Exxon did not respond to requests for comment, but it has denied misleading the public or investors about climate change.
That’s a lie.
“We believe the legal and factual theories set forth in these proceedings are meritless and represent an inappropriate attempt to use the court system to usurp the proper role of policymakers in addressing the societal challenges of climate change.”
Read: We only want the people we have direct control over (policy makers they bribe) to have any say in this matter.
Asked whether a 2018 press release, which said Exxon anticipated “10,000 barrels of algae biofuel per day could be produced by 2025,” was misleading, the scientist said “yes,” adding, “All the clauses in there are patently false.”
That’s their own scientist calling them liars.
With the threat of climate action looming, he (Sprow) wrote, the company’s research and development on “Greenhouse” should have two primary goals: “Protect the value of our resources (oil, gas, coal),” and “Preserve Exxon’s business options.”
Sprow then laid out an agenda for how to achieve those ends.
With modeling critical to climate science, he wrote, “it could be considered important to be at the forefront of this modeling effort.” Sprow proposed “supporting a person on staff at one of the leading modeling centers (e.g. Princeton) or by sending one of our people to work in such a center.”
That’s their CEO telling them that “now that climate change is out of the bag, we need to focus on protecting our business (you know, as opposed to the only planet we have), and we need to engage in criminal subterfuge to either bribe a climate modeling expert, or insert one of our own agents into the field.”
“continue to question the scientific basis and cite the high economic cost” of policies to address climate change and “avoid pressures to negotiate a compromise.”
That’s a quote from a meeting of oil executives, laying out the framework of their carpet denial of climate change. The strategy is something you’ve seen before. Disrupt action by “just asking questions, while bringing up the cost” and “avoid accountability.”
This is the same strategy republikkkans use to deny you healthcare and justice. Except in this case it’s being weaponized to help them achieve wealth by destroying our only planet.
They used another tactic that I didn’t notice until one of the commenters on the Ars article/forum pointed it out:
Promising good stuff that’s not too close (~5 years) so you’ll remember it and say, “Hey, where’s my <good thing>?!” but not so far away (~25+ years) that you’ll say “That’s way too far you need to fix this shit now.” Apparently it was used in Soviet Bloc countries a lot to keep the population from revolting, and now I’m seeing it everywhere in our society. In this case, the O&G companies said things like, “Sure! We’ll be generating all your fuel with algae in ~15 years and then we’ll never need to drill again!” and “We’re developing amazing carbon capture technology that’s a mere ~15 years away and will repair all the damage we’re not doing!”
Ars Technica might be owned by Conde Nast, but it has a really smart userbase on average, so I tolerate that fact.
That’s a lie.
Read: We only want the people we have direct control over (policy makers they bribe) to have any say in this matter.
That’s their own scientist calling them liars.
That’s their CEO telling them that “now that climate change is out of the bag, we need to focus on protecting our business (you know, as opposed to the only planet we have), and we need to engage in criminal subterfuge to either bribe a climate modeling expert, or insert one of our own agents into the field.”
That’s a quote from a meeting of oil executives, laying out the framework of their carpet denial of climate change. The strategy is something you’ve seen before. Disrupt action by “just asking questions, while bringing up the cost” and “avoid accountability.”
This is the same strategy republikkkans use to deny you healthcare and justice. Except in this case it’s being weaponized to help them achieve wealth by destroying our only planet.
They used another tactic that I didn’t notice until one of the commenters on the Ars article/forum pointed it out:
Promising good stuff that’s not too close (~5 years) so you’ll remember it and say, “Hey, where’s my <good thing>?!” but not so far away (~25+ years) that you’ll say “That’s way too far you need to fix this shit now.” Apparently it was used in Soviet Bloc countries a lot to keep the population from revolting, and now I’m seeing it everywhere in our society. In this case, the O&G companies said things like, “Sure! We’ll be generating all your fuel with algae in ~15 years and then we’ll never need to drill again!” and “We’re developing amazing carbon capture technology that’s a mere ~15 years away and will repair all the damage we’re not doing!”
Ars Technica might be owned by Conde Nast, but it has a really smart userbase on average, so I tolerate that fact.