Donald Trump Dooms Us To Climate Change

The entire world has signed on, save only Syria and Nicaragua. It appears that Donald Trump now means to expand that group of two to include the United States of America.

Source: Leaving the Paris Agreement Would Be Indefensible

Donald Trump Dooms Us To Climate Change

Just when you think that Donald Trump can’t take a more offensive position about a crucial issue, he does.  This time he has taken a position against both the Paris Accord and the climate change, and undoing years of hard work by the Obama administration, numerous scientists and experts, and the heads of state of other countries who signed on to the Paris Accord.  His actions can be described as nothing less than irresponsible and dangerous.

By pulling the United States out of this landmark treaty, designed to combat global warming and climate change, he is allowing the United States to be put in the back seat behind other countries who have taken progressive actions to fight climate change.  Not to mention, his denial of the existence of climate change, which has been proven to be a fact by 97% of the scientific community, effectively closes the door to the future of the development of renewable energy and the potential for the creation of a huge number of jobs created by this new and upcoming industry.

Donald Trump is allowing his own personal prejudice to hamstring the development of the renewable energy industry in the United States.  If that wasn’t enough, it keeps the pretext of wanting to be a job creator.  Again, he shows himself to be a hypocrite.

By denying that climate change is a fact, Trump shows himself to be just another corporate dinosaur who hates any type of regulation, no matter how necessary it may be.  His laissez-faire capitalist attitude that puts profit before people puts a large portion of the world’s population in danger from climate change, just to make a profit for him and his wealthy friends.

Withdrawing the United States from the Paris Accord is the most irresponsible and indefensible position that he has taken thus far.  In taking this action, he has declared war on those of us who believe that climate change is probably the biggest danger facing our planet and its inhabitants.


Dakota Access Pipeline Already Has Its First Oil Spill

The Dakota Access pipeline leaked 84 gallons of oil in South Dakota early last month, which an American Indian tribe says bolsters its argument that the pipeline jeopardizes its water supply and deserves further environmental review.

Source: Dakota Access pipeline leaked 84 gallons of oil in April –

Dakota Access Pipeline Already Has Its First Oil Spill

The Dakota Access Pipeline, which isn’t supposed to officially open until June, already has its first oil spill.  The spill, which happened on April 4, was just reported today.  If this doesn’t prove that the Dakota Access Pipeline isn’t a potential environmental disaster, I don’t know what will.  Perhaps, if the pipeline should have a spill that reaches all the way down to St. Louis, maybe they will pay attention to this disaster waiting to happen.

Officials tried to downplay the spill by pointing out that it was only 84 gallons of oil that leaked.  What the hell difference does it make that it was only 84 gallons?  A spill is a spill, isn’t it?  84 gallons of crude oil has the potential to do damage, despite the state of North Dakota saying otherwise.  If a spill kills one bird or one animal, it is too much.  I suppose they think that a spill on the Dakota Access Pipeline would be worth mentioning if it caused as much as some of the oil platform accidents off the coast of Santa Barbara, right?

An official of the North Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources says that the state of North Dakota doesn’t even bother to make an announcement about an oil spill of this size.  To me this begs the question how much, or would it take before they issued an “official announcement”?

The public has a right to know about an oil spill of any size.  The people have a right to know that the Native Americans and others who oppose this potential nightmare for one hundred percent correct when they said that the Dakota Access Pipeline was a potential environmental disaster.  After all, if they can spill 84 gallons of raw crude oil without penalty, how much do they have to spill before they are penalized.  This question is especially important because the state of North Dakota announced that Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the builders and operators of this controversial pipeline.


Could the Dakota Access Pipeline Still Happen Under Trump?

President Barack Obama’s administration is expected to push through long-delayed safety measures for the nation’s sprawling network of oil pipelines in its final days, despite resistanc… Source: Obama oil pipeline rules face uncertain future under Trump   Could The Dakota Access Pipeline Still Happen Under Trump? During the last days of his presidency, President …

Energy Transfer Partners Building Another Pipeline With More Mishaps

The same company that built the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline has twice spilled drilling fluids in two pristine Ohio wetlands this month. Source: The company behind the Dakota Access pipeline is in another controversy Energy Transfer Partners Building Another Pipeline With More Mishaps In a recent incident in Ohio, Energy Transfer Partners …


Energy Transfer Partners Building Another Pipeline With More Mishaps

The same company that built the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline has twice spilled drilling fluids in two pristine Ohio wetlands this month.

Source: The company behind the Dakota Access pipeline is in another controversy

Energy Transfer Partners Building Another Pipeline With More Mishaps

In a recent incident in Ohio, Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) once again showed that they cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting the environment.  Obviously, this company cannot be trusted to protect the environment.

In this most recent incident, Energy Transfer Partners spilled a large amount of drilling mud, a substance used in drilling for taking away waste byproducts (mostly dirt and rock chips) and keeping the drill bit cool and lubricated.  This is the second spill of drilling mud made by Energy Transfer Partners in the pristine wetlands of Ohio since the beginning of April.

In the first incident on April 13, the company reported to the Ohio EPA that they had spilled 2 million gallons of drilling mud into the wetlands. The quantity of drilling mud spilled was enough to cover eight football fields. The next day, April 14, Energy Transfer Partners spilled another 20,000 gallons of drilling mud a few miles away.

Though it is chemically harmless, it still has the potential to suffocate wildlife living in wetlands.  This still happened on a pipeline under construction called the Rover pipeline, which will carry oil from Appalachia to Ontario, Canada.  It will be over 700 miles long.

Of course, this company who are the builders of the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota is already well-known to not give a damn about environmental protection.  If they did care about the environment, they wouldn’t have built the Dakota Access Pipeline first.

However, since they are like every other corporation, the only thing they care about is their bottom line.  Corporations like this worship profit like it were God.

To think about Energy Transfer Partners being allowed to build yet another pipeline through sensitive environmental areas, makes me shudder in fear and disbelief.  Then I ask myself; why should I be surprised that a company that has no problem endangering our environment and trampling over the tribal sovereignty of Native Americans care about the environment?


Energy Transfer Partners will not help make America great again …

Feb 26, 2017 Energy Transfer Partners is not a superhero with new powers to prevent fossil fuel disasters. It’s an oil company with a track record of polluting …
Energy Transfer keeps up legal pressure after pipeline defeat …

Dec 6, 2016 The pipeline, which is being built by Energy Transfer Partners, has been the subject of protests from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and climate …
Energy Transfer Partners May Have Misled State to Secure Tax Break

Dec 9, 2016 Energy Transfer Partners has received more than $250 million in tax breaks through the state’s biggest corporate welfare program.



Scott Pruitt Shows Himself To Be Even More of a Hypocrite


Scott Pruitt Shows Himself To Be Even More of a Hypocrite

Scott Pruitt, the new director of the EPA, shows himself to be even more of a hypocrite at the CPAC convention.

He seems to be very pleased, even though the EPA is targeted for a 25% budget cut. Even though this speech was given more than a week before Donald Trump came out with this new budget, I would dare say that Scott Pruitt was well aware of these budget cuts at the time of his speech.

It is no secret that Scott Pruitt has long been an opponent of the EPA and its mission for quite a while. In fact, he has sued this agency four times while he was Attorney General of the state of Oklahoma. These lawsuits were against the EPA for trying to regulate the harmful practice of fracking; something which is commonplace in Oklahoma because of the significant amount of natural gas and oil that found there. He takes this position despite the fact that fracking causes an increased number of earthquakes, which have occurred in Oklahoma over the last several years.

It seems very ironic that Scott Pruitt gives a speech in which he says that his agency, the EPA, will no longer impose its environmental regulations on states that oppose them. In other words, Scott Pruitt is giving the green light to businesses to do whatever they want, no matter how harmful it may be to the environment.

It strikes me as the ultimate in hypocrisy for Scott Pruitt, the newly chosen director of the EPA to promise that his agency will not perform the job that it was designed for when it was created in the 70s. It is even more ironic that the EPA was formed during the time of Richard Nixon, a Republican.


Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A. …

Dec 7, 2016 Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, at Trump Tower in Manhattan on Wednesday. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times.
EPA chief Scott Pruitt says CO2 not a primary contributor to warming

13 hours ago Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global …


EPA Budget Cuts: Trump’s Back Door Way to Destroy This Agency

In his first budget as POTUS, Donald Trump proposes massive budget cuts to EPA.

EPA Budget Cuts: Trump’s Back Door Way to Destroy This Agency

Many people, including myself, think that Donald Trump’s goal is to abolish the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  He is no different from any other member of the business community because most of them also want to eliminate the EPA.  His recent EPA budget cuts are evidence that the president’s eventual goal is to destroy this important government agency.

His proposed cuts will force the agency to cut some EPA jobs.  What better way to kill an organization than to dry up its funding sources?  The latest EPA budget cuts will force the agency to abandon many of its critical programs that protect us from unsafe air and water and other environmental dangers that we face.  Even though Donald Trump said in the election that one of his primary goals was to protect the American people, his actions of cutting the budget to the EPA shows that he is nothing but a liar.

Many people who are rather naïve might ask, “why abolish the EPA?”  After all, if his agency performs such a vital service, why would anyone want to abolish it? The answer is quite simple; because it’s a regulatory agency that gets in the way of the corporate “bottom line.”

People need to understand that Donald Trump is a laissez-faire capitalist who cares nothing about the well-being of the American people.  He is just another businessman whose primary goal is to make money by any means possible.  If abolishing a regulatory agency that interferes with profit is what needs to be done to make sure that big Capital continues to make money, then so be it.

Others might ask, “can the president abolish the EPA?”  The answer to that question is a bit more complicated, but the answer is no, he cannot do it on his own.  Legally, I think it would probably take an act of Congress to abolish the EPA.  However, by defunding an agency to the point where it ceases to work properly is just as good as destroying it.

Donald Trump knows this fact.  His cutting of EPA funding through massive budget cuts will make the agency ineffective and unable to act, therefore, effectively putting it out-of-the-way of big business.  These cuts are Donald Trump’s back door way of destroying the Environmental Protection Agency.

If his latest EPA budget cuts are not evidence of his eventual goal, I don’t know what is.  We must never forget, there is a method to Donald Trump’s madness.


Pentagon Grows, While EPA and State Dept. Shrink in Trump’s Budget

1 day ago Proposed E.P.A. budget cuts would eliminate funds for climate change research. Credit Al Hartmann/The Salt Lake Tribune, via Associated …

Trump’s EPA budget cuts would make many environmental laws …

16 hours ago President Donald Trump is fulfilling his vow to drain the swamp — if climate scientists and environmental regulators qualify as swamp dwellers.



The Bakken Shale: Fracking in North Dakota

Lately, we have been hearing a lot about the Dakota Access Pipeline, mostly about the negative affect it will have on the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, but most people don’t know anything about its relationship to the Bakken oil field in North Dakota.

The Bakken Shale: Fracking in North Dakota

We have heard a lot about the Dakota Access Pipeline, mostly about the over the effect it will have on the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, but most people don’t know anything about its relationship to the Bakken Oil Field in North Dakota.  It is important to understand the relationship between the two.

For the past several years, there has been an oil boom happening in the state of North Dakota.  This oil boom is because of oil that was discovered in what is called the Bakken Shale, or the Bakken Shale formation.  The Bakken Shale formation is a large deposit of shale containing oil that is in eastern Shale Montana, Western North Dakota, and part of Saskatchewan, in Canada.

Even though the so-called Bakken oil boom has the potential to create jobs and puts more revenue into the economy of North Dakota, it also poses a significant threat to the environment of that region.  To mention that the oil produced in the Bakken Shale formation will create a necessity to lay a pipeline to help transportation of this oil to where it can be refined into different products.  The Dakota Access Pipeline is being built to carriers oil from the Bakken Shale Formation.

As we know, this pipeline threatens the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and other people living in that particular region because it will be necessary to build this pipeline under the Missouri River, upon which many depend on for their water supply.  Also, this pipeline will also pose a threat to the underground aquifer that is also the supply of a significant amount of water to this region.

To produce oil from the Bakken Shale, it will be necessary for the oil companies to use the controversial and environmentally dangerous technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or just known as fracking.

There has been a huge controversy over fracking, to the point where it has been banned in a couple of states and is the source of large-scale protest across the nation.

Fracking has proven itself to be harmful because it requires the consumption of massive quantities of water and the use of many toxic chemicals, which are pumped underground to force oil from the Bakken Shale.  The use of fracking is a major reason that environmentalists are opposed to further development of the Bakken oil field.

At a time when our nation is trying to end its dependency on fossil fuels, such as petroleum and coal, further developing the Bakken oil field flies in the face of our need to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels.



Sep 17, 2016 Rune Likvern of Fractional Flow has done a wonderful job providing data on the Bakken Shale Oil Field. Here is his excellent chart showing the …
Bakken Shale News, Wells, Formation, Markets and Resources: Oil …

Bakken Shale Image The Bakken shale is primarily an oil play. It straddles the US border with Canada and runs through two states – North Dakota and Montana …


The Hype For Natural Gas

At time when there is huge controversy over fracking for natural gas, I have noticed a disturbing trend in advertising where they are trying to sell us on the use of natural gas.

The Hype For Natural Gas

At a time when there is a huge controversy over fracking for natural gas, I have noticed a disturbing trend in advertising where they are to sell us on the use of natural gas.   In this publicity,  they are even stooping so low as to say that fracking is safe technology.  There is absolutely no truth in this advertising.  It badly misleads the public into thinking that using natural gas will save our environment and protect us from global warming; something that it certainly will not do.

For anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to widely publicized scientific findings and paid attention to environmentalists,  they should know that fracking is hardly safe.   In fact,  fracking for natural gas has been proven to be one of the most dangerous and polluting techniques ever devised.  It has only come under heavy public scrutiny within the last several years.

In my opinion, President Obama should have advocated more strongly for the use of the wind and solar power.  To his credit, he has supported the utilization of these things but just not strongly enough.  By now, the “green technology” industry, which holds enormous potential for economic development, should have progressed much farther than it has.  President Obama should have been more proactive in putting green technology into practice.  If he had, there would be no dispute about its value.

The president has also been one of the strongest advocates for reducing greenhouse gasses, which cause global warming. If he is sincere about his desire to reduce greenhouse gasses, he certainly should not have advocated for increased use of natural gas, if no other reason than it uses fracking.

Even though natural gas is the least polluting of the fossil fuels, using it doesn’t come without a price. When natural gas burns, it releases carbon dioxide, another harmful greenhouse gas. Since CO2 emissions have increased over the last several years, the last thing we need is, even more, use of natural gas

Even though it sounds like I’m putting down President Obama, in truth, I applaud his efforts at giving us a cleaner environment. I hope the Democratic Party continues his against greenhouse gasses after he leaves office later this month.  We all know that his successor, Donald Trump certainly won’t.  Trump has shown himself to be not lonely at and for fossil fuels, but a “climate change denier,” just like most other members of the GOP.


In my opinion, President Obama should have been stronger in encouraging the use of solar and wind power.  Donald Trump thinks windmills and other such “green technology” is ridiculous and unworthy of consideration.  No environmental good will come from the Trump presidency.  The only interest he shows in the environment is exploitation of it.


More Dangers of Fracking: Two More Carcinogens

More Dangers of Fracking: Two More Carcinogens Two more chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking) have been discovered to be carcinogenic, or causing cancer.  It is becoming increasingly obvious the dangers of fracking far outweigh its benefits.  Recently, two more chemicals used in fracking and been linked to cancer.  These …
Natural Gas (Fracking) – The New York Times

News about natural gas. Commentary and archival information about natural gas as fuel from The New York Times.