First The Good News...

I had dinner Thursday night with JD Scholten to talk about... his next steps. Will he take on Joni Ernest for the U.S. Senate seat next year? Or will he complete what he started last year and oust Steve King from Congress? Something else? When I got home, I scanned the Des Moines Register to see what's going on there. The first thing I ran across was an op-ed by former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley taking himself out of contention for the presidential nomination. "Oh, good," I thought. Another centrist not wasting everyone's time. But I kept reading. He's on Team Beto. He explained why: "In 2016, my long-shot presidential candidacy found its flame extinguished between a rock and an angry place in my own party. America wasn’t in the mood for new leadership. We were in a mood of anger, rage and retribution. And in this mood, Donald Trump’s candidacy rose. It was good for ratings, and good for the Russians; but, bad for America. And, we got what we got." Ummm... He ran against Hillary and Bernie, not Trumpanzee. Maybe it was different in his fantasies.

"But now," he wrote, "there is a different mood in our nation. People are looking for a new leader who can bring us together. They are looking for a unifier and a healer. They are looking for a leader of principle, and they are now looking for a fearless vision." He admits though, that "the anxieties about the future are higher than ever.  Our whole world-- and our country with it-- is experiencing the growing pains of a third Industrial Revolution. And this one will change the future of work as much as the last two. Perhaps, even more so."

The way to best judge how a candidate will be in office is to look at their record. Even when one of my gay friends and almost all of my women friends were absolutely swooning over Beto when he was running against Ted Cruz and Blue America was encouraging contributions to his cause, I would ask them if they could name one accomplishment in Beto's record or even if they knew he had served in Congress for 6 years. No one knew and no one could. Beto was a decent centrist backbencher who had caught the zeitgeist last year because Cruz is such a great foil.

Did it really matter if he would have been a great senator or not? He certainly would have been better than the two Schumer picked and managed to elect-- two of Congress' worst members, Kyrsten Sinema Blue Dog-AZ) and freshmen Jacky Rosen (NV) whose photo could adorn the Roget's Thesaurus page forte antonym of "courageous." Low bar... and, it's true, as far as I can tell, he did seem to grow as a candidate. But in the end, he lost and won't be in Congress. So why not run for president instead? Kevin de León's senate campaign never caught on all that much with the media. Feinstein saw to that. But his record is a billion times better than Beto's. No one is asking him to consider running for president now. He'd make a much better senator than Feinstein-- and a much better president than either Trump or Beto.

By the way all that pink beige (I'm color blond) in the map above was where Kevin won and all that blue in the map below was where Beto won. Beto spent $45,356,406 and Kevin spent $1,725,911.

Back to O'Malley's case for Beto: "In his courageous run for U.S. Senate in Texas, O’Rourke ran a disciplined and principled campaign that also managed to be raw, authentic, and real. He spoke to the American values of honesty, compassion for one another, and courage in the face of a rapidly changing future. These are the American values alive and well in the hearts of our young people. These are the values which tell us where America is headed. And with these values, O’Rourke very nearly defeated the incumbent senator and Republican runner-up for president-- in Texas. The fearless vision and unifying message which brought people together in Texas also sparked imaginations all across our country. And, I believe, will again-- if Beto O’Rourke runs for president."

You might expect a centrist hack nothing like O'Malley to tamp down the very idea of policy and agenda. He doesn't disappoint. It's an issues-free Op-Ed. It's about beating the boogie-man, not about presenting an alternative. Maybe that's why O'Malley-- who presented himself as a basically policy null "unifier"-- never took off in 2016 and only managed to win one congressional endorsement (Eric Swalwell), no states, no delegates, 0.54% of the votes in the Iowa caucuses, 667 votes in New Hampshire (compared to 152,193 for Bernie and 95,355 for Hillary, the other corporate candidate). Before finally withdrawing he was encouraging another corporatist, Joe Biden, to jump into the race and he was insisting Bernie agenda was not "pragmatic"-- one of the words-- like pie-in-the-sky-- that vision-free centrists use to rail against progressivism. His case for himself, in the first debate, was that voters wanted a fresh face. But what is a fresh face? Someone who has never accomplished anything significant previously, so is basically unknown? "We cannot be this dissatisfied with our gridlocked national politics and an economy where 70 percent of us are earning the same or less than we were 12 years ago," he insisted, "and think that a resort to old names is going to move us forward. I respect what Secretary Clinton and her husband have done for our country. But our country needs new leadership to move forward."

In his vote-for-Beto op-ed he wrote the same blather: "The challenges we face will not solve themselves. Building an economy that works for all of us, reversing climate change, passing immigration reform-- they all require leadership. O’Rourke has the wisdom to listen, the courage to lead, and a rock-solid faith in the powerful goodness of our nation. Because he is of a new generation, O’Rourke understands that a new way of governing-- with openness, transparency, and performance-- is called for to tackle our problems in the Information Age. And because he is from a border state, O’Rourke understands the enduring symbol of our country is not the barbed wire fence, it is the Statue of Liberty. So, while I will not be running in 2020, I would like to put my faith and trust in a fearless American future-- an American future large enough for all of our children.  Like so many other Americans, I believe we need new leadership to make that future a reality. And, I believe the new leader who can best bring us together and turn us around to create that better American future, is Beto O’Rourke."

Empty chit chat. Until this week, Beto was still a member of Congress-- one of the minority of Democrats who wasn't a sponsor of Medicare-For-All and one of the Democrats who refused to sign onto the Green New Deal. But good with generalities. And Kennedy-esque looks. Better bet-- one O'Malley and other corporatists would never want to see in office-- is Bernie, someone who stands for actual real things that would transform the country. And if you want to signal your agreement with what Bernie is working towards and contribute to his campaign... that's what the Blue America 2020 presidential thermometer on the right is for. Thursday, Common Dreams published an essay by Jon Queally on the nascent Bernie 2020 campaign. "While there has been no official announcement from Sanders at this point," he wrote, "the grassroots movement born during his 2016 run for the Democratic nomination is already gearing up for what they believe is now a certainty... Karen Bernal, a member of the Bernie Delegate Network and chair of the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus, believes at this point there is no other choice nearly as good. 'As the standard-bearer of policies finally considered mainstream by the base of our party,' Bernal said, 'the importance of his presence in the upcoming presidential election cycle cannot be overstated. Without him, the resistance to oligarchy and the war machine suffers. We need Bernie to keep speaking truth to and about power.'"

MoveOn Announces Presidential Endorsement Vote

To go straight to the vote, click here.

by Gaius Publius

Things like this can matter. Like DFA before it, the multi-million member organization MoveOn will hold a vote of its members to determine a possible 2016 presidential endorsement. Note that the vote starts Thursday, January 7 and runs through essentially midnight on Sunday, January 10 (technically, through 2:59 am Monday ET, 11:59 pm Sunday PT).

That's a very narrow window, so if you're a member, you want to get your vote in now. Also, note that for an endorsement, a candidate must win a super-majority, or two-thirds, of the votes cast. So if you care about this, tell your friends. Full details below.

MoveOn to Launch Presidential Endorsement Vote on Thursday

By Nick Berning. Tuesday, January 5 2016

Vote open to full MoveOn membership will begin at noon Eastern on Thursday and run through 2:59 a.m. Eastern Monday morning; vote continues MoveOn’s history of putting members in driver’s seat on key decisions.

WASHINGTON, DC — MoveOn.org Political Action announced today that it will hold a formal vote of its membership to determine whether the organization will endorse a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination prior to the first caucuses and primaries.

In order for a candidate to earn MoveOn’s endorsement, she or he must win at least two-thirds of the vote in a four-way ballot between Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, and a “do not endorse” option. The vote opens at noon Eastern on Thursday and will run until 2:59 a.m. Eastern Monday morning.

“A key reason MoveOn exists is to elevate ordinary people’s voices in our democracy, which has been rigged by the undue influence of big money and powerful interests—and that’s exactly what this vote is about,” said Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action. “This vote gives millions of MoveOn members across the country a chance to weigh in on the presidential race prior to the Iowa caucuses, and if there is substantial alignment among our membership, MoveOn will endorse and work to elect the candidate MoveOn members support.”

In 2004, MoveOn declined to endorse any Democratic candidate for president during the primaries after a vote of the membership showed Howard Dean leading with 44 percent, but no candidate meeting the endorsement threshold. In 2008, shortly before the Super Tuesday primaries, MoveOn members endorsed Barack Obama with a vote of 70 percent and then raised funds and mobilized volunteers to support him.

If MoveOn members vote to endorse a candidate now, MoveOn will mobilize to help that candidate win. And regardless of whether MoveOn members endorse a candidate during the primaries, after the Democratic National Convention this summer, MoveOn plans to go all out to keep a Republican out of the White House—in line with what members around the country have called for.

The rules for MoveOn’s 2016 endorsement vote follow.

Rules:

• Voting is open to anyone who has been a MoveOn member prior to the start of the voting period. While any person may cast a ballot, only the votes of MoveOn members prior to the start of the vote will be counted.
   
• You may change your vote as many times as you like, but only your final vote will be counted.
   
• Members will be asked to choose between endorsing Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, and making no endorsement.
   
• Voting opens Thursday, January 7 at noon ET / 9 a.m. PT and closes at 2:59 a.m. ET Monday, January 11 / 11:59 p.m. PT Sunday, January 10. 
   
• This is a big decision, and one thing we’ve heard loud and clear from MoveOn members is that it’s important for us to stand together. To win the 2016 presidential endorsement of MoveOn members, a candidate must earn a supermajority—67%, or, technically, 66.67%—of votes cast. If no candidate hits that threshold, we won’t endorse in the Democratic presidential primary.
   
• If an endorsement is made, we’ll run a 100% positive campaign for that candidate.
   
• No matter who’s endorsed in the primary, if members choose to make an endorsement, we’ve heard loud and clear that MoveOn members of all stripes want us to work to support the Democratic nominee in keeping a Republican out of the White House–and we’ll do that.

We’ll announce the results on Tuesday, January 12 after a secure confirmation of the ballots cast.

How to vote (from the same link):

HOW TO VOTE:

If you already regularly receive emails from MoveOn.org, you are a member and eligible to vote. You will receive a ballot via email when voting starts.

If you are not sure if you are a member or know you are not yet a member and would like to become one prior to the start of voting, simply signing any MoveOn Petition or filling out the “your email*” box on the MoveOn.org homepage and then clicking the “Join MoveOn” button will ensure that you are added as a member and that you will receive a ballot.

The direct vote link is here. If you're a member, do vote. A member-driven endorsement from an organization this size can matter.

If you wish to become a member, click here and look on the right, just below the banner, for a text field with the words Your email* and a blue button that says "Join MoveOn". (The asterisk means the email field is required.) Fill in the email field and click Join. 

Side note: If I'm not mistaken, there's another, similar organization — PCCC — that so far has not followed the MoveOn and DFA lead. Are you a member of that one too? Maybe they need to be asked, politely of course, when they plan to allow their members to vote on a presidential endorsement. There a nice PCCC Contact page here that seems designed for that purpose. Do use it if you have the same question I do.

GP

A DOJ Lawsuit Against Exxon, a "Slam Dunk" to Win, Would Threaten Investors and Possibly Executives

Collapses, once they start, often happen quickly (chart source)

by Gaius Publius

Sorry about the long title, but all three pieces of it — the "slam dunk," the threat to investors, the threat to executives — are important.

Your background. Bernie Sanders and Sheldon Whitehouse in the Senate, and Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier in the House, have called on the Department of Justice to investigate ExxonMobil for possibly perpetrating fraud, and if warranted, launch a RICO investigation of the company (and other fossil fuel companies) similar to the tobacco industry lawsuit it launched, and won, more than a decade ago. In addition, four House members including Ted Lieu have also called on the SEC to investigate Exxon for fraud, perhaps under the Sarbanes-Oxley law.

From Sen. Sanders' letter (quoted here):

"I am writing regarding a potential instance of corporate fraud - behavior that may qualify as a violation of federal law."

I've written about this a number of times, as have others, notably Bill McKibben. Here I want to look at what a set of investigations might mean. My source is this piece from Seeking Alpha, an investor-oriented site. At the end, I've appended a request for our Democratic candidates for president in the form of a speech I'd like one of them to give.

A "Slam Dunk" to Win

The first point from my headline is this: So many damaging Exxon documents have already been made public, that according to Seeking Alpha, a Department of Justice lawsuit would be a "slam dunk" to win. Duane Bair at Seeking Alpha:

On October 20, 2015, Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking the Department of Justice to investigate allegations made public through an in-depth expose by InsideClimate News. The Pulitzer Prize winning group is dedicated to providing objective facts regarding the debate around energy and climate change. The reporters spoke with hundreds of former Exxon scientists and executives, combed through thousands of pages of scientific studies and thousands of in-house memos. Their findings are astonishing. [...]

Here Bair details why those findings are "astonishing." I urge you to click through if you want a fast summary of the extend of the wrong done by Exxon executives, and how far back that wrong-doing goes.

After detailing the many ways this lawsuit would be identical to the tobacco case — the comparison, as Bair lays it out, is striking — he then concludes (my emphasis):

If the DOJ opts to take up the case, as Senator Sanders and several members of Congress have suggested they do, it would appear to be a slam dunk case for the Justice Department.

At this point, it would be almost corrupt (though not in the money sense) for the Justice Department not to investigate.

A Threat to Investors

My second point from the headline is this: As much as a RICO lawsuit would threaten the reputation of all fossil fuel companies (and it would) — and be a true game-changer in the climate debate (it would be that too) — a RICO suit could also destroy the companies' stock valuations. If that's not a threat to investors, I don't know what is.

Now remember the rule about collapses — once they start, they often happen quickly. In addition to the four charts at the top of this piece, I could have shown any number of stock market collapses. In 1933, you could have bought a typical S&P stock for pennies on the dollar, but then you'd have to wait until after Eisenhower was elected president, a full generation, for the price to recover.

The problem with a stock collapse in the carbon industry is that prices may never recover. After all, carbon extraction is a doomed industry. Yes, we'll need carbon for energy for a while, but that while needs to be as short as possible. One of the consequences of a RICO investigation would be that while the suit is going on, its investors are looking at loss of value.

Bair again:

For investors, this [a RICO lawsuit] is a material concern. The cost of defending against a federal investigation will weigh down earnings, distract management and cause public outcry. In the light of a presidential campaign, the intense media attention should be taken seriously. Despite the remaining wide use of tobacco products, American tobacco companies have never recovered from the years of litigation and class action lawsuits. That industry is in a slow decline. If Bernie Sanders has his way, the same fate is imminent for Exxon Mobil.

Three points here:

1. Would you invest in a stock whose price was declining over a protracted period, or collapsing, even if that decline or collapse was deemed temporary? If you wouldn't, who would? Investors in cases like these won't reenter a market until they think the price has found a bottom.
    
2. What kind of turmoil would the fossil fuel industry find itself in, if it could not finance its operations, even if its product was deemed necessary? Would this turmoil itself not accelerate a stock price collapse?
    
3. If investors won't put new money into an industry they deem temporarily toxic, even one as (currently) vital as carbon extraction, wouldn't that accelerate investment in a promising and necessary replacement industry, like renewables?

If investors won't risk their money buying carbon stock; if the industry's stock prices fall precipitously; if there's an accelerated demand for a replacement (again, renewables) whose investment price is deemed likely to rise — how is any of that not good?

And if that weren't enough of an incentive to force this legal action, there's more.

A Threat to Executives

A final point, one that's not made by the Seeking Alpha article but that has to be considered. The Sarbanes-Oxley law makes corporate executives personally and criminally liable for fraudulent statements on annual and quarterly reports that go out under their signature. The value of corporate assets — including, in the case of the carbon industry, its oil, gas and coal reserves — is part of every annual statement. If a corporation knows, for example, that climate change will inevitably "strand" (render valueless) a large percentages of those assets, and yet misdeclares and knowingly overvalues those assets ... well, that sounds like investor fraud to me.

Could this man, Rex Tillerson, Exxon CEO, go to jail for committing criminal fraud under Sarbanes-Oxley? If he's guilty, should he?

Once a Sarbanes-Oxley investigate starts, especially in the roiling climate of a RICO investigation, you may see not just price chaos, but CEO chaos as well — by which I mean the chaos of CEOs mounting their corporate jets for Switzerland, family and numbered bank accounts in hand.

It's Going To Take Force

It's going to take force, not discussion, to end the death grip of the carbon industry, and lawsuits are force. Just ask the tobacco industry.

Look, this business has to die, selling carbon as fuel, and at the fastest possible rate. To ensure the best possible future for ourselves and our children, we need to switch to 100% renewable energy starting now and at a WWII "wartime production" pace. Yet this industry is so wealthy and so "connected" — after all, both Obama and Clinton have supported more extraction, even while speaking against it — that its executives will not stand down, will not stop, until they are forced to.

This is the crucial question, isn't it? Are we willing to force them to stand down? Many of us are; perhaps many of you are as well. If so, god and the U.S. criminal code has given us an incredibly powerful tool. The tool is, in fact, so powerful that on consideration, I fully understand why Loretta Lynch and Barack Obama may be afraid to use it. Given what's been revealed about Exxon already, a RICO suit against the big carbon companies would be a slam dunk.

I'd bet money that the government is afraid to use it ... precisely because it would work.

A Call to Democratic Presidential Candidates

So I make this appeal. If any pro-climate Democratic presidential candidate makes the following statement, she or he would be greeted as a hero by the large majority of the country that is actually starting to see the problem clearly. Here's the statement, as plainly as I can write it, as a series of easy-to-digest bullet points:

▪ If I am elected, I will immediately appoint an Attorney General who will open a RICO investigation into the fossil fuel industry. I do not need Congress to give me permission. Investigating fraud under the U.S. criminal code is the job of the Justice Department, and I will appoint only someone who will do that job, starting on day one.

▪ In addition, if I am elected, and if it is determined that the fossil fuel industry has violated the corporate fraud law known as Sarbanes-Oxley, I will see that law enforced, even against the executives themselves, to the extent the law provides.

▪ Why will I do this? Because as president I'm sworn to enforce the law. It is my duty, and if you elect me to this office, I will do the duties of the office, all of them, in a responsible manner.

▪ But there's more. I am also doing this because I have children and grandchildren. Many of you have children and grandchildren as well. Almost every climate scientist on earth is telling us that we are facing an emergency unlike any our species has ever encountered. Many of you, a great many of you, are coming to that realization as well. It's a simple fact. We see it every day. This planet, our home, is becoming less and less habitable. That degradation has to stop, and it will only stop when we stop emitting carbon into the air. It's that simple ... that easy.

▪ So I am doing my part, and I will do more. I have a duty, we all have a duty, to our children and grandchildren, to leave the planet as habitable as it was when we, your generation and my generation, were born into it.

▪ That is also the duty and the goal of your government, to protect our common inheritance, and I will aggressively pursue that goal with every tool of the executive branch.

You have my word.

It's a simple thing to say, grounded in both simple truths and simple next-step actions. Giving some form of the above speech is almost a no-brainer, assuming a presidential candidate who "gets it" about carbon and the climate. Here's what our future looks like if we don't act.

Atmospheric CO2 for the last 450 million years. Over these time frames, CO2 tracks to average planetary temperature. For most of this period the earth has been hot. The genus Homo is less than three million years old. At no point in our past as a species was CO2 higher than it is today, at 400 ppm. The projected spike in CO2 at the far right correlates to about +7°C warming in a "business as usual" scenario. How warm would you like our planet to become? (source; click to enlarge)

Mr. Sanders, Mr. O'Malley, Ms.Clinton — are you ready to defend the future of our children? Feel free to make this speech on the first day it makes sense to do so.

(If you would like to add your name to a "Prosecute Exxon" petition, click here. Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you like, you can help him here; adjust the split any way you wish at the link.)

GP

Sanders Officially Requests Fraud Investigation by AG Lynch into Exxon

Exxon knew, and they still know.

by Gaius Publius

Senator Sanders to Attorney General Lynch on Exxon:

"We are writing regarding a potential instance of corporate fraud - behavior that may qualify as a violation of federal law."

And that's how it's done.

Bernie Sanders, from his Senate office, has asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to "form a taskforce by December 19, 2015, to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to launch an official inquiry against any actors and entities involved." Why? Because of "a potential instance of corporate fraud – behavior that may ultimately qualify as a violation of federal law."

Sanders cites the Inside Climate News stories we've been following here and here. If the taskforce he asks for does determine there is sufficient evidence to launch an inquiry, we're in RICO territory.

I should add that the O'Malley campaign has also signaled it's onboard with RICO as well (via Twitter). This is much more forceful, though both are helpful. Thanks to both candidates for their strong pro-climate efforts.

The Sanders press release is here. The letter is here and reprinted below. The trove of Exxon documents published by Inside Climate News is here.

October 20, 2015

The Honorable Loretta Lynch
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

I am writing concerning a potential instance of corporate fraud – behavior that may ultimately qualify as a violation of federal law. I respectfully request the Department investigate these allegations, and take appropriate action if the investigation yields evidence of wrongdoing.

According to an eight-month investigation by journalists at Inside Climate News, Exxon – now ExxonMobil – may have conducted extensive research on climate change as early as 1977. As a result, it appears that top Exxon scientists concluded both that climate change is real and that it was caused in part by the carbon pollution resulting from use of Exxon’s petroleum-based products. In addition, the purported internal business memoranda accompanying the news report asserted that Exxon’s so-called “climate research program” was launched in response to a perceived existential threat to its business model.

In 1998, the New York Times reported that Exxon participated in the American Petroleum Institute’s Global Climate Science Communications Plan, an effort aimed at stressing “uncertainty” on climate science. Exxon has since contributed more than $31 million since 1998 to think tanks and organizations that cast doubt on mainstream climate science.

These reports, if true, raise serious allegations of a misinformation campaign that may have caused public harm similar to the tobacco industry’s actions – conduct that led to federal racketeering convictions. Based on available public information, it appears that Exxon knew its product was causing harm to the public, and spent millions of dollars to obfuscate the facts in the public discourse. The information that has come to light about Exxon’s past activities raises potentially serious concerns that should be investigated.

I am heartened that, according to your September 9, 2015, memorandum “[f]ighting corporate fraud and other misconduct is a top priority of the Department of Justice.” I request that the Department form a taskforce by December 19, 2015, to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to launch an official inquiry against any actors and entities involved. I look forward to hearing the Department’s recommendations in a timely manner.

Thank you for your time and close consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Bernard Sanders
United States Senator

Bold moves like this are what we need. Next up? Ask what Hillary Clinton thinks. If she agrees with Sanders and O'Malley, we have a trifecta.

If you want to sign a petition asking the government to prosecute Exxon, go here.

And if you'd like to say thank you to Bernie Sanders for this excellent advocacy of the people's interest, you can do so here. Adjust the split any way you like at the link.

GP

Exxon knew, and they still know.

Bill McKibben Arrested at an Exxon Station in Vermont

Bill McKibben: "At Mobil station in Vt. Exxonknew@tumblr.com"

by Gaius Publius

I swear, the first political campaign to say "As president, I will RICO the fossil fuel companies" will make a hell of a splash. (More on that below.)

The news is that climate advocate Bill McKibben has gotten himself arrested in protest because, as his Tumblr site says, "Exxon Knew." But the biggest takeaway, for you, is this, from the middle of McKibben's explanation (my emphasis):

[Exxon's] silence and their lies—driven by nothing more than the desire to keep making money—helped disrupt the earth’s most critical systems. When people ask, how could our species have wrecked our planet, the memos and internal documents uncovered by these reporters offer a huge part of the answer. We wrecked the planet, in no small part, because we were lied to by the most powerful institutions on that planet.

Please ponder that.

Except "institutions" don't lie; people do. This is the face of the man who runs Exxon, CEO Rex Tillerson.

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, explaining something (source)

Here's what he looks like when he's facing you.

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson. He made over $40 million in 2012. He also made decisions.

Exxon — the collection of buildings, oil fields, office equipment and legal documents — doesn't make decisions. Humans do, led by this man, Rex Tillerson. He's not a building or a legal entity. He's a person and a perp. Please ponder that.

Here's how we know they knew — and have known since 1977:

• "Exxon: The Road Not Taken" (the source exposé)
• "What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic" (LA Times)
• "Exxon's Climate Concealment" (LA Times)

My write-up is here. A look at the RICO implications is here. Now the news.

McKibben Arrested at an Exxon Station

The bare facts are, he tried to get arrested in a one-person protest in his home town, and he succeeded. The Burlington Free Press:

Climate activist and author Bill McKibben was arrested Thursday afternoon in Burlington after blocking access to a downtown gas pump.

McKibben, a Ripton resident, said he hoped his protest at the Simon's Quick Stop and Deli Mobile station on South Winooski Avenue would draw attention to recent evidence that suggests that Exxon Mobile knew about fossil fuel's role in global warming several decades ago — and shaped drilling strategies accordingly.

"I don't want this story to disappear in all this media clutter," McKibben told journalists and a dozen or so supporters. "We need to let people know what we now know about ExxonMobil."

Now the explanation. Why did he do this?

Exxon Knew

I'll give the rest of the floor to McKibben. Here's the piece he wrote for his Tumblr site, ExxonKnew (emphasis in original):

ExxonMobil Knew

At the moment I’m sitting in front of an ExxonMobil station in Burlington Vermont waiting to be arrested and feeling, frankly, a little silly.

But I’m doing it because I want people to read and share two news stories, and I figure this small gesture might be enough to move a few people to do so. The stories come from teams of reporters at the Los Angeles Times, the Columbia Journalism School, and the Pulitzer-Prize winning Inside Climate News, and they demonstrate—exhaustively, undeniably, and appallingly—that ExxonMobil, the biggest and most powerful company on earth, knew all about climate change in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The company had sophisticated computer models demonstrating exactly how fast the globe would warm, and its highest levels of management were clearly aware that this would be a severe problem for the planet. They even used this knowledge to bid on oil leases in the rapidly melting Arctic.

But they didn’t tell anyone. Instead, they lied—they helped fund institutes devoted to climate denial, and bankrolled politicians who fought against climate action. Their CEO—who had overseen much of the research—told Chinese leaders in 1997 that the globe was cooling and that they should go full-steam ahead with fossil fuel.

This is not just one more set of sad stories about our climate. In the 28 years I’ve been following the story of global warming, this is the single most outrageous set of new revelations that journalists have uncovered. Given its unique credibility—again, it was the biggest corporation on earth—ExxonMobil could have changed history for the better. Had it sounded the alarm—had it merely said ‘our internal research shows the world’s scientists are right’—it would have saved a quarter century of wheel-spinning. We might actually have done something as a world before the Arctic melted, before the coral reefs were bleached, before the cycles of drought and flood set fully in.

Instead, their silence and their lies—driven by nothing more than the desire to keep making money—helped disrupt the earth’s most critical systems. When people ask, how could our species have wrecked our planet, the memos and internal documents uncovered by these reporters offer a huge part of the answer. We wrecked the planet, in no small part, because we were lied to by the most powerful institutions on that planet.

And so here I sit. I don’t have any great hope this action of mine will change anything practical. I fear that no one is likely to prosecute Exxon—they’re too big and too powerful. And for that matter it wouldn’t undo the damage. I know that we can’t rally enough Americans to boycott Exxon to make more than a token dent in their endless profits, and that even if we did those profits would flow to some other oil giant whose deeds are yet to be uncovered. Indeed, I know that most of the gas stations that say Exxon or Mobil on the sign aren’t even owned by the company. I know that none of this is the fault of the local franchisees—I gave the folks who run this station a hundred bucks before I sat down in hopes that my small protest won’t cost them too much in income.

I also know that there are clever and cynical people who will wave off these stories by saying, ‘of course, we knew that all along. That’s just how the world works.’ Or they will say, ‘it’s not Exxon’s fault; we all use fossil fuels.’ These clever people are the cousins of the cynics who worked at ExxonMobil; their knowingness is a cover for inaction. Exxon didn’t act when its actions could have changed the course of history; that’s not true of the rest of us.

My only real hope is that this gesture of mine will lead a few more people to read these pieces of reporting before they disappear into what my wife correctly and despairingly called the overwhelming clutter of our digital culture. I don’t want you to sign a petition, add your name to a mailing list, send money to a kickstarter. Just to read. I guess I figure that some people will say: if it’s important enough to someone to get arrested, I can spare ten minutes to read the story.

Perhaps this understanding will lead more people to join in the movement for fossil fuel divestment, or to oppose giant new oil projects, or to take away government subsidies from dirty energy. That would be good—I’ve spent much of my life on those battles, and will keep at them with my colleagues at 350.org and throughout the climate justice movement. It would help in every battle that matters if the Exxons of the world had less credibility and less power.

But even if these stories simply lead to more understanding without any practical consequence, that seems worthwhile. People are dying already around the world from the effects of climate change, people who never burned a gallon of oil in their lives. Everyone who comes after us will inhabit a planet much less vibrant than the one we were born into. My daughter graduates from college this spring, and she inherits this world that Exxon did so much to break. They—and all of us–deserve at least to know the truth.

Here are the stories I’ve been referring to:

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/
http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

Sincerely,

Bill McKibben

P.S.—if others elsewhere want to repeat this small gesture, please do it peacefully, and respectfully.

Exxon knew, and then they lied to you for money.

Which Democratic Candidate Will Stand with the People and Say "RICO"?

Thank you, Bernie Sanders, for making the point as strongly as it needs to be made. Will Bernie Sanders promise to RICO the fossil fuel companies if he's elected? Will climate champion Martin O'Malley? Will Hillary Clinton?

The first one of these three who says so will get a hell of a boost, judging by the cheering of the crowd in this debate segment:

Listen to the crowd after Sanders speaks. The people get it. They just have to act on what they know.

If you'd like to sign a petition aimed at RICO'ing the bones off Exxon, you can do it here.

And if you want to say thank you to Bernie Sanders for what he's done so far, you can do it here. Adjust the split any way you want at the link.

GP

Does Martin O'Malley Possess An Ounce Of Political Authenticity?

O'Malley gave a nice speech this morning, a progressive one crafted for the ears of progressive Democratic primary voters, a cohort he and Hillary and perhaps others will have speech writers and pollsters and consultants try to please with various messaging techniques. It's different from Bernie Sanders.

When O'Malley asks the dramatic, poignant, burning question-- "Tell me how it is, that not a single Wall Street CEO was convicted of a crime related to the 2008 economic meltdown. Not. A. Single One."-- a cynic might respond by holding up a mirror for O'Malley and the professional political class. O'Malley-- like Clinton and Webb and others who may try to don some newly tailored populist garb-- will never be Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders isn't crafting a progressive message for primary voters-- that can be abandoned in the general or in the White House. Bernie Sanders' entire life in the political arena created the agenda and the ideas that careerists like O'Malley are trying to tap into.

I'm not saying his message yesterday was bad. It was nice. It just doesn't tell us much about who Martin O'Malley really is or what he would do as president. His own record in public service doesn't lead in a natural way to that message-- not the way Bernie's did last week. O'Malley may be Catholic and Bernie may be a Jew, but if Pope Francis popped up at the rally for one, would it surprise you if it was Bernie's?

O'Malley's inauthentic, well-crafted message starts with putting a value on inclusion: "All of us are included. Women and men. Black and white people. Irish Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, Native Americans. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Americans. Young and old. Rich and poor. Workers and Business owners. Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and straight Americans. Every person is important, each of us is needed. In our idea of country, there is no such thing as a spare American. There is, however, a growing injustice in our country today." Ed Henry reported that while he was speaking, a large group of protesters were shouting that he is a "liar" because of his reactionary police policies in Baltimore. It's an uncomfortable truth that he knew he had to address, although it isn't likely to do him any good, at least not if :any good" means advancing his run for the presidency.

Last month, television sets around the world were filled with the anger and the rage, and the flames of some of the humblest and hardest hit neighborhoods of Baltimore.

For all of us who have given so much of our energies to making our city a safer, fairer, more just and more prosperous place, it was a heartbreaking night in the life of our City.

But there is something to be learned from that night, and there is something to be offered to our country from those flames.

For what took place here was not only about race…not only about policing in America.

It’s about everything it is supposed to mean to be an American.

The scourge of hopelessness that happened to ignite here that evening, transcends race or geography.

Witness the record numbers of young white kids killing themselves with heroin in suburbs and small towns across America.

The hard truth of our shared reality is this: Unemployment in many American cities and in many small towns across the United States is higher now than it was eight years ago.

Conditions of extreme and growing poverty, create conditions for extreme violence.

We have work to do…

Our economic and political system is upside down and backwards and it is time to turn it around.

What happened to our economy-- what happened to the American Dream-- did not happen by chance.

Nor was it merely the result of global forces somehow beyond our control.

Really? Beyond our control? Beyond the control of the professional politicians we have been electing to office-- like O'Malley? "Powerful, wealthy special interests here at home have used our government to create-- in our own country-- an economy that is leaving a majority of our people behind." That would sound more authentic if he had a record-- like Bernie-- of pushing back against that as an elected official. But he doesn't... even if some of his talking points are salient and well-put-together. CQ Roll Call put together a look at who O'Malley is, since almost no one outside of Maryland has ever heard of his. "As mayor of Baltimore," they wrote, "O’Malley championed a 'zero-tolerance' crime-fighting policy which led to a soaring number of arrests. To the criticism of the arrests, O’Malley responded in 2013 that 'the ideologues on the left... see all increases in arrests, police response or enforcement as bad.' The number of homicides in Baltimore slightly increased during O’Malley’s tenure, from 261 in 2000 to 276 in 2006. But the totals were lower than they had been in the 1990s. As governor, O’Malley helped put Maryland’s budget on firmer footing, reformed state employee pensions and retiree health benefits, and main- tained the state’s high bond rating." Not from the ElizabethWarren-Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Maybe he thinks he can replace Julián Castro as frontrunner as Hillary's running mate.

But we cannot rebuild the American Dream here at home by catering to the voices of the privileged and the powerful.

Let’s be honest. They were the ones who turned our economy upside-down in the first place. And they are the only ones who are benefiting from it.

We need to prosecute cheats, we need to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and if a bank is too big to fail without wrecking our nation’s economy…then it needs to be broken up before it breaks us…again.

Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest repeat-offending investment banks in America. Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he’d be just fine with either Bush or Clinton.

I bet he would...

Well, I've got news for the bullies of Wall Street...

The presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.

It is a sacred trust to be earned from the people of the United States, and exercised on behalf of the people of the United States.

The only way we are going to rebuild the American Dream is if we re-take control of our own American government!

Perfect for the media! He just signaled a willingness to attack Hillary and go negative... exactly what they're looking for-- part of why they are trying to bury Sanders, who is just talking about the positive policy agenda he has created over the last few decades and not gossip or smears. The Beltway media isn't of a high enough calibre to understand what Bernie is doing. They only understand gossip and smears. So to them, O'Malley is a real candidate and Bernie is a freak. You can help Bernie ignore them and continue campaigning directly to real people here at the Blue America ActBlue page.

UPDATE: There Was A Time O'Malley Didn't Pretend To Be Progressive

In 2007, O'Malley and grotesquely corrupt Wall Street whore Harold Ford, Jr. penned a fuzzy-headed OpEd for the Washington Post. "The temptation to ignore the vital center," they wrote, "is nothing new... Some on the left would love to pretend that groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, the party's leading centrist voice, aren't needed anymore."

But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before. George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven't voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.

...Most Americans don't care much about partisan politics; they just want practical answers to the problems they face every day. So far, our leading presidential candidates seem to understand that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That's why they have begun putting forward smart, New Democrat plans to cap and trade carbon emissions, give more Americans the chance to earn their way through college, achieve universal health care through shared responsibility, increase national security by rebuilding our embattled military and enable all Americans who work full time to lift themselves out of poverty.

As the caucuses and primaries approach, candidates will come under increasing pressure to ignore the broader electorate and appeal to the party faithful. But the opportunity to build a historic majority is too great-- and too rare-- to pass up.

The California Democratic Convention Would Have Been Better Off Inviting Heather Mizeur To Speak

Many California Democrats experienced Martin O'Malley for the first time last week. He was a keynote speaker at the state's Democratic Party convention. He's trying to offer himself up as an alternative to Hillary Clinton. But the way he's governed Maryland belies the progressive image he tried so, so hard to portray when he's outside of Maryland. This weekend the machine boss may have fooled some credulous Democrartic Party delegates in Los Angeles, but no one was fooled back home. You may be aware that Blue America has endorsed an actual progressive, Heather Mizeur, seeking to succeed the termed-out O'Malley. The publicly-financed gubernatorial candidate, whose purely progressive stances run from marijuana legalization to a full “living” minimum wage of $16.70 an hour by 2022, is the only Democrat Blue America is currently backing for governor anywhere in the U.S.!

Two of O’Malley’s establishment guardians, Senate President Mike Miller and House Speaker Mike Busch, have been force-feeding a $400 million estate tax giveaway through the easily controlled legislature, where the Democrats hold a 35 to 12 seat majority in the Senate and a 98 to 43 majority in the House of Delegates, where Mizeur serves. O'Malley's two legislative lieutenants claim this will keep more millionaires from moving away during retirement, despite the fact that Maryland already has the most millionaires per capita in the nation. In reality, this is nothing more than election-year pandering to the state’s wealthiest three percent.

Right before the House easily passed the conservative legislation, Mizeur was the only legislator to stand up for the working and middle class, pointing out how the bill would take public funding from education and health care reform to pay for the handout. She then called on O’Malley to veto the legislation. But O’Malley was too busy running to the right of Hillary Clinton to give a straight answer. Same thing for his hand picked successor, Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, who instead gave a vague talking point about the need for comprehensive tax reform.

But that’s not all. After years of waiting, O’Malley and Brown have finally taken up an increase in the minimum wage now that it will be fresh in voters’ minds. But after corporate interests were allied to rip out a provision to index the wage to inflation, it was Mizeur who stood up on the House floor to offer an amendment to put it back in place. How did the New Democrat-controlled House of Delegates-- much of which cosponsored the bill when it had the original indexing provision-- vote? They voted it down 124-8, claiming it would ruffle feathers in the Senate.

This is the stark difference that Maryland faces in its June gubernatorial election: protectors of the status quo versus a proud and principled progressive. Maryland could lead the way on the progress for which we have waited far too long. But Heather’s opponents are already putting up television ads with their corporate cash. For her to come out on top in June, she needs as many donors as possible-- no matter how small. Under the public finance system, she can accept contributions of up to $250 and each contribution will be matched by the state. Here's the place where you can help turn Maryland into a true progressive powerhouse.