This is exactly the sort of behavior we should expect from a poorly regulated, powerful, and incentivized fossil fuel industry. They'll burn the whole house down if we don't do something about it.
We know it's the FF producers' fault and carbon fee and dividend is the most powerful first step to address the underlying market failure they have worked to keep in place: http://carboncashback.org/carbon-cash-back. We need to join together and take action, like taking a minute to tell Congress to get on the problem at cclusa.org/write.
Wow, Emily, this is a great summary of Exxon's current positioning and "climate inactivism", as Mann calls it. It confounds me how we have let a few psychopaths trade away a safe climate future for us all for their own short-term profits. We can take the most direct shot at Exxon by eliminating the profit from fossil fuels. Let's all write Congress right now to ask them to include cash-back carbon pricing in #BuildBackBetter at http://cclusa.org/write. The Senate is considering doing it right now. Here are the emissions-reducing power and co-benefits of this policy: http://carboncashback.org/benefits. Thanks again for another great article!
The 5 metres, although a little vague, seems to refer to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The document actually looks quite good from a quick look at it, especially for 1982.
Right. There is catastrophic risk in moving away from fossil fuels too fast. In my view they should be rationed and that means zero for the car, private or not. That includes all fossil fuel products which includes roads for example. Then maybe we'll have enough to transition away from FF properly over say 2-300 years instead of an insane 9 years as some of the 2030 advocates would have us do.
Also hate to be a party pooper here but Antarctic has close to 70m of sea level rise potential in its ice. The Arctic has about 7 metres mostly sitting on top of the Greenland landmass. Did Mr Exxon get that wrong or is it in the transcribing of what he said?
This is exactly the sort of behavior we should expect from a poorly regulated, powerful, and incentivized fossil fuel industry. They'll burn the whole house down if we don't do something about it.
Naomi Oreskes (Merchants of Doubt) has done interesting research on Exxon and its recent bad behavior using shifty language tricks.
Analysis from Harvard measuring how ExxonMobil used language to make individuals feel responsible for climate change, similar to the strategy used by tobacco companies in the past - https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whatonearth/exxonmobil-blames-climate-change-on-the-public-by-using-misleading-language-researchers-say-1.6031355
We know it's the FF producers' fault and carbon fee and dividend is the most powerful first step to address the underlying market failure they have worked to keep in place: http://carboncashback.org/carbon-cash-back. We need to join together and take action, like taking a minute to tell Congress to get on the problem at cclusa.org/write.
Wow, Emily, this is a great summary of Exxon's current positioning and "climate inactivism", as Mann calls it. It confounds me how we have let a few psychopaths trade away a safe climate future for us all for their own short-term profits. We can take the most direct shot at Exxon by eliminating the profit from fossil fuels. Let's all write Congress right now to ask them to include cash-back carbon pricing in #BuildBackBetter at http://cclusa.org/write. The Senate is considering doing it right now. Here are the emissions-reducing power and co-benefits of this policy: http://carboncashback.org/benefits. Thanks again for another great article!
If anybody wants to have a look at the original document where the quote for 5 metres comes from here it is;
https://ia801301.us.archive.org/12/items/1982ExxonPrimerOnCO2GreenhouseEffect/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf
The 5 metres, although a little vague, seems to refer to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The document actually looks quite good from a quick look at it, especially for 1982.
Right. There is catastrophic risk in moving away from fossil fuels too fast. In my view they should be rationed and that means zero for the car, private or not. That includes all fossil fuel products which includes roads for example. Then maybe we'll have enough to transition away from FF properly over say 2-300 years instead of an insane 9 years as some of the 2030 advocates would have us do.
Also hate to be a party pooper here but Antarctic has close to 70m of sea level rise potential in its ice. The Arctic has about 7 metres mostly sitting on top of the Greenland landmass. Did Mr Exxon get that wrong or is it in the transcribing of what he said?