Exxon joins climate-change conspiracy, advocates revenue-neutral carbon-tax

[shira]

This is HUGE. Somehow those evil climate-hoax conspirators got to the top-brass at Exxon. It's the puppet-masters all over again.

Society faces a dual energy challenge: We need to expand energy supplies to support economic growth and improve living standards, and we must do so in a way that is environmentally responsible.

One of the most critical parts of meeting this dual challenge is to understand and address the risks posed by climate change. We believe that the risks of climate change warrant action.

Sound climate policies

Technological advancements that change the way we produce and use energy will be instrumental to providing the global economy with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And history has shown that open, competitive markets create strong incentives for industry to invest in and develop breakthrough technologies.

Ultimately, however, the ability to pioneer and deploy advanced technologies to address the dual energy challenge will depend on whether or not governments adopt sound and effective policies that enable sustained investment, collaboration, and research.

We believe that effective policies will be those that:

• Promote global participation;
• Let market prices drive the selection of solutions;
• Ensure a uniform and predictable cost of GHG emissions across the economy;
• Minimize complexity and administrative costs;
• Maximize transparency; and
• Provide flexibility for future adjustments to react to developments in climate science and the economic impacts of climate policies.

When such principles inform public policy, they minimize overall costs to society and allow markets, not regulators, to determine the technologies that will be most successful. They also help long-term policies align with differing national priorities as well as adapt to new global realities.

The goal of climate policies should be to reduce the risks of serious impacts to humanity and ecosystems at minimum societal cost, while recognizing other societal priorities, including the importance of abundant reliable and affordable energy to enable improved global living standards.

Policymakers around the world currently are considering a variety of legislative and regulatory options to achieve these ends. Among the various proposals, ExxonMobil believes a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be a more effective policy option than cap-and-trade schemes, regulations, mandates, or standards. A properly designed carbon tax can be predictable, transparent, and comparatively simple to understand and implement.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Couldn't have anything to do with the potential loss of billions of dollars.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...-lose-billions-in-climate-suit-kerry-predicts

Kerry: Exxon could lose 'billions' in climate change lawsuit

 

[JSt0rm]

It has everything to do with that londo. Exxon actually knew climate change was happening and clouded the issue so it wouldnt impact profits. Its as bad as the cig companies who knew it was bad but kept pushing bad research. And now they are gonna get sued big.

 

[glenn1]

Couldn't have anything to do with the potential loss of billions of dollars.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...-lose-billions-in-climate-suit-kerry-predicts

Won't work. Even if their proposal got passed as they wanted the progressive side would simply pocket the concessions and still try to bankrupt them later. We saw this play out with the pharmaceutical companies who thought they'd be protected by throwing their public support behind Obamacare. Now in a surprise to no one with any common sense, the admin wants to impose the price controls that Big Pharma tried to prevent via their support of Obamacare.

 

[Thebobo]

GOP candidates that who disagree with Exxon

 

[DrPizza]

GOP candidates that who disagree with Exxon

So yesterday, there were 3 major groups in the world who didn't believe in man-made global warming:
Oil industry
Republicans in America
Fox News.


You're telling us that it's down to 2?!

 

[shira]

So yesterday, there were 3 major groups in the world who didn't believe in man-made global warming:
Oil industry
Republicans in America
Fox News.


You're telling us that it's down to 2?!

Well maybe 2.9 (assuming Exxon's oil revenues represent 10% of the global amount).

 

[mysticjbyrd]

This is HUGE. Somehow those evil climate-hoax conspirators got to the top-brass at Exxon. It's the puppet-masters all over again.

This is a parody of a climate change denying retard, right?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

So yesterday, there were 3 major groups in the world who didn't believe in man-made global warming:
Oil industry
Republicans in America
Fox News.


You're telling us that it's down to 2?!

No, it was always at best 2. The oil companies were among the first to know it was true. Whether the shills at the corporate media outlets actually believe the bullshit spin is also questionable.

It has everything to do with that londo. Exxon actually knew climate change was happening and clouded the issue so it wouldnt impact profits. Its as bad as the cig companies who knew it was bad but kept pushing bad research. And now they are gonna get sued big.

Yah, they knew since the 70s, and went on a mass misinformation campaign. They should be sued like the cigarette companies, and potentially even put some of them in jail.

 

[OverVolt]

Lol, so they believe in global warming with one hand and deploy 5,000 deep sea oil rigs with the other and you think thats a victory lol lol.

Its probably because oil isn't profitable right now anyway. So they're in more of a "$%^& lets work on some green energy pet projects until the price comes back up" mood.

 

[Meghan54]

So yesterday, there were 3 major groups in the world who didn't believe in man-made global warming:
Oil industry
Republicans in America
Fox News.


You're telling us that it's down to 2?!

You know, at one point in time, Republican leadership actually thought the U.S. should take a leadership role in regards to climate change.


“As you yourself stated, we cannot wait until all the uncertainties have been resolved before we act to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to prepare for whatever climate change we are already committed to.”

--memo from Richard J. Smith, ass't. Secretary of State, to Sec, of State James Baker III, Feb. 15, 1989


Sad that the current Repub. candidates seem to think global climate change is "created by and for the Chinese" (Trump) or "It’s not a crisis. That’s my feeling. I didn’t say I was relying on any scientist." (Christie)

 

[mysticjbyrd]

You know, at one point in time, Republican leadership actually thought the U.S. should take a leadership role in regards to climate change.


“As you yourself stated, we cannot wait until all the uncertainties have been resolved before we act to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to prepare for whatever climate change we are already committed to.”

--memo from Richard J. Smith, ass't. Secretary of State, to Sec, of State James Baker III, Feb. 15, 1989


Sad that the current Repub. candidates seem to think global climate change is "created by and for the Chinese" (Trump) or "It’s not a crisis. That’s my feeling. I didn’t say I was relying on any scientist." (Christie)

Many of them, hell maybe most of them, don't believe that at all. It's an act! They are merely puppets putting on a puppet show, while the puppeteers stay out of sight of the public.

 

[JSt0rm]

So how do our local climate deniers feel about being lied to?

 

[kage69]

So how do our local climate deniers feel about being lied to?

Good question.

I mean I can see all those who got paid by the likes of Exxon not being terribly upset by this, but what about the rest?

I agree with the OP, this is huge. Problem is we still have people like Jim Inhofe in positions of power doing nothing but adding insult and injury to the issue.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

This isn't all that new an item about Exxon-Mobil:

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

Check the linked source, but I think they were funding research 20 years ago. And all the while they were doing it, they and their industry were encouraging climate-change denial in the conversation.

I've been on the planet now about 68 years. In the '80s, let's say I undertook a field of study which promotes the maxim "Follow the money, and you will understand quite a lot about public policy." Not the government's money -- but the lobbyists, the concentrated industry of "strategic minerals," the campaign donors and their industrial connections.

It may even be that the deniers would otherwise understand this phenomenon itself, but haven't really figured out that it applies to this topic. Otherwise, maybe there's just a "mental-confusion" virus going around.

 

[JSt0rm]

its amazing we didnt learn our lessons from the cig companies. But then again we are a stupid animal.

 

[OverVolt]

This isn't all that new an item about Exxon-Mobil:

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

Check the linked source, but I think they were funding research 20 years ago. And all the while they were doing it, they and their industry were encouraging climate-change denial in the conversation.

I've been on the planet now about 68 years. In the '80s, let's say I undertook a field of study which promotes the maxim "Follow the money, and you will understand quite a lot about public policy." Not the government's money -- but the lobbyists, the concentrated industry of "strategic minerals," the campaign donors and their industrial connections.

It may even be that the deniers would otherwise understand this phenomenon itself, but haven't really figured out that it applies to this topic. Otherwise, maybe there's just a "mental-confusion" virus going around.

Climate change is just money on both sides. Research grants on one and private sector on the other. I'm not really sure anybody has learned anything. When things go political actually learning about the climate takes a back seat.

Either side backing down to reanalyze their data and such is politically untenable and so actually being rational about the climate is out of the question. The warmists rattle what is essentially a doom & gloom sign like a NYC hobo with a bibliography at the bottom and the deniers are so dismissive of everything that they miss some of the science that might actually be correct.

But not the models, boy do those things suck at prediction.

 

[JSt0rm]

but one side has peer reviewed papers using the scientific method. I know republicans dont trust science but its pretty cool.

 

[michal1980]

but one side has peer reviewed papers using the scientific method. I know republicans dont trust science but its pretty cool.

you man-made climate change believers have no solutions.

Increasing taxes on everyone isnt a solution.

I know it'll make you feel better, but it wont change anything.

China, India, Africa, all have a long way to go to match the USAs energy usage, none of those places have a real interest in reducing emissions. Until a good majority of the people in those countries have a basic standard of living similar to ours, they wont really do anything.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

you man-made climate change believers have no solutions.

Increasing taxes on everyone isnt a solution.

I know it'll make you feel better, but it wont change anything.

China, India, Africa, all have a long way to go to match the USAs energy usage, none of those places have a real interest in reducing emissions. Until a good majority of the people in those countries have a basic standard of living similar to ours, they wont really do anything.

Oh -- I have a solution for it alright. Make fossil fuel obsolete.

But that's not easy. There is no known practical fuel alternative that can send a 90,000 lb. MAC-truck load down the highway or fly 400 people from here to Chicago.

So -- why worry?

http://www.amazon.com/Out-Gas-The-Norton-Paperback/dp/0393326470

There should be webpages somewhere summarizing remarks that author and others had made at certain conferences in recent years.

A conservative denier and pundit wrote an op-ed recently suggesting "we have 400 years-worth of fossil fuel left." That can only apply to coal. Scientists such as Goodstein think there will be severe shortages of oil in mere decades.

It's a finite planet, some 22,000 miles in circumference. The atmosphere is a relatively thin layer of gas. The oil deposits owe their creation to piles of dead organic matter from 5 million to 200 million years old. It takes at least a 100,000 years of heat and pressure to create oil from whatever goo is in one place, for instance dead plankton sinking to the bottom of the ocean.

Oh. Sorry. My error. 24,901 miles.

 

[Fern]

This is HUGE.
-snip-

No it's not.

Read closer, it's the typical corporate self-marketing ploy and strategic self-interest IMO:

1. Appear sincerely concerned. This gives you the cover of being 'responsible' and makes customers, politicians and activists think you are a good corporate citizen.

2. Get out in front of events/legislation that's going to happen regardless. It's like Kung Fu: Don't resist, instead redirect. Let's call it "Corporate Fu".

3. The try to steer the response/legislation to a solution that is favorable, or least damaging to your corporate interests.

If you'll read a little closely you'll see how often they express the need for increased energy production and consumption. Kinda fits their business model, huh?

They also don't want any cost increases to them or their customers (might hurt their sales) and they want it "revenue neutral'. What do they mean by revenue neutral? And exactly who's revenue are they referring to?

I also noticed that they're framing this as a "TAX". A new tax is one of the hardest things to get through Congress.

So now, just a bit before elections, Exxon is encouraging the anti-fossil fuel types (Dems) to campaign for a tax increase. Hmmm, how might that work out?

Yeah, I'm cynical.

Play chess, not checkers.

Fern

 

[mrjminer]

Couldn't have anything to do with the potential loss of billions of dollars.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...-lose-billions-in-climate-suit-kerry-predicts

Indeed.

The radicalization based on fiction has been propagandized enough as to become a weapon of indoctrination; believe in the fiction, or be harshly penalized. Only a fool would believe man made climate change on the scale to which it is attributed is anything other than a theory, and a poor one, at that. Yet, you witness the actions that have occurred here because the theory is being treated as fact.

Just to be clear: this is how indoctrination occurs. If you are a "believer," then you are already indoctrinated, but, more importantly, you have been engineered without your awareness. Ask yourself what other things you know of that are treated as fact by large groups of people, but for which there exists no or insufficient proof? The only things aside from religion, at least that I can think of, are purely psychological or ones that go against rationalism; it is obvious to any rational mind that the practice of the irrational is irrational.

I legitimately think people need to realize something is amiss in the system under which we are living if believing is not science and disbelieving is science.

 

[sandorski]

For decades the discussion here in Canada has been much different. The same Corps denying CC in the US have been openly admitting and making suggestions on how to fight CC in Canada. IOW, they knew the BS being flung around in the US would not work here.

I suspect that the US is the most highly mislead propagandized nation in the world, outside of North Korea and possibly a few other shitholes.

 

[sandorski]

Indeed.

The radicalization based on fiction has been propagandized enough as to become a weapon of indoctrination; believe in the fiction, or be harshly penalized. Only a fool would believe man made climate change on the scale to which it is attributed is anything other than a theory, and a poor one, at that. Yet, you witness the actions that have occurred here because the theory is being treated as fact.

Just to be clear: this is how indoctrination occurs. If you are a "believer," then you are already indoctrinated, but, more importantly, you have been engineered without your awareness. Ask yourself what other things you know of that are treated as fact by large groups of people, but for which there exists no or insufficient proof? The only things aside from religion, at least that I can think of, are purely psychological or ones that go against rationalism; it is obvious to any rational mind that the practice of the irrational is irrational.

I legitimately think people need to realize something is amiss in the system under which we are living if believing is not science and disbelieving is science.

Sorry, but you are 180 degrees from seeing the propaganda for what it is.

 

[Fern]

For decades the discussion here in Canada has been much different. The same Corps denying CC in the US have been openly admitting and making suggestions on how to fight CC in Canada. IOW, they knew the BS being flung around in the US would not work here.

I suspect that the US is the most highly mislead propagandized nation in the world, outside of North Korea and possibly a few other shitholes.

Yeah, cuz when the propaganda you're fed is different from the other country's propaganda the answer is obviously that THEIR propaganda is the bogus one.

Fern