Guest hit piece by David Middleton
Talk about the poster child for irrelevance…
Climate politicking isn’t working. We need climate civil disobedience
By BILL MCKIBBEN
OCT 09, 2018 | 12:45 PMThe small town of Bagley, Minn., looked set to be the scene for one of the nation’s most interesting airings of the climate controversy this week. Three people went on trial there on Monday for shutting down a pipeline from Canada’s tar sands in 2016 — one of them, after warning the company, turned the valve that shut the pipe, and then they sat and waited for the police to arrive. They were arrested and charged with felony destruction of public property.
The judge had originally signaled that they would be allowed to mount a full “necessity defense,” and argue that climate change presented such a severe threat that they had little choice but to break the law. On Friday, however, he decided not to allow the team of expert witnesses — including me — to testify about the main points at issue: the danger of global warming, the lack of alternatives to civil disobedience and the effectiveness of direct action. Then on Tuesday, after a jury had been selected, the judge dismissed the case, announcing that the activists’ actions didn’t meet the seriousness of the charges.
I’m glad the protesters in Minnesota aren’t facing 10 years in prison, but it’s almost too bad. The case for climate activism needs to be made. If I’d had the chance to testify, here are the points I would have tried to impress on the jury.
[…]
- A bunch of misfits vandalize a pipeline.
- They’re “charged with felony destruction of public property.”
- Then “the judge dismissed the case, announcing that the activists’ actions didn’t meet the seriousness of the charges.”
- Bill McKibben gets upset because he wasn’t allowed to testify as an “expert witness.”
- Bill McKibben calls for more misfits to get arrested for civil disobedience.
Maybe Mr. McKibben should go protest an Exxon station.
McKibben ratchets up his irrelevance
As if this wasn’t a sufficient demonstration of his irrelevance, Mr. McKibben went on to become a Walter Mitty of climate civil disobedience…
Lastly, much of what progress has been made toward mitigating climate change has largely come through protest. When demonstrators went to jail in record numbers against the Keystone XL pipeline, they not only stopped its construction but fired up people around the world to take similar steps against every new piece of fossil fuel infrastructure: Kayakers blocked Shell’s drilling rigs in the Seattle harbor, for example, which led to the company’s retreat from plans to open the Arctic to oil drilling.
Sorry Billy-Boy, but the intrepid Kayakers were even less relevant than you are. Shell retreated from its offshore Alaska drilling program for four reasons:
- Regulatory malfeasance of the Obama maladministration.
- Disappointing results of their first (and only) exploration well in the Chukchi Sea OCS.
- High costs of operating in such a challenging environment, worsened by post-Macondo regulatory malfeasance.
- Oil prices were in a free-fall from June 2014 through January 2016.
Business
Shell halts $7 billion Alaska oil exploration campaign
Rakteem Katakey and Winnie Zhu
September 28, 2015LONDON _ Royal Dutch Shell Plc will halt exploration in the U.S. Arctic after $7 billion of spending ended with a well off Alaska that failed to find any meaningful quantities of oil or natural gas.
[…]
“This is a clearly disappointing exploration outcome,” Marvin Odum, director of Shell’s Upstream Americas unit, said in a statement. While indications of oil and gas were present in the Burger J well in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, they weren’t sufficient to warrant further exploration, the company said. Shell will now plug and abandon the well.
Shell had planned a two-year drilling program starting this July. The company was seeking to resume work halted in 2012 when its main drilling rig ran aground and was lost. It was also fined for air pollution breaches. The Anglo-Dutch company first discovered oil and gas in the region in the late 1980s.
The company continues to see potential in the region and the decision not to explore further in Alaskan waters “reflects both the Burger J well result, the high costs associated with the project, and the challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska,” according to the statement.
[…]
But Billy-Boy didn’t stop thumping his sunken chest there…
Pension funds and endowments worth $7 trillion have begun divesting their holdings in fossil fuel companies — Shell said in a recent report to shareholders that that movement had become a “material risk.”
In other words, protest has weakened the very industry that has made political progress on climate change all but impossible. It’s the long campaign of deceit and misinformation by the oil industry, above all else, that is responsible for our governments’ inaction.
That’s a flat-out lie. This is what was written in the Shell report to shareholders…
Additionally, some groups are pressuring certain investors to divest their investments in fossil fuel companies. If this were to continue, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities and our ability to access equity capital markets.
Shell said that the divestment movement “could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities and our ability to access equity capital markets,” if such a movement actually materialized. Shell never stated that this had become a “material risk” or that it had “weakened” the industry. It was buried in a long list of “risk factors” that most major oil companies encounter in conducting their operations. Small and medium sized oil companies also face many of the same risk factors.
Risk factors
The risks discussed below could have a material adverse effect separately, or in combination, on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition. Accordingly, investors should carefully consider these risks.
[…]
We are exposed to fluctuating prices of crude oil, natural gas, oil products and chemicals.
[…]
Our ability to deliver competitive returns and pursue commercial opportunities depends in part on the accuracy of our price assumptions.
[…]
Our ability to achieve strategic objectives depends on how we react to competitive forces.
[…]
We seek to execute divestments in the pursuit of our strategy. We may not be able to successfully divest these assets in line with our strategy.
[…]
Our future hydrocarbon production depends on the delivery of large and integrated projects, as well as on our ability to replace proved oil and gas reserves.
[…]
The estimation of proved oil and gas reserves involves subjective judgements based on available information and the application of complex rules; therefore, subsequent downward adjustments are possible.
[…]
Rising climate change concerns have led and could lead to additional legal and/or regulatory measures which could result in project delays or cancellations, a decrease in demand for fossil fuels, potential litigation and additional compliance obligations.
[…]
Additionally, some groups are pressuring certain investors to divest their investments in fossil fuel companies. If this were to continue, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities and our ability to access equity capital markets.
[…]
Our operations expose us to social instability, criminality, civil unrest, terrorism, piracy, cyber-disruption, acts of war and risks of pandemic diseases that could have a material adverse effect on our business.
[…]
We operate in more than 70 countries that have differing degrees of political, legal and fiscal stability. This exposes us to a wide range of political developments that could result in changes to contractual terms, laws and regulations. In addition, we and our joint arrangements and associates face the risk of litigation and disputes worldwide.
[…]
The nature of our operations exposes us, and the communities in which we work, to a wide range of health, safety, security and environment risks.
[…]
A further erosion of the business and operating environment in Nigeria could have a material adverse effect on us.
[…]
Production from the Groningen field in the Netherlands causes earthquakes that affect local communities.
[…]
Our future performance depends on the successful development and deployment of new technologies and new products.
[…]
We are exposed to treasury and trading risks, including liquidity risk, interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk, commodity price risk and credit risk. We are affected by the global macroeconomic environment as well as financial and commodity market conditions.
[…]
We have substantial pension commitments, funding of which is subject to capital market risks.
[…]
We mainly self-insure our risk exposure. We could incur significant losses from different types of risks that are not covered by insurance from third-party insurers.
[…]
An erosion of our business reputation could have a material adverse effect on our brand, our ability to secure new resources and our licence to operate.
[…]
Many of our major projects and operations are conducted in joint arrangements or associates. This could reduce our degree of control, as well as our ability to identify and manage risks.
[…]
We rely heavily on information technology systems for our operations.
[…]
Violations of antitrust and competition laws carry fines and expose us and/or our employees to criminal sanctions and civil suits.
[…]
Violations of anti-bribery, anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws carry fines and expose us and/or our employees to criminal sanctions, civil suits and ancillary consequences (such as debarment and the revocation of licences).
[…]
Violations of data protection laws carry fines and expose us and/or our employees to criminal sanctions and civil suits.
[…]
Violations of trade compliance laws and regulations, including sanctions, carry fines and expose us and our employees to criminal sanctions and civil suits.
[…]
The Company’s Articles of Association determine the jurisdiction for shareholder disputes. This could limit shareholder remedies.
[…]
It makes me wonder if Billy-Boy ever had a real job?
All businesses face risk factors. That’s how the relationship between risk and reward functions. As it relates to the risks of oil and gas operations, Billy-Boy and his misfits rank right up there with a gnat on an elephant’s @$$.
Bikelock wielding prof was lucky he didn’t kill anybody:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8d-7kSociQ
MO prof calling for “muscle” to silence observers cuts deal with prosecutors:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/29/mizzou-professor-who-called-muscle-cuts-deal/79539328/
I lament the loss of the young lady killed by the whacko in Charlotte, but local police and state government also bear responsibility for intentionally funneling Nazis into Antifa formations, when other routes were open.
Tillman, as a conservative, you “own” the wacko in Charlotsville, In fact your hero-POTUS says that they are “good people.”
David,
Wrong.
First off, Trump isn’t a conservative. Second, I don’t think that he referred to the whacko killer as a good, but people who think it’s OK to have statues to Southern heroes.
But most importantly, Nazis aren’t conservatives. Quite the opposite. They are national socialists.
Trump isn’t a conservative.”
…
LOL
…
LOL
…
LOL
…
I guess that’s why he appointed Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS…..they must be “liberal”
..
LOL
…
LOL
…
LOL
…
You crack me up.
The current occupant of the White House should have run on the slogan, “I’m not a conservative, but I play one on TV.” That is why, when faced with a question he did not prepare for, he defaults to the NYT (and other unindicted co-conspirators) caricature version of a conservative. Yet despite that, he published, before the election, a list of things he intended to accomplish as president, and he has done better at implementing campaign promises than any president in my memory, and that includes Regean. I put this here because it seemed to fit, but really, troll, you should just STFU. You haven’t presented a statement yet that wasn’t clearly a lamestream media talking point. Which by definition means they are all lies.
“but people who think it’s OK to have statues to Southern heroes.”
Yes, Trump was saying that some of the protestors at Charlottesville were there legitimately to protest the destruction of historical monuments and were not nazis or there to cause trouble.
The Left misrepresented this as Trump praising the nazis that showed up at the protest, and that all those on the conservative side were nazis. And David continues this misrepresetation in this post. It has become a narrative for the Left in order to portray Trump and Republicans as racists.
This is a Big Lie that the Left hopes will become truth in the minds of Americans if they repeat it enough. And it will become truth to millions of Americans because millions of them don’t know any better. That’s why the Propaganda Machine that is the Leftwing News Media is so insidious and damaging to American society.
Leftwing Lies will be the Death of the United States as we know it.
“the wacko in Charlotsville”
You mean the guy whose car was trashed by a very angry mob? That guy and that mob?
A mob that was illegally occupying the road?
A mob that looked ready to attack anyone identified as “fascist” ANTIFA-style?
I like how your “conservatives” in Charlotte are considered “Nazis.” Just goes to prove that the Nazis were right wing.
David,
“Proves” no such thing. Just the opposite.
If you claim Nazis are “left wing” why were they protesting the liberals in Charlotte? Are you actually trying to convince yourself that the “antifa” is right wing????
That was just a conflict of grievance groups. Both were there to fight anyone who wasn’t in their club. But really, the cause of the violence was the leftwing “resistance”bent of the city and police leadership.
Unless I’ve got it wrong there are two issues with the pipelines:
1) The (not very) “green” position, the anti-tree, Co2 is poison one.
2) The environmental position, which is that these pipelines are quite destructive to the environment. I can’t quite see why this has to be so, but maybe it’s a question of costs.
It’s important not to confuse the two.
“Left” and “right” don’t have much meaning these days. But if you define fascism as endeavouring to achieve political change through violence and intimidation, Antifa is certainly fascist (try Googling Night of Broken Glass or Kristallnacht).
Waiting on your citation for “progressive” Las Vegas shooter.
David,
I provided it, but for some reason it’s lost in cyberspace.
Short version: photos of pussy hat wearing protester is a dead ringer for him. Mishandling of investigation by LVMPD and FBI was beyond incompetent. Finally, your explanation please for why he targeted a Trump-friendly crowd, as opposed to a concert more inclined toward Clinton.
Remarkable, but yet again, my reply stating the compelling reasons to believe that the shooter’s attack was ideologically motivated has not posted.
I can only hope that moderators can resurrect them from the dead pool.
jt=
there is no evidence for any political affiliation there.
you won’t win on that point
but did you know martin luther king was a registered republican?
also- another progressive marxist planned to bomb the DC Mall on election day.
got caught tho. today on drudge.
The problem isn’t the Bill McKibben(s), it’s the media that prints their views and won’t print contrasting views. How many people get both sides before they can decide for themselves? Controlled propaganda and nothing more.
Fraud: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
The climate change dogma is defrauding taxpayers around the World of $trillions. Anyone who propagates human induced climate change con/scam, supports it or campaigns to bring it about should be arrested and charged with fraud.
That must include Shell:
“Government policy should provide incentives for investment, balancing environmental objectives and economic growth, encouraging a range of solutions that include oil, gas and renewables. Meaningful government-led carbon pricing mechanisms are also needed, along with carbon capture and storage (CCS), if society is to achieve its climate goals.”
“We all need to work together to achieve the ambitions set in the Paris Agreement. Targets for countries are a good place to start and set the direction for the significant global undertaking ahead.”
Gbees, are you by any chance in the private prison industry? Have any reason to tie up the courts for the next century? Or are you just making a silly comment? Whatta joker!
Kristi, I think a clear government lead should suffice. No academic/research funding or student loans whatsoever for anything that is clearly part of the global-warming industry. Naturally, discouragement of University posts and courses involving the concepts of global-warming and climate change should not exclude proper meteorological study.
And, of course, removal of the wind/solar subsidies and foolish legislation that distorts the energy markets. The market should be able to discipline any companies foolish enough to continue. Private investors can still do with their money what they wish, but mandatory investment cautions should be in place to protect pension fund investors from fund managers who’ve been at the kool aid. Withdrawal from all UN climate-charade organisations and a swift firing of Mark Carney as governor of The Bank of England should help set the tone for UK institutional governance.
I’ll confess that I wouldn’t mind watching a reality-TV survival show where competitors were divided into two groups on their remote island in Antarctic waters; One group allowed to use fossil fuels for survival, and one denied such comforts. Even today’s media corporations would be happen to fund such a program once it was clear that the global-warming gravy train was running out of track. It would certainly stick in the craw of many at the BBC, but even they would bend the knee once they saw the ratings.
The enviro’s intimidation of companies and individuals going about their lives, and their open contempt for the law, is reminiscent of union activity in the UK in the 1970’s.
It only ended after the election of the Thatcher government, and no small amount of strife. A few more-appropriate laws were introduced and proper legal action eventually taken. They only started to understand when court orders resulted in union bank accounts being sequestered. The resulting violence needed some strong police activity and political backbone, which was largely rewarded by the electorate.
Today, a lot of the law breakers are a new breed, and take care to try and pretend they are not actually part of any ‘official’ organizers of the illegal activity, even though everybody usually knows who is behind it. So it may still need a more proactive and innovative approach by politicians and law enforcement. They could start by sequestering the cell-phones of all the BBC journalists who seem to have Greenpeace on speed-dial.
Back in the 1970’s I also recall that the BBC often appeared sympathetic towards the Marxiste-nouveau intentions and behavior of the unionista who wrapped themselves in concern for the working man, but were really just trying to use them to bring about the downfall of capitalism and usher in their Brave New World.
It seems we have come full circle, but at least the BBC at the time had a sitcom “Citizen Smith”, mocking the Marxist mindset. The BBC of today just circulates internal memos about how to censor anybody who disagrees with the central tenet of current green dogma. A green dogma which the BBC promotes every day of the week, 52 weeks per year.
Greenpeace = hate of efficient energy industries, esp. nuclear.
Use the hate speech laws against Greenpeace.
Illiberal? You bet!
Bordering on fascism? Why not!
Let’s try some anti free speech moves on the left. See if they love these anti-“hate” laws.
Why not just give him just what he wants.
Cut off supplies to his local gas station.
Only supply electricity to his house when the sun is shining and/or the wind is blowing.
Stop supplying him with anything made from fossil fuels.
Stop allowing coal to be used to make steel.
Get his pension fund to divest themselves of any firm that has anything to do with fossil fuels.
Meanwhile climate related stroking off continues at The Guardian…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/11/climate-change-next-global-crash-world-economies-1929
….and argue that climate change presented such a severe threat that they had little choice but to break the law…
Surely to mount this defence of necessity they would have to successfully argue that the action taken had a material effect on the threat. You block traffic because a bridge has become dangerous. Its necessary and effective.
This would be impossible of course. The action would have a direct effect on global emissions too small to measure. If any.
Then you would be back to the force of example argument. It is true that our action in shutting off the valve had no measurable effect, maybe no effect at all, on emissions. But it will inspire lots of examples and encourage the world to lower their emissions.
Again, prove it. Go to China and find someone who has been inspired by this action to lower Chinese emissions. Or go to Germany or the UK, anywhere in fact. You will search in vain. There are no indirect effects. No-one notices, no-one reports it, no-one cares. Its a bunch of weird people in the far frozen north doing something or other, who knows exactly what or why.
In the end this makes as much sense as blocking Fifth Avenue in order to prevent, I dunno, excessive sugar in processed foods. None.
They should rather stop producing CO2. Stop breathing.
but they want to tax it and regulate it.
I understand that the Federal State is mostly doing war stuff. Also housing, academia stuff, health, but the budget of the military is gigantic.
The military is mostly about big trucks, big planes, small planes that manage to burn as much kerosene as big ones and big boats, most of which either burn fossil fuel or support planes that do. Also spy satellites, which aren’t put up there with solar energy.
See where I’m getting at?
IMO the most significant anti-fossile “disobedience” act would be to stop paying federal taxes.
Bill Mckibben grew up around eight miles from me, around eight years after I escaped those suburbs. While I never went to Harvard, both my father and stepfather taught there, and my eldest brother attended Harvard, so I do know a little about what has apparently demented him. I wrote about his ineptitude concerning hurricanes in a WUWT post back in 2012:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/hurricane-warning-mckibben-alert/
Up until recently, I confess I had to fight envy, regarding McKibben. For example, I could get nothing but a rejection slip from the New Yorker magazine, but they actually hired him. He lived the good life while I did not. And I could keep playing the violins of envious self-pity on and on, up to this day, where he has no fear of entities like “Google” seeking to suppress him, while I do. However it now occurs to me he currently must be living in a sort of waking nightmare, as are many others who have always dotted the “i’s” and crossed the “t’s” of being “politically correct”.
All the talk of a “blue wave” is but the fond wish of the left, who are in fact still in shock about the “red tide” that manifested when Trump was elected. It was a sort of proof that Abraham Lincoln was correct, “You cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” The “sheeple” suddenly had fangs.
Now I do not envy him one bit.
The thing of it is, at some point he must have chosen to ignore Truth. Some temptation involved in “the ends justify the means” tricked him into telling what he likely saw as a “white lie”. Then it became ten lies. Then a hundred. Then a thousand, and now it is all coming down around him.
When I look at his picture he looks older than I. He’d nearly a decade younger. No, I do not envy him one bit.
Caleb
Thanks for the link. Very enlightening.
One part particularly pertinent. Bill doesn’t understand what you did when you were 12 years old. This is a recurring theme amongst socialists and SJW’s in particular. The display a staggering level of naivety and a childish desire to march in protest waving hand drawn banners in puerile displays of foot stamping, usually associated with toddlers.
Socialism is an ideology that appeals to youth because it’s lovely to imagine humans can all be equal, well supported and democratically represented in that endeavour.
We older lot were probably of like mind in our youth but rapidly emerged from the fantasy as the reality of real life struck.The immaturity of the left is manifest.
Something else occurs to me about Bill McKibbon. In common with his fellow climate alarmists, he lives in a bubble of belief about the climate. I mean, no one has ever demonstrated by empirical means that CO2 causes the planet to warm, it’s all just theory and lab experiments. But they fervently believe because they are pessimistic wheas sceptics are a deal more optomistic about the future especially when there’s no evidence to support otherwise.
I was for many years a believer in the climate orthodoxy and subject to the media and Al Gore. That is, until I did just a little digging. By that time I was in my 50’s, so a late starter. After ten years I’m debating with people who are exposed to exactly the same media as I am but who have never taken the time or made the effort to actually question what’s going on.
In which case, I am far more informed than them and far better placed to critically analyse the information put before me. Sure we have a concern about rising sea levels, but at the rate they’re rising (around 3mm per year) it’ll be hundreds of years for them to become a problem. If temperatures do rise dramatically and the Antarctic and Greenland start to actually melt (actually quite preposterous as they probably barely reach 0°C in isolated places at the height of summer) it would take over a thousand years for them to do so.
I also happen to know (as do the rest of we sceptics) that the greening of the planet is the only physical manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2. And at 14% over 35 years of satellite observations, it is by far and away the most notable physical evidence available, the speculation of another 0.5°C temperature increase is just that, speculation, which has so far proven entirely wrong judging by the predictions made over the last 40 years or so.
McKibbon isn’t the only climate SJW who can’t debate the climate with a 12 year old, the rest of them are all in the same boat because they steadfastly refuse to consider the other side of the debate. They can make no informed decisions. Sceptics hold the moral high ground here, not McKibbon. Sceptics are the informed individuals because we examine both sides of the debate instead of opting for ignorant, childish tribalism like McKibbon.
Whichever way you cut it, Sceptics are facing an army of ill informed children.
Isn’t Bill McKibben associated with 350.org?
I believe they were part of this… https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/o-m-g-video-explodes-skeptical-kids-in-bloodbath/
https://youtu.be/5-Mw5_EBk0g