Home | About | Donate

#WebOfDenial: Senators to Call Out Big Oil's Blockade of Climate Action


#1


#2
  1. It's about time.
  2. Many of us in NY State wish Al Franken represented us, but he's really from Minnesota.

#3

Some of these very senators are now engaged in helping Big Ag cover up the problems with GMO foods, instead of "calling out the powerful industry" of franken-food pushers as they should be doing in order to protect and inform the public BEFORE MORE comprehensive damage is done to our food supply, environment, and personal health. Hypocritical double standard at work.


#5

We have reached a point in our technology, knowledge and communications capacity where if goods and services are distributed fairly no one should have to suffer for the stupid greed of a tiny few.


#6

The Democratic big oi/pro-fracking Party seems to be a huge part of the problem. Time to dump those losers and Go Green.


#7

This is American politics in action! Where a resolution without any teeth is a big news event. What does this accomplish except to make the politicians look like they are doing something when they are not.

If you don't believe me then ask yourself just how useful it is to call out corporations about tobacco? Is this for real? Tobacco? How many decades have passed since that was newsworthy?

This baloney is depressing. It'd be different if they were also announcing some positive legislation with this charade. They treat us all like we are fools and easily deceived.


#10

Exxon's worst-case scenario for denying climate disruption will be a slap on a wrist and a small (relative to their profits) fine.

Our worst-case scenario for the climate disruption that they produced and denied, is that large parts of the planet will be uninhabitable, flooded coastal cities, mass migration of climate refugees, droughts, super-storms, ocean acidification, and the breakdown of the food chain. It's the end of civilization as we know it; the death of millions of innocent human beings, not to mention countless other life forms.

Doesn't seem fair, does it?


#11

Recognizing that your faith-based beliefs are impervious to facts, i post this for others:


There's a theory out there that suggests that the long white trails left by aircraft are deliberately sprayed "chemtrails", and that this spray contains aluminum, and that this will make a lot of money for Monsanto, as they are patenting aluminum resistant genetically modified crops, and so will be able to control the food market.

This is incorrect, for a number of reasons. "Chemtrails" themselves have been extensively debunked elsewhere, but let's look at this particular claim about aluminum resistent crops. Why is it wrong?

It's not the aluminum that's the problem, it's the acid, which creates aluminum ions from naturally occurring aluminum compounds. Aluminum toxicity in acid soil has been a known problem for over 100 years. Spraying aluminum or aluminum oxide will not increase the amount of aluminum ions. You'd need to spray acid. Spraying aluminum would not significantly increase the amount of aluminum in soil, as soil is about 7% aluminum naturally.

References:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug07/SoilsKochian.kr.html

When soils are too acidic, aluminum that is locked up in clay minerals dissolves into the soil as toxic, electrically charged particles called ions, making it hard for most plants to grow. In fact, aluminum toxicity in acidic soils limits crop production in as much as half the world's arable land, mostly in developing countries in Africa, Asia and South America.

http://www.plantstress.com/Articles/toxicity_m/acidsoil_chapter.pdf

Acid soils limit crop production on 0-40% of the world’s arable land and up to 70% of the world’s potentially arable land (Haug, 1983). Although the poor fertility of acid soils is due to a combination of mineral toxicities (aluminum and manganese) and deficiencies (phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and molybdenum), aluminum toxicity is the single most important factor, being a major constraint for crop production on 67% of the total acid soil area.

There are several estimates of the extent of acid soils in the world. According to van Wambeke (1976), acid soils occupy 1,455 million ha (11%) of the world’s land, while Haug (1983) estimated that 30-40% of the world’s arable soils and up to 70% of potentially arable land are acidic.

Even though spraying aluminum would not make much difference, consider just how much aluminum you'd need to spray to raise the amount of aluminum in the soil by 1%.

There's about 470 million acres of arable land in the US. The topsoil is about the top six inches. So that's 290 billion cubic meters of topsoil. 1% of that is 2.9 billion cubic meters. Soil is about 1500 kg/cu.m, so that's, 4.35 billion tonnes of aluminum needed to raise the aluminum content of soil by 1% (i.e. from 8% to 9%).

Most of the world's production of Aluminum comes from bauxite. The total world production of bauxite is around 200 million tonnes per year. Bauxite is only about 50% aluminum by weight.

Hence, to increase the aluminum content of US arable land by 1%, you would need to spray the equivalent of 40 years of the entire world's production of bauxite.

And that's assuming you can somehow target just the arable land. That certainly does not seem to be the case with the reported "spray" patterns. Arable land is only about 20% of the total land area of the US. So you'd need around five times that much, or 200 years worth.

Hopefully you can see what a non-starter this idea is. You have to mine all the bauxite in the world for 200 years, then ship it all to the US, then spray it over the land, and you'd still only get a 1% increase in aluminum. Which would make no difference to aluminum toxicity, as that is caused by the acidity.


(PS: Congratulations on recreating your account here after you were banned.)


#12

Only a dozen or so? SHAME ON THE OTHER 48 OR SO SENATORS! This is a disgrace that so few are educated enough and care enough about human survival and the state of our planet.


#15

Agreed.


#16

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#18

i have to say, with no personal disrespect intended, "chemtrails" is nonsense.

"Looking at the sky" is not science.

Please follow the link to the debunking page, which among other things, provides clear science regarding the variable visible atmospheric behavior of contrails.


#25

Why are there only Dems and one Indy Senator, are Republicans unable to act responsibly? Or is it that they are distracted by the billion$ of dollar$? When I took my oath of allegiance it was to the "land of the free and home of the brave" what happened?


#26

Mostly it is one thing: greed.


#31

You understand that jets fly in patterns? Jets do not randomly fly in and out of areas, jets follow pathways. When contrails are not dispersing due to atmospheric conditions, then jets flying in pathways create patterns in the sky.

i'm constantly amazed at the faith-based belief in this stuff. With no evidence other than looking up, and no explanation, you're sure... of SOMETHING. Despite there being clear scientific explanations for climate chaos, and clear explanation of contrails and their behaviors. Including their behavior of not dispersing when atmospheric conditions are right, and forming patterns when jets repeatedly cross an area.

Happy "trails"!


#32

Empirical analysis of soils provide NO SUPPORT, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, for the "chemtrail" theory. Nor does any other empirical analysis of ANYTHING, provide ANY such support. Nothing.

Feel free to post any. No one ever has when i've asked.


#34

J77 writes:
"... i'm new here..."

Well in an absolutely astonishing coincidence, a previous poster had the SAME MONIKER that you chose when you joined Common Dreams two days ago! And that previous Joseph77 posted persistently about "chemtrails"! Isn't that the most astonishing coincidence?


#37

It occurred to me that it was tactical. That by adding in tobacco, a product that even someone like Infhofe, might recognize as being problematic, they increase the possibility that some will make the connection between the corps' actions then and the corps', actions now. Interesting what the sound of corps is.

It might not mean much but perhaps it will enlighten a few and that's of some value. And just what else would we be expecting these handful of Senators to be doing?


#38

If this isn't of itself: overwhelming evidence of the corrupting influence and profound danger to mankind of corporate money over the 'greater good' - what is?! Our own military is convinced climate change is the single most serious threat facing the United States.' So, why don't we see John McCain or other neocons shouting from the rooftops; 'their righteous indignation for the petroleum industry's disgusting lack of conscience and patriotism', in deliberately hiding the science of it's own employees and willfully scheming the manipulation of the citizenry? This is clearly a very well planned conspiracy put into action over decades, from the highest level of power within this industry.
They should be indicted and tried at the Hague where they're divested from all wealth holdings, and charged with crimes against humanity.


#39

Yes, i comprehend that: There are geometric shapes in the sky formed by contrails of jets flying in patterns.

Did you not comprehend my response? That that says ABSOLUTE ZERO about anything called "chemtrails."