• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says

Anomalism

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Just determined to cause economic disaster aren't we?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Just determined to cause economic disaster aren't we?
Click to expand...

And, of course, the prosecutor would really like to head up that prosecution...
 
Anomalism said:
Exxon?s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

Maybe not.

Exxonomics | Watts Up With That?

However, with the Guardian, truth is always stranger than fiction, and rarely found within its pages. The “newly unearthed missive” was not from 1981, nor from 1989, nor 1999. It was not an Exxon document at all. Instead, it was an email written in 2014 to someone at Ohio University and publicly printed by the University with the author’s permission on the University website … hardly a “newly unearthed missive” under any rubric.
In fact, the “newly unearthed” email is an interesting insider’s view of Exxon, so I’m going to reproduce it here in full:
Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits, either current or future. They may take what appears to be altruistic positions to improve their public image, but the assumption underlying those actions is that they will increase future profits. ExxonMobil is an interesting case in point.
Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia. This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2. That CO2 would have to be separated to make the natural gas usable. Natural gas often contains CO2 and the technology for removing CO2 is well known. In 1981 (and now) the usual practice was to vent the CO2 to the atmosphere. When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I’m sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions.
The alternative to venting CO2 to the atmosphere is to inject it into ground. This technology was also well known, since the oil industry had been injecting limited quantities of CO2 to enhance oil recovery. There were many questions about whether the CO2 would remain in the ground, some of which have been answered by Statoil’s now almost 20 years of experience injecting CO2 in the North Sea. Statoil did this because the Norwegian government placed a tax on vented CO2. It was cheaper for Statoil to inject CO2 than pay the tax. Of course, Statoil has touted how much CO2 it has prevented from being emitted.
In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue. Natural resource companies – oil, coal, minerals – have to make investments that have lifetimes of 50-100 years. Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations. Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question – legitimately, in my opinion – the validity of some of the science. . . .​
 
wrong strategy. announce a NASA style moonshot with the goal of replacing oil as our primary transportation fuel on a thirty year timeline instead. no stupid cap and trade or other regressive nonsense. end the wars in the Middle East, get to work on energy research via public / private partnerships, and make massive upgrades to our electrical grid. reduce oil subsidies incrementally each year until it is no longer subsidized.

and that's how it's done.
 
Helix said:
wrong strategy. announce a NASA style moonshot with the goal of replacing oil as our primary transportation fuel on a thirty year timeline instead. no stupid cap and trade or other regressive nonsense. end the wars in the Middle East, get to work on energy research via public / private partnerships, and make massive upgrades to our electrical grid. reduce oil subsidies incrementally each year until it is no longer subsidized.

and that's how it's done.
Click to expand...

Why? What problem would we solve?
 
Jack Hays said:
There's no reason to move away from oil & natural gas.
Click to expand...

i'm sure that you actually believe that. every step in the evolution of energy technology has been opposed by a "get a horse" faction. the mistake is to waste time fighting them instead of just ignoring their protests and developing the next energy model anyway.
 
Helix said:
i'm sure that you actually believe that. every step in the evolution of energy technology has been opposed by a "get a horse" faction. the mistake is to waste time fighting them instead of just ignoring their protests and developing the next energy model anyway.
Click to expand...

The next energy model will take over as soon as it becomes economically superior. I'd welcome it, but I suspect I'll be long gone by then.
 
Helix said:
i'm sure that you actually believe that. every step in the evolution of energy technology has been opposed by a "get a horse" faction. the mistake is to waste time fighting them instead of just ignoring their protests and developing the next energy model anyway.
Click to expand...
Both you and Jack are a little correct, We need to work on the logistics of the next generation of energy,
but near term already have a viable contender on the table,
Cars That Run on Air and Water? Audi Rolls Out E-Diesel
Audi, and the Naval Research labs have been working on man made liquid fuels(which are carbon neutral).
It is already at a viable level for energy storage.
The next step is to refine the rules on solar grid attachment, to be both consistent,
and functional for all of the parties.(solar generator, and grid operator)
When would we start using it?
That is an accounting question, The Refinery operators pay for raw material (oil) as feedstock
for the refinery. The price fluctuates a lot, but the overall trend is higher, as the easy oil has been
found already.
When the price of oil exceeds the price of making their own feedstock,
they will make their own feedstock.
Audi is saying the efficiency of the process is at 70%, which means it would take
about 50 Kwh to make a gallon of gasoline.
At a wholesale price of $.05 per Kwh, that works out to $2.50 per gallon.
About 35 gallons of gasoline can be extracted from a barrel of oil, so that
works out to about $88 a barrel oil.
One a ceiling for the oil price is established, most of the enhanced extraction methods
will fall away, as they are expensive, and only supported by high price oil.
Oil will still be used for it's many other purposes, but that is a fraction of what we use for fuel.
 
longview said:
Both you and Jack are a little correct, We need to work on the logistics of the next generation of energy,
but near term already have a viable contender on the table,
Cars That Run on Air and Water? Audi Rolls Out E-Diesel
Audi, and the Naval Research labs have been working on man made liquid fuels(which are carbon neutral).
It is already at a viable level for energy storage.
The next step is to refine the rules on solar grid attachment, to be both consistent,
and functional for all of the parties.(solar generator, and grid operator)
When would we start using it?
That is an accounting question, The Refinery operators pay for raw material (oil) as feedstock
for the refinery. The price fluctuates a lot, but the overall trend is higher, as the easy oil has been
found already.
When the price of oil exceeds the price of making their own feedstock,
they will make their own feedstock.
Audi is saying the efficiency of the process is at 70%, which means it would take
about 50 Kwh to make a gallon of gasoline.
At a wholesale price of $.05 per Kwh, that works out to $2.50 per gallon.
About 35 gallons of gasoline can be extracted from a barrel of oil, so that
works out to about $88 a barrel oil.
One a ceiling for the oil price is established, most of the enhanced extraction methods
will fall away, as they are expensive, and only supported by high price oil.
Oil will still be used for it's many other purposes, but that is a fraction of what we use for fuel.
Click to expand...

That was an interesting article. We have a lot of alternative options, and we need to be more actively pursuing them. I'd prefer to see us massively upgrade our electrical infrastructure and use that to transition off of oil. Thorium technology for generating electricity looks pretty interesting. I hope that it ends up being feasible.
 
Helix said:
That was an interesting article. We have a lot of alternative options, and we need to be more actively pursuing them. I'd prefer to see us massively upgrade our electrical infrastructure and use that to transition off of oil. Thorium technology for generating electricity looks pretty interesting. I hope that it ends up being feasible.
Click to expand...
We would need to upgrade our electrical infrastructure anyway.
We need a path for the surplus generated power to get to the refineries to be stored as fuels.
People used to talk about each roughly 7 pound gallon of gasoline, produces 21 pounds of CO2,
the process is reversible, each man made gallon of gasoline, requires 21 lbs of CO2.
Thorium and liquid salt reactors both look good, but with storage, photovoltaic solar has real possibility.
The real limitations on wind and solar, were supply vs need, and density.
A viable storage method, allows energy to be accumulated and used in another season.
The university of Fraunhofer started the concept.
https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html
 
Helix said:
That was an interesting article. We have a lot of alternative options, and we need to be more actively pursuing them. I'd prefer to see us massively upgrade our electrical infrastructure and use that to transition off of oil. Thorium technology for generating electricity looks pretty interesting. I hope that it ends up being feasible.
Click to expand...
As we bring on more solar, there will be new challenges, CA is already having them.
The California `Duck Curve' That Will Jolt Its Power Grid - Bloomberg Business
The other problem will be excess heat from too much power, they will need a way to dump the excess
during portions of the day.
 
Helix said:
Which is exactly why we should be prioritizing research as well as implementation. Better to spend the money on that than on perpetual war.
Click to expand...
I agree, we could make much better use of our limited funds.
I think solving the real problem(energy) will pick up CO2 collateral effect.
 
Helix said:
wr. reduce oil subsidies incrementally each year until it is no longer subsidized.

e.
Click to expand...

Well there aren't any so that will be easy. There are tax breaks which aren't really subsidies ( subsidies being cash outlays by my definition), but those are insignificant.
 
KLATTU said:
Well there aren't any so that will be easy. There are tax breaks which aren't really subsidies ( subsidies being cash outlays by my definition), but those are insignificant.
Click to expand...

Then I suppose that the companies won't miss them.
 
Helix said:
Then I suppose that the companies won't miss them.
Click to expand...


All companies would miss tax breaks,small ones more than big ones.

It's foolish to tax companies out of business just to satisfy uninformed leftists, though.
 
KLATTU said:
All companies would miss tax breaks,small ones more than big ones.

It's foolish to tax companies out of business just to satisfy uninformed leftists, though.
Click to expand...
The Government cannot treat one company different than the others (in terms of tax policy).
Legitimate business expenses should be able to be written off, as they offset the companies
profits (which are the basis of the taxation).
For the oil companies, this means the cost of drilling a dry hole, is a business expense.
Pretty much any activity necessary to the business operation, can be written off.
It is not a subsidy, just the tax code.
 
KLATTU said:
All companies would miss tax breaks,small ones more than big ones.

It's foolish to tax companies out of business just to satisfy uninformed leftists, though.
Click to expand...

I didn't argue that we should tax them out of existence.
 
Helix said:
I didn't argue that we should tax them out of existence.
Click to expand...

I think you are. You want to raise taxes so people by less of their product,no? ( and more of some other product)
What do you think will happen to some companies when people by less of their products? Exxon isn't the only player in thegame.
 
Helix said:
wrong strategy. announce a NASA style moonshot with the goal of replacing oil as our primary transportation fuel on a thirty year timeline instead. no stupid cap and trade or other regressive nonsense. end the wars in the Middle East, get to work on energy research via public / private partnerships, and make massive upgrades to our electrical grid. reduce oil subsidies incrementally each year until it is no longer subsidized.

and that's how it's done.
Click to expand...

All we need to do is let the natural supply and demand economic change our primary energy means as it becomes more expensive to use. If anything, add a huge tariff on imports from countries that do not use clean technologies in generating energy. Tax the hell out of products "made in China," and products from other countries using their components, as long as they pollute the skies with old technology coal plants.

Here in the USA, our biggest environmental crime is going from those who are polluting, and our purchases are increasing their pollution output.

Anyone serious about the environment, whether it be CO2, pollution, land use, etc. need to realize it's a global matter. Not local.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom