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.

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

When Did Progress Become a Partisan Issue? | Renewable Energy News Article

Political debate over the direction of United States energy and technology policy is obviously nothing new. But in recent weeks, two news items jumped out for me from the usual political cacophony:

News item 1: Republicans introduce bills in the House and Senate to repeal the 2007 federal law requiring 25-30 percent more energy-efficient light bulbs starting next year. Republicans in four state legislatures also offer bills to exempt their states from the mandate.

News item 2: As the new majority in the House,  Republicans have replaced the House cafeteria’s compostable cutlery and cups, introduced under ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Green the Capitol initiative, with the previously used plastic and polystyrene versions.

It’s one thing to disagree about tax incentives for the wind and solar industries, subsidies for the extraction of fossil fuels, the future role of nuclear power, the strictness of building efficiency standards, or countless other issues that will determine our energy future. But it seems like quite another thing to actually turn back the clock on progress already made.

“It’s just symbolism, but symbolism of the worst kind,” says Alan Salzman, CEO and managing director of clean-tech funder Vantage Point Venture Partners, of the compostable cutlery replacement. “While they’re at it, why don’t they put a nuclear plant in the basement?” One Congressman, Oregon Democrat Earl Blumenauer, was equally sarcastic with a Tweet: “I can hardly wait for the lead paint.”

What exactly is going on here?

In President Obama’s State of the Union address in January, he spoke of the U.S. need to “win the future” by stepping up our investments in education and technology R&D, including clean-energy technologies. Let’s see—America embracing the leading edge of innovation, leading the world in new technologies, as we’ve done in so many other tech revolutions throughout history—can any politician really be against this?

Apparently so.

Take the humble light bulb. Yes, the good old incandescent bulb is a venerable icon of Yankee ingenuity – the transformative product of one legendary American’s forward-thinking vision and above all, hard work. (It was Thomas Edison who famously said, “Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.”). The incandescent bulb was perfected by Edison (the concept had been around for 50 years already) in 1879. Isn’t it time to move on?

Former President George W. Bush seemed to think so when he signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 into law, after it had overwhelmingly passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support. That law included new efficiency standards for light bulbs as well as transportation and buildings, training programs for green jobs, funding for smart-grid initiatives, and many other measures. Contrary to the oppositional rhetoric now being thrown around, the law does not “ban” incandescent bulbs—it sets new efficiency standards that are easier to meet with newer compact fluorescent light (CFL) or especially light-emitting diode (LED) technologies.

That’s how you win the future – establish a policy goal for the common good, then let innovators, entrepreneurs, and investors fight it out to create the best, most cost-effective products to win in the marketplace. LED lighting, one of the five top trends spotlighted by Clean Edge in our Clean Energy Trends 2011 report released last month, is now a red-hot industry sector. Vantage Point alone has five LED-related startups in its portfolio: Bridgelux, Huga Optotech, glo AB, Light-Based Technologies, and a stealth company currently called Superbulbs.

But, cry opponents, Americans don’t want to be told what kind of light bulbs to buy. Well, the market has already rendered its verdict here. More than 70 percent of Americans have replaced at least one incandescent bulb with a CFL or LED, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll in February, and 84 percent say they are satisfied or very satisfied with the results. Walmart and Sam’s Club have sold more than 350 million CFL bulbs—somehow, I don’t think all the buyers are climate-change activists. In the USA Today/Gallup poll, 61 percent of Americans say the 2007 law is good, while just 31 percent say it’s bad. And light-bulb manufacturers overwhelmingly support it, too.

Some may point out that we’ve seen the ‘turn back the clock on progress’ theme before, citing President Ronald Reagan’s decision to remove Jimmy Carter’s solar PV panels (recently restored by Obama, after much public pressure) from the White House roof. But historical research shows that this story did not quite happen the way it’s usually told—that Reagan came into office in 1981 and ordered the removal as one of his first official acts.

The Reagan White House actually received solar power for more than five years; the panels were removed for roof maintenance in 1986 and not replaced—without any fanfare or making of political hay. Not to excuse the move, but at the time, the price of oil was below $10 a barrel ($20 in today’s dollars), climate change was an obscure scientific theory, and China didn’t have a more than 50 percent share of the global solar PV manufacturing industry (or much of a market for anything). The world is very different in 2011, and embracing progress should be more important, and less controversial, than ever. Especially with the U.S. now officially slipping to third in the global clean-energy market behind China and Germany, according to a new report from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

In the end, I think, it’s all about framing the issues. To borrow some favorite symbols of the anti-progress movement—if you ask people whether they believe in a ‘nanny state’ that makes all your choices for you, or whether they’re willing to sacrifice convenience or pay higher prices, they’ll say no. But ask about saving energy, encouraging innovation, and creating American jobs in the industries that will define global competitiveness in the 21^st century, and you’ll surely get a different response.

I know that the anti-progress naysayers have their reasons and motivations, and that partisan politics can always yield some bizarre results. But who really benefits from moving the nation backwards? Are the incandescent light bulb and plastic fork industries really critical to our future? “One of our favorite phrases at Vantage Point,” says Salzman, “is ‘invest in the inevitable.’ Does anyone think that fossil-based resources will get less expensive over time? Or that your grandson or granddaughter won’t be driving an electric car, powered by a smart grid? I want us to lead in the 21^st century industries, not the 20^th or 19^th century ones.”

Why is it so hard for some people to agree with that?

 

Wilder is Clean Edge’s senior editor, co-author of The Clean Tech Revolution, and a blogger about clean-tech issues for the Green section of The Huffington Post. E-mail him at wilder@cleanedge.com and follow him on Twitter at Clint_Wilder.

Scott’s Contracting

Green Me UP-Scotty

scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
http://twitter.com/StLHandyMan

When Did Progress Become a Partisan Issue? | Renewable Energy News Article.

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

The EPA protects the American public; please protect the EPA and Small Business

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Solar Nation wrote:

Thank you for using Solar Nation Mail System.

Message sent to the following recipients:
Senator Blunt
Senator McCaskill
Message text follows:

April 7, 2011

[recipient address was inserted here]

Dear [recipient name was inserted here],

The House of Representatives is very likely to pass HR910, a bill that
could rob the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to regulate
harmful pollution. President Obama has indicated that he will veto any
such bill passed by Congress, but he needs the support of the Senate both
before such an action and also in the event of an override vote.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Act has brought decades of
health benefits to Americans without damaging the economy or our ability
to generate electrical power. But HR910 threatens to undo this progress,
make us more rather than less dependent on fossil fuels, and prevent the
agency from obeying the Supreme Court’s order to regulate carbon emissions.

Senator, when presented with the opportunity to vote on a Senate version
of HR910, please cast your vote for the health of the environment and the
American people. Please vote against any bill that seeks to undermine the
EPA.

I’d also like to add: My current project: Installing an Energy Efficient
Roof System per DOE Guidelines on a Home in Sunset Hills, MO 63127. The
proposed roof system will have estimated rvalue: R40, an increase of R30
when compared to the existing roof. Because the Funding was reduced for
Energy Efficient Up-Grades via the Recovery Act Funding Reduction of 2010.

The Total Cost could exceed the Budget for the Home Owner- Even though I
have reduced my labor/installation charges by 20% because it is a Green
and Sustainable Project. I can’t lower my prices any more and pay the
required taxes for all those involved or expect my crew of 5 workers for
the proposed project to work for less pay. Something has to give in re to
the Governments plans on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Solutions.

The homeowner is also interested in a Photovoltaic System to generate
Clean Non-Polluting Energy that has no negative Side Affects- Such as
Nuclear Waste.

I feel as if the Politicians are driving the small business people into a
corner.

Here is what I propose:

It would seem to me that the fastest way out of the current
Economic situation that the Politicians in Washington have caused would be
to Create Jobs and remove the tax advantages that the top percentile are
not being required to pay- Remove the Government Sponsored Welfare. With
more people paying taxes from their wages it will ad to the Governments
Coffers / Piggy Banks, and more people will have money to spend on Goods
and Services. Thus creating the income needed to keep the Country Afloat
while improving the bottom line.

An old Businessman Told me once: “You can charge high prices and stay a
little busy or you can charge lower prices and stay really busy and make
more money” The same holds true in this situation. Example: I’d love to
donate to your Political Ambitions but the extra money I would have
donated has went to the higher gasoline costs at the Gas Pumps, currently
$3.69/gal in South City, MO.

I encourage you and your fellow Law Makers to Drop the we can’t deal with
the Other Party’s and get these problems solved. There has to be a middle
ground that each Party will support.

If all else fails: I say to cut the Politicians and Law Makers Pay Roll.
How can you and your Partners in Crime justify your high salaries on the
Backs of Joe Constituents? When our Salaries remain low from the Actions
and In-Actions caused by the Regulations in Place.

Scott’s Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com

http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com

“Monthly Energy Review” by the U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA), nuclear power and renewable energy sources are now neck-in-neck
with nuclear power’s share of domestic energy production dropping while
that from renewable sources growing rapidly.

The share of domestic U.S. energy production derived from renewable energy
sources (i.e., biomass/biofuels, geothermal, solar, water, wind) rose to
10.92% in 2010, up from 10.65% in 2009. By comparison, nuclear power’s
share of domestic energy production dropped from 11.48% in 2009 to 11.26%
in 2010.

Sincerely Disgusted,

Scotty

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested– Click here to Tell my Politician

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