How Much Do We Care about the Criminal Proceedings Being Initiated Against ExxonMobil?

brandalism1_0Here’s the Scientific American article on Exxon’s conspiracy to suppress the vast knowledge they had in their possession as early as 1981 concerning the connection between fossil fuel consumption and climate change.  It’s fascinating to see how this criminal investigation is rolling out, and, in particular, how the public is reacting to it. To my great astonishment and dismay, it appears that very few people share any great sense of outrage.  

Perhaps the core of the matter is that we’re completely jaded by the nonstop torrent of stories chronicling the amorality of big corporations; most of us no longer expect these enormously powerful organizations to behave with any level of conscience at all.  We all know that Coke and McDonalds sell malnutrition, obesity, and diabetes; we understand that big pharma is in the business of treating the symptoms of long-term disease, rather than curing it.  We’re not even too troubled by the VW emissions scandal; the automaker’s sales were down only 1.2% in Feb. 2016 versus Feb. 2015, which means that 98.8% of us have no issues buying products from a company that just committed a horrendous crime against humanity.  Most of the 11 million defrauded customers are more upset that their car will ultimately lose some of its performance and fuel economy than they are at the scope and nature of the crime itself.  It’s like being enraged by a rapist because he didn’t clean up his Burger King wrapper he left at the crime scene.

Most Americans do an awful lot of hand-wringing about jobs and the economy, but no one seems to care that we’re headed for moral bankruptcy.

 

 

Tagged with: , ,
27 comments on “How Much Do We Care about the Criminal Proceedings Being Initiated Against ExxonMobil?
  1. Ron says:

    Just because I wasn’t in the market for a new car doesn’t put me into that bucket you claim is 98.8% of us. Sorry, doesn’t compute.

    I’m thankful for the many plastic products we have and enjoy. Big oil does enable that for us all. Food packaging allows much food to be distributed widely because of those oil-based products. I lament how much I toss in the landfill however, it seems that’s my weekly contribution: food packaging. Everything else gets recycled. That makes life good for many, yet going back to a wooden case for my tablet is a non-starter. Try to keep things in prospective.

    But what we object to is taking this oil out of the ground and putting it into the air we all breathe! I would encourage everyone to read “Merchants of Doubt” by Oreskes and Conway 2010, or see the movie. It’s available on the ‘net for free download.

    • craigshields says:

      Thanks. I’ll check that out.

      Re: my logic, all new car sales are consummated with people looking for new cars. Of that group, only 1.2% said no to VW. I think that’s valid. Anyone?

  2. It is sad indeed (and scary) how apathetic many people feel. I would only add that part of the problem is that so many people are struggling in their lives, working crazy hours (if they have a job) to make ends meet and take care of their families. There is precious little time and energy left to really get involved in helping to change things. This is the result of decades of putting corporate profit ahead of societal wellness and other dark-ages thinking. It will be extremely important to the health and wellbeing of all of us on the planet to vote more progressives into office this fall in US elections.

    • craigshields says:

      Yes. This election will be a very interesting one. On one hand, one has to be alarmed at the raw numbers of hateful, frightened and ignorant people out there. I don’t think anyone saw this (Trump) coming. On the other hand, it’s amazing to see the support that Bernie Sanders has gotten; it rather renews one’s faith.

  3. marcopolo says:

    ” to my great astonishment and dismay, it appears that very few people share any great sense of outrage.”

    That’s probably because most people realize that their is no “criminal” activity involved, and the entire issue is wildly exaggerated hyperbole by a politically ambitious, grandstanding, publicity seeking, State Attorney, and hypocritical oil company haters !

    I say hypocritical because Exxon’s critics still enjoy the myriad benefits produced by the oil industry, especially in the US where the Exxon is the largest US taxpayer. The oil industry funds most of America’s retirement and superannuation industry, and constitutes as much as 28% of the US economy.

    But the real danger of people obsessing about what some long departed Exxon executive believed or didn’t believe, 40 years ago, is it provides an excuse to “blame Exxon” while distracting from advancing realistic or positive activity. It also brings discredit on the whole environmental movement.

    Exxon was the first oil company to dispel the equally widely accepted theory of ” Imminent Peak oil” , predicted by the same doomsayers as leading to a catastrophic breakdown of the world economy due to irreversible shortages by 2002 !

    When these dire predictions don’t actually occur, and social revolution doesn’t erupt, the doomsayers just “adjust” the science or whatever, and continue.

    So yeah, no one except a few oil company haters really cares, and the whole nonsense will slowly disappear, but it will provide a feeding frenzy for lawyers, extremists, advocates and other times wasters.

    • craigshields says:

      Two points if I may:

      Every single person on this planet has been the beneficiary of the oil industry. The fact that we want and need this to go away before our planet is in ruins does not make any of the 7.3 billion of us hypocrites.

      Our Justice Department has its sights set and its trigger cocked in this case. It most certainly will not be dismissed with a yawn.

      • marcopolo says:

        Craig,

        Concern about climate change is perfectly legitimate, but attempting to vilify Exxon for a completely spurious, and imagined offense committed by a long departed executive 40 years ago for some partisan political purpose, well. …I dunno, don’t you think it might seem just a little hypocritical, and a whole lot silly ?

        As for your second point. The US Justice Department has certainly no got it’s ” sights set and its trigger cocked in this case”.

        After a lot of prodding by Congressmen Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier complained Exxon “may” have violated federal laws by “failing to disclose truthful information” about climate change.

        In response the Justice Department followed standard procedure and referred the complaint to the FBI, since it’s the FBI’s responsibility to conduct an initial assessment of facts to test whether the Congressmen’s complaint has any validity.

        Even Sharon Eubanks, former U.S. Department of Justice attorney who won a racketeering case against the tobacco industry in 2006 observed that people should be wary of trying to draw parallels between Exxon and the tobacco industry, since the issues were very different.

        Sharon Eubanks observed, ” It would have been much more powerful had the Justice Department said it was asking for an investigation, but they didn’t. The language of the referral from the DOJ gives the FBI tremendous discretion”. Eubanks also pointed out ”

        “This could mean it will go into a black hole or it could mean the FBI after seeking legal advice, and conducting some interviews, may just refer the matter back to Justice Department”

        But this is not the first time Exxon has faced similar lawsuits; The 2008 Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corporation, also tried to hold Exxon responsible for climate change issues.
        The case failed.

  4. Bruce Wilson says:

    Before oil was used to make plastics there were plastics made from soy oils. The lower price of oil at the time made it easier to use oil. Linoleum was and is a linseed oil based product which far outlasts the vinyls that have mostly replaced it.
    I have been pleased to see how when given a mandate to eliminate petroleum along with it’s associated Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) and other air pollutants from their products, chemists have been quite good at replacing oil with more natural and less harmful “sustainable” natural products.
    There is nothing in our high tech culture that can not exist for the same cost without the use of petroleum in the manufacturing process.
    What is important here is corporate responsibility.
    A good friend from college was the construction manager for the nations largest Superfund site, Helena Montana, which is polluted with asbestos. In reading about the history of asbestos he learned that when the Romans saw their slaves dying from using asbestos in the winter cloth they were weaving they stopped using asbestos. The Romans valued their slaves and had a sense of responsibility which our corporations seem to lack.
    I like the model of the class B corporation which is socially responsible. B Corps are a new type of company that uses the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. https://www.bcorporation.net/

    • craigshields says:

      Personally, I’m not too opposed to using oil for other purposes; the problem is that it’s 98+% of our transportation fuel.

      Yes, the Class B Corp concept is a good one.

  5. Bruce Wilson says:

    I remember being appalled when I learned that GM and the oil companies partnered to buy the trolley companies which they ran into the ground doing little or no upkeep or repairs so that trolleys became old and decrepit so that people did not ride them as much. The trolley companies citing reduced ridership tore up the tracks so people would buy more cars and use more oil. A classic example of Americas Corporate responsibility to only their shareholders! Imagine how much more livable our cities would be if there were still those trolleys.

    • craigshields says:

      One of the greatest examples of all time, to be sure.

    • marcopolo says:

      @ Bruce,

      No, as yet ( nor in the foreseeable future) could the modern world can’t survive without petroleum products.

      The oil industry produces over 3.5 million products. Ceramics, medicines, complex plastics etc to name just a few. Without the Oil Industry the US economy would collapse into chaos.

      Some products might be possible to replace with alternatives, but relatively few.

      If your mother, father, sibling, wife or child was trapped in a house fire, you would want the help of a fire engine to rescue them. If they were injured, you’d want an ambulance to take them to hospital. All emergency service vehicles rely on the oil industry.

      Not just the diesel or gasoline to power the these vehicles, but everything , electrics, paint, tyres, safety glass, lights, and hundreds of other components all need oil, even the black top highway, is made from oil.

      When you next visit a hospital, study how many thousands of essential components that make the hospital function use oil in their production.

      Sadly in the late forties and fifties, there was an enormous trend all over the world to abandon trams and trolley services in favour of buses. (Mostly, without any prompting from oil companies or GM.) The few cities who retained tramways and trolley services, found they needed massive amounts of public subsidization for many years.

      It’s true between 1938 and 1950, National City Lines backed by GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California and Mack Trucks bought up trolley and tram lines in around 23 cities. The reason they could buy these services cheaply, is they had become a financially bad investment after the second world war.

      The sudden growth of wealth, lead to new sprawling suburbs (aided by “white flight” ). As the old city centres went into decay. Trams and trolley lines couldn’t compete with the convenience of car ownership. For young families after the war, a car meant freedom and a new house in a clean, fresh, safe suburb. Cars could move people quicker, and more conveniently than the older mass transit.

      Cities that kept trams, trolley and transit rail, were fortunate as by the late eighties, the era of cheap fuel was over, congested traffic, and other issues saw the suburban sprawl lose appeal, Suddenly the old public transport systems turned out be an important factor in promoting inner urban renewal.

      (I live in a large city with probably the best public transport system in the world).

  6. Brian McGowan says:

    Less than 10% of oil is used for purposes other than transportation or heating. That number is diminishing constantly as alternatives are found that can replace it.
    If all transportation possible were converted to electric we could probably eliminate 90% of the fuel used for transportation. The remainder such as the emergency vehicles you speak of could easily be fueled by vegetable oil as Rudolph Diesel intended from the start from soy, a product that cannot be consumed by humans without heavy processing and whose use as a food even after that is questionable.
    As for the guilt or innocence of the oil companies who knew long ago what their product was doing to the entire world, we should look back at the tobacco industry. The difference is that while the tobacco companies knew their product was killing the people who voluntarily chose to use it and worked to deceive people about it, the oil companies knew what their product was doing to the entire planet, including those on the planet that did not voluntarily choose to use their products or benefit from them, and worked to deceive people about it. A much more egregious crime. It will be interesting to see what happens.

    • marcopolo says:

      Brian,

      ” the oil companies knew what their product was doing to the entire planet, including those on the planet that did not voluntarily choose to use their products or benefit from them, and worked to deceive people about it “.

      Really ? I’m afraid that’s far too simplistic a statement. Yes, Rudolf Diesel design his first engine to run on biofuel (actually he envisaged rape seed), but even modern biofuels can’t replace the sort of performance required for emergency vehicles or aircraft.

      Nor is their any real comparison between oil production and tobacco. Simplistic statements are great, until you actually start to perform the complex math into alternatives. That’s when reality dawns, and you begin to understand the enormity of the task.

      The idea that “Oil companies knew they were destroying the planet, but deceived people” is just not rational. The growth of Climate Science in the later half of the twentieth-century, was completely over shadowed by the fear of immediate “peak oil”.

      People and governments were more more frightened of a lack of oil, than any environmental impact.

      Nor is the impact of oil on human health altogether harmful. The advent of the motor car has seen the mortality rate among urban children drop dramatically. Environmentally, coal, oil and natural gas has seen the rate of wood burning decline equally dramatically.

      Fro nearly twenty years, Shell Chevron, BP, and Exxon have actively warned against the use of Maritime No 6 fuel oil (bunker oil). This highly toxic fuel is the largest single fuel pollutant contributing to not only 5-8% of all man made climate change emissions, but is also a deadly carcinogenic substance affect millions each year.

      Yet despite these warnings, and the expensive oil company funded research (especially oceanic) the US government retains a law (along with many other countries) requiring oil companies to continue production and stock piles of this highly toxic fuel. !

      Approximately 100,000 ship use bunker oil annually. Just 20 of these vessels create the same pollution as all the motor vehicles on the planet ! But I don’t see you indignantly protesting against the shipping lines, or the US government. (out of sight, out of mind eh?)

      I say hypocrisy, because while it might be fun to invent conspiracy theories against big bad Exxon, it accomplishes nothing except a feeling of sanctimony that it’s all someones else’s fault.

      Out of curiosity, I asked a friend of my son, who is acquainted with Eric Schneiderman (the NY State Attorney-General attempting proceedings against Exxon) to discover what sort of vehicles his family owns and what sort of lawn and horticultural power tools.

      Yep, you can guess the result!

      Americans spill more 2-4 stroke fuel each year that the total pollution created by the Exxon Valdez and Gulf Deepwater Horizon disasters ! (the difference is not is cleaned up!).

      As Exxon points out there was never any explosively secret about the findings by some of it’s scientists 40 years ago. Hundreds of papers already existed containing the result of similar research, some funded by Exxon from universities, government etc.

      Papers and research were also published by equally reputable, qualified and respected scientists disputing all, some, or aspect of climate science findings. $0 years ago, it was simply a matter of whom you chose to accept. The then CEO of Exxon chose to accept a evidence from one set of scientists over others and continued to fund their research. Over time he retired and a new younger CEO changed Exxon’s policies. With the benefit of 30 years more research, including massive improvements in technology, the new Exxon CEO was able to accept the accumulation of newer and more convincing data.

      Nothing sinister, nothing criminal, just the way human knowledge evolves.

      • Brian McGowan says:

        Yes really! I think it is exactly accurate. How is that too simplistic? It is clear by their own documentation that they spent large sums of money to deceive people about the effects of the use of their products. But more on that later.

        No matter the seed that the oil comes from it will work and performance is nearly equal. The BTU value is slightly less (less than 5% by any data I can find) but not enough to make the difference you claim. The only difference this will make is in mileage and even that is minimal. None of the people I know that run emergency vehicles were able to say that they ever came close to running out of fuel. Any diesel vehicle can use these fuels. I can tell you from personal experience I cannot feel the difference nor can any of the people I know that use vegetable oil. Even the military is experimenting with the use of vegetable oil in fighter and transport jets. At this time I have not heard of any problems.

        So back to the idea that the oil companies knew and actively worked to deceive the public about it. This is now known fact that is undeniable based on the industry’s own documents. They knew they were doing damage with their product and they spent huge sums of money to deceive the public about it. This is the reason deniers still exist today. I could accept your theory about not knowing if they hadn’t spent and continue to spend huge sums of money to convince people of the opposite of what they have admitted they know. They could have chosen to just say they didn’t believe in the studies and continued to sell their product in feigned ignorance that would have been OK but that is not what they did. In any other industry this is fraud at the very least and generally far more criminal. Once again, I did state that the comparison to the tobacco industry was not the same. What the oil companies did was far worse.

        The fact that we were more scared of lack of oil than climate change is further reason to have started on the path to free ourselves of oil that much sooner. That threat has not gone away but we have failed to follow through on what President Carter started. That is a tactical error which we still have corporations and people working against correcting.

        If the advent of the automobile reduced child mortality it is not due to the fuel used to power the vehicle. Any fuel used to power the vehicle would do the same job and create the same result. In the beginning automobiles were battery powered. No oil at all.

        As to the ships and bunker fuel, I did some research. What appears to be the most accurate number is from statista.com which is a shipping trade website. It states “This statistic represents the world’s merchant fleet as of January 1, 2015, with a breakdown by type. Of the around 50,420 merchant ships trading internationally, some 16,900 ships were bulk carriers.” Far from the 100,000 that you claim. Another site claimed a higher number but also included tugboats in their count which don’t burn bunker oil. The site that had the number you claimed was the dailymail out of the UK which gave an “estimated” 100,000 ships. They also claimed there were an estimated 54 tankers anchored off the British coast refusing to offload their cargo of oil until the prices increased. Clearly these ships are burning almost no fuel at anchor. My first site stated there were more than 7500 tankers shipping oil so here we are burning oil to ship oil. Not all ships in the world are moving at the same time since they must be offloaded and reloaded again and will also spend time anchored waiting for a place for this to happen or in quarantine where, again, they are burning almost no fuel.
        However this is only a small part of the problem. The bigger question is. What the heck are we shipping all over the world all the time? Oil is one of the things and this is just dumb. Eliminating our use of oil would stop this from happening at all. Another big one is steel. Here we gather scrap steel and ship it to China where they turn it into usable steel and then ship it back to us for production. We could avoid that by just working the steel here and it’s not as if we don’t have the capacity to do this. I live in a steel town. Most of our steel work here is done with electricity. I hear this constant bellyaching about the “duck curve” and the inability of the power companies to deal with this “excess production” of renewable energy. I say make steel with that power. Run the process while we are making all that power. That will take care of that duck curve.

        As for not protesting against shipping lines, perhaps you have missed my previous posts about how I am the lousiest consumer on the face of the planet. I do not participate if I can possibly avoid it. The last thing I purchased from overseas was my nickel iron batteries. I would have bought them here but Exide bought Edison’s company in the early 70’s and killed off the line because why would we want non-toxic batteries that last for 50+ years when you can force the population to buy batteries that only last 5-7 years before having to replace them. That leaves China as the only place in the entire world that still produces these batteries. I had no choice. And trust me I gave that aspect a lot of thought and if I could have found a way around it I would have.
        And shipping is not out of my mind. I am aware and did write my representatives protesting against passage of the act that now allows shipping of our crude oil and natural gas to other countries while at the same time we are shipping oil from other countries to our country instead of just keeping what we have here for ourselves. Another give away to the oil companies where we are once again burning oil to ship oil. This is just stupid and of course I protested. Did you? Or do you think this is OK?

        I find asking what anyone uses to maintain their lawn a useless exercise as most people are forced by the prevailing industries to use only one method. This doesn’t prove anything except we are given almost no choice. I wonder why that is?

        The gas spilling is only partially true. Yes as much as the Valdez at 17 million gallons which is horrifying but the Horizon spill was 210 million gallons so that is out. This only means that people are clumsy, we are growing way too much grass and we are cutting that grass with the wrong implements powered by the wrong fuel. It has been my contention that if we are going to start using ethanol for anything we should start with lawn appliances since they pollute the most. That would make the biggest gains in clean air.

        The bottom line is the oil companies knew what they were doing and spent money to cover it up. It is definitely criminal. It will be interesting to see what happens.

        • craigshields says:

          Wonderful, Brian. Thanks.

        • marcopolo says:

          Brain,

          You are correct. The 100,000 figure is an estimate, however your figure of 50,000 thousand only covers “merchant ships trading internationally”.

          It doesn’t include Naval vessels, coasters, supply tenders, ferries, Cruise Liners etc. (Nor are “tugboats” insignificant, but fortunately their massive high powered engines mostly operate on higher marine grades diesel fuels which doesn’t possess the very incredibly high level of toxic pollution).

          But does it really matter ? Since just 20 of these vessels can equal the pollutant emissions of the world’s entire existing automotive fleet, does the exact number of vessels really matter, within this context?

          What are you trying to prove? If the Daily mail’s figure was in error by even 80%, that would still make this source of pollution 1000 times greater that the entire world automotive fleet !

          The exact number of vessels is not really important since it’s only an illustration to help people envisage the size of the problem. Obviously, the most accurate method to calculate the pollution created by the usage of bunker oil is from the amount of this insidious fuel produced and consumed annually.

          I understand your passionate desire to have the world run on vegetable oil ! Unfortunately, that’s just not logistically possible or even vaguely realistic.

          Ethanol production in the US has proved to be far more more environmentally disastrous and destructive than the fuel it was designed to replace ! Even the most successful bio-fuel nation, Brazil, which enjoys a massive surplus in sugar production, the environmental advantages are dubious.

          Your claim that oil can be replaced with bio-fuels is to be polite, delusional ! Producing and distributing 3-400 billions of gallons of agriculturally produced bio-fuel annually, is fantasy!

          Using the same fuzzy thinking clouds your answer to the problem of lawn and horticultural equipment is using some sort of bio-fuel (which wouldn’t work anyway) or blaming people for being careless. (yes,it’s true they shouldn’t be careless, but blame doesn’t help solve the problem.

          A far more practical action is to replace these noisy, dirty, smelly machines with electrically powered units. The technology exists, is available, and already on sale !

          Electrically powered ride mowers exist, even for large applications, such as Golf Courses, parks etc, where solar power generation either already exists, or can be easily installed.

          I hate to sound impolite, and I know you believe that a moral crusade proving it’s all the fault of the big, bad Exxon, and demanding Exxon be punished for imagined past transgressions will make you feel righteous and solve all the environmental problems, but I think that attitude is pointless and hypocritical.

          Nor is demanding a total reorganization of consumer economics and industrial methodology to suit vague and impractical concepts helpful or productive.

          So, at the risk of seeming discourteous, I ask you to consider doing something more practical than writing to Congress, or blaming Exxon.

          Instead find environmentally positive, small scale practical projects which don’t require massive taxpayer assistance, and can be implemented without requiring any curtailment of your fellow citizens life styles.

          My suggestion is trying to get your local community to re-examine noise and pollution regulations to encourage a phase out of 2-4 stroke lawn and fuel equipment and similar horticultural power equipment.
          A great way to start, is persuading your local town council, county, local authority etc, to replace their own equipment with electric models (and solar) as an example. The cost is fairly minimal, and can sold as an electorally popular gesture. Remember, on a local community level your voice is more important.

          Small victories are important. From small things, big things often grow 🙂

          The only result that will come from all the agitation against Exxon will be to make a large number of lawyers richer, and cause people to lose interest in the supporting the benefits of new environmental technology, because of the distraction of pointless ideological and politically motivated battles which in the end don’t affect their lives for the better !

          • Brian McGowan says:

            Well the one thing I proved was that we ship way too much stuff instead of making it locally as I stated. Why are we shipping so much stuff? Clearly we need to stop this. And shipping oil definitely needs to stop altogether. Ferries also use the better grade of oil due to their proximity to shore. Ships are being deployed that use natural gas instead of any oil at all but all of that aside it is the idea of shipping itself that is the problem. And the fact that shipping produces that much pollution is no reason to not convert our land fleet to electric as much as possible as soon as possible so that the remainder that cannot be converted to electric can be handled by biofuels instead of trying to come up with maybe 10% of the 3-400 Billion gallons to begin with.

            Ethanol is only environmentally disastrous because it is being done the wrong way using the worst possible feedstock available. Even using the current feedstock it can be done using absolutely no fossil fuels which is not how it is currently done.

            Electric lawn mowers absolutely as much as possible to once again go with the theme of converting as much as possible to electric so the remainder can be handled by biofuels but far beyond that, less lawn altogether so we don’t need as much lawn care to begin with. Again the same theme as the shipping theme. Why are you missing this? Or are you specifically avoiding it to justify defending oil companies which is what it is starting to look like?

            Exxon is guilty of fraud there is no doubt about this anymore to any reasonable observer. Saying it is not is sheer denial. The facts are out by their own admission. Continuing to defend them is hypocritical. This again brings the question, what is your stake in this?

            Demanding a total reorganization of consumer economics and industrial methodology is the only way change happens in this world. You seem to be advocating capitulation. Why is that and what is your stake in this? Again I am asking that question.

            Stating that I should do my small part tells me you have not been reading most of what I post on this blog and therefore have no idea what exactly I am doing. You need to go back and read. I need to ask in return what exactly are you doing to get us off of oil besides defending the big oil companies.

            Your claim that oil cannot be replaced by electric and biofuels is absolutely defeatist. Why is that?

            You seem intent on picking apart the little bits of what I am saying and totally missing the entirety of what I am saying in the big picture view such as saying biofuels cannot replace all of oil while totally ignoring that I said to start by replacing as much as possible with electric or eliminating the need for it at all to begin with all the while defending what the oil companies are doing. Why is that? What is your stake in this? Did I actually just ask that again? I hope you have some answers.

            I would generally agree that agitation against Exxon would be fruitless but unless their egregious crimes are brought to light they and other companies like them will continue to expend capital to convince the populous to simply lay down and capitulate and continue down the current path against their own best interests for the continued benefit of the oil companies because the populous will believe nothing needs to be done. Nothing could be further from the truth and you seem intent on defending them. Why is that? What is your stake in this? Now what are you doing to halt this current ideology besides defending the oil companies? What are you doing to aid our migration away from oil and make our lives better?

        • marcopolo says:

          Brian,

          You are obviously a person of very fixed convictions.

          The world you describe doesn’t exist, nor can it exist. You seem to have a Utopian vision which doesn’t bear any relation to reality and everything that thwarts or disputes that vision must be a conspiracy, or an enemy.

          As I said, I have no desire to be discourteous, but it’s difficult to reason with a person who interprets everything through the prism of a very narrow ideological doctrine.

          However, I will try to answer your comments;

          1) No evidence exists that Exxon committed any “criminal” activity. The only “evidence” advanced is that 40 years ago the then CEO of Exxon, disregarded a report from some of Exxon’s researchers, preferring the reports by other equally well qualified scientists. Exxon has no legal obligation to make these reports public, but did so.

          Exxon continued to fund climate change research by reputable scientists who disagreed with the more alarmist claims by advocates. This activity is not illegal and certainly not criminal.

          The then CEO opined that arguments about global warming were well known and policies regarding the effects of climate were the province of government. (This is a view upheld by the US Supreme Court).

          He was proven correct in assuming that oil is an indispensable commodity and the need for oil would remain undiminished even if the most dire predictions were accepted.

          To those at the extreme of the climate change debate, this may be heresy and morally deplorable, they may believe that holding such opinions should be illegal, but that is not the case.

          In recent years, with a change in CEO, Exxon has changed policies.

          Your hatred of oil companies obviously outweighs your concept of justice. If it could be established that the long departed Exxon CEO had broken a law, Exxon and the CEO are still entitled to the “presumption of innocence”.

          The “presumption of innocence” is a fundamental principle of our legal system. Like free speech, when denied to one accused it becomes denied to all.

          Vengeance and puritanical Witch-hunts damage the slender thread of justice that makes us a civilized society.

          2) Like you I once believed bio-fuels could replace oil. That’s until I actually studied the logistics. You are correct when you identify feed-stock as being a significant problem. No feed-stock exists that can produce the sort of volume you advocate.

          The biggest problem is the availability of land. Producing billions of gallons of Bio-fuel would require a massive disruption of existing agriculture, economically and technically not feasible.

          3) The concept that the world will shrink back to a sort of early nineteenth century economy, where everything is produced at a village level, is absurd. World trade will continue to expand.

          The fundamental basis for all successful human civilizations is consumerism. The production of surplus is the foundation of civilized economies. Attempts to interfere with that principle, always end in tears.

          In summary, I live in the real world, not a Utopian fantasy. In my own small way, I try to encourage realistic environmental goals with small, acceptable improvements through technology.

          People like their lawns and parks. It’s much easier to persuade them to adopt a better, quieter, cleaner mowing technology, than sanctimoniously condemning them for the taste in horticulture !

          You write:-

          “Demanding a total reorganization of consumer economics and industrial methodology is the only way change happens in this world. You seem to be advocating capitulation. Why is that and what is your stake in this? Again I am asking that question.”

          Well, that’s pretty easy to answer. I think that “demanding ” a total reorganization of consumer economics and industrial methodology” , is an unrealistic waste of time !

          What’s my stake ? I hate to see unrealistic demands detract from the acceptance of realistic environmental goal that could be achieved if the general public wasn’t alienated by muddle-headed extremists.

          • Brian McGowan says:

            Marco,
            Clearly you are also a person of fixed convictions and are also operating in a very narrow ideological doctrine.

            1)It seems you are not up to speed on what is actually being investigated as you continue to come back to this idea that something that happened 40 years ago is the focus of the investigation. Until you are, further discussion on this topic is fruitless. What reports they choose to believe is also not at issue. I do not admonish them for holding the opinions they do. They are entitled to any opinion they wish. I am not even asking them to continue research if they wish not to.
            However, no person or company is above the law no matter how “indispensable” it may seem to be. You apparently do not share this same sentiment. Yes there is the presumption of innocence and while I am entitled to my opinion that they are guilty I say again as I have said every time I have talked about this, it will be interesting to see what happens.

            2)I am not convinced biofuels can replace the total amount of oil we currently use and I never said that. You appear to be convinced that if one thing can’t solve the entire problem by itself then it should not be considered and the current paradigm should be continued unabated I.E, we can’t replace all of the oil we use with biofuels so don’t consider it or we can’t replace all of the oil we use with electricity so don’t consider it or efficiency will not get us all the way there so don’t bother advocating for that at all. I am convinced biofuels can replace what is left after we electrify everything we can. It would not require disrupting agriculture to the extent you think it would. I have done calculations and gotten results indicating a large amount of oil bearing plants could be grown on the center and side areas of highways where fuel is currently wasted cutting grass that is currently growing there. After all, if you are going to grow fuel feedstocks you might as well grow them were there is plenty of emissions that they could benefit from. Even so, only 30% of the crops I was talking about actually get used for fuel and the remainder after the fuel is extracted still gets used for its original purpose so it is not even close to being what some claim as trading “food for fuel”. The point here is there is arable land not suitable for any other purpose that would be excellent for growing biofuel feedstocks. There are feedstocks that are substantially better than soy as well that could make the difference. Crops that can make between 740 to 2200 gallons per acre.
            All of this in combination with an increase in overall vehicle efficiency which already is possible, moving more product with trains instead of trucks that go where trains are going anyway and getting people to keep their tires properly inflated and stop using the dually wheeled monster truck to drive 5 miles away to get a cup of coffee 3 times a day instead of the Toyota Corolla sitting right next to it or even just making the cup of coffee at home instead of going anywhere at all.

            3)Here you are overstating what I was suggesting. I am not advocating returning the early nineteenth century and the US is not a village as you suggest. A return to what was going on in the 60s when we made almost everything we needed in this country actually in this country would decrease shipping to about 20% of what it is now. Not shipping oil would reduce this amount even further. All of this would also increase employment in this country as now people would be put to work manufacturing all of the stuff so we would no longer have to ship it from other countries.

            Current consumer economics are based on the maximum conceivable waste and waste is always unsustainable. If demanding an end to this is “unrealistic” then we are all in deep trouble. Continuing this level of waste is what is actually unrealistic.
            None of what I am suggesting here is unrealistic. It will take work and a change in mindset but it is not unrealistic. Not doing anything is unrealistic. In the end that seems to be the difference between us. I can see the possibilities and work to prove them out. You cannot and therefore do nothing and advocate doing nothing. In the end I am actually working to make a difference. Since you never answered the question I asked I will ask again. What are you doing to make lives better? At the moment all I can see is you looking for reasons why solutions won’t work and not looking for solutions that will work.

          • craigshields says:

            I love this. Thanks.

          • marcopolo says:

            Brian,

            Firstly, let me thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply.

            In response:

            1) I agree no corporation or individual should be above the law, nor immune to being held accountable for criminal actions. However, that’s the problem. As a lawyer, I can find no “law ” broken by Exxon. Even the very wide statue passed by the State of New York isn’t really applicable. (except to the overly ambitious NY Attorney-general).

            2) Turning the world back to the 1960’s is just not going to happen! If we could, I would love to go back since it was an era I really enjoyed 🙂 ( Well, except for two years war service). Nor will trying to idealistically persuade everyone to change their life-styles.

            Bio-fuels are largely a cul-de-sac, and best left to hobbyists etc. Large scale problems affecting large scale societies, must have large scale solutions to gain mass support.

            3) Nor do I advocate doing nothing ! What I do advocate is not wasting time and taxpayer money on impractical and unrealistic “solutions” for ideological reasons, at the expense of realistic and practical technologies and policies that can be proven to effectively make a tangible difference.

            You may be content to wait until you re-structure all aspects of society, and change the established economic order of civilization, prior to achieving your environmental goals.

            However, I can’t wait for your “social revolution” .

            Instead I want to focus on less ambitious, practical measures that will get support from the general public. measures that can be integrated into people life-styles easily, and beneficially.

            For the last 19 years I’ve been promoting the electrification of motor vehicles. Not on the scale of Elon Musk, but in our small way we have built, sold or leased nearly 20,000 specialist EV’s.

            I’ve pioneered some innovative agricultural uses for Solar, and built a substantial bio-mass reactor and distribution grid.

            We’ve partnered a successful long term research project to eliminate or reduce the methane emissions from ruminants.

            Our campaign against bunker oil has at least raised awareness and attracted the support of Shell and Chevron. There a long way to go, but we’re trying.

            We spent a lot of money researching and experimenting with Bio-fuels before realizing the the futility.

            All technologies only prosper while they are better accepted than the competition. Sometimes this process is confused by government interference, but eventually everything gets decided on convenience and economy.

            I have neither the time nor faith to waste on grandiose schemes requiring “social revolutions”. I’m too busy working for the elimination of the substantial, but overlooked pollution created by lawn and horticultural 2-4 stroke engines, with clean, silent and more convenient electric units.

            As I see it, that’s the fundamental difference between our philosophies. You want to educate people to give up their lawns, lifestyles etc,and become converts to your ideology. I just want them to buy a cleaner, more convenient technology.

            But it’s sure nice talking with you…:)

  7. Ron says:

    @Marcopolo:
    Let’s not forget big oil was in there in that trolley tram line collapse too! Details are nicely summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

    I found the real backstory more compelling in “Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives” by Edwin Black circa 20006. A good read, imo.
    R

    • marcopolo says:

      Ron,

      The Wiki article is quite balanced. Edwin Black on the other hand,is not !

      Edwin Black suffers from a problem in common with all conspiracy theorists, he starts with a theory and only adds that information supporting his theory, conveniently ignoring any information that may contradict his preconceived idea’s.

  8. Brian McGowan says:

    Marco,
    Well I wanted to make one more comment here but for some reason there is not another reply tab. To start I am happy you are doing things. That is good. Up until this comment I was getting the impression you were just here to come down on ideas. I have experience plenty of people like that in forums like this.

    1) Just going to drop this because no matter our opinion, neither of us has an actual effect on the matter. It will be decided by others. However, knowing you are a lawyer is good information.

    2) I still think we could bring a fair amount of manufacturing back to the states and help cut the shipping and also start sending material around the US on trains as that is far more efficient than trucks on the highway. I also think there are uses for biofuels mostly on farms. Having been married to a girl who grew up on a ranch in ND and having spent time at her parent’s and brother’s ranches I am familiar with the general workings and how they are taken advantage of when it comes to harvest sales and fuel purchase. As it is they are already basically putting aside part of their harvest to buy fuel. They might as well just put that aside and make their own fuel with it and avoid the time and fuel wasted transporting that portion of the crops to market to sell at the lowest price due to the glut caused by everyone’s crops coming in at the same time and then buying fuel at whatever the variable price is when they need it. With the purchase of a little equipment they can remove themselves from this entire part of the system. And I know what it means for these people to put out for capital equipment. I am also familiar first hand with your ruminant waste issue and have had several ideas about how to best take advantage of that. I saw you mentioned reducing or eliminating methane emissions and a biomass reactor. I have not had a chance to work with this yet but I have a fair amount of information from a man named Al Rutan who is referred to as the “methane man” for his work with methane digesters which many people have since modeled their digesters after both large and small. I have felt that if septic systems, which still comprise the majority of human waste disposal, were altered just a little they would be natural methane digesters. I know how I would collect it (same as for my hydrogen generator) and once produced I would couple it with micro combined heat and power to use it in the most efficient way and get the most out of it.

    3) Those are some nice projects you have going on there and I commend you for them. I can assure you though that I am not waiting for utopia to get here. I engineer for a living so I actually physically work on projects here in an effort to determine what can be done realistically in a home to cut power usage. I have on many occasions replied to Craig when he talks about advocating for government to change things that waiting for the government is not worth it and personal action and advocating to your neighbors and others to take action is a better solution. Still not sure which way has the better results but I keep on working anyway and I am not against voicing my opinion to my representatives.

    Among my projects are testing a set of nickel iron batteries being charged by solar panels because lead acid batteries are just not suitable for charging the way that mother nature dispenses power. They just die too quickly to be worth it. Even now I am running this laptop and the entertainment center for the last 5 hours on them and my wife did a load of wash also.
    I have engineered a solar air heater because heat is the easiest and most efficient thing to get from the sun and along with that a fan controller which uses battery power to run the fans when the heater is warmer than the inside of the house making it a gain only device with no loss. The thing works great. I think these should be just built right into the south side of a house as part of the house so they are always working and reducing the need for whatever heating method you are using.
    I have mentioned here many times the drain water heat exchanger I have installed that cut my water heating energy by 30%. It literally saves me 100 kWh/month or more. Run the numbers on that on a nationwide scale and see the difference that alone could make. This works no matter how you heat water. It still amazes me that these things aren’t in every building in the US but people still just insist on throwing 90% of the energy they spend heating water right down the drain. I just don’t get it and it does bother me.
    My responses have been more sporadic lately because I am engineering a controller to distribute energy from the solar panels to other loads automatically after the batteries are charged to help bring my power bill down more. This way I don’t have to actually be here and do this manually and I can offer it to others for their benefit also.
    There are plenty of other projects and I could go on for a long time but suffice it to say that while I may advocate for utopia, and yeah I can get passionate about it especially when I see waste, I am at the same time actually in the trenches working real practical projects that could be beneficial to society at large. I may actually buy the first lawn mower I have ever bought in my life because it is the easiest way to convert to electric. Even at work where I program control systems for a living I am getting into large scale building automation and control for the sake of energy efficiency and savings.
    So clearly I am definitely not waiting for anything while I advocate for utopia but I do get frustrated watching so much waste.
    It has been educational talking with you as well.

  9. marcopolo says:

    Brain,

    Thank you for your reply.

    Wow, it sounds as if you keep very busy with some great projects.

    Your training as an engineer must prove very useful. My interest in the environment really began when I meet my late wife who was at that time, a passionate student environmental activist.

    We actually met at a protest demonstration outside the AGM of a corporation she and her fellow student were picketing. I was attending the meeting as a representative of the corporations banker, and rescued her from the clutches of the police. ( I guess a good suit and calm authority of an ex-Army officer works wonders in excitable situations !:).

    In our ensuing meetings (meetings for her, dates for me:), I attempted to challenge her idealism into practical action. In doing so, I also started to learn and became involved in the technologies of environmental science.

    Although I graduated as a lawyer while serving in the Australian Army (a career I loved), the responsibilities I inherited as a result of my fathers death forced me to return to the UK and seek a career that provided greater opportunities to make money.

    Using my training as an analyst, I joined a Merchant (investment) Bank and specialized in innovative financing.

    I have great admiration for quiet achievers like yourself. It’s great to see engineers like yourself working on interesting and positive projects that produce positive results, even if only on a small scale.

    I believe that’s why many of our great engineers had farming backgrounds. Self-reliance( and long winter nights) are great for producing innovation !

    However, in my experience very few innovators seem to understand the complex problems of up-scaling an idea to mass production and popular acceptance. The logistics are usually very daunting and require lot’s of “other peoples money”.

    Idealists never seem to be able to accept that others may not be as passionate as themselves about their idea’s, and persist in demanding that society be restructured to suit their innovation or philosophy.

    I wish you well with your projects, and look forward to reading you future comments.