I missed this last week, but great article. Exxon's depravity knows no depths. Also, it's important to know just who to pressure on their commitment to weakening infrastructure legislation.
Was just wondering if MSNBC will do much with this, given that they seem to have a lot of Exxon ads. If not, makes me feel for Chris Hayes, who it seems would WANT to cover the hell out of this. What do you all think?
Yep, disappointed but not surprised. In any case, nice "sting."
Impressive but scary to watch the multi-front attack on emissions reductions. Unless those involve drilling yet more wells, at taxpayer expense, to bury the products of combustion of a small fraction of the stuff that came from the initial wells.
Feeling exactly like Fish, disappointed but not surprised. More like, Exxon spreading propaganda and using sleazy lobbying tactics to protect their shareholders? Of course they do. But, despite my ingrained cynicism, this is an important story. Thanks for amplifying it.
Thank you Emily! Yesterday’s excellent news is bittersweet alongside today’s bitter news from the Supreme Court - notably upholding voter suppression laws in AZ, home to two senators on Exxon’s list. Also, I was curious to hear more from the undercover journalist about how he managed to frame his questions to elicit such great responses, and also about the second Exxon interview (which wasn’t included in the Ch 4 piece but which seems potentially even more incriminating…?)
Hopefully stories like this help the current legal process being taken by some attorney generals in suing fossil fuel companies like tobacco companies. This is a good article on it.
"All 50 states filed lawsuits against the biggest tobacco manufacturers in the 1990s, alleging the companies had deceived the public about the harms of smoking and should cover the Medicaid costs of treating people with smoking-related illnesses. The state suits culminated in a $206 billion master settlement agreement in 1998."
However, this stories relation to a carbon tax is fairly weak. Kate Aronoff is known for writing misleading pieces on a carbon tax, when it is required to stop climate change anyway. I don't believe it has any implications for the necessary efforts to pass a carbon tax. Just like fossil fuel companies propaganda in saying how much they are investing in renewables doesn't matter for clean energy efforts from the government. Fossil fuel company's "pro-climate efforts" don't matter one way or the other for what is necessary for the climate.
All "pro-climate efforts" from fossil fuel companies should just be completely ignored. They should just be sued into bankruptcy and their assets sold for scrap. And some jail time for the people who knew, would be nice too.
Excellent post. Do you think this will have any real impact on climate policy and, more to the point, climate crisis mitigation? And, thank you for the Fish-ing photos; sometimes they're the best thing I see all day :)
Thank you for the self-incriminating talking heads clips. I hope they will be seen and heard by our Supreme Court Justices. It’s also very clear that our government needs to prevent donations from anti-social corporations paying for politicians’ campaigns. I wonder what’s the best way to induce American voters from casting votes for those who take fossil fuel company dollars. If we’re dying of excessive heat, fires, floods, hurricanes, and ecosystem collapse wouldn’t you think they would be convincing?
I was hoping this would be today's email topic
I missed this last week, but great article. Exxon's depravity knows no depths. Also, it's important to know just who to pressure on their commitment to weakening infrastructure legislation.
Was out of the news loop. It was glorious, being out. It is glorious to come back in with this here! Thanks Emily! You're the best!
Was just wondering if MSNBC will do much with this, given that they seem to have a lot of Exxon ads. If not, makes me feel for Chris Hayes, who it seems would WANT to cover the hell out of this. What do you all think?
https://youtu.be/AommnhPhzEc
Yep, disappointed but not surprised. In any case, nice "sting."
Impressive but scary to watch the multi-front attack on emissions reductions. Unless those involve drilling yet more wells, at taxpayer expense, to bury the products of combustion of a small fraction of the stuff that came from the initial wells.
Feeling exactly like Fish, disappointed but not surprised. More like, Exxon spreading propaganda and using sleazy lobbying tactics to protect their shareholders? Of course they do. But, despite my ingrained cynicism, this is an important story. Thanks for amplifying it.
Thank you Emily! Yesterday’s excellent news is bittersweet alongside today’s bitter news from the Supreme Court - notably upholding voter suppression laws in AZ, home to two senators on Exxon’s list. Also, I was curious to hear more from the undercover journalist about how he managed to frame his questions to elicit such great responses, and also about the second Exxon interview (which wasn’t included in the Ch 4 piece but which seems potentially even more incriminating…?)
Hopefully stories like this help the current legal process being taken by some attorney generals in suing fossil fuel companies like tobacco companies. This is a good article on it.
"All 50 states filed lawsuits against the biggest tobacco manufacturers in the 1990s, alleging the companies had deceived the public about the harms of smoking and should cover the Medicaid costs of treating people with smoking-related illnesses. The state suits culminated in a $206 billion master settlement agreement in 1998."
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063727023/
However, this stories relation to a carbon tax is fairly weak. Kate Aronoff is known for writing misleading pieces on a carbon tax, when it is required to stop climate change anyway. I don't believe it has any implications for the necessary efforts to pass a carbon tax. Just like fossil fuel companies propaganda in saying how much they are investing in renewables doesn't matter for clean energy efforts from the government. Fossil fuel company's "pro-climate efforts" don't matter one way or the other for what is necessary for the climate.
All "pro-climate efforts" from fossil fuel companies should just be completely ignored. They should just be sued into bankruptcy and their assets sold for scrap. And some jail time for the people who knew, would be nice too.
Thank you for writing about this.
This pic makes Fish appear to be in jail... what is he accused of?
I am concerned about due process...
Excellent post. Do you think this will have any real impact on climate policy and, more to the point, climate crisis mitigation? And, thank you for the Fish-ing photos; sometimes they're the best thing I see all day :)
Thank you for the self-incriminating talking heads clips. I hope they will be seen and heard by our Supreme Court Justices. It’s also very clear that our government needs to prevent donations from anti-social corporations paying for politicians’ campaigns. I wonder what’s the best way to induce American voters from casting votes for those who take fossil fuel company dollars. If we’re dying of excessive heat, fires, floods, hurricanes, and ecosystem collapse wouldn’t you think they would be convincing?
Get down with your bad selves, Greenpeace. Emily - thanks for naming the Senators.
YAY! uncover them dirty sellouts !!! We need to turn up the heat! THANK YOU Emily and peers !!