Edelstein writes: "When it comes to curtailing carbon emissions, California leads the way. Its policies promoting clean energy and zero-emission vehicles are the most comprehensive of any state, and have strong public support. Of course, there's one group that's not very happy about these developments: the oil industry."
Organizations that sound like environmental groups are actually working to promote the interests of oil companies. (photo: Thinkstock)
Leaked Playbook Shows How Big Oil Fights Clean Energy
06 December 14
�
hen it comes to curtailing carbon emissions, California leads the way. Its policies promoting clean energy and zero-emission vehicles are the most comprehensive of any state, and have strong public support.
Of course, there's one group that's not very happy about these developments: the oil industry.
A leaked Powerpoint deck now circulating among climate activists--a copy of which was sent to Bloomberg Businessweek -- details a plan by the oil lobby to derail California's clean-energy legislation.
Created by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) -- a powerful lobbying group for the oil and gas industries -- it comes from a November 11 presentation to the Washington Research Council.
The presentation details plans to raise opposition to environmental measures in California, as well as Oregon and Washington states.
The slides reveal what is reportedly an "Astroturf campaign": the creation and funding of groups that appear to represent grassroots opposition to the policies, while supporting the oil industry's point of view. The plan targets clean-energy policies both enacted and under development in California. Those include AB 32 -- a major piece of clean-energy legislation -- and low-carbon fuel standards in all three states.
The organizations carry names like Oregon Climate-Change Campaign and AB32 Implementation Group, making them sound like unaffiliated environmental groups. In reality, they're actually working to promote the interests of Big Oil.
Lobbyists also seized on a line from a California Air Resources Board memo on the state cap-and-trade program for gasoline and diesel, which goes into effect January 1.
The memo noted that the program might affect gas prices, so the WSPA created an ad campaign that warns of a "hidden" gas tax.
Responding to the leaked oil-industry playbook in a blog post, the National Resources Defense Council noted that these tactics are sadly nothing new.
The NRDC notes that the 15-plus groups backed by the WSPA represent just the latest set of sheep's clothing concealing the same old "Big Bad Wolf."
This complex web of front groups was meant to target multiple pieces of legislation in arguably the three states now most invested in clean energy.
Perhaps the hope was that halting California, Oregon, and Washington could eliminate the most serious threats to the fossil-fuel industry. We'd suggest that seems rather unlikely -- especially now that these tactics have come to light.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Now the CIA and its puppet Nazi regime in Kiev are facing elections this summer. It is not likely that the people of Ukraine will elect anyone from the Nazi parties who were paid by the EU and US to overthrow the Yanukovich government and bring all this violence to Ukraine. Someone else would win.
But as long as the violence goes on, there won't be elections. This is a CIA practice that has been followed in many nations all over the earth. The CIA now has control of the government apparatus in Kiev and violence will keep that control. And as in Vietnam, the US will blame the violence and the postponing of the elections on Russia or the people who are resisting the Nazi Regime in Kiev.
In the end, however, the CIA will lose. All what will have happened is that Ukraine will have suffered, just like El Salvador, Vietnam, Guatemala, and about 80 other nations.
To answer your question, I first have to rephrase it to fit what's actually happened so far in Ukraine. The correct question should be: If Russia were to instigate a coup against a democratically elected government in Mexico that is anti-USA ... and there was a small area of Mexico that contained a large contingent of pro-USA people that didn't recognize this coup government as legitimate and those separatists stormed Mexican government buildings and asked to either be ruled by the US or to govern themselves ... and they were under threat of military attack by the coup regime for taking those government buildings ... should the US move in to protect them ? My answer would be ... Yes. But my answer doesn't matter. We both know the US would be far less reserved than Russia was. The US wouldn't limit their drive into Mexico to the area it's support resides. They'd storm in and take the whole damn country, international law be damned.
You keep making that statement but the only "proof" that this is true has been US propoganda. Because the US says it's true ... you unquestioningly accept that view. Let me remind you of what else the US swore was true ... that Iraq had WMDs. How'd that "proof" pan out ?
I have Ukranian friends who are in touch with friends and family and they tell me that the "pro-russians" are indeed russians who are well armed and organized. Their families describe them as "para-military" . They are livid about Putin's invasion.
They are glad about the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych. Whom they believe to be a thief and to have stolen from the Ukranian people. And even if the coup was USA supported, at least the people in the new government are UNKRANIANS. This is a far cry from the russians who now want to take over the Ukraine.
I don't claim to have proof that they are not Russians, I only point out that the US is more than capable of lying. Russia isn't the only ones capable of it. As for your Ukrainian friends ... haven't you stated all over the place that it was YOU who knew people in the Ukraine ? Now it's friends of friends ? Isn't it at least possible that, although your connections do support Kiev, there are others that don't ? Ukraine was ruled by Ukrainians before the coup. Because Yanukovich supported a trade agreement with Russia didn't make him Russian. He was an ELECTED official that was wise to favor the deal that Russia was offering (15 billion dollars and reduced gas prices) vs. the deal the EU/US/IMF (harsh austerity measures) are offering. Yanukovich was corrupt, no doubt, but all of the Ukrainian oligarchs were. Our guy, "Yats", is no better.
rt.com/news/156592-odessa-activists-burnt-alive/
If Putin had secured these areas with the Russian military, the illegitimate Kiev govt wouldn't have dared send in the Ukraine army, and if Putin would've done this, as far as the U.S. is concerned, nothing would've changed. The U.S. is still pressing sanctions against Russia no matter what Russia does, and Russia, as it must, should reject these sanctions.
It shouldn't allow itself to be blackmailed or cajoled by extortion to capitulate to illegal U.S. demands, to put their national security at risk, especially when dealing with an incident in their own backyard and one that was actually instigated by the U.S. and its puppet military arm in Europe, NATO.
The following article totally piss me off with Putin and Russia:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/kremlin-says-kiev-west-responsible-094436109.html
Of course its the U.S. and NATO who are responsible for the bloodshed in eastern and southern Ukraine.
http://news.yahoo.com/lavrov-presses-kerry-help-stop-ukraine-assault-moscow-153313753.html
Why is Russia begging the U.S. to halt the assault by the Kiev govt in eastern and southern Ukraine. They have to know that the U.S. doesn't give a damn, and it shows weakness on their part.
The Ukrainian military with the help of this extremist group call the Right Sector, under the command of the illegitimate government in Kiev, are now attacking Kramatorsk, Konstantinovka, and Mariupul in the region of Donetsk, not to mention of course Slavyansk and Odessa, and the only thing I hear coming from Putin is words and finger pointing.
This is real, Activista. People are actually dying right now because the Kiev government firmly believes it can now invade any part of the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine without any fear that Russia will intercede to protect these areas.
Russia is about to lose all of Ukraine because simple words and finger pointing will not stop the illegal government of Kiev.
Russia is about to lose all of Ukraine
This is nuts........How can Kiev a Ukranian government (legal/illegal) run by Ukranians be invading it's own country? What right does putin/russia have to "protect these areas". It's not russian its Ukranian?
Why not ? The US has proclaimed itself as protectorate of the world and, as a matter of policy, has announced to the world on several occasions that they will get involved in any conflict in it's own hemisphere. Have you ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine ? That's where we more or less told the world that everybody but the US better stay out of Latin America because we reserved the right to proclaim our whole half of the world as our "interests". Later, we expanded with the Carter doctrine, in which we announced to the world that we'd routinely "butt in" to shape events in the Middle East, which just happens to be on the other side of the world. This one was put in largely to inform the Middle East that, in the words of Bill Maher, "It may be YOUR land but it's OUR oil !"
No, if you want to ask me what's right, I'd say the US and Russia are both wrong. But I can't simply whisk away what you so casually do. The US created a very dire situation right on Russia's doorstep. Putin would be a madman not to stand up to the US now that they did. Would you wish to have your country competely surrounded by missiles from the strongest military in the world ? I wouldn't. Especially not after years of historical rhetoric and overt US policies stating an aim to "contain" Russia. If you live in the US, you are no more or less threatened by Russia no matter how the Ukraine works out. If you live in Russia, you're in huge trouble if the Ukraine situation works out with Ukraine joining NATO ... a precondition for help from the US/EU/IMF. It's a far more complicated issue than you casually putting a white "good guy" hat on the US and a black "bad guy" hat on Russia.
Lithuania and Poland both issued statements of concern.
Russia has not confirmed the report but insists it has every right to station missiles in its western-most region.
So you see it's the same bull-shit.
Putin's ego was bruised because we managed to get his "man" out and put one of ours in. That's all this is.....Putin's ego-rant. And people are getting killed.
You don't think this has anything to do with Russia's concerns about us ... the most powerful AND most aggressive nation in the world, installing a "puppet regime" right on his doorstep ? You don't think it has anything to do with the natural resources in the Ukraine ? You don't think it has anything to do with the gas lines and naval base Russia would lose access to ? This, to you, is simply all Putin's fault and it's all about his ego ? Really ?
Lastly, with regards to Lithuania and Poland issuing statements of concern ... that is pure hyperbole orchestrated by America telling them to say that. Why should they fear nuclear weapons from Russia even if Russia deployed them there. First off, Russia would feel the nuclear fallout of any nuclear attack to either of those countries. Secondly, Russia would have no need to use nuclear weapons on either since Russia's conventional military could cut through either of those countries like a hot knife through butter.
The Treaty was signed by Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, John Major (of England) and Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.
All of these leaders agreed to protect the sovereignty and "territorial agreement" of Ukraine, meaning any Russian support for Crimean independence would be in violation of Russia's international obligations.
I'm not the one giving you a "thumbs down" because you have a right to your opinion no matter how frequently we debate our differences. Lol. It is true that Ukraine doesn't have missiles on Russia's border but part of the EU/US/IMF requirements for a bailout was that the Ukraine would be forced to join NATO. Now, once they join NATO, how long do you think it will be before the US installs missiles there. I agree that all of the leaders agreed to protect Ukrainian sovereignty ... but the US, not Russia, was the first to break that agreement by orchestrating a coup to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine. Then Russia may have done (still waiting for proof) what anyone should have expected them to do ... they moved in to guard their own geographic and military interests. All this could have been avoided if the US, for once in it's long, bloody history, minded it's own fucking business.
The other interesting side note to the agreement you spoke of was that the US, itself, said that they consider the agreement as non-binding ... likely because they knew that they'd eventually get reported as having violated that agreement with their coup. Also, Clinton violated that agreement a long time ago when he brought some of the countries that Russia had granted freedom to into NATO.