NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label exxon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exxon. Show all posts

05 April 2012

America's Top 10 Most-Polluted Waterways from MOTHER JONES 2APR12

OUR waterways are in bad shape now, and the repiglican / tea-bagger party platform calls for gutting the EPA and so the Clean Water Act, which will make them even more polluted and expose more of us to poisoning and disease. Just another reason to make sure Pres Obama is re-elected this November! From Mother Jones.....
If you are a fly-fisher, a rafter, or heck, just a person who drinks water, here is some troubling news: Our waterways are in rough shape. An eye-opening new report (PDF) from Environment America Research and Policy Center finds that industry discharged 226 million pounds of toxic chemicals into America's rivers and streams in 2010. The pollution included dead-zone-producing nitrates from food processors, mercury and other heavy metals from steel plants, and toxic chemicals from various kinds of refineries. Within the overall waste, the researchers identified 1.5 million pounds of carcinogens, 626,000 pounds of chemicals linked to developmental disorders and 354,000 pounds of those associated with reproductive problems.
In the report are a few goodies (or baddies, really) that are worth ogling. First up, there's this map of the most heavily polluted waterways in the United States, broken down by state:

And if you're curious about which waterways suffer from the most pollution, here's the top 10:

Finally, a list of the top 20 polluters—composed mostly of steel manufacturers, chemical plants, and food processing operations:

It's important to note that the vast majority—if not all—of these releases are perfectly legal. I reached out to all of the companies on the list above and received a response from several. They all basically told me the same thing: "All discharges meet permit requirements," Cargill said. "This is a natural process that is fully licensed, and included as part of our wastewater discharge reporting," echoed McCain Foods.
We'll have to take their word for it, since the companies are not required to release the results of their chemical safety testing to the public, nor do they have to reveal how much of each chemical they are releasing. The Clean Water Act doesn't even apply to all bodies of water in the United States; exactly how big and important a waterway must be to qualify for protection has been the subject of much debate. Rivers get the big conservation bucks; they're the waterway equivalents of rhinos and snow leopards. But pollutants in oft-neglected ditches, canals, and creeks—the obscure bugs of the waterway world—also affect ecosystems and our drinking water quality. Sean Carroll, a federal field associate in Environment America's California office, estimates that 60 percent of US waterways aren't protected. "The big problem," he says, "is that we don't know how big the problem is."
The situation has gotten slightly better since the last time Environment America conducted a study; overall waterway pollution decreased by 2.6 percent from 2007 to 2010. There's still a lot of room for improvement, Carroll says. Environment America is calling on Obama to extend the protections offered by the Clean Water Act before the end of his first term. A list of the group's specific recommendations is here.

15 July 2011

As America’s “Last Best River” Suffers Through Exxon Spill, Experts Warn of Risks from Keystone XL Pipeline 14JUL11

THE exxon oil spill on the Yellowstone River is just a warning of the environmental destruction that WILL result if Keystone XL is approved. As the propaganda from transcanada below shows, there is greater risk of pipeline failure than the company will admit. The plans for Keystone XL must be rejected, and more must be invested in clean energy and upgrading the energy distribution grid. From ThinkProgress....

RHETORIC: In its 2006 pipeline risk assessment for the U.S. State Department permit application, TransCanada predicted that Keystone would see one spill in 7 years.
REALITY: There have been 12 spills in 1 year.

Yellowstone River Clean Up.  AP Photo, Jim Urquhart
Back in 1997, National Geographic named the Yellowstone River America’s “last best river.”  That was before July 1, when ExxonMobil leaked around 1,000 barrels of crude oil that traveled as far as 240 miles downstream from the site of the spill along the longest undammed river in the lower 48 states.
As Congress struggles to understand just what went wrong with the Silvertip Pipeline spill in Montana’s Yellowstone River, the House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials met Thursday morning to hear testimony and get answers on what exactly went wrong, and what government and industry can do to avoid similar oil spills in the future.
Unfortunately, this morning’s hearing was chock-full of “we don’t know” responses, illustrating big gaps in the ability of regulators and oil companies to guarantee strong oversight and adequate protection from future accidents. In opening Thursday’s hearing, subcommittee chairman Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) described the spill as a cause for “concern but not alarm.” Not surprisingly, he has received a total of $17,000 from ExxonMobil since 2000 while serving in Congress.
Thursday’s hearing was requested (and attended) by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT). The witnesses at today’s hearing were:
  • Cynthia Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PMHSA), U.S. Department of Transportation
  • Gary W. Pruessing, President, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
  • Douglas B. Inkley, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Wildlife Federation
Of particular concern was Quarterman’s response to a question from Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA), in which she admitted that it would likely not be until August or later that PMHSA would be able to recover the ruptured section of pipeline due to the persistently high water levels in the Yellowstone River. She said that it “may take weeks if not months” before the pipeline can be brought up from the riverbed to enable PHMSA to complete an investigation into the cause of the spill.
NPR has been covering the story, featuring an angry interview with Montana’s Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer that you can listen to here, as well as a follow-up interview with ExxonMobil’s Pruessing, which you can listen to here. Schweitzer explained the impact of the crisis like this:

NORRIS: If I were actually to visit the stretch of the river that has been affected by the oil spill, would I see evidence of the oil right now?
Gov. SCHWEITZER: No. If you stood along the bank, what you would see is a big river. And in order to find the oil spill, what you’ve got to do is you have to fan out across the lowlands. I want you to do a little experiment, folks, in your own home and then I can tell you what happened.
Go to your kitchen and get out a big cookie sheet, you know, those ones where you bake brownies or cookies, and put that on your counter. Then take the biggest bowl you own and put it in the middle of it. Fill that bowl within an inch of the surface with tap water. And then get out some olive oil or some other dark oil that you have and fill the bowl to the brim. Don’t spill any yet; that’s bank fill. That’s when the Yellowstone was just to its bank but not flooding.
But on the night that this pipeline burst, the Yellowstone was over its banks. So now, what I want you to do with this bowl is add another glass of water, pour it from three feet in the air and then take a big spoon and splash it a little bit, and it will now go over the side of the ball. And it will spread evenly as a thin film across that cookie sheet. Leave it alone for a day. The water will evaporate, and what you’re left with is a thin film of oil. That’s what happened on the Yellowstone River.
In his testimony today, NWF’s Inkley highlighted a few key points:
  1. Along with the Gulf oil disaster and Michigan’s Kalamazoo River tar sands oil spill, the Yellowstone River oil spill is America’s third major oil disaster in just 15 months.
  2. In large spills at sea, at best only 10 to 15 percent of the total oil spilled is ever recovered. The fast moving current of the Yellowstone River makes oil recovery difficult due to likely rapid entrainment of oil into the water column.
  3. Oil degrades through various processes, but the heavier oil molecules especially can persist in the environment for years, with long-lasting impacts.
To its credit, despite initial controversies over the timeline of the spill, ExxonMobil appears to be working diligently to clean up the mess and stay on top of things. There were no pending or outstanding safety violations, and although regulators expressed concern about the potential impacts that flooding could have, they were checking that the pipeline was in compliance less than a month before the spill.
Which illustrates the whole scope of the problem: at the end of the day, Americans are being offered a false promise by government and industry that we can simultaneously protect the environment and achieve strong pipeline safety. The irony is crystal clear as the House GOP works to fast-track the decision on a 1,700 mile extension of the Keystone XL pipeline project with HR 1938, introduced by Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE). As NWF observes, despite continuing promises about the safety and integrity of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada has already been proven to be wildly overoptimistic about the safety of its existing pipeline infrastructure:
RHETORIC: In its 2006 pipeline risk assessment for the U.S. State Department permit application, TransCanada predicted that Keystone would see one spill in 7 years.
REALITY: There have been 12 spills in 1 year.
EPA has also criticized the State Department’s draft analysis of the proposed pipeline’s environmental impacts as “insufficient” for the second year in a row. Despite some progress on the issue of pipeline safety over the last few decades, there is still not a model to adequately secure pipeline infrastructure and regulation in the U.S. today. The problems surrounding this spill suggests that jeopardizing our “last best river” wasn’t an accident, but rather a calculated risk that was and continues to be deemed acceptable to feed an American addiction to oil.
When it comes to a project like the Keystone XL pipeline extension, it’s an inherently double-edged sword: the massive expansion of tar sands oil production will further destabilize climate; as NASA scientist James Hansen made clear, the pipeline “would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts.” That climate disruption, which is already starting to occur, has contributed to the Yellowstone River running at four times its usual flow this year and likely caused the spill in the first place. Those high water levels are now going to keep federal investigators from accessing or examining the ruptured section of pipeline for weeks or months.
This week marks the one-year anniversary of the capping of the BP Gulf oil spill. Since then, no oil spill legislation has been passed by Congress, and the oil and gas companies (ExxonMobil included) that have been raking in billions of dollars in profits have been spending that money investing on stock buybacks to drive up their own share prices rather than improving the safety of their pipeline infrastructure.
The spill in Montana is a travesty in its own right, but it’s also a clear signal that whatever the U.S. is doing now with regards to pipeline safety still isn’t working the way it should. Extreme weather induced by climate change is only going to further disrupt this faulty infrastructure.
— Stewart Boss, energy intern with the Center for American Progress

28 April 2011

H.R. 601: End Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act of 2011 & Pump pain, Big Oil gain 28APR11



Everyone is complaining about gas prices, this legislation gives you a chance to try to do something about it. H.R. 601 will eliminate the tax breaks for the big oil companies. Check out the legislation, click the link to go right to the site for yourself. See if your Representative is a cosponsor and if they aren't then e mail them here
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
and tell them to sponsor it and to get it passed. Then e mail your Senators here
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
and Pres Obama here
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
and tell them to get this passed in the Senate and signed into law. Following the legislation is an article on oil company profits from Climate Progress (with a link to the post and a lot of links to more information in the article) and who is standing in the way of H.R. 601 becoming law. 
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-601
H.R. 601:
End Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act of 2011

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal fossil fuel subsidies for large oil companies.

Overview

Sponsor:
Text:
Summary | Full Text
Status:
Occurred: IntroducedFeb 10, 2011
Occurred: Referred to CommitteeView Committee Assignments
Not Yet Occurred: Reported by Committee...
Not Yet Occurred: House Vote...
Not Yet Occurred: Senate Vote...
Not Yet Occurred: Signed by President...
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Apr 15, 2011 6:13AM]
Last Action:
Feb 10, 2011: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Related:
See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

Pump pain, Big Oil gain

Oil giants post massive Q1 profits, demand huge subsidies

http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/28/big-oil-profits/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29
April 28, 2011
Exxon stood head and shoulders above the other big five oil companies with first-quarter profits of nearly $10.7 billion.  CAP’s Valeri Vasquez has the details.
The first anniversary of the BP fatal oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico reminded Americans of the enormous human and economic costs of our oil dependence. One year later, BP is posting first-quarter profits of nearly $5.5 billion. This 17 percent growth from 2010’s first-quarter earnings comes despite BP having distributed a mere 19 percent of the $20 billion it agreed to pay oil spill victims and their families.
The four other Big Oil companies—ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Shell—also enjoyed massive profits in the first quarter of 2011 compared to 2010 due to high oil prices. These four companies reported a combined $18.2 billion in first-quarter earnings—profits that together mark a 40 percent increase over last year. Exxon stood head and shoulders above the rest with a nearly 70 percent increase over 2010 first-quarter profits, clocking in at nearly $10.7 billion. Shell was a distant second with earnings listed at $6.9 billion.
Oil prices have risen by a third in just more than two months, spurred largely by speculators capitalizing on unrest in North Africa and the Middle East. The jump in crude prices from $85 per barrel to $112 per barrel since January 2011 has boosted gasoline prices by 22 percent.
President Barack Obama warned in an April 26 letter to congressional leadership that “if sustained, these high prices have the potential to slow our economy’s growth at precisely the moment we need to be accelerating it.”
Analysts agree, projecting that a sustained $10 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil can reduce our gross domestic product by up to 0.2 percentage points in 2011 alone. A sustained $20-per-barrel increase in oil prices could yield at least a 50-cent-per-gallon hike in gasoline costs.
This month, drivers are paying an additional 30 percent at the pump compared to April 2010. And this year, an increase of 70 cents per gallon in just more than two months is costing American families dearly. According to some estimates, every “penny increase at the pump sucks $1.5 billion from household spending nationwide.”

Big Oil doesn’t need tax subsidies with billions in profits

But the burden on American taxpayers begins well before they fill up at the gas station. More than $4 billion in unnecessary tax subsidies for domestic drilling and production are doled out to oil companies annually, activities the companies would undertake and profit from without federal assistance.
The handout is supported by Big Oil’s Republican representatives in Congress. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed fiscal year 2012 budget resolution that passed the House of Representatives on April 15 preserves Big Oil subsidies while nearly eliminating investments in the clean energy technologies of the future that are essential to reduce oil use and foster long-term economic growth.
The House Republicans also unanimously opposed and defeated a “motion to recommit” a short-term extension of government funding for FY 2011 in March. The motion would have eliminated these Big Oil tax loopholes.
Big Oil strongly supports the retention of these tax loopholes, of course. Four of the five Big Oil companies have already shown their appreciation to House Republican leaders who led efforts to retain them. These companies gave $280,000 in campaign contributions to their Republican benefactors. This includes House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who according to a Center for American Progress analysis has received $15,000 from oil interests since January. ExxonMobil was the largest overall donor to overall campaign contributions. It gave more than 80 percent of this campaign cash.
Speaker Boehner, however, indicated a willingness to consider eliminating Big Oil tax loopholes on Monday. He told ABC News:
We’re in a time when the federal government is short on revenues. We need to control spending but we need to have revenues to keep the government movin’. And they [Big Oil] oughta be payin’ their fair share.
President Obama wrote Speaker Boehner and other congressional leaders in response, urging them to “take immediate action to eliminate unwarranted tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, and to use those dollars to invest in clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wants to make the repeal of the Big Oil tax loopholes one of the first orders of business when Congress returns from its spring recess on May 2. Hopefully Speaker Boehner will ignore his oil contributors and instead join along by promptly allowing a House vote on Rep. Earl Blumenauer’s (D-OH) bill, H.R. 601, which would eliminate Big Oil tax loopholes.
This quarter’s $18.2 billion in profits certainly demonstrates that the big five oil companies can do without $40 billion in tax subsidies over a decade.
– Valeri Vasquez is a Special Assistant for the Energy Team at American Progress.
Share
  Print Print

Tell Republicans to Stop Subsidizing Big Oil & Pump pain, Big Oil gain 28APR11

THE solution isn't releasing the oil in the Strategic Oil Reserve, or even granting more permits for drilling in environmentally fragile areas, it is closing the tax loopholes and tax breaks for the big oil and gas companies, forcing them to pay their fair share in taxes, and then use that money for developing efficient mass transit and high speed rail and renewable energy sources. Check out the article from Climate Progress on oil company profits and H.R. 601, legislation to close the oil companies tax loopholes. Click the header or link to sign the petition...

Gas prices are absurd. End Big Oil tax breaks. Tell the GOP: ENOUGH. Sign the petition
Big Oil is profiting off the American people to the tune of billions.

We’re paying $4.09 a gallon so BP and ExxonMobil can earn massive profits and keep the mega-bonuses flowing for execs.  Yet Senate Republicans still want to shovel huge tax breaks to Big Oil.

Medicare for seniors? Poor women who need prenatal care? Sorry, your funding is on the chopping block. But nobody better touch those Big Oil tax breaks.

Enough! The DSCC is organizing 100,000 Americans to tell Republicans exactly how they feel, and you need to add your voice right away.

Click here to help end Big Oil's tax deals.

You know BP's lobbyists are all over Capitol Hill getting Republican senators to support their talking points. The only way we end this nonsense is to organize a massive wave of grassroots anger and energy to end these tax breaks and end them now.

That's why I need you to take action right away and why I need you to email, tweet, and Facebook with all you've got to spread the word. We need to get real big real fast.

I know I can count on you, so click here to get involved. Together, we can end Big Oil's sweetheart tax giveaways.

I’m fired up about this. The American people have every right to be angry about unchecked corporate greed.

Oil giants post massive Q1 profits, demand huge subsidies

April 28, 2011
Exxon stood head and shoulders above the other big five oil companies with first-quarter profits of nearly $10.7 billion.  CAP’s Valeri Vasquez has the details.
The first anniversary of the BP fatal oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico reminded Americans of the enormous human and economic costs of our oil dependence. One year later, BP is posting first-quarter profits of nearly $5.5 billion. This 17 percent growth from 2010’s first-quarter earnings comes despite BP having distributed a mere 19 percent of the $20 billion it agreed to pay oil spill victims and their families.
The four other Big Oil companies—ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Shell—also enjoyed massive profits in the first quarter of 2011 compared to 2010 due to high oil prices. These four companies reported a combined $18.2 billion in first-quarter earnings—profits that together mark a 40 percent increase over last year. Exxon stood head and shoulders above the rest with a nearly 70 percent increase over 2010 first-quarter profits, clocking in at nearly $10.7 billion. Shell was a distant second with earnings listed at $6.9 billion.
Oil prices have risen by a third in just more than two months, spurred largely by speculators capitalizing on unrest in North Africa and the Middle East. The jump in crude prices from $85 per barrel to $112 per barrel since January 2011 has boosted gasoline prices by 22 percent.
President Barack Obama warned in an April 26 letter to congressional leadership that “if sustained, these high prices have the potential to slow our economy’s growth at precisely the moment we need to be accelerating it.”
Analysts agree, projecting that a sustained $10 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil can reduce our gross domestic product by up to 0.2 percentage points in 2011 alone. A sustained $20-per-barrel increase in oil prices could yield at least a 50-cent-per-gallon hike in gasoline costs.
This month, drivers are paying an additional 30 percent at the pump compared to April 2010. And this year, an increase of 70 cents per gallon in just more than two months is costing American families dearly. According to some estimates, every “penny increase at the pump sucks $1.5 billion from household spending nationwide.”

Big Oil doesn’t need tax subsidies with billions in profits

http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/28/big-oil-profits/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29 

But the burden on American taxpayers begins well before they fill up at the gas station. More than $4 billion in unnecessary tax subsidies for domestic drilling and production are doled out to oil companies annually, activities the companies would undertake and profit from without federal assistance.
The handout is supported by Big Oil’s Republican representatives in Congress. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed fiscal year 2012 budget resolution that passed the House of Representatives on April 15 preserves Big Oil subsidies while nearly eliminating investments in the clean energy technologies of the future that are essential to reduce oil use and foster long-term economic growth.
The House Republicans also unanimously opposed and defeated a “motion to recommit” a short-term extension of government funding for FY 2011 in March. The motion would have eliminated these Big Oil tax loopholes.
Big Oil strongly supports the retention of these tax loopholes, of course. Four of the five Big Oil companies have already shown their appreciation to House Republican leaders who led efforts to retain them. These companies gave $280,000 in campaign contributions to their Republican benefactors. This includes House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who according to a Center for American Progress analysis has received $15,000 from oil interests since January. ExxonMobil was the largest overall donor to overall campaign contributions. It gave more than 80 percent of this campaign cash.
Speaker Boehner, however, indicated a willingness to consider eliminating Big Oil tax loopholes on Monday. He told ABC News:
We’re in a time when the federal government is short on revenues. We need to control spending but we need to have revenues to keep the government movin’. And they [Big Oil] oughta be payin’ their fair share.
President Obama wrote Speaker Boehner and other congressional leaders in response, urging them to “take immediate action to eliminate unwarranted tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, and to use those dollars to invest in clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wants to make the repeal of the Big Oil tax loopholes one of the first orders of business when Congress returns from its spring recess on May 2. Hopefully Speaker Boehner will ignore his oil contributors and instead join along by promptly allowing a House vote on Rep. Earl Blumenauer’s (D-OH) bill, H.R. 601, which would eliminate Big Oil tax loopholes.
This quarter’s $18.2 billion in profits certainly demonstrates that the big five oil companies can do without $40 billion in tax subsidies over a decade.
– Valeri Vasquez is a Special Assistant for the Energy Team at American Progress.

16 April 2011

What Would Jesus Tax? from SOJO 14APR11

JUST imagine if we had elected officials with the courage to present and pass a moral budget, one that required the wealthy and corporate America to pay it's fair share, one that ended corporate welfare and cone that challenged the power of the military-industrial complex and made real, necessary cuts to the Pentagon budget.....

Taxesphoto © 2011 John Morgan | more info (via: Wylio)In the face of state and federal budget cuts, many of us have been fasting and contemplating the question: “What would Jesus cut?“ In light of tax day, however, we might equally contemplate: “What would Jesus tax?”
After all, a great deal of our budgetary stress is the result of declining revenue, thanks to the economic downturn and decades of tax cuts.
A new report that I co-authored, “Unnecessary Austerity,” argues that before we make draconian budget cuts at the federal and state level, we should reverse huge tax cuts for the wealthy and tax dodging corporations.
The Jesus I know would be concerned about the extreme inequalities of wealth and power that have emerged in our communities. He would rail against principalities and powers that rig the tax rules so the privileged pay less.
He would lament the destruction of God’s creation through excessive consumption and pollution. And, he would be alarmed about financial and commodity speculation driving up the cost of food and worsening hunger. (In today’s world of high finance, someone would be hedging investments on how quickly Jesus could multiply loaves and fishes.)
In my recent Sojourners magazine article, “Taxes and the Common Good“, I argue that new “sin taxes” should focus on discouraging financial speculation and environmental destruction — while reducing the huge canyon between rich and poor. A good first step would be to reverse some of the more irresponsible tax breaks of the last generation.
When we hear our lawmakers lament that “we’re broke,” consider this fact: If corporations and households with $1 million income paid at the same levels they did in 1961, the Treasury would collect an additional $716 billion a year — or $7 trillion over a decade.
There are two important explanations behind our current budget “squeeze.” First, income and wealth have become extremely concentrated in the hands of the super wealthy. The richest 1 percent of households own more than 35.6 percent of all private wealth — approximately $20 trillion. The number of households with incomes exceeding $1 million has grown from 15,753 in 1961 to 361,000 today, adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, the middle-class standard of living is collapsing and poverty rates are at a 15-year high.
Second, we’ve dramatically reduced taxes on the wealthiest households and global corporations. Congress and special interest lobbyists have made mincemeat of our tax code, losing hundreds of billions in revenue. Worse, lawmakers have averted their eyes as corporate lobbyists drill new tax loopholes and extract new corporate welfare subsidies.
That’s how a profitable company like General Electric legally and aggressively avoids taxes. Since 2006, General Electric has reported over $26 billion in profits, yet paid not one penny in U.S. taxes.
Other huge global companies such as Verizon, Boeing, ExxonMobil, and Federal Express also pay no or very low taxes. In his new book Treasure Islands, journalist Nicholas Shaxson describes how these artful tax dodgers use accounting gymnastics to move money to overseas tax havens like the Cayman Islands or Ireland. They pretend to earn their profits offshore and then report their paper losses here in the United States — reducing their responsibility to the commonweal.
Our “Unnecessary Austerity” report identifies over $4 trillion in potential revenue over the next decade. Closing offshore tax havens could generate an estimated $100 billion a year. Adding new top tax brackets for millionaires could generate another $60-80 billion. Instituting a financial transaction tax could generate $150 billion a year.
No doubt, we will need to reduce government expenditures in a responsible way. There are some farm subsidy programs and military expenditures I have on my list. But if our lens is entirely focused on the expenditure side of the equation, we’re going to miss a huge part of the solution. The prophetic Jesus would turn our head in another direction.
Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where he directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good. He is co-author, with Mary Wright, of The Moral Measure of the Economy (Orbis Books) and with Bill Gates Sr. of Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes (Beacon).

15 April 2011

Experts Fear Another Oil Disaster 14APR11

THE government needs to force the big oil companies to do more to prevent another oil disaster in the Gulf and other off-shore drilling locations. There is no way off-shore drilling should ever be approved for the Arctic. We are still dealing with oil, pollution, and the deaths of countless sea creatures along the Gulf of Mexico and with oil damage in Cook Inlet (remember exxon valdez????) to risk the environmental damage a spill in the Arctic would create. From HuffPost....

NEW ORLEANS -- With everything Big Oil and the government have learned in the year since the Gulf of Mexico disaster, could it happen again? Absolutely, according to an Associated Press examination of the industry and interviews with experts on the perils of deep-sea drilling.
The government has given the OK for oil exploration in treacherously deep waters to resume, saying it is confident such drilling can be done safely. The industry has given similar assurances. But there are still serious questions in some quarters about whether the lessons of the BP oil spill have been applied.
The industry "is ill-prepared at the least," said Charles Perrow, a Yale University professor specializing in accidents involving high-risk technologies. "I have seen no evidence that they have marshaled containment efforts that are sufficient to deal with another major spill. I don't think they have found ways to change the corporate culture sufficiently to prevent future accidents."
He added: "There are so many opportunities for things to go wrong that major spills are unavoidable."
The worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history began with an explosion April 20, 2010, that killed 11 workers aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig. More than 200 million gallons of crude spewed from the well a mile beneath the sea.
Since then, new drilling rules have been imposed, a high-tech system for capping a blown-out well and containing the oil has been built, and regulators have taken steps to ramp up oversight of the industry.
But deep-sea drilling remains highly risky. The effectiveness of the much-touted containment system is being questioned because it hasn't been tested on the sea floor. A design flaw in the blowout preventers widely used across the industry has been identified but not corrected. And regulators are allowing companies to obtain drilling permits before approving their updated oil-spill response plans.
After a monthslong moratorium, the Obama administration resumed issuing drilling permits earlier this year amid great pressure from the industry and lawmakers seeking to protect communities and workers whose livelihoods depend on drilling.
A petroleum industry group is creating a center for offshore safety in Houston to address management practices and improve industry communication. And the agency that oversees offshore drilling now bars inspectors from regulating a company that employs a family member or friend. Also, inspectors who join the agency from the oil industry cannot perform inspections of their former employers for two years.
BP says it is poised to become a much safer company. It ousted several key figures during the disaster – including CEO Tony Hayward – and created a powerful unit to police company safety. BP spokesman Daren Beaudo said that because of advances made during the crisis, "the capability exists to respond to a deep-water well blowout." Similarly, Chevron spokesman Russell A. Johnson said his company is "confident of our ability to prevent an incident similar" to the Gulf oil spill.
Whether any of that translates into better protection remains to be seen.
"I'm not an oddsmaker, but I would say in the next five years we should have at least one major blowout," Perrow said. "Even if everybody tries very hard, there is going to be an accident caused by cost-cutting and pressure on workers. These are moneymaking machines and they make money by pushing things to the limit."
After the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil producers including BP were criticized for errors in their federally required oil-spill response plans, such as severely underestimating the time it takes oil to reach shore.
Several of the biggest oil producers told the AP they have updated their response plans but are still waiting for them to be approved. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement said it is operating under a 2002 federal regulation that allows two years to approve such plans. In the meantime, companies are allowed to proceed with their drilling applications and obtain permits as long as they certify in writing that they can handle a spill, said agency spokeswoman Eileen Angelico.
The agency "is taking the oil companies' word for it that they can handle a spill," said David Pettit, a senior attorney for the National Resources Defense Council, one of the nation's leading environmental groups. "This is the same kind of deference to claimed oil company expertise that led directly to the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster."
Regulators, however, point out that operators have to provide significant supplemental data before permits are approved.
To bolster their case for safer drilling, the companies can point to a new system developed by industry titans including Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips to contain oil spills. The system includes a cap and a series of undersea devices – including cables, a riser and a piece of equipment that would pump dispersant. Lines would be hooked up to vessels on the surface.
Oil companies say the system is capable of quickly containing a blowout 8,000 feet under water and capturing as much as 60,000 barrels of oil per day. By comparison, at the height of the Gulf spill in mid-June, BP's well was spewing some 57,000 barrels a day at a depth of 5,000 feet.
Michael Bromwich, director of the U.S. agency that regulates offshore drilling, recently acknowledged that the system was not tested in a dynamic situation – meaning in the ocean or during blowout conditions. He said such testing would be ideal, but he was still confident the system would work.
Martin W. Massey, CEO of the Marine Well Containment Co., the consortium of companies that built the system, told the AP that components of the system were tested on land in Houston in a controlled environment, with government officials monitoring and approving it. He suggested that ocean testing was not necessary.
"We're quite confident," he said. "We're ready to respond. The system is ready to go."
The consortium has said an expanded network capable of plugging a well at more than 10,000 feet below the surface and collecting 100,000 barrels of oil per day won't be ready until early 2012.
Another piece of equipment that has come under new scrutiny is the blowout preventer.
In a report last month, a firm hired by the government to test the 300-ton device made by Houston-based Cameron and used with BP's ill-fated well said the device failed to pinch the well shut in part because of a design flaw that prevented it from cutting through a drill pipe that had been knocked off center.
Cameron is one of the biggest manufacturers of blowout preventers, so the finding has raised concerns that the devices may have to be overhauled across the board. No design changes have been announced since the finding, and a Cameron vice president defended the integrity of the blowout preventers at a federal hearing this month.
If oil reaches the surface and threatens land, response companies today would still rely on the same equipment and technology that failed to quickly protect land during the BP spill. Floating booms, for example, would still be put in place around sensitive marshes and beaches.
Bromwich said recently that some oil and gas companies continue to tell him they believe the Deepwater Horizon was an aberration belonging to one party – BP – and it could not happen to them.
"In my judgment, this is as disappointing as it is shortsighted," Bromwich said. "Our view is this was a broad problem."
___
Mohr reported from Jackson, Miss. Associated Press writers Michael Kunzelman in New Orleans and Dina Cappiello in Washington contributed to this report.

31 March 2011

Bernie Sanders' Top 10 Tax Avoiders 29MAR11

THE corporations and economic groups that are NOT paying taxes and getting away with it! From Mother Jones....
In a Sunday press release calling on wealthy individuals and corporations to pay their share, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont offered a list of what he calls "some of the 10 worst corporate income tax avoiders."
Sanders, you'll recall, made headlines for his epic 8.5-hour speech/filibuster this past December, dealing with how Obama's pending tax-cut deal with the GOP would be bad for America. The speech—published this month as a paperback simply titled The Speech—was in vain: Congress passed the deal, extending tax breaks not merely to the poor and middle-class, but to America's richest people.
It also slashed the estate tax from 55 percent to 35 percent and exempted the first $5 million of an estate's value ($10 million for a couple)—up from $1 million pre-Bush. In his speech, Sanders warned against this change, noting, "Let us be very clear: This tax applies only—only—to the top three-tenths of 1 percent of American families; 99.7 percent of American families will not pay one nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich. (Click here for our blockbuster charts showing just how rich the very, very, very rich actually are.)
If the estate tax—which Republicans have cleverly rebranded the "death tax"—were to be eliminated entirely (another GOP goal), Sanders says it would cost US taxpayers $1 trillion over 10 years. "Families such as the Walton family, of Walmart fame, would have received, just this one family, about a $30 billion tax break," he said in the speech.
As one of few voices in Congress calling seriously for balance between cuts and new revenues, Sanders wants to close corporate tax loopholes and get rid of tax breaks for Big Oil. He's put forth a bill that would impose a 5.4 percent surtax on household income north of $1 million, and earmark that money for deficit reduction. He estimates it would bring in $50 billion a year, whereas Congress' recent tax-cut deal will add around $700 billion to the deficit.
So, without further ado, here's Bernie's tax-avoiders list. In this case, one of his staffers informed me, "refund" means "negative federal income tax liability." If you have any quibbles with his facts, let us know in the comments.
1) ExxonMobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. [Note: Our post last April reported that ExxonMobil was owed $46 million by the IRS.]
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Michael Mechanic is a senior editor at Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. You can stalk him on Twitter here. Get Michael Mechanic's RSS feed.

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

02 March 2011

Asked If Bank Of America Paying Nothing In Corporate Taxes Is Fair, Pawlenty Responds: Taxes Are ‘Too High’ 2MAR11

NO question here about who tim pawlenty represents, he is owned and controlled by corporate America. If you think things are bad now, just think what will happen to this country if he would be elected president! I just can't understand how people can support any politician who kow-tows to corporate masters and defends their not paying taxes. How do these people feel they are going to benefit from allowing this to continue? Where do they think the money for even the basic government services is going to come from? Can these people really be so ignorant to believe it is OK for these corporations to not pay taxes? Tea-baggers, how is supporting this attitude going to improve your lives? THINK ABOUT IT!!! From ThinkProgress....
ThinkProgress filed this report from the Tea Party Patriots Policy Summit in Phoenix, AZ.
Last weekend, Americans around the country organized “Main Street Movement” protests to stand in solidarity with organized labor and demand that corporate interests pay their fair share. As ThinkProgress has reported, many of the nation’s largest corporate interests pay literally nothing in corporate income taxes. ExxonMobil made nearly $20 billion in profits in 2009, but paid nothing in corporate income taxes. Other extremely profitable companies GE, CitiGroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Boeing similarly have had entire quarters or years without paying corporate income taxes.
At the Tea Party summit last weekend, we spoke to former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), a prospective GOP presidential candidate, about corporate tax cheats. Asked about Bank of America, another wildly profitable American bank that paid nothing in corporate taxes in 2009, Pawlenty simply relied “Well actually the corporate tax rate in Minnesota and around the country is too high.” Reminded several times that Bank of America doesn’t pay it’s corporate taxes, regardless of rates, Pawlenty said that both exemptions and rates should be lowered. However, he again emphasized that he was not troubled, or even aware, of corporate tax dodging, and that corporate tax rates should be reduced:
FANG: Governor, today liberals are demonstrating all over the country in what CBS has called a liberal version of the Tea Party. Their main complaint is that a lot of corporations aren’t paying their fair share. For example, Bank of America, in 2009 paid nothing in corporate income taxes, same with ExxonMobil, GE, and a lot of other big corporations. Do you think corporations like Bank of America should pay their fair share? What are your thoughts on that?
PAWLENTY: Well actually the corporate tax rate in Minnesota and around the country is too high. And I think one thing we could and should do is–
FANG: You think zero is too high with Bank of America paying nothing?
PAWLENTY: We have the highest corporate tax rate, or one of them, in the world–
FANG: But they use loopholes and offshore bank accounts to pay nothing.
PAWLENTY: The things I’ve called for is reducing tax rates and looking at exemptions or special deals within the tax code that give certain companies privileges or benefits. I can’t speak individually to any country, company would get in that regard, but I think one goal or direction is to simplify and reduce tax rates and clean out as many of the special deals as possible.
FANG: To be clear, do you think Bank of America pays too much in taxes already?
PAWLENTY: I don’t know what Bank of America pays in taxes. I’ll just say, setting aside Bank of America, the corporate tax rate in America is too high compared to our competitor nations.
Watch it:

In 2009, as Bank of America made billions in untaxed profits, the firm’s top executives received pay “ranging from $6 million to nearly $30 million.”
Even Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), a Republican well to the right of Pawlenty on most issues, told us that corporate tax dodgers “broke the law.” As he prepares to run for president, Pawlenty has positioned himself close to the corporate right. Last year, we broke a story about how bailed out banks — still on the hook for taxpayer money — were funneling cash to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to kill financial reform. We asked Pawlenty if he had any problem with taxpayer-owned banks secretly lobbying against reforms for their industry. He didn’t.

19 January 2011

Stop Shell From Drilling -- NRDC's Save BioGems News, 19JAN11

UPDATES on Arctic drilling, Southern forest, polar bears, coal mines, and more. Please participate on the campaign against drilling in the Arctic by clicking the link in the article.


 
Save BioGems Home Donate
Visit Natural Resources Defense Council Save BioGems - The monthly update for BioGems Defenders

Join Us on Facebook!
Facebook BioGems DefendersConnect with other BioGems Defenders and get the latest campaign updates on Facebook.

"I love NRDC for caring, sharing and doing!!" -- From our Facebook wall

BioGems Update
ReefA BIG thank you to BioGems Defenders who recently sent more than 30,000 letters urging the Mexican government to protect the coral reef at Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park.

» See the timeline of victories we've won


Voices for the Wild
Voices for the Wild
BioGems Defenders share their experiences with nature and wildlife.

Go to Voices for the Wild

To Do Even More
Support NRDC's BioGems campaign to save our last wild places.

» Donate

America's Arctic

Take ActionAmerica's Arctic

Keep Shell out of the polar bear's home

The Shell oil company is pressing ahead with a new plan to begin drilling this summer in the Beaufort Sea, just off the coastline of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As America's largest onshore birthing area for polar bears, this fragile shoreline would be devastated in the event of an oil spill. Oil-covered polar bears stand virtually no chance of survival, and beluga whales and other Arctic wildlife would face a similar fate. What's worse, Shell is relying on an oil spill response plan -- created and approved before last summer's Gulf oil disaster -- that is outdated and woefully inadequate. There is NO proven technology for cleaning up oil in ice-filled waters like the Beaufort. With the Obama Administration under tremendous pressure from Big Oil to allow new drilling in the Arctic, Americans need to send a message loud and clear that we won't stand for another catastrophic oil spill.

»Tell Interior Secretary Salazar to deny Shell's permit to drill in the Beaufort this summer.

In the News  
HUGE VICTORY FOR SOUTHERN FORESTS
In a major victory for NRDC and our environment, Georgia-Pacific, one of the world's largest wood and paper product companies, recently announced it will no longer purchase trees from Endangered Forests and Special Areas, or from new pine plantations established in place of natural hardwood forests on 90 million acres across the south, including parts of our Cumberland Plateau BioGem. The 11 designated Endangered Forests and Special Areas span 600,000 acres across North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Georgia and will be extended over the next few years as additional areas are mapped and identified. Over the past several decades, the intense wood and paper production in the region has destroyed millions of acres of natural hardwood forests to make way for pine plantations. The agreement is a result of six years of discussion between Georgia-Pacific and NRDC, the Dogwood Alliance and the Rainforest Action Network. Congratulations to everyone who worked tirelessly to bring about this historic agreement!

ALASKAN HABITAT DESIGNATED FOR POLAR BEARS
Polar BearIn good news for polar bears, the Obama Administration has designated more than 187,000 square miles along the north coast of Alaska as “critical habitat” for the bears. The important new safeguard was part of a settlement in an ongoing lawsuit brought by NRDC, Greenpeace and the Center for Biological Diversity. Under the Endangered Species Act, the federal government cannot allow any action that would harm or damage lands designated as critical habitat -- in this case, coastal lands and waters that are vital to the survival of the polar bear. Alaska has already sued to overturn the habitat designation, even though the state's polar bears are increasingly threatened by global warming and Arctic oil development and could face extinction by 2050. In a separate legal challenge also brought by NRDC and our allies, a federal judge is now considering whether polar bears should be granted the full-fledged endangered species protection they so urgently need.
SALAZAR ENDS THE "NO MORE WILDERNESS" POLICY
Last month, Interior Secretary Salazar issued a Secretarial Order ending the Bush-era "no more wilderness" policy, which prevented federal agencies from protecting wilderness-quality lands across the West from destructive oil and gas drilling. More than 10 million acres of western lands have wilderness characteristics but have not been designated as wilderness, including Utah's Upper Desolation Canyon, Wyoming's Adobe Town and New Mexico's Otero Mesa. In the wake of Secretary Salazar's order, we are hopeful that these spectacular lands will now be afforded the protection they need. Thanks to all the BioGems Defenders who made their voices heard on this issue.
BIOGEMS DEFENDERS KEEP EXXONMOBIL OUT OF LOLO NATIONAL FOREST FOR NOW
You've been heard! Officials at the Lolo National Forest have agreed to conduct additional environmental analysis regarding ExxonMobil's request to bury power lines within the forest for an industrial transportation corridor. The corridor would allow ExxonMobil to haul super-sized loads of mining equipment through the forest and onward to tar sands developments in Alberta. Many local residents raised concerns about the possible noise, traffic and pollution from the project, as well as its impacts on nearby Lolo Creek and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. Back in the summer of 2010, we asked BioGems Defenders to speak out against the proposal, and more than 18,000 of you took action. Forest Service officials have even acknowledged that the overwhelming response from BioGems Defenders -- which made up the majority of comments submitted -- influenced their decision to pursue additional analysis. Kudos to our BioGems Defenders!

Action Insider  
ROBERT REDFORD SPEAKS OUT FOR BRYCE CANYON
Robert RedfordLong-time environmental activist and NRDC Trustee Robert Redford takes a stand against the proposed Alton Coal Mine -- located a mere 10 miles from Bryce Canyon National Park.

GOOD NEWS ON WILDLIFE
Read Andrew Wetzler's latest roundup on good news for wildlife around the world.
Photo credits: Caribou bulls swimming across Kobuk River. © Nick Jans, AlaskaStock.com; Polar bear © Steven Kazlowski, AlaskaStock.com.

19 August 2010

BIG OIL BRIBERY IN THE U.S. SENATE 19AUG10

FIND OUT HOW MUCH IT HAS COST BIG OIL TO BUY YOUR SENATOR...BUT DON'T FEEL TOO BAD FOR THE OIL COMPANIES...THE SENATE GAVE THEM A $35 BILLION TAX BREAK IN RETURN! 


TrueMajority
Dear Craig,





How much money has your Senator taken from Big Oil?


How much money has your Senator received







Ever wonder why we give $35 billion of our tax dollars to oil companies?

Follow the money.

This year alone, Big Oil companies like BP and ExxonMobil gave over $11 million to candidates for Congress and a staggering $8 million to sitting members. In fact, Big Oil has given an average of $34,647 to each U.S. senator.1 VA Sen Mark Warner has received $25,650 and VA Sen Jim Webb has received $81,650. Click the link below to see who is buying your senator and let them know what you think.

And, like clockwork, the Senate voted in favor of those $35 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to Big Oil, even during the world's most disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. They sided with Big Oil, not with the voters. They took the money and ran.2

We're tired of the greasy, dirty politics of Washington. It's time to clean up the Senate. 

We've launched an effort to stop the subsidies. Already more than 65,000 of you have signed our Stop the Big Oil Bailout petition. Now we're asking you to help clean up by focusing on your own senators.

This issue isn't about party politics. Democrats and Republicans take money from Big Oil. Over her career, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) has taken more than $666,000. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has taken more than $740,000 since he got to the Senate.

This is about the right kind of public policies being hijacked by rich corporations like BP and ExxonMobil.

If we want to stop polluting good policy with dirty money, we need to first stop the Big Oil Bailout. You can help by seeing how much your senators have taken from oil companies and spreading the word. 
http://www.truemajority.org/site/oilspill/money.php?state=