[Vision2020] CO2 Lawsuit: Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Sun Jan 7 17:40:44 PST 2007

W. et. al.

I agree mostly with your thoughtful response...

I think the average consumer can drive corporate choices to address global
warming, simply by choosing to purchase much more fuel efficient vehicles.
If the gas guzzlers sit on car lots with no customers, the auto
manufacturers will make fewer.

Many people do want to make responsible choices for the environment, though
it is obvious that government should mandate higher fuel efficiency
standards.  That much better fuel efficiency standards have not been
mandated by the US Federal government is shocking, and no doubt connected to
corporate control over our government

Still, we have the corporate example of the founders of Google investing in
the new cheaper thin film solar panels that are now being manufactured, with
a huge manufacturing facility being built in the San Francisco Bay area.
British Petroleum, one of the worlds largest oil companies, also invests
heavily in alternative energy.  They even features ads claiming BP stands
for "Beyond Petroleum," gaining a favorable mention from many
environmentalists, though the bulk of their business is still fossil fuel
connected ("beyond petroleum," ha, ha, ha!).

Of course, if governments mandate CO2 penalties on economic activity, this
can provide a greed incentive to address the problem, both for corporations
and consumers (higher CO2 taxes at purchase for lower fuel efficiency
vehicles).  But when the corporations control government legislation, what
are the odds of this?  Which is very likely why we do not see CO2 taxes
imposed in the USA, and the USA opted out of the Kyoto Accords, while in
numerous other nations CO2 taxes are now a reality.  The power of US
corporations to force our government to not impose CO2 taxes on their
activity is probably greater than the corporate control in many other
nations.  Either that or in these other nations the corporations influencing
the government are not as driven by narrow short term greed, and take the
threat of global warming seriously.

A good case can be made based on the long term impacts of global warming,
even from a purely profit/greed orientation, that solving the problem now
will allow making more money in the long run.  But this is perhaps a
multi-generational argument, appealing to profiteers to consider the world
their children or grand children will inherit.  It seems that greed is
usually short term oriented, so despite the long term economic losses that
global warming will impose, these long term losses are ignored.

Of course, many in positions of power engage in wishful thinking that indeed
global warming is a hoax or exaggerated greatly, so why impose economic
penalties based on questionable assumptions? We hear this argument often.  I
even heard it coming from US Supreme Court justices in the ongoing federal
court case regarding the suit that the EPA should be regulating CO2 in
Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

One of the greatest challenges in addressing global warming is thus nothing
more than education regarding the validity of the science involved.  I
listened to testimony before the US Supreme Court from experts speaking on
behalf of those bringing this lawsuit, patiently explaining to the justices
the damage that CO2 will cause, specifically in the coastal areas of the USA
due to rising sea levels.

Action is being taken to address the USA's neglect of the global warming
issue, when the EPA is facing suit in the US Supreme Court over CO2
emissions!  As far as I have heard, this case has not been ruled on yet.

Ted Moffett

On 1/5/07, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  Ted, et al,
>
> Over the long term the most consistent, powerful, and ambient human
> motivation is greed/self interest, particularly when those with excessive
> greed join together to form and to operate various business corporations and
> like entities.
>
> If we want to stop global warming, which as we both agree is much more
> serious than is widely believed, then any solution must take the greed
> factor into consideration as a basic operational dictum.
>
> Hence, the most likely solutions of global warming (if any truly effective
> ones are ever implemented) will have as a postulate of operation that the
> excessively greedy must be able to profit even more from the proposed
> solutions then they are by their current operations which in large part have
> brought about the global warming problem in the first place.
>
> There are but few globally altruistic entrepreneurs.  A current case in
> point is resignation of the Home Depot CEO who received a payout of $210
> million dollars despite his failure to improve the earnings and capital
> value of the company -- greed and the worship of greed personified.  Want a
> local example of greed versus the public good?  Look at some of the local
> real estate developers, running dog agents, and LLCs.  Our local cult is
> another example of personal greed for wealth and power running amok despite
> the dicta of the God they allege they worship to the contrary.
>
> The rich and greedy have a lot more influence over who is elected and who
> those elected listen to.  Lobbyists for the rich and greedy rule.  Sad,
> disgusting, but highly probable.  The richer and greedier you are, the
> better representational democracy works for you.  That is why I posted the
> article about the machinations of Exxon-Mobil.
>
> Ordinary citizens have too many different activities going on in their
> lives to spend time much trying to influence most legislation.  Even when
> they try, for the most part they are ineffective.  Look at the carnage
> caused by drinking and driving -- this carnage could be greatly reduced,
> except that the very powerful food and beverage lobbies and the automotive
> lobbies successfully oppose most needed reforms.  Except when I lived in
> Minnesota and from our local state legislators, every letter or suggestion I
> ever sent to an elected official was answered by a form letter, sometimes a
> form letter on a completely different subject, and a form letter containing
> very little cogent information or reasoning, but in itself, a most clever
> piece of spin.
>
> Ordinary citizens, except when they act en masse, have little influence on
> their national legislators.  The influence shaping legislation, except for a
> few non-profit altruistic organizations, is generally wielded by the rich
> and greedy through their corporate entities.
>
> Want to solve a problem?  Find a way for the rich and greedy to profit
> from it.  Appeal to their altruistic feelings generally does not work.
> Fattening their wealth generally does.
>
> W.
> ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> *To:* Chris Storhok <cstorhok at co.fairbanks.ak.us>
> *Cc:* Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 05, 2007 1:47 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Can Algae Fill Our Gas Tanks & Can Coal
> EnergyKeepCO2 Stored?
>
> Hi Chris-
>
> I appreciate your comments... Your recommendations carry far more weight,
> I suspect, than any proposals I might make, given your experience and work.
>
> If the Moscow City Council and the U of I need motivation from someone
> such as I, with no credentials or experience in the field of alternative
> energy or biofuels (beyond my informal independent scholarly studies on this
> issue, pursued for the sheer joy of discovery and learning, along with a
> real concern for the health of our beautiful planet), to aggressively pursue
> every option for CO2 reduction in energy technology, then the human race is
> truly in d**p s**t.
>
> What about it, Wayne, do you agree with this assessment?  Time to buy that
> new "beach front" property that will inevitably form when the oceans rise...
> Damn, if I could only predict the new "stable" beach fronts of the future!
>
> Oh well, the human race has overpopulated the planet, and it may be poetic
> justice if human caused global warming lowers the human population by
> billions... We will face the consequences of our arrogant neglect of our
> mother... The Earth.
>
> I hope this does not happen, but the writing is on the wall.  Money rules,
> and there is too much money to be made in the short term from relying on
> cheap accessible fossil fuel CO2 emitting energy, though I agree with Chris
> that a reworking of energy markets and technology could generate economic
> activity galore.  However, this would displace other more fossil fuel
> related economic interests, and they have tremendous power to control the
> energy agenda, both in the private and public sector.  And even the average
> consumer may refuse to pay the increased costs of energy from non-CO2
> emitting sources, increased costs that are hard to get around, choosing (a
> choice they perhaps should not be given) cheaper fossil fuel/CO2 emitting
> energy. Energy industry players are now suing the State of California over
> the requirements of the new California Global Warming Legislation that was
> passed in an attempt to lower CO2 emissions.  We can keep the fossil
> fuel/CO2 emitting energy model going for another 50-100 years, and then when
> global warming really scares people enough, it will be too late.
>
> Just read Wayne's post on Exxon/Mobil manipulating science to cast doubt
> on human caused global warming.  Just as the Bush administration has done.
> If the USA, the world's most powerful and rich nation, cannot lead the way
> to solve the global warming crisis, as it clearly is not,
> then...                fill in the blank.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
> On 1/5/07, Chris Storhok <cstorhok at co.fairbanks.ak.us> wrote:
> >
> >  Ted,
> >
> > Why don't you propose to the Moscow City Council and the UI the idea of
> > using the city sewage treatment facility as a source of nutrients to grow
> > algae or duckweed for a local bio-fuels production facility?   The city has
> > spent millions of dollars trying to bring the facility up to current EPA
> > standards and faces spending millions more for future compliance standards;
> > instead use that money to build large runs that can grow algae or duckweed,
> > a bio-fuel plant, and storage facilities.  I am sure that someone at the UI
> > would love to serve as a research partner to such a venture.
> >
> > The city/university partnership then could produce bio-fuels, sell it to
> > fuel station owners who then sell it to the consumer.  The city/university
> > partnership can make a lot of money off of such a facility, address global
> > warming issues, solve water pollution problems; talk about a huge win-win
> > for everyone.
> >
> > In my professional opinion, the biofuels (and alternative energy market)
> > is the next great economic opportunity that the U.S. (and the rest of
> > the world) faces.
> >
> >
> >
> > How about it Moscow and UI?  You can lead the world in alternative fuel
> > production technology using sewage effluent to grow algae to produce
> > bio-fuels….
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris Storhok
> >
> > (former Viola resident)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:
> > vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Ted Moffett
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 03, 2007 12:08 AM
> > *To:* Vision2020
> > *Subject:* [Vision2020] Can Algae Fill Our Gas Tanks & Can Coal Energy
> > KeepCO2 Stored?
> >
> >
> >
> > All-
> >
> >
> >
> > I was disappointed to learn that the biofuel plant planned for Spangle,
> > Washington has gone under:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://spokesmanreview.com/business/story.asp?ID=166758
> >
> >
> >
> > However, in a recent discussion of solutions to global warming and
> > fossil fuel depletion, someone mentioned biofuel from algae.  I first
> > thought... Yeah, sure!  But apparently this is not a joke:
> >
> >
> >
> > Read about it here:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.energybulletin.net/2364.html
> >
> >
> >
> > And while I'm at it, there are promising developments with CO2
> > sequestration from coal energy plants:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-06/features/clean-coal-technology/?page=3
> >
> >
> >
> > Though global warming and fossil fuel depletion are massive daunting
> > problems that threaten the next generation, there are solutions, and the
> > quicker they are adopted, the better.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ted Moffett
> >
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070108/efe30d3d/attachment-0001.html 