Reply With Quote
Scott, global warming is a lie. You should know this. Ask xray if you don't believe me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16475341/site/newsweek/
‘Greenwashing’ Oil
A report says the world’s largest corporation funded studies that cast doubts on the link between fossil fuels and climate change.
Web Exclusive
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
Updated: 6:10 p.m. CT Jan 4, 2007
Jan. 4, 2007 - For more than three decades, the tobacco industry carried on a campaign of disinformation intended to mislead Americans about the health risks of smoking—a strategy that has been dubbed “manufacturing uncertainty” in the minds of consumers. And ever since global warming emerged as an environmental threat, there has been a well-funded public campaign to cast doubt on the scientific consensus about the danger of global warming and its source in fossil-fuel combustion. A report this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists finds a parallel between the efforts to whitewash tobacco and “greenwash” oil—and points the finger of responsibility at the world’s largest corporation, ExxonMobil.
Under its former chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, who retired in 2005 as one of the best-paid corporate executives in history, ExxonMobil was well known for its hostility to government regulations on emissions of carbon dioxide. But, according to the report, the op-eds and position papers were only the visible tip of Exxon’s effort to fund a small group of researchers and an overlapping network of think tanks that could be relied on to spread the message that global warming was nothing to worry about—or at least, nothing the government could or should do anything about. Their frequently repeated call for “sound science” on global warming echoes the tobacco industry’s endless demand for more research on whether cigarettes really, truly, unquestionably cause cancer.
Of course, cigarette companies weren’t concerned just about future sales, but the billions of dollars in compensation they eventually had to … umm … cough up. ExxonMobil’s motivation, presumably, is to protect a fantastically lucrative market: its 2005 profits of $36 billion made it the most profitable corporation in history. But that very wealth puts them in a position both to shape and eventually dominate the postcarbon energy world, if they choose to do so. Ironically, as the report points out, the company and its shareholders will suffer if it gets left behind in the transition to less polluting forms of energy.
For its part, ExxonMobil—after promulgating, and then withdrawing 20 minutes later, a statement that called the report an “attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion”—wants you to know that it now accepts some responsibility for global warming. Specifically, and in boldface, it admitted that “It is clear today that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions.” That would seem, on the face of it, to contradict the assertions of some of its favored researchers in the ever-shrinking coterie of global-warming skeptics. The question, of course, is what specific policies ExxonMobil is willing to accept to curb those emissions. With a new Congress taking office, climate change is likely to be a much more salient issue this year than it has been for the last six—so ExxonMobil will have the chance to show if it means what it’s saying now.
Scott, global warming is a lie. You should know this. Ask xray if you don't believe me.
ExxonMobil is just part of the liberal media.
JohnnyBlaze, would you recommend a degree in marketing for budding journalists?
I have never said there wasn't global warming. I state that man is not
the cause of global warming. Mother Nature does her down thing, in her
own time. Man made global warming is a path to more taxation of the
so called rich nations to give to the third world nations.
To use a hot buzz phrase, I think we are seeing a "tipping point" where even the culpable parties admit
1)global warming is real
2) can be a real problem
3) is caused by human activities
This is a first step, but don't count on the oilmen in the WH to do all about it, except maybe veto any legislation attacking greenhouse emissions.
=============
btw:
January 6, 2007
Falling Oil Prices Should Help Drivers
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:36 a.m. ET
NEW YORK (AP) -- U.S. drivers could start seeing lower prices at the pump as early as this weekend, thanks to the cascading price of crude oil and a seasonal dip in gasoline, analysts say.
A gallon of regular unleaded gasoline costs an average of $2.325 across the country, according to the AAA.
''That's probably going to be the highest price you pay in January,'' Oil Price Information Service analyst Tom Kloza said. ''We're going to get a nice little energy price dividend in January: If you're buying heating oil, you're going to pay a lot less than last year, and we're definitely going to be paying less for gasoline than we did in December.''
Gasoline prices typically fall in January amid weaker demand, Kloza said, before perking back up around Valentine's Day and rising through the summer.
Also helping to temper gasoline prices is the recent slide in crude oil prices. Light, sweet crude for February delivery dropped as low as $54.90 Friday -- the lowest price in 19 months -- before climbing back to settle at $56.31, up 72 cents on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
After sharp drops on Wednesday and Thursday, crude prices fell nearly 8 percent for the week, the biggest one-week drop since April of 2005.
February Brent crude on London's ICE Futures exchange rose 53 cents to settle at $55.64, after earlier dropping as low as $54.50.
Gasoline prices rose less than a penny to $1.493 after earlier falling as low as $1.46.
Kloza, though, said drivers shouldn't expect retail gasoline prices to drop as steeply as crude prices. Many retailers were unable to pass along higher wholesale costs in December, and they'll likely hold onto some of the price drop for themselves, he said.
A warmer winter has meant less demand for heating fuels, and the National Weather Service is forecasting continued mild conditions in the eastern United States. Temperatures could reach the upper 60s in New York on Saturday before cooling off but remaining above normal into next week, meteorologist Dennis Feltgen said.
Another factor is some investment and pension funds leaving commodities and moving money back into stocks, said Phil Flynn, vice president and senior market analyst at Alaron Trading Corp.
''We're catching a falling knife right now,'' he said. ''I think we're going to struggle to find a bottom in the mid 50s here and start working back up.''
But if prices fall further, they could drop close to $50, he said.
Ministers of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries are waiting to see whether the lower price trend continues before taking any further action, the chairman of Libya's oil company said Friday.
''We are concerned -- of course,'' Shokri Ghanem told Dow Jones Newswires from Tripoli. ''We need to see if this trend continues as it has only been for two days so far.''
Natural gas in underground storage fell by 47 billion cubic feet to 3.07 trillion last week, according to the Energy Information Administration. Traders and analysts had been expecting a withdrawal of 55 billion cubic feet, according to a Dow Jones Newswires survey.
Natural gas prices rose 2.2 cents to $6.184 per 1,000 cubic feet.
''It now seems that we might get some colder weather after January 20th, but some are wondering if that could be too little, too late,'' analyst Peter Beutel of energy consultancy Cameron Hanover wrote in his daily note.
U.S. crude inventories declined last week by 1.3 million barrels to 319.7 million barrels compared with the previous week, the EIA reported Thursday. Analysts on average had expected crude stocks to rise by 930,000 barrels, according to a survey by Dow Jones Newswires.
However, distillate inventories, which include diesel fuel and heating oil, increased by 2 million barrels to 135.6 million barrels as warm winter weather hurt demand. Distillate stocks were expected to increase by an average of 1.15 million barrels.
In other Nymex trading, heating oil futures rose less than a cent to $1.5658 a gallon and had dropped as low as $1.5334 earlier in the session.
==================
The falling oil prices will suck $Bs out of the profits Iran,Russia, Chavez get, to the world's benefit.
But falling oil prices will encourage prolifgate consumption, which will drive up oil prices as the oil cartel restrics supply to push prices up to $75.
======================
btw, I can't find the article, but it has been observed that the oilcos are NOT reducing fuel prices as quickly as the oil prices fall, and of course never as quickly as the oilcos RAISE the fuel prices when the oil price is going up/high.
Last edited by boutons_; 01-06-2007 at 03:15 PM.
Sure.
Poor old rich countries who never take advantage of the poor countries.
Dude, you would fit right in with my leftist Argentine friends.
if they're female and pretty, fitting in sounds like a good plan
Cheat on Dan? Tisk Tisk
Now that denying the existence of global warming is laughable, the Oilco talking-point has morphed into, but it's not our fault.
Sure.
Poor old rich countries who never take advantage of the poor countries.
It is my money and I might add your wife's money and every other person
on this sites money, if they pay taxes, that the old rich countries would
have to give away.
And take advantage of the poor countries, give me a break. We pay for
everything we get from the poor countries.
x 24082943825093457409583298509476927098723-95720985723-945329572395-7325092375092375023752075308723857-3957319-67423695=437608-75803275813067890476437 to the mother ing 93485093480943853 power
Yeah that is about what we have paid in my lifetime.
But Manny I know you think the US is just a mean old country robbing the
world of its resources and polluting all the air/water/destroying everything
on earth for our pure enjoyment.
Don't put words in my mouth. It isn't my fault your statements are pretty ignorant and outrageous. What exactly is it that you're paying for?
I put nothing in your mouth, dude! You make statements and then
call me ignorant and outrageous.
If I consume it, I pay for it. Just like you and the rest of the folks
in this country. In short, if it comes from a "poor" nation it was bought
and paid for.
I have said this a million times, but here it goes again.
Are you familiar with the grotesque subsidies the US, Europe and Japan pay their inefficient farmers in order to compete with Third World farmers?
Are you aware of the outrageous tariffs applied to certain products coming from Third World countries which the rich countries use to protect their inefficient industries (steel is the one that comes immediately to mind)?
Go and do some research and get back to me.
Do you know the prices that contractors are having to pay for steel nowadays? Or how much heavy industrial equipment costs to contractors due to the steel prices? The world's steel supply is being eaten up by China, not the United States and any outrageous tariff applied to the importing of steel is paid for by the United States economy.
I know about steel.
Could you please direct me to a link where a third world nation's farmers
are more efficient than the US farmers.
And by the way would you please check out where produce comes from
the next time you are in the grocery store.
Thank You
I can direct you to websites that show the amount of money the developed world spends on subsidizing its farmers. If a country needs to subsidize an industry (in this case the agricultural industry), then that industry cannot compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/subsidies/index.htm
And this denies the existence of subsidies how . . .?
I still want to hear about steel.
The US applies very high tariffs on steel that is produced overseas by companies that are not present in the US. Most of these companies are from the Third World. They do this to protect the local inefficient steel mills.
Your comments make no sense. The US is artificialy raising the price of steel with tarrifs to help out the Americna steel companies, so if you're upset about the money that contracters have to pay for items in the steel industry then you need look no further than our government for a good deal of the blame.
Yes, the tarrifs applied to the steel imports are paid for by the American economny; that being the average american consumer. It is ridiculous for our government to be ing about free trade this and free trade that while applying tariffs and other protectionist measures. It hurts the steel industry in other countries and hurts the average American's pocket.
"free trade"
... is a myth.
You're right.
But now I'm confused, why would we tax imported steel so high knowing full well that there is a world wide steel shortage?
Honestly, I always just assumed our steel prices were so outrageous because of the demand China has caused (which it is), but why then do we further drive up prices on ourselves?
This question is for all those smarter then me..........which is pretty much everyone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
