By Robert Bradley Jr. — September 22, 2022
“Imagine if the media was reversed on the climate/energy issue, supporting and promoting a free-market, classical-liberal position. They could look at my boxes of files from the Enron days (1990s) and produce an exposé, Enron Knew.”
Back at Enron Corp., I had “email wars” with the company’s climate lobbyist, John Palmisano, the author of the infamous “This agreement will be good for Enron stock” Kyoto Protocol memo. Enron had at least a half-dozen profit centers that stood to benefit from CO2 restrictions, inspiring the activism that led Jeremy Leggett [The Carbon War (Penguin: 1999), p. 204] to identify Enron as “the company most responsible for sparking off the greenhouse civil war in the hydrocarbon business.”
The Palmisano/Bradley exchanges concerned regulating and pricing carbon dioxide. I was against; Palmisano for. I argued that it was intellectually unjustified and bad public policy–one that would come back to haunt Enron. Palmisano argued that his job was to make the corporation money, not argue about climate science and “good” public policy. John won, of course, but I got my licks in–with lots of cc’s and on the record. [1]
Imagine if the media was reversed on the climate/energy issue, supporting and promoting a free market, classical-liberal position. They could look at my boxes of files from the Enron days (1990s) and produce an exposé, “Enron Knew.”
The point is that different individuals within the same company can have different views–and passionately disseminate them. But the bosses and upper management make the decisions, often welcoming a vigorous exchange of opinions. It evidently happened at Exxon, and it happened at Enron. And both were short of a sinister conspiracy with “smoking guns”.
——————-
Enron Knew awaits. But there is a cottage industry devoted to Exxon Knew. Intellectuals, the media, and the climate lobby have pounced on old Exxon (ExxonMobil) memos and interviewed former employees. Their verdict: the company knew that carbon dioxide would warm the planet and create major problems. They were warned by their own scientists.
Well, Enron Knew and had warning from its director of public policy analysis (me, a 16-year mainstay). And my fears are playing out in real time with the worst still ahead.
This is but one argument of many against the simplistic, biased Exxon Knew narrative (and campaign). Add historical context, examine the state of the debate today (from physical science to public policy), update the energy situation, and present the rest of the story … and a different picture emerges.
Richard Fulmer has taken a deep dive into the issues with six essays rebutting the narrative presented by Inside Climate News, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and academics such as Harvard University’s Naomi Oreskes. [2] The articles (some in conjunction with me) are:
- A rebuttal to an op-ed by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, The Forgotten Oil Ads that Told Us Climate Change was Nothing.
- A critical review of Inside Climate News’s Exxon: The Road Not Taken (here and here)
- A three-part rejoinder of Big Oil vs The World by the BBC (Episode I; Episode II; Episode III)
More needs to be written on the subject to further supplement the above and rebuttals from Robert Papier (here) and ExxonMobil (here). One is hard-pressed to disagree with the company’s statement:
ExxonKnew is a coordinated campaign perpetuated by activist groups with the aim of stigmatizing ExxonMobil. Funders of the “#ExxonKnew” campaign have placed “pay to play” news stories, released flawed academic reports and coordinated with public officials to launch investigations and litigation, creating the false appearance that ExxonMobil has misrepresented its company research and investor disclosures on climate change to the public.
————————–
The problem with ExxonMobil is not what they said about climate change in decades past. It is what they are saying and doing about climate change now, a story that includes money-losing biofuels and a greenwashing/tax-credit play with carbon capture and storage. ExxonMobil touts CCS as potentially a $4 trillion market by 2050, which might inspire a new-generation Exxon Knew investigation.
ExxonMobil’s endorsement of a tax on carbon dioxide (even with big caveats) makes me long for former CEO Lee Raymond, whose realistic views on climate and energy remain defensible long after he said them. [3] Value creator, straight talker. Politically incorrect, but economically correct.
Message to ExxonMobil. It is past time to heed Alex Epstein and play offense, not defense. Explain why oil and gas are essential for a better environment and a better world. Explain energy density. Explain the problems with renewables. Take the moral high ground with a better intellectual case.
Trying to appease the enemy is futile. Employees, investors, board members who view oil and gas as destructive should not be part of the company.
Consumers, taxpayers, and free men/women of the world unite!
————————–
[1] For memos from my Enron experience in the public domain, see here. The exchanges stopped when our boss, Steve Kean, now head of Kinder Morgan, told us to use the phone instead.
[2] Naomi Oreskes is Henry Charles Lea Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University. This title and academic venue imply expertise and scholarship, not one-sided agenda-driven research. Does she understand economics, political economy, management theory, or business history? Is she open minded? Does she respect the scholarly method of Harvard Business School’s first female full professor in the business school, business historian Henrietta Larson, who said:
What we have done is … to put business in its broader political and cultural setting…. We are not out to defend business, but to try to do an impartial, scholarly investigation of an important American institution.
[3] “We in the petroleum industry are not dismissing the global climate change issue. But I don’t believe anyone should have the moral authority to deny people the opportunity to improve their way in life by arbitrarily depriving them of the means…. I hope that the governments of this region will work with us to resist policies that could strangle economic growth.”
– Lee Raymond (CEO, ExxonMobil). Quoted in Kevin Mooney, “BP’s Fall from Grace: Disgraced Oil Giant Was Once Favored by Green Groups,” Capital Research Center, December 2010.
Yup, look where it got Neville Chamberlain.
Unfortunately the world never learns. Look at the reaction towards Putin’s various aggressions.
Look at the reaction towards Washington’s various aggressions.
Interesting how anything the US does is defined by aggression by those who like dictators.
US supports the Saudi ‘dictators’ in their aggression against little neighbour Yemen.
US interests decide the policy not whether they are dictators or not.
Indeed only in Feb 2020 the US President Trumps lackeys signed a peace deal with self styled Emirate of Afghanistan ( better know as Taliban dictatorship) against the elected Afghan government- as it suited their interest to end the 20 yr occupation.
The horror that was the Americans’ running away from Afghanistan is BIDEN’s fault.
Mr. Biden abandoned what President Trump had billed as a “conditions-based” pullout. If the Taliban did not abide by certain agreements, then the U.S. outflow would stop as it did in October, when troop numbers held at 2,500.
Mr. Trump spoke by phone with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a Taliban leader negotiating in Doha, Qatar, and warned him against breaking a February 2020 agreement. “We know where you live,” Mr. Trump told him, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg said on Fox News.
Mr. Biden’s withdrawal, however, was free-flowing.
(Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/22/afghanistan-debacle-biden-abandoned-trump-pullout-/ )
Yemen is the aggressor against all of its neighbors. Yemen is little more than a pirate kingdom.
As to your knowledge of the happenings in Afghanistan, it is so colored by your hatred of the US, that it no longer bares any relationship with reality.
Not at all. Yemen is allowed to defend itself against the agression instigated by the Saudis and their Emirate allies.
That’s the only reason they have launched ballistic missile and drone attacks in self defence
The Saudis instigated a major bombing campaign against Yemen cities after the internal civil war broke out inside Yemen. There was no instigation by Yemen against the Saudis who attacked firtst.
You nothing of the sequence of events . There is no dispute that my summary is actually how events occured.
Afghanistan withdrawal wasn’t events based by Trump, he fired his defence secretary for trying to slow down the withdrawal.
There was no conditions for the US to stay on only condition they not allow terrorist bass for attacks on US , which hadn’t happened
Read the treaty his people signed under his orders. I have it’s only 3 pages
The presumed Taleban – Kabul government agreement never got started and Trump didn’t care as he didn’t slow down the withdrawal, indeed during election he spoke of ‘out by Xmas’ , which was a big speed up.
After the inauguration he also complained about Biden slowing down his timetable to be out by May
The US “defense” establishment knew that their years of provocations in Ukraine were finally paying off, and Russia would be responding by attacking Ukraine.
They also knew that if they still had troops in Afghanistan while they were supplying weapons to Ukraine, the Russians would return the favour and we’d be seeing ISAF helicopters being shot down by Talibs armed with Russian MANPADs, and ISAF IFV and tanks being blown apart with Russian ATGMs.
Hence the decision to pull out post haste, $80B of materiel notwithstanding.
As everyone knows, defense is actually offense.
These so called offensive actions never existed except in the minds of those who will go to any lengths to justify Putin’s murderous desires.
And of course, after Biden’s ultimately tactless and possibly impeachable withdrawal, the Taliban was left with untold tons of U.S. military equipment giving them far better armament than they ever had before
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OndiUis_aQs
Not to mention the Thousands of U.S. citizens that were abandoned to the whims of the Talaban.
Trump had the withdrawal treaty signed 12 months before and withdrew 80% of US forces by the inauguration. Sacked his Defence secretary for his actions in slowing down the withdrawal pace .
Full withdrawal was both Trump and Biden election policy , so it was supported by electorate as well.
Trump spokes of ‘all troops home by Xmas’ , so wanted to speed it up.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tweets-troops-in-afghanistan-should-be-home-by-christmas/
So much for the so called conditions.
And those who held US-Afghani joint citizenship had plenty of warning to leave, some months before the final date
You are going to keep with your comfortable lie, no matter what the facts.
Full withdrawal was the Trump policy, but on a schedule with the Taliban meeting certain criteria along the way. While Trump was in office the full treaty was being adhered to. Once Biden got in he just pulled everyone out willy nilly, completely against the advice of his military advisors.
You just can’t accept the notion that Trump and the US are not the source of all evil in the world.
Yemen is allowed to defend themselves. On the other hand Saudi Arabia isn’t allowed to defend itself against Yemeni aggression.
That you are absolutely convinced that your ignorant fantasies are reality is self evident.
Your interpretation of both the middle east and Afghanistan bears no relationship with reality.
24th Mar 2015 Saudi and 6 other arab states began air strikes in Yemen
There was no yemeni attacks on those countries before that time, they were too busy with their own civil war. Its self defence to use their ballistic missiles to hit Saudi and Emerati targets- like Ukraine does against Russia itself
Even the US has its own secret involvement with commando raids and drone attacks.
Much like Afghanistan, Yemeni harbored terrorists that were attacking all neighboring countries as well as pirates who were raiding Gulf shipping.
Yes, I agree in the main, but we got (just) enough time to rearm before the umballa hit the fan. If Chamberlain had gone to war in 1939, we’d be history.
Instead sue the Feds:
We wanted to make sure you saw our invite to the live launch event of Center for Food Safety’s new podcast, The Hero’s Journey! You can also follow the podcast on Spotify and Apple Podcasts to get notified as soon as we release new episodes.
We hope to see you there, Eugene!
Julia Ranney, Podcast Producer
Ashley Lukens, The Hero’s Journey Guide and Host
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Julia Ranney and Ashley Lukens, Center for Food Safety (alerts@act.centerforfoodsafety.org)
Date: Wed Sep 14, 2022 at 6:07 AM
Subject: The Hero’s Journey podcast premiere!
To: genebazan@aol.com
SHARE THIS INVITATION facebook
twitter
Hi Eugene,
What happens when 21 Gen Z leaders step up to demand the US government take action on climate? How has Juliana v. United States transformed the climate conversation in the US? Let’s find out together!
What’s this you say? A podcast? Yes! On October 3rd, we’re launching Season 1 of The Hero’s Journey. On this podcast we talk with changemakers about their origins, trials, tribulations, mentors, and more. We’re kicking off our launch with a live premiere episode event you won’t want to miss.
Please join us Thursday, September 29th for our podcast launch! Tune in live to learn from the youth plaintiffs who are suing the federal government in Juliana v. United States for violating their right to a safe climate. If you can’t make it live, RSVP and we’ll send you a recording after the event.
WHAT: The Hero’s Journey: Juliana v. United States
WHERE: the comfort of your home via Zoom
WHEN: Thursday, September 29th
WHAT TIME: 2:00 PM HT/ 5:00 PM PST/ 8:00 PM ET
(You’ll receive a link to join the webinar after you register.)
What is Juliana v. United States? In 2015, 21 youth plaintiffs sued the U.S. federal government for violating their right to a safe climate. Plaintiffs claimed the government’s actions and inactions regarding climate change violated their fundamental constitutional rights to freedom from deprivation of life, liberty, and property.
We hope to see you there! Secure your spot now.
Julia Ranney, Podcast Producer
Ashley Lukens, The Hero’s Journey Guide and Host
Connect with Us
CFS welcomes your questions and comments. Please contact us at office@centerforfoodsafety.org, or at one of our offices.
Washington, D.C. Office
518 C Street, NE, #200
Washington, DC 20002
phone (202) 547-9359 | fax (202) 547-9429
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org
CONTRIBUTE
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. This material is protected under International and Federal Copyright Laws and Treaties. Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited. No text may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without express written permission or proper citation. Please credit any and all use of our work product to: Center for Food Safety, http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org.
If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe.
We wanted to make sure you saw our invite to the live launch event of Center for Food Safety’s new podcast, The Hero’s Journey! You can also follow the podcast on Spotify and Apple Podcasts to get notified as soon as we release new episodes.
We hope to see you there, Eugene!
Julia Ranney, Podcast Producer
Ashley Lukens, The Hero’s Journey Guide and Host
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Julia Ranney and Ashley Lukens, Center for Food Safety (alerts@act.centerforfoodsafety.org)
Date: Wed Sep 14, 2022 at 6:07 AM
Subject: The Hero’s Journey podcast premiere!
To: genebazan@aol.com
SHARE THIS INVITATION facebook
twitter
Hi Eugene,
What happens when 21 Gen Z leaders step up to demand the US government take action on climate? How has Juliana v. United States transformed the climate conversation in the US? Let’s find out together!
What’s this you say? A podcast? Yes! On October 3rd, we’re launching Season 1 of The Hero’s Journey. On this podcast we talk with changemakers about their origins, trials, tribulations, mentors, and more. We’re kicking off our launch with a live premiere episode event you won’t want to miss.
Please join us Thursday, September 29th for our podcast launch! Tune in live to learn from the youth plaintiffs who are suing the federal government in Juliana v. United States for violating their right to a safe climate. If you can’t make it live, RSVP and we’ll send you a recording after the event.
WHAT: The Hero’s Journey: Juliana v. United States
WHERE: the comfort of your home via Zoom
WHEN: Thursday, September 29th
WHAT TIME: 2:00 PM HT/ 5:00 PM PST/ 8:00 PM ET
(You’ll receive a link to join the webinar after you register.)
What is Juliana v. United States? In 2015, 21 youth plaintiffs sued the U.S. federal government for violating their right to a safe climate. Plaintiffs claimed the government’s actions and inactions regarding climate change violated their fundamental constitutional rights to freedom from deprivation of life, liberty, and property.
We hope to see you there! Secure your spot now.
Julia Ranney, Podcast Producer
Ashley Lukens, The Hero’s Journey Guide and Host
Connect with Us
CFS welcomes your questions and comments. Please contact us at office@centerforfoodsafety.org, or at one of our offices.
Washington, D.C. Office
518 C Street, NE, #200
Washington, DC 20002
phone (202) 547-9359 | fax (202) 547-9429
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org
CONTRIBUTE
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. This material is protected under International and Federal Copyright Laws and Treaties. Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited. No text may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without express written permission or proper citation. Please credit any and all use of our work product to: Center for Food Safety, http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org.
If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe.
We wanted to make sure you saw our invite to the live launch event of Center for Food Safety’s new podcast, The Hero’s Journey! You can also follow the podcast on Spotify and Apple Podcasts to get notified as soon as we release new episodes.
We hope to see you there, Eugene!
Julia Ranney, Podcast Producer
Ashley Lukens, The Hero’s Journey Guide and Host
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Julia Ranney and Ashley Lukens, Center for Food Safety (alerts@act.centerforfoodsafety.org)
Date: Wed Sep 14, 2022 at 6:07 AM
Subject: The Hero’s Journey podcast premiere!
To: genebazan@aol.com
SHARE THIS INVITATION facebook
twitter
Hi Eugene,
What happens when 21 Gen Z leaders step up to demand the US government take action on climate? How has Juliana v. United States transformed the climate conversation in the US? Let’s find out together!
What’s this you say? A podcast? Yes! On October 3rd, we’re launching Season 1 of The Hero’s Journey. On this podcast we talk with changemakers about their origins, trials, tribulations, mentors, and more. We’re kicking off our launch with a live premiere episode event you won’t want to miss.
Please join us Thursday, September 29th for our podcast launch! Tune in live to learn from the youth plaintiffs who are suing the federal government in Juliana v. United States for violating their right to a safe climate. If you can’t make it live, RSVP and we’ll send you a recording after the event.
WHAT: The Hero’s Journey: Juliana v. United States
WHERE: the comfort of your home via Zoom
WHEN: Thursday, September 29th
WHAT TIME: 2:00 PM HT/ 5:00 PM PST/ 8:00 PM ET
(You’ll receive a link to join the webinar after you register.)
What is Juliana v. United States? In 2015, 21 youth plaintiffs sued the U.S. federal government for violating their right to a safe climate. Plaintiffs claimed the government’s actions and inactions regarding climate change violated their fundamental constitutional rights to freedom from deprivation of life, liberty, and property.
We hope to see you there! Secure your spot now.
Julia Ranney, Podcast Producer
Ashley Lukens, The Hero’s Journey Guide and Host
Connect with Us
CFS welcomes your questions and comments. Please contact us at office@centerforfoodsafety.org, or at one of our offices.
Washington, D.C. Office
518 C Street, NE, #200
Washington, DC 20002
phone (202) 547-9359 | fax (202) 547-9429
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org
CONTRIBUTE
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. This material is protected under International and Federal Copyright Laws and Treaties. Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited. No text may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without express written permission or proper citation. Please credit any and all use of our work product to: Center for Food Safety, http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org.
If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe.
The Climatistas would manufacture “wreckers” no matter what industry did, as their renewables advocacy is as flawed as Stalinist Central Planning.
There has to be some outside malign influence as to why their beautiful theory is being destroyed by ugly facts.
Case in point, Izzy goes to Fiji.
https://www.redvoicemedia.com/video/2022/09/interviewer-cant-keep-it-together-laugh-in-the-face-of-teen-climate-activist-during-radio-show/
That’s brilliant. Made my day.
Fossil Fuels have more social credits than carbon credits will ever achieve.
Fossils and their associated innovations in mechanization have freed humans of backbreaking burdens.
Fossil fuels and their associated ‘electrification’ of our lives has freed us from the dark and cold while necessity may mother of invention,most fruits of her labour have been delivered with the aid of electricity.
Fossil fuels and the associated petrochemical industries had enabled us to feed the world and provide pharmaceuticals that save lives.
In all fossil fuels have since the turn of the 20th Century, directly and indirectly added 40yrs to our lives and improve the the quality many fold. That is the social credit of fossils and why oil.gas and coal companies don’t proudly take that banner to the court public opinion beggars belief.
| … freed humans of backbreaking burdens.
In that sense one could argue that “fossil fuels freed the slaves” because it made slave labor unnecessary. (Never mind that there are tens of millions of slaves still living in this world)
Indeed. This (see photo) would have been many or most of us merely 80 years ago. Anybody here voting for going back to manual labor subsistence farming for all?
Exxon knew exactly what everyone else knows; That CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Exxon, like everyong else, does not know the effects CO2 may have on Earth’s weather. To date, there is no evidence CO2 is affecting Earth’s weather in any detectable sense.
Neither Exxon, or anyone else has any evidence that CO2 is harmful to the inhabitants of the Earth. They didn’t have this evidence in the past, and they don’t have this evidence now.
So claiming Exxon Knew is ridiculous. Exxon does NOT know. Nor does anyone else. Then or now.
I think this applies to the climate change hysteria going around:
https://www.muskogeephoenix.com/news/lifestyles/grace-for-the-day-bonhoeffer-s-theory-of-stupidity/article_a384dc5f-6221-5208-bbfd-c109281db72e.html
“Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor and theologian in Germany during World War II. He was hanged in a concentration camp at Flossenburg because of his opposition to the Nazis and for the part he played in an assassination plot against Hitler.
In prison, he began to try to understand how good, intelligent, and peaceful people could become supporters of such an evil regime. That led to his theory that the greatest opponent to truth and reason was not evil, but stupidity.
He watched as more of his compatriots seemed to experience leave of their senses and become more irrational, hateful, and violent. He witnessed that such people had no use for reason and when confronted with facts that demonstrated the fallacy of their reasoning, merely rejected the facts as irrelevant. They then responded with anger and violence.
Bonhoeffer believed that trying to reason with stupid people was pointless, because they had entered a sphere of existence that was devoid of logic and dealt with dogma and slogans. Bonhoeffer believed that there were very many intelligent people who became stupid and many intellectually challenged people who were anything but stupid. He believed stupidity to be a sociological problem that grew in the presence of rising power, in which people gave up their independent thinking.”
end excerpt
I think we are trying to reason with stupid people. They claim to know things about CO2 that they don’t really know. Stupid and/or greedy.
Do otherwise smart people give up their independent thinking in the face of social pressure? I think they do. I think they go so far as to convince themselves that they understand the situation when they obviously do not. In other words, they fool themselves into believing something that isn’t true.
Excellent comment Tom.
The desire to conform to societal norms goes back to the dawn of time. It is not a rational process but an emotional response to a powerful irrational fear of being outside the protection of the tribe.
Any evidence that would lead to putting one at odds with societal norms must be blocked out and rejected. Those who persist in raising uncomfortable facts must be shunned and demonized.
It is no less the case with today’s state religion of Climastrology than it was for Socrates so many centuries ago.
Excellent comment, Rich.
Worthwhile read and highly apropos.
only liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity.
Bonhoeffer was right.
Why do people think this is about CO2 and temperature. It’s always been about money, power and population control for the people that already have plenty of both. The power brokers like to keep the masses chasing their tail
Yes, well stated. I would add some thought from Dr. Francis Schaefer, another of the 20th century’s greatest theologians and Christian apologists. He would say that people believe and behave based on their world view. With the late 20th century rise in various forms of secular humanism and western culture’s drift away from Biblical, Judeo-Christian beliefs, societies are becoming rudderless as they abandon the idea of “true truth” and seek various and sundry means to finding self-worth or validation in a seemingly hopeless world. The fundamental motivating force becomes “personal peace and prosperity.” Then, when people with these views are put under pressure, even people enjoying great civil liberties, most (the “stupid” as described above) are willing to cede more and more of their rights and liberties, even to dictators and tyrants, in order to preserve their personal peace and prosperity.
In the “woke” world of today, people fear being “unwoke” and will say, support, endorse or even “celebrate” almost anything to get along and save their own peace and prosperity. Even conservative commentators dance around issues of human sexuality, what constitutes human life in the womb, marriage and family, so-called “white privilege’ or history to avoid being labeled a heretic and shunned (cancelled).
With respect to climate, they stupidly follow the path of least resistance, the dominant narrative, even when it should be evident to a thinking person that that path is leading to their own destruction.
Trying to appease the enemy is futile.
“We in the petroleum industry are not dismissing the global climate change issue.
_______________________________________
Which side of your mouth are you talking out of?
Indeed, Mr. Case.
The “We … are not dismissing … climate change … ” quote is applauded by the author of the above post thusly:
“makes me long for former CEO Lee Raymond, whose realistic views on climate and energy remain defensible long after he said them.”
It implies either: sloppy writing/thinking or — no principles.
It is appropriate for a public company head to state acknowledgement of “the issue.”
Raymond then goes on to explain why his company’s products are socially beneficial. His other statements against exaggeration and renewables could be added.
The “acknowledgment of the issue” had the clear implication that Exxon considered human-caused global warming to be a legitimate, data-based, problem.
In short: appeasement.
Perhaps the excellent WUWT could have a page or section within its Reference heading, listing the products (hard, physical things, not just “adding 35 years to average lifespan”!) derived, directly, from fossil fuels.
I’m no expert, but would include:
Oil fuels – jet, petrol (gas in N America), diesel, kero;
Gas fuels – LPG, LNG;
Plastics of all sorts, not least insulators of electric wiring, one-use sterile medical devices and their wrappings, all the many uses in vehicles, computers, mobile phones, Play Stations, etc., and so many devices about the home, sunglasses to water butts;
The many drugs (human and animal use) and other treatments derived from fossil fuels;
The fabrics which clothe most of the world (natural fibres are available – but look at the cost of a tweed jacket!);
Contributing to durability in tyres for industrial, military and domestic vehicles;
Lubricants of many sorts;
Fertilisers that keep (until politicians in Sri Lanka, and elsewhere, decided they were suddenly evil) the world tolerably well fed.
Of course, other, far better informed, readers can contribute many more uses.
Auto
I would think it would be very interesting if someone had an essay contest for those wanting to ban drilling and all oil. The essay would be to describe everyday life in an oil-free world. Emphasize that the essay is not about what the environment would be, that’s not predictable, but a world in which KNOWN substitutes replace our uses of oil.
Offer a honkin’ big prize to get their attention.
How many would realize that electricity and all electrical products would be eliminated. No cellphones (no landlines, either), no ipads, ipods, smart watches, Starbucks coffee. And that is just the beginning. Life would be as it was in the late 1700s, early 1800s. Worse if you include banning coal and peat.
That could be a real eye-opener.
Would probably be easier to list the things that aren’t brought to us via fossil fuels.
Auto:
Try this site:
https://www.capp.ca/oil/uses-for-oil/#:~:text=%20OIL%20IN%20EVERYDAY%20PRODUCTS%20%201%20Electronics
And Alex Epstein’s books make a great basis for debating the merits of FF with the masses that have been “duped” by the climate “knaves”. Don’t bother with the knaves: they are beyond rational discourse since their identity too wrapped-up in their eco-beliefs [or their next paycheck, or both!].
Drill baby! Drill ! [or should I suggest “DRLL” ? ]
/sarc – I am not an investment advisor !!!
“Message to ExxonMobil. It is past time to heed Alex Epstein and play offense, not defense.”
Agree. This is important, and Alex Epstein is making a very strong case.
Also, about opposing views within organizations such as Enron and Exxon, I find indications that such was the case at NASA too about whether to consider CO2 emissions as a crisis-level problem:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
#NASA_Knew
I was in one sector of the alternative “green energy “ business for 43 years(fireplaces,wood gas and pellet stove service)I just recently retired from the business except for a few old customers I still service.
We got into the business on the cusp of the coming ice age and original “energy crisis” in the 70s. We also experimented with business in solar wind and hydro and with electric propulsion for the yachting industry.
These technologies work just well enough under optimum conditions and as a supplemental source that it fools people. It is a very seductive false solution.
“Exxon Knew” is a typical commie scam of blaming the other party
for what you yourself are doing. In this case, Exxon committed no
crime & was providing useful products. Using the blame game’s a
win-win-win for “Exxon Knew:
1) By making the bogus claim, it reinforces the legitimacy of the
CAGW scam- the impending disaster from rising CO2.
2) It villainizes Exxon & its useful & necessary 24/7 solar products
which for the past 150+ yrs lifted the world out of poverty. It’s
also a reliable competitor of the the useless, unreliable, &
expensive green solutions they DEMAND everyone adopt.
3) “Exxon Knew” is now seen as an altruistic “super hero” for exposing
Exxon’s “scam” by saving humanity from the Armageddon of rising CO2
with the Malthusian Nut Zero scam.
The tactic of blaming innocent parties for the crime you yourself
are doing can be stopped with an honest press, which has been
missing for at least the past 30+ yrs.
Longer than that.
Reading the press in the late 1960’s, I was told the U.S. military was being defeated in South Vietnam. I went to see for myself, and found out the press had been lying about the Vietnam war all along. They were completely distorting reality in their attempt to undermine the war effort.
I think the anti-war movement of the 1960’s is what really got the press off track and they then started promoting the leftwing agenda, mainly the anti-war agenda at the time. And this has become more so as time has gone along. Today, the press doesn’t try very hard to hide the fact that they are political partisans with an agenda. They have such control that they don’t have to defend their actions. Or so they think.
I say the lying, leftwing Media is the most dangerous entity free people face today. People cannot govern themselves properly if they are fed a constant stream of lies, and that is the case today, and you see what kind of shape the world is in as a result, and it won’t get better if the current situation continues.
If we end up losing our personal freedoms, the leftwing Media will be responsible. Without them, the radical Democrats/Socialists are nothing. With them, the radical Democrats/Socialists are dangerous as hell.
The media, tech industries and “higher” education (i.e., the people who comprise the media, big tech and “higher” ed) are by no means immune from the same mass delusions, so they use their legal privileges to “research”, publicize and promote the delusion. As for environmental NGOs, I have ZERO use for them. They should not even be allowed at the table.
“the company knew that carbon dioxide would warm the planet and create major problems.”
No one knew (and still don’t) that it would, bit they certainly thought (and think) that it could.
A statement about future climate change is an opinion, not fact.
You can have knowledge of facts, but opinions are not knowledge.
“Exxon knew” is a conflation of fact and opinion.
Therefore Exxon knew such, a non sequitur.