Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Exxon Mobile has courageously rejected suggestions that it should include the impact of the Paris Accord on its business model, in its financial disclosures to shareholders, by dismissing the possibility of meaningful global action to curb CO2 emissions.
ExxonMobil has challenged a shareholder resolution that calls for the company to show how its business will be affected by the global commitment to dramatically slow global warming.
The resolution—filed by the New York State comptroller’s office and four co-filers—also seeks an explanation of how Exxon will address those impacts. Exxon notified the Securities and Exchange Commission that it wants to block a vote on the proposal at its annual meeting in May. The fossil fuel giant argued that it’s unlikely that strict emissions restrictions will be imposed to meet the goal of holding global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius that world governments agreed to in last year’s Paris climate accord.
By challenging the resolution, Exxon positioned itself as an outlier in the oil industry’s growing acceptance of the consequences of burning fossil fuels and the urgency to halt global warming, some industry analysts said. The SEC recently denied a request by AES Corp., a generating company in Virginia, to block a similar shareholder resolution.
“It’s a little bit like a toddler putting their fingers in their ears and saying if I can’t hear you then what you’re saying isn’t true,” said Shanna Cleveland, manager of the Carbon Asset Risk Initiative at the nonprofit sustainability advocacy group Ceres. Exxon’s position signals that while nearly 200 countries around the world agreed to the Paris accord, Exxon remains on the sidelines, she said.
The bullying sometimes works; AES corp, referenced in the quote above, as a company which complies with green demands, included the following statement in its most recent annual report;
Regulators, politicians, non-governmental organizations and other private parties have expressed concern about greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions and the potential risks associated with climate change and are taking actions which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
As discussed in Item 1.— Business , at the international, federal and various regional and state levels, rules are in effect and policies are under development to regulate GHG emissions, thereby effectively putting a cost on such emissions in order to create financial incentives to reduce them. In 2015 , the Company’s subsidiaries operated businesses which had total CO 2 emissions of approximately 67.6 million metric tonnes, approximately 27.4 million of which were emitted by businesses located in the U.S. (both figures ownership adjusted). The Company uses CO 2 emission estimation methodologies supported by “The Greenhouse Gas Protocol” reporting standard on GHG emissions. For existing power generation plants, CO 2 emissions data are either obtained directly from plant continuous emission monitoring systems or calculated from actual fuel heat inputs and fuel type CO 2 emission factors. The estimated annual CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel electric power generation facilities of the Company’s subsidiaries that are in construction or development and have received the necessary air permits for commercial operations are approximately 7.8 million metric tonnes (ownership adjusted). This overall estimate is based on a number of projections and assumptions which may prove to be incorrect, such as the forecasted dispatch, anticipated plant efficiency, fuel type, CO 2 emissions rates and our subsidiaries’ achieving completion of such construction and development projects. However, it is certain that the projects under construction or development when completed will increase emissions of our portfolio and therefore could increase the risks associated with regulation of GHG emissions. Because there is significant uncertainty regarding these estimates, actual emissions from these projects under construction or development may vary substantially from these estimates.
The non-utility, generation subsidiaries of the Company often seek to pass on any costs arising from CO 2 emissions to contract counterparts, but there can be no assurance that such subsidiaries of the Company will effectively pass such costs onto the contract counterparties or that the cost and burden associated with any dispute over which party bears such costs would not be burdensome and costly to the relevant subsidiaries of the Company. The utility subsidiaries of the Company may seek to pass on any costs arising from CO 2 emissions to customers, but there can be no assurance that such subsidiaries of the Company will effectively pass such costs to the customers, or that they will be able to fully or timely recover such costs.
Foreign, federal, state or regional regulation of GHG emissions could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial performance. The actual impact on the Company’s financial performance and the financial performance of the Company’s subsidiaries will depend on a number of factors, including among others, the degree and timing of GHG emissions reductions required under any such legislation or regulation, the cost of emissions reduction equipment and the price and availability of offsets, the extent to which market based compliance options are available, the extent to which our subsidiaries would be entitled to receive GHG emissions allowances without having to purchase them in an auction or on the open market and the impact of such legislation or regulation on the ability of our subsidiaries to recover costs incurred through rate increases or otherwise. As a result of these factors, our cost of compliance could be substantial and could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.
Read more: Yahoo Finance
NOTE – this is NOT the complete AES statement on climate risk, it is just the part I found interesting.
If a company complies with green bullying, they seem to end up spending ridiculous amounts of management time and effort producing environmental financial impact reports. If they fight the bullies, they risk spending ridiculous amounts of management time and effort, challenging government backed climate zealots in the courts. Either way, companies lose – the only question is by how much.
I applaud Exxon’s brave decision to fight this lunacy; but on a macroeconomic level, you have to wonder how much harm this utter waste of corporate time and effort is doing to the US economy, to the reputation of the USA as a good place to invest, and to US jobs growth.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mobil vs Mobile in word two
Beyond that – the Company operates according to laws and will defend technical positions.
How this pans out will depend a lot on who our next president is.
No doubt Hillary or Bernie would zealously continue Obama’s legacy of nonsense about America leading the world on fighting climate change. The EU has been sabotaging their economy for over a decade with the ETS while the U.S. lags behind with no binding regulation.
But they might be persuaded to pursue Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. Making them on assembly lines like Boeings would mean a huge source of jobs and provide cheap energy for infrastructure. If it takes CO2 scare tactics to bring about LFTRs, I say fine.
Thorium Reactors (sic) – the 100 mpg carburetor of the 21st century.
davidgmillsatty
February 27, 2016 at 9:51 am
“If it takes CO2 scare tactics to bring about LFTRs, I say fine.”
Lies and scare tactics are no one’s friends, even if a good thing or two could happen. David, resist the large and epidemic amorality of this terrible era of ours. The end game won’t produce any good.
The greens won’t ever embrace nuclear energy. They are against anyone having a good standard of living.
Gary Pearse
+ lots.
Auto
Continued regulation is why one should not vote Democratic unless one has accepted CAGW. Most of what Obama has proposed is not yet in effect yet, and can mostly be reversed.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Watts Up With That? wrote:
> Auto commented: “Gary Pearse + lots. Auto” >
Since Trump’s run began gathering momentum, I’ve noticed its suddenly much, MUCH more “possible” to publicly question AGW. More skeptics are speaking out, and Exxon cannot have failed to notice what percentage of their stockholders are not AGW “true believers.” This IS a courageous move by them, and I hope it will set an example for other companies to resist the non-problem of a failed hypothesis. They should CALL it such, out loud in the press.
Actually, everyone except Kasich (and I am unsure about him) is publicly opposed to AGW policy as currently practiced. Trump and Cruz are the noisiest about their opposition, but Rubio and Carson are on record in opposition.
I notice this too. I’m also watching money flow more closely for signs of exodus from green energy scams but as of now they seem buoyed by the subsidy extension of 5 years that US Congress gave. Lots of new contracts in the pipeline esp for solar.
I also see that Japan is going all in on fossils, namely coal.
Splintering is occurring.
Specifically what makes it courageous? They are resisting something that would have an adverse impact on their future business. Pragmatic? Yes. Courageous? Not so much.
Chris, Most other oil majors (with the exception of Chevron) have joined the gullible warming chorus line precisely because it is good for business (demonise cheap coal = sell more gas; because everyone capable of rational thought understands that windmills and mirrors aren’t alternative energies, unless one resides in an alternative reality). So from that point of view ExxonMobil is doing and saying what is correct rather than what is politically correct or even what is good for business in the foreseeable future, they are also the only oil major not speaking with a forked tongue and pretending to wring their hands about gullible warming and for that (and being the only oil company with the minerals to do as much) they are to be applauded.
Take a look at some of the statements being made by, particularly european, oil majors and hear them talk about how gullible warming is the greatest challenge to humanity evah, and how with their ‘experience’ of major projects, they are actually part of the ‘solution’, blah, blah, blah. It always end with the same brilliant strategy to put a ‘price’ on carbon (dioxide) and encourage the greater use of gas (which they sell) as part of an energy transformation. Further down the track they’ll imagine CCS and offshore wind, which they’re meant to be well positioned to deliver, but only if the political climate is right (e.g. the subsidies are there for the picking). All smells like what it is, the only two who aren’t playing the game (the only two who aren’t complete hypocrites) are ExxonMobil and Chevron.
Erny72, what is your evidence that the other oil majors do not believe that AGW is real? If they believe it is real, and that we need to make a slow transition away from fossil fuels – first, away from coal, then away from gasoline, then away from natural gas, then their statements are not hypocritical at all.
One cannot underestimate the essentilal nihilism of the green blob. Anything that works, or looks like it will work, is opposed by the avid greens. Cheap, abundant energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun, remember, so the energy industry is evil.
It is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. (H/T P.J. O’Rourke)
There are actually three fluids of which teenage boys should be wary:
1. Gasoline
2. Alcohol
3. Perfume.
The longer a boy holds out, the better chance he has of succeeding.
I wonder if this writing and graphs might be of interest to Watts Up …. Please let me know. Stan Jakuba, MIT ’70 43 Westbrook Rd West Hartford CT 06107
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Watts Up With That? wrote:
> Eric Worrall posted: ” Guest essay by Eric Worrall Exxon Mobile has > courageously rejected suggestions that it should include the impact of the > Paris Accord on its business model, in its financial disclosures to > shareholders, by dismissing the possibility of meaningful gl” >
Exxon is placing a bet: that they will not have to worry about internalising the CAGW meme into their corporate ethic. In other words, it is an external phenomenon that has to be managed like other risks. The wisdom is that the only way green agenda people can force Exxon to internalise the whole kit and caboodle would be to buy shares and vote them. As the green agenda is to bring oil companies to a complete halt through disinvestment, that option is ruled out.
It is also possible that certain countries would far rather work with Exxon because Exxon will not be placing all manner of conditions on recipients of their fuel products as a hegemonic extension of their “green beliefs”.
Agreed. We can include the fact that ANY energy company would be derelict in its fiduciary duty if it did NOT access the probability that rules such as the EPA’s will never be enforced or, if enforced, WHEN that might occur. Given those probabilities is is then possible to estimate the financial impact.
Hi,
While Exxon is placing a bet you have the wager wrong – it is betting that not enough people in the future will believe or care about climate change to do anything about it. The shareholders are asking what happens is that is wrong — i.e enough people believe in climate change to enforce legislation that harms oil companies.
This has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is true it is purely about whether or not people will
believe it. And given the current state of public opinion Exxon’s response is I think extremely risky since there is a good chance that there will be future caps on the amount of oil that can be drilled thus impacting Exxon’s future profits and assets.
“This has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is true it is purely about whether or not people will believe it”
Anyway… Exxon is in no way more informed than anyone about who will be president and what will be voted.
The laws are supposed to protect the “weak”. The weak shareholder is the person without access to closed doors meetings. Are there closed door meetings where the future is predicted?
Having no valuable undisclosed information, Exxon isn’t hiding anything about the state of the (political) climate.
Exxon shouldn’t be forced to “disclose” already public information.
Geromino, are you referring to public opinion, or political opinion? Every opinion poll (including the UN’s own ‘one world’ survey) indicates that public opinion on gullible warming is somewhere near ‘couldn’t care less’, it’s only in the political arena (and in the gobshite’s corners at that) where talking about being seen to be doing something about gullible warming still has any traction. But since public opinion eventually dictates political opinion (at least as far as pure fashion topics like gullible warming are concerned) then I would say ExxonMobil has made the right bet and it’s those companies that assume there is a continued profit to be made from gullible warming advocacy and make their investments today accordingly who are at risk of stranding their assets tomorrow. What use will expensive capital investment in grand offshore windparks or gas infrastructure that was underwritten by the expectation of growing demand in electricity generation be once the world comes to it’s senses and realizes coal and uranium were the correct fuels for power generation all along since their affect on the weather is three fifths of five eights of far call?
ExxonMobil gets on doing what it does without the noise or flashy showmanship of some of it’s peers and without over-reacting to short term distractions, so if they’re saying ‘sod off’ to green blob minority shareholders, then I’d be inclined to wonder how long it is before the more reactionary companies are doing the same rather than wondering what sort of imaginary risk ExxonMobil are uniquely exposing themselves to.
‘It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true’ – Paul Watson, Greenpeace.
http://www.aim.org/wls/author/paul-watson/
‘Nuff said. And with complicit multi-media, the hearts and minds of the masses are further moulded (molded?) into the shape of the Green Future. Kind of like a bowl of Green Jell-O, a quivering blob ready to engulf the rest of the Western world….
Regards,
MCR
Exxon is the new Keystone target, much like Walmart is targeted by the unions out of a huge retail space.
Greenies should acquire controlling interest in Exxon and shut the company down and incur the financial loss involved. Instead of doing this they want other others to incur the financial loss. Destruction of wealth.
Maybe Exxon can find another country to do business in?
The 32% reduction goal of the US’s Clean Power Plan will reduce anthro global CO2 by 1.6%. Wow. Impressive, no?
…and, to impress everyone even more (sarc), anthropogenic global CO2 is a small fraction of total CO2 entering the atmosphere, so the real total reduction is much smaller than the 1.6%.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-much-of-atmospheric-co2-increase-is-natural/
https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/how-much-of-the-atmospheric-co2-is-anthropogenic/
The tiny anthropogenic component is merely noise riding on the overwhelming controlling natural portion.
boulder, CO2 has risen from about 300ppm to 400ppm in the last 60 years, and it should be more, as nature has already sucked half of the anthropogenic output. So that is plus 33%, methinks.
I believe we are now at 36 Gt CO2/year, or 10 Gt Carbon. But that’s not the point. The CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels if “new” Carbon into the global carbon cycle. It has been captured and stored for millions of years and is now being returned to the carbon cycle as additional carbon. The 190-225 Gt CO2 you refer to is already in the annual carbon cycle. The reason CO2 has gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is because our additions are substantial compared to the amount of carbon that is in the annual cycle of plant growth and decay. The oceans contain about 45 times as much carbon as the atmosphere, but only the surface layer is in annual flux.
By the way, I am totally OK with our CO2 emissions, they are resulting in faster growth of crops and trees. And it looks less and less likely they will warm the planet enough, if any, to avert another major glaciation.
Is this the real Patrick Moore formerly of Greenpeace ?
If you don’t mind, I’d love to hear your opinion on the 3 most important priorities that the environmental profession should have these days. Possibly, I’m not alone in wanting to hear your opinion.
Obviously, the profession has lost its way and is likely to have a significant implosion once the CAGW movement crumbles.
Thanks
Thanks for the link. Interviews are a bit like tennis. Volley volley slice smash repeat.
If the issue is about the toxicity of roundup as compared to ummm ahhh natural products such as dung, it would be well advised to drink neither as that would be an inappropriate use of the product.
I am interested to hear his top 3 environmental priorities. Perhaps others would be interested as well.
It is a political risk so it will be dealt with like all other political risks.
“… you have to wonder how much harm this utter waste of corporate time and effort is doing to the US economy, to the reputation of the USA as a good place to invest, and to US jobs growth. …”
But that’s the whole point of it, Eric. Perhaps the next Presidential will start treating them as domestic enemies, attacking the national interest, and harming humans? If animals get legal protection from deliberate harm, I don’t see why humans shouldn’t get protection from malign green @rseholes. 😉
It’s amazing how the leftist agenda and the anti-AGW agenda just happen to match up so perfectly.
That’s what India did to greenpeace. When their beliefs start damaging the economy then they’re domestic terrorists and should be treated as such under the law.
“Indians very wise” Tonto said so!
“he oil industry’s growing acceptance of the consequences of burning fossil fuels and the urgency to halt global warming”
this acceptance is based on a spurious correlation
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743
I have been getting trolled by a “green bully” whining about exxon covering up something about climate change or whatever they want to call it, the really big question is why can’t these green bullies provide actual working proof ( not data ) of an actual model showing man made climate change in action, instead of their constant links to known liars, to try to get you to “believe”
..It is a religion, therefore, no need for proof !!
The actual hilarity of the greens blaming an oil company for rising Co2 levels seems lost on them. The Oil companies are not burning the oil, millions of people are!
The Oil companies are not burning the oil
========================
oil is addictive. once you start burning it, you cannot stop. the more you burn, the more you want to burn, regardless of price. just like tobacco. therefore it is the oil companies fault, for selling an addictive product. because whatever happens to us, it is someone else’s fault.
we are helpless victims, exploited by corporate greed. and sexism and racism. it is all the oil companies fault. without oil none of this would have happened.
You forgot the “/sarc”
It was very clear to me that the /sarc tag was implied and unnecessary.
the /sarc tag was implied
=============
this part wasn’t sarcasm: “without oil none of this would have happened.”
our modern world would not have happened without oil. the same way that coal saved the forests from being cut down, oil saved plants and animals from being turned into fuel and industrial products on a massive scale. whales were not hunted for their meat. they were hunted for their oil. without the discovery of petroleum there would be no whales.
We take our modern conveniences for granted. We worry that a few degrees of warming in the Arctic will bring Armageddon to the earth. We want to put the genie back in the bottle, without stopping to ask what riches the genie has brought us.
Good for Exxon, whatever their reasoning. A lie is a lie and caving to it is never beneficial in the long run. Think I’ll buy some stock.
Excelent Exxon, I do hope you get a president that is not PC , tells it as it is and stands up to the greens and fellow travellers, then you will be cooking with gas, pun intended.
Any company has a strict duty to not mislead potential shareholders. When a company issues stock, it issues a prospectus. In the prospectus there is a risk section which must be brutally honest and complete. If it falls short then the shareholders can sue the company and the directors. Here’s an example.
Exxon has to mention anything that could materially affect the market for oil or which could expose it to liability. That’s where its obligation ends. If they don’t think the risk will materialize or if they are willing to gamble that it won’t, they don’t have to deal with it in their business plan.
Example:
An engineering company, which sells services and products to other engineering firms, cited the risk that its customers could become its competitors. In other words, any of its larger customers could decide to put it out of business. As far as I can tell, that was never dealt with in their business plan because doing so would have been a waste of resources. (The company was eventually bought out by a customer and the shareholders did well.)
Trying to deal with every conceivable risk is silly.
…Liberal stupidity ! Killing America, one company at a time !
Marcus for you : http://www.steynonline.com/7480/getting-it
“Carbon Asset Risk” is a subterfuge. Asset risk is the least thing they are concerned with. It’s just one more Greenie ploy.
“putting a cost on such emissions in order to create financial incentives”
with creation like that, who needs demolition?
Come to think of it, what about all the “green” assets that are at risk, when the CAGW ideology propping it up comes crashing down? Someone should be advising them on this. It would be such a shame for them to lose all that money.
Suppose the Greenpeace ships run on Solar?
And sails and oars. A galley would suit them nicely with “deniers” chained to the oars as the green masters beat the stroke and crack the whip
I wonder what happens when the”Lefties”run out of “Other Peoples”money?
Stephana, it’s CO2, not Co2. Once again…. (sigh)
Oh my god, Carbon pollution has screwed thinks up so much that Cobalt’s turning into Carbon!
I think you mean carbon in the fuel is being turned into molecular Cobalt dimers… Co cobalt in two atom molecules of Co2 … Since carbon is at.wt. 12 to 14 and Cobalt is about 59, this implies fusion of about 10 carbons into 2 Co cobalt atoms in the molecule. Interesting the coal is thus described as making heat via fusion, and it does… but only in stars…
/sarc; for the chemistry impaired. ..
Actually it’s CO2 if that is an acceptable format here.
It seems it isn’t. NO subscript tag..
You don’t get affected by a committment, you get affected by something actually happening.
“It’s a little bit like a toddler putting their fingers in their ears and saying if I can’t hear you then what you’re saying isn’t true,” said Shanna Cleveland, manager of the Carbon Asset Risk Initiative at the nonprofit sustainability advocacy group Ceres.”
Sometimes an thoroughly insulting, but imbecilic comment can only be adequately responded to with an equally insulting, but thoughtful comment. So, here I go:
Shanna, I don’t believe you’re right in describing Exxon as a toddler with their fingers in their ears and saying, ‘I can’t hear you so it isn’t true.’ But, I do believe I’m right in describing you as a toddler with her finger up her a.., and saying, ‘See, I’m not full of s..t.
Good one, Tom. Her childish and imbecilic “toddler” comment stuck in my craw too.
My problem with that comment is Shanna and her greenie friends are the ones putting their fingers in their ears. They use the ad hominum and ad populum logical fallacies to avoid any debate. In fact, her very statement implies she will not debate and therefore is the one going “la la la la la I can’t hear you”. It is strange that the side is begging to have a discussion about the issue is accused of not listening whereas the side that does everything in their power to avoid discussing the issue is considered open-minded. It is bizzaro world where up is down, black is white, and you say goodbye when enter and hello when you leave.
Actually, the warmists are the ones who are more like toddlers.
Toddlers wail and cry to wear down their parents in order to get their wishes – possibly logical from their limited knowledge and view but ignorant of the wider world that their parents must deal with.
I agree with the above posts that a lot depends on who is the next President of the US. But remember in 2014 the US Supreme Court struck down limits on the amount of money corporations can donate to political campaigns. Anyone want to speculate on which side the oil companies will put their money?
If Exxon determines that investing in green technology is both politically and financially expedient given the latter is liberally subsidized, it could change its course. Dunno. Follow the money.
Trump isn’t taking donations. That way, he doesn’t owe the fatcats anything after he gets in Office, and is therefore free to act in the best interests of the United States, rather than in the best interests of the fatcats..
But a lot of senators are sitting there with their hands out!
I’d disclose that there could be future, absurbld, and undetermined regulations put into place by ignorant politicians under pressure from activist wackos that could impact the company financials but that such an effect would be minimal because any such costs would be shifted to consumers.
yep, honest, straight forward.
also note that competitors will be under the same (regulatory) constraints, so no impact; and a waste of time/money addressing conjecture.
“More skeptics are speaking out, and Exxon cannot have failed to notice what percentage of their stockholders are not AGW “true believers.””
Even though they are!
Hypocrites much.
This is the same Exxon that ….. ?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Scientific American? These days it is neither scientific nor American. Sad too. I grew up reading real science that was published in that magazine. These days it is the “Journal of Applied Lysenkoism” owned by a German company.
More than four hundred years ago, people knew there were witches. King James I of England wrote a book on it. When a theory is not able to predict the future and can only predict the recent past and not even the past several thousand years of climate, I regard the theory as religion, not science. You might as well believe in creationism.
“More than four hundred years ago, people knew there were witches. King James I of England wrote a book on it. When a theory is not able to predict the future and can only predict the recent past and not even the past several thousand years of climate, I regard the theory as religion, not science. You might as well believe in creationism.”
Really?
I expect you won’t – but some might….
Watch, and take note that is.
@ur momisugly Toneb:
What a nice, subtle shift of the argument reference frame.
A) What is the evidence that CO2 causes Global Warming?
At 1:47 in the video:
B) What is the evidence that CO2 can cause Global Warming?
Not the same thing. Not the same thing at all.
Radiative physics dictates CO2 can cause GW due to IR absorption.
Dominant processes caused water vapor and convection are the reason CO2 does not cause GW.
Then the video makes the claim that H2O and CO2 are different because H2O can rain out. So What? After a rain, you still have tons of water vapor in the air.
If you overload the air with H2O, it rains out.
If you overload the air with CO2, in dissolves in the oceans.
They are the same.
Bonus Question:
Emit a photon at wavelength = 1500 cm-1 straight up. How far does it get towards the stratosphere before it gets absorbed by an H2O molecule?
Answer: 25 feet.
You expect a few ppm of CO2 to change that?
King James 1 was right about witches, I was once married to one, she terrified my young daughter and me.
Global warming is total BS but there are still women who believe they are witches and act accordingly.
Hmm. Just after the great global cooling scare…
Exxon knew about climate change 40 years ago. Good! They are smarter than the greens because the greenies seem to think the climate didn’t change until a few years ago.
T one b,
Gday mate.
Try a scientific Australian; here he is:-
“Okay, here’s the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know….it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50p light bulbs with £5 light bulbs ….. well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes, FOUR DAYS – by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.
I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippinesin 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it!!!!
Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the westernUSA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus ‘human-caused’ climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention ‘Global Warming’ anymore, but just ‘Climate Change’ – you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past few years and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax……give the world a hug and have a nice day!!
Is there any way to get this published on the front page of the NYT?
Excellent, Warren.
The classic comeback to naturally occurring events is …. paraphrasing
That’s different. Mother nature knows what’s best for her planet. We can’t control volcanoes, but we can control the scaring of the land, the localized polluting of the waters and air we breath. You use volcanoes to excuse the greed and abuse of man’s propensity to be careless w limited resources.
The comeback shifts the argument, taps the emotions, and wields half truths. If you ever have the opportunity, watch the body language of the person who has to listen to the above. The shoulders slump. Head droops. False guilt is easily triggerred.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
“Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised.”
“Furthermore, experts agree that”
“But experts are still piecing together Exxon’s misconception puzzle”
“Although experts will never be able to quantify the damage Exxon’s misinformation has caused”
“Experts agree that the damage is huge”
Noami O., who can’t tell correlation from causation, and think p<.05 rules out spurious correlations, is an "expert", of course.
X being an unknown quantity and a spurt being a drip under pressure ?
Naomi Klein and her 350.org pals should invest all of their money in Exxon and take the loss if and when the company goes down.
Here’s a link to ExxonMobil’s outlook to 2040. This document projects a significantly lower oil production forecast than the IPCC RCP8.5 case, which I’ve pointed out is a pretty senseless forecast. http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-outlook
Homewood has the BP prospectus on his page. Large corporations are notorious for writing them in a style that projects the current known into the future. Focusing on the current known such as projected asset growth with all things being the same is rather pointless.
I’ll take Real Estate Asset Projections for 500 Alex.