• 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!

ExxonMobil Recognizes The Reality Of Climate Change, Why Won't GOP?

Geoist

Geoist

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
35,133
Reaction score
26,980
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Geoist said:
If you go on ExxonMobil's website you will see the company acknowledges climate change is real and that governments need to take action against it. They specifically propose a revenue-neutral carbon tax. When even the corporations that have profited from pollutants admit the environmental/health problems of their product you know the Right is seriously disconnected from reality.


Fred Hiatt: Even ExxonMobil says climate change is real. Why won?t the GOP? | Dallas Morning News
Click to expand...

Exxon Mobil is an energy company, they make money no matter how the wind blows.
 
jmotivator said:
Exxon Mobil is an energy company, they make money no matter how the wind blows.
Click to expand...
And they stand to make even more if there is a carbon tax,
because they can make and sell carbon neutral fuels.
 
A large portion of the conservative voter base denies the impact man has had on climate change. It seems like the right political move to go along with it.
 
MrPeanut said:
A large portion of the conservative voter base denies the impact man has had on climate change. It seems like the right political move to go along with it.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand what skeptics are skeptical about.
Most do not deny that human activity or additional CO2 can alter the climate,
but rather that the impacts have been exaggerated by the alarmist.
For this thread, Exxon will benefit no matter what happens, the economy may not.
 
longview said:
I think you misunderstand what skeptics are skeptical about.
Most do not deny that human activity or additional CO2 can alter the climate,
but rather that the impacts have been exaggerated by the alarmist.
For this thread, Exxon will benefit no matter what happens, the economy may not.
Click to expand...
I think I understand actual skeptics pretty well. There is nothing wrong with debating how big of an effect man has had on climate, but there is a significant portion of conservative voters that deny any man-made effect whatsoever. Gallup Climate Change
 
They probably stand to gain with a carbon tax.

1) More profits on a tighter supplied resource.

2) Paid CO2 tax money for other energy ventures.

Win - win!
 
Geoist said:
If you go on ExxonMobil's website you will see the company acknowledges climate change is real and that governments need to take action against it. They specifically propose a revenue-neutral carbon tax. When even the corporations that have profited from pollutants admit the environmental/health problems of their product you know the Right is seriously disconnected from reality.


Fred Hiatt: Even ExxonMobil says climate change is real. Why won?t the GOP? | Dallas Morning News
Click to expand...

There is no human caused climate change. Only total ****ing IDIOTS believe that ****.
 
reason10 said:
There is no human caused climate change. Only total ****ing IDIOTS believe that ****.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but our effect of the climates, though very small, is real.
 
reason10 said:
There is no human caused climate change. Only total ****ing IDIOTS believe that ****.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those climatologists are such morons, unlike those brilliant right-wing radio show blowhards and DP debaters! :mrgreen:
 
Lord of Planar said:
They probably stand to gain with a carbon tax.

1) More profits on a tighter supplied resource.

2) Paid CO2 tax money for other energy ventures.

Win - win!
Click to expand...

The above was my reaction assuming the OP was true, rather than a lie. I get rather tired of people posting confirmation bias without confirming the accuracy of the material they linkl.

What they said at the COP21 is:


ExxonMobil believes that effective policies to address climate change will put a price on greenhouse gas emissions and will:

Ensure a uniform and predictable cost of greenhouse gas emissions across the economy;
Let market prices drive the selection of solutions;
Minimize regulatory complexity and administrative costs while maximizing transparency;
Promote global participation; and
Provide flexibility for future adjustments in response to scientific developments and the economic consequences of climate policies.

ExxonMobil has for many years held the view that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the best option to fulfill these key principles. Instead of subsidies and mandates that distort markets, stifle innovation, and needlessly raise energy costs, a carbon tax could help create the conditions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that spurs new efficiencies and technologies.
​

OK...

They believe the government would put forth policies. They don't say they agree with a carbon tax, they say they believe it's the best policy option of those suggested.

ExxonMobil on the U.N. climate talks | ExxonMobil's Perspectives Blog

They believe a carbon tax would be better than cap and trade:


Also, cap-and-trade systems, because of their complexity, have inherent problems with verification and accountability. They require a vast expansion of administrative and regulatory officials to ensure emissions allowances are not exceeded. This is another cost for businesses and consumers to bear.

There is another policy option that should be considered, and that is a carbon tax.

As a businessman it is hard to speak favorably about any new tax. But a carbon tax strikes me as a more direct … a more transparent … and a more effective approach. It avoids the costs and complexity of having to build a new market for securities traders or the necessity of adding a new layer of regulators and administrators to police companies and consumers. And a carbon tax can be more easily implemented. It could be levied under the current tax code without requiring significant new infrastructure or enforcement bureaucracies.

A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions – from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers.

In addition, such a tax should be made revenue neutral. In other words, the size of government need not increase due to the imposition of a carbon tax. There should be reductions or changes to other taxes – such as income or excise taxes – to offset the impacts of the carbon tax on the economy.
​


Strengthening Global Energy Security | Exxon Mobil
 
reason10 said:
No it's not.

Climates changed before humans inhabited the earth.
Click to expand...

Yes it did. Are you claiming just our influence of climate is zero, or that there is no urban heat island effect. No land use effect of moisture and warming. That greenhouse gasses do not help warm the earth?

Are we just miscommunicating, or are you going to be the second "denier" I have met in these forums, making the rest of us look bad?
 
reason10 said:
Not all climatologists are as stupid as the few who believe in the human caused climate change fairy tale.
Click to expand...

But they all acknowledge mankind has an influence.

If I'm wrong, please enlighten me with a good source link.
 
Lord of Planar said:
But they all acknowledge mankind has an influence.

If I'm wrong, please enlighten me with a good source link.
Click to expand...

Not all of them. Just the idiots who are too lazy to do any research in the field. And NONE of them are making predictions any sooner than 25-100 years out, when most of us will be dead.

Why don't they predict for next year?

THE DUMB ASSES CAN'T EVEN PREDICT A HURRICANE.
 
reason10 said:
Not all of them. Just the idiots who are too lazy to do any research in the field. And NONE of them are making predictions any sooner than 25-100 years out, when most of us will be dead.

Why don't they predict for next year?

THE DUMB ASSES CAN'T EVEN PREDICT A HURRICANE.
Click to expand...

I take it that's a NO... You have no good source...
 
reason10 said:
Neither do you, CHICKEN LITTLE.
Click to expand...

I have been studying this topic for a very long time. I understand the science. You deniers make us skeptics look bad, because they lump us together. We cannot win the battle if people like you are going to misrepresent the truth as much as the warmers do. Two wrongs do not make a right.

You are a combination of ignorant and arrogant. A dangerous mix.
 
Geoist said:
Yeah, those climatologists are such morons, unlike those brilliant right-wing radio show blowhards and DP debaters! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Those Climatologists tend to ignore the whole history of Earth's climate and just focus on the last 100 years. European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) data actually shows the earth over the last 800,000 years. That data shows stable temps right now and that Earth's Climate Change is normal and has happened without modern humans.
 
Lord of Planar said:
OK...

They believe the government would put forth policies. They don't say they agree with a carbon tax, they say they believe it's the best policy option of those suggested.
Click to expand...

I think you are mincing words, my friend. ;) They say revenue-neutral carbon tax best option to address the listed issues. They didn't say it was the "least destructive" option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom