myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Big Oil and citizenship
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 69, 70, 71  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9590

PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess we need to add in elements of the nuclear industry as well: http://m.startribune.com/utility-pays-bonuses-to-execs-before-nuclear-project-fails/439616303/?section=nation

As Republican Senators seek exemptions to the ban on Venezuela oil, and a bailout for the bankrupt nukes--the costs of energy have not been lower in the past decade than they were last year. Too bad Trumpists pay no attention to facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9590

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Imagine that: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-exxonmobil-20170822-story.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9590

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mrgybe assiduously avoids this thread, but opines periodically that litigation against Exxon is a witch hunt. Here's what Exxon and other oil companies knew, when they knew it, and what they did about it.

Quote:
In a 1977 presentation and again in a 1978 briefing, Exxon scientists warned the
Exxon Corporation Management Committee that CO2 concentrations were building in the Earth’s
atmosphere at an increasing rate, that CO2 emissions attributable to fossil fuels were retained in
the atmosphere, and that CO2 was contributing to global warming.71 The report stated:
There is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind
is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning
of fossil fuels . . . [and that] Man has a time window of five to ten years before the
need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become
critical.72
87. Thereafter, Exxon engaged in a research program to study the environmental fate
of fossil fuel-derived greenhouse gases and their impacts, which included publication of peerreviewed
research by Exxon staff scientists and the conversion of a supertanker into a research
vessel to study the greenhouse effect and the role of the oceans in absorbing anthropogenic CO2.
Much of this research was shared in a variety of fora, symposia, and shared papers through trade
associations and directly with other Defendants.
70 American Petroleum88. Exxon scientists made the case internally for using company resources to build
corporate knowledge about the impacts of the promotion, marketing, and consumption of
Defendants’ fossil fuel products. Exxon climate researcher Henry Shaw wrote in 1978: “The
rationale for Exxon’s involvement and commitment of funds and personnel is based on our need
to assess the possible impact of the greenhouse effect on Exxon business. Exxon must develop a
credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject and be
able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation.”73 Moreover, Shaw emphasized the need to
collaborate with universities and government to more completely understand what he called the
“CO2 problem.”74
89. In 1979, API and its members, including Defendants, convened a Task Force to
monitor and share cutting edge climate research among the oil industry. The group was initially
called the CO2 and Climate Task Force, but changed its name to the Climate and Energy Task
Force in 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “API CO2 Task Force”). Membership included senior
scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company,
including Exxon, Mobil (ExxonMobil), Amoco (BP), Phillips (ConocoPhillips), Texaco
(Chevron), Shell, Sunoco, Sohio (BP) as well as Standard Oil of California (BP) and Gulf Oil
(Chevron, among others). The Task Force was charged with assessing the implications of emerging
science on the petroleum and gas industries and identifying where reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products could be made.75
90. In 1979, API sent its members a background memo related to the API CO2 and
Climate Task Force’s efforts, stating that CO2 concentrations were rising steadily in the
atmosphere, and predicting when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt.76 Institute, Environmental Research, A Status Report, Committee for Air 91. Also in 1979, Exxon scientists advocated internally for additional fossil fuel
industry-generated atmospheric research in light of the growing consensus that consumption of
fossil fuel products was changing the Earth’s climate:

“We should determine how Exxon can best participate in all these [atmospheric
science research] areas and influence possible legislation on environmental
controls. It is important to begin to anticipate the strong intervention of
environmental groups and be prepared to respond with reliable and credible data. It
behooves [Exxon] to start a very aggressive defensive program in the indicated
areas of atmospheric science and climate because there is a good probability that
legislation affecting our business will be passed. Clearly, it is in our interest for
such legislation to be based on hard scientific data. The data obtained from research
on the global damage from pollution, e.g., from coal combustion, will give us the
needed focus for further research to avoid or control such pollutants.”77
92. That same year, Exxon Research and Engineering reported that: “The most widely
held theory [about increasing CO2 concentration] is that the increase is due to fossil fuel
combustion, increasing CO2 concentration will cause a warming of the earth’s surface, and the
present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause dramatic environmental effects before the year
2050.”78 Further, the report stated that unless fossil fuel use was constrained, there would be
“noticeable temperature changes” associated with an increase in atmospheric CO2 from about 280
parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to 400 parts per million by the year 2010.
79 Those
projections proved remarkably accurate—atmospheric CO2 concentrations surpassed 400 parts per
million in May 2013, for the first time in millions of years.80 In 2015, the annual average CO2
concentration rose above 400 parts per million, and in 2016 the annual low surpassed 400 parts
per million, meaning atmospheric CO2 concentration remained above that threshold all year.81

It goes on and on. From https://www.sheredling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-07-17-MARIN-CO-Sea-Level-Rise-Complaint-5bFINAL-ENDORSED5d.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9590

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, this is big coal, not big oil--but is is how thwe carbon companies handle pollution. Cheaper to bribe than to clean it up.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/alabama-lawyers-coal-executive-indicted-bribery-charges-50155322
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9590

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

27 accidents at BP facilities in Alaska this year alone, 5 life threatening. If they weren't selling an addictive substance...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/zahrahirji/bp-alaska-resets-safety-after-five-accidents?utm_term=.qlLKm8kXo#.kha5aAVE3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 2799

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
27 accidents at BP facilities in Alaska this year alone, 5 life threatening. If they weren't selling an addictive substance...

So, what's your point, other than BP's apparent sloppiness with operational safety procedures?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9590

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My point is that many oil companies are bad citizens, and that corporate “citizenship” is an oxymoron. After the yuge spill in the gulf, their culture remains contemptuous of the environment and worker safety.

I thought those points were obvious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 2799

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac said:
Quote:
I thought those points were obvious.

Didn't you read my post?

I posted:
Quote:
So, what's your point, other than BP's apparent sloppiness with operational safety procedures?


Is there anything new beyond "bad citizenship"? That was my question. We know your obvious "all things oil" negativity, so I was wondering if there was anything different with this new revelation. Apparently not other than the "yuge spill in the gulf".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 5700
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still energy, but different kind...I'm sure you guys saw this gem today:

http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/tiny-company-inks-300m-contract-to-power-puerto-rico/

Company with 2 employees netted a $300MM grid rebuild in PR...It's good to be the king I guess...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9590

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno--it's called evidence. It's based on facts. You are free to post some of your own--if you can show oil companies giving more than lip service to worker safety.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 69, 70, 71  Next
Page 70 of 71

 
Jump to:  
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

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group