Boycott BP?

First written, June 10, 2010

An interesting discussion on Alternet recently suggested that one way we may demonstrate our anger at BP is by boycotting BP -- buying our gas at a different dealer. This led eventually to the assertion that individual gas stations are owned by private individuals who have "nothing" to do with where BP drills, &c. The boycott would simply hurt the wrong people -- our neighbors and local taxpayers. Besides, it's not just gasoline that comes from oil and it's not just BP who screws up. Along with coal, oil powers electrical generators and IS the plastic that delivers our beloved bottled water, soda, styrofoam cups, energy drinks, toys and beauty products. So, gosh, everybody's sorry, everybody wants to demonstrate indignation, but boycotting BP gas stations might not be the best answer.

So how WOULD we show our righteous indignation with those who created the oil spill in the Gulf -- if we really meant it? Or for that matter, our anger with mountaintop removal for coal? Or oil shale drilling and water pollution, dirty air and global warming (only if you believe the science, of course)?

BOYCOTT THEM ALL! Stop using coal, gas and oil, Stupid! And how might we do that? Stop using coal, gas and oil! Really, it's just that simple.

But nothing is just that simple ... we're addicted to oil, plastic and electricity, fast food. We think we have no alternatives. And as addicts of all sorts, without outside help, we're likely to stay addicted. We'll find a dealer, no matter what ... and we'll pay the price to get a fix. (Now, I know I'm not speaking to you, dear reader, for you and I are the most environmentally aware people on the planet and we NEVER act irresponsibly.)

BP's oily pelicans, dead shrimp and sticky beaches got you pissed off? Turn to Exxon. Exxon's crashing tankers piss you off? Turn to Shell or Mobil. That'll work! We can promise to stop -- or at least cut down -- soon, like we always have. But we all know that as long as there is a dealer, we'll find the drugs.

Now ... since we are all addicted, and most of us know that we need help, we could ask our clean and sober government to help set us on the path to recovery. But we need it to do more than to tell us to just say "no". We need a hefty tax on carbon-based fuels. It's basic market economics: higher prices, less consumption. It's working with our tobacco addiction, isn't it? Those who want it, pay up appropriately, and the revenue goes back into research, prevention and treatment.

Such a recovery proposal has been on the table for many years. It's a tax that bases its rates on the relative amount of carbon in the fuel supplied. Fuels with greater potential negative impact are taxed at higher rates. It's called CARBON TAX (not "cap and trade on wall street"). Those who sell or use the most and most destructive fuels, pay more. Those who reduce consumption, use less destructive sources of energy or use less energy absolutely, profit the most. Included in the plan is a national per capita redistribution so that an equal share of revenue from the tax is returned to every household (or similar).

It's a long road. Take a step. Look further into Carbon Tax (http://www.carbontax.org/). Call (202) 224-3121 and tell your Congressperson what you think.

GHG-free Electricity & Heat -- A Not So Modest Proposal

Complete elimination of green house gases (GHGs) from regional electricity and district heat production in the US over the next few decades is a real possibility supported by current research. The creation of, finding partners in or joining a project whose mission is to define policy statements, create project plans and economic models, and promote legislative action to enable that prospect is my personal goal.

Current political, policy and legislative impediments would obviously be part of its scope.

Based on objective and achievable research, science and economics, it would include

• goals and impacts,
• an open, dynamically modifiable project plan,
• on-going research and engineering needs,
• quantitative and qualitative measures of progress/change,
• alternative models and measures
• transition issues

Transition issues include current and on-going impacts on local, regional and national economies and populations. The plan would envision positive modes for the transition of and impacts on population centers, families, health, education, businesses, industries, infrastructure and, of course, jobs currently involved in the exploration, creation, packaging, delivery and burning of nuclear, coal, oil and gas for production of heat and electricity.

The project would NOT be advocacy for a particular technology or resource though personally I AM an advocate for expanded support and use of geothermal for electricity generation as well as for integrated household, commercial and district energy savings.

The New, New Deal for further explication and references.
To sponsor or support this effort, contact me via email.

James Hansen, The American Party

The American Party
29 May 2013
James Hansen
My remarks when receiving the Ridenhour Courage Award were written in Union Station on my way to the event. But my concluding comment -- that we are near a point when the American people should contemplate a centrist third party -- was not an idle spur-of-the-moment reflection.

I was in government 40 years, long enough to understand how aging organizations can evolve into self-licking ice cream conesa, organizations whose main purpose becomes self-perpetuation rather than accomplishment of their supposed objectives. The public can see this tendency in our politicians, our Congress, and our major political parties.

Our government has failed to address climate, energy, and economic challenges. These challenges, addressed together, actually can be a great opportunity. Our democracy and economic system still have great potential for innovation and rapid adoption of improved technologies, if the government provides the right conditions and gets out of the way. Complete paper (pdf)

New Paltz Sustainability Day, SUNY New Paltz

Canadian Geo Promotion

Scientific ? American

Scientific ? American -- comment on a comment on an article in Scientific American.

Geo = 3%, not .3% of total US electricity production.
therefore "Geothermal " [receives] ... .69, NOT "6.9 times the subsidies of Nuclear." Unfortunately Geo makes sense, not immediate profits. How about a "Project Hades" to demonstrate engineering and technical methodology where profits ($ & environmental) are little more than five miles from everywhere on earth? Unlimited energy, not disposable and transient commodities.

Compare the costs (direct and indirect impacts, $ and environmental) of fossil/nuc fuels, wind & solar with the costs of geo. AND the benefits (same). For the next 40 years.

Don't leave out the Fossil Fuel/Nuc Industrial Complexity: Mine/drill, refine, store, transport, store, burn/heat, dispose of waste and internal costs/complexities of each of those process steps.

And don't forget the taxpayer/investor costs/campaign contributions of Legislative/Legal/Political Industrial Complexities.

And transition costs/benefits in jobs, families, energy sourcing.

After you're done with a 75MW Geo plant, all the energy you'll ever need is available directly beneath your feet, with the added benefit of energy independence, no FFIC, no LLIC and no GHGs. Oops, sorry for the advocacy. Try it yourself:

http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52409-2.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/staff_tssa.html

Sequestration? Yoo Hoo, Congress: Cut the poster child of Pentagon waste!

C'mon, Sean (and all the rest of you Congresspeople).

The F-35 is the NY Times and my favorite boondoggle program -- it's ABSURD -- and yet it goes on because our Congressional campaigns are financed by it.

Hey, FIVE F-35s for every Congress member -- @ $1,000,000,000 each ... what fun! Lockheed/Raytheon/Boeing Industrial Complex. It's ABSURD to continue this program even if you're the highest flyin' hawk. If you like flying machines, we could buy 100,000 drones to spy on all the rest of us (200 for every Congressional district!). Or, we could pay for the VA and DoD retirements for decades.

Or, we could put 3 deep geothermal EGS plants in every Congressional district and power the US "forever" with NO greenhouse gases and no Commodities Industrial Complex, no XL, no frackin', no gulfin', no No.Dakin'.

I love you guys, but pullease spend our money on something just a bit less absurd.

_____

PS: All we talk about are the contract costs ... operational/program costs are also ABSURD. These babies are so cute and so delicate and so ROLEX, that maintenance and fuel go into the $10,000s/hr of operation. Hey, my plain old corporate jets cost me only $5 million each and run only $1000/hr. ( And we can write it off ... you can't!)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The plane that ate the U.S. budget
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:03:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Mary Zerkel and Peter Lems, AFSC
Reply-To: actioncenter@afsc.org
To: vlashua@thnktnk.net


Wage Peace, a campaign of the American Friends Service Committee

F35

Tell Congress to cut the poster child of Pentagon waste!

Sequestration kicked in on Friday—and we think you’ll agree that these blanket cuts are not a smart way to make decisions about federal spending.

Congress doesn’t think so either. As they negotiate the budget in the coming weeks, we need to remind them that just a few smart cuts from the bloated Pentagon budget could easily account for the $1.5 trillion in cuts that the sequester mandates over the next 10 year.

How? Take the F-35 program, the most expensive and least effective weapons system in history. The total lifetime cost of the F-35 program is $1.5 trillion—making it equal to the entire 10 years of cuts mandated by the sequester.

The F-35 program has been grounded twice and has a history of being overdue and over-budget. Why should we continue to throw money at outdated and ineffective weapons systems like the F-35 while cutting vital social programs instead?

Email your members of Congress today to say that there are some easy ways to eliminate waste without cutting programs that create real security.

Wage peace,