Exxon Mobil Urges White House To Stick With Paris Climate Agreement - Polidicks

[quote]Less than a week before President Donald Trump signed an executive order rolling back major elements of the Obama administration’s climate change policies, one of the largest gas and oil companies in America advised the White House to remain a participant in the Paris climate agreement. In a letter sent March 22 to the White House, Exxon Mobil urged the Trump administration not to pull out of the Paris Agreement, calling the landmark deal reached in 2015 an “effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change” and the “first major international accord” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In response to news of the letter, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tweeted Wednesday that it was “pathetic that the largest oil company in the world” has to tell the president about climate change. It is pathetic that the largest oil company in the world understands more about climate change than the president of the United States. [url]https://t.co/5EPP05KNUE[/url][/quote] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-mobil-trump-administration-paris-climate-accord_us_58dc412ae4b05eae031d0199[/url]

What the fuck even an oil company is telling Trump off [editline]2nd April 2017[/editline] Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality Open your eyes, look up to the skies and see

Well that's definitely something you don't see every day.

Is there any other source? Huffington Post is not exactly something I would consider trustworthy. Actually there is: [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/business/energy-environment/trump-business-climate-policy.html?_r=0"]New York Times:[/URL] [QUOTE]Jeffrey R. Immelt, General Electric’s chief executive, says climate change is real, a position at odds with the Trump administration. As a member of a White House manufacturing advisory council, he also has President Trump’s ear. And environmentalists are counting on Mr. Immelt, and other executives close to the president, to use that access to argue for policies to combat global warming when the White House is rolling them back. The companies’ business objectives and credibility are also at stake. Elon Musk of Tesla, another member of Mr. Trump’s council, is building an energy business intended to avoid the need for fossil fuels in favor of solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles. Doug McMillon of Walmart, the retail giant, has committed his company to a sharp reduction in the planet-warming gases it emits, as has Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo, the food and beverage company. BlackRock, the world’s largest publicly traded money manager — whose chief executive, Laurence D. Fink, sits on Mr. Trump’s council — has pledged to press companies to address the effects of climate change on their businesses. And Intel, Johnson & Johnson and Campbell Soup were among hundreds of businesses that urged the United States after Mr. Trump’s election to stick with the Paris climate agreement and its commitment to reduce carbon emissions. Continue reading the main story RELATED COVERAGE Coal Mining Jobs Trump Would Bring Back No Longer Exist MARCH 29, 2017 China Poised to Take Lead on Climate After Trump’s Move to Undo Policies MARCH 29, 2017 Trump Signs Executive Order Unwinding Obama Climate Policies MARCH 28, 2017 Policy Shift Helps Coal, but Other Forces May Limit Effect MARCH 28, 2017 “Mr. Trump says the business perspective is especially important, so hearing the business voice is critical,” said Kevin Moss, of the World Resources Institute, an environmental research group in Washington. “The companies are demonstrating that it’s in their business interest to take action on climate,” he said. “The more they’re willing to say that and take action, the stronger the message comes across.” Those hopes have become increasingly urgent as Mr. Trump — against the warnings of scientists, environmentalists and even the government’s own research — has moved to nullify the Obama administration’s efforts on climate change. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump directed the Environmental Protection Agency to start withdrawing and rewriting Mr. Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which would have closed hundreds of coal-fired power plants.[/QUOTE]

Oh man, Trump really is gonna unite all just by through his sheer stupidity. 7 dimensional volleyball!!!

I may not be remembering my history super well, but Exxon were one of the first giant in the industry to actually start performing research into climate change were they not? Even if the research never really saw daylight in the name of maintaining profit. It's interesting to see them pushing for this, perhaps they have actually realised that you can't do business very well when a good portion of the earth is underwater or baked to all fuck. Or they have intentions of entering the renewable energy market in a larger manner.

Yeah I mean if the world destabilizes because we aren't prepared its going to hurt or potentially destroy every industry in the long run, eventually they're going to have to acknowledge it.

Perhaps Exxon does not want competition from a resurgent coal market--in either its oil or renewables ventures. This stinks of the kind of run-of-the-mill special-interest whining oil companies have always done. [editline]not this guy again[/editline] Not that they would have anything to worry about in the first place with all the support they already get, but I suppose there's nothing wrong with hedging one's bets. We really don't need the government picking favorites in the energy market.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52048782]Perhaps Exxon does not want competition from a resurgent coal market--in either its oil or renewables ventures. This stinks of the kind of run-of-the-mill special-interest whining oil companies have always done.[/QUOTE] Are you really going to do this, the guy who thinks everything Trump does is with good intent? I for one am just fine with this. Even with profits in mind, anything that tries to keep the environment better is a good thing.

Satire becomes reality. [QUOTE=]"It is pathetic that the largest oil company in the world understands more about climate change than the president of the United States."[/QUOTE] -snip--I deserve it.- [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Reaction video." - Pascall))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Chonch;52048782]Perhaps Exxon does not want competition from a resurgent coal market--in either its oil or renewables ventures. This stinks of the kind of run-of-the-mill special-interest whining oil companies have always done.[/QUOTE] Are you criticising this when it's clear that Trump doesn't believe in something that has been proven scientifically many times? Blinding defending Trump does not win you any favours.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52048782]Perhaps Exxon does not want competition from a resurgent coal market--in either its oil or renewables ventures. This stinks of the kind of run-of-the-mill special-interest whining oil companies have always done.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure Exxon knows full well they have little to fear from coal energy. They might fear renewable but I doubt coal is even a thing on the map for them to worry about.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52048782]Perhaps Exxon does not want competition from a resurgent coal market--in either its oil or renewables ventures. This stinks of the kind of run-of-the-mill special-interest whining oil companies have always done.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, I forgot the era of coal-powered car. Exxon sure have something to fear!

Oh, the irony. I can only hope Trump listens to a company he thinks he can line his pockets with.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52048845]I'm pretty sure Exxon knows full well they have little to fear from coal energy. They might fear renewable but I doubt coal is even a thing on the map for them to worry about.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;52048956]Ah yes, I forgot the era of coal-powered car. Exxon sure have something to fear![/QUOTE] When it comes to energy production, simple market competition is only a small part of the challenge. This agreement effectively rules out the kind of coal-revival agenda the President wants to go ahead with. Regardless of the viability of such a scheme, the fact is that every federal dollar spent subsidizing coal is one less dollar that would otherwise go to established oil projects. Exxon Mobil would be foolish to not take advantage of such an opportunity to diminish a potential rival for the public teat, not to mention the immeasurable good PR this gives them. [editline]2nd April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE]Ensuring that parties to the Paris Agreement remain focused on pursuing the most cost effective options will help ensure that finite financial resources are managed wisely and not wasted. A level playing field is important in order to achieve economic growth and poverty reduction at the lowest cost to society.[/QUOTE] This does not read to me like a company genuinely interested in combating the possibility of climate change, but one seeking to maintain the regulatory status quo it finds favorable.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52049031]When it comes to energy production, simple market competition is only a small part of the challenge. This agreement effectively rules out the kind of coal-revival agenda the President wants to go ahead with. Regardless of the viability of such a scheme, the fact is that every federal dollar spent subsidizing coal is one less dollar that would otherwise go to established oil projects. Exxon Mobil would be foolish to not take advantage of such an opportunity to diminish a potential rival for the public teat, not to mention the immeasurable good PR this gives them.[/quote] And how is that a bad thing? The viability of trying to revive the coal industry [I]is[/I] relevant. Or are you supportive of pouring taxpayer money into failing ventures? [Quote]This does not read to me like a company genuinely interested in combating the possibility of climate change, but one seeking to maintain the regulatory status quo it finds favorable.[/QUOTE] Status quo that happens to align with a more reasonable approach to climate change than whatever Trump has in mind. What is your point?

[QUOTE=_Axel;52049152]And how is that a bad thing? The viability of trying to revive the coal industry [I]is[/I] relevant. Or are you supportive of pouring taxpayer money into failing ventures? Status quo that happens to align with a more reasonable approach to climate change than whatever Trump has in mind. What is your point?[/QUOTE] I have posted my point eight posts upwards, but I suppose a broader point would be that crony capitalism exists on both sides of this agreement, far more so than any environmentalist sentiment.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52048707]I may not be remembering my history super well, but Exxon were one of the first giant in the industry to actually start performing research into climate change were they not? Even if the research never really saw daylight in the name of maintaining profit. It's interesting to see them pushing for this, perhaps they have actually realised that you can't do business very well when a good portion of the earth is underwater or baked to all fuck. Or they have intentions of entering the renewable energy market in a larger manner.[/QUOTE] The oil companies have always been the ones with the most data about climate change. They are extremely aware of the consequences of their actions, but for a long while they never did anything about it because they believed that someone else would solve it. Now that the we're cutting it really, really close to an international catastrophe, they've been doing a lot. You know that gigantic gas bubble under the arctic? They've been developing ways to drain it. You've heard of those inventors developing and implementing water-cleaning machines? The oil companies have been funding them. It's a shame this had to come about not because of the 'goodness of their hearts,' but because of the threat of the company's annihilation over the next 20-100 years. [editline]2nd April 2017[/editline] They're also the ones to fund research on alternative and renewable energy, including nuclear fission and fusion research. Oil companies are moreso energy companies that just oil, it's just that oil is where they make most of their money.

"Picking favorites in the energy market" is kind of the point of the Paris agreements. You won't treat coal and wind energy as equally valuable energy sources when you want to reduce your carbon emissions. As for this advantaging some industries over others, that's what you want to do to entice energy companies to create and optimize more environment friendly energy sources.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52049264]The oil companies have always been the ones with the most data about climate change. They are extremely aware of the consequences of their actions, but for a long while they never did anything about it because they believed that someone else would solve it. Now that the we're cutting it really, really close to an international catastrophe, they've been doing a lot. You know that gigantic gas bubble under the arctic? They've been developing ways to drain it. You've heard of those inventors developing and implementing water-cleaning machines? The oil companies have been funding them. It's a shame this had to come about not because of the 'goodness of their hearts,' but because of the threat of the company's annihilation over the next 20-100 years. [editline]2nd April 2017[/editline] They're also the ones to fund research on alternative and renewable energy, including nuclear fission and fusion research. Oil companies are moreso energy companies that just oil, it's just that oil is where they make most of their money.[/QUOTE] Some of the technologies they've come up with are pretty neat to be honest. Which isn't surprising as they've had the data needed to mitigate the problem for decades by this point, just no incentive to use it. I know a few energy companies over here are putting in the effort of minimising energy usage and implementing renewables where they reasonably can. Offering subsidised pricing and junk to clients in some cases as well.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52049363]Some of the technologies they've come up with are pretty neat to be honest. Which isn't surprising as they've had the data needed to mitigate the problem for decades by this point, just no incentive to use it. I know a few energy companies over here are putting in the effort of minimising energy usage and implementing renewables where they reasonably can. Offering subsidised pricing and junk to clients in some cases as well.[/QUOTE] I think most of the renewable stuff isn't because of the environment or global warming, it's because it's an emerging market that is looking to boom big in the coming decades. This is most apparent when seeing China's recent moves to take huge leaps in that sector, they know it's coming too. The stuff they do with the environment in mind is the stuff we never see or hear about, or realize is actually run by the oil companies. It's also very few and far inbetween.

[QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;52048956]Ah yes, I forgot the era of coal-powered car. Exxon sure have something to fear![/QUOTE] Damn you, Exxon. Don't you know how expensive it is to maintain a coal-fired water heater in this day and age?! I take long showers, man!

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52048707]I may not be remembering my history super well, but Exxon were one of the first giant in the industry to actually start performing research into climate change were they not? Even if the research never really saw daylight in the name of maintaining profit.[/QUOTE] Their research saw more than the light of day back in the early stages. Exxon helped make many old climate models. Exxons research in the 70's was unprecedented. They remained so for years later. Then, they started funding campaigns to discredit climate change and prolong the "debate." Perhaps they've finally realized it's time to face it rather than ignore it.

Oil companies pulling theirs heads out of their asses is a-okay in my book. Too bad it was during the wrong administration.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;52050350]Oil companies pulling theirs heads out of their asses is a-okay in my book. Too bad it was during the wrong administration.[/QUOTE] Would you rather them go along with this administration? This is the best administration for them to do this.

[QUOTE=OvB;52050356]Would you rather them go along with this administration? This is the best administration for them to do this.[/QUOTE] I mean if they had done this during the last administration we'd be making serious progress towards climate change prevention rather than simply doing our best to stall climate change for as long as possible.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52048782]Perhaps Exxon does not want competition from a resurgent coal market--in either its oil or renewables ventures. This stinks of the kind of run-of-the-mill special-interest whining oil companies have always done. [editline]not this guy again[/editline] Not that they would have anything to worry about in the first place with all the support they already get, but I suppose there's nothing wrong with hedging one's bets. We really don't need the government picking favorites in the energy market.[/QUOTE] Actually if the government started showing favouritism to clean energy providers I wouldn't mind that at all.

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52050390]I mean if they had done this during the last administration we'd be making serious progress towards climate change prevention rather than simply doing our best to stall climate change for as long as possible.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I jumped the gun on that without thinking. Still, better late than never.

I know everyone is shocked by an oil company supporting the Paris Agreement, but they should note that any wind or solar powered future has to be backed up by copious amounts of natural gas. If a nation switches from 100% coal power to 100% natural gas they essentially halve their emissions from power generation.

[QUOTE=download;52051228]I know everyone is shocked by an oil company supporting the Paris Agreement, but they should note that any wind or solar powered future has to be backed up by copious amounts of natural gas. If a nation switches from 100% coal power to 100% natural gas they essentially halve their emissions from power generation.[/QUOTE] still they did support him gutting the epa and were against the clean power plant plan which basically is the linchpin of the paris climate accords