3 ms·

We could have had a carbon tax years ago and this is a clear example of the deception that corporations have done in order to avoid that outcome.

dontreact 7y ago
A revenue neutral carbon tax that puts money back into people’s pockets at that.
travisoneill1 7y ago
It's 50 years later and we still don't have a carbon tax even though everyone has known about global warming basically the whole time and much more comprehensive research than Exxon ever did is now public domain. There is about a 0% chance this would have been different if Exxon had released its research.
- dontreact 7y ago
  The point is that if Exxon went public with these findings (and in general was more honest about climate change sooner) it would be harder for them and others to lobby politicians against a carbon tax. Even though the science is clear, nearly every republican congressperson on the relevant committees doubts that humans are the main driver of climate change which is pretty necessary belief if you want to put in a carbon tax. This same type of argument applies to the large subsidies that exist to this day. It would have been politically much harder to secure subsidies of the magnitude that exist today if they too had research out that supported the scientific consensus.
  - travisoneill1 7y ago
    The political hurdle to a carbon tax has nothing to do with Exxon's lobbyists. Politicians are scared shitless of raising gas prices. When France tried to do it recently it caused massive riots.
    - vkou 7y ago
      French riots were caused by a large number of things, but the pro-global warming lobby managed to focus public anger on the carbon tax, instead of all the other causes for their economic woes. Mailing each man, woman, and child two equal cheques, with the words 'CARBON PROPSPERITY TAX', one at Christmas, and one at Thanksgiving would very quickly turn public opinion towards a carbon tax.
      - dontreact 7y ago
        This is brilliant. A progressive enough government could even give people “a free trial” of a carbon tax by having this part of it kick in a few months before the tax starts, with the check explaining what the money was coming from.
      - jfengel 7y ago
        It wouldn't be as easy as that. A carbon tax will result in higher prices of a lot of goods, including food: anything that has to be shipped has some carbon built into the price, and farming uses a lot of oil-fuelled machines. It wouldn't necessarily be a large increase, but it would make a potent talking point against it. Even if you got it passed, they would see prices rise before the "carbon prosperity check" arrived. It's a good idea even though there are more difficulties than I mentioned. But it's not an easy sell.
    - dontreact 7y ago
      Are you really going to claim that the fossil fuel industry’s massive lobbying effort has had no impact on fossil fuel subsidies or taxing carbon? You think it’s entirely due to gas prices? If you or anyone could prove this, they would be in a position to save the fossil fuel industry massive amounts of money (and therefore probably also figure out a way to get a cut of that).
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Well. If they had released their research and not thrown container loads of money at denialist lobby groups and think tanks, I think it could have been different. Perhaps all those US Republican politicians who used to accept climate change before George HW Bush was elected would still be convinced. Exxon brag about the billions in Arctic drilling rights they secure from Russia after they bloody melted it enough. Maybe they should have released research with a plan to pivot to mostly not oil. BP and Exxon annoy me particularly. They paint themselves so damn eco-friendly in ads, but chuck blank cheques at those working against eco-sustainability and carbon reduction. Hopefully the next generation find a way to prosecute when they get into positions of influence and power. Greenpeace, but the timeline is right: [1] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-change/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/exxon-and-the-...

dontreact 7y ago

A revenue neutral carbon tax that puts money back into people’s pockets at that.

travisoneill1 7y ago

It's 50 years later and we still don't have a carbon tax even though everyone has known about global warming basically the whole time and much more comprehensive research than Exxon ever did is now public domain. There is about a 0% chance this would have been different if Exxon had released its research.

dontreact 7y ago
The point is that if Exxon went public with these findings (and in general was more honest about climate change sooner) it would be harder for them and others to lobby politicians against a carbon tax. Even though the science is clear, nearly every republican congressperson on the relevant committees doubts that humans are the main driver of climate change which is pretty necessary belief if you want to put in a carbon tax. This same type of argument applies to the large subsidies that exist to this day. It would have been politically much harder to secure subsidies of the magnitude that exist today if they too had research out that supported the scientific consensus.
- travisoneill1 7y ago
  The political hurdle to a carbon tax has nothing to do with Exxon's lobbyists. Politicians are scared shitless of raising gas prices. When France tried to do it recently it caused massive riots.
  - vkou 7y ago
    French riots were caused by a large number of things, but the pro-global warming lobby managed to focus public anger on the carbon tax, instead of all the other causes for their economic woes. Mailing each man, woman, and child two equal cheques, with the words 'CARBON PROPSPERITY TAX', one at Christmas, and one at Thanksgiving would very quickly turn public opinion towards a carbon tax.
    - dontreact 7y ago
      This is brilliant. A progressive enough government could even give people “a free trial” of a carbon tax by having this part of it kick in a few months before the tax starts, with the check explaining what the money was coming from.
    - jfengel 7y ago
      It wouldn't be as easy as that. A carbon tax will result in higher prices of a lot of goods, including food: anything that has to be shipped has some carbon built into the price, and farming uses a lot of oil-fuelled machines. It wouldn't necessarily be a large increase, but it would make a potent talking point against it. Even if you got it passed, they would see prices rise before the "carbon prosperity check" arrived. It's a good idea even though there are more difficulties than I mentioned. But it's not an easy sell.
  - dontreact 7y ago
    Are you really going to claim that the fossil fuel industry’s massive lobbying effort has had no impact on fossil fuel subsidies or taxing carbon? You think it’s entirely due to gas prices? If you or anyone could prove this, they would be in a position to save the fossil fuel industry massive amounts of money (and therefore probably also figure out a way to get a cut of that).
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Well. If they had released their research and not thrown container loads of money at denialist lobby groups and think tanks, I think it could have been different. Perhaps all those US Republican politicians who used to accept climate change before George HW Bush was elected would still be convinced. Exxon brag about the billions in Arctic drilling rights they secure from Russia after they bloody melted it enough. Maybe they should have released research with a plan to pivot to mostly not oil. BP and Exxon annoy me particularly. They paint themselves so damn eco-friendly in ads, but chuck blank cheques at those working against eco-sustainability and carbon reduction. Hopefully the next generation find a way to prosecute when they get into positions of influence and power. Greenpeace, but the timeline is right: [1] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-change/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/exxon-and-the-...