Category Archives: Oil

Join me to oppose:Res 37 Toxic Air Bill by Sen J.Inhofe

I am writing you today in vehement opposition to the toxic air bill offered by Senator James Inhofe, S.J. Res 37.

The Online Petition I signed via the Environment Defense Action Fund is listed to follow and emailed to Sen R.Blunt and Sen C.McCaskill.

  • My notes to Dirty Oil Roy Blunt are at the bottom of the Post.

This bill would use the obscure Congressional Review Act to block EPA’s new emission standards for hazardous mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants. If enacted, this bill would also forever prohibit the EPA from adopting substantially similar clean air standards in the future.

These standards, which the 1990 Clean Air Act specifically authorizes, have been in the works for more than two decades. They will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths every year and protect our kids from dangerous exposure to toxic mercury pollution, which can cause brain damage in infants and young children.

They will also save the American economy tens of billions of dollars in avoided health costs while likely leading to the creation of 117,000 jobs installing pollution control technologies between now and 2015.

Last year, more than 800,000 Americans submitted public comments in support of this rule. But now, a few of America’s largest corporate utilities have launched an aggressive campaign to block these standards. And Sen. Inhofe’s toxic air bill would do just that.

Please stand up for the health and safety of our kids and communities and reject the Inhofe bill.

Please take action today. Help us stop the Inhofe toxic air bill, which would wipe the EPA’s life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards off the books and punch a huge hole through our clean air protections.

My Notes:

Mr Blunt in an email I received yesterday from you. You wrote:

“Job creators in Missouri tell me that overreaching new regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency are one of the biggest obstacles to getting our economy back on track. Regulations like these threaten to make the cost of electric power skyrocket for most Americans and will sack families and workers with new costs, reducing their disposal income and ultimately threatening their standard of living.”

I’d like to point out the simple fact that-

“All the jobs in the world won’t help when Pollution kills the world.”

As you know here in St Louis- Ameren UE (Union Electric) uses Coal for producing our Electricity. This pollution from Coal Fired Power Plants is a leading cause of Asthma and Cancer. WebMD just reported last week that St Louis is Number 7 on the list of leading cities with Asthma Problems.

“The study also points out that recent statistics indicate asthma causes more than 3,300 deaths annually in the U.S. and is a factor in another 7,000.”

It would seem to me the more healthy people there are working equals more people paying taxes- ie: Income for the US Government.

If you are serious about creating jobs consider this: Energy Efficiency and Renewable “Non Polluting” Energy.

Steve Kidwell, Ameren Missouri Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, said:

“If we went after the potential that we’ve seen in our own study, we wouldn’t have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we’d be OK. But we’d lose $30 million a year. And we just can’t do that. It’s that simple.”

(This was a St Louis Post Dispatch Article that talked about making homes energy-efficient through weatherization.)

On another note about Energy Efficiency and Nuclear Energy- I’d like to share this info:

“For 1/2 the cost of replacing one nuclear power plant, we can retrofit 1,600,000 homes for “Energy Efficiency” and create 220,000 new jobs- which is 90 times more jobs than you’d get from a power plant replacement.”

ie: how much taxes that are needed for the USA would come from the 220,000 employees?

So basically I’m asking you to do the right thing and leave the EPA alone as the USA is making strides to curb its energy use which reduces the Pollutants in the Air, Land, and Water.

English: Mike Metzer, from the Environmental P...
English: Mike Metzer, from the Environmental Protection Agency, checks one of the many air sampling locations set up around the World Trade Center site. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Through the various reporting agencies on Political Contributions. (1 & 2) I know you receive the bulk of your money from Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Business. In the future who will be left to buy their products if the population is killed off from Fossil Fuel Pollution. I’m not even going to mention the fact that we can reduce our reliance on Foreign Oil (which is the root cause of the ongoing wars in the Middle East. ie: if they don’t have any money they can’t fight us).

Thank you, looking forward to your Reply.


Please take action today.
Help us stop the Inhofe toxic air bill, which would wipe the EPA’s life-saving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards off the books and punch a huge hole through our clean air protections.


Twitter (314) 669-5598 Facebook
Web Site:
Job Site Photo Album
Green Blog


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:


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

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.

    Seal of the United States Department of Energy.
    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:

Climate Concerns

Regional Issues & State Action: 

  • 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.

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


  • 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


  • 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: 


Date Passed: 

 Thursday, July 10, 2008

Date Effective: 

 Wednesday, July 1, 2009



  • 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: 

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)


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
    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.
    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:

Materials supplied by:

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

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 yet for some reason I’ve not received many responses to the Article Posts on the Sustainable Building Blogs I operate and 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 Community

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


Provide a venue for this Meetup:

Let others know about this Meetup! Send them to:

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!

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
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.


Oil & Gas Lobbyist-Client

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



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


Architzel, Paul

Alston & Bird

Armstrong, James

Shell Oil

Atkins, Caroline


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

12345617 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.

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 Community

Join Me in the Fight Against The Biggest Polluters! Listing Information:

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

Scott’s Contracting

Green Me UP-Scotty

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

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: (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-

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.

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.

Oil: The Clock Is Ticking

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Scott’s Contracting <scottscontracting> wrote:

  • ‘…131 years for replacement of gasoline and diesel, given the current pace of research and development; however, world’s oil could run dry almost a century before that …’

  • Math: 2010 + 131 = Year 2141 – 100 (century) = Year 2041

2041 – 2010 = 31 Years.

  • Where do you see your energy coming from in the Future?
  • Leave comments below in comment section.
  • All comments that are Energy Related and in English will be published. Scotty

It seems the panic time for both green enthusiasts and peak oil pundits.

According to a new paper by two researchers at the University of California – Davis, it would take 131 years for replacement of gasoline and diesel, given the current pace of research and development; however, world’s oil could run dry almost a century before that.

The research was published on Nov. 8 at Environmental Science & Technology, which is based on the theory that market expectations are good predictors reflected in prices of publicly traded securities.

By incorporating market expectations into the model, the authors, Nataliya Malyshkina and Deb Niemeier, indicated that based on their calculation, the peak of oil production could occur between 2010 and 2030, before renewable replacement technologies become viable at around 2140.

The estimates not only delayed the alternative energy timeline, but also pushed up the peak oil deadline. The researchers suggest some previous estimates that pegged year 2040 as the time frame when alternatives would start to replace oil, could be “overly optimistic”.

Article continues: entire article:

| by: Dian L. Chu November 14, 2010 |

Dian L. Chu picture

About this author:

Energy Explained

Oil-Natural_Gas-Solar-Geo Thermal-Wind-Electricity-Bio Mass-Nuclear-Gasoline-Heating_Oil-Diesel-Propane-Coal

US Energy Data Links for Energy and Energy Related Questions-All Areas of Energy Production and Uses are covered in this report by US Energy Department.

Energy Explained - Home

Reduce U.S. Petroleum Consumption

Info Provided by Scotts Contracting, Green Builder St Louis Renewable Energy
March 10, 2010

Report Emphasizes Need to Reduce U.S. Consumption of Petroleum

The price of oil is currently hovering near $80 per barrel, but that doesn’t include the potential economic costs to the United States that would be caused by disruptions in oil supply, according to a recent discussion paper by Resources for the Future (RFF), an independent research group. That report estimated the oil security premium for domestically produced oil at about $2.28 per barrel in 2008, rising to $4.45 by 2030, in constant 2007 dollars. In contrast, the oil security premium for imported oil starts at about $4.45 per barrel in 2008 and rises to $6.82 by 2030. While that analysis suggests that emphasizing domestic oil production over foreign imports has some advantages, the authors note that the security premium is minor compared to the current and future direct costs of oil, which the authors project to increase to more than $130 per barrel by 2030. Given that high price, the report concludes that the best policy would be to emphasize reductions in U.S. petroleum consumption, regardless of the source of oil. See the RFF summary and the full discussion paper (PDF 497 KB).

This is an excerpt from EERE Network News, a weekly electronic newsletter.