[onlooker]

I think T, the more nuanced point was that for a given product or service the consumers hypothetically can chose another similar product or service, another brand etc. With fossil fuels and that was my point we cannot at this time steer away from them as they still form the bedrock energy wise of our economies.

[Tanada]

I think T, the more nuanced point was that for a given product or service the consumers hypothetically can chose another similar product or service, another brand etc. With fossil fuels and that was my point we cannot at this time steer away from them as they still form the bedrock energy wise of our economies.

The problem is, so long as we continue to steer into them nothing will change until they run low enough to destroy their economic value. France made the decision in the early 1970's to full on convert their electric grid to fission power. You might say this makes them beholden to fission fuels, and yes up to an extent that is correct, but ultimately they have an electrified train network and household/industrial/commercial power that can get them through shortages in fossil fuels much better than the USA where we still get about 40 percent of electricity from coal and another 40 percent from natural gas. That last 20 percent that isn't fossil fuel power is mostly fission with a few points for hydro thrown in to fill the gap.

[dohboi]

No other industry, or even individual, gets to dump their pollution into public space with no fee or penalty.

I can't just dump my garbage in my neighbor's yard or in a public park.

Why should these ff @$$holes get to do it?

[Outcast_Searcher]

"No other industry, or even individual, gets to dump their pollution into public space with no fee or penalty."

You don't pay for your effluent discharges.

You've never heard of sewer taxes?

In the US, as far as I know, people who aren't homeless pay them, directly or indirectly.

[onlooker]

Isn't that computed as part of property taxes?

[Outcast_Searcher]

All that's needed is for FF companies to be required to pay for the pollution their products make or to dispose of it properly, just like every other industry is required to do.

If they don't they should be taken to court.

You can't be serious.

If the social costs (including pollution) of fossil fuels were charged to the FF companies as taxes, then those taxes would be passed along to the consumers. (Which I am on record for a long now saying is EXACTLY what should happen, BTW -- ***ALL*** of the social costs should be borne by those who consume the fossil fuels that produce them -- and I know it will be very expensive).

However, no US politician (who can get elected) will dare to begin to do this to any meaningful degree - because after all, winning elections is the name of the game.

And on this site, I have tended to get either complete disagreement with this (i.e. we can't "afford" it), or the more pragmatic "it will never happen in the US because voters won't allow it).

So the magic "take them to court" fixes nothing. SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE BILL. IN THE END THAT WILL BE THE CONSUMER. If you sue Exxon out of business tomorrow, then fine. Who will produce gasoline at a huge loss if the consumer won't pay the taxes?

[Tanada]

Isn't that computed as part of property taxes?

In Ohio it is a Municipal tax, as part of my water bill.

[dohboi]

In Ohio it is a Municipal tax, as part of my water bill.

Same here.

If an industry can't pay for their waste disposal, and if pushing those costs onto their customers destroys their business, that's the market accurately relaying what the actual worth of that industry is.

The market has been massively distorted by this particular industry being let off the hook for having to pay anything remotely close to the actual costs incurred by there business model.

[onlooker]

Well now this is the converse. Big Industry suing countries for not allowing them to mine. In this case gold mining in the Colombian Amazon. Yeah protect the corporations and not the environments. Typical of the out of control civilization we have now.
https://actions.sumofus.org/a/keep-this ... &source=fb

[ROCKMAN]

Actually logic would argue filing a legal action against the single largest DIRECT PRODUCER IF GHG on the planet...the U.S. govt. In large part thanks to the Deof of Defense: the single largest consumer of fossil fuels on the planet. Next target should be the US citizens: as a group they are the largest DIRECT PRODUCER OF GHG on the planet. Common sense: if GHG are causing CC then we should go after those who actually convert fossil fuels to GHG. As pointed out taxing the fossil fuel producers can only indirectly limit GHG production. If those taxes aren't high enough they'll mostly effect the poor who don't consume a lot of ff in the first place.

But one starting point could be eliminating ff production from all federal leases. Of course the would reduce federal revenue by 10's of BILLIONS over the years but it would be a start. Especially by elimnating coal production from federal lands.

[dohboi]

Yes, ROCK, we know...anyone, anyone but you and your ilk are the real guilty party.

If you were in charge of the Tobacco litigation, you probably would have gone after old women dying of emphysema first, because the poor tobacco companies were just doing what all those nasty smokers insisted that they do!!

[onlooker]

Yes, ROCK, we know...anyone, anyone but you and your ilk are the real guilty party.

If you were in charge of the Tobacco litigation, you probably would have gone after old women dying of emphysema first, because the poor tobacco companies were just doing what all those nasty smokers insisted that they do!!

Yes D, I always think the dealer is a little innsy weenie more culpable than the addicted or deceived user.

[dohboi]

+1

[onlooker]

It seems Congress specifically the GOP want to turn the tables on the investigators of Exxon and investigate them. So they are taking the side of Exxon over the people. Interesting.
http://mashable.com/2016/07/13/lamar-sm ... hY.MnBtgqW

[GHung]

GOP Congressman Subpoenas Those Investigating Big Oil’s Climate Cover-Up

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lam ... 08d3329690

In his latest showing of support for Big Oil, a House Republican has subpoenaed state attorneys general and environmental groups that are investigating whether companies like Exxon Mobil committed fraud by covering up the risks of climate change.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said during a press conference Wednesday that the subpoenas are necessary to “protect the American people from further infringement of their free speech rights.”

Smith, who chairs the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, has a long history of denying climate change and going after those who accept the scientific consensus.

The investigations led by the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts, Smith said, “amount to a form of extortion,” “threaten legitimate scientific debate about climate change” and are a “blatant effort to silence free speech.”

....when your government wants you to STFU....

[vox_mundi]

SEC probes Exxon's climate, reserves accounting: report

Not all giants are slain by sword. A mirror petrified Medusa. Tax evasion (and a case of syphilis) brought down Al Capone. And [b]if oil monolith ExxonMobil’s stock price ever takes a major plummet, it will probably come from failing to tell its investors how climate change would wreck its business model.

On September 20, the Wall Street Journal broke news that the US Securities and Exchange Commission—the highest federal financial regulator—is formally investigating Exxon’s accounting. The company stands accused of ignoring and possibly even lying about how market fluctuations affect its profits. Some, but not all, of those fluctuations come from government regulations targeting climate change. Environmental law wonks are watching that last bit closely, because the company stands accused of knowingly pushing an anti-climate agenda. If the SEC gets the goods on Exxon, it could drop some serious sanctions on the company, and that could affect the way publicly-traded companies account for the costs of climate change.

Those costs have led governments to react with emissions regulations. Regulations basically put a price on emitting carbon, making it more expensive to burn fossil fuels. “The question to ask is, in a world where climate change is leading regulations, what happens to the estimated worth of a company,” says Bevis Longstreth, a former SEC commissioner. This is especially important for companies who rely on public investors.

Since at least the late 1980s, Exxon has sold its stock based on two claims: 1) Climate change is not real; and, 2) Even if it were, governments would balk at the huge costs associated with transitioning to clean energy economies. But in 2015, Inside Climate News reported that Exxon didn’t actually believe that first claim. That investigation showed how the company’s own research established the links between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change back in the 1970s.

Then, beginning in the late 1980s, Exxon actively worked against domestic and international efforts to introduce climate change-fighting regulations. By extension, it was—allegedly—misleading its own investors about how climate change would affect their returns.

“If you’re spending 80 or so dollars per barrel to explore for new oil, and the market is only paying 40 dollars per barrel, then your stock price is overvalued,” says Longstreth. Especially if the oil price is not expected to recover—which is a reasonable assumption, given that last year 185 countries agreed to emit net zero carbon emissions by 2050. “If the world’s economy is weaned off oil by 2050, what happens to all the money you are now spending on finding more oil?” says Longstreth.

The mere fact that the normally pussyfooted SEC is doing a formal investigation is big news. “They wouldn’t launch a formal investigation without probable cause that these rules had been violated, and if Exxon violated them the SEC has no option but to bring the culprit to book,” says Longstreth, who as a former commissioner was in charge of green-lighting such investigations. In the most extreme circumstance, Longstreth says the SEC could make Exxon liable for paying out damages to anyone who overbought, or undersold, stock during whatever time frame the SEC deems the company culpable.

“But the fact that the SEC is raising the carbon cost question is deeply significant,” says Longstreth. Other companies could be driven to release more accurate accounts of how climate change affects their business, and that cost would become transparent in their stock prices. And that’s how you slay a giant.

Wall Streets Response ...

Here's Why You Should Sell Exxon on Strength

The downside momentum now in place has inflicted major damage to the stock. In the near term, more downside is likely on the way.

[C8]

This means climate change alarmists may also be liable for making claims they know aren't true- possibly for the financial benefit of renewable energy companies (per subsidies)

Also those spreading misinformation about the dangers of nuclear power can also be sued- these are many of the same global warming alarmists

If these cases win then free speech is dead- and the totalitarian govt. that takes over will have little interest in global warming.

[vox_mundi]

This means climate change alarmists denialists and lackeys may also be liable for making claims they know aren't true- possibly for the financial benefit of renewable fossil fuel energy companies (per subsidies)

Also those spreading misinformation about the dangers safety of nuclear power can also be sued- these are many of the same global warming alarmists denialists and lackeys

If these cases win then free speech is dead alive - and the totalitarian responsible govt. that takes over will have little an interest in solving global warming.

Fixed that for you