Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[sadqave]

On 4/30/2021 at 8:50 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Based on the above complete chart, it appears that Roy Spencer engaged in a deceptive practice on his blog when posting a skewed chart.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/

 

President Biden took action his first day in office to return the United States to the Paris Agreement.  Days later, on January 27, he announced that he would soon convene a leaders summit to galvanize efforts by the major economies to tackle the climate crisis.

 

By the time of the Summit, the United States will announce an ambitious 2030 emissions target as its new Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement.  In his invitation, the President urged leaders to use the Summit as an opportunity to outline how their countries also will contribute to stronger climate ambition.

The Summit will reconvene the U.S.-led Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, which brings together 17 countries responsible for approximately 80 percent of global emissions and global GDP.  The President also invited the heads of other countries that are demonstrating strong climate leadership, are especially vulnerable to climate impacts, or are charting innovative pathways to a net-zero economy.  A small number of business and civil society leaders will also participate in the Summit.

[donsutherland1]

New study: Approximately $8.1 billion of the damages that resulted from Sandy (2012) can be attributed to rising sea levels on account of anthropogenic climate change. The paper can be found here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22838-1

[LibertyBell]

On 5/18/2021 at 11:05 PM, donsutherland1 said:

New study: Approximately $8.1 billion of the damages that resulted from Sandy (2012) can be attributed to rising sea levels on account of anthropogenic climate change. The paper can be found here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22838-1

One thing I dont get is how a 4 inch sea level rise can cause that much damage?

[donsutherland1]

51 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

One thing I dont get is how a 4 inch sea level rise can cause that much damage?

The increased fraction of flooded area likely included some important and costly infrastructure.

[LibertyBell]

48 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The increased fraction of flooded area likely included some important and costly infrastructure.

Is the level of sea level rise currently 1 inch per decade, Don?  And expected to accelerate?

 

[donsutherland1]

Just now, LibertyBell said:

Is the level of sea level rise currently 1 inch per decade, Don?  And expected to accelerate?

 

It’s a little above that.

[chubbs]

11 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Is the level of sea level rise currently 1 inch per decade, Don?  And expected to accelerate?

 

Its been accelerating since the start of the industrial revolution. Almost no sea level rise from Roman times to 1800. 1" in the 1800s, 6" in the 1900s. 1.5" per decade now.

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/08/what-roman-ruins-reveal

[etudiant]

On 5/22/2021 at 7:01 AM, chubbs said:

Its been accelerating since the start of the industrial revolution. Almost no sea level rise from Roman times to 1800. 1" in the 1800s, 6" in the 1900s. 1.5" per decade now.

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/08/what-roman-ruins-reveal

The late John Daly had a website titled: 'Still waiting for Greenhouse', which prominently featured a high tide marker placed in 1841 on an island off Tasmania by British Admiral Napier.

That benchmark is still quite visible and well clear of the water at low tide, as shown in the associated photos.  http://www.john-daly.com/

It does cast some doubt on the claimed sea level rise acceleration.

[chubbs]

17 hours ago, etudiant said:

The late John Daly had a website titled: 'Still waiting for Greenhouse', which prominently featured a high tide marker placed in 1841 on an island off Tasmania by British Admiral Napier.

That benchmark is still quite visible and well clear of the water at low tide, as shown in the associated photos.  http://www.john-daly.com/

It does cast some doubt on the claimed sea level rise acceleration.

Not really. Local ground-level changes can be larger than sea-level rise. Also sea level rise is not uniform. Areas close to Greenland and Antarctica have less rise due to gravitational effects from shrinking ice sheets. Individual tide gauge records don't provide useful information on SLR, need to look at a large group of gauges with the proper weighting of different regions. The satellite record plotted above covers the globe and is robust.

[bdgwx]

Hunter 2003 concluded that the 1841 to 2002 rise was +1 mm/yr at that benchmark site in Tasmania. This is composed of +0.8 mm/yr rise wrt to the marking plus +0.2 mm/yr when accounting for isostatic uplift of the land. No analysis was made regarding acceleration at this site though. Anyway, this is consistent with broader sea level over this 160 year period.

[LibertyBell]

On 5/25/2021 at 3:11 PM, chubbs said:

Not really. Local ground-level changes can be larger than sea-level rise. Also sea level rise is not uniform. Areas close to Greenland and Antarctica have less rise due to gravitational effects from shrinking ice sheets. Individual tide gauge records don't provide useful information on SLR, need to look at a large group of gauges with the proper weighting of different regions. The satellite record plotted above covers the globe and is robust.

isn't the sea level rise along the east coast of the US and the gulf coast supposed to be accelerating more than most?

It would be a nice to see a global map of where sea level rise has been higher than other areas and where it will accelerate the most in the future.

[etudiant]

11 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

isn't the sea level rise along the east coast of the US and the gulf coast supposed to be accelerating more than most?

It would be a nice to see a global map of where sea level rise has been higher than other areas and where it will accelerate the most in the future.

I've sen some maps like that, only one I could find was here:  https://psmsl.org/products/trends/

The detail maps I've seen show both rises as well as falls, often quite localized. Presumably this reflects local issues. 

Given that the earth is far from a sphere, it is frankly a miracle to measure ocean height to within a few millimetres.

[LibertyBell]

https://twitter.com/i/events/1397893536335339527

 

Earth inches closer to a dangerous climate tipping point in the next five years, scientists say

In a new report released on Thursday by the World Meteorological Organization, scientists warn there is a 40% chance that at least one of the next five years will temporarily reach 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than pre-industrial times. This increase would "push past the temperature limit the Paris climate agreement is trying to prevent," according to The Associated Press.

 

What you need to know

- There’s a 40% chance that at least one of the next five years will be hotter than pre-industrial times, according to the World Meteorological Organization. - WMO also says in their report that there is a 90% likelihood of at least one year between 2021-2025 becoming the warmest ever recorded. - Scientists warn that this increase could bring about "the most catastrophic and long-term effects of climate change," NPR reports.

[chubbs]

16 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

isn't the sea level rise along the east coast of the US and the gulf coast supposed to be accelerating more than most?

It would be a nice to see a global map of where sea level rise has been higher than other areas and where it will accelerate the most in the future.

Sea level trends from satellite. This doesn't include local land rise/fall or compaction of sediments, which is increasing the rise in Louisiana and some areas of east coast (NJ).

https://sealevel.colorado.edu/trend-map

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Sea level trends from satellite. This doesn't include local land rise/fall or compaction of sediments, which is increasing the rise in Louisiana and some areas of east coast (NJ).

https://sealevel.colorado.edu/trend-map

Thanks, this is exactly what I was wondering about.  Higher local rises around cities like Miami and Charleston (where a sea wall is now being built) as well as NYC and Long Island, where we are now seeing a sharply rising incidence of sunny day flooding.  All of the mentioned cities are.

 

[donsutherland1]

A historic early summer heatwave has toppled temperature records in many parts of the West. Through June 17, highlights include Phoenix’s earliest 118° temperature on record (last year set the mark for its latest such reading); Death Valley’s 128° temperature, which tied the June record and set a world record for hottest temperature during the second decade of June; Palm Springs’ all-time record-tying 123° temperature; Salt Lake City’s all-time record-tying 107° temperature; and Tucson’s record-tying six consecutive 110° temperatures (a record that will likely be broken on June 18). Anthropogenic climate change is contributing to such events through resonance events.

It is encouraging that some of the major news outlets have made a direct connection between the historic heat and climate change. Some highlights:

CNN: An unrelenting drought and record heat, both worsened by the changing climate, have pushed the water supply at Northern California's Lake Oroville to deplete rapidly.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/17/us/california-drought-oroville-power/index.html

The New York Times: Global warming, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, has been heating up and drying out the American West for years. Now the region is broiling under a combination of a drought that is the worst in two decades and a record-breaking heat wave.

“The Southwest is getting hammered by climate change harder than almost any other part of the country, apart from perhaps coastal cities,” said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan. “And as bad as it might seem today, this is about as good as it’s going to get if we don’t get global warming under control.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/17/climate/wildfires-drought-climate-change-west-coast.html

The Washington Post: Fueled by climate change, the first major heat wave of the summer has seized the western United States, toppling records and threatening lives. The event is unprecedented in its timing, intensity and scope, said Washington State University climate scientist Deepti Singh; never have such severe conditions been recorded over such a large area so early in the summer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/06/17/record-heat-wave-west/

Such coverage is consistent with good journalism. Indeed, responsible journalism requires publication of facts linking the extreme heatwave to climate change given the overwhelming body of evidence now available within the scientific community.

[donsutherland1]

Today’s article in the Washington Post illustrated what good journalism looks like. The story concerning the extreme to perhaps historic heat in the Pacific Northwest explained:

The forthcoming outbreak of heat, made worse by human-induced climate change, will further dry soils and reinforce drought conditions. The drought, in turn, will make future extreme heat events more likely…

The intensity of last week’s heat wave, like the one forthcoming, is connected to human-caused climate change and the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/06/22/heat-wave-pacific-northwest-historic/

In short, the article provides the full information as to why the heat event is likely. It contains no material omissions into misleading readers that such events are random occurrences. Readers deserve the facts. Any publication that materially omits the climate change connection is not fulfilling its fiduciary journalistic responsibility to its audience. In effect, such publications are posting opinion masked as news coverage, as the intervention aimed at depriving readers of the climate change connection is subjective in nature and that subjectivity transforms otherwise objective stories into hybrid stories that are part fact and part opinion.

[LibertyBell]

On 6/23/2021 at 8:18 AM, donsutherland1 said:

Today’s article in the Washington Post illustrated what good journalism looks like. The story concerning the extreme to perhaps historic heat in the Pacific Northwest explained:

The forthcoming outbreak of heat, made worse by human-induced climate change, will further dry soils and reinforce drought conditions. The drought, in turn, will make future extreme heat events more likely…

The intensity of last week’s heat wave, like the one forthcoming, is connected to human-caused climate change and the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/06/22/heat-wave-pacific-northwest-historic/

In short, the article provides the full information as to why the heat event is likely. It contains no material omissions into misleading readers that such events are random occurrences. Readers deserve the facts. Any publication that materially omits the climate change connection is not fulfilling its fiduciary journalistic responsibility to its audience. In effect, such publications are posting opinion masked as news coverage, as the intervention aimed at depriving readers of the climate change connection is subjective in nature and that subjectivity transforms otherwise objective stories into hybrid stories that are part fact and part opinion.

and this is what bad politics looks like.

good riddance to all these pests!  No wonder we dont see any progress, as you rightly mentioned the other day

 

 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

and this is what bad politics looks like.

good riddance to all these pests!  No wonder we dont see any progress, as you rightly mentioned the other day

 

 

Individuals such as the above lobbyist have created significant barriers to an effective climate change response. Such elements have poisoned the political discourse much as their companies have polluted the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. 

Despite attempted face-saving political spin concerning the bipartisan infrastructure agreement, the infrastructure legislation was largely stripped of substantive commitments to address climate change. By itself, it would put the U.S. nowhere close to moving onto a path that could lead to net zero emissions by 2050. Those from the Millennial Generation and Generation Z are well aware that the future they will experience is being squandered by short-term political expediency, in no small part because firms such as ExxonMobil still carry far more weight among elected officials than the public at large. 

[LibertyBell]

22 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Individuals such as the above lobbyist have created significant barriers to an effective climate change response. Such elements have poisoned the political discourse much as their companies have polluted the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. 

Despite attempted face-saving political spin concerning the bipartisan infrastructure agreement, the infrastructure legislation was largely stripped of substantive commitments to address climate change. By itself, it would put the U.S. nowhere close to moving onto a path that could lead to net zero emissions by 2050. Those from the Millennial Generation and Generation Z are well aware that the future they will experience is being squandered by short-term political expediency, in no small part because firms such as ExxonMobil still carry far more weight among elected officials than the public at large. 

This is why I say the more extremely and deadly weather we experience the better.  It sounds horrible to say and it is, but the fact is real change only happens after large scale catastrophic events......  real change only happens after the existing structure is completely destroyed.

More details on the lobbyist.

 

Look at the mental gymnastics they're doing here when they got outted lol.

Blaming Greenpeace for outting them.

Greenpeace are planetary heroes.

https://www.rawstory.com/exxonmobil-controls-11-senators/

https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-exxonmobils-lobbying-war-on-climate-change-legislation
 

neither capitalism nor communism work, capitalism just dies more slowly at first and then the decline accelerates towards the inevitable.

 

from the above articles, this is what ultimately destroys democracy in a capitalist society

 

"Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes. Did we hide our science? Absolutely not," said McCoy on camera. "Did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that's true. But there's nothing, there's nothing illegal about that. We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders."

 

"When you have an opportunity to talk to a member of Congress, I liken it to fishing, right? You know you have bait, you throw that bait out. And they say: 'Oh, you want to talk about infrastructure, yeah,'" McCoy continued. "And then you start to reel them in and you start to have these conversations about federal leasing programs, you start to have these conversations about a carbon tax. You know, it's all these opportunities that you use and to use the fishing analogy again just to kind of reel them in."

"I make sure I get them the right information that they need so they look good. And then they help me out. They're a captive audience. They know they need you. And I need them," McCoy also said.

 

"When you have an opportunity to talk to a member of Congress, I liken it to fishing, right? You know you have bait, you throw that bait out. And they say: 'Oh, you want to talk about infrastructure, yeah,'" McCoy continued. "And then you start to reel them in and you start to have these conversations about federal leasing programs, you start to have these conversations about a carbon tax. You know, it's all these opportunities that you use and to use the fishing analogy again just to kind of reel them in."

"I make sure I get them the right information that they need so they look good. And then they help me out. They're a captive audience. They know they need you. And I need them," McCoy also said.

 

Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Maggie Hassan, Senator John Barrasso, Senator John Cornyn, Senator Steve Daines, Senator Chris Coons, Senator Mark Kelly and Senator Marco Rubio," were all cited.

He went on to explain that the last thing they want is to appear in a public hearing before Congress where the American people can see.

"We don't want it to be us, to have these conversations, especially in a hearing. It's getting our associations to step in and have those conversations and answer those tough questions and be for, the lack of a better term, the whipping boy for some of these members of congress," McCoy confessed.

 

The explosive footage was obtained by Unearthed, Greenpeace UK’s investigative platform, who posed as head-hunters to obtain the information from one of ExxonMobil’s most senior Washington lobbyists.

The recordings appear to reveal the secretive behind-the-scenes activities of a lobbyist for a company that claims in public to support action on climate change, while fighting against legislative attempts to tackle it.

 

Keith McCoy is a senior ExxonMobil lobbyist on Capitol Hill and has represented the company in its liaison with the US Congress for the last eight years.

Greenpeace UK’s Unearthed platform posed as head-hunters looking to hire a Washington D.C. lobbyist for a major client. They approached Mr McCoy, who agreed to speak over Zoom.

During the covert recordings, which have been passed to Channel 4 News, Mr McCoy claims:

the company secretly fought against legislative action on climate change using third-party organisations
he lobbied key senators to remove and/or diminish climate change measures from President Biden’s US $2 trillion infrastructure and jobs bill as it proceeds through the legislative process
he regards trade bodies like the American Petroleum Institute as “whipping boys” in order to avoid public scrutiny on Capitol Hill
During the virtual meeting held on 7 May, the investigators asked Mr McCoy questions about ExxonMobil’s current and historical lobbying on environmental issues.

In the excerpts from the footage to be broadcast on Channel 4 News tonight, Mr McCoy claims that ExxonMobil has aggressively fought science to deny climate change in order to maximise profit and shareholder return. He alleges that ExxonMobil joined “shadow groups” to pursue climate change denial.

Mr McCoy said: “Did we aggressively fight against some of the science?  Yes. Did we hide our science?  Absolutely not.  Did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that’s true. But there’s nothing, there’s nothing illegal about that.

“We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders.”

Mr McCoy likens the approach to lobbying congressmen to the way fishermen target fish, claiming that ExxonMobil puts out “bait” and then “reels in” congressmen on issues like carbon tax, electric vehicles, chemicals, taxation and infrastructure.

Mr McCoy said: “When you have an opportunity to talk to a member of Congress, I liken it to fishing, right? You know you have bait, you throw that bait out. And they say: ‘Oh, you want to talk about infrastructure, yeah.’

“And then you start to reel them in and you start to have these conversations about federal leasing programmes, you start to have these conversations about a carbon tax. You know, it’s all these opportunities that you use and to use the fishing analogy again just to kind of reel them in.”

He added: “I make sure I get them the right information that they need so they look good. And then they help me out. They’re a captive audience. They know they need you. And I need them.”

He says lobbyists aim to have a direct relationship with a member of congress, adding: “You want to be able to go to the chief… and say we need congressman so and so to be able to either introduce this bill, we need him to make a floor statement, we need him to send a letter. You name it, we’ve asked for everything.”

 

Mr McCoy names 11 senators who he says are “crucial” to ExxonMobil: Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Maggie Hassan, Senator John Barrasso, Senator John Cornyn, Senator Steve Daines, Senator Chris Coons, Senator Mark Kelly and Senator Marco Rubio

 

Mr McCoy described Senator Joe Manchin as “the Kingmaker” in the Senate and he says he spoke to his office on a weekly basis.

The FEC data shows Senator Manchin has received at least $12,500 from the ExxonMobil Political Action Committee in declared disbursements since the beginning of the 2011-12 election cycle.

Mr McCoy described how a “big piece of [his] job is education and advocacy” and says that in his work on behalf of ExxonMobil he argues that US government programmes to roll out electric vehicles are unrealistic.

He said: “The research and development conversation has taken us a long way because of climate change. And there is a struggle to find solutions and to get the reductions that they’re looking for. And you’re not going to be able to just switch to battery operated vehicles or wind for your electricity. And just having that conversation around why that’s not possible in the next 10 years is critically important to the work that we do.”

 

Mr McCoy described a lobbying strategy in which he claims ExxonMobil uses third parties to mask its interests from public view and accountability.

He said: “We don’t want it to be us, to have these conversations, especially in a hearing. It’s getting our associations to step in and have those conversations and answer those tough questions and be for, the lack of a better term, the whipping boy for some of these members of congress.”

He added: “There was something we were working on earlier this week where we, where our CEO was invited to a hearing from a member of congress who we know is just going to rip him to shreds when he goes there. So, we look at it and we say: well, why us?”

Mr McCoy claims that ExxonMobil lobbied Congress to dilute the climate provisions of President Biden’s Infrastructure Bill.

He said: “That’s a completely different conversation when you start to stick to roads and bridges. And instead of a $2 trillion bill, it’s an $800 billion dollar bill. If you lower that threshold, you stick to highways and bridges then a lot of the negative stuff starts to come out.”

“Why would you put in something on emissions reductions on climate change to oil refineries in a highway bill? So, people say yeah that doesn’t make any sense, so then you get to the germane of saying that shouldn’t be in this bill.”

 

Mr McCoy appears to suggest that ExxonMobil’s public support for a carbon tax is underpinned by the conviction it will never happen, allowing the company to “support” it in order to appear green.

He said: “I will tell you there is not an appetite for a carbon tax. It is a non-starter. Nobody is going to propose a tax on all Americans. And the cynical side of me says yeah we kind of know that. But it gives us a talking point. We can say well what is ExxonMobil for? Well we’re for a carbon tax.

“Carbon tax is not gonna happen. I have always said, and I’ve worked on climate change issues for twenty years. There’s a lot of talk around it and the bottom line is it’s going to take political courage, political will in order to get something done. And that just doesn’t exist in politics. It just doesn’t.

Purporting to speak on behalf of ExxonMobil, Mr McCoy also expressed a corporate view that, contrary to science, natural gas is a clean energy source.

He said: “On a clean electricity standard, we think natural gas will play a key role in anything. And not just as a bridge fuel. We think it is a low emission energy source and should be part of a clean electricity standard.”

 

A spokesperson for ExxonMobil told Channel 4 News:  “Greenpeace has waged a multi-decade campaign against our company and industry, which has included false claims and unlawful actions at our facilities as well as those of other companies around the world.

“Our lobbying efforts are related to a tax burden that could disadvantage U.S. businesses, and we have made that position known publicly. ExxonMobil stands by our position that increased taxes on American businesses make the U.S. less competitive.

“We have been clear in supporting an efficient, economy-wide price on carbon as the best way to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. While there is not broad support for a tax, we are actively and publicly discussing other options, including lower-carbon fuels and other sector-based approaches that would place a uniform, predictable cost on carbon.

“We have supported climate science for decades. Greenpeace and others have distorted our position on climate science and our support for effective policy solutions.

”ExxonMobil transparently engages with a variety of trade associations, think tanks and coalitions in order to promote informed dialogue and sound public policy in areas pertinent to the Corporation’s interests.

“ExxonMobil exercises its right to engage in lobbying in the United States at both the Federal and State levels to advocate our positions on issues that affect our Corporation and the energy industry.

“We have a responsibility to our customers, employees, communities and shareholders to represent their interests in public policy discussions that impact our business.

“Our lobbying efforts fully comply with all laws and are publicly disclosed on a quarterly basis, including the issues we discuss.”

 

There's the loophole right here.....corporate lobbying and political donations need to be banned on EVERY level.

 

Greenpeace are planetary heroes and Exxon is as bad as any terrorist organization that has ever existed.

People talk about breaking up Facebook which is fine and dandy but Exxon should be first on the chopping block
 

[donsutherland1]

6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

This is why I say the more extremely and deadly weather we experience the better.  It sounds horrible to say and it is, but the fact is real change only happens after large scale catastrophic events......  real change only happens after the existing structure is completely destroyed.

More details on the lobbyist.

 

Look at the mental gymnastics they're doing here when they got outted lol.

Blaming Greenpeace for outting them.

Greenpeace are planetary heroes.

https://www.rawstory.com/exxonmobil-controls-11-senators/

https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-exxonmobils-lobbying-war-on-climate-change-legislation
 

neither capitalism nor communism work, capitalism just dies more slowly at first and then the decline accelerates towards the inevitable.

 

from the above articles, this is what ultimately destroys democracy in a capitalist society

 

"Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes. Did we hide our science? Absolutely not," said McCoy on camera. "Did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that's true. But there's nothing, there's nothing illegal about that. We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders."

 

"When you have an opportunity to talk to a member of Congress, I liken it to fishing, right? You know you have bait, you throw that bait out. And they say: 'Oh, you want to talk about infrastructure, yeah,'" McCoy continued. "And then you start to reel them in and you start to have these conversations about federal leasing programs, you start to have these conversations about a carbon tax. You know, it's all these opportunities that you use and to use the fishing analogy again just to kind of reel them in."

"I make sure I get them the right information that they need so they look good. And then they help me out. They're a captive audience. They know they need you. And I need them," McCoy also said.

 

"When you have an opportunity to talk to a member of Congress, I liken it to fishing, right? You know you have bait, you throw that bait out. And they say: 'Oh, you want to talk about infrastructure, yeah,'" McCoy continued. "And then you start to reel them in and you start to have these conversations about federal leasing programs, you start to have these conversations about a carbon tax. You know, it's all these opportunities that you use and to use the fishing analogy again just to kind of reel them in."

"I make sure I get them the right information that they need so they look good. And then they help me out. They're a captive audience. They know they need you. And I need them," McCoy also said.

 

Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Maggie Hassan, Senator John Barrasso, Senator John Cornyn, Senator Steve Daines, Senator Chris Coons, Senator Mark Kelly and Senator Marco Rubio," were all cited.

He went on to explain that the last thing they want is to appear in a public hearing before Congress where the American people can see.

"We don't want it to be us, to have these conversations, especially in a hearing. It's getting our associations to step in and have those conversations and answer those tough questions and be for, the lack of a better term, the whipping boy for some of these members of congress," McCoy confessed.

 

The explosive footage was obtained by Unearthed, Greenpeace UK’s investigative platform, who posed as head-hunters to obtain the information from one of ExxonMobil’s most senior Washington lobbyists.

The recordings appear to reveal the secretive behind-the-scenes activities of a lobbyist for a company that claims in public to support action on climate change, while fighting against legislative attempts to tackle it.

 

Keith McCoy is a senior ExxonMobil lobbyist on Capitol Hill and has represented the company in its liaison with the US Congress for the last eight years.

Greenpeace UK’s Unearthed platform posed as head-hunters looking to hire a Washington D.C. lobbyist for a major client. They approached Mr McCoy, who agreed to speak over Zoom.

During the covert recordings, which have been passed to Channel 4 News, Mr McCoy claims:

the company secretly fought against legislative action on climate change using third-party organisations
he lobbied key senators to remove and/or diminish climate change measures from President Biden’s US $2 trillion infrastructure and jobs bill as it proceeds through the legislative process
he regards trade bodies like the American Petroleum Institute as “whipping boys” in order to avoid public scrutiny on Capitol Hill
During the virtual meeting held on 7 May, the investigators asked Mr McCoy questions about ExxonMobil’s current and historical lobbying on environmental issues.

In the excerpts from the footage to be broadcast on Channel 4 News tonight, Mr McCoy claims that ExxonMobil has aggressively fought science to deny climate change in order to maximise profit and shareholder return. He alleges that ExxonMobil joined “shadow groups” to pursue climate change denial.

Mr McCoy said: “Did we aggressively fight against some of the science?  Yes. Did we hide our science?  Absolutely not.  Did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that’s true. But there’s nothing, there’s nothing illegal about that.

“We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders.”

Mr McCoy likens the approach to lobbying congressmen to the way fishermen target fish, claiming that ExxonMobil puts out “bait” and then “reels in” congressmen on issues like carbon tax, electric vehicles, chemicals, taxation and infrastructure.

Mr McCoy said: “When you have an opportunity to talk to a member of Congress, I liken it to fishing, right? You know you have bait, you throw that bait out. And they say: ‘Oh, you want to talk about infrastructure, yeah.’

“And then you start to reel them in and you start to have these conversations about federal leasing programmes, you start to have these conversations about a carbon tax. You know, it’s all these opportunities that you use and to use the fishing analogy again just to kind of reel them in.”

He added: “I make sure I get them the right information that they need so they look good. And then they help me out. They’re a captive audience. They know they need you. And I need them.”

He says lobbyists aim to have a direct relationship with a member of congress, adding: “You want to be able to go to the chief… and say we need congressman so and so to be able to either introduce this bill, we need him to make a floor statement, we need him to send a letter. You name it, we’ve asked for everything.”

 

Mr McCoy names 11 senators who he says are “crucial” to ExxonMobil: Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Maggie Hassan, Senator John Barrasso, Senator John Cornyn, Senator Steve Daines, Senator Chris Coons, Senator Mark Kelly and Senator Marco Rubio

 

Mr McCoy described Senator Joe Manchin as “the Kingmaker” in the Senate and he says he spoke to his office on a weekly basis.

The FEC data shows Senator Manchin has received at least $12,500 from the ExxonMobil Political Action Committee in declared disbursements since the beginning of the 2011-12 election cycle.

Mr McCoy described how a “big piece of [his] job is education and advocacy” and says that in his work on behalf of ExxonMobil he argues that US government programmes to roll out electric vehicles are unrealistic.

He said: “The research and development conversation has taken us a long way because of climate change. And there is a struggle to find solutions and to get the reductions that they’re looking for. And you’re not going to be able to just switch to battery operated vehicles or wind for your electricity. And just having that conversation around why that’s not possible in the next 10 years is critically important to the work that we do.”

 

Mr McCoy described a lobbying strategy in which he claims ExxonMobil uses third parties to mask its interests from public view and accountability.

He said: “We don’t want it to be us, to have these conversations, especially in a hearing. It’s getting our associations to step in and have those conversations and answer those tough questions and be for, the lack of a better term, the whipping boy for some of these members of congress.”

He added: “There was something we were working on earlier this week where we, where our CEO was invited to a hearing from a member of congress who we know is just going to rip him to shreds when he goes there. So, we look at it and we say: well, why us?”

Mr McCoy claims that ExxonMobil lobbied Congress to dilute the climate provisions of President Biden’s Infrastructure Bill.

He said: “That’s a completely different conversation when you start to stick to roads and bridges. And instead of a $2 trillion bill, it’s an $800 billion dollar bill. If you lower that threshold, you stick to highways and bridges then a lot of the negative stuff starts to come out.”

“Why would you put in something on emissions reductions on climate change to oil refineries in a highway bill? So, people say yeah that doesn’t make any sense, so then you get to the germane of saying that shouldn’t be in this bill.”

 

Mr McCoy appears to suggest that ExxonMobil’s public support for a carbon tax is underpinned by the conviction it will never happen, allowing the company to “support” it in order to appear green.

He said: “I will tell you there is not an appetite for a carbon tax. It is a non-starter. Nobody is going to propose a tax on all Americans. And the cynical side of me says yeah we kind of know that. But it gives us a talking point. We can say well what is ExxonMobil for? Well we’re for a carbon tax.

“Carbon tax is not gonna happen. I have always said, and I’ve worked on climate change issues for twenty years. There’s a lot of talk around it and the bottom line is it’s going to take political courage, political will in order to get something done. And that just doesn’t exist in politics. It just doesn’t.

Purporting to speak on behalf of ExxonMobil, Mr McCoy also expressed a corporate view that, contrary to science, natural gas is a clean energy source.

He said: “On a clean electricity standard, we think natural gas will play a key role in anything. And not just as a bridge fuel. We think it is a low emission energy source and should be part of a clean electricity standard.”

 

A spokesperson for ExxonMobil told Channel 4 News:  “Greenpeace has waged a multi-decade campaign against our company and industry, which has included false claims and unlawful actions at our facilities as well as those of other companies around the world.

“Our lobbying efforts are related to a tax burden that could disadvantage U.S. businesses, and we have made that position known publicly. ExxonMobil stands by our position that increased taxes on American businesses make the U.S. less competitive.

“We have been clear in supporting an efficient, economy-wide price on carbon as the best way to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. While there is not broad support for a tax, we are actively and publicly discussing other options, including lower-carbon fuels and other sector-based approaches that would place a uniform, predictable cost on carbon.

“We have supported climate science for decades. Greenpeace and others have distorted our position on climate science and our support for effective policy solutions.

”ExxonMobil transparently engages with a variety of trade associations, think tanks and coalitions in order to promote informed dialogue and sound public policy in areas pertinent to the Corporation’s interests.

“ExxonMobil exercises its right to engage in lobbying in the United States at both the Federal and State levels to advocate our positions on issues that affect our Corporation and the energy industry.

“We have a responsibility to our customers, employees, communities and shareholders to represent their interests in public policy discussions that impact our business.

“Our lobbying efforts fully comply with all laws and are publicly disclosed on a quarterly basis, including the issues we discuss.”

 

There's the loophole right here.....corporate lobbying and political donations need to be banned on EVERY level.

 

Greenpeace are planetary heroes and Exxon is as bad as any terrorist organization that has ever existed.

People talk about breaking up Facebook which is fine and dandy but Exxon should be first on the chopping block
 

ExxonMobil’s efforts to corrupt policy making are damaging to the national welfare. I suspect that the video is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There’s a lot more going on beneath the radar of public scrutiny (funding climate change denial organizations, campaign contributions to targeted members of the House and Senate, collaboration with illiberal ideological elements, etc.). 

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

ExxonMobil’s efforts to corrupt policy making are damaging to the national welfare. I suspect that the video is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There’s a lot more going on beneath the radar of public scrutiny (funding climate change denial organizations, campaign contributions to targeted members of the House and Senate, collaboration with illiberal ideological elements, etc.). 

What that lobbyist said makes me think even more strongly that this country's political and economical structure needs a complete overhaul

Don, what would it take to entirely ban corporate lobbying in this country?

And secondly, what would it take to entirely ban corporations from being allowed to give donations to politicians?

There needs to be much higher conflict of interest standards applied.  Same goes for our regulatory agencies.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

What that lobbyist said makes me think even more strongly that this country's political and economical structure needs a complete overhaul

Don, what would it take to entirely ban corporate lobbying in this country?

And secondly, what would it take to entirely ban corporations from being allowed to give donations to politicians?

There needs to be much higher conflict of interest standards applied.  Same goes for our regulatory agencies.

The Republican Party will use the filibuster to block such reform. Of course, the filibuster will also be deployed to thwart robust climate change legislation.

[rclab]

44 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The Republican Party will use the filibuster to block such reform. Of course, the filibuster will also be deployed to thwart robust climate change legislation.

The political party system is in itself a problem. Too many identify with a party and vote that line trusting the party to guide their judgement. It makes voting a lot easier and appropriately brainless such as in NYC. Can you imagine if to run for a local, state or National position you had to divest yourself of any party affiliation. Your name only, not the party appeared on the ballet. All registered voters listed as independent. You could still belong to a party, the same way you can belong to the Masons or the Knights of Columbus. If wanted to run and were elected all such affiliations would have to be cancelled/suspended. I know, once upon a time …… still “you may say I’m a dreamer But I’m not the only one” Thank you JL. As always …..

 

[LibertyBell]

10 hours ago, Weatherdude88 said:

The Federal government makes 18.4 cents per gallon of gas.

The state makes between 18 and 58 cents, depending on where you live.

ExxonMobil makes 7 - 8 cents per gallon of gasoline.

Additionally, if the oil industry were taxed more, oil prices would go up. The money would come out of our pockets. All of us would have less money. Electricity, natural gas, cable, internet, and all utilities bills would go up. Also, most products in stores would be more expensive. Green energy is expensive.

It takes time to transition. All the big oil companies have invested in Green Energy. As it becomes more profitable, you will see then pivot more.

 

 

 

I've seen their papers, they say they are past peak oil as of 2020, so hopefully this is about to begin, but the Exxon lobbyist who was recorded was not exactly looking forward.

 

And then there's things like this going on:

 

[LibertyBell]

13 hours ago, rclab said:

The political party system is in itself a problem. Too many identify with a party and vote that line trusting the party to guide their judgement. It makes voting a lot easier and appropriately brainless such as in NYC. Can you imagine if to run for a local, state or National position you had to divest yourself of any party affiliation. Your name only, not the party appeared on the ballet. All registered voters listed as independent. You could still belong to a party, the same way you can belong to the Masons or the Knights of Columbus. If wanted to run and were elected all such affiliations would have to be cancelled/suspended. I know, once upon a time …… still “you may say I’m a dreamer But I’m not the only one” Thank you JL. As always …..

 

antitrust regs should be applied to political parties (and every other industry or cartel)

[rclab]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

antitrust regs should be applied to political parties (and every other industry or cartel)

And to weenie protection during cold season frozen storm threats As always …..

[LibertyBell]

On 7/2/2021 at 5:13 PM, rclab said:

The political party system is in itself a problem. Too many identify with a party and vote that line trusting the party to guide their judgement. It makes voting a lot easier and appropriately brainless such as in NYC. Can you imagine if to run for a local, state or National position you had to divest yourself of any party affiliation. Your name only, not the party appeared on the ballet. All registered voters listed as independent. You could still belong to a party, the same way you can belong to the Masons or the Knights of Columbus. If wanted to run and were elected all such affiliations would have to be cancelled/suspended. I know, once upon a time …… still “you may say I’m a dreamer But I’m not the only one” Thank you JL. As always …..

 

Love Lennon....if we all lived as "one" humanity would be far more advanced by now and not destroying the planet either.

[LibertyBell]

Did any of you guys see this.....

Wobbling’ moon will cause devastating worldwide flooding, Nasa warns

18.6 yr lunar gravitational cycle increases extremes of flooding.

In the piece they were talking about the wobble of the moon combined with climate change making for long lasting extremes of coastal flooding from the 2030s thru the 2050s!

 

[nycwinter]

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/14/1015800103/a-study-predicts-record-flooding-in-the-2030s-and-its-partly-because-of-the-moon