"climate change hoax" follow the money
- Thread starter way 2 go
- Start date
way 2 go
Well-known member
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
15. Paying $100B to the influencers is pocket change, as the Carbon credit commodities market will generate trillions in the end. A great investment.
like farmers getting paid to NOT grow corn, Exxon-Mobil is looking forward to getting paid to NOT pump oil
nice work if you can get it
And you still haven't figured out that ExxonMobile is pushing carbon credits. You're being played.
Once again way 2 go you are buying into someone else's lies. Here is the truth:
:
A typical wind turbine will have an energy payback of less than 6 months and a carbon dioxide payback of around 6 months. -- https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/...a-wind-turbine
In terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online. -- https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0616093317.htm
In terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online. -- https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0616093317.htm
Last edited:
They cause cancer. Trump said so. And he never lies...
“They say the noise causes cancer,” the president remarked of the turbines at the National Republican Congressional Committee fund-raiser in Washington, D.C. “If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations—your house just went down 75 percent in value.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/donald-trump-wind-power-causes-cancer
LED lights cause cancer too...
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/258593090107998208?lang=en
Rex Tillerson was right.
“They say the noise causes cancer,” the president remarked of the turbines at the National Republican Congressional Committee fund-raiser in Washington, D.C. “If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations—your house just went down 75 percent in value.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/donald-trump-wind-power-causes-cancer
LED lights cause cancer too...
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/258593090107998208?lang=en
Rex Tillerson was right.
Since wind power no longer gets any subsidies after 2019, any rational person would realize that no energy company would build them, if they didn't provide a good return on investment.
:rotfl:
Earlier today I provided our position on the COP21 climate conference and briefly covered our long-standing support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
I thought I would take the opportunity here to reiterate the rationale for our position, as well as to underscore the ways in which we have advocated for it.
As I have mentioned on anumber of occasionsin this space, we believe the risks of climate change are real and those risks warrant constructive action by both policymakers and the business community.
For our part, we are taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our own operations, as well as providing products and supporting initiatives to promote more efficient use of energy by consumers. Meanwhile we are increasing investments in production of lower-carbon natural gas while also sponsoring research into next-generation energy technologies to lower emissions.
Sound principles
When it comes to policies for putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, we believe their effectiveness will be determined by how closely they hew to certain core principles. Among these are uniformity of application; global participation; reliance on markets to drive the selection of solutions; minimal regulatory complexity and maximum transparency; and the flexibility to make future adjustments.
In our view, a revenue-neutral carbon tax best fulfills those principles.
As ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said in a speech before the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington in January 2009:
I thought I would take the opportunity here to reiterate the rationale for our position, as well as to underscore the ways in which we have advocated for it.
As I have mentioned on anumber of occasionsin this space, we believe the risks of climate change are real and those risks warrant constructive action by both policymakers and the business community.
For our part, we are taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our own operations, as well as providing products and supporting initiatives to promote more efficient use of energy by consumers. Meanwhile we are increasing investments in production of lower-carbon natural gas while also sponsoring research into next-generation energy technologies to lower emissions.
Sound principles
When it comes to policies for putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, we believe their effectiveness will be determined by how closely they hew to certain core principles. Among these are uniformity of application; global participation; reliance on markets to drive the selection of solutions; minimal regulatory complexity and maximum transparency; and the flexibility to make future adjustments.
In our view, a revenue-neutral carbon tax best fulfills those principles.
As ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said in a speech before the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington in January 2009:
A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions — from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers. A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement.
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/...he-carbon-tax/
Tillerson was right about climate change, too.
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/...he-carbon-tax/
Tillerson was right about climate change, too.
way 2 go
Well-known member
plausible.
wind power is unreliable but politically correct ( back to follow the money )
I like the fact that the makers of the wind turbines are responsible for tearing them down when they reach end of life
but the makers won't be around for that
Washington now gets about 6% of it's electrical power from wind, and it's working very well. With hydroelectric and wind, the state has the fifth lowest electrical rates in the country.
Twenty years is a long time,but it's not that long.
Last edited:
Fix your formatting, Barbarian. You've been warned multiple times about this.
Carbon credits or not, ExxonMobil will still have to produce energy in order to make money. No fuel/energy production, no pay.
All the carbon credit does is to incentivize the market to produce carbon-neutral fuel/energy.
I used to work for a tug boat company in Louisiana, Oil and Gas companies have been getting paid for NOT pumping Oil and gas for a long time.
We used to push drill rigs around the swamps so they could dig wells then cap them. Somehow the dug wells capacity to produce is taken into account in the accounting department.
Right, this is true that the Oil/gas industry is heavily subsidized, and has been so for decades. Well said.
I also worked in drilling for a time. I remember on one occasion that all of the drilling rigs in the area (northeast Texas) allegedly and conveniently had "stuck pipes" all at the same time, and we sat there and did nothing for two weeks. All apparently for tax write-off purposes, mind you.
Yes, I do not know if in the accounting the not produced is counted as a loss for tax purposes, or if they are are actually paid to not produce for strategic reserves, I think it may be BOTH.
Heavily Subsidized is an under statement.
Also, the cost of multiple wars must be factored into oil/gas. The main reason we meddle in the Middle East, and have been since the 1950s, is because of oil (Israel being a rather distant second). The best thing we could do for ourselves as a nation is to get off of oil completely. It's pure poison for so many reasons, not just environmental.
"Follow the money" indeed!
Here is a little problem especially in places like California.
If every building in California had Solar Panels, California would produce way more energy then it uses.
The Problem is that other then initial cost and some maintenance cost once Solar Energy is installed there is no more money to be made. The only way to generate ongoing money from Solar energy would be to tax generated energy, to tax the Sun.
Follow the money indeed, or in the case of Solar Energy the lack of a way to charge for the power.
Also with Solar Energy the people are liberated.
When there is a criminal barricaded in some place the authorities cut off the power. If the people have Solar Energy there is no way to add the compulsion that there is no power. That is if the Solar Power is Generated locally as opposed to massive Solar plants run by big businesses. These of course can charge for supply and distribution, but people would become educated that they can do it themselves and cut ties with Big Business.
I view solar, wind, geothermal, and so on, not as final solutions, but as the first steps to transitioning away from petroleum to a much more promising future--one that we can only imagine as science fiction at this time, but which I believe will become science fact well within the next few decades. Especially with the rise of AI and quantum computing, I think we will crack the secrets of truly cheap, clean, and virtually endless energy production, through fusion or perhaps even some as yet speculative methods (zero point energy?). Human potential will be tremendous if we can just survive the next couple of decades, I believe.