Essay by Eric Worrall
Who needs Gasoline?
Big oil privately acknowledged efforts to downplay climate crisis, joint committee investigation finds
Internal documents revealed by committee show companies lobbied against climate laws they publicly claimed to support
Dharna Noor Tue 30 Apr 2024 23.00 AEST
Big oil has privately acknowledged its efforts to downplay the dangers of burning fossil fuels, US Democrats have found.
Major fossil-fuel firms have also pledged support for international climate efforts, but internally admit these efforts are incompatible with their own climate plans. And they have lobbied against climate laws and regulations they have publicly claimed to support, documents newly revealed by the committee show.
The tranche of subpoenaed communications were unveiled on Tuesday morning by Democrats on the House oversight committee before a Wednesday hearing.
“For decades, the fossil-fuel industry has known about the economic and climate harms of its products but has deceived the American public to keep collecting more than $600bn each year in subsidies while raking in record-breaking profits,” said Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who chairs the committee.
…
In a 2019 memo to the CEO, for instance, an Exxon official suggested removing reference to the Paris accord from a document because referencing it “could create a potential commitment to advocate on the Paris agreement goals”.
And in February 2020, BP announced plans to become a net zero emissions company by 2050 or sooner and to “help the world get to net zero”. Private emails sent months before, however, indicate that company top brass may have doubted that goal was achievable.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/30/big-oil-climate-crisis-us-senate-report
The demand for a halt to oil and gas exploration is contained in Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s committee report.
… Perhaps most telling, despite its previous statements supportive of the Paris Agreement, BP’s CEO announced earlier this year that the company would increase oil and gas production from 2024 through 2027, citing increased global demand for energy.94 The increase in production is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement. Scientists are clear that to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, new and expanded oil and gas exploration must stop immediately. 95 MSCI found in its “Implied Temperature Rise” ratings that, if BP’s business plan was extrapolated to the global economy, the world would warm 3.1°C—similar to Exxon’s and Chevron’s ratings and well above Paris Agreement targets.96 The documents, actions, and analyses suggest that BP’s stated commitment to the Paris Agreement is not credible.
Like its peer companies, Shell also first expressed support for the Paris Agreement in 2015 and now claims that it “supports the more ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit the rise in global average temperature this century to 1.5° Celsius. ”97 However, MSCI still estimates that, if extrapolated across the economy, Shell’s activities would be consistent with 2.3°C of warming.98 In 2021, Shell promised to undertake a gradual decline of about 1–2 % a year in total oil production through 2030, including divestments.99 Then, last summer, Shell announced plans to boost fossil fuel production. 100 It now states that oil and gas production will remain stable until 2030 and that it will invest $40 billion in fossil fuel production between 2023 and 2035.101 Shell’s current oil and gas expansion plans are inconsistent with the Paris Agreement. Despite originally pledging to reach net zero by 2050 for its total emissions consistent with the Paris Agreement, Shell now concedes that the “2050 target is ‘currently outside our planning period.’”102
Read more: https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fossil_fuel_report1.pdf
Senator Whitehouse does make some valid points. I’m pretty disappointed by the behaviour of some oil companies, their weak mismanagement of this political confrontation with Democrats is doing nobody any good.
Whitehouse claims that Shell promised a 1-2% / annum drawdown in total oil production. I checked Senator Whitehouse’s reference to this promise, while this isn’t exactly what Shell said, I believe Senator Whitehouse’s interpretation of Shell’s public commitment is a reasonable interpretation, and I accept Senator Whitehouse’s criticism that some oil companies do not appear to have lived up to some of their public commitments.
But Senator Whitehouse’s claim that oil companies concealed their knowledge that climate change would have a catastrophic impact also does not stand up to scrutiny.
For example, Senator Whitehouse’s report rehashes tired claims about ancient internal memos, but the memos I have read in my opinion are not what Senator Whitehouse claims they are.
Read one for yourself.
The memo, and bear in mind this was a private internal memo, is anything but certain that climate change will have catastrophic impact. For example, at the bottom of Page 4, continuing to the top of Page 5.
“There is currently no unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming. If the earth is on a warming trend, we’re not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5° needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations. On the other hand, if climate modelling uncertainties have exaggerated the temperature rise, it is possible that a carbon dioxide induced “greenhouse effect” may not be detected until 2020 at the earliest”.
What is the next move in this ridiculous charade?
Obviously I’d like oil companies who have been trying to cosy up to the Democrats to up their game, stop leading politicians like Whitehouse with assurances they are onboard with Democrat climate initiatives, without following through on those assurances. This kind of behaviour severely weakens the position of oil companies, it makes oil companies look like liars. Such behaviour might even expose oil companies to legal liability, if green investors claim they suffered reputational damage because they were misled by false assurances that oil companies intended to switch to green energy.
But Senator Whitehouse’s apparent acceptance of claims that “new and expanded oil and gas exploration must stop immediately” as established fact is even more absurd than an oil company promising to get out of the oil business.
Senator Whitehouse, if you believe there is a viable alternative to fossil fuel, it is time for you to stop being such a hypocrite. If you truly believe oil and gas are on the brink of ruining the planet, that oil and gas companies are like tobacco companies, that renewables can replace oil and gas, then put your money where your mouth is, and push for an outright ban on oil and gas. Consult your scientists and tell us a hard deadline beyond which we cannot use oil and gas, and make that deadline law. Because without concrete action, all your words are just empty political posturing.
Whitehouse? Explains everything.
I’ve seen this claim made hundreds of times but am curious…
Does anyone know EXACTLY what the supposed subsidies are?
Tax breaks mostly. Except when anyone suggests direct subsidies to renewable operators should be replaced by tax breaks, they usually get upset. So tax breaks are only equivalent to subsidies when they are provided for a cause greens oppose.
Are they really tax breaks? Aren’t they just proper depreciation and other legit business expenses? I don’t know- just guessing. Even if there are some actual tax breaks or subsidies- I doubt the figure is $600 bn.
I doubt they’re really subsidies
A Tax is a fee charged by the government on money a business or individual earns for work done.
A tax break is something the government says YOU DON’T HAVE TO PAY FOR WORK YOU ALREADY DID like the homeowners mortgage interest deduction or the personal exemption.
A Subsidy is money paid BY THE GOVERNMENT for doing nothing and/or producing nothing
Yup, they just don’t pay tax on legitimate business expense deductions, so the global warmunists (who don’t have a clue how a business is run) call that a subsidy.. I wouldn’t be surprised if the figure worldwide is $600B. It costs a lot of money to drill, transport and refine.
I once challenged a warmunist to show me real subsidies, not business expenses. He showed me subsidized gas prices at the pump…in Saudi Arabia. He couldn’t find any in Europe or N. America, and the ones he did find in Arabia subsidized the consumer, not the oil companies.
“Yup, they just don’t pay tax on legitimate business expense deductions, so the global warmunists (who don’t have a clue how a business is run) call that a subsidy..”
You are assuming the climate alarmists don’t have a clue. That’s not true. This is pure, deliberate climate change propaganda on their part, meant to achieve their goal by trying to demonize the oil companies.
There are no susidies for oil companies. Oil comanies take standard business deductions just like every other business in the nation. The U.S. government does not pay money to oil companies, which is the Lie the climate alarmists want everyone to believe.
That’s the problem with “tax breaks” if not indeed the very purpose.
A subsidy can be subject to public scrutiny a tax break cannot.
Private corporate and personal tax records information is sacrosanct and beyond public scrutiny.
The government prefers the tax break method as it obviates the need to explain a subsidy appearing as a line item in a budget.
When the government hides and obscures such squandering of taxpayer dollars, you can guarantee skullduggery is a feature not a bug.
Since the existence of the tax break is public record, there is no hiding going on here.
If you feel that a particular tax break is unjustified, you are quite welcome to state why.
There is no skullduggery going on.
Depreciation is not a subsidy, it’s a business expense.
All companies, including wind and solar companies, use depreciation.
Those on the left feel that for companies and people they don’t like, any tax that is less than 100% is a subsidy.
And, the depletion allowance- which I don’t really understand but it seems to be reasonable.
Gov’t only gives “tax breaks” to encourage some sort of activity that they believe is beneficial but likely wouldn’t happen under the usual business rules of providing a return to investors. So the whole green meme of tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry being “bad” is actually nonsense.
Whitehouse? I can think of a good rhyme for that…
If Whitehouse is certain, why has he not introduced legislation that prohibits exploration for, drilling for, production of, and use of petroleum and fabrication of petroleum products within the US, its dependencies and its continental shelves. That should do it.
And go further- make it a felony to buy any petroleum product or anything made with it. Let’s see how far that would go.
Hmmm
Plastic insulation on wiring
Plastics in general (bottles, jugs, car parts, etc.)
Synthetics (clothing, nylons, elastic waste bands, etc.)
Synthetic Rubber Tires (Tyres for across the pond)
Asphalt Paving (Roads everywhere)
Lightweight Composites (Wind Turbine Blades)
Etc.
Then beyond oil/gas, Coal…
For steel manufacturing (Wind Turbine Masts, Solar Panel Supports, Buildings, etc.)
For silicon refinement (Electronics, Solar Panels, Cell Phones, Computers, etc.)
Petroleum Jelly (thousands of uses and products are dependent)
Almost every transportation component for ICV or EV (Cars Trucks Busses Airplanes Ships)
Make-up
Inks
Paints
Pharmaceuticals
…
None of which can be made without exploration, drilling, mining and processing of Oil, Gas and Coal
Gasoline was just a waste product from petrochemical production and refinement and was simply dumped or burned off until the internal combustion engine was developed to make use of it.
Then natural rubber tires didn’t last more than 10,000 miles so synthetic rubber was developed which lasts up to 80,000 miles today (20,000 miles on EVs so natural rubber would go 2,500 miles)
Of course people didn’t drive much when tires lasted 10,000 miles so the Michelin Tire Company developed there Diner ⭐⭐⭐ Rating System and produced books of places to go eat so that people would use up their tires and need to buy more
Sand doesn’t make a very good lubricant either.
California is considering banning all plastic bags, even the reusable ones because the people of California sren”t reusing them.
Funny because
Breads come packed in single use plastic
Pasta comes in single use plastic
TP and Paper Towels come in single use plastic
Meat comes wrapped in single use plastic
Salad mix comes packed in single use plastic
Produce sections offer single use plastic
Glad sandwich bags are single use plastic
Glad zip loc bags are single use plastic
Cheese, grated sliced or whole, comes in single use plastic
The bags that line your trash cans are single use plastic
The laundry pod refills you buy, so you don’t buy the larger hard plastic container, are packaged in single use plastic
Many grocery products we buy daily are packaged in single use plastic
Denying Plastic Grocery Bags is simply idiotic since everything put into them is in single use plastic.
At least the plastic grocery bags don’t rip requiring double bagging or get weak when wet in the rain, AND can be used a second time to line your waste baskets
Plastic wrap is one of the primary methods humanity has against premature food spoilage for a great many foodstuffs, and is very economical for that purpose compared to the cost of food production, storage, and distribution.
What you are pointing out are NOT FFs, they is products that require petroleum as an ingredient.
Stop the Oil!
The first time I see a Congressional session with all the Representatives and Senators in skin only, then I will accept they believe what they say.
Senator Whitehouse of pipsqueak dark blue state Rhode Island self describes as a ‘political progressive and climate hawk.’ So does AOC—progressive green. The main difference is Whitehouse was a lawyer, while AOC was a bartender. Both still commute to DC using fossil fuels—putting the lie to their posturing.
Senator Whitehouse has voted 100% of the time to increase federal spending and increase the budget cap.
Where does he think the revenue to pay for the increased debt that he votes for will come from in the future if mining natural resources is banned? Because that is exactly what he is arguing for.
You are assuming Senator Whitehouse is operating sincerely. He’s not. It’s all about the money to radical Democrats like Whitehouse.
Clarification: It is all about the money THEY CAN GRAB.
“Senator Whitehouse of pipsqueak dark blue state Rhode Island self describes as a ‘political progressive and climate hawk.’”
Why would a hawk promote windmills? “Death wish”?
Because without concrete action, all your words are just empty political posturing.
No truer statement can be made about politicians. Just like the lawsuits by cities to make oil companies liable for GHG emissions, they cannot ban fossil fuel use in their city. Therefore all they can do is Posture. And that is the only thing they are good at.
I get the impression Whitehouse expects oil companies to make the magic possible, to use their enormous resources to fund his green energy revolution. And to be fair sometimes oil companies have encouraged this delusion.
The AGW proponents have no lack of useful idiots.
Whitehouse is an idiot for sure. Useful, he is not.
He’s definitely an idiot.
“Climate Obsessed Democrats Demand an Oil Exploration Halt in the Middle of a Gasoline Price Crisis”
Crisis? Where?
It’s in the inflated price of everything hurting working people and their families Nick.
But Nick is saving
the planethis paycheck.Nick, Note per your own US graph, when Trump left office regular gas was about a $/gal. Now it is $2.60. About 30%/year inflation over three years. Biden brought down the 2022 peak by depleting the SPR. Not wise. Not refilled.
Gas inflation ~30%. Food inflation 21%. Wage inflation, not nearly so much. It’s Bidenomics. He just retired the term because of its bad connotations, but will still lose because of it. The Bidenomics ‘crisis’ is here, now, in an election year.
You can see the Covid dip. Before 2020 is was about $2.
Gasoline was $1.84 per gallon around the time Trump left office.
U.S. GDP is down to 1.6 percent, which could be a reason the price of gasoline is where it is at today.
The price of gasoline hits everyone from the poorest to the richest, and of course, it hits the poorest the hardest because they don’t have the ability to make up for the price increases because they don’t have any extra money to throw around.
Still a lot lower than it is today.
$2.60 where? It’s about $3.50 in Wokachusetts.
$4.99 locally in Nevada.
Ha, it’s $2.06 CAD per litre here, Vancouver Island.
$3.89 here is rural northern Illinois!
So Nick you don’t think a more than doubling in price (from under $1.00 early 2020 to over $2.50 mid 2024) is a crisis? What is that about 16% inflation?
I don’t get it. Must be only Wokeachusetts has gas at $3.50/gallon?
You should try the UK we’re paying more than £1.50 / litre which is $8.50 per gallon!
Which gallon are you using?
The original 😉
4.5 litres =1 imperial gallon
£1.50/l – £6.75
£6.75 – £8.50
I thought it was 3.785L is a Gallon
Some places in California are reporting over $US7 per US gallon
Some places in California
I was just in San Jose and saw it at $6.40
I just read that $3.60 is the national average. Perhaps $2.60 was a typo?
A small drop from recent record highs has Nick proclaiming there is no, and never was, a problem.
So predictable. BTW, I’m sure you could find data going back further than 4 years.
No. Eric said there was a crisis, and I asked, where?
Your credibility on nearly every subject you opine about Nick.
U.S. GDP is down to 1.6 percent. I’m pretty sure Biden thinks that is a crisis for his election chances.
For every increase in the price of gasoline of $0.80 cents per gallon, U.S. GDP decreases by one percent, according to some experts I listened to on CNBC.
Conversely, for every decrease in the price of a gallon of gasoline by $0.80 cents, U.S. GDP increases by one percent.
It is in the interests of the U.S. and everyone else to have the lowest gasoline prices possible. The lower the price, the more the economy is stimulated.
Those on the left are concerned that economic activity is causing CO2 to be emitted. They have decided that slowing down the economy is good for the environment, so they encourage it whenever they can.
THe increase in gas prices since Biden took office.
CA for one
$5.79
$5.99
$6.19
Driving past our local gas station yesterday
Wow, we are only seeing about $US5.20 per US gallon in central Orange County
And I heard that LA was over $7.00 just a few months ago … $5.20 sucks but it beats $5.79 – $6.19
Let them eat cake eh Nick?
The price of gas where here where I live is currently 4.89 for regular.
yuh, not sure why so many people think it’s in the $2-3 range- do they all own EVs?
Here in southern Maryland it’s $3.59
The equivalent price is nearly double that in Western Australia (yesterday).
You are misreading something. Price in WA is about $A 1.90 per litre. That is 4.73 USD/gallon.
“4.73 USD/gallon.”
Which is nearly double the US price of $2.59 from your graph…
… just as Scissor correctly stated.
You have FAILED basic maths, yet again, Nick !!
WA, as scissor spoke of, is Western Australia.
You truly are off with the fairies today, Nick.
Dementia drugs not working ???
Yes, WA is Western Australia..
Price in Perth is a bit above $1.90/L which you say is equivalent to $4.73 US dollars/gallon..
… which is nearly double the $2.59 shown in your graph.
Try not to make yourself look like a monuMENTAL fool all the time.
Rutherford.. (near Newcastle NSW) $2.20AUD/litre 🙁
That’s about the price around Gracetown here in these parts of Western Australia. Close enough to 2x US price, especially with exchange rate one can get in actuality.
Not misreading anything. Top of your chart says USD/GAL
$2.59? Which planet are you living on? Just bought gas here in Wokeachusetts- I think it was $3.59/gallon. I hear its much more in CA.
In California, we have special gas formula that saves the world faster and is unavailable anywhere else. $6.00 a gallon is the current price we pay to save the world. But there are only a few refineries left in California that make it, so when they need to shut down to replace the light bulbs on the cracking towers, the price rises.
It appears to me that the more “liberal” a place, the more expensive it is due to regulations, taxes and fees. When getting gasoline here yesterday, I noted in my head, that’s about double the Colorado price I last paid. Of course there are octane differences, but close enough.
Pretty much everything is more expensive here in WA than in the states.
“Of course there are octane differences, but close enough.”
I was watching a tv program on the Motor Trend channel the other day where they were comparing octane differences and how much horsepower each blend would make, and they could not find any real differences. Not enough to convince them to pick one over another.
So go out and buy the cheapest blend you can find. Your motor won’t know the difference.
More than DOUBLED since 2020.
What happened in 2020 ! 😉
Wake up to reality, Nick… another FAIL from you. !
COVID
Biden!! In Jan 2021 when prices began to rise
Unclear how COVID causes gas prices to rise, but shutting the XL pipe would have an impact.
Unclear how COVID causes gas prices to rise
It’s LONG Covid.
Mandatory stay and home. Mandatory remote learning. Mandatory remote working. Less driving. Less consumption. Prices drop. Supply and demand.
In Washington State, where the average gasoline price is $4.69/gal, there is no interest in the chart Nick S. provides. The price that counts is the one we see at the pump.
How much is Inslee’s carbon tax adding? I’m in MT and it used to be about 20 cents a gallon cheaper here. It’s $3.54 a gallon today in Missoula.
Commiefornia pays $1.21 in gas taxes on top of the premium paid for their “Special Formulation” that isn’t used in any other state
You need to show a chart of California’s gasoline prices.
Today’s price at the pump: $3.81. The discount station was $3.29.
FYI, that chart is not daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly. It is a running 5 year average.
Climate Obsessed Democrats Demand an Oil Exploration Halt, but “Big oil” only exists because of the wealthier countries being addicted to the products and fuels that are manufactured from fossil fuels that makes OUR life more comfortable?”
OUR needs for smaller and faster electronics, and for bigger and faster planes, ships, and launches into outer space are the only reasons that crude oil is needed.
Thus, before we chastise “big oil” for impacting climate change, we need to ask ourselves “How dare WE to continuously demand the products and fuels made from oil that makes OUR life more comfortable”?
Like the sentiment, Ron, but WE aren’t demanding oil is left in the ground – they are
Whitehouse is a clown. The oil companies are cowards for letting clowns like Whitehouse push them around. My understanding of the Paris Agreement is that it has no authority. There is nothing holding anyone to what they may have agreed with and no penalty for not standing by what you may have agreed with. To say nothing of those outside the Agreement that may have voiced opinions of whether they agree or disagree with parts or all of the Agreement. I’m pretty sure for the US to make agreements like this treaties must come into the conversation at some point and that is a whole other issue. Whitehouse can take his agreement and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
Are any Paris Accord signatories meeting their commitments? And. remember that former President Obama worked very hard to make sure that it was a non-binding agreement, not a treaty. He was concerned that a treaty wouldn’t get through the Senate.
Which of course it wouldn’t.
“The documents, actions, and analyses suggest that BP’s stated commitment to the Paris Agreement is not credible.”
Note to Senator Whitehouse: The Paris Agreement itself was never credible to begin with. Therefore ANY stated commitment to it lacks credibility by nature, in so far that the 1.5C and 2.0C targets/limits never had any sound basis!
It seems a bit of a stretch to infer a few internal memos expressing concern over whether the green plans are viable as a conspiracy to deceive.
It’s not “a stretch”, it is a deliberate distortion of the facts.
Climate Alarmists lie. All the time.
Democrats also believe Big Oil has been lying since the 60’s about Climate Change:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna150255
But it doesn’t make the Democrats right.
If Whitehouse told me it was lightning outside, I would open a window and stick his head out in order to check.
The Big Oil Rico thing goes back to Naomi Oreskes 2010 book, Merchants of Doubt. She should have stuck to her PhD discipline, history of science. Now she will surely be prominently featured in future Histories of Unscience.
Actually Oreskes Bachelor’s degree was in Mining Geology and her Phd was in economic geology and History of Science
Sure, those dam oil companies- way back in the ’60s thoroughly understood climate science! /sarc
I’ve read many of their reports. First problem is getting rid of the highlighting someone added so you would only read snippets.
Most of them were estimates for tends of consumption. Some even tweaked a little for better future efficiencies.
But all of them are, if the current understanding and models are right… then this could, maybe, possibly be the result.
The whole accusation is bogus.
The oil companies are doing what they have to do to deflect negative political and public opinion attention when they are subjected to bogus claims…
“Democrats also believe Big Oil has been lying since the 60’s about Climate Change:”
Democrats believe a lot of things that are not true. And Democrats are known to lie and distort the truth for political gain, so it’s hard to tell what Democrats really believe.
Don’t attribute honest motives to radical Democrats. They don’t have any.
Makes a lot of sense . . . NOT!
OPEC might, just might, be on the verge of instituting another massive cutback in oil exports to the US and other Western nations as a result of on-going US support for Israel’s war against Hamas, which has unavoidably devastated the Gaza Strip, home to some two million Palestinians.
So, the US Democratic Party, in concert with the “wisdom” of the Biden administration, thinks now is just a great time to demand a halt in oil and gas exploration in the US.
Thank you, idiots all.
Don’t worry, your Congress Critters voted recently to spend $3.5B to “turbo-charge” the immigration of Middle Easterners to the former United States. A good chunk of Gaza’s two million will be moved to your neighborhood to continue unabated their festivities.
Bout to become productive via stabbing, bombings, etc.
They will certainly support the 2nd amendment!
Leave it to the Communists to take delight in deliberately de-industrializing all in the name of squashing human flourishing in favor of mythological “Climate Change”
I remember not too long ago, that politicians were eager to take credit for expanding business. It now seems that the only fashionable growth is in government and NGOs.
“The demand for a halt to oil and gas exploration is contained in Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s committee report.”
That’s seriously mentally disturbed.
It’s absurd for anyone to think that the oil companies had mastered climate science in 1982. Whatever they may have said back then is irrelevant. If they said “burning oil will cause a climate catastrophe”- so what since there’s no evidence that they or anyone else could have known that. That was somebody’s opinion.
“It’s absurd for anyone to think that the oil companies had mastered climate science in 1982.”
Yes, it is.
Oil companies knew exactly as much as everyone else about CO2 and the climate, which was not much.
All that was available about CO2 and its effect, if any, on the Earth’s atmosphere was pure speculation, and nothing has changed to this very day.
These Climate Alarmist Clowns assume they know how much warmth a given amount of additional CO2 will add to the Earth’s atmosphere, but in reality, they know no such thing.
All these temperatures estimates are just guesses. They were guesses back in 1982, and they are still guesses. There is no definitive evidence about how much warmth CO2 adds to the Earth’s atmosphere.
Democrats and Climate Alarmists are Lying when they say they know these temperature numbers. Flat out lying. They don’t know the numbers and the oil companies don’t know the numbers, either, so blaming oil companies for hiding the facts is ridiculour, because they can’t hide something that noone can find in the first place.
Climate Alarmists assume WAY too much. Some of them do so because they are not very well educated on the subject, and some of them do so to promote a radical, climate alarmists agenda.
Bottom line: Nobody, including the oil companies, knows how, or if, CO2 will affect the Earth’s weather and climate. Nobody. Including Senator Whitehouse.
In the 70s the consensus was CO2 was cooling the planet.
It’s like this Senator-
Shell smashes forecasts with $7.7B profit in just three months (msn.com)
We deplorables want what they’re selling and not what you’re slushfunding with our hard-earned.
Some day, I hope to collect on a pension, so profits are good.
If Sheldon Whitehouse wants quick action on climate, he should go to the White House, confront Joe Biden, demand that Biden declare a climate emergency, and then pressure Biden to impose an immediate fossil energy lockdown on the economy.
We can all be sure Joe Biden would be more than happy to comply if only someone of national prominence would come forward to demand what Biden himself says must be done. .Sheldon Baby! Just do it!
“…efforts to downplay climate crisis”
What climate crisis???
Nick can’t handle that question.
There is no better example of toxic arrogance and stupidity in one neat package than Sen. Whitehouse.
It is utterly amazing such an ethical phony could be a US Senator…..but he is. [However, Georgia’s two senators are about equal in this regard: Falsely elected, foolishly legislating.]
Back on topic, Sen. Whitehouse’s 4th grade mentality (and ethical standards) are, like most senators, not worthy of the positions he (and they) hold.
I can only laugh when this buffoon tries to preach to me as one of my betters.
He’s not that. Ever.
Name a single politician in the last 30 years who lives up to their public commitments (unless it’s in their own interest)
Where oh where is that budget balanced or deficit reduced. Politicians are incapable of telling the truth or doing anything productive, really.
Eric, please don’t encourage him.
Aw what’s the fun in that? :-). Time for Whitehouse to come clean and act on his principles, instead of prevaricating and playing politics.
From the article: ““For decades, the fossil-fuel industry has known about the economic and climate harms of its products but has deceived the American public to keep collecting more than $600bn each year in subsidies while raking in record-breaking profits,” said Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who chairs the committee.”
Senator Whitehouse is lying.
There are no economic harms from oil company products, with regard to the Earth’s climate or weather, and the American public has not been deceived by the oil companies because the oil companies are not hiding anything about CO2, since there is nothing to hide, and Senator Whitehouse is deliberately lying by claiming that oil companies are being paid subsidies by the U.S. government.
Senator Whitehouse is a deliberate liar. His flawed character is detrimental to the people of the United States.
From the article: ““There is currently no unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming. If the earth is on a warming trend, we’re not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5° needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations. On the other hand, if climate modelling uncertainties have exaggerated the temperature rise, it is possible that a carbon dioxide induced “greenhouse effect” may not be detected until 2020 at the earliest”.”
This is the oil companies speculating about the effects of CO2. This is not established science, it is speculation, and they express uncertainties about the temperature rise modelling. This isn’t hiding anything. It shows the truth: The oil companies don’t have any definitive evidence that CO2 is harmful. They are not hiding anything. This was common knowledge in the 1980’s. You can’t hide something that is common knowledge.
And the common knowledge was that nobody knew how CO2 would interact with the Earth’s atmosphere, and they still don’t know to this very day. It’s still all pure speculation and assumptions.
Climate Alarmism is not science, it is a psychological problem for some people.
From the article: “Senator Whitehouse, if you believe there is a viable alternative to fossil fuel, it is time for you to stop being such a hypocrite.”
Expecting Senator Whitehouse to be reasonable is not reasonable.
I wonder what oil producers thing they’re getting by cozying up to people like Whitehouse? There is either an implied threat from the state activist that is not out in the open or they are voluntarily cutting their own throat – first gradually then all of a sudden.
OK – It’s both.
Bought and paid for idiots-or a fifth column…quislings maybe?