One particularly concerning aspect is that Sen. Mary Landrieu's brother Mitch Landrieu was, up until a few weeks ago, the senior presidential advisor responsible for implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. He stepped down to act as co-chair of Biden's 2024 re-election campaign. I'm not aware of any specific cases where infrastructure-bill funding was used to facilitate more gas infrastructure, although it might be worth digging into some of the hydrogen-related funding to see if there's anything suspicious in there. Still a big potential conflict of interest to have someone so close to the person in charge of federal infrastructure investment to be directly on the gas-industry-lobbying payroll.
The moment I read the headline for this post in my inbox, even before scrolling down to read anything else, the thought hit me: "Heidi Heitkamp." Sure enough, an inch or two farther down the email, there she was, a former U.S. senator from the state where I've lived most of my life, in the preview for the methane industry video.
What you learned about Heidi Heitkamp was new (great reporting, as always) but not the least bit surprising. Heitkamp's been a dig-baby-dig, drill-baby-drill, burn-baby-burn, all-of-the-above-energy, fossil-fuels shill for years and years. She's also been an enemy to the majority of efforts, even modest ones, to protect the environment. Thank goodness Biden didn't select her for a cabinet position, which he was seriously considering before he took the oath of office. As I said in a post of my own, I didn’t want her type of thinking anywhere near a position where she could influence Biden’s decision-making, not even in a a less-influential cabinet post.
As for Democrats in general, what you've reported here is not surprising, either. I was a lifelong Dem who voted a straight ticket in every election since I became eligible to vote... until about 10 years ago. That's when I realized too many Democrats are neoliberals, cozied up to big business at the expense of working people, and that they often are, at best, just slightly less awful options compared to the GOP candidates they face. Sadly, this is especially true on environment-, sustainability- and climate-related issues.
I think it is awful that anyone would take a salary to shill fossil fuels, really great investigation work here!, but I don't believe it says anything really about Democrats at large. Two moderate Senators, one who was last in office in 2015, don't represent elected Democrats and their thinking or work on climate.
And in particular I don't agree with the claim that something like this is a reason why climate legislation struggles. Climate legislation struggles because of Republican opposition and interpreting their solid opposition as "politicians in general wanting a job after they leave office" is not true imo. It just isn't a factor. I mean look at someone like Manchin, who still passed the IRA, which by all accounts is a truly meaningful climate law.
And this could be a whole discussion in of itself, one in which I think the climate movement *must* come to some sort of consensus about, because of its seriousness to the entire energy transition, but I have seen this argument "methane gas is worse than coal" gain traction, usually citing Howarth. And honestly I am really fucking concerned of the implications here, specifically as it relates to developing countries.
But it also means redesigning our entire IPCC based energy transition, which as far as I can tell is based around eliminating coal ASAP, while gas has more of a tail to it. IIRC some net-zero scenarios even use CCS with gas.
But I have seen from too many people, well intentioned to be sure, with massive audiences boldy make the claim that "gas is worse than coal", but also not following through with that on specific actions that tie them to their position. Is someone like Bill McKibben going to argue that Bangladesh should continue burning massive amounts of coal instead of methane gas? That Europe should lower its gas consumption and refire coal plants?
The obvious response, "it should be renewables instead of either of those" doesn't track with those countries energy portfolios. For example, a country like Bangladesh in which power shortages are common and people want consistent energy, it just isn't a choice between intermittent renewables or fossil fuels. It is a choice between gas or coal, at least in the short to medium term.
One of my goals is to get the climate movement thinking about global energy usage and how our choices here affect other countries. What does blocking LNG export terminals *really* mean for countries whose only choice is between coal and gas for example? And I don't think people like Bill McKibben or the authors of the linked Nature article about methane gas lock in, have satisfactorily answered that.
Fundamentally I think if someone is going to make the argument that it is more acceptable for countries like Bangladesh to burn absolutely awful, choking coal instead of gas, I just want them to be absolutely fucking sure they have an air tight case, because the danger of being wrong is enormous.
Depressing, but I'm certainly not, "shocked, shocked," as is said about the gambling in Casablanca.
What's scary is the likely success of the whole "clean, affordable..." gas campaign at picking off swing voters, and thus otherwise sympathetic politicians. And the success of anti-BEV campaigns here.
We've got to get on it with electrification, and deploying lots of renewables so fossil fuels are just the backup for clean electricity.
And at the local level, former DC city councilmembers were hired by the District's gas utilities company to kill legislation to make it easier to convert to electric appliances. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/659781/gas-me-up/
A lot is made of the revolving door between presidential administrators and the corporate executive class, but it's apparent some individuals see political office not as a means of public service, but of personal enrichment. That this is happening in an age when we have more information at our fingertips than ever before makes it all the more galling.
It was only a decade ago that we were getting feverish appeals to donate to Landrieu's campaign and preserve a democratic majority in the Senate for Obama from the Koch's ALEC.
As long as there is money to be made selling fossils, and as long as there are ex-congressmen willing to be bought, we're stuck here, I'm afraid. The only way we're going to transition away from the fossils is when there's no more money in it, i.e., when individuals stop spending their hard-earned dollars on it. And the only way for THAT to happen is if individuals find less expensive ways to heat their homes, drive their cars, and cook their food.
Unless, of course, the members of our governing bodies at some point decide to treat climate change like a crisis and not like an opportunity to gain political favor or remuneration. They did that with freon and hair spray a few years back - passed a few laws that were minimally disruptive, and the ozone hole started shrinking. But freon manufacturers didn't have billions of dollars to spend on bribes - aka "campaign contributions." So we're up against a whole lot of money in the hands of a whole lot of people who are able to convince themselves that the problem really isn't all that bad after all.
More and more we are seeing how badly all of the politicians around the world owe their livelihoods to the coroporate gods. Not all but so many that those who aren't face a seriously uphill battle to be heard and get things done for their districts. It's no wonder the rural, and quite a few urban, voters are regarding King Donald as the next political messiah. The rhetoric of "Clear the Swamp" is resonating everywhere. Your article here shows us another reason why we are all hearing thus across the media feeds everywhere.
Cleaning up the environment is not something the global elite in the fossil fuel industries worldwide want. They will fight tooth and nail to maintain their status quo and bribe anyone they have to in order to keep their golden palaces and lavish lifestyles. Can you imagine the Saudi's without ARAMCO and all of its subsidiaries? We know that is not going to happen until their oil fields run dry someday way beyond my lifetime. The global profits from the fossil fuel industries are too much to for any of them dismiss and politicians like the one's in this article are unable to say no to the insane payments for publically sponsoring the industry in all of its facets. I would love for me to give me that much money for speaking engagements. Easy money.
As long as these past political people are not in office and getting paid its legal… plus its clear that these individuals have been consistent on there position in and out of office.
The climate science is far from settled. The risk of methane (natural gas) being a major threat to the climate is nonsense.
We need a future government that puts all these perfect world scientists into the same room with the climate science realists and have it out so we can move on and start to recover our prosperity.
The policy rule to follow is prosperity and the ability to adapt to a changing climate comes first, and any climate mitigation such as suppression of CO2 must be much longer term, and only when we have a credible solution to transition from the life supporting use of existing fossil fuels… so far we don’t..
The only current way to achieve any prosperity and support climate adaptation is with fossil fuels..
So, lets get real as this attack on CO2 and fossil fuels toward meeting NetZero is unrealistic and foolish unless we have a viable alternative that does nor adversely effect prosperity.
Also, this nonsense about peer reviewed scientific material being a signal of sure fact is untenable, with the climate group think having overtaken the scientific process due to snouts in the massive funding bucket, and the subjugation of science by politics on this topic. We have got the political cart way in front of the scientific horse, and we need far more scientific discussion before such a drastic policy as NetZero is undertaken.
The good news is that in many western nations a new political direction is forthcoming, as the risk to prosperity by NetZero becomes more apparent to the voting population…. The vote will not let the past NetZero delusion get in the way of much needed prosperity.
On a scientific note…
Methane although a much stronger GHG than CO2 is in far less concentration and has a much shorter sustain time.
CO2 is not a strong GHG and we can sustain much higher concentrations with the only effect being positive, in greening the planet and improving the food supply and making plants less prone to drought.
Both CO2 and methane are natural in the atmosphere and current concentrations are not outside of historical statistical levels for a stable atmosphere. Both gases are NOT a pollutant, and we can sustain far higher levels with no emergency needing to be declared or action to be taken.
The planet is warming naturally, and this has happened before and we flourished, and our contribution due to the advance of civilization is very small. Our main focus must be pollution control.
So, the climate change is good news and its not much about us!
There are many articles and videos like this that show how futile NetZero and our approach to climate change is in the west while the rest get stronger by avoiding the blunder.
THE BIG EV LIE. Why They Won't Save the Planet & All About Dirty Electricity | TheCarGuys.tv (youtube.com)
One particularly concerning aspect is that Sen. Mary Landrieu's brother Mitch Landrieu was, up until a few weeks ago, the senior presidential advisor responsible for implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. He stepped down to act as co-chair of Biden's 2024 re-election campaign. I'm not aware of any specific cases where infrastructure-bill funding was used to facilitate more gas infrastructure, although it might be worth digging into some of the hydrogen-related funding to see if there's anything suspicious in there. Still a big potential conflict of interest to have someone so close to the person in charge of federal infrastructure investment to be directly on the gas-industry-lobbying payroll.
The moment I read the headline for this post in my inbox, even before scrolling down to read anything else, the thought hit me: "Heidi Heitkamp." Sure enough, an inch or two farther down the email, there she was, a former U.S. senator from the state where I've lived most of my life, in the preview for the methane industry video.
What you learned about Heidi Heitkamp was new (great reporting, as always) but not the least bit surprising. Heitkamp's been a dig-baby-dig, drill-baby-drill, burn-baby-burn, all-of-the-above-energy, fossil-fuels shill for years and years. She's also been an enemy to the majority of efforts, even modest ones, to protect the environment. Thank goodness Biden didn't select her for a cabinet position, which he was seriously considering before he took the oath of office. As I said in a post of my own, I didn’t want her type of thinking anywhere near a position where she could influence Biden’s decision-making, not even in a a less-influential cabinet post.
As for Democrats in general, what you've reported here is not surprising, either. I was a lifelong Dem who voted a straight ticket in every election since I became eligible to vote... until about 10 years ago. That's when I realized too many Democrats are neoliberals, cozied up to big business at the expense of working people, and that they often are, at best, just slightly less awful options compared to the GOP candidates they face. Sadly, this is especially true on environment-, sustainability- and climate-related issues.
I think it is awful that anyone would take a salary to shill fossil fuels, really great investigation work here!, but I don't believe it says anything really about Democrats at large. Two moderate Senators, one who was last in office in 2015, don't represent elected Democrats and their thinking or work on climate.
And in particular I don't agree with the claim that something like this is a reason why climate legislation struggles. Climate legislation struggles because of Republican opposition and interpreting their solid opposition as "politicians in general wanting a job after they leave office" is not true imo. It just isn't a factor. I mean look at someone like Manchin, who still passed the IRA, which by all accounts is a truly meaningful climate law.
And this could be a whole discussion in of itself, one in which I think the climate movement *must* come to some sort of consensus about, because of its seriousness to the entire energy transition, but I have seen this argument "methane gas is worse than coal" gain traction, usually citing Howarth. And honestly I am really fucking concerned of the implications here, specifically as it relates to developing countries.
Not only is that claim controversial in of itself
(https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/09/f66/2019%20NETL%20LCA-GHG%20Report.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0457-1)
But it also means redesigning our entire IPCC based energy transition, which as far as I can tell is based around eliminating coal ASAP, while gas has more of a tail to it. IIRC some net-zero scenarios even use CCS with gas.
But I have seen from too many people, well intentioned to be sure, with massive audiences boldy make the claim that "gas is worse than coal", but also not following through with that on specific actions that tie them to their position. Is someone like Bill McKibben going to argue that Bangladesh should continue burning massive amounts of coal instead of methane gas? That Europe should lower its gas consumption and refire coal plants?
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/bangladeshs-2023-coal-fired-power-output-tripled-easing-shortages-2024-01-03/
The obvious response, "it should be renewables instead of either of those" doesn't track with those countries energy portfolios. For example, a country like Bangladesh in which power shortages are common and people want consistent energy, it just isn't a choice between intermittent renewables or fossil fuels. It is a choice between gas or coal, at least in the short to medium term.
One of my goals is to get the climate movement thinking about global energy usage and how our choices here affect other countries. What does blocking LNG export terminals *really* mean for countries whose only choice is between coal and gas for example? And I don't think people like Bill McKibben or the authors of the linked Nature article about methane gas lock in, have satisfactorily answered that.
Fundamentally I think if someone is going to make the argument that it is more acceptable for countries like Bangladesh to burn absolutely awful, choking coal instead of gas, I just want them to be absolutely fucking sure they have an air tight case, because the danger of being wrong is enormous.
Depressing, but I'm certainly not, "shocked, shocked," as is said about the gambling in Casablanca.
What's scary is the likely success of the whole "clean, affordable..." gas campaign at picking off swing voters, and thus otherwise sympathetic politicians. And the success of anti-BEV campaigns here.
We've got to get on it with electrification, and deploying lots of renewables so fossil fuels are just the backup for clean electricity.
And at the local level, former DC city councilmembers were hired by the District's gas utilities company to kill legislation to make it easier to convert to electric appliances. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/659781/gas-me-up/
A lot is made of the revolving door between presidential administrators and the corporate executive class, but it's apparent some individuals see political office not as a means of public service, but of personal enrichment. That this is happening in an age when we have more information at our fingertips than ever before makes it all the more galling.
It was only a decade ago that we were getting feverish appeals to donate to Landrieu's campaign and preserve a democratic majority in the Senate for Obama from the Koch's ALEC.
Excellent reporting, as always!
As long as there is money to be made selling fossils, and as long as there are ex-congressmen willing to be bought, we're stuck here, I'm afraid. The only way we're going to transition away from the fossils is when there's no more money in it, i.e., when individuals stop spending their hard-earned dollars on it. And the only way for THAT to happen is if individuals find less expensive ways to heat their homes, drive their cars, and cook their food.
Unless, of course, the members of our governing bodies at some point decide to treat climate change like a crisis and not like an opportunity to gain political favor or remuneration. They did that with freon and hair spray a few years back - passed a few laws that were minimally disruptive, and the ozone hole started shrinking. But freon manufacturers didn't have billions of dollars to spend on bribes - aka "campaign contributions." So we're up against a whole lot of money in the hands of a whole lot of people who are able to convince themselves that the problem really isn't all that bad after all.
More and more we are seeing how badly all of the politicians around the world owe their livelihoods to the coroporate gods. Not all but so many that those who aren't face a seriously uphill battle to be heard and get things done for their districts. It's no wonder the rural, and quite a few urban, voters are regarding King Donald as the next political messiah. The rhetoric of "Clear the Swamp" is resonating everywhere. Your article here shows us another reason why we are all hearing thus across the media feeds everywhere.
Cleaning up the environment is not something the global elite in the fossil fuel industries worldwide want. They will fight tooth and nail to maintain their status quo and bribe anyone they have to in order to keep their golden palaces and lavish lifestyles. Can you imagine the Saudi's without ARAMCO and all of its subsidiaries? We know that is not going to happen until their oil fields run dry someday way beyond my lifetime. The global profits from the fossil fuel industries are too much to for any of them dismiss and politicians like the one's in this article are unable to say no to the insane payments for publically sponsoring the industry in all of its facets. I would love for me to give me that much money for speaking engagements. Easy money.
As long as these past political people are not in office and getting paid its legal… plus its clear that these individuals have been consistent on there position in and out of office.
The climate science is far from settled. The risk of methane (natural gas) being a major threat to the climate is nonsense.
We need a future government that puts all these perfect world scientists into the same room with the climate science realists and have it out so we can move on and start to recover our prosperity.
The policy rule to follow is prosperity and the ability to adapt to a changing climate comes first, and any climate mitigation such as suppression of CO2 must be much longer term, and only when we have a credible solution to transition from the life supporting use of existing fossil fuels… so far we don’t..
The only current way to achieve any prosperity and support climate adaptation is with fossil fuels..
So, lets get real as this attack on CO2 and fossil fuels toward meeting NetZero is unrealistic and foolish unless we have a viable alternative that does nor adversely effect prosperity.
Also, this nonsense about peer reviewed scientific material being a signal of sure fact is untenable, with the climate group think having overtaken the scientific process due to snouts in the massive funding bucket, and the subjugation of science by politics on this topic. We have got the political cart way in front of the scientific horse, and we need far more scientific discussion before such a drastic policy as NetZero is undertaken.
The good news is that in many western nations a new political direction is forthcoming, as the risk to prosperity by NetZero becomes more apparent to the voting population…. The vote will not let the past NetZero delusion get in the way of much needed prosperity.
On a scientific note…
Methane although a much stronger GHG than CO2 is in far less concentration and has a much shorter sustain time.
CO2 is not a strong GHG and we can sustain much higher concentrations with the only effect being positive, in greening the planet and improving the food supply and making plants less prone to drought.
Both CO2 and methane are natural in the atmosphere and current concentrations are not outside of historical statistical levels for a stable atmosphere. Both gases are NOT a pollutant, and we can sustain far higher levels with no emergency needing to be declared or action to be taken.
The planet is warming naturally, and this has happened before and we flourished, and our contribution due to the advance of civilization is very small. Our main focus must be pollution control.
So, the climate change is good news and its not much about us!
More at…. https://www.amazon.ca/Very-Convenient-Warming-Benefiting-Humanity by Gregory Wrightstone
How the politics will change…. https://www.takebackmanufacturingnigelsouthway.com/storage/PGsvsWrfig90PEqEi422dODv0BYxoo-metaRG9uJ3Qgd29ycnkgQWxiZXJ0YSwgZnJlZXppbmcgaW4gdGhlIGRhcmsgd2lsbCBiZWNvbWUgbm9ybWFsLnBkZg==-.pdf
There are many articles and videos like this that show how futile NetZero and our approach to climate change is in the west while the rest get stronger by avoiding the blunder.
THE BIG EV LIE. Why They Won't Save the Planet & All About Dirty Electricity | TheCarGuys.tv (youtube.com)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sytWLB4-W-M