A truly disgusting story


An article in The Guardian by Dharna Noor called “Republican lawmakers attempt to shield big oil from climate lawsuits in ‘alarming’ bills” truly disgusts me. Americans need to know what the fossil fuel industry is getting for their investment in politicians. And, make no mistake they are looking for a return on their investment.

The subheading adds further clarity, “Climate experts and advocates warn House and Senate bills will protect polluters at the cost of the climate.” Now for more of this sad story:

“Republican lawmakers are attempting to shield big oil from having to pay for its contributions to the climate crisis, alarming environmental advocates.

New House and Senate bills, led by Harriet Hageman, a Wyoming representative, and Ted Cruz, a Texas senator, respectively, would give oil and gas companies broad legal immunity from policies and lawsuits aimed at holding the industry accountable for damages caused by its emissions.

Dubbed the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026, the proposal would protect the sector from liability. It is similar to a 2005 law that has largely blocked lawsuits against the firearms industry over gun violence.

The Republicans’ proposal is designed to stop a surge of climate accountability measures launched by states and municipalities – which Hageman’s office called ‘leftist legal crusades punishing lawful activity’, in a statement. In recent years, more than 70 state and local governments have sued oil companies for allegedly deceiving the public about the dangers of their products. Meanwhile, New York and Vermont have also passed climate ‘superfund’ laws requiring major polluters to pay for damages from past emissions, with other states considering similar policies.

If passed, the new federal legislation would dismiss pending climate accountability lawsuits, void all climate superfund laws and block similar future efforts.“

Please help spread this story. It is yet another example of how an oligarchy uses their clout to do a CYA at our expense and health.

Do you want some whipped cream with your toxic fruit?

A scary headline on an article by Tom Perkins in The Guardian caught my eye called “Toxic Pfas residue identified on 37% of California produce, new analysis finds.” The subheadline does not get any better: “Peaches, strawberries and grapes were almost always found to be contaminated with ‘forever chemicals’ in the analysis.”

Here are a few paragraphs that tell the story: “A first-of-its-kind analysis has identified Pfas pesticide residues on 37% of conventional California produce, with peaches, strawberries and grapes almost always found to be contaminated with the toxic ‘forever chemicals.’

The analysis coincided with the introduction of California legislation that would by 2035 fully ban Pfas from being used as active ingredients in pesticides, and require warning labels and other restrictions in the meantime.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) non-profit conducted the analysis of California department of pesticide regulation residue testing records. It found about 90% of peaches, plums and nectarines contained Pfas residues, while 80% of strawberries and grapes showed them. Those levels are especially alarming because children commonly eat fruits like grapes and strawberries, and children are most at risk from the chemicals’ toxic effects, said Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice-president of EWG’s California operations.

‘Most consumers don’t expect to find Pfas ‘forever chemicals’ on their strawberries – I think this information is shocking to most people,’ Del Chiaro added.

Pfas are a class of at least 16,000 compounds typically used to make common products that resist water, stains and heat. They are called ‘forever chemicals’ because they do not naturally break down and accumulate, and are linked to cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders, birth defects and other serious health problems.”

There is not much more to add to this alarming story. If you want to get an idea of the danger of forever chemicals, watch the move “Dark Waters.” Or, just re-read the previous paragraph. Please pay attention to this story.

Global water bankruptcy


Since we are too busy focusing on the instigated problems of the US president, we have no time or room to consider real problems that predate Trump. The World Economic Forum has long noted a key long term risk facing we earthlings – a global water crisis. So an article by Damian Carrington in The Guardian caught my eye last week, which was almost missed because of Trump’s gestapo like tactics in Minneapolis.

The article is entitled “Era of ‘global water bankruptcy’ is here, UN report says.’ The subtitle does not ease the pain of the announcement – “Overuse and pollution must end urgently as no one knows when whole system might collapse, says expert.”

Here are a few paragraphs that tell some of the story: “The world has entered an era of ‘global water bankruptcy’ that is harming billions of people, a UN report has declared.

The overuse and pollution of water must be tackled urgently, the report’s lead author said, because no one knew when the whole system could collapse, with implications for peace and social cohesion.

All life depends on water but the report found many societies had long been using water faster than it could be replenished annually in rivers and soils, as well as over-exploiting or destroying long-term stores of water in aquifers and wetlands.

This had led to water bankruptcy, the report said, with many human water systems past the point at which they could be restored to former levels. The climate crisis was exacerbating the problem by melting glaciers, which store water, and causing whiplashes between extremely dry and wet weather.

Prof Kaveh Madani, who led the report, said while not every basin and country was water bankrupt, the world was interconnected by trade and migration, and enough critical systems had crossed this threshold to fundamentally alter global water risk.

The result was a world in which 75% of people lived in countries classified as water-insecure or critically water-insecure and 2 billion people lived on ground that is sinking as groundwater aquifers collapse.”

I have written several times about our global water crisis. Here are just a few tidbits:

-the retired CEO of Duke Energy often quotes the term “water is the new oil.” Steven Solomon first used this term in his history book called “Water,” which tells of leaders’ abilities to use it wisely or poorly caused the rise and fall of civilization.

-speaking of Duke Energy, they released a report saying that steam powered electricity loses 1% to 2% of the water taken from a river when the heated water is released back to the river.

-fracking for natural gas and oil uses multiple millions of gallons of unreusable water per fracking well. Frackers say this is not a problem, but I have read more than a few articles of frackers and communities fighting over water.

-Cape Town, South Africa had a doomsday clock counting down to the full depletion of water sources. Through dramatic action and needed rain, they were able to stave off the end.

-Saudi Arabia is oil rich and water poor – so much that the leaders ruled Muslims could pray with sand instead of water (that is five times a day of prayers).

-Seven states continue to fight over water rights from the Colorado River. Farmers, communities, power companies, industries, etc, all want their share.

Depleting water aquifers are visible from satellite pictures. This is a huge problem, even before it worsens with climate change and lead piping concerns. And, that same Duke Energy report said their reservoirs are predicted to lose 11% more water to evaporation resulting from climate change. Steam power needs water to run.

Environmental science steps forward

In a note of optimism, Maya Yang wrote the following piece in The Guardian “Seven environmental wins across the US in 2025 despite Trump-era reversals.” The subheading adds more seasoning – “Environmental advocates notched key wins at local and state levels this year despite Trump rollbacks.” Advancements are still occurring in the age of Trump retrenchment on environmental issues.

Here is a summary of five of the seven wins. Please click thr link to see all seven:

1. California launches methane-tracking satellite

California turned to space technology this year to curb methane pollution, launching a new program that uses satellite-mounted sensors to spot major leaks in near real time.

2. Hawaii researchers identify microplastic-eating fungi

Scientists at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa have discovered that many fungi living around the islands can naturally degrade plastic, with some even being trained to consume the microparticles faster.

In February, after testing various marine fungi species, researchers announced that over 60% could break down polyurethane, a common plastic found in consumer and commercial products. By repeatedly exposing the fastest-growing fungi to plastic, researchers also boosted their degradation rates by up to 15% in just three months.

3. Scientists discover culprits of US honeybee decline

Scientists have identified key viral driversbehind the massive honeybee die-off that has devastated US beekeepers since early 2025.

In a new US Department of Agriculture studyawaiting peer review and conducted amid Trump-era funding cuts, researchers found that nearly all sampled colonies carried bee viruses spread by Varroa mites – parasites now resistant to amitraz, the primary chemical used to control them.

4. Hypoxia levels in Long Island Sound reach lowest levels in 40 years

Levels of hypoxia, or low oxygen in bottom waters as a result of an overgrowth – and decomposition – of algae, have reached theirlowest in 40 years, marking a major recovery milestone for the US east coast’s second-largest estuary.

5. San Diego researchers develop new gel to restore coral reefs

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego have developed a groundbreaking gel, Snap-X, that could transform coral reef restoration.

With coral larvae being particularly selective about where they settle, researchers announced in May the creation of a material that releases chemical cues to indicate suitable habitats.”

More progress would be made if the US president was not such a roadblock. Worse, he has thrown his vehicle in reverse. Climate change naysaying, renewable energy disdain, environmental rules and laws cutbacks make his fossil fuel funders happy, but harm our planet. His funding cuts hurt and some have been ruled unconstitutional. Fortunately, there are many who are ignoring the president and just moving ahead.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/31/trump-environment-wins-setbacks

Forever chemical polluters may get an exemption

Money makes the world go around. Money also winds up in politicians’ campaign coffers and pockets. Fossil fuel and petrochemical money has been a major funder of the incumbent president and the Republican party. And, yes some money winds up in Democrat pockets as the industries play both ends against the middle.

With this context, an article by Tom Perkins in The Guardian called “Republicans aim to exempt major polluters from Pfas cleanup costs” should be heeded. The subheading tells more: “Water treatment and landfill companies given chance to make case that EPA rules should not apply to them.”

Here are a few paragraphs: “Republicans are attempting to exempt some major polluters from paying for Pfas ‘forever chemical’ cleanup. If successful, it could mark a major setback in US effort to rein in Pfas pollution.

The Republican-led House energy and commerce committee recently held a hearing at which it invited representatives from the water treatment and landfill industries, among others, to make the case about why they should be exempted from rules that hold polluters financially accountable for the cleanup of two types of dangerous Pfas.”

They call these chemicals “forever” because they never leave the body. They cause cancer and other maladies. In the movie “Dark Waters” about Dupont knowingly poisoning neighbors and employees by exposure to the pfa’s used in Teflon, the attorney Robert Bilott who fought them led the largest study of its kind of about 6,000 people proving a causal relationship between Dupont’s plant and people’s health problems. Sadly, there are more stories including how Marines and their families were poisoned at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina for decades due to water polluted with pfa’s.

The industries use their money to hide that they are exposing people to toxic waste that won’t go away. What bothers me about these stories is the companies knew they were doing this. They just did not want you to know. We should not have to rely on heroes like Bilott, Erin Brockovich and Sandra Steingraber to get justice for the unfortunate folks who are exposed. Bilott used to represent companies, but was fed up with their arrogant lying to protect their image. His health and marriage suffered because of this fight and Dupont reneged on paying damages after the study proved culpability – so Bilott won several successive court cases against Dupont before they settled for about $300 plus million.

Just to show this is serious business, former VP Dick Cheney (a former fracking executive) wrote the 2005 Energy Act which gave frackers a hall pass with the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. Now, why would he do that if fracking was so safe? We should not forget communities in Pennsylvania who could light their water on fire due to contamination from a fracking site nearby. Or, communities in West Virginia whose water was also contaminated.

These companies do NOT want you to know they are causing harm. So, they pay politicians to look the other way. Don’t let them. They are NOT on the side of the angels on this. These politicians represent you, even if they are in the White House. Please remind them of that.



Trump derails clean energy revival in coal country

An article in The Guardian by Nina Lakhani in Huntington, West Virginia et al called “‘Deeply demoralizing’: how Trump derailed coal country’s clean-energy revival” caught my eye. The subheadline reads “Biden earmarked billions for former coal communities in Appalachia – and his successor came and took it away.”

A few paragraphs tell more of the story:

“For a moment, Jacob Hannah saw an unprecedented opportunity to make Appalachia great again.

In 2022, the Biden administration earmarked billions of dollars to help revitalize and strengthen former coal communities. The objective was to lay down building blocks for the region to transition from extractive industries like coal and timber to a hub for solar and other advanced energy technologies, with a view to long-term economic, climate and social resilience.

But on his first day in office, Donald Trump scrapped Biden’s clean energy and environmental programs, which he lambasted as woke, anti-American liberal hoaxes.

‘We knew we were living in a historic moment, not just because of the amount of funding, but because the whole region mobilized to meet the moment,’ said Hannah, 33. ‘It was a once-in-a-generation cash injection designed to prioritize extraction-based communities as part of the energy transition, which for the first time in almost a century made Appalachia very competitive. So to have it all taken away is deeply damaging and demoralizing.’”

This plan and investment goes back to what Senator Bernie Sanders told coal miners when running for president in 2016. He told them the truth – your jobs are going away and here is what I plan to do about it. Biden followed through on that promise. Yet, Trump used the woke BS as a weapon to hurt people and prop up a fading industry. People need to know whose fingerprints are on this trigger.

Coal has been surpassed in affordability by renewable energy solutions like solar and wind energy as well as by natural gas. Coal jobs have significantly declined while the other energy solutions have accelerated. Biden’s plan was helping people but hurting Trump’s funders. An energy consultant noted on NPR back in 2017, Trump does not represent coal miners, he represents coal owners. There is a big difference.


Renewable energy investment still rising in spite of the Trump anchor

An article in The Guardian by Fiona Harvey called “Global investment in renewable energy up 10% on 2024 despite Trump rollback” gave me some hope. The subtitle is more cautious but still optimistic: “Growth rate slightly lower than previous first-half years but sector still strong and resilient, experts say.”

Here are a few paragraphs: “Investment in renewable energy has continued to increase around the world despite moves by Donald Trump’s White House to cancel and derail low-carbon projects. In the first half of 2025, investment globally in renewable technologies and projects reached a record $386bn, up by about 10% on the same period last year.

Investment in energy around the world is likely to hit about $3.3 trillion (£2.4tn) this year. While more than $1tn of the total is still likely to flow into fossil fuels, double that amount – about $2.2tn – is expected for low-carbon forms of energy.

A report from the Zero Carbon Analytics thinktank, published on Tuesday, shows that the rate of increase in renewable energy investment has not slowed significantly. Between the first half of 2023 and of 2024, the total increased by 12% and from 2022 to 2023 the increase was 17%.”

While the trend is double-digits, it would be nice if the trend was the opposite of 17%, 12% and 10%. To me, the renewable energy train has left the station. Trump is trying to stop a moving vehicle. He has been damaging, but investments are underway. An offshore wind project can now continue per a judge’s ruling.

Trump has long hated wind mills. He has sued to have them removed from visibility to his golf courses. He has been on the losing side. He has made up and parroted information that is not true. As with many things, we should not consider Trump a source on renewable energy or climate change. So, we just need to move forward in spite of him.

Trump keeps coal plant open against owner’s wishes

An article by Oliver Milman in The Guardian called “A coal-fired plant in Michigan was to close. But Trump forced it to keep running at $1m a day,” reveals yet another hypocrisy og the Trump administration. This anti-Republican/ Libertarian move indicates the incumbent president is his own party.


The subheading adds to the story: “A town had big plans for the facility site, until the Trump administration ordered it to stay open, a move it extended this week.” Here are a few paragraphs from the piece.

“Donald Trump has made several unusual moves to elongate the era of coal, such as giving the industry exemptions from pollution rules. But the gambit to keep one Michigan coal-fired power station running has been extraordinary – by forcing it to remain open even against the wishes of its operator.

The hulking JH Campbell power plant, which since 1962 has sat a few hundred yards from the sand dunes at the edge of Lake Michigan, was just eight days away from a long-planned closure in May when Trump’s Department of Energy issued an emergency order that it remain open for a further 90 days.

On Wednesday, the administration intervened again to extend this order even further, prolonging the lifetime of the coal plant another 90 days, meaning it will keep running until November – six months after it was due to close.

The move, taken under emergency powers more normally used during wartime or in the wake of disaster, has stunned local residents and the plant’s operator, Consumers Energy. ‘My family had a countdown for it closing, we couldn’t wait,’ said Mark Oppenhuizen, who has lived in the shadow of the plant for 30 years and suspects its pollution worsened his wife’s lung disease.

‘I was flabbergasted when the administration said they had stopped it shutting down,’ he said. ‘Why are they inserting themselves into a decision a company has made? Just because politically you don’t like it? It’s all so dumb.’”

Yes it is. The hypocrisy goes beyond being against what Republicans used to believe. When Obama had the stimulus money provide a loan to keep the US auto industry afloat, he was vilified by Republicans. The fact these companies paid the US government back with interest was lost on them. Yet, these companies wanted to stay open, unlike this Michigan coal mining plant owner.

Coal has been dying for several years. The cost of other energy sources, including renewable energy, is cheaper. Shuttering old plants is not new. But, the well-funded fossil fuel focused president has intervened telling company leadership they cannot run their own company. As per usual, Trump has stepped into something he should not. It won’t be the last time.

The elusive truth for The Don


Let me skip past The Don saying he has stopped six wars. That’s just plain silly. But, he is continuing his war on windmills which he has tried and failed to stop in court. In an article by Helena Horton in The Guardian called “Tilting at windmills? Trump’s claims about turbines fact-checked.” it was reported:

“Trump claimed: ‘It is the worst form of energy, the most expensive form of energy, but windmills should not be allowed.’

This is certainly not true for onshore wind, which is cheap to build and generates electricity very inexpensively. Offshore windfarms cost more to build but when it is windy produces electricity extremely cheaply. There are costs associated with wind; the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, has recently faced criticism for setting the maximum price at his upcoming renewable energy auction at £113 a megawatt-hour for offshore wind, for record-length contracts of 20 years.

By comparison, the wholesale gas price is £78/MWh at present. However, during the price spike of 2022, wholesale gas went above £170/MWh. Because Britain’s electricity grid has not been sufficiently updated, windfarms are also often paid millions to switch off when it is very windy to avoid overloading the network.

However, even with these added costs, offshore wind is less expensive than nuclear to build, has a stable price compared with gas, which is sold on international markets, and is cheaper to generate than fossil fuels.”

This is yet another example of Trump’s searching for the elusive truth. He continues to type and say anything that pops into his head. His hatred of windmills is similar to his bias against Native Americans. Why? Money. He hates the latter for putting his casino out of business with their reservation casinos.

If he stumbles upon an elusive truth, he often dresses it up more exaggerating his role. My strong advice is take everything he types and says with a grain of salt. It will make you closer to the truth. Where he might be is anybody’s guess.

Wells Fargo reverses course on net-zero emissions

An article by Investor Relations for Social Justice, caught my eye. As a shareholder and customer of Wells Fargo, what you are about to read, greatly disappoints me. These are the first two paragraphs of the piece:

“MARCH 27, 2025. Wells Fargo has recently made the controversial decision to abandon its previously announced commitment to achieve net-zero financed emissions by 2050. In addition, the bank has rescinded its interim 2030 emissions reduction targets for key sectors such as power generation, oil and gas, auto manufacturing, and steel production. This shift represents a significant deviation from the bank’s earlier climate-related goals. With this decision, Wells Fargo has become the first major U.S. bank to abandon its climate commitments amid broader political pressure and regulatory challenges, including the Trump administration’s continued opposition to climate initiatives.

This development is deeply disappointing and represents a serious setback in the fight against climate change. It is especially disheartening that a financial institution with the influence of Wells Fargo has chosen to walk back its commitments, particularly given the growing body of scientific evidence supporting the need for urgent action. As the world continues to experience devastating climate-related disasters, companies must take responsibility for their role in addressing the climate crisis. This is not only to protect the planet but also to safeguard their own financial future and that of their investors.”

After learning of this change in stance, I called Investor Relations at Wells Fargo to share my disappointment as a shareholder and customer. I added that the current regime in the White House is too beholden to the fossil fuel industry. Being based in California, Wells Fargo is home to a state, if measured as a country, would be the fourth largest solar energy country in the world.

I encourage you to be active following your passions and interests. If you have a vested interest in an entity that breaks a key promise like this, let them know. Right now, I am debating actions with respect to my business with Wells Fargo.

******

Update: I received a call back from Investor Relations at Wells Fargo Corporation. It is much appreciated. I had a good conversation with the representative. He shared they are canceling the goal for a third part on net-zero emissions for clients they loaned money to, but are keeping it for themselves. They are loaning money in the renewable energy space, as it is good business. I suggested they need to be more outspoken about all the good things they are doing to countervent what is happening from the White House.