Climate change, lobbyists, sanctions and more. Exxon loves democracy!

[Citizen Koba]

Fighting the facts


Almost all the lawsuits draw on the oil industry’s own records as the foundation for claims that it covered up the growing threat to life caused by its products.

Shell, like other oil companies, had decades to prepare for those consequences after it was forewarned by its own research. In 1958, one of its executives, Charles Jones, , the American Petroleum Institute (API), warning about increased carbon emissions from car exhaust. Other research followed through the 1960s, leading a White House advisory committee to express concern at “measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate” by 2000.

API’s own reports flagged up “significant temperature changes” by the end of the twentieth century.

The largest oil company in the US, Exxon, was hearing the same from its researchers.

Year after year, Exxon scientists recorded the evidence about the dangers of burning fossil fuels. In 1978, its science adviser, James Black, warned that there was a “window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategy might become critical”.



Exxon set up equipment on a supertanker, the Esso Atlantic, to monitor carbon dioxide in seawater and the air. In 1982, the company’s scientists drew up a graph accurately .

“The 1980s revealed an established consensus among scientists,” the Minnesota lawsuit against Exxon says. “A 1982 internal Exxon document … explicitly declares that the science was ‘unanimous’ and that climate change would ‘bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate’.”

[Citizen Koba]

Over the past few decades, the fossil fuel industry has subjected the American public to a well-funded, well-orchestrated disinformation campaign about the reality and severity of human-caused climate change. The purpose of this web of denial has been to confuse the public and decision-makers in order to delay climate action and thereby protect fossil fuel business interests and defend libertarian, free-market conservative ideologies1. The fossil fuel industry’s denial and delay tactics come straight out of Big Tobacco’s playbook. As a result, the American public have been denied the right to be accurately informed about climate change, just as they were denied the right to be informed about the risks of smoking by the tobacco industry. While fossil fuel companies attacked the science and called on politicians to “reset the alarm,” climate-catalyzed damages worsened, including increasedstormintensities,droughts,forestdamageandwildfires,allat substantial loss of life and cost to the American people

[Citizen Koba]

A great timeline here taken from Exxon's internal document and reports cataloguing their growing knowledge of the potential consequences of fossil fuel use from the 1950s onwards....

By the late 1970s, global warming was no longer speculative.The issue was not were we going to have a problem, the issue was simply how soon and how fast and how bad was it going to be. Not if.

DR. EDWARD GARVEY Exxon climate researcher, 1978-83 Interviewed 2015 & 2018

“Even though we were writing all these papers [with Exxon scientists] which were basically supporting the idea that climate change from CO2 emissions was going to change the climate of the earth according to our best scientific understanding, the front office...of the company was also supporting people that we call climate change deniers...they were giving millions of dollars to other en****** to support the idea that the CO2 greenhouse was a hoax.”

DR. MARTIN HOFFERT
Professor, New York UniversityResearch collaborator with Exxon scientists in the 1980sInterviewed 2018

[Dakuwaqa]

Every day/week/month/year/season is the hottest, coldest, driest, mildest, wettest, foggiest, windiest since records began.

Things are going to get much worse. Take shelter

[_Rexy_]

Apparently foreign oil must burn cleaner than U.S. oil since ***** is willing to purchase abroad. Can you say kickbacks? He even opened the Russian pipeline to Europe giving Russia exactly what they wanted. Way to go Joe!

Same as here. We have more than enough oil to make us energy independent a number of times over, instead Soyboy Trudeau is shutting down our oil industry while buying Saudi oil.

[Citizen Koba]

Same as here. We have more than enough oil to make us energy independent a number of times over, instead Soyboy Trudeau is shutting down our oil industry while buying Saudi oil.

It's not about snowflakes, man, it's economics, good 'ol free markets.

Alberta and Saudi oil aren’t necessarily the same thing
On paper, Canada could become energy self-sufficient tomorrow. Every day we produce about 3.9 million barrels of oil per day, and use less than 2 million barrels. A study this year from the Canadian Energy Research Institute even calculated that energy self-sufficiency . But think of oil like whiskey: There are many different types and qualities. A bourbon connoisseur probably isn’t going to be happy with a bottle of Old Crow and a Manhattan isn’t going to taste the same if it’s made out of Scotch. Similarly, Alberta oil is not interchangeable with the stuff coming out of Saudi Arabia. Andrew Leach, an energy economist at the University of Alberta, even said that comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. “Saudi crude and WCS (Western Canadian Select) doesn’t overlap much in terms of their markets,” he told the National Post. For one thing, most eastern Canadian refineries cannot process bitumen, the thick tar-like hydrocarbon that comes out of the Athabasca Oil Sands. Almost anybody can process Saudi Arabian crude, but only an elite fraternity of the world’s most complex refineries can turn Alberta bitumen into gasoline. To get to the east coast, Canadian oil also has to be shipped overland from more than 4,000 kilometres away, significantly adding to its total costs (Saudi Arabia is 10,000 kilometres away from the Canadian east coast, but tanker shipment is cheap). It’s also why Western Canadian Select, the industry name for most oil sands bitumen, sells at such a steep discount to more conventional oil types coming out of Saudi Arabia. In June, for instance, WCS at an average of USD$52.10 a barrel, compared to USD$67.87 for West Texas Intermediate (WTI), an oil category priced similarly to most Middle Eastern oils. “The oil Alberta produces is simply of a lower quality than … WTI, and is located farther away from customers,” in an online briefing note describing the WCS “discount.”

[_Rexy_]

Economics, man, good 'ol free markets.

No, it's politics. The French don't want a pipeline, and Trudeau does what the french wants. Even when there was the energy shortage in quebec two years ago and people were going to freeze to death, they still wouldn't budge on the pipeline.

Trudeau, who just gave an investment to African nations in the tens of millions (for their oil development) does it so he can brag about a "low carbon footprint" here in Canada while not changing anything except putting a lot of blue collar workers here out of work (which is fine by Justin. He already said male oil workers were all rapists anyways)

[Citizen Koba]

No, it's politics. The French don't want a pipeline, and Trudeau does what the french wants. Even when there was the energy shortage in quebec two years ago and people were going to freeze to death, they still wouldn't budge on the pipeline.

Trudeau, who just gave an investment to African nations in the tens of millions (for their oil development) does it so he can brag about a "low carbon footprint" here in Canada while not changing anything except putting a lot of blue collar workers here out of work (which is fine by Justin. He already said male oil workers were all rapists anyways)

There much tension between the the Francophone and Anglophone regions of Canada then, man? It ain't a subject I know much about.

Maybe you could hook me up some links to give me a more complete picture of the Canadian oil pipeline politics?

EDIT: Ummm. Do these articles give a more nuanced take on the issue perhaps?

[Marchegiano]

Once someone told you even when politicians have some truth to what they're saying they still should not be trusted because they don't speak in terms of 100% truth and neglect sharing contrary information specifically in reference to this subject.

Maybe rather than pulling up articles you should listen a little more to professionals in relative fields.

Now Exxon has purchased your movement....sure....except it was always their movement. Who TF do you think benefits from selling you what used to be trash material no one can sell?

This video is just a surface scratch. Do you really believe Exxon only fights in black in white? No twisting? No spin? Who the **** do you believe makes money and benefits from selling you material that was never sell-able before? They're all up in the climate change movement and only small bits of what is claimed is true. Some things are bio-polymers, it's where we got polymers from the first place, like latex, others, no matter how much they bull**** you, are not, they're just cheap to produce, like polypropylene based ****, and if y'all gonna save the world then all they got to do is use government to convince you this cheap plastic or that alt material is also beneficial for environment to give you an inferior product at a higher price. Bull**** science all over, bull**** politicians all over, bull**** big chem lobby all over, and, if anyone speaks out about it, even a guy like me who preambles with I am not a denier - I am pro-climate control, speaks out in anyway and you get labeled as science denier and the very least get brushed off like one.

You're a smart man, get the hamster wheel in motion bud. You are naive, or at least last we spoke on this you were. Maybe this will get you thinking more about political movements you choose to endorse and where you get your science from. Your bags still line the ocean, even the newer "cleaner" bags. Your bottles still float all around collecting the same algae sea turtles eat causing them to eat those bottles and die. 400 years isn't needed for that to happen, 40 is right, 40 is truth, but someone needed a spin to make a plastic seem friendly. Someone....not me.

No sympathy. Y'all made this bed. Y'all listened to distant "experts" you listen to politicians you know are liars and when I tried to drop some truth from a work experience angle I got what? The brush off and you know it. So if a smart and open minded guy like you treats me like that....there's your answer for why there is no counter coming from experienced people. I'm under Exxon's umbrella. Axalta, shell, exxon, dow, that's where I buy my **** from....cause duh...there's not that many chem companies. I'm not an employee though, and once you get to an expert level above me who is left? Only the mugs in their labs, only the lobby!

So, maybe, next time you stfu about **** you're not trained in, have no experience with, and listen to someone who does.

[Citizen Koba]

Once someone told you even when politicians have some truth to what they're saying they still should not be trusted because they don't speak in terms of 100% truth and neglect sharing contrary information specifically in reference to this subject.

Maybe rather than pulling up articles you should listen a little more to professionals in relative fields.

Now Exxon has purchased your movement....sure....except it was always their movement. Who TF do you think benefits from selling you what used to be trash material no one can sell?

This video is just a surface scratch. Do you really believe Exxon only fights in black in white? No twisting? No spin? Who the **** do you believe makes money and benefits from selling you material that was never sell-able before? They're all up in the climate change movement and only small bits of what is claimed is true. Some things are bio-polymers, it's where we got polymers from the first place, like latex, others, no matter how much they bull**** you, are not, they're just cheap to produce, like polypropylene based ****, and if y'all gonna save the world then all they got to do is use government to convince you this cheap plastic or that alt material is also beneficial for environment to give you an inferior product at a higher price. Bull**** science all over, bull**** politicians all over, bull**** big chem lobby all over, and, if anyone speaks out about it, even a guy like me who preambles with I am not a denier - I am pro-climate control, speaks out in anyway and you get labeled as science denier and the very least get brushed off like one.

You're a smart man, get the hamster wheel in motion bud. You are naive, or at least last we spoke on this you were. Maybe this will get you thinking more about political movements you choose to endorse and where you get your science from. Your bags still line the ocean, even the newer "cleaner" bags. Your bottles still float all around collecting the same algae sea turtles eat causing them to eat those bottles and die. 400 years isn't needed for that to happen, 40 is right, 40 is truth, but someone needed a spin to make a plastic seem friendly. Someone....not me.

No sympathy. Y'all made this bed. Y'all listened to distant "experts" you listen to politicians you know are liars and when I tried to drop some truth from a work experience angle I got what? The brush off and you know it. So if a smart and open minded guy like you treats me like that....there's your answer for why there is no counter coming from experienced people. I'm under Exxon's umbrella. Axalta, shell, exxon, dow, that's where I buy my **** from....cause duh...there's not that many chem companies. I'm not an employee though, and once you get to an expert level above me who is left? Only the mugs in their labs, only the lobby!

So, maybe, next time you stfu about **** you're not trained in, have no experience with, and listen to someone who does.

Adam my friend, I am genuinely not sure what you're trying to say here... are you saying I shouldn't trust politicains? I don't? Are you saying I shouldn't trust oil companies? I don't? Are you saying that the claims of environmentalists and pressure groups should be treated with scepticism? I agree... so where does that leave us? A planet that is uniequivocally warming and a consensus most likely explanation that a primary cause is human activity, a large part of which is the use of fossil fuels.

Do I believe the oil companies and governemnts will not try to opportunistically profit from any circumstance they find themselves in? Of course they will... that's what they do... Do I believe that other business interests are also pushing the environmental agenda for their own ends? Yeah, sure.

So once again where does that leave us? Do you suggest that none of us attempt to act in ways that might reduce our use of fossil fuels because we are not ourselves climate scientists and there remains a small element of doubt? Or maybe that we should simply not discuss the issue at all...?

And as to latter paragraph I don't even really comprehend what you're saying, made what bed? How has anything in this thread either confirmed or denied anything in our previous conversation? And besides, I gave you no brush off, I acknowledged your expertise in your field and in the properties of the materials you use whilst questioning if you have full knowledge of how these materials might decay once their useable life is over and how the micro and nano plastics they break down into might impact on the natural environment... which you basically brushed over. Have you looked further into the materials I supplied you with and the effects of microplastics in nature? If so maybe we can discuss that in some more detail?

And FWIW if you read my posts I've been clear in saying that there needs to be a transition away from using hydrocarbons as fuels but that it should be conducted rationally in such a way as to minimise harm to the livelihoods of those connected to the industry as well as the broader economy... in fact it's inevitable that hydrocarbon products will remain with us - their usage in plastics and medicines and a whole raft of oither products makes it inevtable that the petrochemical indusry will continue to thrive even if on a reduced level.

Beyond that.. I don't know what to say.

I'm baffled by your apparent hostility to what is essentially a confirmation of what we already both knew and accepted... that yes, corporations will tell whatever lies are necessary to protect their business interests and will pay politicians to further their aims. Unless... are you offering an arguement or evidence that human actions have played no role in the observable climate changes that the planet is undergoing.

You say you ain't a climate change denier... then what? What is your opinion on what should be done? Business as usual?