated with brain cancer, but most don’t realize how other sources of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation (EMR) also radically increase cancer risk.

Until recently, EMR has been given scant attention. It’s a toxin that can’t be seen or often felt; flawed telecommunication industry-sponsored studies have revealed that current EMR exposure levels are safe, so it has been mostly ignored in medicine. Furthermore, the US government, which receives massive tax revenue from telecom industries, has established faulty guidelines for EMR exposure. It has deemed safe levels to be thousands of times higher than what disinterested scientists have proven as safe. Indeed, studies from such scientists reveal that current amounts of EMR from telecom towers and antennas radically alter the body’s cellular communications’ processes, leading to cancer and other diseases. These scientists believe that the dramatic increase in cancer in recent years has been due in part to the growing prevalence of EMR in our environment. And the amount of radiation that we are exposed to doubles yearly.

New telecom towers are constructed every day. Average city-dwellers have anywhere between 30-100 microwave towers/antennas within a four-mile radius of their home. All of these towers emit high-frequency electromagnetic fields that have been linked to cancer development. For example, one Germany study reported that living within 1300 feet of two microwave towers over ten years triples cancer risk. Other studies in Australia, UK and Italy revealed significant increases in leukemia among people who live near such towers. Many other similar findings have been reported.

EMR outside the home isn’t the only type of high-frequency radiation we are exposed to. Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors, and cordless phones emit high-frequency radiation that has also been linked to cancer. When in use, cordless phones emit an amount of radiation similar to that of a cell phone. (One study revealed that thirty minutes of daily cell phone use, over ten years, increases the risk of brain cancer by 140%). Wi-Fi routers are similarly dangerous. G. Blackwell, PhD, Chartered Engineer and advisor to WiredChild, states, “Having a digital wireless device in your home, office, or school is like having a mini-base station (cell tower) indoors with you.” And with Wi-Max (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) now being implemented across the globe, entire regions will be blanketed in cancer-causing high-frequency electromagnetic radiation.

How to Avoid Dangerous EMR

While avoiding all EMR is impossible, the risk for radiation exposure can be decreased by taking the following measures:

1) Eliminating Wi-Fi in the home and using instead a hard-wired broadband connection.

2) Replacing cordless phones (which give off dangerous levels of radiation even when not in use, because their base is constantly looking for a signal), with a hard-wired phone.

3) Reducing/eliminating cell phone use. Using the speaker phone option on the phone slightly reduces EMR exposure. Blue tooth devices and headsets do not protect the brain from EMR, contrary to popular belief.

4) Draping a Faraday cage over the bed. This is a silver-lined mosquito net that filters out 99% of high-frequency EMR.

5) Considering purchasing scientifically-proven EMR protective devices for the home and body, such as EMR-protective clothing for the body and shielding paint for the home.

Doing these things can significantly reduce cancer risk from sources of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation.

 

Source: https://www.naturalnews.com/034268_cordless_phones_electromagnetic_radiation.html#ixzz1fAZtwvRV

Five Surprising Culprits Behind Obesity and Weight Gain

There is no doubt that the Western diet holds most of the weight regarding the escalating obesity epidemic we are facing today.

Ingesting overly large portions of foods containing fat-promoting ingredients coupled with an inactive lifestyle is the perfect recipe for a gigantic disaster.

While these obesity contributors are widely known, there are actually some other very surprising factors to consider when analyzing the reason for the nation’s continued growth.

Antibiotics Could be to Blame for Excess Weight

As surprising as it may seem, antibiotics have actually be pinpointed as being a promoter for obesity as well as diabetes and metabolic syndrome. While antibiotics succeed in destroying bad bacteria, which is their intended use, they also destroy good bacteria in the gut known as friendly flora.

This lack of bacterial discrimination leads to a shortage in friendly gut bacteria which are responsible for regulating overall health, including weight management.

Pollution has been Connected with Weight Gain

Not many people would point their finger at pollution when searching for a cause for obesity. And while poor air quality certainly isn’t a primary reason for extra weight, it does indeed have a link to extra weight. Research has shown that ingesting toxic chemicals found in both food and the air leads to increased fat storage in babies. A defense mechanism is triggered in unborn babies when mother’s take in these toxic chemicals which is supposed to protect the baby. It just so happens that this defense mechanism is the formation of fat.

Shampoo, Plastic, and Pesticides

There is growing concern regarding various chemicals used in products today and their impact on our health. Chemicals like bisphenol-A, phthalates, PCB’s, POP’s, and pesticides, which are all endocrine disruptors, have been tied to many health ailments such as infertility, asthma, diabetes, and obesity. Paula Baillie-Hamilton, an expert on metabolism and environmental toxins at Stirling University in Scotland, was one of the first to point out the connection between environmental toxins and obesity. She noted that:

Overlooked in the obesity debate is that the earth’s environment has changed significantly during the last few decades because of the exponential production and usage of synthetic organic and inorganic chemicals

Environmental toxins are lesser known evils when it comes to health complications, but it may be time people started seriously considering these toxins when evaluating their health.

Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/5-surprising-culprits-behind-obesity.html

Five Most Toxic Energy Companies and How They Control Our Politics

Energy companies continue to rake in massive profits. They use this wealth to leverage elections, write legislation, scale back regulations and escape accountability.

Four days after the April 5, 2010 explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, the 300 family members keeping vigil finally learned that the last of the missing miners had been found and there were no survivors among them. The explosion killed 29 men, and severely injured one. The mine was run by Performance Coal Company, a subsidiary of Massey Energy. Massey’s Chairman Bobby R. Inman called it a natural disaster,” but it was anything but natural.

Like the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf that would steal the nation’s attention (and 11 lives) just two weeks later, Upper Big Branch was the inevitable outcome of regulators turning a blind eye to a greedy corporate culture that puts profit above human lives. But this is nothing new. Coal, oil and gas companies in the U.S. have been getting away with murder for years. Sometimes it is just less obvious — the slow poisoning of our air, water and food; the deterioration of human health, the loss of homes and jobs, the obliteration of whole communities and ecosystems.

Even as the burning of fossil fuels pushes the planet toward the brink, these energy companies continue to rake in massive profits. They use this wealth to leverage elections, write legislation, scale back regulations and escape accountability. The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) has found that, “Individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans.” Although Republicans have won big from the industry, CRP found that Obama received $884,000 from the oil and gas industry during his 2008 campaign for the presidency.

In 2010 the oil and gas industry shelled out more than $145 million on lobbying and the mining industry spent nearly $30 million.

Which energy companies are the worst offenders? We’ll look at how much they spend on lobbying, how many lobbyists they hire, how many “revolving door” personnel pass between government and industry, how much they contribute to political campaigns (whether through individual donations, their political action committees, or “soft money” to support the party), and the effect of their greed on human lives and the environment.

While the list of energy companies that could be included is long, here are five whose egregious actions deserve national attention.

5. Massey Energy

As you’ll read below, there are energy companies that are far bigger than Massey, that throw around hundreds of millions more in lobbying and have more political muscle. But Massey does have something that has earned it a spot on this list: a track record of environmental abuse and safety failures that rival the big players. And it is not afraid to jump into playing politics either, including buying off a judicial election to ensure a win in court.

At the time of the Upper Big Branch disaster in 2010, Massey was the fourth largest coal company in the country and the largest operating in Appalachia. While Upper Big Branch was the most deadly mining accident in the U.S. in the last 40 years, it was not the only time Massey’s negligence has resulted in fatalities. Two miners were killed in a fire in the company’s Aracoma Alma Mine in January 2006. It was later determined the men lost their lives because of Massey’s “reckless disregard” for safety, according to a report. In fact, an investigation afterward by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) doled out more than 1,300 citations for violating safety regulations.

Upper Big Branch and Aracoma were not isolated incidents for Massey; simply business as usual. A study done by American University found that between 2000 and 2010 Massey had the worst fatality record of any U.S. coal company. During that decade 54 miners lost their lives, compared to just six miners who died between 2000 and 2009 at Peabody, the largest coal company in the country. Massey earned over 62,000 violations during that decade, 25,000 of which were deemed “significant and substantial.” The company also raked in the most fines at nearly $50 million.

An investigation ordered by then-governor Joe Manchin after the Upper Big Branch disaster found Massey’s culture of profit over people was entirely to blame for the loss of 29 lives. Investigators found that Massey’s modus operandi was the “normalization of deviance.” It was not one single thing that went wrong on April 5, 2010 resulting in fatalities of such a magnitude. A whole number of things had to fail — and did fail on that day. Here is what the investigation found:

Such total and catastrophic systemic failures can only be explained in the context of a culture in which wrongdoing became acceptable, where deviation became the norm. … The same culture allowed Massey Energy to use its resources to create a false public image to mislead the public, community leaders and investors — the perception that the company exceeded industry safety standards. And it became acceptable to cast agencies designed to protect miners as enemies and to make life difficult for miners who tried to address safety. It is only in the context of a culture bent on production at the expense of safety that these obvious deviations from decades of known safety practices make sense.

Behind every money-hungry CEO and his corporate machine are public leaders willing to be bought and regulators willing to bend. As the Upper Big Branch investigators found:

As the largest coal producer in the Appalachian region at the time of the disaster, Massey Energy used the leverage of the jobs it provided to attempt to control West Virginia’s political system. Through that control, the company challenged federal and state oversight agencies, including MSHA, the Environmental Protection Agency and the West Virginia Office of Miners’ Health, Safety and Training. Many politicians were afraid to challenge Massey’s supremacy because of the company’s superb ongoing public relations campaign and because CEO Don Blankenship was willing to spend vast amounts of money to influence elections.

It’s not just the people who work for Massey who’ve suffered their abuses; everyone and everything nearby has been threatened as well. In an interview for “Living on Earth” Michael Shnayerson, author of Coal River, explained, “Massey routinely racks up far, far more violations than any other coal companies in the region-and there are some large companies in the region, like Peabody or Consol. Massey just doesn’t seem to care about the environment, frankly.”

In 2008 Massey agreed to pay $20 million after years of Clean Water Act violations. Reporting for the Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, Ken Ward Jr. wrote that the lawsuit, “alleged more than 60,000 days of violations over a six-year period, or about 10,000 days of violations per year.”

It was thought the record $20 million fine and the threat of more penalties would help Massey clean up its act, but just the opposite proved true — Massey’s pollution increased after the settlement.

Massey has drawn the ire of many Appalachian residents for its practice of mountaintop removal mining which uses explosives to blow the tops of off mountains, dumping the waste into rivers and streambeds. The sludge waste from the practice is often stored in makeshift lakes that can leak, contaminating groundwater, or worse, rupture entirely. One such containment pond sits just above the Marsh Fork Elementary School in Sundial, West Virginia.

“If that lake happens to bust through its earthen barrier, it can just roll down a hillside and there’s a distinct danger … that the 240 children of the Marsh Fork Elementary School could be drowned,” Shnayerson told “Living on Earth.” In fact Massey had the exact same thing happen in Kentucky and the spill was roughly 30 times the magnitude of the Exxon Valdez spill, says Shnayerson.

So how does Massey do it? Unlike the big oil and gas companies, Massey has actually spend little on direct lobbying at the federal level, shelling out just $20,000 on lobbying in 2004 and little since then. Although, the company does have some overlap between government and industry. According to a 2010 report in the Washington Post, former Massey CEO Stanley C. Suboleski served on the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission during the George W. Bush administration only to return to Massey as a board member. In all, the Post found “nearly a dozen former MSHA district directors who recently took jobs as executives and consultants with Massey or Murray Energy” — two companies with among the worst safety records in the industry.

An analysis done by the CRP before the 2010 midterm elections found that Massey has also been shuttling money to federal politicians.

In all, people associated with Massey Energy, along with the company’s political action committee, have together contributed more than $307,000 to federal political candidates since the 1990 election cycle, the Center finds. Of that money, 91 percent went to Republican candidates.

People and PACs associated with Massey Energy have collectively donated five-figure sums to three federal-level candidates since the 1990 election cycle: failed 2008 Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jim Gilmore of Virginia ($17,600), Senate Minority Leader and Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell ($13,550) and failed 1998 Democratic U.S. House candidate James MacCallum of West Virginia ($13,500).

In 2010 Massey gave $112,700 to federal candidates — all of which went to Republicans. In fact, beginning in 2000, CRP found that donations to federal candidates from people or PACs affiliated with Massey have gone exclusively to Republicans.

According to Follow the Money, which tracks money in state politics, Massey Energy has given $344,200 in state elections from 2003 to 2010, and employees have added another $261,450 — 99 percent of which has gone to Republicans, including climate denier Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli III.

And during the last decade CEO Don Blankenship himself has given $60,000 to Republicans and GOP-related organizations at the federal level. But the CEO is most notorious for tipping a state judicial election. After losing a $50 million lawsuit filed by Harman Mining which alleged that Massey forced the company out of business, Massey appealed. But not for four years. In the interim, Blankenship funneled $3 million to help elect Brent Benjamin to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Two years later Benjamin was the deciding vote on the appeals court that ruled in Massey’s favor.

In December 2010, Blankenship grabbed his golden parachute and left Massey to a host of lawsuits, many relating to the 2010 disaster. About six months later, the company was acquired by Alpha Natural Resources for $7.1 billion. ANR has invested $174,449 so far in the 2012 election — the second highest of any coal company in the country. Over 90 percent of its money has gone to Republicans. ANR spent $600,000 in lobbying during the 2010 election and it’s shelled out nearly $400,000 so far this year.

Despite being housed under ANR, Massey is still kicking and it is unclear if the culture of greed will change. Considering its track record of environmental and human health abuses, critics are calling for the revocation of Massey’s charter. How much, really, does a company have to do wrong in order for it to be shut down?

4. Koch Industries

By now you likely already know about how the billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, have their fingers in just about everything, from funding union-busting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to trying to take down public education to insider dealings with Iran. The brothers run one of the largest privately held companies in the world, Koch Industries, and one of its key business targets is energy. The company’s crude refineries can process up to 800,000 barrels of oil per day; its pipelines stretch 4,000 miles, carrying oil, natural gas and chemicals; and it’s in the business of supplying and burning coal as well — all under a variety of subsidiaries.

As a privately held company, there is much we don’t know about the Kochs — like exactly how much money their empire pulls in. Estimates are somewhere around $100 billion in annual revenue and Forbes estimates the brothers’ worth at $43 billion. But what’s crystal clear is that the more we know (and we’re learning every day), the higher this company is going to move in our rankings.

Let’s start with its environmental impact. Wonk Room estimates Koch Industries belches 300 million tons of CO2 pollution annually. “The immense profitability of their carbon holdings depends on their freedom to pollute without consequence — a toxic freedom they have sold to the American public, and particularly the Tea Party faithful organized by the various Koch front groups, as inherent to the American dream,” writes Brad Johnson on ThinkProgress. “If their pollution was fairly priced in a free-market system such as the cap-and-trade markets the Koch successfully demonized in Washington (but failed in their attempt to do so in California), the Kochs would be facing costs of anywhere from $1 billion to $40 billion a year.”

In order to keep the money machine oiled, the Kochs have worked to slander the EPA and weaken environmental protections, contort public opinion on the science behind global warming and roll back regulations. All of this has been done by lining the pockets of politicians and lobbyists. From 1989-2012 CRP found that more than $12 million of Koch money went to federal candidates (90 percent to Republicans), making them the second highest in that category on our list.

Additionally, from 1998-2011 CRP reports that Koch Industries spend $59 million on lobbying (fourth highest on our list) and just this year they have hired 26 lobbyists (also fourth highest on our list). In 2008 alone they spent $20 million on lobbying. According an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, “Koch’s lobbyists are known on Capitol Hill for maintaining a low profile. There are no former U.S. Senators or House committee chairmen on the payroll.”

However, many of Koch’s registered lobbyists on its payroll “are Washington insiders with previous experience as congressional staffers or federal agency employees.” For instance, Greg Zerzan served as senior counsel for the House Financial Services Committee and later as deputy assistant secretary for financial institutions in the Department of Treasury during the Bush administration. In 2010 he became a lobbyist for Koch Industries after a stint at the International Swaps and Derivatives Association.

When it comes to political campaigns, CRP reports that, “Koch is also one of the Republican Party’s most reliable donors. In every election cycle since 2000, people and political action committees associated with the company have donated at least 83 percent of their cash to Republican candidates and committees.” In 2010, the number was more than 92 percent for Republicans. In that election, Koch Industries gave more than $1.6 million to federal candidates or their PACs.

Their darling that year was Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, who sits on the Energy and Commerce committee, raking in $79,500. Pompeo’s voting record on energy is in keeping with someone who’s received large donations from the energy industry. This year, he voted in favor of barring the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases as well as for opening up the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. And now he’sgrandstanding against Solyndra. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, on the Banking and Appropriation committees received $41,050 and has also voted against enforcing limits on CO2 emission limits in 2009 and was in favor of authorizing construction of new oil refineries in 2005. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, got less money ($20,000) but put it to good use. Hatch has been vocal in his support of tax breaks for oil companies. Likewise, he generally supports legislation that would benefit the oil and gas industries, for example voting in favor of drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (2011), opposing EPA regulations (2011), and supporting the elimination of the Kyoto Accords in 2000. In December 2006, the Campaign for America’s Future rated Hatch’s support for energy independence at a mere 17 percent.

The highest paid Democrat on the roster was Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln with $17,500. Fellow Arkansas Representative Mike Ross, who sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee, got the second highest amount for a Democrat at $10,000. As you’ll read later, Arkansas is key to the Kochs’ dirty business.

The brothers haven’t been sitting back in the 2012 election cycle, either. Already Koch money has tipped Mike Pompeo $27,500; Scott Brown, R-Mass., $10,000; and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., $5,000, among others. Outlays to federal candidates for 2012 has already hit $433,750 and less than $17,000 of that has gone to Democrats. Senate Democrat Joe Manchin of coal-friendly West Virginia got $5,000.

And that’s not all. A report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund reveals more about the 2010 election:

The Kochs have contributed significantly to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In fact, they are the single-largest oil and gas donor to members of the committee, contributing $279,500 to 22 of the committee’s 31 Republicans and $32,000 to five Democrats. Tim Phillips, the head of Americans for Prosperity, even co-authored an op-ed with chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), detailing how Congress could stop the EPA from ensuring a cleaner environment.

Upton, who received $10,000 that year, made Koch proud. The Los Angeles Times reported in February 2011:

In recent months the congressman has made a point of publicly aligning himself with the Koch-backed advocacy group, calling for an end to the “EPA chokehold.” Last week the chairman released a draft of a bill that would strip the EPA of its ability to curb carbon emissions. The legislation is in line with the Kochs’ long-advocated stance that the federal government should have a minimal role in regulating business. The Kochs’ oil refineries and chemical plants stand to pay millions to reduce air pollution under currently proposed EPA regulations.

The Kochs are also active at the state level fighting environmental initiatives. Their subsidiary Flint Hills Resources spent $1 million for Prop 23, a (failed) attempt to block a clean energy law in California. And they’ve donated to gubernatorial campaigns, including funding climate denier Rick Perry to the tune of $50,000.

While ExxonMobil has come under scrutiny for its work funding the anti-science climate denying movement, the Kochs have been just as diligent. A report from Greenpeace revealed that from 1997 to 2008, the Kochs helped fuel bogus think tanks, organizations and “experts” with $48.5 million. “In 2009, they contributed over $6.4 million dollars to some 40 organizations that continue to deny the scientific consensus on global warming while attempting to slow or block policies to solve the climate crisis.”

Here is what the report also found:

Of the eleven freshman senators who publicly question settled climate science, ten received funding from Koch Industries in 2010, and eight of them signed the Americans for Prosperity “No Climate Tax Pledge” to obstruct policy solutions to climate change. Of the 38 freshman Representatives who deny climate science, 22 received Koch PAC funding in 2010, and all 38 signed the AFP pledge.

So, what has the impact of this been on communities across the U.S.? Pretty horrific. Brave New Films recently released a new video as part of its Koch Brothers Exposed project that puts a human face on the way the Kochs do business. At least 11 people from just 15 homes on Penn Road in Crossett, Arkansas have died from cancer, and others in the neighborhood are sick. The cause of their deaths and illnesses is believed to be a toxic open sewer filled with millions of gallons of wastewater that runs by their homes. The source of the wastewater is Koch Industries subsidiary Georgia Pacific. So far the EPA has done nothing to address the issue even though it is a violation of the Clean Water Act. Remember, those congress members from Arkansas the Kochs have been funneling money to?

The people of Crossett are among a long list of victims. Two 17-year-olds were killed in 1996 in Texas when a leaky pipeline caused their truck to explode as they were going to seek help. The company knew the pipeline was faulty, but didn’t bother to fix it.

Koch Industries has long been known for causing environmental harm. In 2000, over 300 spills they were responsible for in six states finally caught up with them, resulting in a $30 million penalty. But Koch Industries often manages to get away with paying chump change and getting a slap on the wrist. As Lee Fang reports:

Koch funneled large amounts of donations into electing George Bush in 2000 (even sending Koch-linked lobbyists to help disrupt the Florida recount). At the time, Koch Industries faced a 97-count federal indictment charging it with concealing illegal releases of 91 metric tons of benzene, known to cause leukemia, from its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. When Bush took office, his Justice Department dropped 88 of the charges and settled the case for a small amount of money.

And in Minnesota, Bloomberg Markets Magazine reported, “The company used fire hydrants to pump more than a million gallons of wastewater contaminated with ammonia out of the ground. Koch also increased its dumping of wastewater on weekends when it didn’t monitor discharges, circumventing the reporting requirement of its permit, the EPA said. Koch also admitted that it negligently released between 200,000 gallons and 600,000 gallons of aviation fuel into a nearby wetland.”

The list goes on, but you get the idea. There is a blatant disregard for human life, the health of the environment, and the air and water we all need to survive. And Koch Industries is able to get away with it because of its Yes Men in Washington, who are greasing the wheels of their greedy machine.

3. BP

No list of the worst energy companies would be complete without British Petroleum. The company catapulted into the national headlines in 2010 after the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and causing a months-long gusher that would dump 200 million gallons of crude. Just this fall, a comprehensive report by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement placed the blamed for the disaster clearly on the shoulders of BP, which managed the Macondo well. (Rig owner Transocean and contractor Halliburton received a small share of the blame.)

According to the AP:

The report concluded that BP violated federal regulations, ignored crucial warnings, was inattentive to safety and made bad decisions during the cementing of the well a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico…

In the report, the primary cause of the disaster was identified — again — as the failure of the cement seal in the well. While it was Halliburton’s job to mix and test the cement, BP had the final word and made a series of decisions that saved money but increased risk and may have contributed to the cement’s failure, the panel said.

The report said BP, and in some cases its contractors, violated seven federal regulations at the time of the disaster. …

In the report’s 57 findings, only one person — BP engineer Mark Hafle — is mentioned by name. It said Hafle failed to investigate or resolve anomalies detected during the cementing and did not run a test that evaluates the quality of the cement job. Hafle still works for BP.

Not only was BP largely responsible for the largest spill in U.S. history, but its actions afterward were terrible. In the weeks and months that followed, the company was accused of stonewalling journalists, covering up evidence, providing unsafe working conditions for cleanup crews, and remarkably — in the case of the company’s CEO Tony Hayward - complaining about being inconvenienced by the disaster.

They also tried to get rid of the oil by dumping millions of gallons of toxic dispersants into the water, further damaging the ecosystem and potentially the health of cleanup workers.

While oil-soaked gulf creatures — from turtles to birds to dolphins — made the news after the spill, the ecological impacts will take years and likely decades to fully understand. Scientific American reported that, “Oil fouled 35 percent of the U.S. Gulf Coast’s 2,625 kilometers of shoreline before the spill was done.” Also affected were critical wetland habitat and fisheries crucial to the local economy.

The economic loss has been clocked at $40 billion or more. As Brad Jacobson reported for AlterNet, large numbers of health problems such as respiratory, dermatologic, ocular and neurological issues are being reported and are “consistent with exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds, chemicals in crude oil and dispersants.”

To make matters worse, after the BP spill it was revealed that drilling regulators were found to be accepting gifts from, partying with, taking drugs with, and even having sex with employees of the oil and gas companies they were suppose to be overseeing.

As is the case with Massey, the Gulf diaster was no isolated incidence. ABC reported last year that, “In two separate disasters prior to the Gulf oil rig explosion, 30 BP workers have been killed, and more than 200 seriously injured.” BP is also responsible for the Prudhoe Bay Spill in 2006, which leaked 200,000 gallons of crude onto Alaska’s North Slope. An ABC story revealed, “In the last five years, investigators found, BP has admitted to breaking U.S. environmental and safety laws and committing outright fraud. BP paid $373 million in fines to avoid prosecution.”

It gets worse. According to ABC:

BP’s safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the “egregious, willful” violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) …

Shockingly, after the comprehensive government report was released this fall nabbing BP as the spill’s culprit, the company’s stock actually went up. Yes, up. And now BP has just been given the go-ahead from federal regulators to begin deepwater drilling again in the Gulf — this time 1,000 feet deeper.

How does BP manage to not just stay in business, but to thrive? It maintains its empire, consisting of refining 2.8 billion barrels of oil each day, as well as operating 16,000 gas stations across the U.S., and increasing its share of natural gas production, with help from friends in Congress. From 1989-2012 CRP reported that BP’s contributions to federal candidates were over $6.3 million (70 percent going to Republicans), the fourth highest on our list. The company cranked up the lobbying efforts, too, spending $70 million on lobbying between 1998-2011, according to CRP, making it third highest on our list in that category. But BP stole the show with lobbyists hired. This year its total is 47, the highest of any company in the oil and gas sector. According to CRP, “Its lobbying focuses on tax incentives for oil and gas production, opposing mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions and following U.S. trade relations and policy in the Middle East.”

As was revealed after the spill, BP has some serious revolving-door issues. As the AP noted last year, former Minerals Management Service senior official Jim Grant left his government position as chief of staff for the Gulf of Mexico region to become regulatory and advocacy manager at BP, one of the companies his former agency regulated. Reportedly, Sylvia Baca also moved from management positions at BP to a position in the federal government — not once, but twice (under Clinton and Obama). As Project on Government Oversight investigator Mandy Smithberger told the AP, the revolving door between the Minerals Management Service and energy companies is a chronic issue. “To say that MMS has had a revolving door problem doesn’t even begin to describe how profoundly this agency has entangled itself with industry,” she said. “The revolving door has spun so readily in this case that the lines between the regulators and the regulated are now virtually nonexistent.”

Not surprisingly, its top dogs in Congress were from oil and gas states. In 2010 here were its favourites:

  • Lisa Murkowski, I-Alaska, Senate; $10,400
  • Jeffrey M Landry, R-Louisiana, House; $4,800
  • John Culberson, R-Texas, House; $4,400
  • Blanche Lincoln, D-Arkansas, Senate; $4,000

Murkowski, a ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, got Lincoln (also a darling of Koch) to jump ship from Democrats and side with Republicans in a effort to block the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, as Politico reported in 2010. Murkowski is not known for being a friend of the environment. Mother Jones reported, “In Congress, Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski has emerged as the leading-and most canny-threat to the EPA.” Although Murkowski admits that global warming is a real threat — and is threatening her state, too — she’s done little to stop it. As Kate Sheppard wrote, “It’s become increasingly difficult to distinguish her actions from those of her denialist colleagues.”

2. Exxon Mobil

Oil giants Exxon and Mobil, which can trace their origins back to Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, merged in 1999 and their partnership has made them one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world. Today Exxon Mobil produces 6 million barrels of oil a day, supplies 40,000 gas stations in 100 countries and is moving quickly into shale gas, as well.

All this means it has an awful lot of money to throw around (including paying CEO Rex Tillerson $21.5 million last year). According to CRP, from 1998 to 2012 the company dished out $12.3 million to federal candidates, the highest on our list, with 85 percent going to Republicans. Exxon Mobil wasn’t shy about its lobbying efforts either, spending $174 million from 1998 to 2011 — twice that of Chevron, the second highest on our list.

With 34 lobbyists hired this year, Exxon Mobil can do a lot to influence things in Washington. Exxon Mobil’s VP of Government Relations since 2001, Theresa M. Fariello, is a former Occidental Petroleum lobbyist who served as deputy assistant secretary for international affairs in the Department of Energy between her two lobbying positions. And Philip Cooney joined Exxon as a lobbyist shortly after leaving his position as a chief of staff with the Council on Environmental Quality. Cooney has also worked as a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute.

In Congress, Exxon Mobil has a few favorites. It’s kicked off the 2012 election season by giving John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, the Big Oil workhouse, $17,000. Also a favorite of Chevron, Barrasso introduced legislation earlier this year to curb what he calls “job-crushing” carbon regulations and he has also supported opening up Alaska’s Coastal Plain and the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling. This year Exxon Mobil has also given $10,000 to John Boehner, R-Ohio; John Cornyn, R-Texas; Doc Hastings, R-Washington; and Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.

In the 2010 election, Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, was Exxon Mobil’s man. Blunt has earned a reputation for accepting money from the oil industry — a reputation that his opponents used against him during the 2010 campaign. Indeed, Blunt voted against enforcing CO2 limits in 2009, against incentives for renewable energy in 2008 and again in 2010, and in favor of barring greenhouse gases from the Clean Air Act rules in 2009. In December 2006, the Campaign for America’s Future rated Blunt’s support for energy independence at 0 percent.

Exxon Mobil also plays at the state level. In order to protect its gas interests, the company bought XTO Energy in 2009 to get into the Marcellus Shale game, and added Philips Resources and TWP Inc recently. Not surprisingly, Exxon Mobil gave $10,000 to Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett in 2010. And in Colorado Exxon Mobil and Chevron teamed up to spend $1 million to oppose a severance tax on natural gas.

Politicians and lobbyists aren’t the only ones that Exxon Mobil has been giving money to. The company is notorious for trying to block action on an international climate treaty and fueling the anti-science rhetoric around climate change. For many years, Exxon Mobil was the largesse behind the deniers. All the big, right-wing think tanks that have been putting the hot air in the climate denial movement have gotten money from Exxon Mobil: $2 million went to the Competitive Enterprise Institute; $3 million to the American Enterprise Institute; $2.4 million to the Center for Strategic and International Studies; $1 million to the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy; $1 million to Atlas Economic Research Foundation; $1.2 million to Frontiers of Freedom; and $680,000 to the Heritage Foundation.

Exxon Mobil is also involved with American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), having given it more than $1.4 million. ALEC is quite dangerous, as Sourcewatch explains:

Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board … Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations-without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law.

ALEC is a darling of the oil and gas companies, with Chevron, BP, Koch and Exxon Mobil all taking part. Exxon Mobil’s government affairs manager Randy Smith serves on ALEC’s “private enterprise” board (and he also sits on Corbett’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission).

Along with its efforts at climate denialism, which were totalled at $16 million in 2007, Exxon Mobil also has some ugly stains on its resume.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 dumped 11 million gallons of crude into Alaska’s beautiful Prince William Sound. Environment News Service reports that the disaster affected 10,000 square miles of coastline, as well as “fouling a national forest, two national parks, two national wildlife refuges, five state parks, four state critical habitat areas, one state game sanctuary, and many ancestral lands for Alaska natives.”

But that’s not all. Reuters reported in 2009 that Exxon Mobil was found to have polluted New York City’s groundwater with methyl tertiary butyl ether (MBTE), a gasoline additive: “The city contended Exxon knew that gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether would contaminate ground water if it leaked from the underground storage tanks at its retail stations.” The tab for damages came to $105 million.

On the human rights front, ExxonMobil has faced long-standing claims that it hired members of the Indonesian military to protect the company’s facilities in the country. Indonesians accuse the company of murder, rape and destruction.

1. Chevron

The top spot on our list for the worst energy company this year goes to Chevron. The company has indeed moved quite a large amount of cash through Washington and its business practices have resulted in an incredible loss of life. Much of it just happened out of the country, so many in the U.S. may have missed Chevron’s gross abuses.

In relation to other energy companies, Chevron is big — it’s the second largest U.S. oil company and the third largest U.S. corporation overall. Its mammoth size is the result of gobbling up a lot of other companies along the way. It started off as Pacific Coast Oil Company and then became Standard Oil and then Chevron when it swallowed up Gulf Oil in 1984. In 2001 Chevron merged with Texaco, and then in 2005 acquired Unocal.

As the price of oil climbs, Chevron continues to make a killing. Antonia Juhasz, writing in “The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report,” found that the company’s 2010 profits of $19 billion were nearly double 2009 profits and its revenue shot up to $200 billion. As most Americans struggle through the economic downturn, Chevron’s CEO John Watson took home a cool $16.3 million in 2010 — even as Juhasz writes, “Chevron continued to shrink its number of employees and holdings.”

The company has tried to change its oil and gas image with aggressive ad campaigns about its investments in renewable energy, but in truth, 95 percent of its revenue still comes from oil and gas. That might explain why, according to Tyson Slocum, Chevron doled out $500,000 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “which is leading the fight to demonize pending EPA rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Chevron’s also trying to pad its profits by contributing largely to politicians. From 1989-2012 CRP reported that Chevron’s contributions to federal candidates were over $11.9 billion — the third highest on our list (although nearly tied for second with Koch), with 75 percent going to Republicans.

CRP has calculated that Chevron spent over $779,000 in 2010 (with only $152,480 going to Democrats). These were some of its top dogs:

  • Carly Fiorina, R-Calif., Senate; $37,250
  • Davide Vitter, R-Louisiana, Senate; $29,800
  • Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Senate; $29,600
  • Robert F. Bennett, R-Utah, Senate; $24,400
  • Blanche Lincoln, D-Arkansas, Senate; $16,000
  • William Flores, R-Texas, House; $14,400
  • Lisa Murkowski. I-Alaska, Senate$13,900
  • Kevin Brady, R-Texas, House; $9,000
  • Dan Boren, D-Oklahoma, House; $8,000

So far in 2012 it spent over $167,000, with $23,500 going to Senator John A Barrasso, R-Wyoming, and $11,000 going to Rep. William Flores, R-Texas.

“Why does Chevron bother spending this kind of money on the political system?” asks Slocum. “Because, dollar for dollar, nothing provides a better financial return than investing in politicians. With environmentalists pushing to hold oil companies accountable for their pollution, corporations like Chevron would be forced to spend millions of dollars to make their oil and natural gas drilling operations and oil refineries cleaner and safer. Sure, doing so would improve the standard of living for millions of Americans and help ensure we all have access to cleaner air and water-but Chevron’s political activities clearly show the company’s priority is profit-not saving the planet.”

When it comes to lobbying, Chevron isn’t holding back either. Since 1998, the company has spent $85 million on lobbyists, second highest on our list. Already this year it’s spent nearly $5 million on hiring 39 lobbyists — also the second highest number of lobbyist on our list. And revolving door issues abound. Lisa Barry served as a staffer for former Republican House Member Silvio Conte, deputy assistant to the U.S. Trade Representative, and deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Commerce before becoming an executive at several major corporations and, most recently, vice president of governmental affairs at Chevron Corp.

Lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations, which lobbies on behalf of Chevron, employs several individuals who have ties to government. For instance, John J. O’Neill worked for two years as tax and pension counsel for the Senate Finance Committee and did a brief stint in 2007 as policy director for former Republican Congressman Trent Lott. Prior to his time in the public sector, O’Neill worked for lobbying firm Davis & Harman. Current Ogilvy employee Drew Maloney worked for lobbying firm Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh before becoming legislative director for Republican Congressmen Roger Wicker and Ed Bryant and an assistant to then House Majority Whip Tom DeLay.

So, with all these lobbyists, what are Chevron’s big political priorities?

As expected it’s pushing for more of the “drill, baby drill” we’ve seen over the years — so anything having to do with opening up new oil leases and exploration, on- and off-shore, including in the Gulf and Alaska. Of course it’ll be teaming up with the Chamber and the rest of Big Oil to prevent the EPA from doing its job, especially when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

And it looks like Chevron will be relying on its man in Wyoming, John Barrasso, who’s been its largest recipient this year. Barrasso kicked off 2011 by introducing the Defending America’s Affordable Energy and Jobs Act, which is designed to strip the EPA’s authority in regulating greenhouse gas pollution. He told Environment News Service, “I will do whatever it takes to ensure that Washington doesn’t impose cap-and-trade policies in any form.”

Barrasso’s willing to sacrifice the health of the country in order to make sure Chevron and its Big Oil brotherhood don’t have to clean up their acts. David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council ridiculed the bill and Environmental News Service reported that Doniger said the “bill would give the biggest polluters, such as power plants that emit 2.4 billion tons of CO2 each year, a free pass for unlimited pollution.”

In case you thought Chevron was all oil — it’s definitely not. “Chevron has acquired nearly five million net acres of shale gas assets in the United States, Canada, Poland and Romania,” according to George Kirkland, Chevron’s vice chairman. The company has been making aggressive strides to leverage its power in the Marcellus region of the eastern U.S. where oil and gas companies are hoping to have a drilling field day.

At the beginning of 2011 Chevron picked up Atlas Energy for $4.3 billion, a company with major holdings in the Marcellus. Then in May it announced that it had picked up an additional 228,000 leasehold acres in the Marcellus from Chief Oil and Gas.

You better believe that Chevron will be doing all it can to make sure that any attempts to ban or even regulate fracking in the Marcellus are quashed.

In fact, Desmog Blog fingered Chevron as one of several big oil companies fronting an astroturf group called Energy in Depth, which alleged to be a collection of “small, independent oil and natural gas producers” but Brendan DeMelle has found exists courtesy of Big Oil. As DeMelle writes, “EID seems to attack everyone who attempts to investigate the significant problems posed by hydraulic fracturing and other natural gas industry practices that have been shown to threaten public health and water quality across America.”

And even though Chevron hasn’t spent as much money as Exxon Mobil (although it has come close), it sealed the top spot on this list because of its corporate irresponsibility, which seems strangely out of the Exxon playbook.

Chevron’s malfeasance is long, including a spill right now off the coast of Brazil which dumped over 110,000 gallons of oil into the Atlantic. But Rainforest Action Network has more about the company:

Around the world, over and over again, Chevron’s outdated practices and policies have consistently violated human rights, damaged human health, and worsened global warming.

In Kazakhstan, Chevron has contaminated land and water resources and impaired the health of local residents. In Canada’s Alberta region, Chevron is invested in tar sands — one of the most environmentally damaging projects on the planet. In the Niger Delta, Chevron is complicit in human rights violations committed by security forces against local people. In the Philippines, regular oil leaks and spills have sickened Manila residents. Chevron’s operations in Burma are providing a financial lifeline to the Burmese military regime — known for its appalling human rights record. In Western Australia, Chevron’s liquefied natural gas facility threatens the health of local communities and fragile humpback whale and turtle populations.

But Chevron’s worst legacy may be in Ecuador, where Texaco (now part of Chevron) spent 30 years decimating the ecologically rich Amazon rainforest and the many indigenous communities there.

As one of the campaigns seeking justice for Ecuadoreans reports:

Unlike the Exxon Valdez disaster that spilled over a billion gallons of crude during a one time cataclysmic event, Texaco’s oil extraction system in Ecuador was designed, built, and operated on the cheap using substandard technology from the outset. This led to extreme, systematic pollution and exposure to toxins from multiple sources on a daily basis for almost three decades.

In a rainforest area roughly three times the size of Manhattan, Texaco carved out 350 oil wells, and upon leaving the country in 1992, left behind some 1,000 open toxic waste pits. Many of these pits leak into the water table or overflow in heavy rains, polluting rivers and streams that 30,000 people depend on for drinking, cooking, bathing and fishing. Texaco also dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic and highly saline “formation waters,” a byproduct of the drilling process, into the rivers of the Oriente. At the height of Texaco’s operations, the company was dumping an estimated 4 million gallons of formation waters per day, a practice outlawed in major US oil producing states like Louisiana, Texas, and California decades before the company began operations in Ecuador in 1967. By handling its toxic waste in Ecuador in ways that were illegal in its home country, Texaco saved an estimated $3 per barrel of oil produced.

Rainforest Action Network reports that “1,400 Ecuadoreans have already died as a result of the contamination in the Amazon, and some 30,000 more are at risk.”

In an historic trial earlier this year (“the first time indigenous people have forced a multinational corporation to stand trial in their own country for violating their human rights”), the company was found liable for over $8 billion, but Chevron is still trying to escape payment. And just for comparison, the company has already made nearly $22 billion in profits so far this year.

Chevron’s dirty business practices may not be washing up on our shores (yet), but they’re still sickening.

Profit Before People (and Everything Else)

Chevron may have captured the title of worst energy company this year, but the competition was incredibly fierce. Massey looks bent on destroying Appalachia, Koch Industries is determined to try and rework our politics and our culture (while wrecking the environment, too), the Gulf is reeling from the catastrophic BP spill, and Exxon Mobil is still throwing its considerable weight around with all the wrong players.

But it’s important to remember that these aren’t just a few rogue corporations that have boarded a runaway greed train. The problems go much deep than that — they are inherent in our economic and political systems.

Regulations have been made more lax instead of stricter, even when faced with the death and illness of workers, and the growing list of environmental catastrophes. Industry is allowed to pay candidates to do their bidding in Congress, often helping to craft pro-corporate legislation themselves. Politicians spend their time fundraising, and without campaign finance restrictions, often look to the biggest paycheck in order to stay in office. And all the while, these companies continue to make massive profits while being handsomely rewarded with subsidies that come from taxpayer pockets. Big Oil, for example is likely to get over $40 billion from taxpayers over the next decade. To make matters worse, we continue to tip these corporations day after day when we drive our cars, heat our homes and turn on the lights.

Until we unplug from a fossil fuel economy and from a political system in which corporations are given more rights than people (and nature is denied any), then the number one spot on this list may change from year to year — but the real loser will be the planet and everything and everyone living on it.

Source: https://www.alternet.org/environment/153103/The_5_Most_Toxic_Energy_Companies_and_How_They_Control_Our_Politics

World’s Oceans in peril

Climate change is causing our oceans to become increasingly acidic, threatening to alter life as we know it.

“From a climate change/fisheries/pollution/habitat destruction point of view, our nightmare is here, it’s the world we live in.”

This bleak statement about the current status of the world’s oceans comes from Dr Wallace Nichols, a Research Associate at the California Academy of Sciences. Al Jazeera asked Dr Nichols, along with several other ocean experts, how they see the effects climate change, pollution and seafood harvesting are having on the oceans.

Their prognosis is not good.

Dr Nancy Knowlton is a marine biologist at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington DC. Her research has focused on the impact of climate change on coral reefs around the world, specifically how increasing warming and acidification from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have affected oceans.

While she is unable to say if oceans have crossed a tipping point, Dr Knowlton offered this discouraging assessment, “We know it’s bad and we know it’s getting worse, and if we care about having coral reefs, there’s no question we have to do something about CO2 emissions or we won’t have coral reefs, as we do now, sometime between 2050-2100.”

Since at least one quarter of all species of life in the oceans are associated with coral reefs, losing them could prove catastrophic.

“Coral reefs are like giant apartment complexes for all these species, and there is intimacy,” Dr Knowlton explained. “If that starts breaking down, these organisms, which include millions of species around the world, lose their homes. Even if they aren’t eating coral, they depend on it.”

CO2 is the main greenhouse gas resulting from human activities in terms of its warming potential and longevity in the atmosphere, and scientists continually monitor its concentration.

In March 1958, when high-precision monitoring began, atmospheric CO2 was 315.71 parts per million (ppm). Today, atmospheric CO2 is approaching 390 ppm.

350 ppm is the level many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments say is the safe upper limit for CO2 in the atmosphere.

“You see evidence of the impact of climate change on the oceans everywhere now,” Dr Nichols said. “The collapsing fisheries, the changes in the Arctic and the hardship communities that live there are having to face, the frequency and intensity of storms, everything we imagined 30 to 40 years ago when the environmental movement was born, we’re dealing with those now … the toxins in our bodies, food web, and in the marine mammals, it’s all there.”

Bleak scenario

The Zoological Society of London reported in July 2009 that “360 is now known to be the level at which coral reefs cease to be viable in the long run.”

In September 2009 Nature magazine stated that atmospheric CO2 levels above 350 ppm “threaten the ecological life-support systems” of the planet and “challenge the viability of contemporary human societies.”

In their October 2009 issue, the journal Science offered new evidence of what the earth was like 20 million years ago, which was the last time we had carbon levels this high. At that time, sea levels rose over 30 metres and temperatures were as much as 18 degrees C higher than they are today.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon emissions have already risen “far above even the bleak scenarios.”

Oceans absorb 26 per cent (2.3bn metric tonnes) of the carbon human activities released into the atmosphere annually, according to a 2010 study published by Nature Geocience and The Global Carbon Project.

Unfortunately, global carbon emissions, rather than slowing down in order to stem climate change, are continuing to increase.

At a 2008 academic conference Exeter University scientist Kevin Anderson showed slides and graphs “representing the fumes that belch from chimneys, exhausts and jet engines, that should have bent in a rapid curve towards the ground, were heading for the ceiling instead”.

He concluded it was “improbable” that we would be able to stop short of 650 ppm, even if rich countries adopted “draconian emissions reductions within a decade”.

That number, should it come to pass, would mean that global average temperatures would increase five times as much as previous models predicted.

According to the National Climate Data Centre in the US, 2010 was the warmest year on record. September 2011 was the 8th warmest September on record since 1880. At 15.53°C, August’s global temperature is 0.53 C higher than the 20th Century average for that month.

Even if CO2 emissions were completely stopped immediately, ongoing impacts from climate change would take centuries to stop.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a study in 2009 showing that a new understanding of ocean physics proved that “changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than a thousand years after carbon dioxide emissions are completely stopped”.

Increasing acidification

Many factors concern Knowlton and Nichols, but one in particular, the increasing acidification of the oceans, has been gaining more attention as of late.

Historically, oceans have been chemically constant, but less than 10 years ago oceanographers were shocked when researchers noticed the seas were acidifying - 30 per cent more acidic - as they absorbed more of the carbon dioxide humans have emitted into the atmosphere, a process that Britain’s Royal Society has described as “essentially irreversible.”

The oceans are already more acidic than they have been at any time in the last 800,000 years. At current rates, by 2050 it will be more corrosive than they have been in the past 20 million years.

Acidification occurs when CO2 combines with seawater to form carbonic acid.

Sarah Cooley, a marine geochemist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, wrote this about acidification:

“As CO2 levels driven by fossil fuel use have increased in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, so has the amount of CO2 absorbed by the world’s oceans, leading to changes in the chemical make-up of seawater. Known as ocean acidification, this decrease in pH creates a corrosive environment for some marine organisms such as corals, marine plankton, and shellfish that build carbonate shells or skeletons.”

Already ocean pH has slipped from 8.2 to 8.1, and the consensus estimate is that the pH will drop to 7.8 by the end of this century.

Acidification has been the research focus of biological oceanographer Dr Debora Iglesias-Rodriguez with the National Oceanography Centre at Britain’s University of Southampton. She has researched how phytoplankton, which are the major contributors to sinking carbon in the oceans, are able to absorb carbon now and into the future when human impact on the atmosphere is changing the chemistry of the oceans and how this will affect the oceans ability to sink carbon in the future.

“The oceans are becoming more alkaline now and this will affect marine life and marine animals and plants,” Iglesias-Rodriguez told Al Jazeera. “The chalk producing calcifying organisms are introducing chalk into these increasingly acidic conditions, and it is dissolving.”

These chalk produced by these organisms traps and stores carbon, so when increasing acidification decreases the amount of calcium carbonate, it decreases the ocean’s ability to store carbon.

“Calcification affects fisheries because many fish’s diet is based on these organisms, so this has food security impacts as well,” added Iglesias-Rodriguez. “The changes we are seeing now are happening faster than they have for 55 million years. The worry is that these organisms may not be able to keep up with these changes.”

In this kind of environment, shellfish cannot produce thick enough shells. By 2009, the Pacific oyster industry was reporting 80 per cent mortality for oyster larvae due to the corrosive nature of the water.

“Acidification has the potential to change food security around the world, so I think it’s incumbent upon the entire world to recognise this and deal with it,” Cooley told Al Jazeera.

Cooley said that less developed countries that are more dependent on seafood will have less to eat as acidification progresses, and they will be forced to migrate somewhere where there is a better food supply.

Further complicating the situation, rising sea levels, also caused by climate change, will affect migration patterns from island nations as well.

In addition to food security issues, increasing acidification will also cause coral reefs to be degraded, which will affect tourism, coastal protection, and heritage values of coastal regions.

Prof Matthias Wolff is a fisheries biologist and marine ecosystem ecologist working for Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Ecology, as well as a research professor and professor at university of Bremen, Germany.

“Plankton, organisms that produce much of the carbon in the sea and coral, are dying off,” he told Al Jazeera. “So people believe that CO2 level may double from the pre-human times to more than 400-500 ppm by the end of the century, which would be a unique situation in history. This would have a tremendous effect on these organisms that would affect the whole ecosystem.”

Cooley points out that while some species will benefit from increasing acidification, others like corals and molluscs will suffer, along with others that are pH sensitive that cannot control their intercellular biology as well.

“We think there will be shifts in ecosystems, and the current array of species present in an ecosystem is going to shift and there will likely be a new dominant species,” she said. “Past studies have shown us that any real decrease in species in an ecosystem can be a bad thing. On land, we see that monoculture fields are really susceptible to a virus or bug. So if acidification decreases diversity, it creates a less stable system in the future. We’re anticipating, if things go as they are going now, we really could be seeing some profound shifts in what we know and what we currently benefit from.”

Myriad problems

In addition to climate change and acidification, there are many other problems that concern scientists as well.


“Marine pollution, this is a big issue,” Dr Iglesias-Rodriguez said, “There is this idea that oceans have unlimited inertia, but the effect of nano-particles of plastic getting into marine animals and the food chain and these are affecting fish fertility rates, and this effects food security, and on coastal populations. Pollution is having a huge impact on the oceans, and is urgent and needs to be dealt with.”

Dr Nichols describes the crisis of the oceans as a three-fold problem.

“We’re putting too much in, in all forms of pollution, we’re taking too much out by fishing, overfishing, and bi-catch, and we’re destroying the edge of the ocean - these places where there is the most biodiversity like reefs, mangroves, sea grass, etc.”

Nichols said he finds plastic on literally every beach he visits across the globe, and added, “Probably every sea turtle on the planet interacts with plastic at some point in its life.”

Nichols believes that, rather than the polar bear, sea turtles should be the “poster species” for climate change.

“The sex of sea turtles is temperature dependent, so as temperature warms more males are produced, cooling produces more females, and obviously you need the right mix to maintain numbers,” he explained, “We’re seeing some eggs literally cooking on beaches now because the temperature has moved out of the tolerable range.”

Prof Wolff explained another issue complicating the situation.

“The oceans warm up, and this affects spatial distribution of fish,” he explained, “Those needing colder waters need to migrate and change the distribution, other fish can extend their distribution greatly when the water warms, so now they can reach polar regions where they weren’t before. So there is a great change in distributional patterns of the resources of the fisheries to be expected in the future.”

Wolff points to Greenland fisheries as an example of how an area warms up, there are longer periods for fish production, while in other areas like Brazil and Indonesia, productive areas are shrinking and there will be a great decrease in fishing potential.

“This is already happening,” said Wolff.

Dr Knowlton is concerned about how increasing ocean temperatures are causing the bleaching of coral reefs.

“Bleaching causes a lot of problems for corals, because if it’s severe and prolonged the algae starves to death because the amount of nutrition coral needs is not there,” she said. “The 1998 El Nino bleached 80 per cent of the corals in the Indian Ocean and 20 per cent of them died.”

She is concerned by the fact that high temperature events like the 1998 El Nino are becoming increasingly common, and added, “We’ve been having bleaching for close to 30 years now.”

Like others, Knowlton sees poor water quality from pollution, overfishing and other problems that are causing ocean conditions to become increasingly unfavourable for corals.

She believes if there is not a major shift to correct the pollution problem, the next 10 years are going to be bleak.

“Increasing numbers of dead zones and collapsing fisheries,” Knowlton says is what we can expect, “Then ultimately the collapse of these deep ecosystems that are dependent on things like coral reefs.”

What to do?

Despite these grave concerns, Knowlton feels there is something that can be done.

“Even though the long term prognosis with business as usual is pretty grim, we know there are smaller areas where reefs are protected and those are very healthy, and we can reduce local stresses and that builds resilience in ecosystems.”

Prof Wolff pointed out that, while more than 75 per cent of fish stocks are overfished or already depleted, there are a number around the globe that are regenerating.

“In 2009 we saw that more than 50 per cent of overfished areas are being rebuilt because they responded to the situation of heavy over-exploitation, so I’m a little more optimistic than many other scientists. By reducing fishing, we can allow the stocks to rebuild.”

But he believes that in order for this to happen, we need to create more protected areas in the oceans.

According to Wolff, roughly 10 per cent of our lands are protected, but far less than 1 per cent of oceans are protected.

“We need to aim for 10 to 20 per cent of oceans being protected, because that is what is needed to maintain ecosystem functioning and to rebuild the stocks,” he said.

Wolff has been working in the Galapagos Islands on conservation, and cites them as an example of what can happen with protected areas, since there has been no fishery there since 1998.

“If you go diving there you see an abundance of large fish and sharks, which I’ve never seen anywhere else, you see 200 to 300 sharks in one dive,” he said. “To me, this is a promising example of the way we need to go. We need more money for this than for subsidies for fisheries, which is ridiculous. Right now, they are getting as much money as we’d need to manage protected areas of 15 per cent of the oceans.”

Nichols believes it is no longer about trying to avert disaster, but more along the lines of mitigating the problems that are already upon us.

“I think we’re in it right now,” he said, “So it’s not about, here’s how much time we have. The clock in many ways has already run out. We’re still growing our use of fossil fuels, we’re not even in a mode of trimming them down, same with our use of plastic and the plastic pollution generated from it. There’s more conversation about this than ever, but it’s not translating into societal change or evolution.”

Nichols makes his point by way of example of ocean types.

“If ocean 1.0 is the pristine natural ocean, 2.0 is the ocean we have now under the petroleum product regime of 100 years of use, and 3.0 is the future ocean,” he said. “It can either be a dead ocean, or we can come up with some very innovative solutions that right now people aren’t even talking about.”

He said we can come up with new ways of getting food from the oceans that don’t involve long line fishing and bottom trawling, as well as eliminating packaging and taking a zero-waste approach to consumer goods, both of which he says are possible, “if we can muster the political and personal motivation.”

“We could have a healthy ocean in 50 years if we make some bold moves, it wouldn’t be 1.0 or 2.0, but it would be a cleaner from a more responsible set of actions for how we get energy from the oceans and how we use them as a source of food.”

If that is not done, then we most likely will face a future predicted in a 2008 report co-authored by NASA’s James Hansen, a leading climate scientist, titled, Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?

“Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilisation itself has become the principal driver of global climate,” reads the report, “If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive lifestyles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of prior human history.

The eventual response to doubling pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet, preceded by a period of chaotic change with continually changing shorelines.”

 

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/11/2011111653856937268.html

Incriminating - Zuccotti park: Its owner; Mayor Bloomberg & Wall St

INCRIMINATING INFORMATION ON “MAYOR BLOOMBERG” AND ZUCOTTI PARK

Gives a new meaning to the term “Public-Private-Partnership”:

  • -MAYOR BLOOMBERG’s longtime, live-in GIRLFRIEND, Diana Taylor, sits on the BOARD OF BROOKFIELD
  • -BLOOMBERG’S GIRLFRIEND, Taylor is ALSO an investment BANKER & prominent New York City fundraiser. Interesting ‘connections’. Wall Street…Banks…anyone?
  • -BROOKFIELD was given a dispensation from ZONING PERMISSION in relation to another *property*, on condition that Zuccotti Park was created.
  • -The connection should confirm, in case there was any question, that Bloomberg & the owner of the park, Brookfield, are in CONSTANT COMMUNICATION

The Public-Private Partnership Behind Zuccotti Park

There are growing signs that the powers that be feel threatened by #OccupyWallStreet and the movement it has inspired. Yesterday, Andrew Ross Sorkin’s assignment editor at the New York Times big bank CEO friend asked him to check out the protests to see if they were a threat.

Last week, Mayor Bloomberg was asked if he would let the protesters stay in the park, and he responded with an ambiguous “We’ll see” before absurdly taking the protesters to task for protesting “people who make $40,000 and $50,000 a year and are struggling to make ends meet.” And today, WNYC reported that NYPD sources are saying that an “INDEFINATE” occupation of the Zuccotti Park is not an option, based on their talks with the park’s owner.

If the city moves to squash the revolt by evicting the protesters, Mayor Bloomberg and the owner of Zuccotti Park, Brookfield Properties, will be inviting a lot more attention from the occupiers, the press, and the public. The public-private partnership that controls the park has not received much scrutiny so far. An eviction would change that dramatically.

It has not been reported, for instance, that Bloomberg’s longtime, live-in girlfriend, Diana Taylor, sits on the board of Brookfield. The relationship gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “public-private partnership.” Numerous articles have noted that Brookfield owns the park and is in close contact with the city about the situation there, but oddly enough no one seems to have looked at its board (not hard to do). The connection should confirm, in case there was any question, that Bloomberg and the owner of the park are in constant communication.

Taylor is an investment banker and prominent New York City fundraiser. She joined the board of Brookfield in 2007 following a stint as New York State’s Superintendent of Banks. She currently works at Wolfensohn, an investment firm run by former World Bank head James Wolfensohn, and also sits on the board of Citigroup.

Taylor and Bloomberg met, fittingly enough, at a Citizens Budget Commission luncheon in 2001. The Citizens Budget Commission is a committee of elites committed to financial austerity, i.e. tax cuts for the 1%, service and job cuts for everyone else. A group of bankers founded it during the Depression to fight for this brand of fiscal seriousness in New York City.

Coincidentally, Taylor has been the subject of a spate of puff pieces in recent weeks, including a New York Times article, a Talk of the Town piece in the New Yorker, and a New York Observer feature. None have mentioned her ties to the owner of Zuccotti Park (though the Observer piece mentions that she sits on the board of Brookfield).

Taylor has taken some flack for criticizing Obama in the Observer piece, at one point invoking Sarah Palin by saying that he hasn’t come through on his “hopey-changey stuff.” According to Crain’s, her comments “surprised insiders” given her partner’s more neutral position and the protocol that typically governs high-powered fundraisers for charity. One lobbyist speculated that her comments positioned her for a role in a Republican administration, which may explain all the press. She also sounded off about the Dodd Frank financial reform legislation, speaking from the neutral standpoint of someone who made $286,250 last year as a director Citigroup.

The cozy, overlooked relationship between Bloomberg and Brookfield, and Brookfield’s ownership of Zuccotti Park, highlights the very dynamic #OccupyWallStreet is protesting: the control of public resources, and government itself, by the wealthy and powerful – the 1%.

The occupiers have taken an important first step towards correcting this imbalance. The message is resonating and the movement is growing.

If Bloomberg & Brookfield (LLP) move to re-assert 1% control of the park, it could really backfire on them. If they attempt to shut down the protesters by cutting off supplies, or implementing restrictions designed to make life in the park impossible in cold weather, it could really backfire on them.

And Andrew Ross Sorkin’s assignment editor would not like that.

Source: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?8739-The-Public-Private-Partnership-Behind-Zuccotti-Park