Tell EPA to step in to ensure Keystone XL southern segment has thorough review

In less than 45 days, Canadian oil giant TransCanada could receive the rubber stamp it needs to build the southern leg of the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline from Oklahoma through Texas to the Gulf Coast — unless we convince the Environmental Protection Agency to intervene.

 

News broke last week that,in addition to submitting its re-application to the State Department for the transboundary, northern half of its pipeline,TransCanada has also submitted its application for the only federal permit it needs to start building the southern half — a water permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers, which has an abysmal environmental track record, has a maximum of 45 days to approve or reject TransCanada’s application. Or, if they do nothing it will be approved by default.

 

The EPA regional office already objected to this fast-tracked approval process — and pressure from you will help convince EPA headquarters to stop it.

 

Please sign the letter to tell EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to prevent the rubber-stamping of the Keystone XL pipeline through Oklahoma and Texas here:  salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/455/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10407&tag=epataf

 

Tell EPA to step in to ensure Keystone XL southern segment has thorough review.

Ameren Meeting-HCR 35 Hearing-3 environmental shareholder resolutions included

Per capita anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by country for the year 2000 including land-use change. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The 3 environmental shareholder resolutions include:

• report on coal combustion waste
• report on coal-related costs and risks
• assessment and report on greenhouse gas and other air emissions reductions through customer energy efficiency and renewable energy programs

Labadie Environmental Organization (LEO) Clean Water and Sustainable Communities

LEO Blog from the Bottoms: Up to Date NEWS Launch of NEW Website Soon!

Support Ameren Shareholders in saying YES! Tell friends and family to vote YES on Coal Ash Resolution NEXT TUES, April 24th, Ameren shareholders will hear MCRI make a logical argument for why shareholders should expect Ameren policies to keep coal ash waste out of floodplains and to support comprehensive groundwater monitoring around coal ash sites. Ameren operates numerous risky coal ash ponds and landfills both in Missouri and Illinois. Responsible company management is even more important with Congressional Representatives voting this past week to disable EPA from regulating coal ash wastes.  How will Missouri protect communities from the toxins in leaching coal ash waste? Missouri fails to protect us as evidenced in the State of Failure report released last year. The largest Labadie pond has no liner, no groundwater monitoring and has had leaked for over 20 years under a MO DNR permit!If you have stock in Ameren you have every right to vote on directors, executive compensation and 3 shareholder initiatives (environmental) this year. You can vote in person at the meeting or choose to vote by proxy (internet).See the official notice of the annual meeting and details on how to vote (proxy or in person). The 3 environmental shareholder resolutions include: report on coal combustion waste report on coal-related costs and risks assessment and report on greenhouse gas and other air emissions reductions through customer energy efficiency and renewable energy programs Meeting Details: Date:  April 24th, 2012 Time:  9 AM Place:  Powell Symphony Hall, 718 N. Grand Blvd. St. Louis MO 63103  FREE PARKING Come down and support MCRI at the press conference likely to start about 8 a.m.  HCR 35 Moving Forward Help Us Get a Hearing Before End of Session! HCR 35 Coal Ash Monitoring and Cleanup Resolution has been assigned to the MO House Tourism and Natural Resources Committee.  Unfortunately, we are fast running out of time to get discussion on the issue and move it to a House vote.Contact YOUR MO State Rep if they are on the Committee and/or the Chair of the Committee, Don Ruzicka (R-132)to say all Missourians deserve the right to know if ash ponds and landfills are contaminating drinking water and if they are, we want them cleaned up! Rep Ruzicka is responsible deciding which issues will receive a hearing in his Committee. Rep Ruzicka was a former MO State Conservation Agent for 27 years with a BS in Wildlife and Conservation from Missouri State University. His job as a Conservation Agent was to “protect the natural resources of the state.” He should be our ally on this issue. Contact Info: Look up your State Representative contact info here. Compare to the list of Reps on the Committee here. Call Don Ruzicka directly to say “assign a hearing date” Phone: 573-751-4077 email:  don.ruzicka@house.mo.gov There are at least 12 Counties in Missouri with coal ash dump sites that could be contaminating groundwater. MO DNR does not require groundwater monitoring. See if your County is on the map.   Take a moment right now to call your State Rep and/or Representative Ruzicka to get HCR 35 assigned a hearing before the end of session on May 18th! We deserve this issue to be discussed by our legislators. Thank you for taking action. Follow events, activities and actions onLabadie Environmental Organization (LEO) and Save OUR Bottoms!!! Celebrate Earth Day TOMORROW April 22, 2012 Earth Day festivities in Forest Park SUNDAY, 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Stop by the Ameren tent and DNR Booth and ask them what they are doing to protect the public from the risks of coal ash pollution. If you are available to help give out fliers at Earth Day St. Louis call Patricia at 636-402-8460 What do honeybees, fish and humans have in common? None of us do well when we ingest or are exposed to high amounts of metal pollutants.Could heavy metal pollutants be linked to colony collapse? Read the article below for more details. Selenium Toxicity to Honey Bees Forward the LEO e-newsletter to friends and family! They can become a FREE member and get on the monthly e-newsletter list by emailing:contact@leomo.info

“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” - Aldo Leopold

Contact Us | www.leomo.info | contact@leomo.info

Related articles

• Missouri Tell Your Senator to Vote NO SB 759 (scottscontracting.wordpress.com)
• Investors Hold Corporations Feet to Fire on Political Spending, Fossil Fuels (sustainablebusiness.com)
• CUB Expert Testimony Says Ameren Smart Grid Plan Has Holes, Recommends Company Be Forced To Prove Customer Savings (sacbee.com)
• Residents, activists prod EPA for coal ash rules (heraldonline.com)
• Residents, activists prod EPA for coal ash rules (kansascity.com)
• HB 1316: The $115 Million Ameren UE Bailout (scottscontracting.wordpress.com)
• Ameren Missouri Seeks to Recover Costs for Reliability Improvements, Cleaner Air and Energy Efficiency Programs (prnewswire.com)
• Environmental Groups Sue the EPA Over Delay on Coal Ash Regulations (treehugger.com)
• CUB Expert Testimony Says Ameren Smart Grid Plan Has Holes, Recommends Company Be Forced To Prove Customer Savings (prnewswire.com)

2012 Election Poll-What are the Issues that really matter to you?

What are the 5 most Important Issues in the upcoming election to you and your family.

Created March 23, 2012

Compare the Results of the 2010 Election Poll to the Issues of today- Poll Results from 2010 Election Issues

2010 Election (created Oct 28, 2010)-What issues are most important to you and your family in the up-coming Election?

Answer	Votes	Percent
Health Insurance	20	21%
Jobs / Employment	17	18%
Government Spending	17	18%
Republican	11	12%
Tea Party	9	9%
Ear Marks	5	5%
Democrat	5	5%
Other (see below)	4	4%
Green Legislation / Energy / Oil	3	3%
Lobbyist Activities	3	3%
Independant	1	1%
Climate Change	0	0%

Other Answer	Votes
Social Security Benefit Legislation	1
pro-life	1
Life	1
eliminate Progressives	1

Missouri’s Climate: News, Building Codes, Energy Costs, Carbon Data, Energy Sources, and more

• Midwest has experienced rising average temperatures with the largest warming seen in the winter months.

• The growing season has been extended by one week because of earlier last spring frosts and precipitation has become more frequent including increased instances of heavy downpours.

• Since the 1980s, large heat waves have become more frequent than any time in the last century.

• These effects of climate changeare predicted to continue, threatening the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life.
  

  Image via Wikipedia

Missouri‘s Climate: News, Building Codes, Energy Costs, Carbon Data, Energy Sources, and more

02/17/12Scotty-Scotts Contracting, St Louis Renewable Energy

information supplied by: http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/missouri

Climate Concerns Regional Issues & State Action:  According to the United States Global Change Research Program, the Midwest has experienced rising average temperatures with the largest warming seen in the winter months. The growing season has been extended by one week because of earlier last spring frosts and precipitation has become more frequent including increased instances of heavy downpours. Since the 1980s, large heat waves have become more frequent than any time in the last century. These effects of climate change are predicted to continue, threatening the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life. Missouri does not have an official climate action plan but the State Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority makes efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy, which are administered through the Division of Energy.

BCAP Estimated Energy Savings If Missouri began implementing the 2009 IECC and Standard 90.1-2007 statewide in 2011, businesses and homeowners would save an estimated $99 million annually by 2020 and $200 million annually by 2030 in energy costs (assuming 2006 prices). Additionally, implementing the latest model codes would help avoid about 31 trillion Btu of primary annual energy use by 2030 and annual emissions of more than 2.1 million metric tons of CO2 by 2030. A 2010 BCAP analysis indicates that the weightedaverage incremental construction cost of upgrading to the 2009 IECC in Missouri would be $875.28 per home. On average, the annual energy savings per home would be $459.00, meaning the simple payback for homeowners would occur, on average, in 1.91 years.These estimates are conservative and represent the upper bound on incremental cost.

Missouri Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards For State Buildings Public Buildings Intro/Brief:  Since July 1, 2009, all new state-funded buildings must comply with Missouri Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard for Public Buildings, which is based on the 2006 IECC.  During the summer of 2008, the state of Missouri passed a wide-ranging package of energy efficiency initiatives, including homeowner tax incentives and minimum energy standards for state buildings. Passed in the state legislature on May 29 and signed by then-Governor Matt Blunt on July 10, the bill (SB 1181) required the Department of Natural Resources to establish minimum energy efficiency standards for state buildings, based on the 2006 IECC. The Commissioner of the Office of Administration may exempt any state building from meeting the minimum energy efficiency standard requirement for safety reasons or when the cost of compliance is expected to exceed the energy cost savings. Missouri has no mandatory or voluntary statewide energy code for private residential and commercial construction.  Public Buildings Code: Based on the 2006 IECC. TEXT: SB 1181 (2008) Citation: SECTIONS 8.295 – 8.837 – STATE BUILDINGS Application: Applies to all new and renovated state-owned construction. Approximate Stringency: As stringent as the 2006 IECC. Effective Date: July 1, 2009 Approved Compliance Tools: REScheck | COMcheck Background:  In response to legislation signed in 1993, for Energy Efficiency in State Facilities, a rule was finalized and published on January 26, 1996, with an effective date 30 days later that established “state building minimum efficiency standards.” The rule covered new state buildings (or portions), additions, substantial renovations, or existing buildings considered for lease (when over 10,000 sq. ft.) or acquisition by the state. ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1989 was adopted by reference for buildings other than single-family and multi-family residential buildings not over three stories high. For single-family and multi-family residential buildings, the latest editions of the Council of American Building Officials Model Energy Code (MEC) or ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.2-1993 was applicable. New editions/revisions to these adopted standards would automatically be adopted by reference and become effective three months after the date of their publication. (10 CSR 140-7, Department of Natural Resources.) No statewide requirements existed for other buildings; local cities and jurisdictions adopt their own requirements. Information last updated February 7, 2012 **** Based on:  2006 IECC Mandatory Date Passed:   Thursday, July 10, 2008 Date Effective:   Wednesday, July 1, 2009	History Missouri has no mandatory or voluntary statewide energy code for private residential and commercial construction. After the passage of SB 1181 in July 2008, all state-owned buildings must comply with Missouri Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard for Public Buildings, which is based on the 2006 IECC, beginning on July 1, 2009. The previous state-owned building code was based on ASHRAE 90.1-1989. Due to its history of strong local government, Missouri does not have a mandatory statewide energy code. However, however all local jurisdictions except class III counties have the right to adopt an energy code. As expected, this system creates a sometimes confusing patchwork of different codes throughout the state. Seethis page or see below for more details on local adoption.  Regardless of the system in place, the bottom line is that many jurisdictions in Missouri still don’t have an energy code—meaning that many residents do not receive the benefits of energy-efficient construction. Missouri has considered adopting a state code previously. For example, SB 745, drafted by BCAP in 2010, would have adopted the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 statewide. It also would have directed DNR to establish an automatic review cycle, either every three years or within nine months of the publication of a new model code version. In addition, HB 938 in 2011 would have established most of the 2006 International Code series as minimum statewide construction standards (the 2006 IECC was not specifically cited, but would have been included via its position as an alternative compliance path to Chapter 11 of the 2006 International Residential Code). Both bills, however, failed to move past the committee stage.  Local Adoption: For more, view the BCAP Missouri Gap Analysis Report, starting with pages 19-22. All local jurisdictions except class III counties have the right to adopt an energy code. As expected, this system creates a sometimes confusing patchwork of different codes throughout the state. It is typical for Missouri communities to adopt codes on a 6-year cycle rather than the 3-year code development cycle for ICC.  It is also typical for communities to follow the code adoption of surrounding communities. These adoption practices have developed two trends in Missouri; eastern Missouri communities are generally on the 2003 I-Codes and are moving/have moved to the 2009 I-Codes and western Missouri communities are generally on the 2006 I-Codes and are moving to the 2012 I-Codes.   Code Change Process:  Legislative: In Missouri, only the General Assembly is authorized to enact legislation to establish statewide building construction regulations and/or authorize a state agency to do so. However, there currently is no state regulatory agency authorized to promulgate, adopt, or update construction codes on a statewide basis.   Code Change Cycle:  No set schedule.  The most recent update to Missouri’s energy code for state-owned buildings became effective on July 1, 2009. Next Code Update:  There is no pending state energy code update.
Basic Facts Climate Zone:  4A, 5A  (zones based on DOE’s most recent zoning: zone numbers based on a spectrum, zone 1 represents very hot weather and zone 8 represents subarctic weather.  Letters indicate climate type, A-Humid, B-Dry, C-Marine) Population:  5,987,580 (2009, U.S. Census Bureau) Construction Activity:  New Housing Units Authorized by Permit: Total units: 13,273 Number of Housing Units by Structure Type: 1 unit: 7,777 2 units: 654 3 and 4 units: 854 5 or more units: 3,988 (2008, Real Estate Center) Projected Construction Rate:  7,782 dwelling units (-48% less than the previous year), maintaining an average value of $187,000  per dwelling unit. (2008, Real Estate Center) CO2 Emissions:  140.04 MMT CO2 (2007)	Energy Data Primary Energy Source:  Coal: 41% (2007, EIA) Energy Consumption:  Total Annual Energy Consumption of 1,964.1trillion Btu (2007, EIA) Energy Expenditures:  23,341.8 Million Nominal Dollars (2007, EIA) Energy Snapshot:  58% of the state’s natural gas supply is used for heating the home.Natural gas is the largest consumed source of energy for the state’s residential sector Residential use of natural gas in Missouri costs up to $12.97/thousand cu ft. Source: EIA
Materials supplied by: http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/missouri	Materials supplied by: http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/missouri

It all starts with using your energy efficiently. Scotty
Twitter <—- Find Me —> Facebook
Web Site: http://stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scottscontracting
Job Site Photo Album
Green Blo
g

Is this why our Gasoline Costs are Sky Rocketing?

Oil and Gas: Lobbying Background

For Months I have been preaching about Dirty Energy Politics and quoting information I’ve been viewing from http://opensecrets.org yet for some reason I’ve not received many responses to the Article Posts on the Sustainable Building Blogs I operate http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com and http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com. So with this post I’ve included everything from the open secrets web site in one easy to use point of reference. As you will see the various lobbying organizations are spending Millions of Dollars Influencing our Elected Leaders.

Do Dirty Environmental Polluters Speak For You?

They don’t speak for me either. So Join me in the battle to reduce Climate Change created by the Biggest Polluters and the Lobbying Organizations that buy off the Politicians in office.

I myself don’t have the lobbying power that these organizations do.

So I took the next best step and joined a movement called 350 and

created with the organizations assistance created a group for St Louis.

Here are the details I’ve worked out so far:

A new Meetup has been posted in the 350 of St Louis 350.org Community

Here are the details for “Let’s meet in Saint Louis, MO”:

When:
TBD

Where:
Provide a venue for this Meetup:
http://www.meetup.com/350/350-of-St-Louis/97166/t/bn1_l2/?ed=venue

Let others know about this Meetup! Send them to:
http://www.meetup.com/350/350-of-St-Louis/97166/t/bn1_l1/

Tag any tweets, photos, and videos with #350ppm.

Add info to your address book to receive all Meetup emails

Check out Meetup Groups near you! http://www.meetup.com/cities/us/mo/saint_louis/

I am only one person in the big clog of life and need your help. Use the above links to join me in the fight against the unscrupulous individuals and companies that are polluting the Air we Breath, Water we Drink, and the Land we all depend upon for our daily substance.

This applies to both the Veggies and Meaties

Now on with the promised information about the Lobbying Activities of the Oil and Gas Industries

This industry, which includes multinational and independent oil and gas producers and refiners, natural gas pipeline companies, gasoline service stations and fuel oil dealers, has long enjoyed a history of strong influence in Washington. Individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans.

Though former oilmen George W. Bush and Dick Cheney occupied the White House for eight years, the oil and gas industry could not win support for repealing bans on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. However, Congress voted in 2008 to lift a ban on offshore drilling. These companies are also wary of cap-and-trade climate change legislation, such as the measure Democratic President Barack Obama supports. Yet Obama still received $884,000 from the oil and gas industry during the 2008 campaign, more than any other lawmaker except his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Obama appeared poised to usher in more offshore drilling expansion in 2010 — until the explosion of a BP-operated oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that resulted in millions of gallons of fossil fuels to leak into the coastal waters of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. The environmental toll has been significant, and industries such as tourism and fishing have suffered. Politically, the Obama administration has delayed plans to expand offshore drilling in many areas, and Congress is mulling whether to pass legislation aimed at avoiding another disaster of similar scope.

In contrast to former President Bush’s largely pro-industry stance on energy and environmental issues, the Democratic-controlled White House and Congress will probably grant these companies fewer favors. Bush consistently rolled back Clinton-era restrictions on commercial uses of federal lands—including nature preserves, national forests and national monuments. To the oil and gas industry’s delight, he got one step closer in March 2005 when Senate Republicans passed a budget resolution containing a filibuster-proof provision to allow for drilling in ANWR.

Oil and gas companies are always among the industries to spend the most on lobbying, pouring $132.2 million into these efforts in 2008 alone.

– Aaron Kiersh and Dave Levinthal

Updated June 2010

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

Oil & Gas

Industry Profile, 2010

Year: “) “) “) “) “) “) “) “) “) “) “) “) “)

Total for Oil & Gas: $146,577,043
Total Number of Clients Reported: 195
Total Number of Lobbyists Reported: 788
Total Number of Revolvers: 500 (63.5%)

. Campaign Contributions from this industry

View totals by: Client/Parent | Subsidiary/Affiliate

Client/Parent	Total
ConocoPhillips	$19,626,382
Chevron Corp	$12,890,000
Exxon Mobil	$12,450,000
Royal Dutch Shell	$10,370,000
Koch Industries	$8,070,000
BP	$7,335,000
American Petroleum Institute	$7,300,000
Anadarko Petroleum	$5,150,000
Marathon Oil	$5,130,000
Williams Companies	$4,900,000
America’s Natural Gas Alliance	$3,360,000
Chesapeake Energy	$2,776,560
National Petrochemical & Refiners Assn	$2,764,909
Occidental Petroleum	$2,582,989
Murphy Oil	$2,410,000
Devon Energy	$1,380,000
Apache Corp	$1,310,000
Noble Energy	$1,290,000
National Propane Gas Assn	$1,200,000
Independent Petroleum Assn of America	$1,185,774
Interstate Natural Gas Assn of America	$1,140,000
Sunoco Inc	$1,120,000
Hess Corp	$1,100,000
Spectra Energy	$1,083,509
El Paso Corp	$1,076,718
American Gas Assn	$980,000
Kosmos Energy	$890,000
Tesoro Corp	$870,300
Energy Transfer Equity	$850,000
Weatherford International	$840,000
Reliance Industries Ltd	$760,000
Petroleum Marketers Assn	$685,000
Valero Energy	$644,000
Gas Technology Institute	$625,000
Plains Exploration & Production	$600,000
Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition	$545,000
Transocean Inc	$540,000
Denbury Resources	$540,000
PDVSA	$470,000
TMT Group	$470,000
Enbridge Pipelines/Lakehead Pipeln Ptnrs	$440,000
Cobalt International Energy	$430,000
Hercules Offshore	$420,000
National Fuel Gas Corp	$400,000
Natural Gas Supply Assn	$370,455
Enbridge Energy Partners	$350,000
Halliburton Co	$345,000
Quintana	$300,000
Soc of Ind Gasoline Marketers of America	$300,000
Statoil ASA	$298,500
Gas Processors Assn	$270,000
Bass Enterprises Production	$270,000
Ansaldo Energia	$270,000
Doyon Drilling Inc	$265,000
Ad Hoc Deep Water Expl/Production Cltn	$260,000
Gas Natural SDG SA	$250,000
Domestic Petroleum Council	$240,000
Atlas Energy	$240,000
ATP Oil & Gas	$240,000
Nexen Inc	$240,000
Enterprise Products Partners	$236,000
Arctic Slope Regional Corp	$235,000
Magellan Midstream Partners	$232,385
Cheniere Energy	$230,000
Syntroleum Corp	$219,000
Anschutz Corp	$200,000
Frontier Oil	$200,000
Lansdale Co	$200,000
Hunt Consolidated	$200,000
Nicor Inc	$200,000
Oceaneering Intl	$200,000
CNX Gas Corp	$192,500
CenterPoint Energy	$190,000
BG Group	$190,000
EnCana Corp	$190,000
Kinder Morgan Inc	$190,000
Assn of Oil Pipe Lines	$184,400
Nabors Industries	$180,000
Helix Energy Solutions	$180,000
TransCanada Corp	$180,000
US Turkmenistan Business Council	$180,000
In Situ Oil Sands Alliance	$170,000
Industrial Safety Training Council	$160,000
Mitsui Oil Exploration Co	$160,000
Arrow General Supplies & Services Co	$160,000
AGL Resources	$160,000
Sinclair Oil	$160,000
American Public Gas Assn	$155,000
Nustar Energy	$152,500
ONEOK Inc	$150,000
Questar Corp	$150,000
Intl Assn of Drilling Contractors	$150,000
Michigan Consolidated Gas Co	$140,000
National Oilheat Research Alliance	$140,000
Southwest Gas	$140,000
National Oilwell Varco	$137,500
US Oil & Gas Assn	$129,195
XTO Energy	$120,000
Tellus Operating Group	$120,000
Gulf LNG Energy	$120,000
Countrymark Cooperative	$120,000
Gary-Williams Energy	$120,000
Ergon Inc	$120,000
Excelerate Energy	$120,000
Kern Oil & Refining Co	$110,000
Marion Energy	$110,000
Vulcan Energy	$110,000
Tidewater Inc	$100,000
Strata Production	$100,000
Hyperion Resources	$100,000
Hornbeck Offshore Services	$100,000
Seminole Energy Services	$100,000
Oilfield Services & Drilling Indus Cltn	$100,000
Gilbarco Inc	$100,000
Great Point Energy	$100,000
Alliance Pipeline	$100,000
CSA America	$90,000
Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Assn	$90,000
Vitol Inc	$90,000
Independent Petroleum Assn/Mountn States	$85,000
DaVinci Hourani	$85,000
Denali-The Alaska Gas Pipeline	$80,000
Enstar Natural Gas	$80,000
Falck Alford Services	$80,000
Energen Corp	$80,000
National Stripper Well Assn	$80,000
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America	$80,000
US Oil	$80,000
NATSO	$78,973
Ohio Oil & Gas Assn	$70,000
Alon USA Energy	$70,000
Talisman Energy	$70,000
New England Fuel Institute	$67,000
Oil Oxidizer	$60,000
Aegean Oil & Environmental Corp	$60,000
Encore Acquisition	$60,000
Sigma	$60,000
Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition	$52,500
Colonial Pipeline	$50,000
Frank Reidy	$50,000
Alberta Energy	$50,000
Navajo Nation Oil & Gas Co	$40,000
Oil Shale Exploration	$40,000
QEP Resources	$40,000
Iroquois Gas Transmission System	$40,000
McDermott International	$40,000
Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority	$37,494
AES Corp	$30,000
BakkenLink Pipeline	$30,000
Western States Petroleum Assn	$30,000
Washington Gas Light Co	$28,000
Camelot Oil & Gas Development	$20,000
Alyeska Pipeline Service	$20,000
Green Earth Fuels	$20,000
DeepStar Project	$20,000
Mariner Energy	$20,000
NIC Holding	$20,000
UNEV Pipeline	$19,500
Trenton Fuel Works	$10,000
Western Independent Refiners Assn	$10,000
TORP Technology	$10,000
Texas Alliance of Energy Producers	$10,000
Northern Star Natural Gas	$10,000
Elkem Holding Inc	$10,000
American Assn of Petroleum Geologists	$10,000
Colonial Oil Industries	$10,000
Boardwalkd Pipelines	$0
Bradwood Landing	$0
C&C Technologies	$0
Cabot Oil & Gas	$0
Delta Petroleum	$0
Fleishman-Hillard Inc	$0
NSTAR	$0
Seven Seas Petroleum	$0
Petro-Hunt LLC	$0
Montana Refining Co	$0
National Assn of Shell Marketers	$0
National Cooperative Refinery Assn	$0
Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Assn	$0
Gulf South Pipeline Co	$0
Stanley Energy	$0

NOTE: All lobbying expenditures on this page come from the Senate Office of Public Records. Data for the most recent year was downloaded on January 31, 2010.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

Lobbying

Oil & Gas Lobbyist-Client

Total Number of Lobbyists Reported: 788*
Total Number of Revolvers: 500 (63.5%)

Download:

Lobbyist	Lobbying Firm/Registrant
Adcock, Michael W	Van Scoyoc Assoc
Addison, Daniel R	Patton Boggs LLP
Agnew, Richard A	Van Ness Feldman
Aguillen, Dean	Ogilvy Government Relations
Akins, Haley E	Dow Lohnes Government Strategies
Albert, Alex	McKenna, Long & Aldridge
Alfano, Holly A	National Assn of Truck Stop Operators
Allen, Kevin	Clark & Weinstock
Alperin, Janice	El Paso Corp
Amontree, Tom	America’s Natural Gas Alliance
Anderson, Mark A	Kelley, Drye & Warren
Anderson, Mark Joseph	Kelley, Drye & Warren
Anderson, Rebecca L	Williams & Jensen
Anderson, Tobyn J	Lighthouse Consulting Group
Antelo, Cristina	Podesta Group
Archer, Bill	PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Architzel, Paul	Alston & Bird
Armstrong, James	Shell Oil
Atkins, Caroline	ConocoPhillips
Avery, Kevin J	Marathon Oil
Ayres, Merribel S	Lighthouse Consulting Group
Baer, Julian	Olsson, Frank & Weeda
Baierlein, Daniele	Podesta Group
Baird, Frederick A “Tripp” III	JC Watts Companies
Baker, George D	Williams & Jensen
Baker, Teal	Podesta Group
Bangert, Philip	Patton Boggs LLP
Barbour, Austin	Capitol Resources
Barnes, Ben	Ben Barnes Group
Barnett, Charles	Alpine Group
Barnette, James D	Steptoe & Johnson
Barry, Lisa B	Chevron Corp
Bates, Michael J	Prime Policy Group
Bayless, James L Jr	Winstead, Sechrest & Minick
Beal, Lisa	Interstate Natural Gas Assn of America
Beatty, Chris	KRL International
Beaudreau, David	DC Legislative & Regulatory Services
Beaulieu, Stephen A	National Assn of Truck Stop Operators
Becker-Dippmann, Angela	McBee Strategic Consulting
Beer, Michael S	Williams & Jensen
Beizer, Amy	Van Ness Feldman
Belair, Robert R	Oldaker, Belair & Wittie
Belcher, Leslie	Steptoe & Johnson
Bell, Michael J	Hogan Lovells
Bemis, Robert	Noble Energy
Bendall, Jennifer L	Eris Group
Benedict, Mark	Genesis Group
Bentzel, Carl W	DCI Group
Berman, Howard	Dutko Worldwide
Berman, Michael S	Duberstein Group

123456 …17 Next

* Actual number of individual lobbyists. This number may be different from the total number of records as lobbyists may be associated with more than one lobbying firm.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

Interest Groups

Lobbying

• Overview

• Growth in Spending

• Top Spenders

• Top Lobbying Firms

• Ranked Sectors

• Industries

• Contracts

• Issues

• Agencies

• Bills

• Contributions

  • Lobbyist-Client Clusters

  • LD-203 Summary

  • LD-203 Search

• Search

• Methodology

• Influence Inc 2000

Revolving Door

PACs

Heavy Hitters

527s

Join open secrets on:

If these stats and numbers sicken your stomach as much as they do mine and you question as to why our Trusted Leaders are Failing to Listen to the Constituents and failing to enact solutions to the everyday struggles that “We the People” are going thru in our daily lives as we are struggling to fill the gas tank and heat/cool our homes.

Then you are perfect person for the St Louis 350.org Community

Join Me in the Fight Against The Biggest Polluters!

Care2.com Listing Information:

Environment  (tags: climate-change, CO2emissions, destruction, environment, GOP, republicans, Govtfearmongering, government, oil industry, coal pollution, Politics as Usual, Dirty Politics, 350.org, opensecrets.org, Politcal Contributions )

Scott’s Contracting

Green Me UP-Scotty

scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
http://twitter.com/StLHandyMan
https://www.facebook.com/GreenMeUPScotty

Congress 2011-IT’S ONLY A DREAM

Subject: Congress 2011-IT’S ONLY A DREAM

Guest Post by: Russ Hacker

IT’S ONLY A DREAM

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971…before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land…all because of public pressure.

I’m asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. Term Limits.

12 years only, one of the possible options below..

A. Two Six-year Senate terms

B. Six Two-year House terms

C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!

If you agree with the above, pass it on.
–
Regards,

Russ Hacker
913.593.3480 (cell)
rhacker3@gmail.com

–

Scott’s Contracting

Green Me UP-Scotty

scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
http://twitter.com/StLHandyMan
https://www.facebook.com/GreenMeUPScotty

Disgusted with the Politicians

If you are not happy with the Politicians and their Back Room Deals with Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Business.I suggest to everyone to check out this site. It is full of valuable information about who is donating and to whom. After viewing the information- You to will then have an idea (A-Hah Moment!!!) of why the politicians vote as they do.

 

In regard to Climate Change and Global Warming- the Biggest Polluters

Donate the most money to the Politicians. The Majority of the Republican Party receives Donations (Numbering in the Millions) to their piggy banks in the form of Lobbying $ Money $, campaign re-election funds, etc

The only viable solutions I can see is to:
1) End lobbying activities by Big Business;
2) Don’t Vote Republican (in the upcoming elections-I will be voting a Straight Democratic Ticket for the 1st time in my life- and I personally am still in shock when I say this);

3)Get serious about Reducing Energy Use- by Weatherization, Recycling, and Renewable Energy in your Home and Work.

Sincerly,

Green Me UP-Scotty

ps: a house is built one piece at a time, each stage of the Building Process is built on the preceding one. The same technique can be applied to Building a Less Polluted and Better World for everyone.

Article also posted here: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/corporations-or-politicians-hurting-america/question-1452293/comment-54728007/ and Repower America

Republicans Ax the Budget $61 Million

The Proposed cuts sound good in theory while actually doing more harm than good. (Using Simple Math anyone can see)

Did the proposed cuts enacted by the House in the wee hours make any one else sick?  If your are not sick yet your Health may soon suffer.

The newly elected Tea Party Republican Representatives lead the charge in Hand-Cuffing the EPA and their Pollution Control Measures.  The actions sound good in theory, but actually will create more harm than actual help.

Coal and Oil Industry backing the House Republicans cut the only Regulating Agency the Fossil Fuel Industries are forced to conform to The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).

• The Republicans Claim: “The People have Spoken” “we are acting in their best interest.”

Who are they kidding?  Here are Dirty Coal Figures that contradict the proposed cuts and show the proposed cuts only benefit the Fossil Fuel Industry and Contribute the Harmful GHG Emissions that are causing Climate Change and Global Warming.

• coal’s costs in environmental and public health damage would triple the cost of coal-generated electricity …best estimates of costs from coal’s annual air pollution at $188 billion and costs from its contributions to global warming at $62 billion ($250 Billion Dollars Combined) (quote)

Using Simple Math anyone can see:

• $61 Billion Cut from Budget – $250 billion Coal Pollution Costs = nets a negative$189 Billion in Pollution Costs from Coal.

The Proposed cuts sound good in theory while actually doing more harm than good. With Leadership like this it is no wonder why the US Budget is out of control.  When enacted programs net a negative numbers.  Who in their correct mind frame would continue to enact programs that do more harm than good?  It’s not hard to figure out that steps should be made to correct the Actions to create a

positive cash flow.

There are better ways to Balance an “Out of Control” Federal Spending Budget.

I suggest that future budget cuts should be made starting with the Politicians Salaries.

It seem that they want the Constituents to live on less.

I think turn-a-round is fair play – Ax and Cut the Elected Leaders Salaries.  The majority of them are responsible for the mess we are in now anyway. Scotty 2/20/11

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician

Share

Republicans Take Heed-Science the GOP can’t wish away

Suggestions for the Republicans in Office:

1. Get with the Program and push yourself away Monetary Feed Trough; supported by the Big Oil and Big Coal Campaign Donations, it is clouding your Judgment on Global Warming / Climate Change.

• The Fog in your Head is being caused by the CO2 emissions from Fossil Fuels

• The Donations have Clearly Altered Your Perceptions that: Fossil Fuels are not Destroying our Planet.
• If you think God will save us like Republican John Shimkus-Joke of the Day- Rep J Shimkus believes god will save us from Global Warming– I’d like to introduce you too Reality- “The World is Warming at an Alarming Rate” see the Following Web Links

• global warming (3)
• Global Warming Basics for Research (1)
• Global Warming Research (1)

See for Your Self and determine which Politician in your States Elected Officials- whose side of the Bread gets Buttered by the Big Oil and Big Coal Companies at: http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=congress (Missouri’s Roy Blunt made the Top 5. (That’s sure something to be proud of-NOT!))

If you think the USA does not want Clean Energy for Homes and Business- Take note of the Nov 2, 2010 Election and the Clean Green Energy-http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_%282008%29

It obvious that the Republican Party is not interested in Creating Jobs-yet so many Americans are out of Work-WTF? Is not a portion of your Pay Check created by the Taxes levied against our Pay Checks? Maybe Americans should claim Exempt on their W4′s?

Food For Thought: What if the Political Leaders Pay Checks were determined by the Performance of their Actions or Lack of Actions in the Congress and Senate. I bet many would be singing a different tune.

Mark my Words: Lack of Bi-Partisanship will be a factor in the Next Election

Republicans supposedly support Business Growth- How much will a Business Grow if the Un-Employed can’t buy any products?

I encourage everyone to contact your Leaders in the House and Senate, use the following web link to find your Elected Officials Contact Information and Let them know your Thoughts. They are supposed to Listen to their Constituents.
http://tellmypolitician.com

Science the GOP can’t wish away

By Sherwood Boehlert
Friday, November 19, 2010

Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn’t help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party’s line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.

National Journal reported last month that 19 of the 20 serious GOP Senate challengers declared that the science of climate change is either inconclusive or flat-out wrong. Many newly elected Republican House members take that position. It is a stance that defies the findings of our country’s National Academy of Sciences, national scientific academies from around the world and 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists.

Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.

I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.

In a trio of reports released in May, the prestigious and nonpartisan National Academy concluded that “a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.” Our nation’s most authoritative and respected scientific body couldn’t make it any clearer or more conclusive.

When I was chairman of the House Committee on Science, top scientists from around the world came before our panel. They were experts that Republicans and Democrats alike looked to for scientific insight and understanding on a host of issues. They spoke in probabilities, ranges and concepts – always careful to characterize what was certain, what was suspected and what was speculative. Today, climate scientists – careful as ever in portraying what they know vs. what they suspect – report that the body of scientific evidence supporting the consensus on climate change and its cause is as comprehensive and exhaustive as anything produced by the scientific community.

While many in politics – and not just of my party – refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change, leaders of some of our nation’s most prominent businesses have taken a different approach. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This was no collection of mom-and-pop shops operated by “tree huggers” sympathetic to any environmental cause but, rather, a step by hard-nosed, profit-driven capitalists. General Electric, Alcoa, Duke Energy, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler signed on. USCAP, persuaded by scientific facts, called on the president and Congress to act, saying “in our view, the climate change challenge will create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy.”

There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem’s existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution. The record flooding, droughts and extreme weather in this country and others are consistent with patterns that scientists predicted for years. They are an ominous harbinger.

The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn’t stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member of any party should look the other way when the basic operating parameters of scientific inquiry – the need to question, express doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity – are exploited for the sake of political expediency. My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it’s also bad politics.

What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn’t deny the existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to address them.

The National Academy reports concluded that “scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming.” Party affiliation does not change that fact.

The writer, a Republican, represented New York’s 24th District in Congress from 1983 to 2007. He is a special adviser to the Project on Climate Science.

Joke of the Day- Rep J Shimkus believes god will save us from Global Warming–

When I read something like this a few things jump out at me and I really wonder what and who my Neighbors to the East voted for? With Leaders such as this Governing our Nation its painfully obvious why we are in the Mess we are in. The Old Adage of the Blind leading the Blind. I expect nothing less from the Republican Party who accepts the Largest Contributions from the Fossil Fuel Industry.

via Joke of the Day- Rep J Shimkus believes god will save us from Global Warming–.