A Little Movement

As indicated below, we have to expect an all out assault on this from the Dirty Fuels Cartel, as well as the Private-Profit-At-Public-Expense gang.

Make this one stick, and the next five get really hard. But make those stick, it should get a little easier.

Maine Will Vote In November On Creating Non-Profit Power Utility

The move was spurred by citizen concerns about climate change.

Maine residents are about to be bombarded with a public relations campaign aimed at saving the state’s two dominant electric utilities from being voted out of existence this November.

Via The Guardian:

If Mainers vote yes, they will make history – endorsing a first-of-its-kind plan to create a state-level, public power company through a hostile takeover.

But the parent companies of the existing utilities are spending millions to try and stop that.

It’s a vote which experts say could reverberate around the country as legacy, investor-owned utilities are being challenged to decarbonize while state officials adopt more aggressive climate agendas amid customer frustration at high rates and outages.

“This is one ship they don’t want to see launched,” said Kenneth Colburn, a former consultant with the global energy policy firm Regulatory Assistance Project, speaking about investor-backed utilities across the US. “Because it could turn into an armada.”

If the issue passes, things won't change anytime soon:

But how voters cast their ballots may come down to an article of faith. That’s because voters won’t have a definite date for the creation of the new entity, nor certainty on how it would affect their electric bills. If the ballot initiative to create Pine Tree Power wins, that’s just the beginning. Next, the value of each utility’s assets must be calculated and paid to the companies. The companies are currently worth some $5.4bn, according to their latest company reports. But CMP says the ultimate sales figure could jump to $13.5bn.

And no one can be sure how many years it could take for the inevitable legal challenges to play out. Our Power estimates three-to-four years. Maine Affordable Energy says 10 years is more likely.

As part of their influence campaign, the utilities are paying three former Maine legislators to persuade Mainers to vote “no” on the Pine Tree Power plan, public records and interviews show.

Yacht Buyers

The author makes one slip - he assumes the mega-wealthy can be shamed.

It can work with some - kinda - but it's wrong-headed, and needs to be stomped out of our thinking.

Plutocrats assume they're very special in a very special kind of way. They think their genius at "creating wealth" exempts them from the need for the moral code that binds the rest of us to each other.

The need to adhere to an ethical framework is just not something they believe applies to them.

Above all else, they need to believe their own press clippings about how they're different from other people, so they get to do things and live in ways that no one else can. They hate the "collective", so they have to hate anything that requires a collective effort - except of course the collective effort that keeps putting billions in their pockets, or the one that looks a lot like the crew of a SuperYacht.

The Superyachts of Billionaires Are Starting to Look a Lot Like Theft

If you’re a billionaire with a palatial boat, there’s only one thing to do in mid-May: Chart your course for Istanbul and join your fellow elites for an Oscars-style ceremony honoring the builders, designers and owners of the world’s most luxurious vessels, many of them over 200 feet long.

The nominations for the World Superyacht Awards were all delivered in 2022, and the largest contenders are essentially floating sea mansions, complete with amenities like glass elevators, glass-sided pools, Turkish baths and all-teak decks. The 223-foot Nebula, owned by the WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum, comes with an air-conditioned helicopter hangar.

I hate to be a wet blanket, but the ceremony in Istanbul is disgraceful. Owning or operating a superyacht is probably the most harmful thing an individual can do to the climate. If we’re serious about avoiding climate chaos, we need to tax, or at the very least shame, these resource-hoarding behemoths out of existence. In fact, taking on the carbon aristocracy, and their most emissions-intensive modes of travel and leisure, may be the best chance we have to boost our collective “climate morale” and increase our appetite for personal sacrifice — from individual behavior changes to sweeping policy mandates.

On an individual basis, the superrich pollute far more than the rest of us, and travel is one of the biggest parts of that footprint. Take, for instance, Rising Sun, the 454-foot, 82-room megaship owned by the DreamWorks co-founder David Geffen. According to a 2021 analysis in the journal Sustainability, the diesel fuel powering Mr. Geffen’s boating habit spews an estimated 16,320 tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent gases into the atmosphere annually, almost 800 times what the average American generates in a year.

And that’s just a single ship. Worldwide, more than 5,500 private vessels clock in about 100 feet or longer, the size at which a yacht becomes a superyacht. This fleet pollutes as much as entire nations: The 300 biggest boats alone emit 315,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year, based on their likely usage — about as much as Burundi’s more than 10 million inhabitants. Indeed, a 200-foot vessel burns 132 gallons of diesel fuel an hour standing still, and can guzzle 2,200 gallons just to travel 100 nautical miles.

Then there are the private jets, which make up a much higher overall contribution to climate change. Private aviation added 37 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in 2016, which rivals the annual emissions of Hong Kong or Ireland. (Private plane use has surged since then, so today’s number is likely higher.)

You’re probably thinking: But isn’t that a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of coal plants around the world spewing carbon? It’s a common sentiment; last year, Christophe Béchu, France’s minister of the environment, dismissed calls to regulate yachts and chartered flights as “le buzz” — flashy, populist solutions that get people amped up but ultimately only fiddle at the margins of climate change.

But this misses a much more important point. Research in economics and psychology suggests humans are willing to behave altruistically — but only when they believe everyone is being asked to contribute. People “stop cooperating when they see that some are not doing their part,” as the cognitive scientists Nicolas Baumard and Coralie Chevallier wrote last year in Le Monde.

In that sense, superpolluting yachts and jets don’t just worsen climate change, they lessen the chance that we will work together to fix it. Why bother, when the luxury goods mogul Bernard Arnault is cruising around on the Symphony, a $150 million, 333-foot superyacht?

“If some people are allowed to emit 10 times as much carbon for their comfort,” Mr. Baumard and Ms. Chevallier asked, “then why restrict your meat consumption, turn down your thermostat or limit your purchases of new products?”

Whether we’re talking about voluntary changes (insulating our attics and taking public transit) or mandated ones (tolerating a wind farm on the horizon or saying goodbye to a lush lawn), the climate fight hinges to some extent on our willingness to participate. When the ultrarich are given a free pass, we lose faith in the value of that sacrifice.

Taxes aimed at superyachts and private jets would take some of the sting out of these conversations, helping to improve everybody’s climate morale,” a term coined by Georgetown Law professor Brian Galle. But making these overgrown toys a bit more costly isn’t likely to change the behavior of the billionaires who buy them. Instead, we can impose new social costs through good, old-fashioned shaming.

Last June, @CelebJets — a Twitter account that tracked the flights of well-known figures using public data, then calculated their carbon emissions for all to see — revealed that the influencer Kylie Jenner took a 17-minute flight between two regional airports in California. “kylie jenner is out here taking 3 minute flights with her private jet, but I’m the one who has to use paper straws,” one Twitter user wrote.

As media outlets around the world covered the backlash, other celebrities like Drake and Taylor Swift scrambled to defend their heavy reliance on private plane travel. (Twitter suspended the @CelebJets account in December after Elon Musk, a frequent target of jet-tracking accounts, acquired the platform.)

There’s a lesson here: Massively disproportionate per capita emissions get people angry. And they should. When billionaires squander our shared supply of resources on ridiculous boats or cushy chartered flights, it shortens the span of time available for the rest of us before the effects of warming become truly devastating. In this light, superyachts and private planes start to look less like extravagance and more like theft.

Change can happen — and quickly. French officials are exploring curbing private plane travel. And just last week — after sustained pressure from activists — Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam announced it would ban private jets as a climate-saving measure.

Even in the United States, carbon shaming can have outsized impact. Richard Aboulafia, who’s been an aviation industry consultant and analyst for 35 years, says that cleaner, greener aviation, from all-electric city hoppers to a new class of sustainable fuels, is already on the horizon for short flights. Private aviation’s high-net-worth customers just need more incentive to adopt these new technologies. Ultimately, he says, it’s only our vigilance and pressure that will speed these changes along.

There’s a similar opportunity with superyachts. Just look at Koru, Jeff Bezos’s newly built 416-foot megaship, a three-masted schooner that can reportedly cross the Atlantic on wind power alone. It’s a start.

Even small victories challenge the standard narrative around climate change. We can say no to the idea of limitless plunder, of unjustifiable overconsumption. We can say no to the billionaires’ toys.

SuperYacht sinks off Italian coast

Today's Dirty Fuels Fuckup

For all their overblown rhetoric about 'decentralization' and 'energy independence', conservatives are ridiculously upside down and backwards on what should happen if they truly believed what they claim those terms should mean.

I've got news for y'all. They've been lying their asses off about that too.

So what happens when one refinery goes down?

How is anyone "energy independent" when we're at the mercy of 5 or 6 ginormous oil companies?

BP Whiting, Indiana, refinery shut; timing of restart unknown -sources

BP Plc’s (BP.L) 435,000 barrel-per-day Whiting, Indiana, refinery is shut and undergoing damage assessment following loss of electrical power and cooling water systems in a Wednesday fire, sources familiar with plant operations said on Friday.

The timing for the refinery’s restart remains unknown as all of the refinery’s units will have to be checked for damage following the sudden loss of electrical power on Wednesday afternoon, the sources said.

BP spokesperson Christina Audisho said on Friday the refinery is "continuing to assess when a restart of the affected units can take place."

Following the assessment, any damage found will have to be repaired.

A few of the refinery’s units have been on cold circulation since, but will require being heated to operating temperatures that can reach 1,000 Fahrenheit (538 Celsius), the sources said.

The Whiting refinery outage sent Chicago CBOB gasoline up 30.5 cents a gallon on Thursday and ultra-low sulfur diesel up 17 cents.

The shutdown of one of the largest refineries in the Midwest comes as farmers are beginning fall harvest across the northern central states.

Whiting is the sixth-biggest by capacity in the United States and the company's largest in the nation, according the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Dear GOP

Republicans love to spout about gas prices, blaming Biden and his "anti-American-oil policies".

As usual, it's bunkum.

Axios:

A Barclays analysis of oil output on federal lands and waters finds that "regulatory changes to date are not slowing U.S. production growth."

Why it matters:

• These areas make up roughly a fourth of total U.S. output and are directly affected by federal permitting and leasing decisions.
• The analysis arrives amid questions about why domestic production growth isn't growing more quickly, given high prices and the potential loss of lots of Russian barrels.
• Reuters has more on the Barclays report.

Catch up fast:

• A Dallas Fed survey of producers in its region, where most wells are on private lands, found that investor pressure to maintain discipline was the biggest check on growth.
• Supply chain and labor constraints are a problem too.

Yes, but:

• Industry officials say the Biden administration's leasing policies and overall posture about the sector's long-term domestic future also deter investment.

And that last bit - really Axios? "Industry officials" are complaining about "regulations"? Just toss that one in there to fill your Both Sides quota.

BTW:

Nowhere To Hide

Everything gets pushed down the priorities list because it's Election Season - and of course, it's always Election Season any more. 

The fact that we can't quite figure out what's the right thing to do here is one of the things that's getting people killed, as it hastens the demise of our little experiment in self-government.

We can't just walk away from the need for energy - even the shitty fossil fuels kind of energy right now - but if the Acquisition Cost for that energy includes poisoning the water and the air and the food - which means sick and dying people, which means fewer customers to buy the shit you're trying to sell - then what the fuck is the point?

We can't take the Human Cost out of it, and the proof of that should be obvious - without humans, there are no customers, and since every business is Customer-Centric, every business proposition without humans is unworkable. Cuz it's long been solidly established that even tho' you love to fantasize about it once in a while, it's rude to kill the customers.

Make a deal with the companies, and with the directors and managers who benefit from the pipeline. A deal that includes a requirement for every decision-maker and every decision-influencer to show up (with their wives and kids) onsite every month and chug 32 ounces of water taken directly from the wells their operations might impact.  

We should prob'ly include politicians in that one as well.   

You wanna be the guy calling the shots? Fine - you get to live or die (literally if need be) with the outcome.

Mike has spoken. So let it be written; so let it be done. 

Big Change Maybe

The faintest of wry smiles comes across my face when I find something that even barely hints at the prospect of the death of Commodification coming sooner than expected.

From a short bit at NASDAQ earlier this month:

The critical natural gas transit country, Ukraine, reached a supply agreement in the last week of September with the EU’s largest fuel supply partner: Russia.

One could argue that this agreement could actually have come too late. Natural gas supply to Europe heading into winter 2015 seems more secure than ever before, a sharp contrast to the icy winters of 2006 and 2009, in which Russia cut off natural gas supply to Eastern Europe over a conflict with the Ukraine. The following factors have turned the European natural gas market from a ‘’beggars can’t be choosers” into a true “buyers’ market’’.

And this from CNBC today:

Kilduff said gas was being hit by expectations a record amount of natural gas will soon be in storage. Weekly data show gas storage at 3.81 trillion cubic feet, and the record is 3.929 trillion cubic feet in November 2012.

The Energy Information Agency predicts a peak of 3.956 trillion this November, said Kilduff, who projects it to reach more than 4 trillion. He said the most recent weather report shows above-normal temperatures for the eastern region, a significant user of heating fuels

The oversupply is also causing problems. "The producing region is at a record storage level," said McGillian. He said if more gas is forced into the spot market, the price will drop even more.

But then again, I can't ignore that this is part of the little political game we love to play.  So instead of taking any real steps toward understanding that resources are limited and we have to figure out how to move ourselves past the self-destructive nonsense of Chop-It-Down-Burn-It-Up-Dig-It-Up-Burn-It-Down, here's what I think is most likely to happen.

Nothing.

Not much that's different anyway.  And prob'ly nothing but the usual and customary crap of tax-payers gettin' stuck with the check.  We more or less bank-rolled the drive for all this "energy" - sweetheart tax incentives and access to public land; roads and utilities; and sometimes direct subsidies; not to mention having the watchdogs conveniently look the other way while Halliburton (eg) gets to poison the living fuck outa everything.  Plus, we get to pay for some pretty high-priced consultants and PR pricks to make the products of USAmerica Inc more palatable to "foreign markets" etc etc etc.  And now that those markets are reacting to a supply glut (that we manufactured btw), guess what all those high-rollin' entrepreneurial self-made macho assholes are gonna do next.  I think we can pretty much count on 'em to go crying to "their" congress critters that the sugar bowl's empty now and they just can't possibly be expected to take it all on their-own-poor-selfless-selves to clean up the ginormous fucking mess they made while soaking the last dime's worth of life from one more patch of a dying planet.

We can bumper-sticker-ize it: Privatized profits and Socialized costs, but here's the kicker - since they did it on our dime (and because nobody's complaining about 2-dollar gas), they can make a lot of us believe they did it all because we asked them to do it.

And they can make it stick - shit, we'll pay 'em to do it.

And they can do it all over again next time.

No soul and no honor.

Today's Eternal Sadness

My "Eternal Sadness" posts have always been about people dying because of our incredibly stoopid refusal to rein in the activities of the Ammosexuals among us who can't seem to wean themselves from the NRA's gun porn.

But I think I'll expand the definition a bit, and start including newsy items that indicate to me that there's something really shitty going on - the cause of which we can be pretty sure of - that we prob'ly won't; or can't; or just plain don't, do anything about.

So here's today's fer-instance:

"The rate of earthquakes increased dramatically in March and April," Williams said. "That alerted us to examine this further and put out this advisory statement."

While Oklahoma's buildings can withstand light earthquakes, the damage from a magnitude-5 temblor could be widespread. Oklahoma's last major earthquake was in November 2011, when a magnitude-5.6 earthquake centered near Prague, Oklahoma, destroyed 14 homes and injured at least two people.

"Building owners and government officials should have a special concern for older, unreinforced brick structures, which are vulnerable to serious damage during sufficient shaking," Bill Leith, a USGS senior science adviser for earthquakes and geologic hazards, said in the joint statement.

While scientists haven't ruled out natural causes for the increase, many researchers suspect the deep injection wells used for the disposal of fracking wastewater could be causing the earthquake activity. Fracking, short for hydraulic fracturing, is a method of extracting oil and gas by cracking open underground rock.

Ongoing studies have found a link between Oklahoma's high-volume wastewater injection wells and regions with an uptick in earthquakes.

It doesn't seem to me that it could be much clearer.  Ya start pumping jillions of gallons of waste water into the ground, and fairly soon after that, you get a humongous increase in both the numbers of earthquakes and in the magnitude of those quakes.

I remember a time in the mid-60s when the Army was pumping waste water into at least one deep well under The Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver, and gosh, suddenly we were having earthquakes in a region where earthquakes that could actually be felt by normal humans were practically unheard of (kinda like Okla-fuckin'-homa).  They stopped pumping that shit into the ground, and gosh again, no more earthquakes.

The difference now of course is that it's about energy - we can't stop suckin' that fossil tit because we think we're on the verge of dominating the world again - this time with our Exceptionally American Methane Dick and the awesomeness of our trusty sidekick, Canuckistan Tar Sands.

But there's another big difference now as well - we don't believe there's anything we can do about it because Big Energy and their Coin-Operated Politicians are in charge and we got nuthin' to say about nuthin'.

So, a few questions:

With all this nifty new gas and oil hitting the market, when can we expect the gods of the free market to start pushing down on the price?

Since we're prob'ly not going to do anything to stop the waste water disposal; and since we can expect more and bigger earthquakes because of it, who gets to pick up the tab for digging the mangled corpses out of the rubble?  Who gets to pay for rebuilding the towns and the cities?  Who gets to take care of the broken survivors?  Can we count on the oil companies for any of that?

We get to pay for it all - at the pump; on our monthly utilities; tax breaks and straight up subsidies for oil and gas companies; home insurance; disaster relief; and and and.

We pay for it on the front end, and in the middle, and afterwards too.  We also get to pay in terms of blood thru the sacrifice of our friends and family members - not just people in uniform fighting and bleeding and dying in desert shit holes; now we get to watch ordinary people fighting and bleeding and dying here at home as well.

They're demanding my permission to fuck me in the ass; I hafta bring my own lube; and then they expect me to give 'em cab fare home.

No soul and no honor.

Pick 'Em

When it comes to policy regarding the US Economy, what we hear over and over from "conservatives" is that the Gubmint shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers.  And yet, here's a nearly unanimous GOP saying they'll continue subsidizing fossil fuels at a rate of 6-1 over alternative fuels.  And they'll do it in spite of what their pets over at DoD ask for every time they get a chance.

From Wonkette:

We remember a time when if “the generals” wanted solid-gold ballwashers, they got solid-gold ballwashers! But now, it seems, the Republican members of the House are a little more frugal. Oh, not for the important stuff, like building East Coast Star Wars installations that the Pentagon doesn’t want — no, that they will get. But for stupid stuff, like biofuels to power their infernal machines, and this:

The Conaway amendment included in the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310) was meant to limit the Defense Department’s participation in an interagency agreement with the departments of Energy and Agriculture to spend $510 million to construct biorefineries capable of producing “drop-in” biofuels for the use by the Navy in its ships and jets, according to a summary.

Seems like the whole world is waiting for us lead on this shit, and it looks like we're just standing around with our dicks in our hands, wishing it was 1965 again so we didn't have to worry so much about all this complicated stuff.

More from The Burrill Report.

New From Pew

Let's put this in front of Congress and see where the real power is.

Oil Spill

BP has resisted entreaties from scientists that they be allowed to use sophisticated instruments at the ocean floor that would give a far more accurate picture of how much oil is really gushing from the well.

"The answer is no to that," a BP spokesman, Tom Mueller, said on Saturday. "We're not going to take any extra efforts now to calculate flow there at this point. It's not relevant to the response effort, and it might even detract from the response effort."

There's a fairly simple rule about Project Management and Problem Solving that applies universally.  It goes like this: If you don't appreciate the full scope of the task, you are almost certain to fail.

2 probabilities - BP knows it's worse than they're saying it is publicly; and they're gambling that the bulk of the oil will stay below the surface, which gives them some plausible deniability. 

I guess I worry that the "anti-oilers" are seen as overstating the problem. If the catastrophe then doesn't quite materialize the way they say it will, there's an opportunity for the "pro-oilers" to whip up a backlash, and we're right back to Drill Baby Drill.

Lastly, what happens to the booms and the sandbag dikes and to the oil blob itself when there's a storm?

Solution Of The Month part 2

Solution Of The Month part 1