Big Oil
-
For shame!
This Monday, Newsweek will publish an op-ed by well-known climate-change contrarian Richard Lindzen, which concludes that global warming is nothing to worry about and may even be a good thing. "Why So Gloomy?" he wonders, and adds that "a warmer climate could be more beneficial than the one we have now."
-
-
Without subsidies, they’re just not profitable
News breaking from Canada: It turns out that once the government stops subsidizing fossil fuel developments ... fossil fuel developments are increasingly unprofitable!
Brief summary of the link: It looks like all forms of fossil-fuel development in Canada -- especially the tar sands -- are going to suffer as governments are forced by public pressure to reduce the subsidies and tax breaks they've been doling out. This looks to be equal parts environmental activism and populist "screw the oil barons" attitude, but whatever it is I say huzzah!
-
-
Senators send letter to ExxonMobil
Today's Wall Street Journal printed a letter from Senators Snowe and Rockefeller to ExxonMobil (here) along with an editorial about the letter (here).
In the letter, Snowe and Rockefeller ask ExxonMobil to stop perpetuating the uncertainty agenda (which they refer to as the "obfuscation agenda"). The letter is similar in many respects to a letter sent to Exxon by the British Royal Society.
The editorial is a broadside against the Senators. How dare they write that letter! You can feel the anger in it -- I'm quite certain the first draft was written in all caps.
Here are a few thoughts:
-
Should enviros view high gas prices as good news?
Like many environmentalists, I tend to think that gasoline prices -- even at today's wallet-rending heights -- are too low.
In fact, no matter how high the market price for petroleum goes, it ought to be higher, since it won't include the so-called "external costs" of using oil. For example, whenever I burn a gallon of gas in my car, I'm creating pollution and climate-warming emissions; fostering overseas military entanglements; increasing the risk of oil spills and pipeline leaks; siphoning money from the local economy into the bank accounts of unsavory oil magnates; yada yada. Each of those factors carries a cost -- sometimes intangible, often hard to quantify, but real nonetheless. And because I don't pay those costs when I fill up -- I just let the rest of the globe pick up the tab -- I tend to buy more gas than I otherwise would.
-
Big Oil and Big Auto get into a war of words
Writing on a private company blog directed at journalists and analysts, Chrysler's head spokesflack Jason Vines aimed the big guns at Big Oil:
Despite a documented history of blowing their exorbitant profits on outlandish executive salaries and stock buybacks, and hoarding their bounty by avoiding technologies, policies and legislation that would protect the population and environment and lower fuel costs, Big Oil insists on transferring all of that responsibility on the auto companies.
Yes, even though the automakers have spent billions developing cleaner, more efficient technologies such as high-feature engines, hybrid powertrains, multi-displacement systems, flexible fuel vehicles, and fuel cells, Big Oil would rather fill the pockets of its executives and shareholders, rather than spend sufficient amounts to reduce the price of fuel, letting consumers, during tough economic times, pick up the tab.He goes on to blast oil companies for refusing to invest in new refineries, develop alternative fuels, or build alternative-fuel stations.
As we say in the journalist-and-analyst business: Oh, snap!
-
That man’s got a pair, you gotta give him that
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) delivered a major speech on energy independence today. The setting was a meeting of the National Governors Association -- specifically, the Governors' Ethanol Coalition.
I'll probably have more to say about it in coming days, but for now, I've just reprinted the entire speech below the fold, for your viewing pleasure.
I think it's pretty ballsy. But let me know what you think.
-
Stevens and the defense bill
Update [2005-12-19 14:47:12 by David Roberts]: Oops, I forgot the obvious: To try to stop this thing, please write your Senators.
As forecast last week, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) managed to get Arctic Refuge drilling attached to the defense spending bill. He couldn't wrangle it into the budget reconciliation bill, so this is his last-ditch effort. He has said:
Katrina will be on this [defense] bill. That's what makes the defense bill a little bit attractive because Katrina will be there. It is going to be awful hard to vote against Katrina.
The levees will be paid for when we drill in ANWR.The House passed the bill in a "bleary, pre-dawn vote" this morning (they must be so proud of themselves).
Now everything comes down to the vote in the Senate. Democrats have promised to filibuster the bill.
"I don't have any hesitation to be a part of a filibuster," said Democrat Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. "This is a fight worth waging."
This is really end-game time, folks.
Below the fold, I've put some quotes from people reacting to Stevens' bid, culled from various sources (Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, news reports, etc.).
