Honeywell

new report on ozone hole less rosy? 9 23?

---

U.S. chemical manufacturer Honeywell International released chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)—climate super-pollutants and ozone depleting substances that are banned except for limited uses under an international environmental agreement—according to a report released Oct. 10 by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), a non-profit environmental organization based in Washington, D.C.

The findings highlight exemptions granted to the chemical industry in the U.S. and internationally that allow for ongoing emissions that threaten efforts to curb climate change and delay the full recovery of the ozone hole.

EIA monitored chemical concentrations at the fenceline of a chemical plant owned by Honeywell in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The group detected CFC-113 and CFC-114, man-made chemicals that are among the most potent greenhouse gases and ozone depleting compounds ever assessed. Honeywell has reported increasing emissions of both substances to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in recent years.

However, EIA also detected CFC-13, a chemical that Honeywell had not reported to the EPA as having emitted since 2018. The group also detected two hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), potent greenhouse gases that the company did not report to the EPA in recent years, including in 2022 when EIA detected the chemicals in the air outside the facility.

Global fluorochemical production and use, including CFCs as well as other fluorinated chemicals, are responsible for the equivalent of approximately 870 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, an amount roughly equal to all of Germany’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, according to the report.

“A large chunk of these could be coming from known, legal production facilities,” Avipsa Mahapatra, climate campaign lead for EIA, said.

Honeywell defended its reporting practices after the EIA released its report.

“Honeywell complies with and provides air quality reporting as required by the Environmental Protection Agency,” Honeywell spokesman Mike Hockey wrote in a statement. “We are committed to greenhouse gas reduction and have pledged to become carbon neutral at our facilities and operations.”

Shayla Powell, a spokeswoman for the EPA, said the agency will follow up with Honeywell with questions about their 2022 greenhouse gas reporting following the EIA report. Any potential changes or updates to the facility’s emissions reported by the EPA would go through additional verification by the agency, Powell said.

Companies may not be required to report their emissions to the EPA if the volume of pollution doesn’t exceed certain thresholds. EIA did not attempt to quantify the volume of pollution it detected. Companies may also not be required to report certain emissions if they meet other federal reporting exemptions for fluorinated gases.

EIA also conducted monitoring near chemical manufacturer Chemours’ chemical plant in Corpus Christi, Texas. The group reported the detection of hydrofluoro-olefin-1234yf (HFO-1234yf), a synthetic refrigerant manufactured at the facility. Unlike HFC refrigerants, HFOs have low direct climate impacts, but are considered per- and poly- fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the report stated. PFAS are commonly called “forever chemicals” because they break down very slowly in the environment. Elevated exposure to PFAS has been linked to cancer.

“The report released by the non-profit Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), appears to be an attempt to discredit the importance of hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) solutions in helping advance global climate goals,” Cassie Olszewski, a spokeswoman for Chemours, said in a written statement. ​ “As a chemical manufacturer, we use numerous advanced technologies both in emissions controls and leak detection, including infrared technology. The EIA report is based on unvalidated air sampling using infrared spectroscopic gas detection (ISGD) technology.”

EIA stands by its methodology, which was reviewed and validated by an independent, external expert, and its findings, Mahapatra said.

Chemours continues to implement and advance state-of-the-art technologies to reduce emissions of fluorinated chemicals, including HFOs, Olszewski said.

“It is important to note—while no consistent definition exists—HFOs are generally not identified as PFAS,” she added. “HFOs are not persistent, have been through rigorous global regulatory approval processes and are deemed safe for their intended use.”

On a pound-for-pound basis, many fluorinated gases, including the CFCs and HFCs detected by EIA at the Honeywell plant, are thousands of times worse for the climate than carbon dioxide. Fluorinated gases are the fastest growing type of greenhouse gases emitted globally, according toa recent assessment by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They are also among the longest lasting greenhouse gases,according to the EPA.

The production and use of CFCs was banned by more than 190 countries by 2010 under the Montreal Protocol, a binding environmental agreement, in an effort to stop the destruction of atmospheric ozone that protects Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. The agreement, which was first finalized in 1987, allowed chemical manufacturers to continue producing CFCs so long as they were used as feedstocks to make other chemicals that were less damaging to atmospheric ozone and the climate.

At the time, policymakers felt the feedstock exemption would have little to no impact on the release of CFCs into the atmosphere because it was believed that all CFCs would be consumed in the production of other chemicals.

That has not proven to be the case.

A study published earlier this year in the journal Nature Geoscience reported growing atmospheric concentrations of five CFCs, including CFC-13, that were banned under the Montreal Protocol except for feedstock use.

Illegal production of CFCs in China was a known source of emissions prior to a recent government crackdown. The current report underscores that feedstock emissions in other countries also play a role in increasing atmospheric concentrations of the gases.

“It is absolutely confirming what scientists have found in the atmosphere, that there are large emissions of these substances greater than would be expected under the Montreal Protocol,” said Stephen Andersen, director of research at the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, an environmental organization based in Washington, D.C. “What this fenceline measuring does is it proves that it’s not all coming from developing countries. It’s [also] coming from developed countries, including the United States.”

At current levels, increasing CFC emissions will add only a slight delay to the ongoing recovery of the atmospheric ozone layer. The ozone hole over Antarctica is on track to befully restored by 2066.

The EIA report draws attention to growing CFC feedstock use and emissions that have been reported elsewhere, including in annual Toxic Release Inventory reports filed by Honeywell to the EPA.

From 2014 to 2021, CFC-113 and CFC-114 releases from Honeywell’s Baton Rouge facility increased by 52 percent and 36 percent, respectively, based on emissions data the company reported to EPA. Worldwide, production of CFCs and other ozone depleting feedstocks increased by 75 percent over the past decade, according to a 2022 report by the World Meteorological Organization.

The EIA report may help explain growing and previously unaccounted for CFC concentrations detected by atmospheric scientists.

Luke Wester, a researcher at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom and lead author of the Nature Geosciences study, said the EIA report highlights the need for increased emissions monitoring and reporting.

“If you’re going to reduce these emissions, or emissions of any greenhouse gas, you really need verification that emissions reduction is happening and that can only happen with completing an extensive monitoring,” Western said.

The report bolsters calls to tighten the feedstock loophole for CFCs and other ozone depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol.

“This is a no brainer,” said Andersen, who was the lead author ofa paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2021 calling for reducing feedstock exemptions in the Montreal Protocol. “In a world that is in a climate crisis, this is an easy solution to get started,” he said.

Delegates from around the world are scheduled to meet in Nairobi, Kenya from October 23-27 for the annual “Meeting of the Parties” of Montreal Protocol members. “One of the agenda items of this Meeting of Parties is definitely looking at feedstocks,” Mahapatra said.

The State Department, which heads the U.S. delegation to the Montreal Protocol, declined to comment on whether or not the U.S. would support limiting existing exemptions for chemical feedstocks.

==

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/06/hard-money-still-matters-and-heres-whos-giving-it/

Yes, we live in a gilded age of campaign finance, with billionaire donors forking over tens of millions of dollars to super PACs.

But hard money — which is contributed directly to candidates’ campaigns, political parties or regular PACs and, unlike outside money, is subject to limits — still matters to those seeking office. Candidates need it for salaries, travel, rent, phone bills, producing ads, purchasing air time and other expenses that are hard to avoid, and many a campaign has foundered for lack of it (see, e.g., Rick Perry and Jeb Bush).

“Those resources that go into this pool can be used much more effectively than any outside resources,” said Michael Malbin, executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute.

And a list of top donors of hard money looks very different than the roster of top donors overall, which is skewed by the few who give big bucks to outside spending groups. For instance, the organization that has contributed the most in this election cycle is hedge fund firm Renaissance Technologies, profiled on OpenSecrets Blogearlier this week for the huge sums its top two executives have given to super PACs.

Most of the top hard money groups are companies with well-established lobbying records, and they give chiefly through their PACs rather than through individual employees. The PACs tend to contribute to congressional races all across the country, giving the maximum allowed amount of $10,000 ($5,000 per candidate, per election) to dozens of candidates. In many of these races — most of them low profile on the national scale — hard money from individual donors and PACs to the incumbents and challengers running far outweighs contributions to outside groups, Malbin noted.

Companies are barred from giving to candidates or parties from their corporate treasuries; they may contribute to outside spending groups, though it’s rare for publicly traded corporations to do so.

Of the top 10 hard money organizations, nine lean Republican.

Leading the group is aerospace and military manufacturer Honeywell, which also held this spot in the 2014 election cycle. The company has long been involved in significant — and expensive — lobbying on a variety of issues, particularly defense and energy. Though it gives to both sides of the aisle, it typically leans right and 2016 has been no different. Of the $4.4 million in hard money that Honeywell and its employees have given this cycle,67 percent has gone to Republicans. The majority of that has come from the company’s PAC, rather than from individual employees (who can give just $2,700 per candidate, per election), and has been handed out to scores of Republican congressional candidates across the country — many of whom have received the maximum allowed amount of $10,000 from the company. Honeywell’s PAC has also given $75,000 to both the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, along with smaller sums to similar party groups.

Behind Honeywell are communications giants AT&T and Comcast, both of which follow giving patterns that are somewhat similar to those of the aerospace company. Each organization’s donations skew right, with 61 percent of AT&T’s $3.7 million and 53 percent of Comcast’s $3.5 million going to the GOP, and in both cases the company PAC is responsible for the lion’s share of contributions. Both companies have given to scores of congressional candidates nationwide, often maxing out at $10,000 per recipient.

Healthcare group Blue Cross/Blue Shield takes the fourth spot, with 58 percent of its nearly $3.4 million going to Republican candidates and groups. Again, most of this money comes from the company’s PAC.

Years of cultivating relationships with Republican lawmakers and supporting their campaign committees financially may begin to pay off tomorrow, as the GOP now controls the Senate — and thus, the Environment and Public Works Committee — and some of the industry’s closest friends will lead the questioning of EPA officials at tomorrow’s hearing.

The committee will hold an oversight hearing Wednesday morning to discuss proposed carbon dioxide regulations for American power plants. The rules, announced last year by the EPA, would expand the Environmental Protection Agency’s control over big-carbon emitting industries. But those industries are not taking the proposed move lightly, and the affected industries are influential ones in Washington.

Wednesday’s hearing is one battle in a larger war between the Republican-controlled Congress and President Obama on environmental policy. After winning control of the Senate in November, Republicans vowed to fight the President’s agenda to address climate change. Senate Republicans don’t appear to have the ability to completely repeal the EPA rules, but they have vowed to undermine and defund the ability of the EPA to administer those rules.

The proposed EPA rules, announced in June, will cut carbon dioxide production from power plants and the power sector to 30 percent below 2005 levels. According to an overview published on the EPA website when the rules were first rolled out, power plants are the biggest source of carbon emissions in the country, accounting for roughly a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. The plan would have an impact on health and quality of life issues as well: The EPA says that the rules would cut smog pollution by 25 percent, save $55 billion in health care costs, prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths, and cut asthma attacks for children.

The rules would require compliance from the states as well, and the varying levels of cooperation seem to reflect the polarized nature of American politics on the issue in general. Two states that rely heavily on coal power plants, Wyoming and Montana, have adopted different stances on the EPA policies. The state with the Democratic governor, Montana, is embracing compliance with the regulations. The state with the Republican governor, Wyoming, has rejected the rules.

As for money, the difference between giving to Republicans and Democrats on the committee illustrates a contrast between major carbon-based energy industries and the environmental advocacy groups.

For the Senate Energy and Public Works committee overall, the oil and gas industryand electric utilities industry both make a strong showing. As of late last year, $2.7 million had been donated in the 2014 cycle by the oil and gas industry to then-committee members, making it the tenth biggest donor industry to the committee. Republicans received a full 79 percent of those contributions. Electric utilities came in 19th among donors to the committee, giving $1.7 million with 55 percent going to Democrats. The environmental industry, made up of advocacy groups like theLeague of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club, didn’t make the committee’s top 20 donors.

The chair of the committee, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has rejected the idea that humans are responsible for changes to the planet’s climate as recently as January, received more money from the oil/gas and electric utilities industries than any other industries. Oil and gas gave $556,700 to the senator’s campaign committee and leadership PAC from 2009 to 2014, making it his biggest industry donor. The electric utilities industry dropped $278,000 into his accounts during that same time, ranking second.

Three of Inhofe’s top four donors in that period were major energy companies that may face repercussions if the EPA tightens its grip on carbon emissions. At the top of the list, Koch Industries employees and PACs donated $45,200, and lobbyists hired by the company donated $9,430. **:{Honeywell:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:** came in second with individuals and PACs donating $45,000, while Honeywell lobbyists donated $15,500.Inhofe’s fourth biggest donor was Valero Energy, which donated $40,000 through its PAC.

The other Republicans on the committee received a considerable sum from the two industries as well. Virtually all of the ten other Republicans had oil and gas make their top 20 donor industry lists. At least five had the electric utilities industry make that list. The biggest oil and gas recipient in the committee was Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) with $694,650 coming from the industry. The biggest electric utilities industry recipient was Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who received $322,250 from the industry.

On the minority side of the committee, the oil and gas industry didn’t crack the top 20 for a single current member. The electric utilities industry made it onto the top 20 industries list for Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) , Ben Cardin (D-Md.) , and Cory Booker(D-N.J.), with $155,100, $124,000, and $168,138, respectively. The environment industry did make the top 20 for five of the nine Senators caucusing with the Democratic party, including ranking Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). No Republicans on the committee had the environmental industry on their top 20 industry donor list.

==

William Ostendorff, NRC Commissioner, Invested In Honeywell During Plant Lockout

Posted: 05/14/2013 12:04 pm EDT  |  Updated: 05/14/2013 8:49 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner William Ostendorff has invested in Honeywell International Inc., an NRC licensee, since as early as 2009, according to financial disclosure records reviewed by The Huffington Post. Honeywell operates a controversial uranium conversion facility in Illinois and has come before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission several times for a variety of issues at the site since Ostendorff became a commissioner.

A lockout of the union workforce at Honeywell in 2010 and 2011 raised safety concerns that the agency investigated. And Honeywell battled the commission over a critical regulatory exemption it sought, a fight that finally went against the company in January 2013. Honeywell has also held regular discussions with the NRC regarding an upgrade to its emergency preparedness in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in March 2011.

Ostendorff personally visited the Illinois plant, known as the Honeywell Metropolis Works Uranium Conversion Facility, on Oct. 5, 2012, according to an NRC document. Later that month, on Oct. 16, the NRC issued a "confirmatory order" listing upgrades that needed to be made for earthquake and other natural disaster preparedness before the plant could re-open, at the same time praising Honeywell for its cooperation. "Due, in part, to Honeywell’s cooperation and stated commitment to protect workers and public safety, the NRC decided to issue a Confirmatory Order in lieu of a Notice of Violation and consideration of civil penalties," read the NRC's public statement at the time.

The NRC's commissioners are chosen by the president, but are typically selected in a bipartisan pair. Ostendorff was the GOP choice, picked in 2009. A former captain in the Navy, Ostendorff also worked in the Bush administration as a top official in the National Nuclear Security Administration, and was previously a GOP staffer on the House Armed Services Committee from 2003 to 2007.

His term officially began in April 2010, and he was confirmed to a second term in 2011, which runs until 2016. In 2009, he signed his personal financial disclosure form in November and listed his ownership of Honeywell International, putting it at a range of $1,000 to $15,000. In March and April 2011, two forms, the most recent available, list his Honeywell investment increasing in value to a range of $15,000 to $50,000.

Ostendorff, like all senior officials at the NRC, promised not to participate in decisions that could have "a direct and predictable effect on my financial interests," according to a letter he sent to the agency's ethics office when he was tapped for the post in 2009.

In a statement to the Huffington Post Monday, an Ostendorff spokesperson noted that top NRC officials are not specifically barred from owning shares of Honeywell. "The stock was sold last summer before the Commission considered an adjudicatory matter last fall involving the Honeywell operation that holds an NRC license. Commissioner Ostendorff followed applicable NRC requirements," the statement added.

When notified of Ostendorff's investment, Stephen Lech, president of the United Steelworkers Local 7-669, which represents workers at Honeywell's plant in Illinois, responded: "I'm speechless."

"Even if he did sell his stock before the decision to approve the current seismic work, his investment in the company prior to that is inappropriate," Lech added later. "He was on the commission prior to and during our lockout in 2010 and 2011 when we were pleading with the agency to prevent the company from operating our facility with unsafe and untrained scab labor. During that same period, the scabs in [the] plant had a releaseof deadly hydrofluoric acid and the NRC took no enforcement action, instead referring the incident to OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration]."

A reader tipped off HuffPost to the existence of Ostendorff's Honeywell investment in response to a request for NRC staffers to share stories about the ongoing internal turmoil that led former NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko to resign. (Send additional tips to ryan@huffingtonpost.com.)

In August 2012, HuffPost reported that Ostendorff was under investigation for attempting to thwart a probe into safety concerns at the Palisades Power Plant on Lake Michigan, a location represented by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.). Last Monday, news broke that the plant was leaking "slightly" radioactive water.

The NRC updated its list of restricted securities in a December memo sent to The Huffington Post by an NRC official. But the memo also adds that even if a stock were not on the list, it could still present a conflict. "There is no prohibition against owning security interests in entities not on this list. However, employees are required to disqualify themselves from participation in any NRC particular matter involving parties affecting the financial interest of any entity not on this list if they, their spouse, or minor children, collectively hold securities worth more than $15,000 in that entity," the memo reads.

Honeywell does not appear on the December 2012 list of restricted securities, but the memo does bar commissioners from investing in "[e]ntities licensed or regulated by the Commission to mill, convert, enrich, fabricate, store, or dispose of source, byproduct or special nuclear material," which Honeywell does. The company's sheer size may have kept the firm off the list, since its nuclear operations make up only a small part of its overall business.

While Honeywell has had a host of issues before the NRC, few have come up for a vote, which meant that Ostendorff wasn't legally required to divest until fall of 2012. But current and former NRC officials say that rules focusing exclusively on cases that require a formal vote do not address how NRC policy is set, and understate the role commissioners can play in influencing issues that don't come up for a formal vote.

The NRC has some of the strictest restrictions on investment for its senior leaders, because its decisions don't just have a tangential relationship to companies' bottom lines, but can make or break a quarter, or a year. Honeywell's stock tanked in 2009 in the wake of the financial crisis, but it has been rising steadily since.

"It's unfortunate that anyone in such a powerful position within the NRC would even own stock in a company that they have regulatory authority over," Lech said.

Clarification: This piece has been updated to clarify that uranium conversion, rather than enrichment, is conducted at the Honeywell facility in Illinois, and that Honeywell has had regular discussions with the NRC over emergency preparation upgrades and has not entered into any related litigation.

==

union: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vULLL7qeIRM  scabs in nuke plants

history http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/honeywell-inc-history/

5. David Cote, chairman and CEO, Honeywell International Inc. David Cote is a veteran of GE and also sits on the board of JPMorgan Chase, where he is one of three members of the risk committee that failed to prevent the disastrous $6 billion trading loss mentioned above. Cote has led Honeywell, one of the world’s largest industrial conglomerates, since 2002.  Along with GE and Boeing, Honeywell shares the distinction of being a top corporate polluter [18].

Obama invited Cote to join the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission in 2010, where he worked hard to create a flawed plan meant to reward the rich and cut vital services for the 99 percent. Meantime, sales of mostly aerospace-related Honeywell products sold to the government make up about 12 percent of Honeywell’s total revenues [19].

Here’s the 2009 figure [20] for what Cote raked in as Honeywell’s CEO: $12,839,038. In response to the recession, Cote forced Honeywell's employees to take unpaid furloughs [21] of between two and five weeks during 2008 and 2009.

David Cote, Honeywell International (HON)

Total calculated compensation: $35.8 million

2011 stock performance: +2.2%

Change in revenue from 2010: +12.9%

Change in net income from 2010: +2.2%

In 2011, Cote celebrated his tenth year as CEO with an 87.8% raise, including cash compensation of $25.5 million, a grant of $9.8 million in options and the rest covered by a non-equity incentive plan.

Honeywell is a large U.S. aerospace and defense contractor based in Morristown, New Jersey. Honeywell Aerospace makes flight safety and landing systems as well as jet engines, including engines for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) such as those used in Predators which fire Hellfire missiles. Honeywell also makes automation and control equipment used in home and industrial heating. It also makes car products for consumers such as Prestone and FRAM. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

Norway shuns ties to Honeywell

The country of Norway has removed Honeywell along with six other corporations from its pension fund because of the corporations' presumed involvement in the production of nuclear weapons. The six other corporations are BAE Systems of Britain, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, United Technologies, Finmeccanica of Italy, and Safran of France. ^[4]

Most of the companies, including Honeywell, would not confirm to Norway's central bank the production of nuclear weapons components but Norway's Finance Ministry said verification was obtained by company news releases and sources like Jane's Information Group which publishes military information. ^[4]

Political Contributions and Lobbying

Honeywell gave $797,343 to federal candidates in the 2006 election through its political action committee - 38% to Democrats, 61% to Republicans, and 1% ($8,500) to independent Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). ^[5]

The company spent $2,880,000 for lobbying in the first half of 2007. $700,000 went to seven lobbying firms with the remainder being spent using in-house lobbyists. ^[6]

A report by Public Campaign revealed that Honeywell spent $18.3 million in lobbying between 2008-2010. During the same time period, it received $34 million in tax rebates and made $4.903 billion in US profits, meaning it paid a tax rate of -1%. Executive compensation also increased 15%, from $47,246,881 in 2008 to $54,279,566 in 2010. In addition, between 2009-2011 Honeywell made $5,112,779 in federal campaign contributions. ^[7]

Leadership

Accessed November 2007 (2006 pay): ^[8]

• David M. Cote - Chairman and CEO, $25,760,000^[9]
• Adriane M. Brown - President and CEO, Transportation Systems
• Nance K. Dicciani - President and CEO, Specialty Materials
• Roger Fradin - President and CEO, Automation and Control Solutions
• Rob Gillette - President and CEO, Aerospace
• David J. Anderson - Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, $7,623,081^[10]
• Rhonda Germany - Vice President, Strategy and Business Development
• Larry E. Kittelberger - Senior Vice President, Technology and Operations, $6,401,052^[11]
• Peter M. Kreindler - Senior Vice President, General Counsel
• Mark James - Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Communications

Selected members of the Board of Directors: ^[12]

• D. Scott Davis, Also Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS)
• Linnet F. Deily, Former Ambassador to the World Trade Organization under George W. Bush, Former Vice Chairman of The Charles Schwab Corp.
• Ivan G. Seidenberg, Also Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Verizon Communications Inc.
• Eric K. Shinseki, Retired General United States Army
• John R. Stafford, Retired Chairman of the Board of Wyeth

Contact details

101 Columbia Road

Morristown, NJ 07962

Phone: 973-455-2000

Fax: 973-455-4807

Web: http://www.honeywell.com

Resources

Related Sourcewatch articles

• American Security Council
• Defense contractors
• Military-industrial complex
• National Foreign Trade Council
• National Missile Defense Contractors
• Political influence of arms companies
• Transatlantic Policy Network
• Valis Associates
• Lawrence A. Bossidy - former CEO
• Katherine L. Adams

References

1. ↑ Honeywell Profile, Hoovers, accessed November 2007.
2. ↑ Turbojet Propulsion Engines, Creative Energy Concepts, accessed November 2007.
3. ↑ RQ-1 Predator, Air-Attack, accessed November 2007.
4. ↑ ^{4.0 4.1} Daniel Altman, "Norway shuns ties to weapons", International Herald Tribune, January 6, 2006.
5. ↑ 2006 PAC Summary Data, Open Secrets, accessed November 2007.
6. ↑ Honeywell lobbying expenses, Open Secrets, accessed November 2007.
7. ↑ For Hire: Lobbyists or the 99%? How Corporations Pay More for Lobbyists Than in Taxes Public Campaign, December 2011
8. ↑ Leadership, Honeywell, accessed November 13, 2007.
9. ↑ CEO Compensation David M Cote, Forbes, accessed November 2007.
10. ↑ David J Anderson, Forbes, accessed November 2007.
11. ↑ Larry E Kittelberger, Forbes, accessed November 2007.
12. ↑ Board of Directors, Honeywell, accessed November 2007.

External articles

• Peter Bauer, "Business booming for U.S. defense contractors", CorpWatch, August 20, 2005.
• "Defense firms feast on Bush’s 'War on Terror'", Taipai Times/CorpWatch, August 29, 2005.
• "Honeywell Agrees to $451 Million Lake Cleanup", Environment News Service/CorpWatch, October 13, 2006.

Categories: Nuclear PR | Corporations | Defence manufacturers | Defence manufacturers (US) | Defence sector | Norway | Nuclear Issues | United States

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Honeywell

deep docs on $ http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00096156

7 bil lobby 2011?

temized Lobbying Expenses for Honeywell International| Firms Hired | Total Reported by Filer | Reported Contract Expenses (included in Total Reported by Filer) |