Category: Fighting back

Shareholders beat NRG on ‘Carbon Principles’

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has ruled that nuclear power utility NRG Energy must allow shareholders to vote on a proposal to have the company justify its involvement with the so-called “Carbon Principles” –a green initiative to pressure banks not to finance coal-fired power plants.

The Free Enterprise Action Fund submitted the following proposal to NRG Energy on December 1, 2008:

Carbon Principles Report

Resolved: The shareholders request that the Company prepare by October 2009, at reasonable expense and omitting proprietary information, a Carbon Principles Report. The report should describe and discuss how the Company’s involvement with the Carbon Principles has impacted the environment.

Supporting Statement:

Coal is used to provide 50 percent of the U.S. electricity supply. The burning of coal by U.S. electricity utilities is clean and safe for the environment. Air emissions are regulated by states and the federal government. Since burning coal is the least expensive way to produce electricity, consumers and the U.S. economy benefit from comparatively low electricity rates.

The Company is an “industry advisor” to the so-called “Carbon Principles,” a voluntary bank lending policy stigmatizing and discriminating against coal-fired electricity based on the dubious assumption that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal are causing global warming.

But in May 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine released a petition signed by more than 31,000 U.S. scientists stating, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…”

India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change issued in June 2008 states, “No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.”

Researchers belonging to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in the science journal Nature (May 1, 2008) that, after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, “global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade,” since natural climate variation will drive global climate.

Climate scientists reported in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology, published by the UK’s Royal Meteorological Society, that observed temperature changes measured over the last 30 years don’t match well with temperatures predicted by the mathematical climate models relied on by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A British judge ruled in October 2007 that Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” contained so many factual errors that a disclaimer was required to be shown to students before they viewed the film.

NRG asked the SEC asked for permission to exclude the proposal from its annual proxy statement — and thereby deny shareholders a chance to vote on the proposal — claiming that it had only a limited advisory role in the development of the Carbon Principles.

But the Fund countered that,

[The proposal] requests a report on how NRG’s involvement with the Carbon Principles has impacted the environment. NRG admits it helped draft the Carbon Principles. NRG now apparently wants to get away with claiming that, “All we did was draft the Carbon Principles. But we’re not involved with them.” This is disingenuous. Drafting rules for lenders to comply with renders NRG inseparable from the Carbon Principles’ process.

The SEC decided in favor of the Free Enterprise Action Fund — and the rest of NRG’s shareholders.

The upshot is that NRG shareholders will have the opportunity to vote on the proposal through proxy voting and at the NRG annual meeting.

Stay tuned for developments.

8 Dems oppose Obama climate trick

The Associated Press reports that,

Eight Senate Democrats are opposing speedy action on President Barack Obama’s bill to combat global warming, complicating prospects for the legislation and creating problems for their party’s leaders.

The eight Democrats disapprove of using the annual budget debate to pass Obama’s “cap and trade” bill to fight greenhouse gas emissions, a measure that divides lawmakers, environmentalists and businesses. The lawmakers’ opposition makes it more difficult for Democratic leaders to move the bill without a threat of a Republican filibuster.

The budget debate is the only way to circumvent Senate rules that allow a unified GOP to stop a bill through filibusters.

“Enactment of a cap-and-trade regime is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy,” wrote the Democratic senators, mostly moderates. They were joined by 25 Republicans. “Legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate.”

It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, but Democrats and allied independents currently control 58 seats…

The Democrats who signed the letter, addressed to the chairman and top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, were: Robert Byrd, W.Va.; Blanche Lincoln, Ark.; Mary Landrieu, La.; Carl Levin, Mich.; Evan Bayh, Ind.; Ben Nelson, Neb.; Bob Casey Jr., Pa.; and Mark Pryor, Ark.

The 25 Republicans were led by Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska.

Take action:

E-mail your support to at last one of the following Democrat Senators who are standing against the Obama Climate Railroad:

Sen. Robert Byrd, W.Va.;
Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Ark.;
Sen. Mary Landrieu, La.;Carl Levin, Mich.;
Sen. Evan Bayh, Ind.;
Sen. Ben Nelson, Neb.;
Sen. Bob Casey Jr., Pa.; and
Sen. Mark Pryor, Ark.

AutoNation CEO wants higher gas prices

As related in today’s Wall Street Journal entitled, “Tax My Products, Please,” AutoNation CEO Michael Jackson said at a conference earlier this month that

“We need more expensive gaosline.”

Why would Mr. Jackson adopt such an anti-consumer, anti-car and anti-his-own business attitude? The WSJ reported that,

While last year’s energy spike briefly encouraged small-car sales, Mr. Jackson complained that those sales have plummeted with gas prices. “I have fuel-efficient vehicles parked at my dealerships as far as the eye can see. I can’t give them away.” He figures a tax that guarantees a gas-price floor of $4 a gallon is a “good start.” [Ford CEO Alan Mulally], for his part, talked about how good Ford’s sales of small cars were in Europe, and that “one of the reasons is that gasoline and diesel is somewhere between seven and nine dollars a gallon.”

Jackson won’t suffer if gas prices go up. He made $4.5 million in 2006 and $3.4 million in 2007. While information on his 2008 compensation will be released later this month, it could very well be in the same neighborhood since his base salary is $1.1 million.

Take action:

E-mail AutoNation CEO Michael Jackson and tell him that his problem could be resolved by selling vehicles that Americans want to buy — like SUVs. You may want to mention that higher gas taxes are regressive and will hit those in lower tax brackets much harder than it will multimillionaires like himself.

Canada loosens green chains on stimulus

Reuters reported today,

Canada’s federal government has given itself the power to decide whether infrastructure projects aimed at stimulating the economy are subject to environmental assessment, a top minister said on Monday.

The move is aimed at streamlining approvals for C$12 billion ($9.4 billion) of public spending being planned to kick-start the country’s flagging economy, Environment Minister Jim Prentice said.

Word of the Conservative government’s policy, which also involves delegating some assessment decisions to the provinces, had already angered environmental groups. It comes into force immediately.

Just last month Prime Minister Stephen Harper told CNBC free market champion and Green Hell endorser Larry Kudlow that economic realities trump green policies.

Go Canada!

Obama not a Malthusian?

In remarks on global warming legislation to the Business Roundtable last week, President Obama said that,

… And I’m not somebody who — I’ve never bought into these Malthusian — woe — Chicken Little, the earth is falling — I tend to be pretty optimistic. I wouldn’t be here if I weren’t pretty optimistic. But I think this is — the science is overwhelming. This is a real problem. It will have severe economic consequences, as well as political and national security and environmental consequences.

Yet as pointed out in this fact sheet from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, President Obama’s lead science advisor, John Holdren, is nothing short of the reincarnation of Thomas Malthus, a pioneer in chicken little-ing about overpopulation. CEI notes that,

… Holdren has advocated governmentfunded sterilization programs and the “de-development” of industrialized economies to ward off “ecocide.” And he has complained that “people are the bane of a rational energy policy,” by which he meant that his energy-rationing schemes to prevent “climate disruption” are politically unpopular.

Early in his career, Holdren warned of “ecocide,” an “ecocastrophe” caused by expanding populations and growing economies that exceed the “finite ability of this planet to support people.” Holdren became a vocal proponent of population control.

  • In 1969, he wrote about the necessity “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.”
  • Two years later, Holdren claimed that “population control, the redirection of technology, the transition from open to closed resource cycles, the equitable distribution of opportunity, and the ingredients of prosperity must all be accomplished if there is to be a future worth living.”

Steve Milloy discusses how the greens want to ration people in his new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.

Take action:

Keep a shovel handy when listening to President Obama.

Fight the biggest land grab in 30 years

As we reported earlier this week, the biggest land grab in 30 years failed in the House this week.

The Land Rights Network just issued the following action alert:

S22: You Won, See How Your Congressman Voted

Look at the hero’s and zeros. You won . . . for now.

Congratulations. Your calls made a difference. You won the first round. Supporters of S22 brought the bill up on a special rule that required a 2/3 vote to win and they lost.

It’s likely they will come back next week or later and try to vote again,
this time under normal majority rules.

You have time to congratulate the hero’s that voted against S22 and try to convince the zeros that voted for it to vote against it next time.

—–Attention: You may have trouble understanding the list of votes below. They had been converted from columns into one column so the alpha listing seems to start and then restart. We decided we would forward this to you as it came to us because of time. The big thing to look for is did they vote for (Yea) S22 (bad) or against (Nay) S22 (good).

We appreciate very much the help we received in getting this vote analysis.

    Action Items:

  1. Please forward this message as widely as possible.
  2. Call your Congressman. S22 will likely receive another vote next week. This time they will use regular rules. They tried to rush it through on the special rules calendar and lost.

    You can call any Congressman at (202) 225-3121. You have no time to waste. You must deluge your Congressman with calls. Make sure he or she knows they’ll get the credit they deserve for this vote.

  3. Congratulate the Congressmen who voted against S22. This is important, as others will be pushing them to change their vote.
  4. Make sure to call the Congressmen who voted for S22. Let them know you are keeping score and keeping a record.
  5. Call your friends and neighbors. Get them to call your
    Congressman. This is a vote you can win. But it must be an all out effort.

Remember, S22 includes over 150 separate bills including Wilderness, Heritage Areas and other types of land grab bills on top of the 32 million acre National Landscape Conservation System designed and pushed by Bruce Babbitt.

This is the biggest land grab in nearly 30 years.

S 22 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 11-Mar-2009 12:38 PM

BILL TITLE: Omnibus Public Land Management Act

Yeas Nays PRES NV
Democratic 248 3 3
Republican 34 141 3
Independent
TOTALS 282 144 6

—- YEAS 282 — These are your zeros.
—- NAYS 144 — These are your hero’s.

Click here to see who voted how.

Greens attack baby shampoos

Green groups, masquerading as the “Campaign for Safe Cosmetics” this week attacked personal care products companies via a new report claiming that children’s bath products are:

“contaminated with the cancer causing chemicals formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane” and that the chemicals “were not disclosed on product labels because the contaminants are exempt from labeling laws.”

Fortunately, the industry is fighting back. The Personal Care Products Council points out in a release that:

  • “1,4 dioxane is a byproduct that can form in trace or miniscule amounts during the manufacturing process for ingredients that help to ensure mildness of some personal care products such as shampoo and bubble bath”
  • the “FDA has monitored 1,4 dioxane in cosmetic and personal care products since the 1970s [and] has stated that the 1,4 dioxane levels found in their monitoring of personal care products and cosmetics ‘do not present a hazard to consumers.'”
  • “Formaldehyde is a simple compound consisting of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. It occurs naturally in the air we breathe and is even part of the human metabolism. Plants and animals also produce formaldehyde, and it is released as a byproduct of certain vegetables, such as Brussels sprouts and cabbage, when they are cooked.”
  • Historically, formaldehyde was first used as a biological preservative more than a century ago. Today, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are ingredients that help to ensure the safety of products by protecting them from harmful contamination by microorganisms during storage and during continued use by consumers. These preservatives have the ability to replace used-up formaldehyde by releasing it in very small amounts over time as needed. The use of formaldehyde-releasing preservatives ensures that the actual level of free formaldehyde in the product remains very low but sufficient enough to prevent or eliminate bacterial growth. Exposures to formaldehyde through personal care products are generally extremely low”
  • The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), an independent panel of scientific and medical experts who assess the safety of ingredients used in U.S. cosmetic and personal care products, “concluded that formaldehyde in cosmetics and personal care products is safe and should not exceed 0.2 percent (2,000 ppm) when measured as free formaldehyde.” Click here for the FDA regulations on formaldehyde.
  • Even “the European Union’s Cosmetic Directive allows use of formaldehyde in cosmetic and personal care products at a maximum concentration of 0.2 percent or 2,000 ppm (free formaldehyde).

The scientific vacuity of the green attack on products like Johnsons’s Baby Shampoo, Sesame Street Bubble Bath, Baby Magic Baby Lotion and others is perhaps best exemplified by the endorsement of the University of Pittsburgh’s Devra Lee Davis, whose work was once labeled in Science magazine as “uninteresting,” “uninformative,” “boring” and “old junk” by famed epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll.

The true nature of the attack on baby bath products is evidenced by actual forces behind the supposed “Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.” These groups include the Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the National Environmental Trust and U.S. PIRG. The groups are not interested in consumer safety or environmental protection so much as they are advancing their anti-people/anti-business social and political agenda.

Take action:

‘Heroic’ hybrid drivers

Honda is introducing the first under-$20,000 hybrid, according to the Financial Times.

Honda is trying to drawer buyers away from the Toyota Prius. It hopes to accomplish this with the Insight — a less expensive, but smaller and less efficient car than the Prius.

The Financial Times noted that,

Even at the peak price of more than $4 a gallon, a Prius buyer would have to have driven a heroic 200,000 miles to earn back the price difference with the Insight through better mileage alone.

Take action:

Buy an SUV.

Corporate greenwashing of the day

In a March 5 presentation to investment analysts, ExxonMobil stated that,

We continue to take steps to reduce hydrocarbon flaring in our Upstream operations, and our 2008 performance represents significant improvement in this area. In 2008, flaring was about 30% lower than in 2007, and we expect to further reduce our Upstream hydrocarbon flaring volume from 2008 levels by over 20% in the next few years as planned projects are implemented.

Actions like these taken since 2005 resulted in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of more than 7 million tonnes in the year 2008. This is equivalent to taking 1.4 million cars off the roads in the United States. In our current operations and in the development of projects for the future, we are working to Protect Tomorrow. Today. [Emphasis added]

Unless ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson really thinks that CO2 emissions threaten “Tomorrow” — in which case he should cease company operations “Today” — he should knock off the corny, over-the-top greenwash.

Such nonsensical language does not inform shareholders so much as it deceives into believing that the company is being run by capable and competent executives. Such language simply plays into the hands of the greens and possibly trial lawyers — after all, isn’t ExxonMobil essentially admitting that its operations endanger us?

Last week, we cheered ExxonMobil for committing $150 billion over the next five years to oil and gas exploration. So based on the ExxonMobil statement, would that be $150 billion invested to release even more CO2 into the atmosphere?

C’mon Rex. The greens are out to destroy your industry. As long as you and fellow CEOs insist on pretending that global warming is about the environment rather than a direct attack on our free enterprise system and individual liberties, my money is on the greens winning.

You can click here to listen to Steve Milloy trying to defend ExxonMobil at the company’s 2008 annual meeting of shareholders.

Steve Milloy’s new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them spotlights how CEO cowardice permits the greens to use capitalism against capitalism.

Czech president champions freedom — and Green Hell!

Reuters reported today,

Massive government spending and tighter regulation would prolong recession, Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Monday, as he urged U.S. President Barack Obama not to endanger the free market economy in his response to the financial crisis.

In a speech at Columbia University in New York, Klaus, a former Czech prime minister who championed the free market after the fall of Communism 20 years ago, said he never expected to see such extensive government intervention again in his lifetime as he now sees around the world.

“I am therefore convinced that fighting for freedom and free markets, something we always appreciated here in this country (the United States), remains the task of the day,” Klaus said.

The latter comment, no doubt, is why Vaclav Klaus has also endorsed Steve Milloy’s new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them now available at Amazon.com.

Nike, Starbucks, Timberland lobby to enslave you

Next time you have a choice on athletic gear, coffee, shoes or casual clothing, think twice about purchasing goods from Nike, Starbucks, Timberland and Levi Strauss.

Each of these consumer products companies is a member of Ceres, a green group lobbying for “strong U.S. climate and energy legislation in 2009.”

Representatives from Nike, Starbucks, Timberland, and Levi Strauss — a.k.a “useful green idiots” — will appear at a breakfast event sponsored by Ceres on Thursday March 12, 2009 at the Willard Hotel In Washington, D.C. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson will open the event at 8am.

Aside from these companies aiding and abetting the anti-American green agenda, it’s difficult to fathom how premium consumer products companies plan to profit by harming the economy.

Take action:

Buy products from other companies.

If you own the stock of these companies, think about dumping it.

Steve Milloy discusses how the greens are using capitalism against capitalism in his upcoming book, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.