|
|
Post by david on Sept 17, 2022 21:36:02 GMT -5
Here is a bit from the article. The oil giants’ “climate pledges rely on unproven technology, accounting gimmicks and misleading language to hide the reality,” he added. “Big oil executives are laughing at the people trying to protect our planet while they knowingly work to destroy it.”Just wondering about the thoughts of you out there. Government, liberal press and environmentalists can certainly sway the news, but can it match big oil money? Here is the article from which the quote is taken: www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/17/oil-companies-exxonmobil-chevron-shell-bp-climate-crisis |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 17, 2022 22:21:09 GMT -5
Here is a bit from the article. The oil giants’ “climate pledges rely on unproven technology, accounting gimmicks and misleading language to hide the reality,” he added. “Big oil executives are laughing at the people trying to protect our planet while they knowingly work to destroy it.”Just wondering about the thoughts of you out there. Government, liberal press and environmentalists can certainly sway the news, but can it match big oil money? Here is the article from which the quote is taken: www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/17/oil-companies-exxonmobil-chevron-shell-bp-climate-crisisMy thoughts (you probably could have guessed) is what do the climate change ninnies expect? Climate change is a complete fraud and all the loudmouth activists and thier global goverment toadies keep pushing hard to do the impossible. So you give answers they want to hear and hope that the idiots are forced to come to thier senses before they do too much damage. I've seen this coming for decades and fortunately WV v. EPA has eviscerated the greenies power. It's about time. Reminds me of China's setting the date to commit to "climate change" goals until 2030. Smart like a fox. |
|
|
|
Post by t-bob on Sept 17, 2022 23:46:41 GMT -5
"Climate change is a complete fraud" a chuckle
The August 1969 Moonwalk was a complete fraud also - a shrug
It's just humor (humerus) and serious (con)fusion
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 18, 2022 1:09:22 GMT -5
The oil giants’ “climate pledges rely on unproven technology, accounting gimmicks and misleading language to hide the reality,”.
You could take "oil giants" out of that quote and put in their stead any other player, advocate, or coalition active in the "future energy" game and the fit would be the same.
Wind, solar, any renewable you wish to name, has holes, flaws, and deficiencies that are covered up with promises based on unproven technology, polished with accounting gimmicks, and smothered with misleading language.
And that is the long and short of it.
Exxon and other "oil giants" did not "admit to "gaslighting" the public". That headline tells me I will be reading just another "Big Oil as Boogyman" article; a biased and exaggerated accounting of a smattering of "cherry picked" correspondences. Selected bits and pieces can tell any tale. Given enough time and numbers, at some point, nearly everything that can get said will get said somewhere by someone at sometime.
(though the wishing of an infestation of bedbugs upon certain environmental activists rings true, I have entertained similar wishes)
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 18, 2022 5:21:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Sept 18, 2022 5:26:43 GMT -5
I think that former guy has threatened to turn the climate off if he gets indicted.
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Sept 18, 2022 6:00:45 GMT -5
What a quote! It's pretty much where we are today. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Sept 18, 2022 7:40:07 GMT -5
"What do you mean, 'we', Kemosahbee ?"
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 18, 2022 9:25:00 GMT -5
The estimable Bill McKibben on finding himself and a 2016 essay of his, ( Op-Ed: Bill McKibben: How to drive a stake through the heart of zombie fossil fuel), being referred to in documents discussed in the subcommittee, jotted down some thoughts.
"Yesterday, Rep. Ro Khanna’s energy subcommittee of the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee released a tranche of documents from various Big Oil companies, designed in part to build support for a windfall profits tax on the huge sums that these firms have sucked in this year thanks to Vladimir Putin’s war. The documents show how mercenary and devious the companies have been, pretending to back climate action like the Paris climate accords but in fact working to make sure they are a dead letter.
But I confess I got stuck on the very first document the committee released, which you can see above. I got stuck because it’s…about me, and who doesn’t, in their heart of hearts, love/hate reading what people secretly think of you?
From what one can decipher from the email chain, a woman named Virginia Northington, who once had worked for the great historian Douglas Brinkley, later joined something called the Brunswick Group which “helps companies navigate a complex array of societal challenges, as well as articulating a company’s ‘purpose,’” and whose “Climate Hub helps businesses respond to climate change.” There Ms. Northington went to work “advis[ing] American, British, and European clients on litigation and crisis mandates,” which in the spring of 2016 (i.e. right after the Paris climate accords) apparently meant clipping out opeds from me and forwarding them to a long list of BP executives. One of those executives, Robert Stout, now a vice-president for regulatory policy and advocacy, responded that the Los Angeles Times essay she’d passed around was a “must-read,” which is a nice thing to say but I don’t think he meant it that way. One of his employees, the director of communications and external affairs, responded in more heartfelt fashion. As Mr. Tom Wolf wrote to a long list of colleagues as follows:
For the record, as readers of this newsletter know, this is one issue where I’m not a hypocrite. I fight for solar even if someone thinks it looks ugly , and I’ve been doing it for a long time. And in fact my home has solar panels all over the top, and on a couple of poles in the yard—they’re not as pretty as the surrounding trees, except when you think about what they mean, which is that we can now get the energy we need from the sun instead of, say, ripping a hole in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico which then leaks for six months in what was the largest oil spill ever.
But it was Wolf’s language that really got me thinking. “I don’t get what planet this guy lives on,” he asks, and so let me answer.
I live on a different planet than the one I was born on. That one had plenty of ice at each pole, and lots of coral reefs in between. The great glaciers of the Alps and the Himalayas and the Andes were locked in icy grandeur; the seasons, in my home parts, stretched on as they had for millennia, ever since the retreat of the last Ice Age.
But now I live on a planet—I called it Eaarth once, in the title of a book—that looks somewhat like that old one, but is irrevocably changed. The first pictures we ever took of it, the ones that came back from the Apollo missions, are now hopelessly out of date: there’s a lot less white and a lot more blue up top because most of the sea ice in the summer Arctic is gone. The pH of the oceans on this new planet is different, and so is the chemical composition of the atmosphere: the air now holds much higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane, and as a result the temperature has gone well beyond what humans have ever experienced before. On this planet people starve—right now, this year—because it doesn’t rain anymore where they live, and they go hungry because it rains more than it’s ever rained before. On this planet the sea level has begun to climb, threatening to wipe out entire nations. On this planet tens of millions of our brothers and sisters are already on the move, because they can no longer live in the places where they were born.
It’s a deeply unjust planet, because the people who caused the temperature to rise are not usually the people who suffer the most from that rise. And it’s an arguably insane planet, because so many of the people who run it ignored for decades the clear warning of scientists that we faced a stiff but surmountable challenge. Worse than ignored—the leaders of the fossil fuel industry, at the time the biggest and richest industry on the planet, suppressed and denied the truth. Few were more disgusting about it than BP, which originally sought to rebrand itself as Beyond Petroleum (doubtless advised by someone like the Brunswick Group) and then decided that wasn’t making enough money so they dropped the idea and returned to just plain old Petroleum. It invested heavily in shale fracking, and in Alberta’s tar sands, literally the dirtiest possible oil.
But it’s also a planet filled with remarkable people, who have rallied by their millions to stand up to people like Mr. Wolf, trying in the process to write a new future for this planet. While he’s sat around commenting sardonically on opeds, they’ve marched, gone to jail, and often won (when they beat the Keystone pipeline, they cost those tarsands investments real money). There are far more of us then there are of him; in a world where BP’s billions didn’t buy politicians, we’d have long since won these fights.
And we will win those battles, or at least keep trying. Because we live on a planet that, though degraded by the greed of Big Oil, still has such heart-searing beauty. It’s a world where creeks still tumble down mountainsides, where trees still spread their branches to make shade in the heat, where hummingbirds and anteaters remind us of the whimsy of evolution, where people love and protect each other, family and strangers both. It’s a good world still, and worth the defending. Complex, buzzing, cruel, mysterious, sexy, alive. For a while yet anyway, no thanks to BP...."
More at
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 18, 2022 10:22:44 GMT -5
Exxon invested over one billion dollars in alternative energy projects last year, and another billion the year before that and the year before that and has been investing heavily in various alternative projects since 2005 or so (and less heavily before that, they have always been investing in energy this and that). And Exxon is behind Shell and BP when it comes to investing in alternative energy.
A billion bucks a year isn't chump change or PR piddling. I personally know two chemists working on "green energy" projects for Exxon. One is my niece's husband and he, and everyone else in his Exxon research complex, has been working seriously on "green energy" projects since he was hired in 2005.
Are there some Exxon executives who fired off emails saying it was idiocy to spend a billion bucks on algae? Of course there are. It's a big company with lots of executives firing off emails. But there were more that supported it, as it got done and is getting done.
And were there Exxon executives who thought Al Gore was an idiot? Yep, lots of them. And were there those who thought the company should fund its own research and support politics and polices that counteracted the politics and policies advocated by groups it regarded as careless and extreme, such as Greenpeace and others on the environmental edge? Yep.
Is Exxon fundamentally interested in making money and surviving? Yes.
Is Exxon the Devil personified? Only if you are as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Sept 18, 2022 10:33:33 GMT -5
Exxon invested over one billion dollars in alternative energy projects last year, and another billion the year before that and the year before that and has been investing heavily in various alternative projects since 2005 or so (and less heavily before that, they have always been investing in energy this and that). And Exxon is behind Shell and BP when it comes to investing in alternative energy. A billion bucks a year isn't chump change or PR piddling. I personally know two chemists working on "green energy" projects for Exxon. One is my niece's husband and he, and everyone else in his Exxon research complex, has been working seriously on "green energy" projects since he was hired in 2005. Are there some Exxon executives who fired off emails saying it was idiocy to spend a billion bucks on algae? Of course there are. It's a big company with lots of executives firing off emails. But there were more that supported it, as it got done and is getting done. And were there Exxon executives who thought Al Gore was an idiot? Yep, lots of them. And were there those who thought the company should fund its own research and support politics and polices that counteracted the politics and policies advocated by groups it regarded as careless and extreme, such as Greenpeace and others on the environmental edge? Yep. Is Exxon fundamentally interested in making money and surviving? Yes. Is Exxon the Devil personified? Only if you are as well. You are really screwing up my world view of "Big Oil" as the boogeyman! |
|
|
|
Post by gbacklin on Sept 18, 2022 12:20:57 GMT -5
We do not have to save the planet, it’s not going anywhere. In the billions of years it has been around, it has dealt with a lot more than us. As a matter of fact, it actually has ways to eliminate us and it is very good at doing so. Ways that we have no solution for. Truthfully however, I would take a good look at our own species which has created many more ways of exterminating ourselves. That, I would be more concerned about than climate change.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 18, 2022 12:23:58 GMT -5
You are really screwing up my world view of "Big Oil" as the boogeyman! Hey, it's just point/counter point. I just don't hold to devils or angels. |
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Sept 18, 2022 13:24:57 GMT -5
Come winter Europe will be in a terrible pickle, far worse than the present.
I know it will take time, but the only real "green" solution to the pickle is nuclear.
|
|
