| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
So, in summary....
1. He said that the article I posted was fake news ...... it wasn't
2. He said I led ...... I didn't
3. He said emissions from Exxon operations are increasing .......they aren't
4. Nothing is his fault, including his untruthful statements ...... just like Hillary!
Maybe, just maybe it will slowly dawn on him that every time he makes, or invents, unbalanced, sanctimonious statements about the oil, coal, chemical etc, etc, industries, he runs the risk of his own long time affiliations being discussed.
People in glass houses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So in summary, mrgybe didn't respond to the continuing damage in Alaska, his accusations about particulate emissions at the Port which have decreased by 68%, or stalling until their death 3,000 claims. He is a liar. He defends an industry that has killed people by resisting health-based regulations--for decades. But diversion, not understanding was always his objective. That and a personal attack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | "For decades,. In their Environmental report, Exxon says...
[i]"ExxonMobil’s combined emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) have decreased more than 45 percent over the past 10 years across all of our businesses."
Is this fake news and lies too? |
No, it is cherry-picking. Mrgybe's source is http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/environment/environmental-performance/air-emissions-reductions/overview
The emission inventory does not include PM-10--which is the carcinogenic concern. It only covers VOC's, SO@ and NOx. Perhaps carefully selected to disguise the fact that NOx emissions are only down slightly, and remain over 0.15 million metric tons.
But then the corporate report doesn't include news like this:
| Quote: | BAYTOWN, Texas (AP) — A judge has ordered Exxon Mobil to pay a penalty of nearly $20 million for releasing 10 million pounds of pollutants into the air over the course of eight years from a refining and chemical complex east of Houston.
U.S. District Judge David Hittner in a ruling Wednesday determined that Texas-based Exxon on thousands of occasions from 2005 to 2013 violated federal clean-air standards.
The Houston Chronicle reports (http://bit.ly/2oMZ7Lr ) the finding is the result of a lawsuit filed in 2010 by two environmental groups.
The groups argued Exxon collected more than $14 million in economic benefits by delaying measures to curb the emissions from its plant in Baytown. They contend the pollution could have been detected earlier using improvements such as infrared imaging technology.
Exxon says it's considering an appeal
|
Or this, from NPR:
| Quote: | If you stand in front of Almena and Sidney Poray's house in Baton Rouge, La., and look straight down the street, past the other houses and the shade trees, you see more than a dozen plumes of exhaust in various hues of gray and white.
"That's something you see every day, the same thing if not more," says Almena Poray. "Sometimes it's a darker gray; sometimes it's a black smoke coming out."
The Porays live in a neighborhood called Standard Heights — originally home to workers at a refinery built by Standard Oil in 1909, just after Ford introduced its Model T and made cars affordable for the masses.
Now the refinery, owned by Exxon Mobil, is the second largest in the country and part of an industrial complex the size of 250 Superdomes.
Tens of thousands of people live within 2 miles of the complex, which produces gasoline for much of the East Coast. The petrochemical plants inside the complex make materials used in products such as diapers, chewing gum, tires and makeup.
The Porays are some of its closest neighbors. They've lived a block from the south gate of the complex for about 20 years. But in the past year the Porays and other Standard Heights residents have gained more insights about the pollution from the facility. A big accident and a surprise inspection have shown them problems inside its gates.
What they've learned underlines a larger truth: Refineries and petrochemical plants are pumping out far more toxic air pollution than they're authorized to by government. |
Of course mrgybe is quoting Exxon's spun numbers, a reliable source, eh? Maybe not. Friom the same NPR article:
| Quote: | | And that amount is just what the company admits to. Studies have shown that some Texas petrochemical companies vastly underestimate their VOC pollution. A study by scientists at the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and North Carolina State University in 2007 showed some VOC emissions were about an order of magnitude higher than reported by this industry in Houston. An earlier study by NOAA scientists in 2003 showed even bigger underestimates. Reported emissions of some VOCs were between 10 and 100 times less than what scientists measured. More recent studies show that the underestimating continues. |
Liars spin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jane Meyer, New Yorker:
| Quote: |
If there was any lingering doubt that a tiny clique of fossil-fuel barons has captured America’s energy and environmental policies, it was dispelled last week, when the Trump Administration withdrew from the Paris climate accord. Surveys showed that a majority of Americans in literally every state wanted to remain within the agreement, and news reports established that the heads of many of the country’s most successful and iconic Fortune 100 companies, from Disney to General Electric, did, too. Voters and big business were arrayed against leaving the climate agreement. Yet despite the majority’s sentiment, a tiny—and until recently, almost faceless—minority somehow prevailed.
How this happened is no longer a secret. The answer, as the New York Times reported, on Sunday, is “a story of big political money.” It is, perhaps, the most astounding example of influence-buying in modern American political history.
As the climate scientist Michael Mann put it to me in my book “Dark Money,” when attempting to explain why the Republican Party has moved in the opposite direction from virtually the rest of the world, “We are talking about a direct challenge to the most powerful industry that has ever existed on the face of the Earth. There’s no depth to which they’re unwilling to sink to challenge anything threatening their interests.” For most of the world’s population, the costs of inaction on climate change far outweigh that of action. But for the fossil-fuel industry, he said, “It’s like the switch from whale oil in the nineteenth century. They’re fighting to maintain the status quo, no matter how dumb.”
Until recently, those buying the fealty of the Republican Party on these issues tried to hide their sway, manipulating politics from the wings. But what became clear this past weekend is that they can remain anonymous no longer. With their success dictating America’s climate policy, the fossil-fuel industry’s political heavyweights have also won new notoriety. Charles and David Koch, the billionaire owners of the Kansas-based fossil-fuel leviathan Koch Industries, used to attract attention only from environmental groups such as Greenpeace, which labelled them “the Kingpins of Climate Denial.” They were so secretive about their political activities that, when I first wrote about their tactics in The New Yorker, in 2010, the article was titled “Covert Operations.” But now references to the Kochs are becoming almost as commonplace as the Dixie Cups, Lycra, and other household products that their business produces. As the Times noted, Republican lawmakers’ swerves to the right on climate issues “did not happen by themselves. Republican lawmakers were moved along by a campaign carefully crafted by fossil-fuel industry players, most notably Charles D. and David H. Koch, the Kansas-based billionaires who run a chain of refineries. . . .” The Kochs were called out on the Sunday talk shows this past weekend, too. On ABC’s “This Week,” former Vice-President Al Gore cited “dark money” from fossil-fuel companies as the explanation for Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord; on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” former Secretary of State John Kerry specifically chastised the Kochs.
Now that they have been flushed from the shadows, the Kochs and their political operatives have proudly taken credit for obstructing the U.S. government from addressing climate change. Charles Koch, who is a hardcore libertarian, has argued that government action was only “making people’s lives worse, rather than better,” as he put it in an interview with Fortune last year. Meanwhile, Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs’ main political-advocacy organization, has boasted about the group’s success in killing the careers of politicians who broke with the brothers’ anti-climate-change agenda. Phillips recounted to the Times that, after 2010, when the group spent tens of millions of dollars in campaigns aimed at defeating congressmen who wanted to take action on climate change, no Republican candidate has dared cross the Kochs on the issue again. “After that,” he said, support for renewable energy “disappeared from Republican ads. Part of that was the polling, and part of that was the visceral example of what happened to their colleagues who had done that. . . . It told the Republicans that we were serious, that we would spend some serious money against them.”
President Trump may be the face of America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, but, as deeper reporting is making clear, it’s the Kochs and their fellow fossil-fuel industry donors who really own the policy. Whether responsibility for such a consequential move will redound to their favor remains to be seen. But it’s worth remembering that Fred Koch, Charles and David’s father and the founder of the family company, had a favorite admonition. He warned his boys to keep a low profile and stay below the surface, because, as he put it, “It’s when the whale spouts that he gets harpooned.”
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Exxon -11% YTD
Tesla +65% YTD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Boggsy, Do you have a point.............or are you just transferring information from one screen to another with glazed eyes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mrgybe, didn't you once claim that the Koch's are minor players? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | Boggsy, Do you have a point.............or are you just transferring information from one screen to another with glazed eyes? |
Maybe ...yes...we bought TESLA at $31, sold some at $140, now its $357...I guess the imminent demise of Elon's baby has been exaggerated. In fact, the Nuumi plant in Fremont is bursting at the seems, and they need to expand... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If your point is that you made a huge mistake selling at $140, don't be hard on yourself. You sold because you felt TSLA was overvalued at that price. You were right. Few people could have forecast the wide eyed fanaticism that has taken the stock into the realms of the ridiculous. Someone is buying at these prices. The chances of them getting badly burned are very high. I wouldn't touch it. I would, however, bet that Musk will, once again, miss his forecast, this time for Model 3. Clearly there is a segment of the population that can retain its cult like fervor despite forecasts being missed routinely. Hmmm.......where else does that happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mmm, could this be the point? At $3.50/gallon and 45 mpg, the cost per mile of a gasoline car is 7.8 cents. Electric vehicles are under 2 cents/mile. But don't believe me, look here: https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf
Time for more teeth gnashing, personal attacks, and comments about toxics in batteries. What's it really about? Money. If I read the new religious tracts, it is easier for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. As long as the camel also opposes abortion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
