Big Oil spends $115 Million per year to obstruct Climate Change policy

[mentalfloss]

So that's where the subsidies go!


ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, and three oil-industry groups together spend $115 million a year on advocacy designed to “obstruct” climate change policy, according to new estimates released by Influence Map, a British nonprofit research organization.

The sheer fuzziness of corporate influence prompted the project. Nations hold companies to different standards—or none at all—for disclosures of how they are trying to influence public policy and what it costs.

To come up with its numbers, Influence Map first had to define what "influence" actually means. The researchers adopted a framework spelled out in a 2013 UN report written to help companies align their climate change policies with their lobbying and communications strategies. It's a broad approach to understanding influence that includes not only direct lobbying, but also advertising, marketing, public relations, political contributions, regulatory contacts, and trade associations.

Trying to Put a Price on Big Oil's 'Climate Obstruction' Efforts - Bloomberg

 

[Walter]

And gubmints spend billions a year to promote "climate change" policy.

 

[taxslave]

More like between them they spend a paltry $115 million trying to protect their customers from freewheeling governments with an agenda they were not elected to push.

 

[Locutus]

Lol. You can cram nearly 9 global years of this mumbo jumbo into just 1 mississaugua liberal gas plant cancellation. bfd.

 

[captain morgan]

The real beauty of that $115MM is that it is all tax deductible for those companies.

... Too bad they didn't expense even more

 

[Walter]

The real beauty of that $115MM is that it is all tax deductible for those companies.

... Too bad they didn't expense even more

There should be no business tax.

 

[captain morgan]

I agree, but it is the system that we have right now.

 

[Danbones]

That carbon tax bs is going to be a real bitch...considering that the antarctic ice is maximized for some time now, and the arctic ice volume has been headed the same way since 2012, the gunrunningbankonarcotards want to make carbon credits the replacement for petrodollars and if they do...heh heh well, look the effe out.

Some nice measurements for those that can tell the difference between a fact and a never correct virtual model.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
The difference between snow is a thing of the past and a yard full of freakin snow, ya dig?

 

[mentalfloss]

Watts up lol

 

[Jinentonix]

Watts up lol

Not your IQ, that's a given.


I'm confused here. It's bad because big oil wants to continue making profits? But what's good is allowing China and developing countries to profit while basically generating as much GHGs as they want while we commit slow economic suicide and learn to live with rolling blackouts because wind and solar are not reliable sources of energy?


Good plan. Has kind of a "Charge of the Light Brigade" feel to it.

 

[mentalfloss]

Watts is a textbook denier, so it's obvious why he's consistently wrong about the science.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Seriously? 115 mil?

"Chickensh*t money, boy!"
-- Big Enos Burdette, Smoky and the Bandit

 

[Walter]

Watts is a textbook denier, so it's obvious why he's consistently wrong about the science.

Another Clingon accusation by Analfloss. Got examples of where Watt has been wrong?

 

[Danbones]

Watts up lol

sorry MF, I didn't make the Ice
I just put it in my drinks
now, If you will excuse me, I have to go shovel the snowplow pile off the end of the driveway so I can get the dog sled out to the road

From Forbes
"Surprise! Al Gore and his carbon credit huckstering partner David Blood, both principals at Generation Investment Management (GIM), warn in their October 30 Wall Street Journal op/ed feature of peril to fossil fuel investments due to “The Coming Carbon Asset Bubble”. They argue that such “unwise and increasingly wreck less” investment strategies pose three broad risks which will cause carbon assets to become “stranded” and lose economic value: through direct government carbon regulation;"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#48e04fa43750

After buying how many new sea side mansions?

 

[captain morgan]

Be careful not to strain your back shoveling all of that global warming off your drive.

 

[petros]

Lol. You can cram nearly 9 global years of this mumbo jumbo into just 1 mississaugua liberal gas plant cancellation. bfd.

ExxonMobil bribed Wynne.

 

[Danbones]

I was thinking of just throwing a hand full of kibble in front of the sled so the dogs will just chew our way out

 

[mentalfloss]

sorry MF, I didn't make the Ice
I just put it in my drinks
now, If you will excuse me, I have to go shovel the snowplow pile off the end of the driveway so I can get the dog sled out to the road

From Forbes
"Surprise! Al Gore and his carbon credit huckstering partner David Blood, both principals at Generation Investment Management (GIM), warn in their October 30 Wall Street Journal op/ed feature of peril to fossil fuel investments due to “The Coming Carbon Asset Bubble”. They argue that such “unwise and increasingly wreck less” investment strategies pose three broad risks which will cause carbon assets to become “stranded” and lose economic value: through direct government carbon regulation;"
Forbes Welcome

After buying how many new sea side mansions?

Government profiting over policy is nothing new.

 

[Walter]

Government profiting over policy is nothing new.

Gubmint cannot profit, it can only steal.

 

[Nick Danger]

The idea that we can pump pollutants into the atmosphere at the rate we have and for the time we have without effecting some measure of change is completely inconceivable to me. It's also as plain as the nose on my face that media manipulation with the aim to steer public perception has become a huge tool in the hands both government and the corporate world. People don't argue for truth anymore, they argue to support a preconceived bias that is more often than not totally self-serving in nature. You just don't know who to trust any more. It does make sense to me that we're screwing up the planet, and that we should change our way of doing things, so that tends to form the basis of my bias in the matter, a bias arrived at through objective evaluation of everything I heard/read on the subject to date.