Category: Energy

WikiLeaks on Peak Oil

Posted on | by Jay Kimball | 7 Comments on WikiLeaks on Peak Oil

when peak oil production peakWikiLeaks has released US embassy cables revealing that Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves have been exaggerated by as much as 40%, or 300 billion barrels. Saudi Arabia is currently the world’s largest oil exporter.

Though this may not be news to those who understand Peak Oil theory, it helps give a rare view in to secretive government views on this critical subject.

For readers new to Peak Oil – it is the point when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction has been reached and is about to enter terminal decline. As demand exceeds supply, prices rise very quickly, usually resulting in economic recession.

peak oil recessionOver the past 10 years, estimates on when peak oil will occur have rapidly converged on “sooner rather than later”.

Peak Oil has enormous implications for the global economy, especially transportation and food production sectors. In the US, transportation consumes about 2/3 of the oil we use, with the food sector consuming about 16% of oil for fetilizer, pesticides, productions, etc. See recommended reading below for more information. A 10 percent increase in the price of oil that lasted one year could result in the loss of 270,000 American jobs, according to a simulation by IHS Insight.

peak oil recession trends

Many economists observe that the likely trigger for the 2008 recession/depression was the cost oil hitting extreme highs of over $140 per barrel. As we can see in the charts at right, the economic effects were stunning. Commuters stopped buying gas guzzlers (yet again). Mass transport and commuter rail increased by over 35% in many metropolitan areas. The economy collapsed. Fear set in. Searches via Google on the word “recession” went from zip to off-the-charts in a matter of weeks. Personal savings rates that were trending down, turned on a dime.

When do you think global oil production will peak? Take the Poll at the bottom of this article.

The secret cable is printed below, verbatim. Though it is written in the dry dispassionate tone of a bureaucrat, it is compelling reading.

Cable dated:2008-05-07T17:53:00
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 RIYADH 000732
SENSITIVE SIPDIS
NEA FOR DAS GGRAY DEPT OF ENERGY PASS TO A/S KKOLEVAR, MWILLIAMSON, AND DASAHEGBURG TREASURY PASS TO A/S CLOWERY CIA PASS TO TCOYNE
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/07/2018
TAGS: EPET, ENERG, ECON, NI, SA
SUBJECT: PRINCE ABDULAZIZ ON ENERGY MARKETS, OPEC LAWSUITS
Classified By: DCM Michael Gfoeller for reasons 1.4 (b) (c) and (d).

——–

Summary

———

1. (C) In a May 6 meeting with Assistant Minister of Petroleum (MinPet) Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, he outlined the Ministry’s latest thinking on record-high crude prices, and OPEC’s general refusal to budge on possible production increases. Contrary a few months ago, Prince Abdulaziz promised no relief on production or pricing. He told the Energy Attache that the Ministry was “extremely worried about demand destruction” in the U.S. as a result of the latest financial crisis indicators. However, he also fretted about squeezed refining margins in the U.S. and globally, noting the grave impact on U.S. refining utilization, currently running a scant 84 percent. He asked if the USG could assist the current political situation in Nigeria, where the production has collapsed to about a million barrels per day (mbpd) during the last week as a result of militant attacks and strikes. On the anti-OPEC lawsuits, he explained Saudi Arabia continued to gather amicus briefs for the now-consolidated cases in Texas. He generally dismissed the further threat of NOPEC legislation, saying if Congress could have passed the legislation, they would have done so already.

—————————–

“Refining Margins Shocked,” Refining Utilization Falling

—————————–

2. (C) Queried about Monday’s record surge in crude prices to above $120/barrel, Prince Abdulaziz noted, “We are extremely worried about demand destruction, like in the early 1980s. Aramco is trying to sell more, but frankly there are no buyers. We are discounting crudes, now we’re at a $10 differential between West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Dubai Light, sometimes as much as a $12-$13 differential. Our buyers still bought less in April than they did in March.” Prince Abdulaziz attributed the lack of willing buyers to the current low refining margins. He indicated that that current high crude prices were squeezing refining margins, as refiners were unable to pass on the full brunt of crude prices to the end consumer. “There are no refining margins, refining margins have been shocked. It’s purely technical, not policy-induced. There are commercial impediments.” The consequence of poor refining margins was a declining refining utilization rate. Prince Abdulaziz fretted, “the U.S. refining utilization is 84 percent now, it’s usually above 90 percent. The quickest relief would be if crude prices would come down from these highs, if some of these political crises would resolve.” He queried if the USG could do anything to assist current political situation in Nigeria.

——————————————— ————-

“Grey Area of Demand Destruction, We Must Hold Our Guard”

——————————————— ————-

3. (C) Prince Abdulaziz dismissed speculation that King Abdullah’s press statements last week on Saudi Arabia planning to cap production capacity at 12.5 million barrels per day and leave oil in the ground for future generations represented a new policy. He stated, “It’s a statement of fact, we need to be credible. We’re pumping more than 9 million bpd, and right now, there is a grey area of demand destruction. We must hold our guard, and wait and see what happens with potential demand. Vice President Cheney was very complimentary about our maintaining spare capacity. We are honest with our commitments, we’ve been credible with our program. The other producing countries should do it the way we do. If we announce new capacity, we budget for it, we allocate for it, we acquire rigs, we have timelines. We don’t have pipedreams, if we make an announcement, we are certain to supply it.

————————————

Anti-OPEC Lawsuits and NOPEC Updates

————————————-

4. (C) On the issue of pending lawsuits against Saudi Aramco and the national oil companies of other OPEC member and oil producing nations, Prince Abdulaziz indicated:

–the lawsuits had been successfully consolidated into one court in Texas;

–Saudi Arabia had worked with most other OPEC nations to file amicus briefs with the court.

–To Iran’s offer to file an amicus brief, Saudi Arabia had said, “thanks, but no thanks,” recognizing it probably would not be helpful in a U.S. court;

–The Mexicans and Russians would also file amicus briefs.

–The Norwegians also now have a case filed against them in Florida, so are reluctant to file an amicus brief.

Prince Abdulaziz believes the Departments of State and Justice seem to be coming around to filing a Statement of Interest (SOI) on behalf of the Saudi government in the lawsuits, but noted the White House was still concerned about the political optics of such a move. He felt such concerns were mis-placed now, particularly with respect to possibly fueling NOPEC legislation.

5. (C) Prince Abdulaziz indicated that if NOPEC had the strength to pass it would have done so already, but it hasn’t, in large part he felt due to the Administration’s clear opposition. He argued the lawsuits and NOPEC had much in common: “The Adminstration needs to be consistent in its policy. The effects of the lawsuits are very similar to that of NOPEC, but the plaintiffs are individual companies, rather than the Attorney General.” Prince Abdulaziz added, “Frankly our Embassy feels that once people are aware of the ramifications of such legislation, they’ll be reluctant to abuse it. The Minister has been very candid to explain the ramifications, which would be far more serious for the U.S. economy and energy markets than the Saudi markets.”

——–

Comment

——–

6. (C) Prince Abdulaziz seemed more comfortable with the state of play in the anti-OPEC lawsuits, his considerable earlier anxiety much diminished. He appears to have largely dis-missed NOPEC legislation as a credible threat for now. We are concerned that the Saudi energy leadership does not seem sufficiently well-advised on how the current high oil price environment is fueling U.S. election year “resource nationalism,” and how this might impact our bilateral relationship in future years. In this vein, King Abdullah’s recent comments that Saudi Arabia would cap its production capacity at 12.5 million bpd and leave crude in the ground for its children — while representing no new initiative or substance — seemed ill-timed at a moment when the market is looking for calming words from the world’s energy market leader. GFOELLER

[polldaddy poll=”4582795″]

peak oil production

Related Articles

German Military Study Warns of Potential Energy Crisis

Sustainable Energy Security: Strategic Risks and Opportunities for Business

The Real Population Problem

Which Energy Industries Would You Subsidize?

Posted on | by Jay Kimball | 56 Comments on Which Energy Industries Would You Subsidize?

Subsidies and tax breaks are a tried and true way of helping a developing industry get up on its feet.

One of the strategies to accelerate a transition to cleaner greener renewable energy sources is to subsidize research development, and production of renewable energy sources, such as wind power, solar power, geothermal, etc.

Free market advocates often say that the emerging renewable energy industry should not be subsidized. What is not widely know though, is that subsidies for well established fossil fuels exceed renewables by almost six to one.

Research by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Environmental Law Institute reveals that the lion’s share of energy subsidies supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The study, which reviewed fossil fuel and energy subsidies for Fiscal Years 2002-2008, showed that the federal government spent about $70 billion on the fossil fuel industry, and about $12 billion on renewables. As the report points out:

Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects.These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.

energy subsidies fossil fuel, oil, coal, wind, solar, ethanol
Source: Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Energy (Energy Information Administration), Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, Office of Management and Budget, & U.S. Department of Agriculture

N.B. Carbon capture and storage is a developing technology that would allow coal-burning utilities to capture and store their carbon dioxide emissions. Although this technology does not make coal a renewable fuel, if successful it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal plants that do not use this technology. The production and use of corn ethanol can generate significant greenhouse gas emissions. Recognizing that the production and use of corn-based ethanol may generate significant greenhouse gas emissions, the data depict renewable subsidies both with and without ethanol subsidies.

Fossil fuel extraction is increasingly toxic (e.g. fracking poisons public water systems) and environmentally destructive (e.g. gulf oil “spill”). And fossil fuel production seems to be hitting a Peak Oil wall. As production lags demand, we should expect oil and gas prices to rise precipitously. Subsidizing oil keeps us addicted to it.

Three of the top 5 biggest companies in the world are oil companies (Exxon, BP, Royal Dutch Shell). Rather than subsidize Big Oil profits and foreign oil nations, we should be taxing fossil fuels to reduce their use.  Tax what we want to reduce, and subsidize what we want to increase. Tax what harms us, and subsidize what helps us. Use the taxes to fund R&D and development of a world class alternative energy industry.

Obviously, that means politicians will need to resist the monied special interests of the Big Oil lobby.

What would you like to see your politicians do?

[polldaddy poll=”4447501″]

Recommended Reading

Top Business Leaders Deliver Clean Energy Plan by Jay Kimball

What’s Causing the Long Lines at Gas Stations in China?

Posted on | by Jay Kimball | 1 Comment on What’s Causing the Long Lines at Gas Stations in China?

Long lines are forming at gas stations in China. Truck drivers now wait in line for hours to fill up on diesel fuel. What’s going on? The answer is not what you might think.

No, it’s not peak oil (at least not yet). And unlike the oil embargo of the seventies, where the middle east slowed down the flow of oil to industrial nations, China is able to purchase most the oil it needs (for now). No, in this case, the fuel shortages are self-inflicted.

china energy intensityChina is, by some measures, the largest consumer of energy in the world and they are trying to reduce their consumption.

It takes a lot of energy to grow a modernizing society. To meet energy demand, China has been building power plants every week or two, many of them greenhouse gas emitting coal-fired plants. The damage to their environment, public health, and contribution to global pollution, CO2 emissions, and climate change are enormous. Reducing energy consumption will help slow and eventually lessen toxic impact.

Chinese leaders want to reduce their energy intensity, or the energy use per unit of GDP. Their goal is to reduce energy intensity by 20 percent from where it was five years ago.

To achieve this goal, China has implemented Draconian measures, including:

  • planned power outages
  • shutting down more than 2,000 outdated factories in heavy industry
  • turning off traffic lights in some areas
China save energy cartoon
A black-sleeved arm marked "Energy Target" presses down on little official yelling "I have to apply the brakes and save energy!" (source: Xinhua News Agency)

Small and medium business, unable to get special exceptions from party officials, are hardest hit by the power cutbacks. In frustrated response, entrepreneurial business owners are adapting by buying generators to make their own power. An unintended consequence: Generator prices are soaring, and factory owners have been stocking up on diesel fuel to power the generators, increasing demand for diesel fuel.

To make matters worse, according to the Financial Time

Wholesalers, betting on future price hikes, started storing diesel instead of selling it. Meanwhile diesel’s wholesale price, which is less tightly controlled by the state, started to soar and soon exceeded the retail price—so many gas stations could only sell diesel at a loss. There is also a basic shortage of supply: China’s diesel imports have soared and the country has announced a ban on diesel exports next year, according to reports.

China is walking a fine line between trying to restrain growth, and giving freedom the their citizens, who long for western super-consumer lifestyles. As China per capita income has soared, so has per capita energy consumption. The chart below shows income and energy use from 1968 through 2008, for the US, China, and India.

Energy Consumption and Income for US, China, and India
Per Capita Income and Energy Consumption in China, India and the US (source: BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2010, IMF)

While the gas lines are largely due to China’s brute force energy policy aimed at efficiency, as the world recovers from the global recession, heavy energy users like the US, China and India will likely return to their pre-recession energy consumption levels, and we should expect to see higher fuel prices.

And as we enter firmly into the peak oil phase of oil production, shifting to renewable forms of energy will be more important than ever.

Recommended Reading

The Real Population Problem by Jay Kimball

China: The Next Superconsumer? by Jay Kimball

Beijing Power Consumption Hits Historic Peak During Extreme Heat Wave by Jay Kimball

German Military Study Warns of Potential Energy Crisis by Jay Kimball

While Congress Dithers, U.S. Military Speeds Transition to Alternative Energy

Posted on | by Jay Kimball | Leave a Comment on While Congress Dithers, U.S. Military Speeds Transition to Alternative Energy

The most read article at the NY Times online yesterday was The U.S.S. Prius by Thomas Friedman. The thrust of the article centers around two brutal facts – we are fighting wars for oil, and wars consume a lot of oil. One of the tidbits mentioned toward the end of the article is that a gallon of gas costs up to $400 per gallon by the time it reaches the front lines. Moving beyond the economics, getting fuel to the front lines also costs lives. The U.S. military loses one soldier for every 24 fuel convoys it runs in Afghanistan.

Friedman observes “at a time when a fraudulent, anti-science campaign funded largely by Big Oil and Big Coal has blocked Congress from passing any clean energy/climate bill” the U.S. Navy and Marines are spearheading a strategy to make the military much more energy efficient. Friedman adds, “Unlike the Congress, which can be bought off by Big Oil and Big Coal, it is not so easy to tell the Marines that they can’t buy the solar power that could save lives.”

Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, has crafted a strategy to shift from oil to alternative energy, including, solar and biofuels. On Earth Day this year, the Navy flew a F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet powered by a 50-50 blend of conventional jet fuel and camelina aviation biofuel made from pressed mustard seeds.

And while congress favors boondogles like corn ethanol, which uses almost as much energy producing it as it yields:

The Navy will use only “third generation” biofuels. That means no ethanol made from corn because it doesn’t have enough energy density. The Navy is only testing fuels like camelina and algae that do not compete with food, that have a total end-to-end carbon footprint cleaner than fossil fuels and that can be grown in ways that will ultimately be cheaper than fossil fuels.

Mabus has also set a goal for the Navy to use alternative energy sources to provide 50 percent of the energy for all its war-fighting ships, planes, vehicles and shore installations by 2020.

About 60% of the oil we consume is imported from foreign nations – many of those nations are petro-dictatorships. As we shift to alternative fuels and energy, we can reduce our dependance on foreign oil.

camelina oil bio-fuel
Camelina Sativa

Though many people are familiar with solar energy, innovations in the field of biofuels are less well known. Most vehicles run on liquid fossil fuels – gasoline and diesel. Biofuels, such as camelina, provide a cleaner greener alternative to fossil fuels. Camelina Sativa is a member of the mustard family, a distant relative to canola. Camelina can grow on land unsuitable for most food crops, especially arid lands. It has yields that are roughly double that of soy. Camelina can be grown in a rotation with wheat crops. Farmers who have followed a wheat-fallow pattern can switch to a wheat-camelina-wheat pattern, and produce up to 100 gallons of camelina oil per acre, while growing up to 15 percent more wheat. And once the oil is pressed from the seed, the leftover “mash” can be used as nutritious livestock feed.

We consume more oil for transportation than anything else. Innovations in transportation fuels will have the most impact on global energy consumption and associated emissions of climate-changing CO2.

US Oil Consumption Transportation
(source:DOE)

Oil production is peaking and will become increasingly expensive. It’s time to support our transition to a cleaner, greener alternative energy.

Peak Oil

The U.S. spends more money on potato chips than energy research and development. To restore US scientific and technical leadership, Congress needs to stop bashing science and taking money from Big Oil, and start investing in our energy future.

Recommended Reading

GOP Rep. Bob Inglis On Climate Change by Jay Kimball

Camelina Oil by Sustainable Oils

Top Business Leaders Deliver Clean Energy Plan by Jay Kimball

German Military Study Warns of Potential Energy Crisis by Jay Kimball

Department of Defense Perspectives on Climate Change and Peak Oil

California’s Prop 23 Morphing into Prop 26

Posted on | by Jay Kimball | 5 Comments on California’s Prop 23 Morphing into Prop 26

In California’s election, voter support for Prop 23 is waning. That’s good news, but the fight is not over. If you didn’t like Prop 23, you’re really not going to like Prop 26. Out of state Big Oil was backing Prop 23, and, seeing that as a lost cause, they are shifting their support to Prop 26.

Prop 26 is another Big Oil backed initiative. Prop 26 would make it more difficult for state and local government to impose mitigation fees on business activities that cause harm to the environment or public health and safety. For example, fees imposed on tobacco companies to fund health-related programs, on industries for toxic waste cleanup and on alcohol retailers for law enforcement. In other words, when companies do us harm, through increased pollution, health risk, toxic waste, and crime, Prop 26 shifts the cost of those problems to the tax payer, and away from those businesses that caused the problem.

It’s all about AB32

Prop 23 was all about gutting California’s AB32 law, which requires the state to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 25 percent by 2020.

So what are oil companies worried about? Why are the pumping tens of millions of dollars into Prop 23 and Prop 26 initiatives?

As the chart below shows, California is on the front line in the transition to alternative fuel vehicles. The US consumes more oil for transportation, than anything else. No state is making the transition to alternative fuels faster than California.

Alternative Fuel Vehicles Growth in California
Alternative fuel vehicles as share of all newly registered vehicles. (Source: RL Pike & Co.)

While AB32 is bad news for out of state Big Oil, it’s good news for California’s cleantech industry and general economic and environmental health of the state. It creates new cleantech jobs and positions California to be a global leader in this emerging industry. And it’s good news for the world, which will benefit from California’s cleantech innovations, much the way it did with decades of hi-tech chip, computer and communications innovations that put Silicon Valley on the map.

From the chart below, we can see that Cleantech jobs in the California Bay Area are on a fast growth path. Silicon Valley is becoming Cleantech Valley.

cleantech job growth in California
(source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics)

As sustainable business thinker Andrew Winston recenlty said:

“One global economy, the clean one, is growing, and the global battle for the new jobs is on. Some countries – such as China, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and many others – are going after these jobs aggressively. The other part of the economy – the dead fuel economy – is not going to be a growth engine (with the important exception of natural gas, which may provide a useful, medium-term bridge to the future).”

Clean economy jobs are growing ten times faster than the statewide average. AB32 is driving that growth as we transition to a clean energy economy.

cleantech jobs
Clean energy puts more people to work, while building the cleantech economy of the future.

AB32 is largely funded by revenue from fees. As AB32 ramps up it will require the implementation and collection of significantly higher fees to fund the implementation and enforcement of the Air Resources Board’s (ARB) scoping plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. If Big Oil succeeds in passing Prop 26, they take the teeth out of AB32 and pass the cost of policing businesses to the tax payers. Voting NO on Prop 23 and Prop 26 keeps big business accountable when they do harm.

Prop 23 Support is Fading

California voters are catching on to the fact that Prop 23 was an initiative promoted and funded by out of state Big Oil companies.
Dan Morain at the Sacramento Bee writes:

Heading into the final two weeks before the Nov. 2 election, the main funders, Texas-based Valero and Tesoro oil companies, seem to have concluded it makes no sense to throw more of their oil-stained millions at the bad idea.
Yes-on-23 strategist Rick Claussen told me last week that there would be no final push unless backers came through with $10 million fast. The week came and went without an infusion.

Why did out of state Big Oil give up on Prop 23? 3p’s article Investors Nervous About Proposition 23 offers us a clue:

Laura Campos, Director of Shareholder Activities at the Nathan Cummings Foundation, said that shareholders are “concerned Tesoro’s support for the highly controversial Proposition 23 could lead to a decrease in shareholder value by damaging the company’s reputation and negatively impacting the business environment in a state where Tesoro has significant operations.”

As oil company manipulation of California politics has gained public exposure, shareholders are concerned that voters will vote with their feet, and not shop at gas stations of the Prop 23 proponents.

And this week, as if to help drive the final nail into the Prop 23 coffin, the White House went public with its opposition to Prop 23.

Prop 26 is a Stealth Prop 23 For Big Oil

While out of state Big Oil may be giving in on Prop 23, they are not giving up on taking the teeth out of AB32. They are shifting the fight to Prop 26, which hasn’t been in the public eye much.

If we want to understand who benefits from Prop 26, we need to follow the money. Prop 26 is funded almost exclusively by oil, tobacco and alcohol companies.

Here are the top five contributing industries pushing Prop 26:

Oil & Gas $3,734,500
Pro-Business $3,377,323
Food & Beverage $2,054,500
Alcohol Producers $1,971,843
Tobacco $1,250,000

The biggest individual contributors include:

California Chamber of Commerce $3,337,323
Chevron Corporation $2,500,000
American Beverage Association $1,950,000
Philip Morris USA Inc. * $1,250,000
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. * $925,000
ConocoPhillips $525,000
Cypress Management Company, Inc. * $500,000
MillerCoors $350,000
Wine Institute * $275,593
Chartwell Partners LLC $250,000
Occidental Petroleum $250,000

Source: California Secretary of State, Campaign Finance Division and Maplight.org

KQED radio recently hosted a debate on Prop 26, between John Dunlap, a proponent of Prop. 26, and Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Association and an opponent of Prop. 26. A commenter on that debate summed it up nicely:

What Mr. Dunlap and the industries supporting Prop 26 are really trying to do is overturn a unanimous (7-0) California Supreme Court decision (the Sinclair case mentioned at the beginning of the show) that said fees can be charged to address public health, environmental or other social problems directly associated with the production or use of a product. These legitimate regulatory fees are not “hidden taxes” as the proponents suggest. What voters really have to decide is, was the Supreme Court correct in saying, essentially, the polluter pays for their pollution. The alternative is that the public pays through poorer health or through their tax dollar (either through higher taxes or shifting tax revenues away from other services like education and law enforcement).

As I mentioned above, AB32 fosters job growth as we transition to a cleantech economy. When Big Oil tries to gut AB32, they hurt the California economy. But more than that, by promoting Prop 26, they are thumbing their nose at the citizens of California and shunning their responsibility for their toxic industry. A paper by the California Alliance for Environmental Justice, “Toxic Twins”, provides examples of Tesoro and Valero – two major Big Oil proponents of Prop 23 – and their toxic corporate behavior in California.

For more on out of state big oil, and a comprehensive list of backers of Prop 23, see Oil Change International’s excellent interactive map for info on who is funding Prop 23.

California Prop 23 money - big oil funding

David and Goliath

I leave you with this inspiring video of Joel Francis, a Senior at Cal State LA. Joel challenges the Goliath of Big Oil – multi-billionaire Charles Koch, of Koch Industries – to a debate. Koch is one of the major contributors to Prop 23, along with a variety of other initiatives and politicians working against a transition to a clean energy economy.

In Joel’s challenge, he says:

“Mr. Koch, I get that you and your corporation don’t want to be part of our clean energy future. That’s your free market choice. But that doesn’t mean you get to wreck its development for everyone else.”

Joel Francis Debate Challenge Prop 23
click link above to see the video

There is an age old attempt going on, of companies indirectly trying to shape the public understanding of key issues.

Let’s make sure we all do our homework.

Time just posted a good article on European Big Oil companies funding climate skeptics, that relates to all this. It’s worth reading.

And with elections across the country in their final days, if you want to see if your representatives are receiving money from big oil, check out http://dirtyenergymoney.org/.

For more on the California’s Prop 23 initiative, see:

Google: Implications of California’s Proposition 23