Nick Pope
Contributor
Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta struggled to defend his own lawsuit against ExxonMobil during a Tuesday appearance on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
Bonta’s office filed suit against ExxonMobil on Monday, alleging that the corporation deceived the public about the efficacy of recycling plastics and specifically its “advanced recycling” program, which essentially breaks down old plastics into their molecular component parts that are then used to produce other products. During the interview, Bonta struggled to defend the merits of his lawsuit and was also called out by one of the program’s hosts for being hypocritical about jet fuel given that he seems to have flown into New York City for this week’s “Climate Week NYC” summit. (RELATED: Officials Told Biden’s EPA That Its Aggressive Green Power Plant Scheme Has Serious Flaws, Docs Show)
WATCH:
“They’re lying in different ways. They are saying that essentially, 100% of U.S. plastic could be recycled, and that was the myth they wanted to perpetuate,” Bonta said in response to questions from CNBC’s anchors.
After some more back and forth, Bonta continued to try to explain his lawsuit against ExxonMobil.
“Of all the plastics that ExxonMobil produces, from their product, only 1% goes into the advanced recycling process at all, and of that one percent, 92% becomes mostly transportation fuel,” Bonta said. “So the other 99% of what ExxonMobil produces in plastic and what the world produces in plastic, advanced recycling doesn’t touch.”
“But advanced recycling sounds like a better thing than nothing, than going into a landfill,” CNBC host Becky Quick interjected.
“They don’t get any credit for advanced recycling, turning things into jet fuel that’s emitted into the air or transportation fuel that becomes part of our …” Bonta fired back.
“So your point is we shouldn’t have jet fuel?” Quick said in response.
“My point is ExxonMobil shouldn’t lie. And they shouldn’t point to another lie —” Bonta said, before CNBC anchor Joe Kernen cut him off to point out the irony of Bonta railing against jet fuel after flying to New York City to partake in a climate summit attended by numerous business and political elites.
“You flew here though, right?” Kernen asked.
“We travel,” Bonta replied.
If Bonta flew roundtrip from Sacramento to New York City to appear at Climate Week, he would have flown approximately 5,000 miles and emitted about 2.26 metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to calculations done on Sustainable Travel.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jeeeemunny Christmas, you’d think he’d at least have the smarts to not mention jet fuel! What a maroon.
Well, I’d call him a Red, but I take your point!
I first heard of it as “cuckoo nut maroon”, and figgered somebody else liked coconut macaroons as much as I do.
He didn’t mention using hair gel.
The taxpayers (i.e. me) foot that bill too.
Someone should ask him if the border is secure.
Warning: highly flammable . . . stand well away!
You’d be in more danger of his nose growing suddenly.
He doesn’t think that hard about it, and assumes you don’t either. The people whom voted for him obviously don’t either.
A politician claims that Exxon lied. Projection?
California D’s best and brightest. Right out of the same mold as Gruesome.
And his predecessor ditzy slut Horris.
California HippieCrats
I wish he would examine the veracity of the term “renewables.”
Bonta is an idiot. His defenses of California’s unconstitutional gun laws are failing, too. One after another.
Lest anyone forget, Bonta’s CA v Exxon version 1 was over damages Exxon caused by warming the planet. In it, he accused Dr Willie Soon of taking a bribe from Exxon – but as I detailed in my dissection of that one, AG Bonta apparently plagiarized his accusation out of another of the ExxonKnew lawsuits, filed by a supposedly unrelated law firm. In this latest lawfare maneuver of his, he’s only separated by 3 degrees or less from particular 2008-era Greenpeace administrators – the group had a claim back then about a floating plastic waste pile the size of Texas out in the Pacific. For more on that problem and others not helpful to Bonta, please see: “California v Exxon v.2“
Numbskull doesn’t quite cut it.
“We travel” is the response we should all make when confronted with the idiocy of ending fossil fuel…humans travel. Period. Oh and there’s also shelter and clothing and food type stuff we “frequently” do….
I get around round round round I get around….
hmmm… I notice you make numerous musical references, subtly of course
He’s prolly gettin’ bugged drivin’ up and down the same ole strip.
‘Til her Daddy takes the T-bird away …………
He meant “we elites need to travel quickly and comfortably, unlike the commoners”.
Deplorables.
You know, he could travel the way people did 200 years ago–by horse or foot. Oh, but that would take longer, be less convenient and less comfortable. Why exactly does he think people like to fly and drive?
Well, we know that. He does travel and uses all manner of fossil resources that he never even thinks about. And he even Breathes! What a sin. Any you know what, I doubt he even knows it. Maybe that is worth a countersuit. He needs to live a year without fossil energy of any kind and then report back on what he found.
When we have nothing, but we will be happy,, we will have no cars, no houses, no electricity, no medicines, no clothing…..
Funnily enough the Italian [che] bonta translates into English as… how delicious
I call bull-schist on the CO2 emission calculation. A 747-400 emits 0.239 lbs of CO2 per passenger mile. So one passenger going 5,000 miles in said plane, would be responsible for 1,195 lbs of CO2. Not 2.26 metric tons, or 4,981 lbs. And for a 777 it is only 905 lbs per person to fly 5,000 miles. (which by the way is better than either driving or taking a train, both of which emit more CO2 per passenger mile)
You have to count the CO2 from well to landfill, including the CO2 of building the plane and all the supporting infrastructures. Add it all up, and CO2 would at least quadruple
The CO2 per passenger mile is totally bogus, because it covers only the fuel
I disagree. CO2/plane built, CO2/mile of runway built, CO2/airpot operation/year, CO2/fuel truck mile, etc etc. Could all be separate metrics. But trying to include all of this into CO2/passenger mile would be nearly impossible. Besides, who cares as long as your plane is on time.
It is “impossible” for most people, but once people are allowed to become familiar, it becomes easy to understand.
Well, a runway at LAX has its construction carbon spread over every flight that uses the runway. But since carbon is not climate change, and human release of CO2 is only about 4% of that released per year, this is all just a kind of stupid red herring.
I agree. But consider the $$$$. See my comment that follows.
Tarmac, when heated by the sun, emits CO2. It is, after all, derived from oil refining.
Should the CO2 from the staff he took with him and the Limo rides to and from airports be included as well?
What if the plane is half empty? Planes are not always full. If not full, that raises the emissions per passenger mile, no?
What would the CO2 emissions be for a human being walking and breathing for the same distance? Don’t forget, moving a human body requires energy, in this case generated in our cells, extracted by oxidation thereby creating CO2 which is then exhaled. I would bet the actual CO2 emissions are close if not greater than flying. Of course, the human would also be breathing while they are flying but without the exertion of actually moving their body.
And lest we forget, the human is also carrying a suitcase or the 18th century equivalent of one, which also takes energy.
Resting takes about 100 calories per hour, a brisk walk takes about 300 calories per hour, bicycling uphill with a 20 lb bicycle, takes about 700 calories per hour
But how much CO2 does that amount to? I think there is a conversion, but I don’t know what it is.
Walking human has CO2 emission of 0.442 lbs per passenger mile. Compared to the 747 at 0.239, a car at 0.222 and a train at 0.293. So walking is worse than almost any fuel powered form of transport, except maybe a cruise ship.
What about a half empty plane?
If walking, the person will be healthier than sitting on their butt for hours. If healthier, they’ll need less extremely expensive medical care. Must be counted!
I have been at meetings where the true believers would say that the damage done by travel is far worse than what is calculated. What about Contrails! That is the latest scare story. Contrails will kill us as they cause GLOBAL WARMING. Then there is the Environmental Justice issues caused by airports. It is a sin to inflict the emissions (Noise and Pollutants) on all those poor people living around airports (ignoring the fact that the airport was usually there long before the residents, but that is a different topic). The list of the sins of flying is longer than anyone can imagine, except for maybe Just Stop Oil and their ilk.
My conspiracy-theory cousin says contrails are really chemtrails and they are poisonous.
I doubt that any airline flies 747s from Sacramento to anywhere. Try a representative aircraft.
OK smart guy, lets use a 737-800, which DOES fly out of Sacramento. It;s CO2 per passenger mile is comparable to a car, and less than the 747, coming in at 0.222 lbs CO2 per passenger mile. So the same calc, if he flew on a 737-800 from LAX to JFK the 5,000 miles would be 1,110 lbs instead of 1,195 for the 747.
But.. and I’ll repeat the question, what if they plane is half empty? You’re assuming its full.
You are assuming the plane is full- what if it’s half empty?
Or carries cargo in addition to luggage?
Did he fly by commercial or was he so special he got a private charter flight?
I don’t get it why isn’t turning used polyethylene into Jet recycling? If you recycle beer cans and they are used to make aluminum house siding doesn’t that count as recycling?
Of course it is, but the house looks funny with all those beer logos all over it.
j/k. You’re right, l think their complaint is that they don’t make more bottles, instead. The failure to understand fungibility means they think that turning it into something besides fuel reduces the amount available for fuel, when in fact the fuels is the driving factor, and reclaiming it from bottles may represent a real cost savings.
They turn milk jugs into deck planks.
I have stepping stones in my yard made from recycled plastics.
I realize that plastics are made from hydrocarbons but does Exxon make plastic on the side?
Performance Polyethylene Resins| ExxonMobil PE Products (exxonmobilchemical.com)
Refinery processes like catalytic cracking and reforming create hydrocarbons with double bonds that can be polymerized into plastic resins. Other firms use these resins to fabricate the useful plastic objects that enhance our standard of living.
As a matter of note, many governments have taken it upon themselves to collect taxes and fees specifically targeted for the recycling or safe disposal of these materials. It shouldn’t be any surprise, then, that this end of the cycle is too often botched.
Olefins, they’re not just for breakfast.
They’re nice when they’re leaded, too!
If only they knew about transparent aluminum.
People should be aware of who Rob Bonta is.
Bonta represented the 18th Assembly District of California, which includes areas of Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro, since 2012. Bonta was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972.
Bonta authored several criminal justice reform bills, including ones that banned the use of private prisons, mandated independent reviews by the state Department of Justice of officer-involved shootings and eliminated cash bail. All three of those were signed into law, but Senate Bill 10, the bail measure, never took effect and was overturned by voters in 2020.
Bonta earned support from leaders in California’s NGO political organizers, including Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza and Lenore Anderson, chief executive and president of Alliance for Safety and Justice, which wants to limit funding for police.
Bonita was appointed Attorney General by Gavin Newsom because he was Fillipino. Newsom said, “And I appreciate Rob bringing up the most salient and most obvious point around the issue of Asian and Pacific Islander hate in this state, in our region, in this city, our nation, for that matter, globally. And I think from his unique life and lived experience, we have someone that doesn’t need to be educated on these things.”
The California attorney general post is considered an important springboard to higher office, In fact, there’s an old joke that “AG” stands for “aspiring governor.” In California, the last three AG’s — Jerry Brown, Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra went on to become governor, U.S. vice president and Bidens secretary for Health and Human Services, respectively.
.
Nice summary. Given the low quality of candidates that typically emerges from CA’s (and other deep blue states’) super majority of Democrat voters, I find it very troubling that younger Americans have been successfully propagandized into supporting the elimination of the Electoral College provision from the US Constitution.
Ahhhh . . . a self-acknowledgement coming from the Governor himself. How cute and perfect!
Did Newsome also point out that crimes against “Asians” (does that include Russians? Arabs? Indians?, etc) are perpetrated mostly by black men? I’ll bet he left that part out.
“the issue of Asian and Pacific Islander”
Nonsense. I doubt more than a few Americans hate those people.
I’m very confused about Exxon’s role in recycling. Has Exxon ever said “If you buy our plastics you can return them to us and we will recycle them”? I must say I’ve never heard anything like that before. Now maybe Exxon has said that their plastics are capable of being recycled but how is Exxon responsible for the recycling actually occurring?
This doesn’t have anything to do with Exxon’s anything real. That’s just name-association. The ruling party in this one-party state knows the state is full of millions of voters who will think that this guy is really wonderful for being such a hero, combatting climate and standing up to big oil – and then vote for him. Taxpayer-funded advertising.
I know, I walk among them.
Me too.
It’s more bonkers illogical than that. In the lawsuit itself, and in Bonta’s news hype about it elsewhere on the traveling propaganda circuit, he said Exxon had…
Word-for-word there, I kid you not. Toss it in a garbage bag, magically it will be recycled … and we can sue Exxon if it never was.
“… he seems to have flown into New York City for …”
Let’s have an audit of the CA-folk that attended this “Climate Week NYC” vacation in The Big Apple. He wasn’t the only one. The CA Governor “delivered remarks” — translation –> blah, blah, etc.
How many went? What did they do? What was the total $$ cost? Where there any benefits to the people of California? 🤔
Boy, his “word salad” is up to par with Kamala’s. Is it a California politician thing?
Plastic recycling is a very nuanced topic. Many plastics are recyclable, but some are infeasible or too costly to recycle. This shouldn’t be surprising given that somewhere around 2,000 different plastics are in consumer use. Most of us are familiar with the plastics recycling logo on some plastic products, and given the sophistication of a recycling program, the bulk of those labeled plastics are handled appropriately. However, a large volume of plastics are so-called “single-use” and are found in various packing or bags that are unrecyclable to reuse like the parent product. For example, where I live the local recycling cannot handle bag and if bags are in the recycling bin it dooms the entire lot to landfill disposal. If the “turn-them-into-jet-fuel” involves mostly unrecyclable plastics I consider that a win-win.
I can’t take “the climate crisis” any more seriously than he obviously does.
Governments are so lazy, they go on and on about how much Exxon knew or knows. They are admitting that Exxon is better than them. If Exxon is so capable then Exxon should be the go to outfit for our energy issues. I don’t put a whole lot of faith in corporations but I have more faith in a regulated corporation than I do in an unregulated government. Exxon couldn’t do a worse job.
Rob Bonta . . . what an idiot!
California is rapidly swirling in the toilet, with an influx of illegal immigrants, rampant homelessness, and a massive increase in smash-and-grab robberies of convenience stores and even major department stores in malls by organized gangs (prominently displayed in videos on national TV news clips). Yet, Bonta wants to devote some of his and his office’s energies to sue Exxon for the made-up charge “alleging that the corporation deceived the public about the efficacy of recycling plastics“.
Yeah, right!. . . you think any modern-day jury has the average IQ to discern the difference between, say, 20 % recycling “efficacy” and 95% recycling “efficacy? Even Bonta himself, in the above-embedded video clip, had great difficulty explaining which and what type of efficiency or efficacy he was talking about!!!
BTW, “efficacy” is not the same thing as “efficiency” . . . look it up.
Among many questions I would have as a juror if this lawsuit proceeds to trial would be:
“What active recycling program does the Department of Justice for the State of California have, and provide the metrics you monitor to determine its efficacy?” This question goes directly to establishing your standing to bring suit in this matter.
Perhaps Bonta feels that no recycling is better than some recycling?
Sadly, jurors do not get to ask questions. I really wish they did.
I have sat on juries where we were able to submit written questions to the judge, via the Bailiff, and, if the judge thought it appropriate, he or she would ask the witness the question.
Yes, that’s my experience also.
Clearly being a California AG means that you can be assumed to be stupid. Applying that now to VP Harris?????
In this and the Harris case, it is not an assumption