Lobotero’s Info Ink

On June 25, the next-to-last day of the current term, the United States Supreme Court slashed the punitive damages judgment for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, which devastated Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The award was reduced from $2.5 billion to only $507.5 million—an amount equivalent to a few days’ profit for the giant oil company..

Exxon Mobil Corporation paid more than $1 billion to settle state and federal claims for environmental damages. The company went to trial in 1994, however, against a class action suit by over 32,000 individuals and small businesses devastated by the accident, predominantly commercial fishermen, native Alaskans and local landowners, who claimed that Exxon’s reckless conduct caused the accident

Just in case you are not old enough to remember the diaster:

Witnesses testified that before leaving port Hazlewood consumed five double-vodka drinks, an amount that would have rendered any non-alcoholic unconscious. When tested by the Coast Guard 11 hours after the accident Hazlewood still had a blood-alcohol level of .061, meaning that during the wreck his level was about three times the legal limit for driving a car.

As the ship approached a well-known reef, Hazlewood set the autopilot, increased speed and turned the ship over to a subordinate unlicensed to perform the maneuver necessary to avoid running aground. The Exxon Valdez hit the reef, spilling crude oil into Prince William Sound. Hazlewood then tried to “rock” the ship free, a procedure that spewed more oil and risked killing the crew.

The result was the largest oil spill in US history: 11 million gallons covering 11,000 square miles, including 1,300 miles of pristine shoreline. The spill devastated the local economy as well as the environment. Estimated losses in the sport fishing industry alone were almost $600 million over the two years following the accident. Within days an estimated 250,000 seabirds perished, along with thousands of otters and seals. Despite billions of dollars in cleanup, the environmental effects of the spill still linger. Much of the oil seeped below the surface of affected beaches, decaying at a rate of about three to four percent per year. Animals that dig in the sand for their food continue to be contaminated.

Now that that is out of the way.

The essence of this ruling is that it drastically reduces the power of punitive damages to deter the most harmful conduct of big business and makes it much more difficult for plaintiffs’ lawyers to finance costly and protracted litigation like the Exxon Valdez case. The court has taken what was once considered a big club for plaintiffs and their attorneys and whittled it into a toothpick.

In 2030, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, world “liquids” demand is expected to reach 117.6 million barrels per day. Of this amount, unconventional fuels – synthetic liquids derived from tar sands, shale rock, and biofuels – may provide a total of 10.5 million barrels. That leaves 107.1 million to be supplied by conventional petroleum. But what if global oil output has fallen to 60-70% of that amount by 2030, as projected by many analysts? Under those circumstances, no amount of oil from Alaska or the outer continental shelf will be able to save this country (or the rest of the world) from a catastrophic energy crisis.

Some say that any palliative is worth the expense as we head toward certain disaster. But this is not a logical response. Knowing that the age of petroleum is drawing to a close, it is far better to devote our talents and investment dollars on hastening the arrival of its successor, rather than prolonging the agony of oil’s decline.

At this point, we cannot be absolute certain of the dominant energy source of the post-petroleum era. Will it be the Solar Age or the Biofuels Age or the Hydrogen Age? But we do know that it will revolve around some constellation of renewable, climate-friendly, domestically-produced supplies. From now on, America’s top priority in the energy field must be to explore all potential components of this new energy future and move swiftly to develop those with the greatest promise.

2030 is 22 yrs from now and will the next president truly be the author of a new and more environment friendly energy policy? I am thinking…no they will not…..somehow, something will happen to move this to the back burner….yet again.

Huh?  Is this one of those myths that came out in the 70’s?

An Ohio mechanic said he has created a car that gets more than 110 miles per gallon.

Doug Pelmear said he has perfected an engine developed by his grandfather 60 years ago. As gas prices continue to rise across the country, Pelmear said his engine gives his 1987 Ford Mustang 110 mpg.

“My grandfather had the idea back in the (1940s) that he (could) make a difference then,” Pelmear said. “There was quite a need at that time also, with the war going on and everything.”Pelmear, a mechanic in Napoleon, has been tweaking the engine for the past 10 years, squeezing out the maximum amount of power for a minimum amount of gas.”This will bring back the automotive industry,” he said. “They can sell trucks and (sport utility vehicles) and the models that are almost dead at this time.”Pelmear said the engine is 400 horsepower and goes from zero to 60 mph in three seconds.Some seemed more excited by the car’s power than its thrifty use of gas.”Even those of us who grew up in the muscle car age, this will pretty much blow your muscle car away,” said developer Mark Schnitkey.Pelmear wouldn’t allow anyone to take a detailed look under the car’s hood — some of his gizmos are still awaiting patents, he said.But Pelmear said the secret lies in making the engine more efficient. And with a little more work, developers believe they’ll be getting 500 miles to the gallon and revolutionizing the auto industry.

Is this real?  I have the problem with the 0-60 in 3 seconds…I cannot think of a car that can do that…but I guess it is possible.  If this is true then it will be a boon to drivers and the bane of the oil industry, who will do all they can to prevent this from hitting the market.

Lots and lots have been said about the new Pixar movie, Wall-E, seems right wingers say that it is sending a left wing message.  Their problem seems to be that the movie may imply that humans have caused all the problems on the planet like pollution, global warming, etc.

Why the uproar over Wall-E?  What about another movie, “The Happening” by M. Shyamalan?  This movie is about the result of Global warming that trees are giving off a neuro-toxin because they are being damaged by pollution and such.  The results of this toxin is that people start committing suicide and in ways that is just gruesome.  Basically this movie is saying that humans are filthy, greedy and deserve to die for screwing up the planet.

I ask why this movie has not acquired the ire of right wing nuts?  Maybe it is because most of them watch movie cartoons and not the  more adult movies.  Please stop looking for a left wing conspiracy and enjoy the movies and your popcorn.

The potential landmark thaw - the first time in human history the pole would be ice-free - is a stark sign of global warming, according to an article Friday on the web site of the The Independent, a London newspaper.

There is no land at the North Pole, but as long as anyone has looked, it has remained a giant block of ice year-round. Scientists have been watching Arctic sea ice melt more and more each year. But each summer in recent years, the amount of ice has gotten thinner and thinner. Each winter’s freeze, therefore, results in a thinner pack that, this summer, could melt altogether.

Several studies in recent years have predicted that the North Pole could be ice-free within a few decades. Alarm has ratcheted up every summer as the ice gets thinner and thinner. In a study released June 10, scientist said the rapid meltoff in the Arctic could threaten permafrost in continental soil elsewhere above the Arctic circle in a warm version of the snowball effect.

Last summer saw a record melt of Arctic sea ice, which shrank to more than 30 percent below its average. Around the peak of the melt, in September, air temperatures over land in the western Arctic from August to October were more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the 1978-2006 average.

That is right, just keep giving lip service to the problem and then your decision will be made for you. Politicians are such lousy, stinking cowards! That is right! I SAID IT! I MEANT IT!

No I am not talking about the gun one, that has everyone jerking off in the corner and also I am not talking about the child rape death penalty thingy.  I am talking about the one that was basically swept under the closest rug.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday slashed the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million.

The court ruled that victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp., but not as much as a federal appeals court determined.

Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million compensation.

The Supreme Court divided on its decision, 5-3, with Justice Samuel Alito taking no part in the case because he owns Exxon stock.

Exxon has fought vigorously to reduce or erase the punitive damages verdict by a jury in Alaska four years ago for the accident that dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound. The environmental disaster led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals.

Nearly 33,000 Alaskans are in line to share in the award, about $15,000 a person. They would have collected $75,000 each under the $2.5 billion judgment.

The commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, landowners, businesses and local governments involved in the lawsuit have each received about $15,000 so far “for having their lives and livelihood destroyed and haven’t received a dime of emotional-distress damages,” their Supreme Court lawyer, Jeffrey Fisher, said when the court heard arguments in February.

Yes, would not want the company that destroyed an eco-systems and has made more money than God can imagine to be held responsible for their actions.  For all they are is a corporation and we know that they are never responsible for their actions.  (BTW, sarcasm is intended).

In testimony before the US Congress on Monday, James Hansen, a leading climatologist, called heads of major energy companies criminals who should be prosecuted for deliberately spreading false and misleading information about the threat posed by global warming.

Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to mark the 20th anniversary of his initial appearance before Congress in 1988. He generated the first significant public awareness of the issue of global warming by telling the Senate at that time that manmade greenhouse gasses were raising global temperatures.

Since then climate scientists have reached a virtually unanimous consensus that the burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional atmospheric carbon dioxide, trapping heat. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last century, and global temperatures are rising as a result.

Hansen decried the extremely limited official goals set for reducing carbon emissions calling them “a recipe for global disaster.” He called for a moratorium on the construction of coal burning power plants and the development of carbon free alternatives to coal and petroleum.

Hansen indicted the energy conglomerates for blocking action on global warming. “Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions about global warming.”

Despite Hansen’s compelling testimony, there are no indications that US policy will change. Since Hansen first appeared before Congress in 1988, neither the Clinton administration nor the administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have passed any major legislation restricting greenhouse gas emissions. There have been 21 coal-fired power plants constructed and US emissions of carbon dioxide have risen by some 18 percent.

The domination of the energy sector by a handful of private monopolies and the subordination of both the Republicans and Democrats to these powerful interests blocks the adoption of any serious measures to deal with the looming catastrophe posed by global warming. These multibillion dollar corporations will not tolerate any measure, no matter how critical for human survival, that impinges on their profits.

Further, any strategy to oppose global warming requires a coordinated international effort. However, energy companies dominate US foreign policy as well, dictating a strategy that seeks to secure world hegemony, including the invasion and occupation of Iraq and other oil rich regions of the world.

Ten years ago, James Hansen warned the world that global warming would destroy the planet if it was not put in check.  Now he is back to rub Congress nose in the fact that they were an ostrich on this subject.  He is telling them that drastic measures are needed and now is the time before it is too late.

We all depend upon the Earth’s atmosphere. Yet we continue to treat it as though it were a free, limitless and indestructible rubbish dump.

With little more than our fingers crossed, we seem to cling to the hope that the atmosphere will be able to absorb all of the greenhouse gases that we pump into it without changing its chemical structure.

Unfortunately, the available scientific evidence tells us this is not the case, and that humanity’s emissions have already increased the risk that dangerous, perhaps abrupt, climate change will hit billions of people over the years ahead.

The time has come for us to stop freeloading and to find a fair, affordable and effective way of valuing, in dollar terms, the maintenance of a stable climate.

Put simply, we need to make it cheaper to help the environment than to harm it.

The principle of costing carbon emissions is not new - the international carbon trade, led by the EU market, turns over billions of dollars a year.

But the majority of the world’s countries, companies and citizens play no part in the exercise. It is remote and aloof, so we need something that touches everybody.

I agree that now is the time and now is the issue.  Time to realize that too much longer and the damage cannot be repaired.

ut exactly what is the technology?

The cleanest coal plant in North America is operated by Tampa Electric, in the middle of rural Florida. They call it clean because they don’t burn coal exactly - they mix it with water and oxygen and convert it into a gas.

According to company president John Ramil, gasifying coal allows the company to remove pollutants like sulphur, nitrogen and soot, which virtually eliminates acid rain.

“And you can do it much cleaner than with the conventional coal technology,” says Ramil.

That’s the good news. But here’s the problem.

“There is no such thing as clean coal,” says James Hansen, NASA’s expert on global warming, who says all coal plants, even TECO’s, still emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide - the most threatening greenhouse gas.

“There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that’s the major long-term pollutant,” says Hansen.

But if carbon dioxide pollution is the problem with clean coal, many scientists believe there is a solution. They believe it’s possible to recover most of the carbon dioxide and store it underground.
The idea is called “capture and sequester,” and a global race is on to learn how it should be done. One Norwegian firm is storing tons of carbon dioxide in rock caves beneath the North Sea. America’s efforts to sequester carbon have stalled. The Department of Energy planned to fund a plant, but pulled all funding when the price grew too high.

Here is an idea whose time has come and long since gone.  STOP IT!

I wrote a piece awhile back about the dangers of the new light bulbs (CFL) and then I was reading on the Green Party website and found that they and others are hardily supporting the new bulbs.  I just had to send a letter to the Party about their position.  It follows here:

I recently was on the website of the Green Party, USA and found their 10 values, which are excellent values to have, but I read their #3:

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature.  We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet.

We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

Why do I bring this particular one up? I will answer that in awhile, but there is more I need to say first. On the Mississippi chapter of the Green Party they display a piece from 18seconds.org telling about the benefits of the new CFL bulbs. The say that say that Mississippians have bought 2,219,236 of the bulbs. Those bulbs have saved 188,624,690 lbs of coal and that 807,313,672 lbs of carbon monoxide have been eliminated and that $51 million have been saved by using the bulbs. It also says that 12,854 cars are off the road. Now what does cars have to do with the bulbs? Got no idea but wanted to include all the stats.

This statement is part of the Green Party’s 2008 Environmental policy statement:

· No new coal fired-power plants; no new nuclear power plants; reduce by 90% the mercury emissions of coal-fired power plants by 2012; protect human health and the environment.in the disposal of coal-fired power plant wastes.

Again the Green party is concerned with gaining votes than a real solution to the problem. They are willing to support reduction in mercury emissions, while supporting a position that will add mercury to the soil and water table. A helluva plan!

There is at least one presidential that is on the bandwagon for the new bulbs. From the Clinton website:

An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs.

Now you are definitely asking what has all this to do with anything? Let me ask, how will you dispose of the bulbs when you have to replace them? Probably throw them in your trash, right? I know, get to the

you have to replace them? Probably throw them in your trash, right? I know, get to the point Professor. Next time you buy the new bulbs look at the bottom of the package. The bulbs contain mercury. And according to the EPA fall under this Act:

These bulbs will be consider hazardous waste and as such will fall under the Resources Conservation and recovery Act (RCRA). And as such cannot be disposed of in incenerators or landfills.

Household users of efficient mercury containing fluorescent lamps, including compact fluorescents, are typically exempt from special disposal requirements although a few states and localities ban homeowners from disposing of such lamps in normal household trash. Sorry, but this is not acceptable.

Now my point is, how many consumers will read the bottom of the package? When they change a bulb where will they throw it? Knowing the answers to these questions, the one to ask now is how long will it take the mercury to get into the water table?

Once it enters the water table here is what the population has to look forward to:

1. Psychological Disturbances (erethysm)
Irritability, Nervousness, Fits of Anger, Memory Loss, Lack of Attention, Depression, Low Self Confidence, Anxiety, Drowsiness, Shyness/timidity, Decline of Intellect, Insomnia, Low Self Control.

2. Oral Cavity Disorders
Bleeding Gums, White Patches - Mouth, Stomatitis, Bone Loss Around Teeth, Loosening of Teeth, Ulcers of Gums- Palate- Tongue, Excessive Saliva, Burning of Mouth, Foul Breath, Gum Pigmentation, Metalic Taste.

3. Gastrointestinal Effects
Abdominal Cramps, Colitis, Crohn’s disease, Gastrointestinal Problems, Diarrhea.

4. Systemic Effects
Cardiovascular, Irregular Heart Beat, Changes in Blood Pressure, Feeble or  Irregular Pulse, Pain or Pressure in Chest

5. Neurologic
Chronic or Frequent Headaches, Dizziness, Ringing or Noises in Ears, Fine Tremors (Hands, Feet, Eye Lids, Tongue)

6. Respiratory
Persistant Cough, Emphysema, Shallow or Irregular Breathing.

7. Immunological
Allergies, Asthma, Rhinitis, Sinusitis, Swollen Lymph Nodes in Neck

8. Endocrine
Subnormal Temperature, Cold Clammy Hands & Feet, Excessive Perspiration, Muscle Weakness, Fatigue, Hypoxia, Edema, Loss of Appetite, Loss of Weight, Joint Pain.

Mercury is an element in the earth’s crust. Humans cannot create or destroy mercury. Pure mercury is a liquid metal, sometimes referred to as quicksilver that volatizes readily. It has traditionally been used to make products like thermometers, switches, and some light bulbs.

Mercury is found in many rocks including coal. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the environment. Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 40 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions. EPA has estimated that about one quarter of U.S. emissions from coal-burning power plants are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle. Burning hazardous wastes, producing chlorine, breaking mercury products, and spilling mercury, as well as the improper treatment and disposal of products or wastes containing mercury, can also release it into the environment. Current estimates are that less than half of all mercury deposition within the U.S. comes from U.S. sources.

Time for the people to wake up! A wonderful thing, energy saving, but everything comes at a price and the CFLs have a price. My question is why would anyone support anything that would have such lasting effects? We settle for short term feel good solutions and the whole time we are poisoning our children’s children. Good plan!

My point is that this is NOT the answer!