It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Directs Pentagon To Ignore Climate Change

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Oh but Koch industries has numerous safety and environmental awards including one from the EPA !!

Koch Industries is an exemplary performer in anti-polution and carbon reduction !!




From January 2009 to present, Koch companies around the globe have earned 792 awards for safety, environmental excellence, community stewardship, innovation, and customer service.

“Koch Industries is one of the most diverse companies in the world, with an array of operational challenges. From ranching to refining, each day employees apply a steadfast commitment to operate safely, remain compliant, improve environmental performance and meet customers’ needs. It’s easy to say you are committed to excellence, but the facts demonstrate our employees have many accomplishments they can be proud of when it comes to performance.” Jim Mahoney, executive vice president for operations excellence and compliance.

Accomplishments include operating safely and in ways that reduce energy use and conserve natural resources:


Koch Companies Awards and Recognition




Much Much More...
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products today


Liberals' Accusations Against Koch Brothers






posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yet they're still dumping pet-coke out in the open air, close to cities and populations (poor ones, go figure).



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Yet they're still dumping pet-coke out in the open air, close to cities and populations (poor ones, go figure).


My Gawd indeed !!!

Where?

When?

How?

That can't really be true can it?




posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

NYT


WINDSOR, Ontario — Assumption Park gives residents of this city lovely views of the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit skyline. Lately they’ve been treated to another sight: a three-story pile of petroleum coke covering an entire city block on the other side of the Detroit River.

Detroit’s ever-growing black mountain is the unloved, unwanted and long overlooked byproduct of Canada’s oil sands boom.

And no one knows quite what to do about it, except Koch Carbon, which owns it.

The company is controlled by Charles and David Koch, wealthy industrialists who back a number of conservative and libertarian causes including activist groups that challenge the science behind climate change. The company sells the high-sulfur, high-carbon waste, usually overseas, where it is burned as fuel.

The coke comes from a refinery alongside the river owned by Marathon Petroleum, which has been there since 1930. But it began refining exports from the Canadian oil sands — and producing the waste that is sold to Koch — only in November.

“What is really, really disturbing to me is how some companies treat the city of Detroit as a dumping ground,” said Rashida Tlaib, the Michigan state representative for that part of Detroit. “Nobody knew this was going to happen.” Almost 56 percent of Canada’s oil production is from the petroleum-soaked oil sands of northern Alberta, some 2,000 miles away.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Unfortunately, (or not) I have a simple, one word reply in response to this thread title;
GOOD.
a reply to: Spider879



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Ahh but...

They sell that crap to Mexico and China who burn it for fuel !!!

Now what?

Outlaw all oil products and set civilization back to the 1850's ?

Where are the laws for this outrage ??

The EPA says no more coke burning !!

I bet Koch Industries has a filter system.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Its absolutely true in at least two cities:

April 30, 2014:


Two environmental groups on Monday sent a letter to billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, saying they intend to file a lawsuit against them for polluting a primarily low-income area of Chicago with thick, black, oily dust.

The letter sent by the Southeast Environmental Task Force (SETF) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) gave official 90-day notice of intent to sue the Koch brothers and 10 of their companies, including the KCBX Terminals Company, in federal court. The lawsuit will seek to hold them liable for the harmful effects of pollution caused by coal and petroleum coke, or petcoke — a dusty byproduct of tar sands oil refining — which their companies allegedly help store in large piles along the Calumet river on Chicago’s southeast side.

Because petcoke can be used as fuel, KCBX buys it from the Detroit Marathon Oil Refinery and stores it in piles by the river until it can be shipped and sold on the international market. When the wind blows, though, the dusty petcoke blows from the piles into the air, settling onto people’s homes and into the river.

The resulting soot has harmed human health, the environment, and overall quality of life, the groups’ letter said.

Koch brothers to face lawsuit....

And another city:


The Democratic candidate running for Michigan’s upcoming open Senate seat is accusing billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch of turning Detroit into their own personal trash can.

On Friday, Rep. Gary Peters scheduled an event near the area of the Detroit river where large piles of petroleum coke — the black, dusty byproduct of tar sands oil — once stood. Peters reportedly scheduled the event to tie the existence of those piles to both the Kochs and Republican opponent Terri Lynn Land, and announce an endorsement from the League of Conservation Voters, according to a blurb in Politico.

City residents were so angered by piles of petroleum coke, or “petcoke,” that were illegally stored along the Detroit River last year that then-Mayor Dave Bing demanded the piles be transported away. The company that stored the piles, Detroit Bulk Storage, is currently appealing Bing’s decision in court, arguing that they have the right to store those piles along the river. Though Detroit Bulk Storage stored the petcoke, the petcoke itself was owned by Koch Minerals LLC. Detroit Bulk Storage has confirmed that it was storing it on behalf of Koch.

Congressman steps up attacks...

Has the EPA called Koch brothers businesses a 'model' company for a clean environment?

This is what Koch said:

"Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration," Koch wrote. "EPA officials have commended us for our ‘commitment to a cleaner environment’ and called us ‘a model for other companies.’ "


But it was taken out of context so he lied, here is what was said and the context:

So did the EPA call Koch Industries a "model for other companies"?

Kinda, but not really. The EPA was complimentary of one specific agreement reached in 2010 with Koch subsidiary Flint Hills Resources after the agency raised concerns about permits for a refinery in Texas.

"The process we have agreed to with Flint Hills Resources is an excellent one, and we look forward to working with the company to complete the work to transition their permits," stated Al Armendariz, Regional Administrator for EPA Region 6. "It is our hope that the FHR process will serve as a model for other companies seeking to transition to federally-approved permits."

Has the EPA called Koch ......

This is a good link it also goes over some of the violations and fines koch brothers have received.
edit on 27-5-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Why do they have to dump outside right on a river (Of course they're quite known for polluting rivers so w/e)? They can't afford a building to dump it into?



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Heres what just some of there pollution looks like:








posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Oh that's horrible and horrendous and hideous indeed !!!

Where's the EPA ????

My Gawd...




A four-story mound of black, gritty refinery waste that recently was ordered off the banks of the Detroit River likely was moved to Ohio. Where? Those who know aren’t saying.

The pile of petroleum coke gained international fame when it grew to hulking proportions and began losing some particles to the wind. They ended up on the doorsteps and balconies of houses and apartments in the United States and Windsor, Ontario.

The waste, also called pet coke, is left after tar-sands oil from Canada is refined.

Final destination for refinery waste a secret

Pet coke isn’t considered a hazardous substance, but it violates portions of the Clean Air Act when it’s airborne.



Ancient Chinese secret ??

They can burn it and generate electricity.

I bet Koch will be using their filter systems


Good for them.

They are clean-energy proponents !!






posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: neo96

Come on neo who have to admit the biggest deniers are the GOP.
Isn’t that right?

True but among rank and file the majority are not climate change deniers,my guess is the Tea party arm of the Republicans that are the most vocal diniers,of high profile Republicans the number is indeed thin.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Jon Huntsman
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Chris Smith
Tim Pawlenty

www.mnn.com...

A National Survey of Republicans and Republican-­‐Leaning Independents on Energy and Climate Change - See more at:


This report contains topline results of a national survey of 726 adults who recently identified as a Republican or a Republican-leaning Independent.
Highlights:
A majority of respondents (52%) believe climate change is happening, while 26 percent believe it is not, and 22 percent say they “don’t know.”
A large majority (77%) says the United States should use more renewable energy sources (solar, wind & geothermal) in the future. Among those who support expanded use of renewable energy, nearly 7 out of 10 think the U.S. should increase the use of renewable energy “immediately”.
environment.yale.edu...
f



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Why am I not surprised...



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
I presented a scholarly, peer reviewed published paper on solar irradiation proving its effect on earth´s climate. No one even tried to counter it except for providing a poorly cited "graph" and a snappy little bit of text about ONE small aspect of its supporting evidence. The entire theory I believe was "TLDR" for the average sunday reader. But hey we are SOOO concerned about this right?

Well, here's a combination of the two, but over a more limited timeline(since 1880 is the earliest date from the NASA source):

Sources:
data.giss.nasa.gov...
lasp.colorado.edu...
We only fairly recently started measuring total solar irradiance via satellite; it's mostly a reconstruction based on sun spots. This paper you cite comes from a "Biology Cabinet Magazine Online" - which I had never heard of before. I'm not sure that it is actually peer reviewed, considering where it was published. The central idea is that the fluctuation from what they set as the mean Total Solar Irradiance (based on reconstructions) has gone above the mean in the last 100 years, causing increased temperatures.

It basically claims that global warming is happening, but that it's all driven by the Sun. This, in a thread where House is wanting the Pentagon to ignore global climate change. Assuming the conclusion is correct... wouldn't that be evidence that the House is wrong to do this?

originally posted by: neo96
The great dust bowls, hundreds of 'civilizations' across the world that now sit under hundreds of feet of water.

LONG BEFORE the so called 'industrial revolution'.

An interesting comment. The great Dust Bowl of the 1930s was inadvertently caused, in part, by human agricultural practices. Rather similar to climate change.
edit on 20Tue, 27 May 2014 20:44:26 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven




It basically claims that global warming is happening, but that it's all driven by the Sun. This, in a thread where House is wanting the Pentagon to ignore global climate change

It is peer reviewed. In the abstract in the beginning it lists such and by who.
The paper is mentioned in that link but also cites where it has been published.

The point is that climate change is not man made. Hardly anyone denied that the climate change happens. Global warming skeptics argue its not man made. You must know this.

NO ONE denies ice ages. No one denies temperate stages following ice ages in the natural cycle of the earth. The proposed theory by alarmists was that MAN has some grave influence on the earths climate and as a result more concerted efforts must be taken. (throw public money at it)

So if you or others agree...

Climate change is not a product of of human activities so the carbon tax, global warming initiatives set out in agenda 21 and all supporting sustainable living guidelines are bunk.

The reason why the pentagon is to avoid spending money on it IS BECAUSE the sun has everything to do with climate change and not man. Why spend money trying to PROVE something you know to be false?

Global warming went bunk then it tried to rebrand as climate change, rehashing old ideas of carbon dioxide so as to keep the plans set out in the early 90s of taxing and regulating everything on earth down to breathing so as to charge us for it under endless carbon tax schemes that surely sent banks into drool mode over the potential profits of a speculative market entirely funded by public money from every nation on earth.

Thank you for at least reading what I offered. Whether you agree with it or not. Really. Thank you.


IMO The Sun is largely responsible for climate change.

That is what I was saying from the beginning. That is what skeptics have been saying for some time now.

SO, from my point of view,

can we dedicate our resources to being better prepared for natural climate fluctuations instead of trying to adopt a mentality that we are already doomed and in the process develop a contempt for humanity as if we are responsible for the sun rising and setting against our will that only serves to dehumanize others?

Can we free up developing nations from the castrating policies that keep them at the mercy of big business which is the only one to get permission to exploit natural resources for them based on their "promise" to reduce non important carbon footprints?

Can we stop ruining local economies and plunging people into poverty and social despair out of concern for the end of times?

Can we look to more rational approaches knowing now that we arent going to do anything productive by shutting off the lights to the world?

Thats my point as well.


edit on 5 27 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

The climate on Mars is driven by dust more than the sun, we just don't have enough data to conclude whether Mars is heating up or not.

Pictures from 1977 compared to pictures from 1999 does show Mars as dimmer, so it would be warming up, but its not enough to draw conclusions. Mars still has polar ice and it changes from season to season. If Mars polar caps were gone I would be the first to agree with you, but what they have measured there is no overall reduction in the ice, from the data available.

If the sun were causing global warming then it would be easy to see a change in all the planets affected by the sun and I don't think that's the case.

Edit:


We don't see anything like this happening to Mars ice caps.
edit on 27-5-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Keep in mind Mars does not have oceans of liquid water with currents that flow to and from it's poles, has an atmosphere that is only 0.6% as thick as Earth's at sea level, and is on an average 78,340,839 km further from the sun than the Earth.

The point being that each planet in the solar system may react different to changes in the sun, depending how great or small that change may be.

The sun drives the climate on all planets, without which, at least the inner 4 would be frozen dead worlds. It should be recognized that changes in the sun, or the amount of sun light that reaches the Earth will always be a major factor in the Earth's climate.

Now, whether or not the sun is doing anything to contribute to climate change now I've not seen anything definitive for or against that idea.

However, we've also only been observing the sun for the last couple of hundred years, and that is a eye blink in the sun's over all age. We do not have a firm grasp on what the sun may have done in the past before that, and how the Earth and other planets may have reacted.

The point is: don't throw out the sun just yet, and keep it in mind.

One thing that I blanch at is when people on here make the statement: "The sun has nothing to do with the Earth's climate."

That's like saying gasoline has nothing to do with making a gasoline engine run......



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

I agree with everything you posted. Before this thread I did think that the sun was warming all the planets in the solar system. I also think human emissions also contribute and things in our climate vary. One volcano eruption can lower earth temp for months or even years. This makes me think it even more important to control what we can. If human emission tip the balance and we see the worst effects of global climate change and we did nothing the end results can be the end of civilization to extinction. But if we invest and use cleaner energy how can it harm us? Research and upgrading old energy plants to run more clean and efficient seems to have the potential of lots more jobs and a cleaner ecosystem.

I just feel the opposition is driven by profits and they don't want the regulations or the taxes needed to retool the industry.
edit on 28-5-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: eriktheawful

I agree with everything you posted. Before this thread I did think that the sun was warming all the planets in the solar system. I also think human emissions also contribute and things in our climate vary. One volcano eruption can lower earth temp for months or even years. This makes me think it even more important to control what we can. If human emission tip the balance and we see the worst effects of global climate change and we did nothing the end results can be the end of civilization to extinction. But if we invest and use cleaner energy how can it harm us? Research and upgrading old energy plants to run more clean and efficient seems to have the potential of lots more jobs and a cleaner ecosystem.

I just feel the opposition is driven by profits and they don't want the regulations or the taxes needed to retool the industry.

Ditto here corporations are A-moral,they exist to turn a profit at all cost,including cutting corners if and when they can, buy off both side of the isle so as to do away with regulations,why not they have the $$$ and Pols are cheap they get great return on their investments.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

When you consider all the tax breaks/subsidies these corporations get then they manipulate the public to attempt to get even less regulation and taxes its a joke. Then they influence congress with there big money and get a congressman to attempt to dictate what the pentagon does (there job is to protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic and I would include climate change) oh boy it makes me mad.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: eriktheawful

I agree with everything you posted. Before this thread I did think that the sun was warming all the planets in the solar system. I also think human emissions also contribute and things in our climate vary. One volcano eruption can lower earth temp for months or even years. This makes me think it even more important to control what we can. If human emission tip the balance and we see the worst effects of global climate change and we did nothing the end results can be the end of civilization to extinction. But if we invest and use cleaner energy how can it harm us? Research and upgrading old energy plants to run more clean and efficient seems to have the potential of lots more jobs and a cleaner ecosystem.

I just feel the opposition is driven by profits and they don't want the regulations or the taxes needed to retool the industry.


There should be absolutely nothing wrong with humans switching over to cleaner forms of energy use, cleaning up or stopping pollution, and just generally being better stewards of our planet.

Regardless of whether or not humans are making a significant impact on the Earth's climate. We should be doing that in any case.

The problem is that our civilization and infrastructure is very dependent upon the energy we use in today's world. Those that provide those things need to change what they are doing and what they provide.

Car manufacturers need to make their hybrids/highly fuel efficient cars easier for the consumers to get (availability and price), and stop making and providing those that guzzle gas.

Power companies need to switch away from using coal and gas fired plants to something that is more green and environmental friendly.

Solar panel companies need to provide highly efficient solar panels....that do not cost an arm and leg to install.

Manufacture companies need to stop polluting our air, water and environment.

People need to stop clearing away our rain forests. Plant more trees, not destroy more.

A carbon tax will not change that or force those things to happen.

Doom Porn about the Earth's climate will not help. I'm sure you've seen it on here, but people tend to ignore the doom porn, especially if it is something that they are not seeing or is not affecting them. The climate here where I live has pretty much not changed over the last 25 years that I've lived here. And while climate change might take a long time, your average person is busy looking at the here and now.

I think we should do things and clean up our act, but not because I think humans are responsible for climate change.

I think we should do it simply because it makes sense and is the right thing to do period.




top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join