Climate Change in the Age of Trump: A Profit-First Energy Plan

Getting rich on "black gold" and moving into the mansion. It really is just about the money, isn't it? Plus the expectation of dying before the consequences show up. Unlike these fictional folks, most in Big Oil will see those consequences themselves.

by Gaius Publius

As you've noticed, we've turned our attention back to climate here at La Maison, and to the wreckage of the planet we may see manifest in the coming decade (singular).

The climate fight in the U.S. has entered a new phase. It's moved from dealing with a political party that tried to seem to care about the climate, and with which a certain amount of small cold-comfort progress could be made — to dealing with a political party intent on causing the most climate damage it can manage at the fastest rate it can muster ... before it's booted out of office or loses the consent of the governed. (Ponder that last; it's one of the items on offer.)

By now we're all aware that all pipelines will be built, or attempted to be built. But that doesn't encompass the full sweep of America's new climate plan. The party now in power intends to dig all the carbon it can, give all the profits to the already-rich oil and gas industry, which will then sell it at the fastest rate possible to be burned into the air. U.S. carbon emission rates should shoot through the roof.

They're calling that "An America First Energy Plan." Not that Americans will see a dime of profit or wealth from this black-gold rush. It should be renamed "A Profit-First Energy Plan (and the species be damned)."

From the White House website (my emphasis):

An America First Energy Plan

Energy is an essential part of American life and a staple of the world economy. The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil.

For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.

Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well.

The Trump Administration is also committed to clean coal technology, and to reviving America’s coal industry, which has been hurting for too long.

In addition to being good for our economy, boosting domestic energy production is in America’s national security interest. President Trump is committed to achieving energy independence from the OPEC cartel and any nations hostile to our interests. At the same time, we will work with our Gulf allies to develop a positive energy relationship as part of our anti-terrorism strategy.

Lastly, our need for energy must go hand-in-hand with responsible stewardship of the environment. Protecting clean air and clean water, conserving our natural habitats, and preserving our natural reserves and resources will remain a high priority. President Trump will refocus the EPA on its essential mission of protecting our air and water.

A brighter future depends on energy policies that stimulate our economy, ensure our security, and protect our health. Under the Trump Administration’s energy policies, that future can become a reality.

Just a few notes; I'll have more to say on this at a later time:

• Wherever this plan says "jobs," substitute "profits." Wherever it says "wages," substitute "revenue."

• "Reviving the coal industry" means just that. Dig it fast, burn it fast, and sell it as widely as possible everywhere in the world. 

• "Energy independence" is a meaningless phrase unless the U.S. nationalizes its oil. All fossil fuel, wherever extracted, is sold at market prices on a small number of exchanges, and only the sellers reap profit. Because the U.S. government is not a seller, it sees not one dime. Because of these markets, oil is fungible. The price of Saudi-dug oil is the same as the price of Exxon-dug oil, all other things being equal. All sellers will charge as much money as they can get; all will hold you hostage to get it.

• "Refocus the EPA on ... protecting our air and water" means spending even more tax dollars on all the additional toxic waste cleanup effort this added drilling, fracking and mountaintop blasting will cause. The EPA will have only one role — the nation's janitor, sweeping up after the energy industry's mess-making.

And finally:

• This will roil the oil market, which is already glutted with supply at unsustainably low prices. Look for energy market crises — and business bankruptcies — to increase, perhaps exponentially. Many smaller fracked-oil companies will go bankrupt, and the banks that financed them may need another bailout.

How to address this? It's still an emergency, just a different kind.

At the Wheelhouse of the Titanic

A metaphor: During the Sanders campaign there was an opportunity to put a new captain in the wheelhouse of the Titanic, one who would actually try to turn the ship instead of just seeming to. Today, however, we're back on the deck, outside looking in. The effort to turn the wheel — mobilize the economy for a fast and radical change of energy source — now has a preliminary step, a preliminary act of mobilization.

To turn the wheel we first have to take command of the wheelhouse, and yes, there are many non-violent ways to do it. It's that or we have to give up, to relax and enjoy whatever days are left of this voyage. (I hear for many first-class passengers — many of those in first-world countries, in other words — the food and accommodations will be comfortable almost to the end, right before the fight for lifeboats begins.)

I mentioned "the coming decade (singular)" above as the window of time left to us. I don't think this is the moment yet to give up, to go dancing, according to our metaphor, one last time on the chilly moonlit deck, the icy mass looming before us.

There really are ways to proceed, and with the change of enemy, new opportunities, avenues of approach we didn't have before. More on that later. This is where we stand now.

GP
 

Which Senate Democrats Will Be The Most Likely To Sell Out To Trump Most Often?

Painting by Attila Richard Lukacs

Imagine you're a professional politician who's been striving for decades to get to the top of the heap. And then imagine that the Senate is the top of the heap. Say... nominal Democrat-- he's a Blue Dog-- Joe Donnelly, an unlikely freshman senator from Indiana, who should never have gotten into the Senate in the first place. You're up for reelection in 2018 in a state that just voted for Trump 1,556,220 (57.2%) to 1,031,953 (37.9%). Hillary only won 4 counties of the state's 92. This year's far more popular and better known Democratic Senate candidate, Evan Bayh, also lost-- 1,423,001 (52.1%) to 1,157,799 (42.4%). He won twice as many counties... 8, but he was running against a virtually unknown generic Republican-- and he had to spent a whopping $11,083,281 against the Republican's $8,897,232 to win those 8 counties. (The DSCC and its allies spent another $16.3 million on the race, far more than they're going to spend on you.) There was a gubernatorial race too-- and the Republican won that too. The state legislature doesn't look good either. The Republicans control everything. Of the 25 members of the state Senate, just 6 are Democrats. In the state House there are 70 Republicans and 30 Democrats.

When Donnelly started in politics in the late 80s, Democrats still won offices. Donnelly served on the Indiana State Election Board in 1988 and '89 and in 1997 was elected to the Marian High School Board. He lost a race for Attorney General and a race for a state Senate seat. Then in 2004 he ran against a crackpot extremist, congressional incumbent, Chris Chocola. He lost but two years later there was a national anti-Bush tsunami that swept Donnelly into office. He was re-elected in 2008 and, with a tiny margin against Jackie Walorski, in 2010. He knew he was dead meat in 2012 so he threw a hail Mary pass, giving up his House seat and running for the open Senate seat against a lunatic fringe teabagger, Richard Mourdock, who wound up saying insane things-- like when a woman gets pregnant from rape it's "something that God intended"-- during the campaign. Donnelly didn't really win as much as Mourdock lost.

Donnelly is anti-Choice, has an anti-LGBT voting record and has an "F" score from ProgressivePunch. His 61.73 lifetime crucial vote score is the 3rd worst of any Senate Dem. Only Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp vote with the Republicans more than Donnelly, although not much more.

So now, ask yourself if Donnelly-- and others in similar situations (conservative Democrats in red states up for reelection in 2018)-- will be Trump collaborators or decide to stand up for their constituents instead. Heidi Heitkamp has the worst voting record of any Democrat in the Senate. Worse than Donnelly's and worse than Joe Manchin's. She told The Hill a couple days ago that she wants to work with Trump on a fictitious construct called "clean coal... My priority is standing up for North Dakota, not party politics. The reason I’m in the U.S. Senate is to work with Republicans and Democrats to get things done." Manchin also backs the GOP "clean coal" nonsense-- and so do two other Democrats from states that went for Trump: Bob Casey (PA) and, less predicately-- but not totally unpredictably-- Sherrod Brown (OH).

These are the conservative Senate Democrats with who are up for reelection in 2018... along with the percentage of votes Trump got in their state:

• Jon Tester (MT)- 56.5%
• Tom Carper (DE)- 41.9%
• Tim Kaine (VA)- 45.0%
• Angus King (I-ME)- 45.2%
• Claire McCaskill (MO)- 57.1%
• Joe Donnelly (IN)- 57.2%
• Joe Manchin (WV)- 68.7%
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)- 64.1%

So, for starters, it looks like "clean coal" is bound to be reinvented.

A spokesman for Manchin said his top priorities next year include working with Trump and Republicans to pass the Miners protection Act, roll back “harmful regulations” on coal, renegotiate trade policies and rebuild the nation’s infrastructure.

Trump won West Virginia with nearly 69 percent of the vote.

Tester and two other Democrats up for reelection in 2018 in states won by Trump, Bob Casey (Pa.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio.), are cosponsors of the clean coal bill.

That bill had little chance of moving while Reid was in charge. He once declared with typical bluntness “it doesn’t exist… there is no such thing as clean-coal technology.”

Democrats in tough races have been quick to call for putting the bad blood of the election behind them and focus on delivering results for constituents.

“Working across the aisle with her Republican colleagues to forge compromise and advance bipartisan ideas is exactly what Claire’s done since she joined the Senate-- regardless of which party holds the White House or who’s in charge of Congress-- and it’s exactly what she’ll keep doing,” said John LaBombard, a spokesman for Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who is expected to run for re-election in a state that Trump won with 57 percent of the vote.

Tax reform is one area where Republicans could see cooperation from Democrats.

Jim Kessler, a former aide to Schumer who now serves as senior vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, says “it’s possible” that Senate Democrats help Republicans pass a tax reform package.

...Another issue with new momentum is authorization to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which the Obama administration shut down.

Ten Democrats voted last year to approve the Keystone pipeline. Six of them are running for re-election in states that Trump won: McCaskill, Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Tester and Casey. 

Had some of Schumer's dismally failed recruits won on November 8th-- like Patrick Murphy (FL), Patty Judge (IA), Ted Strickland (OH), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Evan Bayh (IN), Jason Kander (MO), etc, Trump would have had even more Democratic allies to play with. Tuesday the Senate rejected a cloture motion to shut down a Democratic filibuster on a Big Oil special interest bill. Perhaps in a sign of things to come, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp, easily the two worst Democrats in the Senate, crossed the aisle and voted with the Republicans.

Clean Coal?

Yesterday, Obama's campaign made a rare misstep-- a stupid radio spot in favor of "clean coal" that attacks Romney for being pro-environmental. Listen to it; it's sickening. Our pals are CREDO were as disgusted as we were. Their petition asks Democrats and independents to "Tell the Obama campaign: Drop your cynical pro-coal ad... The people of Ohio know that fossil fuel pollution tends to punish most those who can least afford to move away from it," the group says "an ad suggesting that President Obama is more coal-loving than Romney isn't just cynical, it's misleading. From lung disease for generations of miners who have been left with no choice but to work in coal mines, to water pollution which increases cancer rates, to power plant pollution which causes everything from asthma to neurological damage. And of course the climate pollution from burning coal is an ominous and growing cloud over all of our futures."

Ironically, on the same day, across the board in northern West Virginia, that state's most populist candidate for federal office, Sue Thorn, had a letter published by the Post-Gazette

I cannot understand how U.S. Rep. David McKinley could criticize United Steelworkers president Leo Gerard and say he is disrespectful of coal miners ("Bad for Coal," July 29 letters), when Mr. McKinley consistently puts corporate profits before miners' lives.

On July 26, Mr. McKinley and other House lawmakers put workers at risk and voted for House Resolution 4078, a bill to freeze "significant federal regulation." This bill is a death sentence for miners. HR 4078 would block new federal rules to prevent combustible dust explosions like the Upper Big Branch disaster, which killed 29 miners in West Virginia in 2010. Mr. McKinley even voted against an amendment to exempt regulation of combustible dust from the bill.

HR 4078 would also prevent the Mine Safey and Health Administration from implementing a new rule to limit miners' exposure to coal dust and prevent black lung disease. In the last 40 years, black lung killed or helped kill 70,000 coal miners and rates have doubled in the last decade.

Mr. McKinley has also failed to support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety act, comprehensive legislation meant to prevent mine disasters.

Mr. McKinley's criticisms of Mr. Gerard ring hollow coming from someone who puts coal company profits before coal miner safety. Maybe Mr. McKinley's comments are more reflective of the fact that his campaign started receiving funding from Massey Energy's Don Blankenship in 2010, shortly after the Upper Big Branch disaster and Mr. Blankenship's contributions exceeded Federal Election Committee rules. While Mr. McKinley's biggest funders are coal companies and he may be a friend of theirs, he's no friend of coal miners.

Obama's a lot better than McKinely... Sue's better than both of them. The DCCC is studiously ignoring her race, although it's one of the most winnable anywhere in the country. If she's going to win, it's because grassroots donors continue to reach deep and help her. You can do that here on our Blue America page

In Tennessee, the myth of "clean" coal meets the reality of crumbling infrastructure

by Ken

I assume everyone has heard about the coal-ash disaster. Here's an account by Dana from West Virginia from Monday, with an update:

Coal Ash Slurry Pond Bursts in Tennessee

Update: This Tennessee TVA spill is over 40 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, if local news accounts are correct. This is a huge environmental disaster of epic proportions, approximately 500 million gallons of nasty black coal ash flowed into tributaries of the Tennessee River - the water supply for Chattanooga TN and millions of people living downstream in Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky. We’re “lucky” it was sludgy, or thousands would have died. Click here to see an amazing aerial video of the spill - the big chunks in the river are mounds of coal ash.

—-

This is the kind of scary thing that people living with coal worry about every day, while the industry (and some big greens) say that coal will be “clean” if we find out how to sequester the carbon. Just today, 39 groups banded together to ask President Elect Obama to overturn Bush’s recent attempts to de-regulate coal ash even more.

In February 1972, Buffalo Creek Sludge Impoundment, a mere 132 million gallons, killed 125 people, left 5,000 homeless and thousands more with post traumatic stress disorder. In 2000, a 2.2 billion gallon coal waste dam failed in Martin County, Kentucky. The largest dam in the hemisphere is the Brushy Fork Sludge Impoundment, which holds 9 billion gallons of toxic coal waste.

So, this is the history coalfield residents hold in our hearts when we open our emails and see “Slurry Pond Bursts.” Last night, 4 to 6 feet of ice cold toxic coal ash and ice cold slurry burst out of the pond and buried 12 homes, 400 acres, and wrecked a train. This spill likely contained mercury, arsenic, and other toxic heavy metals like beryllium and cadmium.

Coal ash is what is leftover when you burn coal. The “Clean Coal” tools talk about putting “scrubbers” to “clean” the air coming out of the stacks, but that just isolates the toxins in the coal ash, which is generally stored in unlined pits near the power plant.

Coal ash is an enormous problem throughout the US. It is more radioactive than nuclear waste, according to Scientific American and is under-regulated. It is made into concrete, drywall, and as a road building material. People living near coal ash dumps have 900 times the national cancer rates.

I’m going to guess that cancer figure just increased even more in eastern Tennessee.

By the way, I love Dana's blog bio, and I think you will too:

Dana works on the national council of the Student Environmental Action Coalition in Charleston, WV Visit www.seac.org. She likes to make papier mache stuff with five year olds. She likes mountains that haven't been blown all to hell. She likes communities that fight back when their mountains have been blown all to hell. She doesn't like coal, or blowing up mountains. She especially doesn't like (not so) Clean Coal (no such thing) and thinks Carbon Sequestration is a bad deal for communities and kids. And really, who else matters?

INFRASTRUCTURE, INFRASTRUCTURE, INFRASTRUCTURE
From Reagan to Chimpy: A Legacy of Cluelessness

As Rachel Maddow has been pointing out, the Tennessee episode is also yet another entry on the growing list of failing-infrastructure disasters. One of the many things I love about Rachel is that she is a confirmed infrastructure worrier. And last night she provided an overview that may be obvious but hadn't quite occurred to me in quite this form.

In the '30s, she pointed out, the U.S. made a major investment in infrastructure -- notably with all those WPA projects. And again in the '50s we made a substantial investment. So we would have been due again, she suggested, oh, around 1980. And then she showed a clip of the sainted Ronald Reagan spewing his brilliant wisdom about government not being the solution to all problems.

Now, of course, we can recognize that eight years of Reaganism laid a superb foundation for the destruction of the country from within. That jovial smile -- and, yes, the withering sneer -- was the mask of Satan. That overweening self-confidence was built on nothing but arrogant imbecility combined with a healthy dose of megalomania.

Infrastructure needs constant maintenance and renewal as well as updating. The sainted Ronnie was too stupid, ideologically whacked out, and protective of the pocketbooks of the upper class to understand that yes indeed, infrastructure is absolutely the responsibility of government.

The next time you hear someone say good things about the scumbag Reagan, you can advise that person helpfully to shove it up his/her rectum.

#

The coal industry is spending $35 million or more to try to persuade us that there is such a thing as "clean" coal. Unfortunately, there isn't.

"Most people know coal isn’t clean, but that hasn’t stopped the coal industry from trying to convince us otherwise."
-- Kevin Grandia of DeSmogBlog, introducing the website Coal is dirty!, a "Clean Coal Body Slam" created in collaboration with Greenpeace USA and the Rainforest Action Network to combat a massive P.R. onslaught from the coal industry

The magic words, it appears, are "carbon capture and sequestration." I don't think you want to know any more about them than I do, but I'm afraid we may be hearing them a lot, unfortunately from people who are trying to sell us bogus or at least wildly exaggerated science indicating that with these new technologies coal can be made clean and safe. It appears that they're prepared to spend tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to sell their message.

This drives the folks we trust on environmental and energy issues bonkers -- naturally including our go-to webguy A Siegel, who's waxing rapturous today on his Energy Smart blog about the Coal is dirty! site and its star-studded roster of environmental researchers, activists, and journalists. As Siegel says, "Kevin might not have a $35 million budget but he has a team worth millions in terms of quality."

Kevin Grandia explains:

In essence, this site exists to sell the idea that coal is dirty. Pretty easy to do when you consider the facts and clear out the rhetoric. Like the fact that mercury emissions from coal fired-power plants continues to rise and that carbon capture and storage remains an elusive pipe dream that will take another 40 years to deploy on a commercial scale.

Siegel notes that the new site is already going gangbusters, with:

* a section of 10 Coal Hard Facts, starting with "Coal increases rates of disease" ("According to the American Lung Association, 24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power power plant pollution")

* Ask Dr. Coal, with "straight talk about coal and your family's health"

* a section of Coal Myths (including "Carbon Capture and Sequestration Is a Myth")

* and a debut "top story," "How Clean Coal Cooks Your Brain," by Jeff Goodell, acontributing editor at Rolling Stone and author of Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future, from which Siegel highlights this "critically true point":

In the end, the “clean coal” campaign is about using the tools of the 21st century to keep us locked in the 19th century. Like other greenwashing campaigns, it’s about using the iconography of sexy technology and down-home Americana to maintain the status quo.

The goal is not to solve our problems, but to perpetuate our addiction …

After decades of stoking the engines of denial and obfuscation on global warming, it’s nice that Big Coal wants to be a good citizen. But just because your pusher decides to shower and shave, don’t delude yourself into thinking that he cares about your welfare.

#