Corporate Externalities (We Make the Money You Clean Up The Messes)

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Another example of capitalism and multi-nationals not giving two damns about democracy.

source: Wall Street Journal

European Gear Used in Vast Effort to Monitor Communications

The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European telecommunications companies, one of the world's most sophisticated mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale.

Interviews with technology experts in Iran and outside the country say Iranian efforts at monitoring Internet information go well beyond blocking access to Web sites or severing Internet connections.

Instead, in confronting the political turmoil that has consumed the country this past week, the Iranian government appears to be engaging in a practice often called deep packet inspection, which enables authorities to not only block communication but to monitor it to gather information about individuals, as well as alter it for disinformation purposes, according to these experts.

The monitoring capability was provided, at least in part, by a joint venture of Siemens AG, the German conglomerate, and Nokia Corp., the Finnish cellphone company, in the second half of 2008, Ben Roome, a spokesman for the joint venture, confirmed.

The "monitoring center," installed within the government's telecom monopoly, was part of a larger contract with Iran that included mobile-phone networking technology, Mr. Roome said.

"If you sell networks, you also, intrinsically, sell the capability to intercept any communication that runs over them," said Mr. Roome.

The sale of the equipment to Iran by the joint venture, called Nokia Siemens Networks, was previously reported last year by the editor of an Austrian information-technology Web site called Futurezone.

The Iranian government had experimented with the equipment for brief periods in recent months, but it had not been used extensively, and therefore its capabilities weren't fully displayed -- until during the recent unrest, the Internet experts interviewed said.

"We didn't know they could do this much," said a network engineer in Tehran. "Now we know they have powerful things that allow them to do very complex tracking on the network."

Deep packet inspection involves inserting equipment into a flow of online data, from emails and Internet phone calls to images and messages on social-networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Every digitized packet of online data is deconstructed, examined for keywords and reconstructed within milliseconds. In Iran's case, this is done for the entire country at a single choke point, according to networking engineers familiar with the country's system. It couldn't be determined whether the equipment from Nokia Siemens Networks is used specifically for deep packet inspection.

All eyes have been on the Internet amid the crisis in Iran, and government attempts to crack down on information. The infiltration of Iranian online traffic could explain why the government has allowed the Internet to continue to function -- and also why it has been running at such slow speeds in the days since the results of the presidential vote spurred unrest.

Users in the country report the Internet having slowed to less than a tenth of normal speeds. Deep packet inspection delays the transmission of online data unless it is offset by a huge increase in processing power, according to Internet experts.

Iran is "now drilling into what the population is trying to say," said Bradley Anstis, director of technical strategy with Marshal8e6 Inc., an Internet security company in Orange, Calif. He and other experts interviewed have examined Internet traffic flows in and out of Iran that show characteristics of content inspection, among other measures. "This looks like a step beyond what any other country is doing, including China."

China's vaunted "Great Firewall," which is widely considered the most advanced and extensive Internet censoring in the world, is believed also to involve deep packet inspection. But China appears to be developing this capability in a more decentralized manner, at the level of its Internet service providers rather than through a single hub, according to experts. That suggests its implementation might not be as uniform as that in Iran, they said, as the arrangement depends on the cooperation of all the service providers.

The difference, at least in part, has to do with scale: China has about 300 million Internet users, the most of any country. Iran, which has an estimated 23 million users, can track all online communication through a single location called the Telecommunication Infrastructure Co., part of the government's telecom monopoly. All of the country's international links run through the company.

Separately, officials from the U.S. embassy in Beijing on Friday met with Chinese officials to express concerns about a new requirement that all PCs sold in the China starting July 1 be installed with Web-filtering software.

If a government wants to control the flow of information across its borders it's no longer enough to block access to Web sites hosted elsewhere. Now, as sharing online images and messages through social-networking sites has become easy and popular, repressive regimes are turning to technologies that allow them to scan such content from their own citizens, message by message.

Human-rights groups have criticized the selling of such equipment to Iran and other regimes considered repressive, because it can be used to crack down on dissent, as evidenced in the Iran crisis. Asked about selling such equipment to a government like Iran's, Mr. Roome of Nokia Siemens Networks said the company "does have a choice about whether to do business in any country. We believe providing people, wherever they are, with the ability to communicate is preferable to leaving them without the choice to be heard."

Countries with repressive governments aren't the only ones interested in such technology. Britain has a list of blocked sites, and the German government is considering similar measures. In the U.S., the National Security Agency has such capability, which was employed as part of the Bush administration's "Terrorist Surveillance Program." A White House official wouldn't comment on if or how this is being used under the Obama administration.

The Australian government is experimenting with Web-site filtering to protect its youth from online pornography, an undertaking that has triggered criticism that it amounts to government-backed censorship.

Content inspection and filtering technology are already common among corporations, schools and other institutions, as part of efforts to block spam and viruses, as well as to ensure that employees and students comply with computer-use guidelines. Families use filtering on their home computers to protect their children from undesirable sites, such as pornography and gambling.

Internet censoring in Iran was developed with the initial justification of blocking online pornography, among other material considered offensive by the regime, according to those who have studied the country's censoring.

Iran has been grappling with controlling the Internet since its use moved beyond universities and government agencies in the late 1990s. At times, the government has tried to limit the country's vibrant blogosphere -- for instance, requiring bloggers to obtain licenses from the government, a directive that has proved difficult to enforce, according to the OpenNet Initiative, a partnership of universities that study Internet filtering and surveillance. (The partners are Harvard University, the University of Toronto, the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford.)

Beginning in 2001, the government required Internet service providers to install filtering systems, and also that all international connections link to a single gateway controlled by the country's telecom monopoly, according to an OpenNet study.

Iran has since blocked Internet users in the country from more than five million sites in recent years, according to estimates from the press-freedom group Reporters Without Borders.

In the 2005 presidential election, the government shut down the Internet for hours, blaming it on a cyberattack from abroad, a claim that proved false, according to several Tehran engineers.

Several years ago, research by OpenNet discovered the government using filtering equipment from a U.S. company, Secure Computing Corp. Due to the U.S. trade embargo on Iran, in place since the 1979 Islamic revolution overthrew the U.S.-backed shah, that was illegal. Secure Computing, now owned by McAfee Inc., at the time denied any knowledge of the use of its products in Iran. McAfee said due diligence before the acquisition revealed no contract or support being provided in Iran.

Building online-content inspection on a national scale and coordinated at a single location requires hefty resources, including manpower, processing power and technical expertise, Internet experts said.

Nokia Siemens Networks provided equipment to Iran last year under the internationally recognized concept of "lawful intercept," said Mr. Roome. That relates to intercepting data for the purposes of combating terrorism, child pornography, drug trafficking and other criminal activities carried out online, a capability that most if not all telecom companies have, he said.

The monitoring center that Nokia Siemens Networks sold to Iran was described in a company brochure as allowing "the monitoring and interception of all types of voice and data communication on all networks." The joint venture exited the business that included the monitoring equipment, what it called "intelligence solutions," at the end of March, by selling it to Perusa Partners Fund 1 LP, a Munich-based investment firm, Mr. Roome said. He said the company determined it was no longer part of its core business.
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
The most powerful thread on BGOL. Even Lamarr and actinanass are afraid of it.

Thought, I aint readin all this. :rolleyes:

What is it, specifically, you want me to comment on? I'm an advocate of capitalism but not a fan of govt intervention to prop up failed business. A lot of the companies that have evolved into mega-corps have done it through the govt through land grants, no-bid govt contracts, FRAUD, and other nefarious activities.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Thought, I aint readin all this. :rolleyes:

What is it, specifically, you want me to comment on? I'm an advocate of capitalism but not a fan of govt intervention to prop up failed business. A lot of the companies that have evolved into mega-corps have done it through the govt through land grants, no-bid govt contracts, FRAUD, and other nefarious activities.

I aint readin all this

It's something when someone else doesn’t have all the pre packaged answers for you. You have to answer somethings on your own. I guess if it isn't on the Campaign For Liberty web site, you don't know how to digest it.

You cannot separate capitalism from corporations. When corporations conspire to artificially limit the value of labor or demand for "things" dry up, the system is inherently corrupt. The government becomes the tool of the fraud, not the fraud itself, any more than a gun being prosecuted for a murder. Capitalism or communism does not appear in the constitution. Keep on being ignorant.

Corporations have a long history of supporting oppression.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pkoM8RB-kJ0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pkoM8RB-kJ0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
As I see it...

thoughtone believes corporations AND capitalism are bad... BUT the Federal government is good (or can be).

Lamarr believes capitalism is GOOD (or can be)... BUT corporations and the Federal government are bad.

I believe corporations, capitalism, and the Federal government are all BAD and there is no redemption in any of them.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
As I see it...

thoughtone believes corporations AND capitalism are bad... BUT the Federal government is good (or can be).

Lamarr believes capitalism is GOOD (or can be)... BUT corporations and the Federal government are bad.

I believe corporations, capitalism, and the Federal government are all BAD and there is no redemption in any of them.

I don't believe in absolutes. Without government there is anarchy. Absolute laissez-faire capitalism is parasitic. Too much of either is dangerous. However by design we have control over our government if we don't concede control to the money interests. The sole reason for capitalism is to turn a profit. It is amoral. If I don’t like my government, technically I can petition the government and have a say in changing it. If I have problem with a corporation, I will get arrested for trespassing on private property.
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
You cannot separate capitalism from corporations. When corporations conspire to artificially limit the value of labor or demand for "things" dry up, the system is inherently corrupt. The government becomes the tool of the fraud, not the fraud itself, any more than a gun being prosecuted for a murder. Capitalism or communism does not appear in the constitution. Keep on being ignorant.

Ah, but you can't distinguish capitalism from corporatism / Facism! Moreover, it appears you favor govt intervention in a system that has already been tainted through fraudulent govt activities. No, the constitution doesn't mention capitalism nor communism, it simply was written to restrict the power & force of govt in our personal lives.

thoughtone believes corporations AND capitalism are bad... BUT the Federal government is good (or can be).

Lamarr believes capitalism is GOOD (or can be)... BUT corporations and the Federal government are bad.

I believe corporations, capitalism, and the Federal government are all BAD and there is no redemption in any of them.

I wouldn't say the system is BAD, I'd look at the people behind the system. And I'm in favor of bringing them to justice.

I'll put it like this: I stand up for capitalism because it espouses freedom & liberty, unlike Socialism, Fascism, or Communism. So whatever beef we have with the system, it's far better than the alternatives!
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
I don't believe in absolutes. Without government there is anarchy. Absolute laissez-faire capitalism is parasitic. Too much of either is dangerous. However by design we have control over our government if we don't concede control to the money interests. The sole reason for capitalism is to turn a profit. It is amoral. If I don’t like my government, technically I can petition the government and have a say in changing it. If I have problem with a corporation, I will get arrested for trespassing on private property.

Anarchy is not chaos or disorder. It simply means there is no established authority.

Life is anarchy.

When you buy food, no one tells you what to buy, how much to buy, where to buy it, and at what price.

When you sleep, no one tells you when to sleep, how much to sleep, where to sleep, and so on.

It is anarchy.

Government tells you what to do. The Federal government tells you what currency to use, how much income you keep, how you save, what you watch, who you kill, how you are jailed.

The Federal government is moving toward a totalitarian regime. You think you have power to change it within the system, but that is impossible!

I'll put it like this: I stand up for capitalism because it espouses freedom & liberty, unlike Socialism, Fascism, or Communism. So whatever beef we have with the system, it's far better than the alternatives!

Well, we have to part ways on capitalism. I believe it hates freedom and liberty.

Mercantilism led to capitalism. Both are ways the merchant classes seek to use the money authority to restrict competition, close markets, and exploit people.

Mercantilists used gold and the monarchs as the supreme governmental authority to protect them.

Capitalists use paper and banks as a means to control the supreme governmental authority (Federal government) to protect them.

We can all agree corporations are a big problem here. I suppose if you like corporations, you would be in the Fox/Rush/Bush/Conservative camp.
 
Last edited:

Lamarr

Star
Registered
Well, we have to part ways on capitalism. I believe it hates freedom and liberty.

:smh: Everybody is blaming Capitalism when it is the only vehicle that can bring us out of the debacle we are in, as a nation!

I suppose if you like corporations, you would be in the Fox/Rush/Bush/Conservative camp.

Strongly Disagree: Obama recieved 4 times the corporate donations than McCaint?
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
:smh: Everybody is blaming Capitalism when it is the only vehicle that can bring us out of the debacle we are in, as a nation!

There are lots of ways out of this, without capitalism.

To me, capitalism means "new markets" or "artificial scarcity" or "built-in obsolescence" or "rich on paper" or "bottom-line mentality" or other expoitative and unsustainable thinking.

In my opinion, the pursuit of profit has been one of the most destructive aspects of white behavior of the past 500 years.

Strongly Disagree: Obama recieved 4 times the corporate donations than McCaint?

I had to think about this. My conclusion is...

Obama is a moderate/conservative. He LOVES corporations and is probably a secret Hannity/O'Reilly/Beck fan and watches Fox News, despite his public protestations.

Obama is not big on civil liberties, worships paper money and big banks, and loves a big military. Now, tell me that isn't a conservative.
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
You already know my answer.

Corporations, government, and the courts are causing these problems.

Tell me I'm wrong.

There is no way these massive multinationals exist in a state of anarchy.

They only exist in a state of government.

Government brings you these problems and the answer is always for government to bring you the solution.

Yet, somehow, the problems always get worse.

Isn't it funny how that happens?
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
You already know my answer.

Corporations, government, and the courts are causing these problems.

Tell me I'm wrong.

There is no way these massive multinationals exist in a state of anarchy.

They only exist in a state of government.

Government brings you these problems and the answer is always for government to bring you the solution.

Yet, somehow, the problems always get worse.

Isn't it funny how that happens?


Whos gonna clean up the oil?
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
Whos gonna clean up the oil?

You already know.

The state of anarchy cleans up the mess, namely the people affected by it.

The state of government passes some new useless regulation.
The state of law acquits those who created the conditions.
The state of business continues as usual.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
You already know.

The state of anarchy cleans up the mess, namely the people affected by it.

The state of government passes some new useless regulation.
The state of law acquits those who created the conditions.
The state of business continues as usual.

In english!
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
The biggest externalities is nuclear energy, you get 200 years of power if that and nuclear waste that will last forever Trillions of dollar in liability off the books, they worked out someway to dump this crap on the federal government. 8 cents per kw is more like 100 dollars.

Here our crap to future generation, you won't get the energy but here the bill. They will look at us, like we look at people that had slaves, idiots.


:lol:
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
The biggest externalities is nuclear energy, you get 200 years of power if that and nuclear waste that will last forever Trillions of dollar in liability off the books, they worked out someway to dump this crap on the federal government. 8 cents per kw is more like 100 dollars.

Here our crap to future generation, you won't get the energy but here the bill. They will look at us, like we look at people that had slaves, idiots.


:lol:


Speaking of government having no role. Nuclear power plants cannot get insurance in the private market place. No insurance company will cover them. The liability is too high. They can only get it from the government. Talk about hypocritical irony!
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="400" height="320" id="utv669037"><param name="flashvars" value="autoplay=false&amp;brand=embed&amp;cid=4424524&locale=en_US"/><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/><param name="movie" value="http://www.ustream.tv/flash/live/1/4424524"/><embed flashvars="autoplay=false&amp;brand=embed&amp;cid=4424524&locale=en_US" width="400" height="320" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" id="utv669037" name="utv_n_396875" src="http://www.ustream.tv/flash/live/1/4424524" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" /></object><a href="http://www.ustream.tv/" style="padding: 2px 0px 4px; width: 400px; background: #ffffff; display: block; color: #000000; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10px; text-decoration: underline; text-align: center;" target="_blank">Live Broadcasting by Ustream</a>
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
The biggest externalities is nuclear energy, you get 200 years of power if that and nuclear waste that will last forever Trillions of dollar in liability off the books, they worked out someway to dump this crap on the federal government. 8 cents per kw is more like 100 dollars.

Here our crap to future generation, you won't get the energy but here the bill. They will look at us, like we look at people that had slaves, idiots.


:lol:


Corporate welfare at it's finest!:smh:

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act

"The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public...."
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: http://www.mecgrassroots.org/NEWSL/ISS38/38.07CostNuclear.html


The True Cost Of Nuclear Power


by Greg Bourget

In May 1999, the 104 U.S. nuclear power plants produced 56 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. This represented 21.8% of the utility-generated power for that month. These figures demonstrate what is typical of the U.S. dependence on nuclear power, a form of power generation involving enormous expense, radiation pollution, the threat of a nuclear accident, and nuclear waste. Advocates of nuclear power believe that there are adequate scientific solutions to these problems, but they are not putting up the capital for the nuclear plants. The federal government has made us, the taxpayers, the equivalent of stockholders in nuclear power; nuclear utilities depend on government bailouts, insurance and subsidies. We must put a stop to nuclear power because of the grave financial and environmental risks.


In February 1999, residential consumers paid an average of 7.94 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity; industrial users paid an average of 4.33 cents per kilowatt-hour. Compare that with 1997, when electricity cost about 5% more; the cost of hydroelectric power on a ratepayer's bill was from two to eight cents; gas, from three to five cents; coal, five to six cents; oil, six to eight cents; and nuclear power, 10 to 12 cents.

The cost of nuclear power would be much higher still if not for federal subsidies. Nuclear power is tied up in what economists call "externalities" and "external costs and benefits." Externalities are when "some people bear costs that they are not paid or compensated for, these costs are said to be external costs," says Dr. Roger A. McCain, Professor of Economics at Drexel University. "The idea is that the decision-maker, who does not pay for the costs nor get paid for the benefits, doesn't take them into consideration in deciding how resources shall be allocated. He has no motive to produce benefits that he doesn't get, nor to cut back on costs that he doesn't pay. In general, if there are 'external' costs or benefits or both, we say that there are 'externalities,' and we can expect markets to be inefficient when there are externalities."

Externalities in the nuclear power business are extensive. In 1993 Greenpeace released Fiscal Fission: The Economic Failure of Nuclear Power, a study estimating that federal expenditures from 1950-1990 for nuclear power totaled $97 billion in (1990 dollars). These funds were money the government spent on research, development, regulation, construction costs, uranium enrichment, and for our contributions to the nuclear waste fund. These funds did not pay for the environmental destruction caused by nuclear accidents. A 1989 study by the General Accounting Office found that the Department of Energy (DOE) failed to collect $11 billion by underselling its uranium both here and abroad. These subsidies create an underestimation of the true cost of nuclear power. Why are federal decision makers so interested in giving money to the nuclear industry? One answer may be found in a study by the Nuclear Information and Research Service and U.S. Public Interest Research Group that found that between 1985-1992, only three members of the Senate and seven members of the House took no money from the nuclear industry's Political Action Committee campaign contributions!

Externalities in our nuclear programs go beyond what the federal government has obligated us to. The Shoreham Nuclear Generating Station in New York was finished in 1988 at a cost of $7 billion. It was decommissioned shortly thereafter without ever producing a watt for the ratepayers who must pay most of the bill. Then New York Governor Mario Cuomo refused to accept the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plan, the only possible option, to evacuate the city in case of an accident. Imagine all of New York City's residents trying to escape through the Long Island Expressway, the only escape route, in an emergency. The debacle of the Shoreham Station was not unique. Some nuclear plants were completed with as much as 700% cost overruns; others were abandoned because they were too expensive.

Because the Shoreham facility irradiated the reactor core in a test, the decommissioning will cost an extra $400 million. Decommissioning, where the nuclear power plant itself is treated as nuclear waste, is another staggering expense of nuclear power. The decommissioning of Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $427 million (in 1997 dollars). The plants that are currently decommissioning are Connecticut Yankee, Connecticut; Yankee Rowe, Massachusetts; Maine Yankee, Maine; Big Rock, Michigan. Trojan is decommissioning in Oregon after local citizens blockaded the plant to draw attention to a safety crisis in the cooling system. Charges against the protesters were dropped and they won a countersuit against the plant.

General Electric was unable to obtain accident insurance for their reactors. Congress responded with the Price-Anderson Indemnity Act, which limited the liability of the nuclear industry in case of a major nuclear accident. The law also indemnifies the nuclear corporations, even if an accident is because of their negligence. The nuclear industry maintains only $7 billion of insurance under the act. The General Accounting Office estimated in 1987 that a major nuclear accident could cost as much as $15 billion. Sandia National Laboratory, working for the NRC, estimated that a meltdown would cost $56-314 billion, not including the cost of losing the facility. The NRC estimated a 45% chance of having a meltdown by 2013.

A legal crisis is developing for the federal government over nuclear waste. Their repository at Hanford, Washington, is already leaking; a third of its 177 underground storage tanks are leaking a toxic brew of chemical and radioactive waste. People downwind of the Hanford repository have filed lawsuits. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 legislated that the nuclear corporations are only required to pay .1 cents per kilowatt hour for the cost of waste disposal; nuclear power plant owners have given the federal government $13.5 billion of the ratepayers' money. This made the government legally responsible for the waste, even if the cost runs over what the fund provides. This was their side of a contract in which the federal government agreed to take the waste by February 1, 1998. Steven Rosenthal, who has won several breech-of-contract lawsuits against the federal government, is working with potential litigants from the utilities on a $100 billion lawsuit, the amount needed to pay a private contractor to do the job.

The electricity utilities began deregulating because it became technologically possible, politically fashionable and because many analysts believed that the increased competition would lower prices. Central to the deregulation debate is the problem of the nuclear utilities' "stranded assets." Nuclear plant construction, completed with up to 700% cost overruns, were underwritten on the assumption of a guaranteed income from a known number of ratepayers. A study by the Safe Energy Communication Council found that 11 states have a total of $112 billion in stranded assets. Estimates for the entire nation's utility stranded assets are as high as $300 billion. Utilities say they will litigate unless the deregulation plan pays for 100% of their stranded assets. A bailout of the nuclear power industry would cost twice as much as the savings and loan bailout.

In April 1999, a study by the Environmental Working Group and the World Wildlife Fund found that since the Energy Policy Act of 1992 started the deregulation process, investments in energy efficiency programs dropped from $1.7 billion to $900 million. In 1997, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology reported, "Research and development investments in energy efficiency are the most cost effective way to simultaneously reduce the risks of climate change, oil import interruption, and local air pollution, and to improve the productivity of the economy."

The U.S. currently spends 11.2% of its GNP on energy; Japan spends only 5%. This is due to inefficiency, according to Arthur H. Rosenfield, director of Center for Building Science at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. He estimates that this costs the U.S. $220 billion per year and gives a 5% advantage to Japan on everything they sell. According to a May, 1998 Fortune magazine article, "Only a third of U.S. manufacturers are seriously scrutinizing energy usage." Analyst David Blackburn, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Duke University, believes inefficiency accounts for 50% of the energy used in the U.S.

Since 1995, appropriations for energy efficiency programs have been as low as $538 million and as high as $717 million. In 1999, the federal government appropriated $692 million for energy efficiency. The GAO confirmed DOE findings that savings of $27.5 billion resulted from just five DOE programs in the 1970s and 80s. Mandates and incentives for energy efficiency alone would make our 104 U.S. nuclear power plants unnecessary.

Nuclear power is an expensive gamble in which taxpayers have to pick up the tab. U.S. taxpayers have already spent over $100 billion for our nuclear subsidies of the past. Utilities are obligated to pay only a fraction of the $100 billion cost of disposing of their high-level nuclear waste; these costs will be mostly paid for by tax- and ratepayers. Bailing out the nuclear utilities will cost taxpayers another $300 billion, and the industry plans to sue if we do not. Despite these enormous taxpayer subsidies, nuclear power is still by far the most expensive type of electricity. Electricity ratepayers are paying not only for nuclear power's higher rates, but also for nuclear power plant cost overruns, premature decommissioning and financial disasters like New York City's Shoreham nuclear plant fiasco. The nuclear industry has profoundly insufficient accident insurance.

Yet another externalized cost of nuclear power is the cost to our health. Uranium mining, enrichment, and nuclear accidents affect our health by contaminating our environment with cancer-causing radioactive particles. All this nuclear expense and risk is unnecessary. DOE investments of mere hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development in energy efficiency are reaping tens of billions of dollars in energy savings. Mandating energy efficiency in homes and industry can cut energy demand by the 22% that the nuclear power plants provide and the switch will pay for itself. We have the option to conserve our valuable electricity or we can continue to squander it, but with nuclear consequences.
 
Last edited:

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Even right Wing Rick Perry admits it!

<EMBED height=240 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=320 src=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201201100017"></EMBED>
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Mother Jones

When Is a Corporation Like a Freed Slave?

In rural Pennsylvania, township supervisors battling sewage sludge and hog manure stumble up against one of the biggest mysteries in constitutional law.


LICKING TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, is a rolling swath of soybean fields and pastures in Clarion County, two hours northeast of Pittsburgh, with 500 residents and quite a few more cattle. Drive past the township hall, a converted one-room schoolhouse, and you might see a horse-drawn buggy parked in front, with an Amish family clustered around the pay phone outside. Farther down the road, you'll notice a rusty coal dragline tucked into the woods, stranded like the hull of an old freighter, a souvenir of the township's 20th-century mining boom. Among Clarion County's biggest events are the annual Horsethief Days, featuring bed and lawn mower races. In these parts, Republicans outpoll Democrats 2-to-1. "If you could picture the heart of Bush country north of the Mason-Dixon Line, this is it," says Mik Robertson, a produce farmer and one of the township's three elected supervisors.

Four years ago, Robertson and the other supervisors were debating an ordinance to restrict the spreading of toxics-laden sewage sludge on local fields—a major issue in an area that has become a destination for waste from Pittsburgh. The supervisors knew that messing with big business could come at a price: Three years earlier, another Pennsylvania township had passed an anti-sludge ordinance, only to be sued by a sludge hauler called Synagro, which argued that the township had infringed on its rights under the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War to guarantee "equal protection" to all. Synagro could make that argument because since the late 19th century, the Supreme Court has defined corporations as legal "persons," conferring on them many of the same rights that belong to flesh-and-blood citizens. And so, Licking's supervisors did something that has been variously described as creative, futile, or out-and-out revolutionary: They passed an ordinance declaring that henceforth, in their township, "Corporations shall not be considered to be 'persons' protected by the Constitution of the United States."

The measure was the brainchild of a brash 37-year-old attorney named Thomas Linzey, who has made a name for himself around the country taking on the principle of corporate personhood—an idea and legal precedent that undergirds much of the past century's rise in corporate power. The director of the Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, Linzey sees Licking Township's action as one of the opening shots of a movement that will redefine American democracy. "It's about going on the offensive," he says. "The dream is that 30 years out—and my heart sinks, because I don't know if we even have 30 years from an environmental perspective—other places will join hands as well, and lead to a rewrite of the U.S. Constitution."

LINZEY WAS FRESH out of law school in 1995 when he set up the Defense Fund, a group that worked mainly with African American communities battling incinerators and waste dumps. The activists would scour a company's permit application for technical errors, often persuading authorities to reject the facility. "We'd have a victory party," Linzey says. "Everybody would pat themselves on the back. Well, what would happen three months later? The corporate boys would be back, and they'd say to us, 'Thank you very much.' We were actually identifying the gaps in their applications."

Clean-cut, stocky, and blue-eyed, Linzey comes across as temperate, perhaps a little standoffish. But in front of a crowd, his voice takes on a preacher's timbre. His favorite verb is "drive" in its most aggressive sense—as in, "True people's movements seek to drive rights into the Constitution."

As Linzey kept racking up defeats through the '90s, he concluded that the regulatory system was a distraction, or worse. "We were working off a script that we hadn't written. After billions of hours spent by community groups around the nation"—and here his face reddens and his hand slams the table—"nothing was better. Nothing." Activists, he believed, were being channeled into an unwinnable process "like cattle through a chute": As long as the law placed the same value on corporate rights as it did on those of individuals, corporations would always triumph.

Though corporate personhood is now thoroughly ingrained in U.S. constitutional law, it would have been a foreign notion to the founders. For much of the nation's first century, corporations were seen as a means to an end, not unlike associations. They were "chartered," or called into existence, by the states, and their charters could be revoked at any time (a legal possibility now back in vogue among activists in several states); they were not considered "persons" until after the Civil War, when business magnates began to avail themselves of the 14th Amendment's antidiscrimination protections. In the landmark 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, a railroad company refused to pay a special county tax in California, arguing (much as sludge hauler Synagro would do in Pennsylvania more than a century later) that to treat it differently from everyone else violated its constitutional rights. Speaking from the bench, Chief Justice Morrison Waite announced, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment...applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

After Santa Clara, federal judges began granting more and more rights to nonliving "persons." In 1922, the Supreme Court ruled that the Pennsylvania Coal Co. was entitled to "just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment because a state law, designed to keep houses from collapsing as mining companies tunneled under them, limited how much coal it could extract. In 1967 and 1978, businesses prevailed in Supreme Court cases citing the search-and-seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment as protection against fire and workplace safety inspections.

Corporate lawyers have also taken a shine to the First Amendment. In 1978, the Supreme Court agreed with corporations claiming that the state could not limit their political spending in an antitax campaign. Almost two decades later, a federal appellate court struck down a Vermont law requiring that milk from cows treated with bovine growth hormone be so labeled. Dairy producers had a First Amendment right "not to speak," the court said. In California, Nike invoked the First Amendment to fight a lawsuit arguing that the company's public relations materials misrepresented sweatshop labor conditions.

Most recently, the Retail Industry Leaders Association has relied on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause to fight Maryland's Wal-Mart law, designed to force the company to expand its spending on employee health care. The retail group has also sued Suffolk County, New York, which last fall passed a similar ordinance aimed at nonunionized supermarkets.

Defenders of corporate rights argue that while the concept may be counterintuitive, the alternative is worse: "If for-profits didn't have First Amendment rights, then Congress could pass a law requiring every retailer to fly an American flag out front," notes Kent Greenfield, a law professor at Boston College who has written extensively on corporate accountability. Ditto for the Fourth Amendment: "Would we really think it's a good thing for the FBI to go into any establishment without a search warrant?"

Yet given corporations' enormous resources, "equal rights" for industry can mean huge advantages—especially in the political arena. Last year, for example, Wal-Mart poured almost $400,000 into a ballot initiative to overturn a ban on certain big-box stores in Flagstaff, Arizona. Included in the media campaign was a newspaper ad comparing Wal-Mart's opponents to Nazi book burners. The retailer apologized but prevailed nonetheless, by 365 votes out of more than 17,000 cast. "What you've seen is the subsuming of the political process to the corporate agenda," says Thom Hartmann, author of Unequal Protections, a book about corporate personhood.


BY THE LATE 1990S, fear and anger over sludge application in rural Pennsylvania—fueled by the deaths of an 11-year-old who got sick after riding his dirt bike through a sludge-treated field, and a 17-year-old who fell ill after exposure to sludge at a farm—was running high. Thomas Linzey found himself fielding calls from local officials desperate for ways to battle the "biosolids" applicators, as well as the corporate hog farms whose stench sickened people for miles around. Municipalities had been used to keeping those nuisances at bay with their own waste ordinances; but in 1997, in response to agribusiness lobbying, the state began enforcing a law that invalidated the local rules. Residents packed schools and fire stations to air their grievances. "These are the people with the shitkickers and the John Deere hats," Linzey says. "These are the people who salt the roads in the wintertime and fix the roads in the summertime. We had rural farmers coming to community meetings with the Declaration of Independence in their back pockets."

To help the townships, Linzey wrote model ordinance after model ordinance. One banned corporations from owning farmland, an idea found on the books in nine states; 12 local governments in Pennsylvania passed it. Another banned companies with previous environmental violations from doing business in a township; 5 municipalities adopted that one. An ordinance requiring companies to do extra testing of sludge for health dangers has passed in more than 70 townships.

Business took note. The Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry's newsletter editorialized against a "stronger force than evil space invaders: the radical agenda of militant environmentalists that seems to have taken possession of the township supervisors." One corporation sued, claiming that the township's restrictions violated its rights with regard to "equal protection, due process, taking without just compensation, and rights guaranteed under the commerce clause." Last year, agribusiness took the fight to the state Legislature, supporting a law under which the state attorney general could sue any local government for passing an ordinance that "prohibits or limits a normal agricultural operation." (The first four such lawsuits were filed this past June.) During debate on the measure, says Linzey, "the suits were out in full force. It was about the heaviest type of lobbying we had ever seen."

Into this fray stepped Supervisor Robertson, a former Peace Corps volunteer who had moved back to Licking Township in 1999 with his wife to grow tomatoes, berries, and garlic on a 95-acre farm fertilized with llama and goat droppings. In Licking Township, the chief qualification for supervisor is the ability to drive a road grader—elected officials do the pothole-filling themselves—and 42-year-old Robertson was appointed to fill a vacancy on the board. He's run twice since then, unopposed. "You don't have people beating down the doors to do this kind of stuff," he says wryly.

In 2002, Robertson learned that several farmers in Licking Township were planning to spread sludge on their fields, and he called Linzey. They discussed tightening local waste regulations, and then Linzey mentioned a model ordinance he'd written to strip corporations of personhood. "The more I looked at that ordinance, the more I liked it," says Robertson, "and the more I realized that it had implications well beyond sewage sludge. This is an issue that is really fundamental to American government." The measure passed unanimously, making Licking the second Pennsylvania township to take such a stance. Somewhat to Linzey's disappointment, no one sued.


PEOPLE FIGHTING corporate personhood like to think of themselves as heirs to the American Revolution. "The colonists realized they needed to tear up the very roots of colonialism, including corporate rule," says Jeff Milchen, director of the Montana-based ReclaimDemocracy.org, a fledgling group focused on corporate power. Indeed, the Revolution was partly an insurrection against entities like the East India Co., whose monopolistic tactics triggered the Boston Tea Party in 1773. The ordinances passed by the Pennsylvania townships, Milchen and others believe, are the modern-day version of such a backlash.

Linzey has his revolution all mapped out. First, local governments will keep passing anti-personhood measures until one of them triggers a lawsuit in the federal courts. This, in turn, will force the judiciary to reconsider the constitutional principles involved. Linzey doesn't expect to win such a case: "People are colonized to think we can turn to the courts for remedy," he says, "and that the judge will hit himself on the forehead and say, 'Oh my God, 200 years of corporate rights are wrong.'" Rather, Linzey expects a ruling in favor of corporations to "rip away the veil of disbelief," prompting even more grassroots organizing and local lawmaking. "You treat the courts as a means to building an army," he says—one that will eventually lead to overhauls of state constitutions, and finally the federal one. The U.S. Constitution, he says, simply focuses too much on "property and commerce," and eventually pressure will build on Congress to call a convention and start from scratch.

For now, though, the campaign remains stuck at Step One. "I'm not ready to say we have a movement," confesses Milchen. "We're not quite there yet." Notes Richard Grossman, who together with Linzey has taught a series of activist seminars around the country dubbed Democracy Schools: "The Populists had 40,000 lecturers organizing people across the U.S. We have five." Both Grossman and Linzey refuse to speak to journalists who haven't undergone their three-day training session; I was the first, to their knowledge, to abide by that rule and attend the seminar, at which a dozen earnest activists underwent a combination of people's history lessons and political shock therapy.

Last year, Linzey lost his biggest battle thus far: In a case involving a Pennsylvania developer, a federal judge called his personhood arguments "tortured" and "illogical" and said she had come "very close" to disciplining him for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Lawrence Mitchell, a law professor at George Washington University and author of Corporate Irresponsibility, warns that Linzey's strategy is draining energy from more important battles. "I work with a lot of activist groups, and I sit at meetings banging my head on the table," he says. "This is deeply embedded constitutional law that no one's going to reverse." Mitchell believes activists' energy would be better spent on reforming state laws to make corporations more accountable.

And yet, Linzey, Grossman, and company keep drawing converts. The Democratic parties of Maine, New Hampshire, and Washington state have passed resolutions opposing corporate personhood and the constitutional rights it confers. Last March, the 4,600 residents of Barnstead, New Hampshire, approved an ordinance—designed to shield the town's water supply from commercial bottlers—that voids corporate personhood. And in California's Humboldt County, where the timber giant Maxxam and its contractors spent more than $350,000 to recall a crusading district attorney, voters this year approved a ballot measure banning campaign spending by nonlocal businesses, and specifying that "No corporation shall be entitled to claim corporate constitutional rights or protections in an effort to overturn this law."

Linzey knows that his undertaking appears quixotic but—perhaps fittingly—betrays not a hint of uncertainty. "The abolitionists did not seek to create a Slavery Protection Agency, or to make conditions for slaves a little better," he says. "They understood the Constitution left them remediless, and the only thing they could do was to change it."
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Another reason the "Free Market" is a myth.

source: Mother Jones

How the Paint Industry Escapes Responsibility for Lead Poisoning

California governments team up against pigment makers in court, but the odds are long.

sherwin.630.jpg



This story was produced by FairWarning, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit news organization focused on public health and safety issues.

In April, based on new toxicity estimates, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention raised to 535,000 its estimate of the number of children with potentially dangerous levels of lead in their blood. But the communities trying to tackle the problem may not see another cent from what somepublic officials say is the prime culprit: the manufacturers of lead pigments whose products infuse the flaking paint still found in millions of American dwellings. The lead paint industry may, in fact, be on the verge of defeating the last major legal assault by municipalities and states seeking damages to pay for lead removal.

Some experts had expected such lawsuits to follow the path of tobacco litigation during the 1990s, when states wrested a $248 billion settlement from cigarette makers to cover smoking-related health costs. "My prediction was that lead would be the next big toxic tort litigation," says Jed Ferdinand III, a Connecticut lawyer who is familiar with the issue. "That really hasn't happened."

Indeed, apart from one settlement,the industry has successfully fended off roughly 50 lawsuits by states, cities, counties, and school districts over the past quarter century. Now, in a trial under way in San Jose, California, industry lawyers are seeking a final victory in a case brought by 10 agencies, including the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Diego, and the counties of Los Angeles and Santa Clara. The agencies want the industry to cover the cost of eliminating lead paint from all the homes in their jurisdictions; the price tag could exceed $1 billion.

The industry has prevailed in past cases despite evidence that executives knew more than a century ago that lead paint is hazardous, yet audaciously promoted it as healthful:In 1923, an ad in National Geographic from lead pigment maker National Lead (now NL Industries) proclaimed: "Lead helps to guard your health." The next year, an ad from a unit of paint maker Sherwin-Williams boasted: "Cousin Susie says her health improved instantly" after her home was covered with lead paint.

Lead, which has plenty of industrial uses, is sometimes found in drinking water due to old lead pipes. For decades, it was used as a gasoline additive for cars, and private planes, shockingly, still use leaded gas. It's present in most solder and bullets, and children's products are regularly recalled for lead—prominent examples in recent years have included play jewelry and the wildly popular Thomas & Friends trains. But federal authorities say the biggest lingering public health threat comes from lead-laden house paint. Lead pigments were mixed into paint for decades, not merely for color, but also because they made the paint more durable and washable.

The federal government outlawed lead paint for household use in 1978 due to its health hazards, but it is still found on the walls and trim of old houses and apartments, where young children can ingest it as it chips off walls and gets ground into dust. Roughly 35 percent of all American homes have some lead paint, and 22 percent have significant lead-paint hazards, according to a 2011 survey by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Public health authorities have made great strides in combating lead poisoning. But recent research has found that even small amounts of the metal can be harmful, which prompted federal authorities this year to more than triple their estimate of the number of children at risk. Young children with elevated lead levels are at risk of lower IQ, attention disorders, and other problems related to brain damage. (In "America's Real Criminal Element: Lead," Kevin Drum draws intriguing connections between leaded gas and criminal behavior.)

Although some tenants have won settlements against their landlords for lead poisoning, lawsuits brought by public agencies against lead-pigment makers have yielded only one success: In July 2005, DuPont agreed to pay $12.5 million to resolve a case brought by Rhode Island, which accused the industry of creating a public nuisance and presented internal documents showing that executives had long been aware of the hazards. The next year the state won $2.4 billion for lead abatement after a four-month trial against the remaining defendants, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court overturned the decision in 2008.

The lawsuits have failed for various reasons. For individual plaintiffs with lead-related health claims, it has been tough to prove that lead paint from their dwelling was the source. Similarly, public agencies have been unable to show definitively which companies manufactured the lead pigment used in a specific building or neighborhood—the courts have rejected efforts to assign liability according to the market shares of the various players. "Without product identification," the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in 2007 in a case brought against the industry by St. Louis, "the city can do no more than show that the defendants' lead paint may have been present in the properties where the city claims to have incurred abatement costs. That risks exposing these defendants to liability greater than their responsibility and may allow the actual wrongdoer to escape liability entirely."

Other government suits have been thrown out when judges ruled that the public nuisance laws under which they were filed did not apply—the lead paint was deemed a threat to individuals in their private homes, but not to the community as a whole. "However grave the problem of lead poisoning is in Rhode Island, public nuisance law simply does not provide a remedy for this harm," noted the Rhode Island Supreme Court when it overturned the state's victory.

But after some marathon pretrial battles, the California case was allowed to proceed under the state's somewhat broader public nuisance law. It is only the third public lead-pigment case to go to trial since 1989, when New York City officials pioneered the litigation, only to have their claims dismissed before getting to the trial phase. Indeed, presiding Judge James P. Kleinberg of Santa Clara County Superior Court has urged the California parties to settle.

The defendants in the case include Sherwin-Williams, one of the nation's biggest paint producers, and DuPont, one of the world's largest chemical companies—whose 2012 revenues were $9.5 billion and $35 billion, respectively. (Also ARCO, now a BP subsidiary; ConAgra Grocery Products; and NL Industries, formerly National Lead Co.)

Defense lawyers have argued in a brief that the companies weren't aware when they promoted lead paint that it would someday cause harm. "Scientific knowledge concerning lead exposure evolved over the decades," it reads. What's more, they claim there is no longer any widespread danger from lead. Today's blood lead levels, according to their court filings, do not present "a current public health crisis" but rather "a public health success story."

What's more, they argue, California already has a well-funded lead poisoning prevention program that collects annual fees primarily from the gasoline industry, but also from makers of paint and other lead-containing products.

The lawsuit, initiated 13 years ago, has dragged on for so long that Kleinberg is the third judge to handle it. It was dismissed in 2003, but revived three years later by California's 6th District Court of Appeals, which reinstated the public nuisance claim. "Where such a 'ticking time bomb' exists," the court wrote, "the public should not have to wait for the destructive results before taking action."


The government's difficulties in securing lead cleanup money from the industry was presaged by private lawsuits, including a landmark case known as Santiago v. Sherwin-Williams Company. The plaintiff, Monica Santiago, was born in November 1972 and lived until 1978 in a Boston apartment full of lead paint. She was diagnosed with lead poisoning as a one-year-old, after allegedly ingesting paint from the unit's walls. When she was three, Santiago's medical condition dramatically worsened, and she underwent chelation therapy, in which a lead-binding chemical is injected into the bloodstream to help the patient's body excrete the metal.

In 1987, Santiago sued Sherwin-Williams, NL Industries, and others, claiming they caused her lead poisoning, which later led to hyperactivity-attention disorder and motor skills difficulties. She sought $2.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. In 1992 a federal court in Boston rejected the case. Her appeal also failed.

Santiago's attorney, Neil Leifer, had taken her case after discovering documents in the National Archives pointing to the industry's early knowledge of the poisonous nature of lead. Those documents, and others discovered later, have been used against the industry ever since. A Sherwin-Williams newsletter from 1900, for example, described lead as a "deadly cumulative poison."

In 1904, Sherwin-Williams published an article in a company magazine saying that lead was "poisonous in a large degree, both for workmen and for the inhabitants of a house."

And as early as 1912, documents show, National Lead excluded women and children from working with lead because of its known dangers, yet continued to manufacture it for use in homes.

Donald E. Scott, one of the defense lawyers in the California case, points out that these early documents "describelead-poisoning in workplace settings, like factories, from people consuming very large amounts of lead," rather than household settings. Doctors, he says, spent many decades afterward trying to establish the toxic threshold for lead.

But 1950s letters from the now-defunct Lead Industries Association signaled that industry officials were well aware of dangers of their product at that time. "With us, childhood lead poisoning is common enough to constitute perhaps my major 'headache,'" Manfred Bowditch, health and safety director for the association, wrote in 1955.

Bowditch elaborated on that point in a letter the next year to Felix E. Wormser, assistant secretary for the Department of the Interior, which was responsible for regulating mining and metal industries: "Aside from the kids that are poisoned (and we still don't know how many there are), it's a serious problem from the viewpoint of adverse publicity. The basic solution is to get rid of our slums, but even Uncle Sam can't seem to swing that one. Next in importance is to educate the parents, but most of the cases are in Negro and Puerto Rican families, and how does one tackle that job?"

In 1960, at the Lead Industries Association annual meeting, a report by secretary-treasurer Robert L. Ziegfeld outlined concerns about lead poisoning. "The toxicity of lead poses a problem that other nonferrous industries generally do not have to face. Lead poisoning, or the threat of it, hurts our business in several different ways."

"In the first place," Ziegfeld went on, "it means thousands of items of unfavorable publicity every year. This is particularly true since most cases of lead poisoning today are in children, and anything sad that happens to a child is meat for newspaper editors and is gobbled up by the public. It makes no difference that it is essentially a problem of slums, a public welfare problem. Just the same the publicity hits us where it hurts."

Scott, the industry lawyer, calls the references to slums and minorities, "callous and regrettable." But he adds that some of the same documents show the industry was working hard to help children in the affected communities.

The California plaintiffs will continue to present their case this week. The trial is expected to continue through late August, at least.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Didn't GE make these reactors? Are they culpable?

source: The Independent

With Fukushima nuclear plant still leaking, Japan clean-up bill soars to $50bn

Many are sceptical that government-led effort will make area habitable again

Japanese researchers say the cost of cleaning up from the Fukushima nuclear disaster could top $50bn (£32.6bn), more than four times the amount allocated by the government.

The figure does not include compensation for those affected by the explosion and the subsequent fallout, or the multibillion-dollar price tag for decommissioning the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which the government and regulators say will take at least 40 years to complete.

Three of the plant’s six reactors went into meltdown following an earthquake and tsunami that struck off Japan’s north-east coast on 11 March 2011. The meltdowns forced over 100,000 people to flee the contaminated zone around the plant, while tens of thousands more have since left the Fukushima area voluntarily. The tsunami is known to have killed more than 18,000 people, yet no one is officially listed as having died as a result of radiation released from the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

Workers at the plant said that they had spotted steam rising from one of the reactor buildings for the third time this week. Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), the operator of the plant, said it had not been able to establish where it was coming from and was investigating the possibility that it was a rainwater leak.

On Monday, Tepco admitted for the first time that radiation is leaking into the Pacific, further complicating the clean-up operation and contradicting its earlier claims that contaminated groundwater had been contained before it had reached the ocean. The company faced severe criticism over the fact that it had sat on an internal report that revealed the groundwater leak for several days.

The head of Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority, which was established in the aftermath of the disaster, said earlier this month that he believed radioactive material had contaminating the sea close to the plant since the accident occurred.

Japan’s government has allocated about $11bn (£7bn) to decontaminate the zone. Most of the money is being paid to contractors who are using power hoses and diggers to scour away dust and topsoil from the most contaminated areas, but experts from the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology warn the total cost of decontaminating the evacuation zone will be about $20bn (£13bn), with another $30bn (£19.6bn) for areas further away.

Many are sceptical that the government-led clean-up effort will make the area habitable again, or that evacuees will move back. “It doesn’t matter what the government says, we’ll never go home. Most of us accept that,” says Yukiko Kameya, 68, who fled from Futaba town, next to the plant.

Tepco has yet to pay most refugees full compensation for the loss of their homes and other assets.

“The government should study the costs before deciding whether to complete decontamination or reallocate the money to help people rebuild their lives,” researcher Junko Nakanishi told state broadcaster NHK.

Tepco has received an estimated 3.5 trillion yen in public money since the disaster began. Last year, the government took majority control of the utility, allowing it to continue as a limited company with shares traded on the stock exchange.

Many observers believe the compensation process will drag on for years, adding to the final bill for the disaster. “The victims of this disaster often had large houses, rice fields, livestock and land and most had to move into small urban apartments or temporary housing,” says Yasushi Tadano, a Tokyo-based lawyer who is helping to sue Tepco. “The amount of compensation being offered is totally insufficient.”
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I'll put it like this: I stand up for capitalism because it espouses freedom & liberty, unlike Socialism, Fascism, or Communism. So whatever beef we have with the system, it's far better than the alternatives!

stand up for capitalism because it espouses freedom & liberty,

Ah, once again; "freedom & liberty", without justice is the free market system and capitalism!
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Tampa Bay Times

Duke Energy to cancel proposed Levy County nuclear plant


<LI style="WIDTH: 581px; DISPLAY: block; FLOAT: left" class=flex-active-slide data-caption="Customers already were facing a $1.7 billion bill for the crippled Crystal River nuclear plant. MAURICE RIVENBARK | Times">
01_Levy080213_750x500_web_11236694_8col.jpg
<LI style="WIDTH: 581px; DISPLAY: block; FLOAT: left" data-caption="Customers already were facing a $1.7 billion bill for the crippled Crystal River nuclear plant. MAURICE RIVENBARK | Times">
a4s_levy080213_11240612_8col.jpg





As it turns out, they were all wrong.

Progress Energy insisted its proposed nuclear power plant in Levy County would provide low-cost energy for generations.

The Legislature promised again and again that a new law forcing customers to pay in advance for the Levy project would get the plant built faster and cheaper, even as the delays piled up and the price soared.

On Thursday, the big talk ended.

Duke Energy, Progress' successor company, pulled the plug on Levy. There will be no cheap power. Customers will still have to pay up to $1.5 billion. And Duke shareholders get to keep $150 million.

State Rep. Mike Fasano captured a common sentiment when he said:

"Shame on Duke Energy, Progress

Energy for taking the public on this ride knowing that they were never going to build the nuclear plants. Shame on them."

Despite initial appearances, Thursday's news was not all bad — for Duke.

As part of a wide-ranging agreement with the state Public Counsel's Office, the utility avoids potentially embarrassing public hearings on the botched upgrade that crippled the now closed Crystal River nuclear plant and left customers facing a $1.7 billion bill.

Further, the settlement guarantees Duke a minimum profit margin of 9.5 percent through 2018.

As for Duke's customers, the settlement stems the financial bleeding from the Levy and Crystal River misadventures at up to $3.2 billion. The PSC will determine how and when customers will pay off that bill.

The deal still must be approved by the five-member state Public Service Commission.

"It's a very fair deal for ratepayers and the company," said J.R. Kelly, the state public counsel, who represents consumers before the PSC. "It's one I support 100 percent. My name is on it."

R. Alexander "Alex" Glenn, president of Duke Energy Florida, called the settlement "an effective balance." He said the utility plans to continue pursuing the operating license for the Levy project from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission because the process is almost complete.

"We want them to continue to get that license," Kelly said. "To give up now, it doesn't make sense, then you're just throwing all that money down the toilet. Basically, if any additional money is spent on that license, it's on Duke's dime."

But Duke will simultaneously seek to sell off equipment it has acquired for the project to reduce the debt customers must pay for what was spent.

"That will go back dollar for dollar to customers," Glenn said.

• • •

The Florida Legislature overwhelmingly supported the 2006 law that allowed utilities to collect money from customers in advance to help build nuclear plants. They hailed the law as a way to build the plants cheaper and faster, saving customers about $300 million.

Critics countered that there weren't enough safeguards in place.

In 2009, for instance, economist Mark Cooper told the PSC that it was "not prudent" to proceed with the Levy project. Cooper, now a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, subsequently called the way the law was enacted "the perfect story of crony capitalism."

Now Cooper and others shake their heads.

"If they had taken my advice four years ago, they would have saved 1.3 billion," Cooper said Thursday.

Last year, a Times report detailed how Duke would profit from the plant whether it got built or not. Duke would make a fixed percentage of whatever it spent on the project. So, the more it spent, the more it made – whether or not the plant got built.

In May, the Times reported that, over a 60 year lifespan, the Levy plant would cost more than an equivalent natural gas plant under any reasonable scenario. The investigation also revealed that Duke would pocket as much as 10 times the profit from the Levy project compared to a natural gas plant.

The Times investigation prompted calls from Tampa Bay area lawmakers for the agriculture commissioner and the PSC to look into whether the plant was still in the best interest of consumers.

Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer who also argued against the project, said Duke's decision shows that the nuclear industry is troubled.

"I've got to give Duke a lot of credit for doing what Progress didn't do," Gundersen said. "Progress dug this hole and Duke is digging out. It's the right decision."

• • •

Thursday's decision still irked some local legislators.

Rep. Dwight Dudley, D-St. Petersburg, who won election largely campaigning to overturn the nuclear advance, still wants the law repealed.

"I don't give a damn how they justify taking our money," Dudley said. "This isn't over yet. We've still got work to do."

During the last legislative session, Sen. John Legg, R-Trinity, sponsored a bill that would have ended the advance fee if utilities failed to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He also pushed unsuccessfully to make utilities refund advance fee money to consumers if a project falls apart.

Only a modest revision of the advance fee was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Scott in June.

"It's absolutely infuriating because consumers have basically footed the bill and are now having the rug pulled out from them," Legg said.

The worst part, he said, is that consumers aren't getting any refund from about $1.5 billion spent on the Levy project so far.

• • •

So what do customers get from this latest settlement?

Much of their hopes depend on Duke's ability to peddle equipment it has already purchased for Levy and can salvage from Crystal River. Glenn offered no estimate of how much that might be.

Duke also has agreed to write off $295 million worth of charges that customers would have had to pay for expenses related to Crystal River.

In February, Duke announced the permanent closure of the plant after deciding that it did not make economic sense to repair cracks in the reactor's concrete containment building. The building was damaged during an upgrade and maintenance project in 2009.

Without Thursday's settlement agreement, Kelly, the state public counsel, said the money customers owe to the utility could have continued to grow to as much as $4 billion.

Said Kelly: "We stopped the bleeding."

• • •

Levy is dead for now, but Glenn remained resolute that the utility wants nuclear to be apart of its future energy mix.

"We continue to believe," Glenn said, "Levy is a viable site and a good site."

Still, the cancellation of the Levy project adds to the nation's rocky nuclear history.

There hasn't been a new commercial nuclear plant built in the United States in 30 years. Wall Street has lost interest in financing such risky, expensive ventures.

Widespread use of the drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" helps the nation tap what is estimated at a 100-year supply of affordable natural gas.

Within the last decade, more than two dozen nuclear reactors had been proposed across the country, but only two major projects are under construction: one in Georgia and another in South Carolina.

Duke had already informed federal regulators that it was suspending plans for its proposed new reactors at its Shearon Harris plant in North Carolina and delaying plans for proposed reactors at its Lee Nuclear Plant in South Carolina.

The nuclear renaissance "was just this artificial gold rush," said Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory commissioner. "And yes, it does show the renaissance is dead."
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Tampa Bay Times

Duke Energy to cancel proposed Levy County nuclear plant


<LI style="WIDTH: 581px; DISPLAY: block; FLOAT: left" class=flex-active-slide data-caption="Customers already were facing a $1.7 billion bill for the crippled Crystal River nuclear plant. MAURICE RIVENBARK | Times">
01_Levy080213_750x500_web_11236694_8col.jpg
<LI style="WIDTH: 581px; DISPLAY: block; FLOAT: left" data-caption="Customers already were facing a $1.7 billion bill for the crippled Crystal River nuclear plant. MAURICE RIVENBARK | Times">
a4s_levy080213_11240612_8col.jpg





As it turns out, they were all wrong.

Progress Energy insisted its proposed nuclear power plant in Levy County would provide low-cost energy for generations.

The Legislature promised again and again that a new law forcing customers to pay in advance for the Levy project would get the plant built faster and cheaper, even as the delays piled up and the price soared.

On Thursday, the big talk ended.

Duke Energy, Progress' successor company, pulled the plug on Levy. There will be no cheap power. Customers will still have to pay up to $1.5 billion. And Duke shareholders get to keep $150 million.

State Rep. Mike Fasano captured a common sentiment when he said:

"Shame on Duke Energy, Progress

Energy for taking the public on this ride knowing that they were never going to build the nuclear plants. Shame on them."

Despite initial appearances, Thursday's news was not all bad — for Duke.

As part of a wide-ranging agreement with the state Public Counsel's Office, the utility avoids potentially embarrassing public hearings on the botched upgrade that crippled the now closed Crystal River nuclear plant and left customers facing a $1.7 billion bill.

Further, the settlement guarantees Duke a minimum profit margin of 9.5 percent through 2018.

As for Duke's customers, the settlement stems the financial bleeding from the Levy and Crystal River misadventures at up to $3.2 billion. The PSC will determine how and when customers will pay off that bill.

The deal still must be approved by the five-member state Public Service Commission.

"It's a very fair deal for ratepayers and the company," said J.R. Kelly, the state public counsel, who represents consumers before the PSC. "It's one I support 100 percent. My name is on it."

R. Alexander "Alex" Glenn, president of Duke Energy Florida, called the settlement "an effective balance." He said the utility plans to continue pursuing the operating license for the Levy project from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission because the process is almost complete.

"We want them to continue to get that license," Kelly said. "To give up now, it doesn't make sense, then you're just throwing all that money down the toilet. Basically, if any additional money is spent on that license, it's on Duke's dime."

But Duke will simultaneously seek to sell off equipment it has acquired for the project to reduce the debt customers must pay for what was spent.

"That will go back dollar for dollar to customers," Glenn said.

• • •

The Florida Legislature overwhelmingly supported the 2006 law that allowed utilities to collect money from customers in advance to help build nuclear plants. They hailed the law as a way to build the plants cheaper and faster, saving customers about $300 million.

Critics countered that there weren't enough safeguards in place.

In 2009, for instance, economist Mark Cooper told the PSC that it was "not prudent" to proceed with the Levy project. Cooper, now a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, subsequently called the way the law was enacted "the perfect story of crony capitalism."

Now Cooper and others shake their heads.

"If they had taken my advice four years ago, they would have saved 1.3 billion," Cooper said Thursday.

Last year, a Times report detailed how Duke would profit from the plant whether it got built or not. Duke would make a fixed percentage of whatever it spent on the project. So, the more it spent, the more it made – whether or not the plant got built.

In May, the Times reported that, over a 60 year lifespan, the Levy plant would cost more than an equivalent natural gas plant under any reasonable scenario. The investigation also revealed that Duke would pocket as much as 10 times the profit from the Levy project compared to a natural gas plant.

The Times investigation prompted calls from Tampa Bay area lawmakers for the agriculture commissioner and the PSC to look into whether the plant was still in the best interest of consumers.

Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer who also argued against the project, said Duke's decision shows that the nuclear industry is troubled.

"I've got to give Duke a lot of credit for doing what Progress didn't do," Gundersen said. "Progress dug this hole and Duke is digging out. It's the right decision."

• • •

Thursday's decision still irked some local legislators.

Rep. Dwight Dudley, D-St. Petersburg, who won election largely campaigning to overturn the nuclear advance, still wants the law repealed.

"I don't give a damn how they justify taking our money," Dudley said. "This isn't over yet. We've still got work to do."

During the last legislative session, Sen. John Legg, R-Trinity, sponsored a bill that would have ended the advance fee if utilities failed to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He also pushed unsuccessfully to make utilities refund advance fee money to consumers if a project falls apart.

Only a modest revision of the advance fee was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Scott in June.

"It's absolutely infuriating because consumers have basically footed the bill and are now having the rug pulled out from them," Legg said.

The worst part, he said, is that consumers aren't getting any refund from about $1.5 billion spent on the Levy project so far.

• • •

So what do customers get from this latest settlement?

Much of their hopes depend on Duke's ability to peddle equipment it has already purchased for Levy and can salvage from Crystal River. Glenn offered no estimate of how much that might be.

Duke also has agreed to write off $295 million worth of charges that customers would have had to pay for expenses related to Crystal River.

In February, Duke announced the permanent closure of the plant after deciding that it did not make economic sense to repair cracks in the reactor's concrete containment building. The building was damaged during an upgrade and maintenance project in 2009.

Without Thursday's settlement agreement, Kelly, the state public counsel, said the money customers owe to the utility could have continued to grow to as much as $4 billion.

Said Kelly: "We stopped the bleeding."

• • •

Levy is dead for now, but Glenn remained resolute that the utility wants nuclear to be apart of its future energy mix.

"We continue to believe," Glenn said, "Levy is a viable site and a good site."

Still, the cancellation of the Levy project adds to the nation's rocky nuclear history.

There hasn't been a new commercial nuclear plant built in the United States in 30 years. Wall Street has lost interest in financing such risky, expensive ventures.

Widespread use of the drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" helps the nation tap what is estimated at a 100-year supply of affordable natural gas.

Within the last decade, more than two dozen nuclear reactors had been proposed across the country, but only two major projects are under construction: one in Georgia and another in South Carolina.

Duke had already informed federal regulators that it was suspending plans for its proposed new reactors at its Shearon Harris plant in North Carolina and delaying plans for proposed reactors at its Lee Nuclear Plant in South Carolina.

The nuclear renaissance "was just this artificial gold rush," said Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory commissioner. "And yes, it does show the renaissance is dead."
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Tampa Bay Times

Duke Energy to cancel proposed Levy County nuclear plant


<LI style="WIDTH: 581px; DISPLAY: block; FLOAT: left" class=flex-active-slide data-caption="Customers already were facing a $1.7 billion bill for the crippled Crystal River nuclear plant. MAURICE RIVENBARK | Times">
01_Levy080213_750x500_web_11236694_8col.jpg
<LI style="WIDTH: 581px; DISPLAY: block; FLOAT: left" data-caption="Customers already were facing a $1.7 billion bill for the crippled Crystal River nuclear plant. MAURICE RIVENBARK | Times">
a4s_levy080213_11240612_8col.jpg





As it turns out, they were all wrong.

Progress Energy insisted its proposed nuclear power plant in Levy County would provide low-cost energy for generations.

The Legislature promised again and again that a new law forcing customers to pay in advance for the Levy project would get the plant built faster and cheaper, even as the delays piled up and the price soared.

On Thursday, the big talk ended.

Duke Energy, Progress' successor company, pulled the plug on Levy. There will be no cheap power. Customers will still have to pay up to $1.5 billion. And Duke shareholders get to keep $150 million.

State Rep. Mike Fasano captured a common sentiment when he said:

"Shame on Duke Energy, Progress

Energy for taking the public on this ride knowing that they were never going to build the nuclear plants. Shame on them."

Despite initial appearances, Thursday's news was not all bad — for Duke.

As part of a wide-ranging agreement with the state Public Counsel's Office, the utility avoids potentially embarrassing public hearings on the botched upgrade that crippled the now closed Crystal River nuclear plant and left customers facing a $1.7 billion bill.

Further, the settlement guarantees Duke a minimum profit margin of 9.5 percent through 2018.

As for Duke's customers, the settlement stems the financial bleeding from the Levy and Crystal River misadventures at up to $3.2 billion. The PSC will determine how and when customers will pay off that bill.

The deal still must be approved by the five-member state Public Service Commission.

"It's a very fair deal for ratepayers and the company," said J.R. Kelly, the state public counsel, who represents consumers before the PSC. "It's one I support 100 percent. My name is on it."

R. Alexander "Alex" Glenn, president of Duke Energy Florida, called the settlement "an effective balance." He said the utility plans to continue pursuing the operating license for the Levy project from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission because the process is almost complete.

"We want them to continue to get that license," Kelly said. "To give up now, it doesn't make sense, then you're just throwing all that money down the toilet. Basically, if any additional money is spent on that license, it's on Duke's dime."

But Duke will simultaneously seek to sell off equipment it has acquired for the project to reduce the debt customers must pay for what was spent.

"That will go back dollar for dollar to customers," Glenn said.

• • •

The Florida Legislature overwhelmingly supported the 2006 law that allowed utilities to collect money from customers in advance to help build nuclear plants. They hailed the law as a way to build the plants cheaper and faster, saving customers about $300 million.

Critics countered that there weren't enough safeguards in place.

In 2009, for instance, economist Mark Cooper told the PSC that it was "not prudent" to proceed with the Levy project. Cooper, now a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, subsequently called the way the law was enacted "the perfect story of crony capitalism."

Now Cooper and others shake their heads.

"If they had taken my advice four years ago, they would have saved 1.3 billion," Cooper said Thursday.

Last year, a Times report detailed how Duke would profit from the plant whether it got built or not. Duke would make a fixed percentage of whatever it spent on the project. So, the more it spent, the more it made – whether or not the plant got built.

In May, the Times reported that, over a 60 year lifespan, the Levy plant would cost more than an equivalent natural gas plant under any reasonable scenario. The investigation also revealed that Duke would pocket as much as 10 times the profit from the Levy project compared to a natural gas plant.

The Times investigation prompted calls from Tampa Bay area lawmakers for the agriculture commissioner and the PSC to look into whether the plant was still in the best interest of consumers.

Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer who also argued against the project, said Duke's decision shows that the nuclear industry is troubled.

"I've got to give Duke a lot of credit for doing what Progress didn't do," Gundersen said. "Progress dug this hole and Duke is digging out. It's the right decision."

• • •

Thursday's decision still irked some local legislators.

Rep. Dwight Dudley, D-St. Petersburg, who won election largely campaigning to overturn the nuclear advance, still wants the law repealed.

"I don't give a damn how they justify taking our money," Dudley said. "This isn't over yet. We've still got work to do."

During the last legislative session, Sen. John Legg, R-Trinity, sponsored a bill that would have ended the advance fee if utilities failed to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He also pushed unsuccessfully to make utilities refund advance fee money to consumers if a project falls apart.

Only a modest revision of the advance fee was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Scott in June.

"It's absolutely infuriating because consumers have basically footed the bill and are now having the rug pulled out from them," Legg said.

The worst part, he said, is that consumers aren't getting any refund from about $1.5 billion spent on the Levy project so far.

• • •

So what do customers get from this latest settlement?

Much of their hopes depend on Duke's ability to peddle equipment it has already purchased for Levy and can salvage from Crystal River. Glenn offered no estimate of how much that might be.

Duke also has agreed to write off $295 million worth of charges that customers would have had to pay for expenses related to Crystal River.

In February, Duke announced the permanent closure of the plant after deciding that it did not make economic sense to repair cracks in the reactor's concrete containment building. The building was damaged during an upgrade and maintenance project in 2009.

Without Thursday's settlement agreement, Kelly, the state public counsel, said the money customers owe to the utility could have continued to grow to as much as $4 billion.

Said Kelly: "We stopped the bleeding."

• • •

Levy is dead for now, but Glenn remained resolute that the utility wants nuclear to be apart of its future energy mix.

"We continue to believe," Glenn said, "Levy is a viable site and a good site."

Still, the cancellation of the Levy project adds to the nation's rocky nuclear history.

There hasn't been a new commercial nuclear plant built in the United States in 30 years. Wall Street has lost interest in financing such risky, expensive ventures.

Widespread use of the drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" helps the nation tap what is estimated at a 100-year supply of affordable natural gas.

Within the last decade, more than two dozen nuclear reactors had been proposed across the country, but only two major projects are under construction: one in Georgia and another in South Carolina.

Duke had already informed federal regulators that it was suspending plans for its proposed new reactors at its Shearon Harris plant in North Carolina and delaying plans for proposed reactors at its Lee Nuclear Plant in South Carolina.

The nuclear renaissance "was just this artificial gold rush," said Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory commissioner. "And yes, it does show the renaissance is dead."
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Ring of Fire


Other98.jpg

Anti Exxon PSA Banned from T.V. – See It Now


An advertisement put together by the watchdog group Other98 that intended to air over the 4th of July weekend and criticizing Exxon was banned from airing.

The reasons the ad was denied airtime are unconfirmed but the reported possibilities are bleak.
“There are two possibilities, and we’re not sure which is worse: Exxon is again threatening American media companies into not airing a PSA critical of them; or giant media corporations are deciding to silence us preemptively as a professional courtesy to Exxon.” – Other98.com
Watch the Ad that Exxon doesn’t want you to see here:

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6x43h2DX7D0" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
 
Top