Oil Companies Don't Advertise Like They Used To

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
103,474
8,181
113
Low Earth Orbit
They don't have to advertise any more; they own the government so they don't give a sh!t what people believe or want. Besides, they have greedy sheeple like Slave, Petroglyph and Rummy to spread lies and attack anybody who disagrees with their agenda.

If they own the Govt and Govt insists global warming is man made and requires taxation, why the f-ck do you believe them?
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
In a loss for ExxonMobil, the New York State Supreme Court has ordered the oil giant and its accounting firm to produce documents subpoenaed in a highly charged investigation of whether the company concealed from investors and the public what it knew about climate change as long as four decades ago.

The New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who issued a subpoena in August, sought on Oct. 14 to force PricewaterhouseCoopers to provide the documents after ExxonMobil said it would not permit PwC to provide certain documents based on a Texas statute that Exxon said provided “accountant-client privilege.”

The New York Court ruled that Exxon’s interpretation of the Texas statute was “flawed,” and said the Texas statute does not preclude PwC from producing the documents requested by the New York attorney general’s office. The court also stated that New York law, rather than Texas law, governed the dispute.

Exxon has asserted that it did not conceal material information and accused the attorneys general of having a political agenda. The company said the subpoenas alone would chill companies’ internal research and free speech.

ExxonMobil has produced more than a million pages of documents, but it has also asked a Texas federal court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the need for the company to comply with similar subpoenas issued by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. U.S. District Court Judge Ed Kinkeade of Texas did not grant the injunction, but on Oct. 13 he issued a discovery order for ExxonMobil to examine Healey’s internal documents and records to determine whether she acted in “bad faith” in issuing her subpoena. ExxonMobil later asked the judge to add Schneiderman’s name to the order.

Healey has asked the court to vacate its order and dismiss Exxon’s suit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...=Daily Carbon Briefing&utm_term=.b7d7408c11a4
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
42
48
Red Deer AB
They did it in the past when they were competitors, now they conspire behind closed door on how to cheat the public. Same way that newspapers don't compete for stories anymore as they are all fed the same story. Who says that is progress??
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
I remember the cool chalk-drawing ads over live play on Hockey Night in Canada (Esso, Molsons and later, Ford) back when the game was a game and took precedence over commerce
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
51,426
4,590
113
Washington DC
I remember the cool chalk-drawing ads over live play on Hockey Night in Canada (Esso, Molsons and later, Ford) back when the game was a game and took precedence over commerce
Wait. . . you're saying a game (entertainment by definition) should take precedence over commerce?

Exactly what do you think entertainment is? (Hint: it's part of commerce.)
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Wait. . . you're saying a game (entertainment by definition) should take precedence over commerce?

Exactly what do you think entertainment is? (Hint: it's part of commerce.)
Get your facts all in a row, clounsellor.... Hockey Night in Canada was respected and nothing disturbed the play. Esso, Molsons and Ford respected it. Until NHL sold out to the sponsors, respect came before money
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
On Wednesday, 62.3 percent of investors in oil giant Exxon Mobil voted for the company to produce an annual report on the impacts of climate change policies on the company’s business. The resolution, which was opposed by Exxon leadership, passed by a large margin compared to last year, when a similar resolution garnered only 38 percent of the investor vote.

According to a copy of the resolution posted by Ceres, a nonprofit sustainability organization, the investors want Exxon to “publish an annual assessment of the long-term portfolio impacts of technological advances and global climate change policies.” They also instruct the company to annually assess the financial risks of “a scenario in which reduction in demand results from carbon restrictions and related rules or commitments adopted by governments consistent with the globally agreed upon 2-degree target.”

Although Wednesday morning reports suggested that US President Donald Trump will leave the Paris Agreement signed by the Obama administration to limit greenhouse gases, the European Union and China have reaffirmed their commitment to the agreement, and Exxon is a global company that will be affected by the multinational agreement.

In late 2015, Exxon came under fire when New York’s attorney general opened an investigation into whether Exxon misled investors about the effects of climate change. Exxon’s scientists had allegedly been telling company leadership that climate change was an issue as early as the 1970s and ‘80s, but Exxon executives cast doubt on the idea publicly for decades. Rex Tillerson, the current US secretary of state and a former Exxon chairman and CEO, has been caught up in the ensuing state lawsuits as well, most notably for apparently using the undisclosed e-mail alias “Wayne Tracker” to communicate with other Exxon executives.

A few days in advance of today’s vote, Exxon tried to turn the tide of opinion among investors. According to CNBC, “Exxon had stepped up efforts to persuade investors to vote against climate-related proposals at Wednesday’s annual meeting with a campaign of calling, writing, and lobbying shareholders in person.”

Exxon has insisted that it already provides the relevant information to investors.

https://arstechnica.com/business/20...tives-vote-in-favor-of-annual-climate-report/
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Exxon Tries to Talk Good Game, While Still Funding Climate Deniers




ExxonMobil executives repeatedly claim their company supports a federal carbon tax and the Paris climate agreement. The company's checkbook ledger, however, tells a far different story.

Thursday, the company released its annual list of its "public information and policy research" grantees, which shows that it spent $1.65 million in 2016 on a dozen think tanks, advocacy groups and associations that contest climate science and oppose both the Paris accord and a carbon tax—the very policies the company professes to endorse. Last year's outlay boosted the total of the company's expenditures on climate disinformation over the last two decades to $34.6 million.

Most of ExxonMobil's spending on denier groups last year—87 percent—went to four organizations: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

ExxonMobil gave more than half of last year's kitty—a cool $1 million—to the chamber, which provided President Trump with a key, but fraudulent, rationale for pulling out of the Paris agreement. Parroting a recent report funded by the chamber and the American Council for Capital Formation―which received $1.78 million from ExxonMobil between 2000 and 2015—Trump claimed that over the next several decades the accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion and, by 2040, eliminate 6.5 million industrial sector jobs.

The Associated Press (AP), Politifact and The Washington Post fact checked the speech and arrived at similar conclusions: The chamber and American Council for Capital Formation cooked the books.

"The study makes worst-case assumptions that may inflate the cost of meeting U.S. targets under the Paris accord while largely ignoring the economic benefits to U.S. businesses from building and operating renewable energy projects," AP reporters Michael Biescker and Paul Wiseman pointed out. "Academic studies have found that increased environmental regulation doesn't actually have much impact on employment. Jobs lost at polluting companies tend to be offset by new jobs in green technology."

The chamber, which has a long history of denying climate science, made similar dire warnings about job losses in a 2014 report analyzing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. That report used flawed assumptions to magnify the carbon rule's cost and exaggerate job losses and, like its recent report on the Paris agreement, didn't factor in the carbon rule's considerable benefits.

https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-fund-science-deniers-2450983905.html
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
103,474
8,181
113
Low Earth Orbit
They don't have to advertise any more; they own the government so they don't give a sh!t what people believe or want. Besides, they have greedy sheeple like Slave, Petroglyph and Rummy to spread lies and attack anybody who disagrees with their agenda.

Burn your ID! Burn your ID!Burn your ID!
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,332
113
Vancouver Island
Exxon Tries to Talk Good Game, While Still Funding Climate Deniers




ExxonMobil executives repeatedly claim their company supports a federal carbon tax and the Paris climate agreement. The company's checkbook ledger, however, tells a far different story.

Thursday, the company released its annual list of its "public information and policy research" grantees, which shows that it spent $1.65 million in 2016 on a dozen think tanks, advocacy groups and associations that contest climate science and oppose both the Paris accord and a carbon tax—the very policies the company professes to endorse. Last year's outlay boosted the total of the company's expenditures on climate disinformation over the last two decades to $34.6 million.

Most of ExxonMobil's spending on denier groups last year—87 percent—went to four organizations: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

ExxonMobil gave more than half of last year's kitty—a cool $1 million—to the chamber, which provided President Trump with a key, but fraudulent, rationale for pulling out of the Paris agreement. Parroting a recent report funded by the chamber and the American Council for Capital Formation―which received $1.78 million from ExxonMobil between 2000 and 2015—Trump claimed that over the next several decades the accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion and, by 2040, eliminate 6.5 million industrial sector jobs.

The Associated Press (AP), Politifact and The Washington Post fact checked the speech and arrived at similar conclusions: The chamber and American Council for Capital Formation cooked the books.

"The study makes worst-case assumptions that may inflate the cost of meeting U.S. targets under the Paris accord while largely ignoring the economic benefits to U.S. businesses from building and operating renewable energy projects," AP reporters Michael Biescker and Paul Wiseman pointed out. "Academic studies have found that increased environmental regulation doesn't actually have much impact on employment. Jobs lost at polluting companies tend to be offset by new jobs in green technology."

The chamber, which has a long history of denying climate science, made similar dire warnings about job losses in a 2014 report analyzing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. That report used flawed assumptions to magnify the carbon rule's cost and exaggerate job losses and, like its recent report on the Paris agreement, didn't factor in the carbon rule's considerable benefits.

https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-fund-science-deniers-2450983905.html
Because AGW is a lie.