Who is the American Chemistry Council?

.... and why are they trying to interfere in South Carolina elections?


The American Chemistry Council has sponsored a snazzy campaign commercial for Republican senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, assuring us that they are CONSERVATIVE LEADERS who will CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

True enough, but what does this have to do with chemistry?

Who are these busybodies?

Curious, I investigated. Which ain't easy. (They don't really want us to know who they are, do they?) The American Chemistry Council web page does not inform us of WHAT they are about, or who they are funded by. They claim to be committed to "sustainability"--which begs the question, why are they endorsing climate-change-deniers like Scott? (Obviously, the word "sustainability" will eventually be as abused as those all-purpose words green and low-fat.)

Okay, so who are the members? Corporations, not people. (Even though Mitt Romney properly schooled us that corporations ARE people, I never believed him.) Hmm, a big-ass alphabetical list. I decided, in light of the sustainability-claim, to look under E, for EXXON.

And bingo, there they are. As is BP, the outfit that blew a hole in the ocean the size of Madagascar.

So. The oil companies, disguised as the pleasantly-neutral sounding AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL want us to vote Republican, presumably since the GOP will keep the oil wars going and vote against all (authentically) green initiatives. I think it is also quite fascinating that a good number of these companies are NOT American.

And it isn't just Big Oil, but Big Plastic.

From Our Oregon, I found the agenda of the American Chemistry Council:

Banning plastic grocery sacks has been on the Oregon Legislature’s docket for several years. Since 2009, proponents have made their case across the state – locally and in the legislature. The issue had its first hearing for this year’s legislative session on Tuesday. [this article was first published January 2011]

Enter the Washington, DC-based American Chemistry Council, which isn’t, we were bummed to discover, an association of high school science teachers, but is, in fact, a lobbying group for the plastics industry.

The American Chemistry Council has spent more than $85,000 on lobbying against the plastic bag ban since 2009 (not including the current session), and as reported by Willamette Week donated $1,000 each to 15 key lawmakers from both parties before last year’s election.

Last month, according to the Oregonian, a “mystery poll” was conducted among Oregon residents, seemingly as an attempt to test negative opinions on the ban. Pollsters asked participants questions clearly slanted against the ban, including whether participants would rather the Legislature protect the economy, build jobs or ban plastic bags. Misconceptions such as the “bag police pursuing Oregonians” and the idea that there are harmful contaminates in reusable bags, were also used.

As Benjamin Braddock was famously told on his graduation day: "PLASTICS!"

Big Oil and Big Plastic, cozily disguised as the friendly-named AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, are brazenly interfering in our elections.

Now that elections are up for sale, they aren't wasting any time.

~*~

The entire noxious commercial is below.

No to the Keystone XL Pipeline

I totally forgot to post photos of our anti-Keystone XL Pipeline demonstration, here in Greenville on Saturday. This might be because it actually started to snow (a big crisis in South Carolina!) and I quickly hightailed it home after we ate lunch.



Our small but hardy troupe included Green Party members, 350.org and Occupy Greenville. This was staged in front of the downtown TD Bank, which is funding the Keystone XL Pipeline. Local actions were on Saturday, while the larger, national demonstration in Washington (on the National Mall) was scheduled for Sunday.

I helped pass out leaflets to curious onlookers, which outlined some of the following points (this particular excerpt is from Friends of the Earth):

The Canadian oil and gas company TransCanada hopes to begin building a new oil pipeline that would trek close to 2,000 miles from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast of Texas. If constructed, the pipeline, known as the Keystone XL, will carry one of the world’s dirtiest fuels: tar sands oil. Along its route from Alberta to Texas, this pipeline could devastate ecosystems and pollute water sources, and would jeopardize public health.

Giant oil corporations invested in Canada's tar sands are counting on the Keystone XL pipeline to make the expansion of oil extraction operations profitable: The pipeline would double imports of dirty tar sands oil into the United States and transport it to refineries on the Gulf Coast and ports for international export.

Before TransCanada can begin construction, however, the company needs a presidential permit from the Obama administration

...

Environmental concerns

Pollution from tar sands oil greatly eclipses that of conventional oil. During tar sands oil production alone, levels of carbon dioxide emissions are three times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive extraction and refining processes. The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 900,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the United States daily, doubling our country's reliance on it and resulting in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than six million new cars to U.S. roads.

During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of water are needed to separate the extracted product, bitumen, from sand, silt, and clay. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. At this rate, tar sands operations use roughly 400 million gallons of water a day. Ninety percent of this polluted water is dumped into large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds, after it’s used. These ponds are home to toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, which has worked its way into neighboring clean water supplies.

Northern Alberta, the region where tar sands oil is extracted, is home to many indigenous populations. Important parts of their cultural traditions and livelihood are coming under attack because of tar sands operations. Communities living downstream from tailing ponds have seen spikes in rates of rare cancers, renal failure, lupus, and hyperthyroidism. In the lakeside village of Fort Chipewyan, for example, 100 of the town’s 1,200 residents have died from cancer.

It also appears that there will be minimal (if any) increases in American employment for the Pipeline, despite copious Republican propaganda that it will provide more jobs.

Notice that their "more jobs!" claims are always very nonspecific and vague. There's a reason for that.



~*~

Sunday's action in Washington featured a whopping 40,000 demonstrators. 350.org reports:

The speakers up on stage today represented the full diversity of our movement, from indigenous leaders across the United States and Canada, to clean energy investors like Tom Steyer, to environmental leaders like Mike Brune and Bill McKibben, to civil and voting rights activists like Rosario Dawson and Rev. Lennox Yearwood.

The march today looked like the movement that elected President Obama. Now, it’s time for him to join us in standing up to Big Oil and saying no to Keystone XL. Because this movement isn’t going anywhere. We’re, to borrow a phrase, fired up and ready to go. And we’re not stopping until the President takes action.

Here is the NPR report on the demonstration.

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see the New York Times cave to Big Oil on this one. (not linking)

I strongly urge people to investigate and study the issue on their own, because the mainstream media seems determined NOT to provide the whole story.