Exxon says NetZero degrades global standard of living so much there’s only a remote chance it will happen

By Jo Nova

Exxon was told to jump through circus hoops like a performing seal and report the risks of NetZero to Exxon shareholders. But Exxon pushed back by pointing out that NetZero-by-2050 is so impossible it will never happen, and therefore the risks are not even worth assessing. Furthermore, and rather damningly, Exxon said, society would be unlikely to “accept the degradation in the global standard of living required“. Exxon has taken was was supposed to be another PR win for the narrative and turned it into a media weapon.

This is exactly why the Big-Gov-Corporatist cartel wants to co-opt or destroy independent profitable corporations. In this case, companies that don’t need Big-Gov are free to point out the hypocritical inanity and absurdities which the lap-dog dependent industries like wind power and solar cannot.

Sadly, companies like Exxon still need to be brave because Big-Gov is so big, it is always the largest potential client and holds the sword of mendacious legislation, licensing and regulation as well.

Exxon Crushes Progressive Dreams That “Net Zero” Has Any Chance By 2050: It Would Mean Collapse In “Global Standard Of Living”

By Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge

The US supermajor […]

May 22nd, 2023 | Tags: , , | Category: Big-Government, Free markets, Free Speech, USA | Print This Post Print This Post | |

A Dutch Court says Shell is causing storms and floods. And Exxon shareholders vote to lose money

Who knew?

It doesn’t matter how much a company panders to the Religion.

The Pagan Chieftan hath spoken and decided that Shell not only has to cut its own emissions nearly in half, it improbably, somehow, is responsible for its customers emissions too. Will Shell put photos of heatwave casualties with warning labels on oil cans: “This product may cause Tornadoes”?

Shell is reaping the rewards of playing the “climate” game. They didn’t stand up against the climate witchery when it came for the coal industry, and now its come for them.

Oil Giants Are Dealt Major Defeats on Climate Change as Pressures Intensify

By Sarah McFarlane and Christopher M. Matthews, Wall Street Journal

In a first-of-its-kind ruling, a Dutch court found that Shell is partially responsible for climate change, and ordered the company to sharply reduce its carbon emissions. Hours later in the U.S., an activist investor won at least two seats on Exxon’s board, a historic defeat for the oil giant that will likely require it to alter its fossil-fuel focused strategy.

The Shell ruling, issued by the district court in The Hague, found that Shell must curb its carbon […]

May 28th, 2021 | Tags: , , | Category: AGW socio-political, Fossil Fuels, Free markets, Ideology, Politics, Woke | Print This Post Print This Post | |

Climate money: Big government outspends big oil

The Exxon “Blame-Game” is a Distracting Side Show

Much media attention has relentlessly focused on the influence of “Big Oil”—but the numbers don’t add up. Exxon Mobil is still vilified1 for giving around 23 million dollars, spread over roughly ten years, to skeptics of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It amounts to about $2 million a year, compared to the US government input of well over $2 billion a year. The entire total funds supplied from Exxon amounts to less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

Apparently Exxon was heavily “distorting the debate” with a mere 0.8% of what the US government spent on the climate industry each year at the time. (If so, it’s just another devastating admission of how effective government funding really is.)

As an example for comparison, nearly three times the amount Exxon has put in was awarded to the Big Sky sequestration project2 to store just 0.1% of the annual carbon-dioxide output3 of the United States of America in a hole in the ground. The Australian government matched five years of Exxon funding with just one feel-good advertising campaign4 , “Think Climate. Think Change.” (but […]

August 12th, 2009 | Tags: , , | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post Print This Post | |