Big Oil are not Climate Change Denialists

[wolfpup]

@LonghornDave

Just to be clear, these are things that Exxon is doing that are not good. I just want to get this right, so please correct me where I’m wrong.

1. It’s not good that they publicly acknowledge climate change is happening and is caused by man-made emissions of green house gases.
2. It’s also not a good thing if they provide funding to environmental organizations because that’s just for PR purposes and so they can later control them.
3. It’s not a good thing that they disclose what their emissions are.
4. It’s not a good thing that they have shown they are accountable to their shareholders’ concerns and provide a detailed report for the Carbon Disclosure Project.
5. It’s not a good thing that they publicly support a carbon tax.

Just want to get my talking points, right. None of those are good?

I’ve numbered the items so I can address them succinctly.

(1) is a red herring that, as has been pointed out by many, has been thoroughly demolished in this thread. What else can they say? It’s actually not a good thing from an environmental activist’s point of view (not that I am one – I’m more of a pro-science anti-lie activist) because if they publicly denied climate change, they could be discredited and exposed as lying self-serving miscreants with a few well-placed links to mainstream science. Instead, this puts a good protective PR face on them. No informed person is going to fall for flagrant denialism. Would you expect a major multinational to publicly, explicitly support a crackpot conspiracy theory? No? So what’s your point?

(2) I’d like to a see a cite about what legitimate environmental organizations Exxon really contributes to – though it wouldn’t surprise me if there were some very minor contributions to some, in the spirit of “we’re not the problem, we’re part of the solution” – a classic PR gambit. I know that they’ve long contributed to the Stanford GCEP project, which is actually legitimate research that is in their own long-term interests, but it’s not “an environmental group”. If this proves that not everything that Exxon does is evil, then their investment was probably worth it from a PR standpoint alone, aside from the tangible benefits the research may bring them!

(3) I believe pertains entirely to their own emissions as an industry, which has nothing to do with the big picture. This is somewhat similar to Exxon claiming that they are “participants in clean renewable energy”, which turns out to actually mean that their lubricants are used in wind and hydroelectric turbines – which means nothing at all!

(4) is more flagrant hypocrisy:

But here is what Exxon’s agreement with shareholders does not do. It does not require Exxon to disclose its degree of responsibility for climate change through its skyrocketing carbon and methane emissions. It does not require Exxon to disclose how much its emissions have caused the need for the regulations it now plans on claiming as risks. It does not require Exxon to make a commitment to reduce its carbon footprint, much less acknowledge it at all.

In fact, Exxon’s agreement — which it had rejected for the last four years — was made in exchange for dropping a more definitive one. According to the press release announcing the deal, Exxon only agreed to disclose climate change risks if the shareholder group pushing for the Carbon Asset Risk report agreed to drop a shareholder resolution. If approved, that resolution would have put Exxon on the books as acknowledging projections by both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and The International Energy Agency (IEA) that state that “no more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050″ if the world is to avoid a global temperature rise above 2°C.

(5) is still more flagrant hypocrisy. Exxon does not “publicly support a carbon tax”. If they did, this would be a complete 180-degree reversal from the oil industry’s staunch opposition to the Waxman-Markey bill just a few years ago that I just talked about. What they are saying is that IF there is to be regulation of any kind (which they continue to oppose) they’d prefer the evil of a carbon tax to the worse evil, in their opinion, of a cap-and-trade policy, because a carbon tax could then be offset by tax credits to consumers and small businesses to… guess what? To use more oil! And guess who would be behind the lobbying for that?

Former corporate PR man and whistleblower Wendell Potter singles out three industries that are the most notorious practitioners of these kinds of secret deceptions and political manipulations: oil and coal companies and their allied industries, tobacco companies, and health insurance companies. What all three have in common is an imperative need to hide from the public a plethora of facts about their products and practices that they would much prefer the public not know, and they are the biggest users of public relations firms – often the same ones, in fact – those which specialize in large-scale disinformation – and techniques like secretly bankrolling fake grassroots organizations and fake “science policy boards”. But the oil and coal companies are by far the biggest offenders in terms of the sheer magnitude of their assault on science and the public interest.

[GIGObuster]

@LonghornDave

That’s craziness. The Heritage Foundation has a history going back years and years before Climate Change was even a thought. Maybe they like their positions on taxes for example. Maybe recent donations reflect the Affordable Care Act. Maybe they like their positions on National Defense.

If you really wanted to count these donations, it would seem to make sense to proportionally adjust down the dollar amount that they are counting to reflect what portion of their budget these organizations spend on Climate Change activism.

What they did before does not deny what they are doing now regarding Climate Change.

[LonghornDave]

@GIGObuster

Missed the point by a mile, that is a point in their favor, but completely wasted in light of what they are doing in the background.

Others in this thread, including Wolfpup just now disagree. They say this is a bad thing.

@GIGObuster

IIRC in England for example the hard liquor companies are funding health groups that are against them in principle, recently there was the item that those health groups were in favor of minimal prices for hard liquor, but after a few years of funding from the hard liquor companies those groups suddenly dropped that idea.

Sometimes subtle pressure will do wonders. And it is, as pointed before one of the few cards that they have left to play, the political one is now one of the big ones.

Isn’t this a damned if you do damned if you don’t position?

@GIGObuster

Missing the point again, it is good, but it is a lousy deal once one looks at the details and what they refused to look at when doing those disclosures.

Basically, it’s not good because they should be doing more.

@GIGObuster

Same thing. And this also ignores the pressure many CEOs and members of the fossil fuel companies should be getting from those shareholders for using their power to undermine what they are “officially” supporting now.

Basically, it’s not good because they should be doing more.

[LonghornDave]

@GIGObuster

What they did before does not deny what they are doing now regarding Climate Change.

Why would you not proportionately adjust the dollars you are counting as climate change activism?

If I give a company $100, and they turn around and spend $99 to fight Obamacare and $1 fighting climate change, you honestly consider that a $100 donation to fight climate change?

[GIGObuster]

@LonghornDave

Others in this thread, including Wolfpup just now disagree. They say this is a bad thing.

Once the big picture is added, once again you are doing incompletes and you calling them as “the end of the story” is what makes them wrong.

@LonghornDave

Isn’t this a damned if you do damned if you don’t position?

You still want to have an incomplete idea as a definitive one, they need to support the change that is implied in their official affirmation.

@LonghornDave

Basically, it’s not good because they should be doing more.

Indeed, because what the good they are doing is just a drop in the bucket.

@LonghornDave

Basically, it’s not good because they should be doing more.

No, this is just pathetically repeating the same expecting a different result, As it is noticeable what was what you omitted in your reply:

I said in that post that you need to show us were funded groups like Heritage Foundation or Americans for Prosperity are supporting politicians that are in favor of items like the carbon tax.

The avoidance of that item by you is evidence enough that you already know the answer.

[Kobal2]

@LonghornDave

They would get nervous if oil prices were to spike to those summer 2008 levels. At certain prices, the economy starts to falter and/or demand destruction occurs. Oil companies certainly don’t want that. They want a strong growing economy.

I strongly doubt that. This might be their perfect game theory, rational long-term interest to be sure. But for the most part, investors and boards of directors are only interested in profits in the shortestest of terms and après moi, le déluge. See also: the mortgage crisis.

They also want to be able to meet demand for their product.

If the console wars and copyright laws have taught me anything; it’s that capitalism loves and strives on scarcity, whether it is artificial or a function of extant realities. So Big Oil not being able to quite meet its demand is good. It means they can sell their whole stock at inflated prices. What’s not to love ? Remember Enron’s deliberate blackouts ? Good times…

But you can also look at the issue from the angle **marshmallow **suggested : clearly somebody is plowing the big bucks into climate change denying “scientists” and politicians (mostly right wingers in the US). To truly absurd results sometimes - such as the injunction to the Pentagon to disregard climatology data altogether. A qui profite le crime ? Who benefits from this ?

[GIGObuster]

@LonghornDave

Why would you not proportionately adjust the dollars you are counting as climate change activism?

If I give a company $100, and they turn around and spend $99 to fight Obamacare and $1 fighting climate change, you honestly consider that a $100 donation to fight climate change?

As I pointed before in a previous discussion (and your more wrong affirmation in the OP that we did not noticed before shows up again) all that funding opens doors that allows those groups to influence more than just a single issue.

It is like if you assume that they can not walk and chew *tobacco * laws at the same time.

[LonghornDave]

@wolfpup

(1) is a red herring that, as has been pointed out by many, has been thoroughly demolished in this thread. What else can they say? It’s actually not a good thing from an environmental activist’s point of view (not that I am one – I’m more of a pro-science anti-lie activist) because if they publicly denied climate change, they could be discredited and exposed as lying self-serving miscreants with a few well-placed links to mainstream science. Instead, this puts a good protective PR face on them. No informed person is going to fall for flagrant denialism. Would you expect a major multinational to publicly, explicitly support a crackpot conspiracy theory? No? So what’s your point?

I think thoroughly demolished is probably overstating it since many people say it’s a good thing overall, and most others say it’s a small good thing far overshadowed by other wrongs they do. I think you’d be on the extreme end of climate change activism saying you wish more powerful company’s publicly denied global warming.

@wolfpup

(2) I’d like to a see a cite about what legitimate environmental organizations Exxon really contributes to – though it wouldn’t surprise me if there were some very minor contributions to some, in the spirit of “we’re not the problem, we’re part of the solution” – a classic PR gambit. I know that they’ve long contributed to the Stanford GCEP project, which is actually legitimate research that is in their own long-term interests, but it’s not “an environmental group”. If this proves that not everything that Exxon does is evil, then their investment was probably worth it from a PR standpoint alone, aside from the tangible benefits the research may bring them!

I already posted a site which had their donations from 2013.

@wolfpup

(3) I believe pertains entirely to their own emissions as an industry, which has nothing to do with the big picture. This is somewhat similar to Exxon claiming that they are “participants in clean renewable energy”, which turns out to actually mean that their lubricants are used in wind and hydroelectric turbines – which means nothing at all!

Silliness. You are criticizing them for publicly disclosing their emissions. I think you’d be an outlier on this one as well.

@wolfpup

(4) is more flagrant hypocrisy:

So, stating in detail what they are doing to reduce their emissions, outlining their controls in place of reviewing this and setting future goals, outlining the incentives they give people for reducing emissions, that’s all bad stuff and hypocritical? Okay, I think you’d be an outlier here as well.

@wolfpup

(5) is still more flagrant hypocrisy. Exxon does not “publicly support a carbon tax”. If they did, this would be a complete 180-degree reversal from the oil industry’s staunch opposition to the Waxman-Markey bill just a few years ago that I just talked about. What they are saying is that IF there is to be regulation of any kind (which they continue to oppose) they’d prefer the evil of a carbon tax to the worse evil, in their opinion, of a cap-and-trade policy, because a carbon tax could then be offset by tax credits to consumers and small businesses to… guess what? To use more oil! And guess who would be behind the lobbying for that?

So, where exactly are they stating they are against regulation of any kind? Why is opposing cap and trade evidence that they are against any regulation? Why is stating that they would support a carbon tax a bad thing?

People are criticizing them for every single angle here. Now because they want to provide revenues to the disproportionately affected poor of increased carbon prices that is also a bad thing?

[LonghornDave]

@GIGObuster

No, this is just pathetically repeating the same expecting a different result, As it is noticeable what was what you omitted in your reply:

I said in that post that you need to show us were funded groups like Heritage Foundation or Americans for Prosperity are supporting politicians that are in favor of items like the carbon tax.

The avoidance of that item by you is evidence enough that you already know the answer.

What are you talking about? I pulled that out in a separate post and made a reply about it, that you have since replied to, before I even wrote this post. Where is the avoidance?

[LonghornDave]

@Kobal2

I strongly doubt that. This might be their perfect game theory, rational long-term interest to be sure. But for the most part, investors and boards of directors are only interested in profits in the shortestest of terms and après moi, le déluge. See also: the mortgage crisis.

If the console wars and copyright laws have taught me anything; it’s that capitalism loves and strives on scarcity, whether it is artificial or a function of extant realities. So Big Oil not being able to quite meet its demand is good. It means they can sell their whole stock at inflated prices. What’s not to love ? Remember Enron’s deliberate blackouts ? Good times…

This is pretty widely known by analysts that track oil stocks. Investor fear creeps in when prices rise too much. Next time there is a big oil price shock, look for any stories. Furthermore, read OPEC’s reports, which also discuss this very same thing. They do not like sharp price rises and they don’t want prices so high that they will destroy demand.

@Kobal2

But you can also look at the issue from the angle **marshmallow **suggested : clearly somebody is plowing the big bucks into climate change denying “scientists” and politicians (mostly right wingers in the US). To truly absurd results sometimes - such as the injunction to the Pentagon to disregard climatology data altogether. A qui profite le crime ? Who benefits from this ?

Sure, when you count dollars donated to totally unrelated causes it makes the dollar amount seem much higher.

[GIGObuster]

@LonghornDave

I think thoroughly demolished is probably overstating it since many people say it’s a good thing overall, and most others say it’s a small good thing far overshadowed by other wrongs they do. I think you’d be on the extreme end of climate change activism saying you wish more powerful company’s publicly denied global warming.

Again, only by ignoring the big picture. It is good as it clears the record and undermines many dunderhead deniers out there, but as the levels of grief tell us, what the companies are doing now is to dodge the implications of what they are claiming now.

@LonghornDave

People are criticizing them for every single angle here. Now because they want to provide revenues to the disproportionately affected poor of increased carbon prices that is also a bad thing?

This ignores that subsidies for the poor can be in the mix. But the point still stands, if you are correct and what they claim in their websites is the beesnees, then it should be easy to show how groups like the Heritage or the Heartland Institute are supporting politicians that are in favor of the gas tax.

[GIGObuster]

@LonghornDave

Sure, when you count dollars donated to totally unrelated causes it makes the dollar amount seem much higher.

It is still no small potatoes, as the Americans for Prosperity and other fossil fuel funded groups did in the 2010 elections. The cumulative effect of all those deniers in congress is benefiting the fossil fuel companies. Even if the elected Republican also has a beef against Obamacare, any congress critter like that will be usually Republican and also a climate change denier.

[LonghornDave]

@GIGObuster

Again, only by ignoring the big picture. It is good as it clears the record and undermines many dunderhead deniers out there, but as the levels of grief tell us, what the companies are doing now is to dodge the implications of what they are claiming now.

You disagree with what Wolfpup says, correct?

@GIGObuster

This ignores that subsidies for the poor can be in the mix. But the point still stands, if you are correct and what they claim in their websites is the beesnees, then it should be easy to show how groups like the Heritage or the Heartland Institute are supporting politicians that are in favor of the gas tax.

I’ll undertake this effort, probably tomorrow. For right now, I have zero idea what specific politicians that Heritage or Heartland or Americans for Prosperity support. I’m sure I can find that and cross reference that with politicians that support carbon tax. Realize that I’m not going to attempt to find every single person out there; I’m going to stop looking after the first person I’ve found. Further, my suspicion is that you will likely find some reason to criticize that even if I find a person unequivocally supported by Heritage that also unequivocally supports a carbon tax. Nevertheless, I’ll look when I get a chance.

[LonghornDave]

@GIGObuster

It is still no small potatoes, as the Americans for Prosperity and other fossil fuel funded groups did in the 2010 elections. The cumulative effect of all those deniers in congress is benefiting the fossil fuel companies. Even if the elected Republican also has a beef against Obamacare, any congress critter like that will be usually Republican and also a climate change denier.

I think you are starting to push the guilty by association angle a few layers too deep.

[GIGObuster]

@LonghornDave

What are you talking about? I pulled that out in a separate post and made a reply about it, that you have since replied to, before I even wrote this post. Where is the avoidance?

This is now the third time you avoid this:

@GIGObuster

Again, show me were their funded groups like Heritage Foundation or Americans for Prosperity are supporting politicians that are in favor of it.

And by it, I was referring to the carbon tax.

[GIGObuster]

@LonghornDave

You disagree with what Wolfpup says, correct?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I already explained that what the companies did with their declarations is good only a very narrow way (specifically to undermine the simple minded deniers out there), overall your point still remains the pits because what they imply in their declarations requires a lot more action than just words.

@LonghornDave

I’ll undertake this effort, probably tomorrow. For right now, I have zero idea what specific politicians that Heritage or Heartland or Americans for Prosperity support. I’m sure I can find that and cross reference that with politicians that support carbon tax. Realize that I’m not going to attempt to find every single person out there; I’m going to stop looking after the first person I’ve found. Further, my suspicion is that you will likely find some reason to criticize that even if I find a person unequivocally supported by Heritage that also unequivocally supports a carbon tax. Nevertheless, I’ll look when I get a chance.

You do that, but I should notice the reason why you were avoiding that, if you had bothered to read or see the Frontline report already linked too, you would had found how it was the kiss of death of any Republican to support that tax and the related Cap-n-Trade plans that were nice ideas supported by Republicans in the past. And the funding of the ones that defeated conservative Republican supporters of the science like Bob Ingus were defeated with the help of groups like the Americans for Prosperity.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/12/08/383676/koch-americans-for-prosperity-bullying-gop-climate-denial/

[Kobal2]

@LonghornDave

This is pretty widely known by analysts that track oil stocks.

And analysts who studied banking practices knew and warned against the coming financial shitstom long before the bottom fell out of the mortgage market. I do believe it still happened, somehow.

Furthermore, read OPEC’s reports, which also discuss this very same thing. They do not like sharp price rises and they don’t want prices so high that they will destroy demand.

Ah, but *steady *price rises… It’s like that frog and frying pan cliché, innit ?
As for destroying demand, you said it yourself : petroleum products are needed, in the short term and the foreseeable future. They certainly will remain so for a good long while if renewable energy efforts keep getting hamstrung.

Sure, when you count dollars donated to totally unrelated causes it makes the dollar amount seem much higher.

I’m counting fuck all. I merely observe that climate denying pseudo-science (and its publicity) keeps getting funded in spite of it being complete bunk, that politicians keep making climate denying statements and that climate denying legislation keeps getting passed.

That all takes money. A heap of it. Again, who benefits from it, enough that they’d be moved to pour serious scratch into that crap ? 'Cause climate change denial isn’t like birth control or gay marriage. There’s precious little individual “morals and values” factors going on there.

[BigT]

@LonghornDave

This is absurd. How have I done a bait and switch. Look at the topic title. Look at the bottom line argument of the OP.

And if you’d posted those in isolation, this thread would be different. But you also posted an opening paragraph saying you believed that these public statements somehow proved that these companies did not fund climate denialism. And the correct response is that this proves absolutely nothing.

Your last statement is not an argument, but a request for agreement. It’s clearly set up to get us to agree to one thing so that we’ll imply agreement with you actual argument. It’s not an argument in and of itself. Even people who hate Big Oil know that they believe in AGW–accusations that they were funding fake science would make no sense otherwise. If the science really would support them, there’s no reason to fake it.

And, BTW, I don’t know jack about this topic. (I commented because I know a lot about how people argue.) But even I knew about these PR statements. And, even after reading this thread, I still believe that Big Oil (well, big fossil fuels) is funding the studies that falsely show that fossil fuels are not causing global warming. Who else has any interest in getting people to believe that lie?

[tomndebb]

@LonghornDave

I find this particular attempt at an analogy to be between situations that are insufficiently similar. I don’t believe this specific difference is at all nitpicky; I find it a fundamental difference that makes comparisons poor.

And you are wrong. You are simply looking for a way to avoid the accurate analogy because it makes “your side” look bad. The analogy is: a large corporation gives lip service to improving its behavior while spending an enormous amount of money to persuade the public that its product is not that bad. It does not matter whether one product is merely recreational while the other is necessary–the actions are identical. That makes it a good analogy.

@LonghornDave

Well, I think there can be a main argument and then several offshoots of discussion. The main argument, as stated in the title, is that Big Oil are not climate change denialists. I think some of the several related arguments that are worth discussing are:

1. Does it matter if they aren’t Denialists?
2. Do they fund denialists?
3. Should they be leading the way on climate change science and alternative fuels?
4. Are they hypocrites if they still produce oil?

You are back to a straw man. No one claims that they are hypocrites for producing oil. The accusation is that they spend a lot of money to tell the public that the way we use oil is not having any effect on the environment. That claim, (that is so obviously a lie that they have to hide their involvement in the publicity campaign) is hypocritical. I have no problem with oil companies producing oil or even promoting their products. I do have a problem with them funding anti-science and obstructionist politicians who are attempting to prevent us from addressing the genuine issues involved with climate change by pretending that humans have no real part in it.
So, the answer to #1 is that it does matter if they are denialists and the fact that they throw a couple of lines on a web page to cover their asses does not stop them from being denialists when they fund anti-science that pretends AGW is not real.
The answer to #2 is that the evidence that several posters have presented point to an answer of “yes” and your sole response is to point to their one-liners on their web pages without providing any substantial rebuttal to the evidence presented.
The answer to #3 is that it would be nice if they showed more civic responsibility and did lead the way, but the criticism is that more than failing to lead the way, they are actually hindering the effort.

@LonghornDave

This is absurd. How have I done a bait and switch. Look at the topic title. Look at the bottom line argument of the OP.

Bait: [some unnamed group of] people accuse the oil companies of funding efforts to deny AGW. Switch: they can’t do that if they put tepid comments on web pages that agree that there could be a climate change issue.
On the one hand, we have an accusation against the companies’ actual behavior that does not actually accuse them of denying climate change. The response (ignoring the actual claim of funding) is that they could not possibly be funding bad science because they said climate change might happen.
If you cannot see how your response utterly fails to address the actual accusation, then you are simply swallowing their propaganda.

@LonghornDave

With that as the primary argument of this OP, how could I have possibly put out a more on point list of sites than the OP without being overly long?

Their feel good one-liners are irrelevant if they are actually funding anti-science. If you want to provide a more “on point” refutation, then point out the errors in the actual accusations that they are engaged in propaganda. For example, where is your response to wolfpup’s link to a study that claimed a link between oil related “charitable” donations and the funding of anti-science “think tanks”?

@LonghornDave

You are seriously stating that I replaced one argument with another when the supposed replacement is the topic title, the bottom line argument in the OP, and what all of the evidence in the OP supports? It’s certainly fair to say I am arguing several things, but you have to twist my words pretty heavily to say that I have not been arguing from the beginning that Big Oil are not denialists. Further, poster in this thread specifically call them denialists. My point on that argument is that they cannot accurately be called climate change denialists when they don’t deny climate change is occurring.

Go back and read your OP, then read my critique of it a couple of paragraphs up.

@LonghornDave

Not in my opinion, and I think many would agree with me.

I don’t put much weight in the opinions of Rex Tillerson or Bob Dudley on this issue.

[LonghornDave]

@GIGObuster

You do that, but I should notice the reason why you were avoiding that, if you had bothered to read or see the Frontline report already linked too, you would had found how it was the kiss of death of any Republican to support that tax and the related Cap-n-Trade plans that were nice ideas supported by Republicans in the past. And the funding of the ones that defeated conservative Republican supporters of the science like Bob Ingus were defeated with the help of groups like the Americans for Prosperity.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/12/08/383676/koch-americans-for-prosperity-bullying-gop-climate-denial/

This is pathetic. I’m trying to be cordial, but I really can’t believe you would be so ridiculous about this. Please at least attempt to cordial and reasonable. You post a series of responses. Just to get the timeline clear on this, you post a series of responses (6 to be exact) at 4:07 PM. I respond a 4:43 PM that same day with my very first response to anything from you on this post with a response on one of the six responses. I then respond at 5:05 with a response to four of your other responses. You then at 5:13 PM respond and accuse me of ignoring the one point I responded to at 4:43 PM accusing me of avoiding it on purpose in my 5:05 PM response for some nefarious reason. I point out at 5:30 PM that in no way did I ignore you but instead responded to this point before all others. I then at 5:45 PM by bringing this item back up and state that I will respond again after some time. It’s not an opinion based question that can just be answered quickly; I need some time to look up the answer to a fact based question that I do not know the answer to. It’s something I do not have the answer to nor do I claim to have the answer to. However, I say I will look it up and get back to you. I then get another accusatory response at 5:56 PM again stating I am avoiding answering and making accusations on motivations behind avoiding answering.

Simply put, give me a fucking minute to look up the answer to something I don’t know the answer to. I’m not avoiding anything. I’m doing my best to respond to several points, many of which (including from you) are avoiding specific points I make. I’m not avoiding anything. I’m being perfectly honest and saying I don’t have the slightest clue what the answer to your fact based question is. I’ll take some time and look up the answer. Give me a fucking minute and quit making up shit accusing me of avoiding anything. I’m not avoiding one single thing.