Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

April 26 2012


Will The Stars Align for Small Nuclear Reactors?

Westinghouse has lined up a commercial partner for its small modular reactor, which gives it an advantage in seeking licensing approval and federal aid.

April 18 2012


Clean Technology on the Brink

American gains in clean energy could all be lost unless the federal government renews a variety of subsidies and production credits that have supported such technologies, a report warns.
Sponsored post

March 27 2012


Beginning of The End for Big Oil’s Billion Dollar Subsidies?

Democratic Senator Bob Menendez (N.J.) has introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to kill, once and for all, the billions of dollars worth of subsidies that are flowing from the federal government to the oil industry.

Under Menendez’s proposal, the $4 billion annual corporate welfare handed out to oil companies would instead be used to pay down the federal deficit and be re-invested into renewable energy technology.

Given the Republicans’ history of fighting for the oil industry and their subsidies, you would expect this bill to be dead on arrival. However, in an odd combination of arrogance and ignorance, Senate Republicans actually sided with Democrats in a vote to move the bill onto the floor for debate.

Republicans currently believe that any issue involving gas and oil is a home run for their party, so they’re banking on the issue actually helping them out, politically. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement about the issue:

“We’re going to use this opportunity to explain how out of touch Democrats are on high gas prices, and put a spotlight on the common-sense ideas Republicans have been urging for years — ideas that reflect our genuine commitment to the kind of all-of-the-above approach the President claims to support but doesn’t.”

McConnell’s comment demonstrates both the arrogance and ignorance of the Republican Party on the issue of gas prices.

read more

March 10 2012


Big Oil Rakes In Billions, Still Complains Taxes Are Too High

The President rolled out his FY2013 budget recently, which includes eliminating $40 billion in tax breaks from Big Oil companies, such as BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute's response would have you believe that cutting the subsidies would be the equivalent of moving back into their parents' basement.

It's propaganda at its most repetitive, crying that they are "job creators" and that it's so "unfair" to raise taxes because they already contribute millions to the economy every day, and if you do they swear to god prices will rise and the inevitable dependency on foreign oil will bring about the apocalypse itself if you don't let them have their way.

That's like Donald Trump begging to not get kicked out of rent-stabilized, low-income housing even when raking in billions annually, and then threatening to trash the place once the landlord actually puts up an eviction notice.

It's true. The combined profit of the "big 5" oil companies listed above was $137 billion last year, with ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips coming in first, fourth, and 15th, respectively, on the Fortune 100 list of most profitable companies.

read more

December 29 2011


Bucking Solar Predictions, India Surprises Itself

Two auctions of electricity generated with solar power were far more successful than anyone anticipated.

October 20 2011


A New Way to Reward Innovation

A proposed Ecological Impact Fund would explicitly link the financial rewards from an innovation to its accessibility and its ecological benefits.

July 29 2011


EIA's Politically Dictated “Garbage” Subsidy Report Obtained And Released Publicly

The Checks and Balances Project has obtained a copy of the controversial Energy Information Administration report that was called “garbage” by EIA Acting Administrator Howard Gruenspecht.  The polluter-friendly report was just delivered yesterday afternoon to the GOP House requesters, Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD). Checks and Balances provided a copy to DeSmogBlog, which we’re providing to the public here: “Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010" [PDF].

Gabe Elsner, Deputy Director of the Checks and Balances Project, told DeSmogBlog that, “if it’s true that the Acting Administrator Gruenspecht called this report a “piece of garbage” he was right, because it deliberately leaves out the six other ways in which coal, oil and natural gas get government handouts.  The fossil fuel welfare tab is tens or hundreds of times greater than the cost of pro-renewable policy support.” 

Elsner says that this report is essentially a re-issue of the 2007 Alexander study that was designed to defend public welfare to the fossil fuel industry, such as oil and gas industry subsidies. The new EIA analysis fails to take into account the full range of subsidies at play in the energy sector, and therefore delivers a favorable analysis of fossil fuels over renewables.

By excluding a lot of the other avenues of direct federal support given disproportionately to fossil fuel interests, as well as financial tools designed to assist dirty energy companies, the report is just plain faulty, or “fuzzy math” as some guy once said.

Missing from the EIA calculations are a plethora of advantages the dirty energy industry enjoys over clean tech companies, including outsized direct subsidies for mature industries, publicly funded pollution cleanup assistance, cheap insurance, low interest federal loans, extensive tax breaks, and – most gut wrenching in the wake of Tim DeChristopher’s imprisonment – insanely cheap public lands leases for oil and gas drilling, as well as access to public lands and tax credits to build transmission lines.

On Monday, the Checks and Balances Project, Greenpeace US and Oil Change International plan to file this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request [PDF] to the EIA seeking records of the meetings and communications between the EIA and the three GOP Congressmembers’ offices, as well as other materials used in compiling the report.

Stay tuned for updates to this post.


EIA Head Objected to Politically Dictated “Garbage” Subsidy Report, But Delivers it Anyway

Stephen Lacey from ClimateProgress on Tuesday detailed a letter sent to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) by three GOP House members asking the EIA to use loaded assumptions in running its models to show that fossil fuels are a better taxpayer investment than renewable energy sources.

These members, each of whom has received campaign funding from fossil fuel interests, essentially requested a report designed to suggest that renewables get huge public subsidies (they don’t) and that government handouts to fossil fuels and nuclear energy are a better deal for taxpayers (they aren’t). It was a blatant attempt to defend oil industry subsidies, and it put EIA in the unenviable position of lending its credibility to the talking points used by the oil, gas and coal industries.
Lacey reported that in a rare moment of sanity in Washington, the report was halted before it was turned over to the GOP requestors. Lacey’s report says that EIA cited “quality assurance” concerns, and would revisit the report to ensure it gives a “full picture,” accurate account of energy subsidies, not a politically driven result.
But “quality assurance” was the kindest way to portray what really happened.
DeSmogBlog has learned from sources familiar with the report’s fate that Howard Gruenspecht, Acting Administrator of the EIA, “hit the roof” when he learned about the assumptions the members had insisted the EIA use to draft the report.  Gruenspecht reportedly called it “garbage” and reminded staffers within earshot that the EIA was a government agency that was supposed to do impartial analysis, “not provide talking points to members of Congress.” Gruenspecht then called a meeting early the following morning at which the decision was made to halt distribution of the report and not give it to the requestors on the due date.

As of this writing, however, DeSmogBlog has learned that the EIA has reversed itself, providing the report to the three Republican House members.

July 08 2011


Ethanol Industry Welcomes Compromise

Even with ethanol subsidies cut, a consensus has arisen in Washington that as long as there is a renewable fuels standard that mandates the use of increasing amounts of biofuels, ethanol can prosper.

June 20 2011


Paul Ryan Lies About Ending Oil Subsidies To Protect His Family’s Cash Bonanza

Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) has been all over the place when it comes to ending the multi-billion dollar subsidies that the oil industry receives every year. While he has publicly admitted that he is in favor of ending this “corporate welfare,” and his staff has claimed that his budget plan actually calls for an end to oil subsidies, the truth is that Rep. Ryan would never end oil subsidies because he makes a lot of money keeping the welfare spigot open.

The oil industry currently receives $4 billion in subsidies from the federal government, and receives more than $4.4 billion in tax breaks every year, bringing their total government handouts to more than $8 billion every year. Some estimates actually put the total number closer to $35 billion a year.

According to a new report by Joe Romm at Climate Progress, Paul Ryan and his family have a financial stake in some of the companies that receive these oil subsidies.

From Romm:

“What we have only just learned from Ryan’s financial disclosure forms for Congress that were made public this week is “he and his wife, Janna, own stakes in four family companies that lease land in Texas and Oklahoma to the very energy companies that benefit from the tax subsidies in Ryan’s budget plan.”

You can view Ryan’s financial disclosure forms here.

The Daily Beast has more:

Ryan's father-in-law, Daniel Little, who runs the companies, told Newsweek and The Daily Beast that the family companies are currently leasing the land for mining and drilling to energy giants such as Chesapeake Energy, Devon, and XTO Energy, a recently acquired subsidiary of ExxonMobil.

Some of these firms would be eligible for portions of the $45 billion in energy tax breaks and subsidies over 10 years protected in the Wisconsin lawmaker’s proposed budget. “Those [energy developing companies] benefit a lot from these subsidies,” explained Russ Harding, an energy policy analyst with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, when presented with the situation, without reference to Ryan. “Without those, they’re going to be less profitable.”

To ethics watchdogs, Ryan’s effort to extend the tax breaks creates the potential appearance of a conflict of interest.

Over the course of his career, Ryan has raked in more than a quarter million dollars from polluters in the oil and gas industries and the coal industry. As a whole, the oil and gas industry has spent more than $1 billion on lobbying and political donations since 1998.

Even if his family wealth wasn’t directly tied to dirty energy welfare, his campaign cash from polluters ensures that fossil fuel interests can count on Ryan to protect their subsidies through his power position as the Chairman of the House Budget Committee.

June 14 2011


May 04 2011


The Sustainable Prince

Prince Charles urges nations to step back from current methods of mechanized factory farming and meat production, saying they are depleting the soil, devouring water supplies, exacerbating climate change and poisoning streams and oceans.

March 09 2011


Congress Seeks to End Billions in Subsidies for Oil Companies

As both oil industry profits and gas prices continue to rise, Congressman Bruce Braley (D – IA) believes that it is time to end the billions of dollars worth of subsidies that the United States hands out to oil companies on an annual basis. In his proposed Clean Energy Jobs bill, Braley would end the tax breaks and other subsidies that flow to the oil industry, and use that money instead to create clean energy jobs, invest in biofuel production, and pay down the national debt.

These oil industry subsidies are nothing to scoff at. In 2005, then-President George W. Bush authorized a total of $32.9 billion worth of new subsidies for the industry over five years, bringing the annual total of their subsidies to a staggering $39 billion. The new subsidies were put in place at a time when Americans were paying the highest price for gasoline at the pump in history, which coincided with the largest oil company profits to date.
To put the oil industries’ subsidies in perspective, T.J. Scolnick wrote in a DeSmogBlog piece last month in response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address:

The President proposed $302 million for solar energy research and development (up 22 percent); $123 million for wind energy (a 53 percent increase); and $55 million for geothermal energy (up 25 percent). But fossil fuels subsidies are holding back growth in burgeoning clean energy industries, which face a momumental challenge to compete with entrenched industries that receive far greater government subsidies.

Oil industry subsidies were established to help the industry meet the energy demands of the nation, and are meant to be used to increase production, exploration, and innovation. However, as fossil fuels are becoming more and more expensive to produce and causing increasing damage to the environment, the subsidies no longer provide a tangible benefit to the American people. The price of gasoline and consumer products continues to soar, putting a heavy burden on American families, and the only apparent benefits are going to the oil industry's bottom line, as evidenced in their record profits even in a tough economy.

Investing these billions of dollars of subsidies into clean, renewable sources of energy would not only create new industries offering much-needed jobs, but would also help reduce the pollution associated with dirty fossil fuels that threatens public health and the global climate.

Congressman Braley’s Clean Energy Jobs bill is in the early stages of the legislative process, and faces tough political hurdles with a Republican-controlled Congress.  While the wisdom of Braley's vision for clean energy and job creation is clear, the chances of the bill being brought to a full House vote remain slim. Once again, politics stands in the way of real progress.

February 21 2011


Top EIA Energy Trends Watcher Agrees: We Do Not Count Damage to Public Property in Price of Fossil Fuels

Scaling Green recently wrote about the insights shared by energy trends analyst Chris Namovicz of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), who spoke at our “Communicating Energy” lecture series recently, and his comments regarding the lack of a definitive count on fossil fuel subsidies in this country. Today, we return to Namovicz’s lecture, this time to ask him about the economics of fossil fuel companies’ exploitation of resources on public property.

Here’s our question:

Their price drops in part because we’re not charging them to ruin public property. I mean, we basically are letting them contaminate water, we don’t charge them for that, and they don’t have to pay it. Your assumptions don’t include any price we would impose on them for hurting public waterways, is that accurate?


Now, here’s Namovicz’s response:

I think it’s easier to figure out the costs to mitigate the issue than it is to figure out the value of mitigation…[or of the loss of an asset], right.

This answer highlights a major problem with the way we account for the costs – or, more accurately, fail to do so - of fossil fuel production in this country. Attempts at accounting for these costs have been made, and have given us an idea of the scope of what we’re dealing with. For instance, a new study by Harvard researchers estimates the costs involved in the “life cycle coal production” in the United States. The answer is staggering: “between a third and over half a trillion dollars each year in health, economic, and environmental impacts.” That includes “damages from climate change (like weather events and rising seas, public health damages from toxins released during electricity generation, deaths from rail accidents during coal transport, public health problems in coal-mining regions (in Appalachia, mountaintop removal contaminates surface and groundwater with carcinogens and heavy metals), government subsidies, and lost value of abandoned mine areas.” And that’s just coal. The same type of analysis can and should be done for oil and natural gas, as well, with what you can expect to be similarly eye-popping results.

When the dirty energy lobby makes the Palin-esque claim that it’s not really subsidized, or hardly at all, it’s OK to laugh, or admire them for working so hard to believe their own nonsense. But it’s important to point out that it’s a lie, and a big one at that. The fact is, the direct and indirect underwriting to this industry - including an almost complete failure to account for damages to public land, water, and health – has been wildly underestimated, not overestimated.

In stark contrast, clean energy doesn’t engage in wholesale wreckage of public property. We keep reading about the devastation caused by oil spills, natural gas “fracking,” mountaintop removal coal mining, etc., because we are renting our property to bad renters – people who aren’t charged a market rate, don’t give a security deposit, and who can absolutely counted on to wreck the house. Maybe a deficit-conscious country could do better.




February 15 2011


Top EIA Energy Trends Watcher: No Definitive Count on Dirty Energy Welfare

The national conversation about wasteful welfare for highly profitable dirty energy corporations has gone from the dramatic statement by the Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency that fossil fuel subsidies are one of the biggest impediments to global economic recovery (“the appendicitis of the global energy system which needs to be removed for a healthy, sustainable development future”), to a speech by Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch (in which he called the fossil fuel industry “grotesquely oversubsidized”), to a call by President Obama to cut oil company welfare by $4 billion. Not to be outdone, House Democrats are now calling for a $40 billion cut.

Dirty energy welfare defenders have, predictably, responded with ridiculous, Palin-esque denials of reality, but the voter demands that wasteful spending be cut begs the question: just how much of our tax money is going to ExxonMobil, Massey, etc.? With the new deficit hawks in Congress going after insignificant items like bottled water expenses, you’d think they’d want to know the size of the really wasteful stuff, right?<!--break-->

The problem is, we’ve long suspected that no one really knows how much of our money goes to dirty oil executives like Rex Tillerson and Gregory Boyce. There have been counts, ranging from $10 billion a year by the Environmental Law Institute, to the more comprehensive, $52 billion a years by Doug Koplow of EarthTrack.  But, do taxpayers even have a widely accepted, comprehensive inventory of how of our money is being handed to the dirty energy lobby by politicians?  That includes state-level subsidies, by the way, such as the $45 million that Virginia gives to the coal industry.

Energy trends analyst Chris Namovicz of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) was the latest speaker in our “Communicating Energy” lecture series. We took the opportunity to ask one of the top, neutral energy trends analysts in the country the question, “Do you know if someone has actually done a credible, comprehensive, definitive count of how much taxpayers underwrite fossil fuels in this country?” We added the thought that “there's no one really widely available number where average citizens can say, yeah, this much of my money goes to pay ExxonMobil.

According to Namovicz, there really isn’t such a widely available, definitive, comprehensive number.

Right…we're not accounting for the nuclear insurance subsidy, we're not accounting for military oil shipping, we're not even accounting for the tax depreciation benefits that some resources get over others...


The fact is, there is a wide array of government subsidies, both implicit and explicit, that are doled out every year to fossil fuel companies. One estimate, by the Environmental Law Institute, finds that dirty energy companies in the United States alone have run up a $72 billion tab at the taxpayer’s bar from 2002 to 2008. Worldwide, it’s far worse; as this study by the OECD explains:

The [International Energy Agency] estimates that direct subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by artificially lowering end-user prices for fossil fuels amounted to $312 billion in 2009. In addition, a number of mechanisms can be identified, also in advanced economies, which effectively support fossil-fuel production or consumption, such as tax expenditures, under-priced access to scarce resources under government control (e.g., land) and the transfer of risks to governments (e.g., via concessional loans or guarantees). These subsidies are more difficult to identify and estimate compared with direct consumer subsidies.

As I pointed out in a recent post, these subsidies aren’t just reckless and stupid, they aren’t even what people want. In fact, only 8 percent of Americans prefer their tax money be given to highly profitable, mature industries such as ExxonMobil and Massey Energy.

Shouldn’t there be a definitive count of energy subsidies? As we’re looking at cutting waste from our federal (and states’) budgets, shouldn’t there be a credible accounting of all the ways we pay to grease the way for these mature, highly profitable industries? We’re not talking about one done by dirty energy lobbyists or their hired “experts,” by the way, but a real inventory done by those who wouldn’t profit by a lower or incomplete count. Such an accounting should include:

  • Tax breaks
  • Dirty subsidies
  • The costs of government agencies that are set up to perform functions that these industries should pay full cost for doing – such as figuring out how to stuff their pollution underground instead of wasting it on exorbitant, fantasy projects like “FutureGen.”
  • Military expenditures to protect oil shipping lanes.
  • Pollution forgiveness or remediation
  • Rock-bottom priced access to public property – mountains, subsurface property, aquifers, ocean waters -- which fossil energy companies routinely wreck and pay comparatively little to fix.

We need to force politicians to be aggressively honest about how much of our money is going to TillersonBoyceBlankenshipO’ReillyLesar, etc. Until they do, the anti-clean energy bigmouths in Congress who are bashing clean energy policy support need to back way off. And, the dirty energy lobby mouthpieces who propagandize how “cheap” dirty energy is, should do the same. Directly or indirectly, we’re paying their salaries.

February 14 2011


January 13 2011


Job for the New Congress: Read the Latest Review of Wasteful Welfare for Dirty Energy

The new Congress roared into Washington this week with what it sees as a mandate to cut government spending. Required reading for all its new members should be Washington Monthly’s excellent new piece, “Get the Energy Sector off the Dole.” And, if you work in, invest in, or support scaling the clean economy, this important piece is worth your time to read as well.

America’s clean energy advancements are under a concerted propaganda and lobbying attack, underwritten by the dirty energy lobby, which wants Americans to think that clean energy is too “expensive,” or “dependent on subsidies.” Cleantech needs your help to get the laugh track going on such claims, and this article can equip with you the foundation for doing that.<!--break-->

Some highlights from the Washington Monthly piece:

Energy subsidies are the sordid legacy of more than sixty years of politics as usual in Washington, and they cost us somewhere around $20 billion a year. To put that sum in perspective, that’s more than the State Department’s entire budget. It’s also enough to send half a million Americans to college each year with all expenses paid. Energy subsidies undermine the working of the free market, and they make rational approaches to long-term energy challenges and climate change impossible. They are not an aid to energy independence or environmental stewardship. They are an impediment.

Energy subsidies take many forms. Some of them are direct outlays of taxpayer dollars, like payments to corn producers for ethanol. Most are in the form of tax benefits, such as the deduction for “intangible drilling costs” (labor, repairs, hauling, you name it) in oil exploration—a notoriously abused provision of the tax code. The sheer number of subsidies is part of what makes them so hard to track.

But one thing about them is easy to summarize: They are heavily tilted toward fossil fuels. Government statistics show that about 70 percent of all federal energy subsidies goes toward oil, natural gas, and coal. Fifteen percent goes to ethanol, the only renewable source of energy that consistently gets bipartisan support in Congress (think farm lobby and Iowa). Large hydropower companies — TVA, Bonneville Power, and others — soak up another 10 percent. That leaves the greenest renewables—wind, solar, and geothermal—to subsist on the crumbs that are left.

Dirty energy’s increasingly aggressive effort to negatively define cleantech pushes not just the idea that clean energy is too “expensive,” but also that its “dependence” on smart government support somehow means that cleantech isn’t “ready.” What to say, then, about the dirty energy lobby’s decades of dependence? It’s run up a $72 billion tab at the taxpayer’s bar from 2002 to 2008 alone.

Some pro-dirty energy libertarian mouthpieces, such as the New York Times’ John Tierney and Newsweek’s George Will skip right over that inconvenient problem, relying on the size of their media platform to move the anti-clean energy rhetoric. When pressed, however, about the best that apologists for this ridiculous system can offer is that taxpayers get a better “return” on our money than they would from investing in clean energy – more BtUs per dollar, they say.

But the reality is that the return on U.S. taxpayers’ money politicians have handed to fossil energy hasn’t just been weak, it’s been terrible: ruined fisheries, mountaintops, and water tables; a money train to foreign dictators who hate us; and a competitive edge in clean energy technology that is drifting to other nations.

Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Administration,has named fossil fuel subsidies as one of the biggest impediments to global economic recovery – “the appendicitis of the global energy system which needs to be removed for a healthy, sustainable development future.” For America, these subsidies aren’t just reckless and stupid, they aren’t even what people want. In fact, only 8 percent of Americans prefer their tax money be given to highly profitable, mature industries such as ExxonMobil and Massey Energy.

The new, (supposedly) fiscally conservative Congress could do what it has committed itself to doing -- cutting wasteful spending -- by starting with arguably the most wasteful spending of all: corporate welfare checks for the highly profitable, highly polluting oil and coal industries.

November 23 2010


Gore Admits Corn Ethanol Support Was A Mistake

At a green business conference on Monday, Al Gore admitted that his support for corn ethanol subsidies was a mistake. This news comes weeks before tax credits are up for renewal.

U.S. tax breaks for ethanol make it profitable for refiners to use the fuel even when it is more expensive than gasoline.  Total ethanol subsidies reached $7.7 billion last year according to the International Energy Agency. In fact, biofuels worldwide received more subsidies than any other form of renewable energy.

Gore argued that "It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for [U.S.] first-generation ethanol".  Giving extraordinary subsidies to first generation feedstocks was a mistake, he says.  "The energy conversion ratios are at best very small." <!--break-->

Mr. Gore is not alone in thinking that corn-based ethanol is a losing proposition.  Several environmental groups have voiced concerns that the market sets food and fuel needs in direct competition.  In addition, there are concerns about accelerating the conversion of rainforests and conservation lands to farmland.  In California, regulators were prepared to declare corn biofuel's carbon footprint too large to help the state fight climate change after new tough emissions standards passed.  As the Daily Climate noted, greenhouse emissions and loss of the carbon sink associated with deforestation and disruption must be counted towards the biofuel’s total emissions, qualifying them as dirty.

Numerous studies suggest that corn ethanol is among many crop-based biofuels that encourage land-use changes that are, on the whole, detrimental to both environment and climate.  According to the Sierra Club and World Watch Institute, next-generation biofuels - derived in less energy-intensive ways, and from non-food sources like switchgrass - are potential future solutions.

A recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences corroborates the astounding impact of corn ethanol in its finding that Brazil risks incurring a 250-year carbon debt based on the deforestation expected by 2020 as it expands production of sugarcane ethanol and soybean biodiesel.

Gore noted that a major roadblock to getting rid of these multi-billion dollar subsidies has been corporate lobby groups. "It's hard once such a program is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going", he noted.  

One such lobby group has been the corporate-funded Renewable Fuels Association.  According to Matt Hartwig on their blog, corn ethanol is more efficient than ever, and does not compete with the food supplies. That's not what the prevailing peer-reviewed literature says, according to David Tilman, a University of Minnesota professor of ecology who has studied biofuels' conflict with food crops.  According to Sourcewatch, the Renewable Fuels Association is a supporter of the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy whose other members include Archer Daniels MidlandDeere & CompanyDuPont and Monsanto. Interestingly, Matt Hartwig is also involved with the Astroturf group Center for Science and Culture that seeks to "defeat Darwinism". Maybe fanciful lies are his specialty.

The corn ethanol of here and now has a hefty ecological footprint, and is creating an ecological headache. Kudos to Gore for speaking out that his support for the subsidies was based on votes, and not science. 

Image credits: Renaissance Ronin.

August 19 2010


August 02 2010


In Fuel Subsidies, It's No Contest

"Global subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf support given to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and biofuels," a report concludes.
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.
No Soup for you

Don't be the product, buy the product!

YES, I want to SOUP ●UP for ...