15 ms·

Secret Recordings Reveal How Exxon Lobbyists Manipulate Politicians and Public

516 points by DoubleDerper 5y ago

jokethrowaway 5y ago
I'm not surprised. I don't think anything is going to change, I'm sure these acts are just buying time until oil companies and their shareholders have time to invest in cleaner technologies. Still, we will have the same problem when the next damaging act for the environment is carried out: governments will turn a blind until the top 0.1% reaped all the profits and they're safely disinvested, leaving everyone's pensions and index funds to take a hit. We need to get rid of corrupted governments which are only good at increasing spend without solving problems and then sue environment damaging companies in private courts. I guess it will stay just a dream.
ArkanExplorer 5y ago
Any climate policy other than a carbon tax (with tariffs on goods from non-participating countries) is going to be a failure - it will be shot through with loopholes and rebates, such that little reduction is actually achieved.
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  This isn't true. I understand the economics and that a fairly administered carbon tax would be good, but other systems like cap and trade with targeted legislation do actually work in practice. Take the province of Ontario, for example.
  - dempsey 5y ago
    Or the Nox and Sox cap and trade market that started it all. https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/acid-rain-program https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/acid-rain-program
  - gpm 5y ago
    Ontarian here, did I miss something? Last I checked we just had a straight up carbon tax. I don't think we do the import tariffs part though, unfortunately.
    - 3pt14159 5y ago
      You did miss something. The Wynne government implemented a cap and trade system before the federal mandated carbon pricing system came into place and also implemented many other policies like an outright ban on coal power plants. If you look at GHG emissions for the period and compare them to the rest of Canada, Ontario did better than average. Not perfect, of course, but to say that the only way to bring down GHG emissions is via a carbon tax is just not true.
      - gpm 5y ago
        Do you have some sources where I can read about the impact that that program had? From some quick googling that was in place from January 1st, 2017 to July 3rd 2018, while the Canada wide (sort of) carbon tax was implemented in the GHGPPA, which looks like it came into effect June 21, 2018. You have a sample period of ~1 year, it seems like you're comparing cap and trade to "nothing"? The difference provinces in Canada are vastly different in terms of geography, industry, power sources, other laws, etc. My prior is that it's not going to be good evidence of basically anything, it was too short with no real controls, but I could be wrong. And certainly I don't disagree that there are other ways to bring down carbon emissions... but I am skeptical that they will be particularly effective. [1] Cap and trade dates: https://www.ontario.ca/page/cap-and-trade-ontario https://www.ontario.ca/page/cap-and-trade-ontario [2] GHGPPA dates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gas_Pollution_Pricing_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gas_Pollution_Prici...
  - ArkanExplorer 5y ago
    Cap and trade adds a huge regulatory and bureaucratic burden to what should be a simple price signal (maybe that's the purpose?) For example in the EU, the carbon price had fallen too low, so credits were arbitrarily pulled out of the market to force the price up.
    - ajmurmann 5y ago
      Might the too low price be a signal that the cap wasn't set nearly aggressive enough?
- adrianN 5y ago
  You're optimistic if you assume that a carbon tax will not be made useless via some loopholes or other means.
  - gruez 5y ago
    What do you suggest instead? How will that not be "made useless via some loopholes or other means"?
    - adrianN 5y ago
      I unfortunately don't have a good answer to that. I also believe that a carbon price, together with regulations, is our best bet. I'm however rather pessimistic when it comes to preventing catastrophic warming.
chmod775 5y ago
> “Nobody is going to propose a tax on all Americans and the cynical side of me says, yeah, we kind of know that but it gives us a talking point that we can say, ‘well what is ExxonMobil for, we’re for a carbon tax,’” McCoy said. > McCoy also told the interviewers that Exxon had poured money into “shadow groups” in order to fight against climate science. That appears to be the worst of it and I'm not sure it compares to what Exxon has already been caught doing in the past. A bit like finding out a convicted murderer was jaywalking on their way to the scene.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > A bit like finding out a convicted murderer was jaywalking on their way to the scene. Given the seriousness of the climate situation and the importance of carbon tax as one of the solutions, I think that in your analogy, all the things Exxon has been caught doing in the past are the jaywalking part.
  - tfehring 5y ago
    But they're not undermining a carbon tax. They're supporting it, based on their understanding that American voters are extremely sensitive to gas prices, far beyond an extent that could be considered reasonable, and that for that and other reasons a carbon tax is politically unviable in the US. To be clear, I'm an extremely strong supporter of a carbon tax, to the point that I would vote for any politician who supports one regardless of their position on any other issues, and I would support the US creating ultimatums with other countries, including allies, to effectively force them to implement carbon taxes of their own. But I'm also open-eyed to the fact that the median American voter commutes something like 30 miles a day and has never taken an economics class.
  - mustafa_pasi 5y ago
    The idea that a carbon tax is the best policy is itself an ideological position supported by certain entities with an agenda. Economists love to push it a lot. The same economists also like to downplay the cost of climate change (the costs incurred due to the damage it causes). And then there is the small matter of how much should a ton of CO2 be taxed at. Imagine all the lobbying efforts to reduce that number. It will never be anywhere near what it should be. And EXXON's propagandists have a point. People don't want to be taxed more, and a blanket carbon tax would definitely hit the bottom majority hard.
secfirstmd 5y ago
I highly recommend people interested in this topic read up on Dark Basin and some of the shady stuff Exxon gets up to against environmental groups. https://citizenlab.ca/2020/06/dark-basin-uncovering-a-massive-hack-for-hire-operation/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/06/dark-basin-uncovering-a-massiv... "Israeli charged in global hacker-for-hire scheme wants plea deal -court filing" https://www.reuters.com/technology/israeli-charged-global-hacker-for-hire-scheme-wants-plea-deal-court-filing-2021-06-30/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/israeli-charged-global-ha... It's not just Exxon of course, I've worked on a number of similar cases were huge money was run through lawyers, corporate intelligence firms etc to manipulate and target environmental and human rights groups. My sense is that this is only really the beginning of a huge amount more of this shady practice in the industry being exposed.
Forbo 5y ago
Where's the accountability? We're facing a global crisis. Once again, the rich are insulated from the consequences of their greed, while the poorest suffer the most. It's high time those who sold us out should have to answer for their actions. Something on the order of seven billion counts of reckless endangerment should do it.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Like Exxon losing 3 (of 12) board seats in May to Engine No. 1's ESG proxy fight, via the support of major institutional investors? https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-27/exxon-lost-a-climate-proxy-fight https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-27/exxon-...
  - Forbo 5y ago
    Boo hoo, they lost some board seats! What a world!! We treat pot dealers more harshly than these fucks. Give me a fucking break. I'm sick of it.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      You know that boards elect CEOs and approve pay packages? So the Exxon CEO just lost 25% of his boardroom support.
      - eggsmediumrare 5y ago
        I would rather see him lose his job, wealth and freedom, but I guess it's a start?
        ethbr0 5y ago
        In the words of Meatloaf, a shove down the road to two out of three ain't bad. And given that we're talking about the ~12th largest corporation in the world by revenue, a 25% swing in support seems appropriate. Exxon suddenly becomes unable to operate because we put Greenpeace in charge? Worse things than climate change happen. Big ship, gentle turns.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
h2odragon 5y ago
Many years ago, I got to see an Exxon "Legislative Affairs Coordinator" speak to a group of small landowners about how they could make their own lobbying efforts more effective. In less than 10min this lady had the crowd ready to burn her at the stake. She told them things like "your voice doesn't matter," urged them to donate all the money they could to Exxon's lobbying efforts (with unspecified goals), on the basis that at least it would get something done, even if it wasn't what they wanted. "Donate to our people, and our people will take care of you." Then, she told them that actual grass-roots organizations like theirs were socially dangerous, because they wouldn't stick to their original mission but inevitably became cults, essentially. Something like "the best thing this organization can do, today, is vote to dissolve immediately" All this was in exchange for a several thousand dollar speaking fee, which was the largest expense behind the venue for the event.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kwthrows 5y ago
  >Then, she told them that actual grass-roots organizations like theirs were socially dangerous, because they wouldn't stick to their original mission but inevitably became cults, essentially. After OWS I find it hard to disagree with this statement.
  - h2odragon 5y ago
    Build enough organization to effectively work towards a goal, say passing a particular bill; and once the goal is met, the bill is passed, it seems such a shameful waste to let the organization dissolve, when it could be re-purposed to another similar use. Recycling is good in other contexts, right? Also, sometimes, the organization was built and the cause fought as a route to empowerment for the people doing the organizing, in which case the goals are irrelevant. Sometimes the goals were the true reason, in the beginning, but the empowerment becomes too seductive and they fall aside. Humans is tough to wrangle.
    - 5y ago
ttctciyf 5y ago
See also the leak[1] of big oil PR maestro Rick Berman's 2014 speech to oil execs, pleading for funds to combat rational debate and reliable information about fracking. “Think of this as an endless war,” he told them. “And you have to budget for it.” > He said the industry needs to dig up embarrassing tidbits about environmentalists and liberal celebrities, exploit the public’s short attention span for scientific debate, and play on people’s emotions. > “Fear and anger have to be a part of this campaign,” Berman said. “We’re not going to get people to like the oil and gas industry over the next few months.” > Berman also advised that executives continue to spend big. “I think $2 to $3 million would be a game changer,” he said. “We’ve had six-figure contributions to date from a few companies in this room to help us get to where we are.” > But always cover your tracks, he suggested, adding that no-one is better equipped at doing so than his firm. “We run all this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity,” he said. “People don’t know who supports us. We’ve been doing this for 20-something years in this regard.” [2] Plenty more in the transcript at [1], and the article at [2]! 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/politics/pr-executives-western-energy-alliance-speech-taped.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/politics/pr-executives... 2: https://www.desmog.com/2014/10/31/oil-and-gas-industry-s-endless-war-fracking-critics-revealed-rick-berman/ https://www.desmog.com/2014/10/31/oil-and-gas-industry-s-end...
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Putins idea of outright banning foreign NGOs suddenly sounds reasonable.
  - galangalalgol 5y ago
    They would just set up domestic NGOs and funnel money into them through mules.
  - pydry 5y ago
    I dont honestly know why anybody would allow the National Endowment for Democracy in. It's tantamount to giving another country the ability to vote in your elections.
- 5y ago
nexus_dave 5y ago
They were able to do it because the government is/was huge. If it wasn't and if they did not have so much power, there wouldn't have been anyone to lobby.
- kcatskcolbdi 5y ago
  The problem with this line of thought (and generally libertarian ideology) is the requirement of a threat of violence to conduct commerce. The violence can't come from the parties involved because if there's an imbalance it ruins the neutrality of trade. But the threat of a violent outcome (jail, or fine with physical enforcement) must be present to prevent theft. Once you accept that you have to give a 3rd party the monopoly on violence you are now effectively giving them the authority to do as they please. You can wax on about how government should have less power on internet forums, but organizations with power and weapons don't give up that power without using the weapons.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    Without a government and with a system of competing law enforcements backed by armies who setup different laws, and a system of competing private court systems, we may get fairer treatment. Perfect justice is impossible to achieve (someone will always be able to bribe someone else), but by spreading out the corruptible people and by putting them in competition on a market (where reputation matters), you will get a fairer system than the disgusting monopoly we have right now.
    - kcatskcolbdi 5y ago
      Why would we get fairer treatment instead of treatment that exclusively favors the people with the most money and weapons?
      - Goronmon 5y ago
        I thought a system that favors the people with the most money and weapons was the whole point of the libertarian idealogy?
tut-urut-utut 5y ago
Whenever this kind of leaks appears, some minority of people get outraged for a few days, and it ends like that. For a change, I'd like to finally see some consequences for such behaviour. Some action to actually limit influence of lobbying from big corporations. But honestly, I just don't see this happening, as long as some distant government is allowed to take important decisions on its own. Maybe the only balance against lobbying would be if more countries had some form of Swiss-like direct democracy. Not perfect, since people can also be influenced through various means, but it's much harder to "lobby" people to vote for something that is not in their interest that to "lobby" a group of politicians that don't care about people.
- nszceta 5y ago
  Nothing will change in government long term until one or more of the following conditions are met: - talking heads on television stop telling people how to rationalize their diminished standard of living (resentment of the status quo will grow when people start to think independently) - fuel shortages (massive disruption to lifestyle) - electricity shortages causing blackouts or brownouts (massive disruption to lifestyle, damage to expensive household appliances) - food shortages Actually even this is not enough; there are so many countries that fulfill these criteria and are still terrible. I guess this what the second amendment was made for. Why would those in power ever allow a change to a voting system which effectively maintains their existing power structure?
  - handrous 5y ago
    > I guess this what the second amendment was made for. Eh, it's probably part of what it's intended for, but private ownership of small arms is, at best, a minor factor in whether revolutions succeed. Having the majority of your own, or a foreign, military on your side, is much more important. Or, if your military sits it out, widespread private ownership of small arms isn't really that big a factor anyway. ... now, if you're an unpopular faction trying to take over, and the military sits it out, that's another matter. Then having guns is very useful. Or if you're trying to destabilize things with guerrilla tactics and terrorism so the government becomes unpopular and successful revolution is feasible. TL;DR: "We need guns to protect us from tyranny" is a well-loved, but poorly-justified, case for the second amendment. > Actually even this is not enough; there are so many countries that fulfill these criteria and are still terrible. Relative deprivation drives revolt. Guarantee every Somali exactly $2,500—no more, no less—a year and 99.99% of the population will deify you. Do the same in the US—let's say it's even PPP adjusted—and you'll be dead inside a month, and they may make a national holiday to celebrate the wonderful event that was your assassination. I suppose very very slow changes might not have this effect, but I don't think the effects of climate change will be that slow. > Why would those in power ever allow a change to a voting system which effectively maintains their existing power structure? The "American revolution" itself was arguably better called a "war for independence" precisely because it had little effect on who was on top in American society—so, given that heritage, I'm going with "no, definitely not".
DoubleDerper 5y ago
Twitter response from Darren Woods, Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil... “The individuals interviewed were never involved in developing the company’s policy positions on the issues discussed. We condemn the statements and are deeply apologetic for them, including comments regarding interactions with elected officials.”… https://twitter.com/exxonmobil/status/1410389477214801922 https://twitter.com/exxonmobil/status/1410389477214801922
- pjerem 5y ago
  Yeah of course, they even were some trainee on internship.
- yawaworht1978 5y ago
  Interesting choice of words, nowhere did he say that it isn't true.
  - defterGoose 5y ago
    If you ask me, at least that's a step in the right direction. Not a big one, but still...
anon_d 5y ago
Feel like the solutions to so many problems is just tariffs. Tariffs on all imports and exports, tariffs on moving things between states too. Significant tariffs would fuck these people so hard.
noobermin 5y ago
I'll say that this is not new. The thing is the only real movement to at least deal with one aspect here (remove lobbyist influence of politicians) is being pushed by a very minor section of the democratic party but the powers that be in both parties in the US are pushing back against them, and so the cogs keep turning without halt.
gadders 5y ago
I mean, isn't that sort of their whole job? I'm sure all lobbysists do it.
doggodaddo78 5y ago
No surprises. FF need to be banned on a hard timeline.
ineedasername 5y ago
A good time to plug the movie Thank You For Smoking, a satire about lobbyists (tobacco in particular) that label themselves "Merchants of Death". Quote: "That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong."
Dumblydorr 5y ago
While cigarette makers killed hundreds of thousands of humans with their lies and confusion tactics, these fossil fuel barons are destroying our entire ecosystem and ways of life for billions of coastal or equatorial people, hell even the Pacific NW is turning into a desert. All to make a buck so rich fossil fuel magnates get another yacht or another mansion. It's disgustingly selfish. Where are the punishments for this mass serial killing of our environment?
- a_bored_husky 5y ago
  They have money.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- missedthecue 5y ago
  A lot of the Pacific northwest has been a desert for thousands of years.
LatteLazy 5y ago
We, the public, have known (not suspected, known) for decades. We've done nothing. Are big oil companies a problem? Yes. Are they the problem? No, we are.
dschuetz 5y ago
Shady oil lobbyists doing shady lobbyists' things. And also, water is still wet in 2021.
kumarski 5y ago
Love all this stuff coming out. My entire stock thesis is that the renewables mafia have infiltrated halls of power politically, economically, and technically. Certainly....the media. My gamble on all of this is that we'll consume more natural gas/kwh than would be expected. I'll be closely watching $TELL, $FCG, $HYLN, $SD, $AR, and Torix(midstream company - OTC markets).
- MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago
  I’m making a similar investment. We’re already seeing scarce capital flowing to the O&G sector limiting development of new fields/sources of oil. I think oil prices will stay high (similar to coal) going forward as long as US shale producers can’t access capital like they could before. Existing producers that can live off cash flow could reap the rewards of these high prices. I own quite a few US-based oil companies to play off what I think will be a very long term trend. (This is not investment advice.)
- m1117 5y ago
  That's the problem that a lot of people are acting from their money perspective.
  - kumarski 5y ago
    The renewables folks ensure more lithospheric exhaustion/kwh. If they won't listen, then I'll make money on it.
  - hogFeast 5y ago
    No. It isn't. The reason why a lot of hedge funds are scooping these shares up is precisely because of the environmental lobby. The environmental lobby thinks purely in first order: I am a good person, I will save the environment, I am fighting evil, oil companies are evil, they must be shut down immediately. But the reason why Exxon produces oil is not related to wanting to pollute. Them embracing environmentalism, as the lobbyist wisely points out, is neither here nor there because environmentalism doesn't mean they aren't going to stop producing either. The reason why pollution happens and Exxon produces oil is because people need oil. If people stopped consuming oil, Exxon would just do something else. Therefore, investing in oil and gas is pretty much a lock because it is fairly obvious now that environmentalists are jacking up the oil price, jacking up the gas price, consumers will starting paying triple the price to get to work, electricity bills are going to skyrocket, and oil and gas companies are going to do amazingly well. Again, the key point here is that oil demand is, if anything, rising whilst supply is going to stop growing or, most likely, shrink significantly in the next five years (something like $500/barrel looks reasonable to me, and double digit NG). If environmentalists thought about this from the money perspective, they would realise that Exxon are nothing to do with it...but, as ever, it is easier for people to believe that a secret cabal of people who aren't like them is actually controlling the world, and that is why people disagree with them. Also, it is far easier to believe this than take this to consumers, convince them of your arguments (rather than believe Exxon is bribing everyone), and tell them why they should pay more. Again, it is far easier to believe that Exxon are to blame, and that everyone would agree with you if it wasn't for Exxon, than recognise that you need to work to put in progress (Greenpeace are the classic example of a totally ineffectual, self-centered approach to activism...their campaigns are usually aimed at causing maximum disruption for other people, maximum press to boost the profile of people involved, and minimum attempt to actually appeal to other people's rationality...if Greenpeace didn't exist, the world would be the same).
rishabhd 5y ago
Pardon my ignorance, but how is lobbying legal? Isn't it actually funding and nominated people for incentives, unlike a true democracy. Isn't it effectively quid-pro-quo?
- lifeformed 5y ago
  The people benefiting from lobbying make the rules about it.
- klyrs 5y ago
  In the US, bribing politicians is seen as a free speech issue, and not corruption for some reason.
m1117 5y ago
This article and the comments just confirm to me that the humanity is doomed.
fnord77 5y ago
capitalism, working as intended.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rio_de_mierda 5y ago
If one wanted to replicate their methods, what's their source text and who are the key luminaries in the field? More importantly, is there research into the most effective methods to disrupt/disable this kind of malignant activity? There's gotta be something more effective than "investing in public education and civic engagement."
billfor 5y ago
That's what Lobbyists are supposed to do: manipulate politicians and public for their boss. Big Tech does the same thing. No need to be surprised.
- billfor 5y ago
  You know, if you're going to downvote it, have the guts to explain what you think a Lobbyist is or should be. I remember a decade ago when Hackers was not a echo chamber.
GaryTang 5y ago
First thing I did when Biden won was buy option calls on oil/gas. Was a no-brainer.

516 points by DoubleDerper 5y ago

I'm not surprised. I don't think anything is going to change, I'm sure these acts are just buying time until oil companies and their shareholders have time to invest in cleaner technologies. Still, we will have the same problem when the next damaging act for the environment is carried out: governments will turn a blind until the top 0.1% reaped all the profits and they're safely disinvested, leaving everyone's pensions and index funds to take a hit. We need to get rid of corrupted governments which are only good at increasing spend without solving problems and then sue environment damaging companies in private courts. I guess it will stay just a dream.

ArkanExplorer 5y ago

Any climate policy other than a carbon tax (with tariffs on goods from non-participating countries) is going to be a failure - it will be shot through with loopholes and rebates, such that little reduction is actually achieved.

3pt14159 5y ago
This isn't true. I understand the economics and that a fairly administered carbon tax would be good, but other systems like cap and trade with targeted legislation do actually work in practice. Take the province of Ontario, for example.
- dempsey 5y ago
  Or the Nox and Sox cap and trade market that started it all. https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/acid-rain-program https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/acid-rain-program
- gpm 5y ago
  Ontarian here, did I miss something? Last I checked we just had a straight up carbon tax. I don't think we do the import tariffs part though, unfortunately.
  - 3pt14159 5y ago
    You did miss something. The Wynne government implemented a cap and trade system before the federal mandated carbon pricing system came into place and also implemented many other policies like an outright ban on coal power plants. If you look at GHG emissions for the period and compare them to the rest of Canada, Ontario did better than average. Not perfect, of course, but to say that the only way to bring down GHG emissions is via a carbon tax is just not true.
    - gpm 5y ago
      Do you have some sources where I can read about the impact that that program had? From some quick googling that was in place from January 1st, 2017 to July 3rd 2018, while the Canada wide (sort of) carbon tax was implemented in the GHGPPA, which looks like it came into effect June 21, 2018. You have a sample period of ~1 year, it seems like you're comparing cap and trade to "nothing"? The difference provinces in Canada are vastly different in terms of geography, industry, power sources, other laws, etc. My prior is that it's not going to be good evidence of basically anything, it was too short with no real controls, but I could be wrong. And certainly I don't disagree that there are other ways to bring down carbon emissions... but I am skeptical that they will be particularly effective. [1] Cap and trade dates: https://www.ontario.ca/page/cap-and-trade-ontario https://www.ontario.ca/page/cap-and-trade-ontario [2] GHGPPA dates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gas_Pollution_Pricing_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gas_Pollution_Prici...
- ArkanExplorer 5y ago
  Cap and trade adds a huge regulatory and bureaucratic burden to what should be a simple price signal (maybe that's the purpose?) For example in the EU, the carbon price had fallen too low, so credits were arbitrarily pulled out of the market to force the price up.
  - ajmurmann 5y ago
    Might the too low price be a signal that the cap wasn't set nearly aggressive enough?
adrianN 5y ago
You're optimistic if you assume that a carbon tax will not be made useless via some loopholes or other means.
- gruez 5y ago
  What do you suggest instead? How will that not be "made useless via some loopholes or other means"?
  - adrianN 5y ago
    I unfortunately don't have a good answer to that. I also believe that a carbon price, together with regulations, is our best bet. I'm however rather pessimistic when it comes to preventing catastrophic warming.

chmod775 5y ago

> “Nobody is going to propose a tax on all Americans and the cynical side of me says, yeah, we kind of know that but it gives us a talking point that we can say, ‘well what is ExxonMobil for, we’re for a carbon tax,’” McCoy said. > McCoy also told the interviewers that Exxon had poured money into “shadow groups” in order to fight against climate science. That appears to be the worst of it and I'm not sure it compares to what Exxon has already been caught doing in the past. A bit like finding out a convicted murderer was jaywalking on their way to the scene.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
> A bit like finding out a convicted murderer was jaywalking on their way to the scene. Given the seriousness of the climate situation and the importance of carbon tax as one of the solutions, I think that in your analogy, all the things Exxon has been caught doing in the past are the jaywalking part.
- tfehring 5y ago
  But they're not undermining a carbon tax. They're supporting it, based on their understanding that American voters are extremely sensitive to gas prices, far beyond an extent that could be considered reasonable, and that for that and other reasons a carbon tax is politically unviable in the US. To be clear, I'm an extremely strong supporter of a carbon tax, to the point that I would vote for any politician who supports one regardless of their position on any other issues, and I would support the US creating ultimatums with other countries, including allies, to effectively force them to implement carbon taxes of their own. But I'm also open-eyed to the fact that the median American voter commutes something like 30 miles a day and has never taken an economics class.
- mustafa_pasi 5y ago
  The idea that a carbon tax is the best policy is itself an ideological position supported by certain entities with an agenda. Economists love to push it a lot. The same economists also like to downplay the cost of climate change (the costs incurred due to the damage it causes). And then there is the small matter of how much should a ton of CO2 be taxed at. Imagine all the lobbying efforts to reduce that number. It will never be anywhere near what it should be. And EXXON's propagandists have a point. People don't want to be taxed more, and a blanket carbon tax would definitely hit the bottom majority hard.

secfirstmd 5y ago

I highly recommend people interested in this topic read up on Dark Basin and some of the shady stuff Exxon gets up to against environmental groups. https://citizenlab.ca/2020/06/dark-basin-uncovering-a-massive-hack-for-hire-operation/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/06/dark-basin-uncovering-a-massiv... "Israeli charged in global hacker-for-hire scheme wants plea deal -court filing" https://www.reuters.com/technology/israeli-charged-global-hacker-for-hire-scheme-wants-plea-deal-court-filing-2021-06-30/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/israeli-charged-global-ha... It's not just Exxon of course, I've worked on a number of similar cases were huge money was run through lawyers, corporate intelligence firms etc to manipulate and target environmental and human rights groups. My sense is that this is only really the beginning of a huge amount more of this shady practice in the industry being exposed.

Forbo 5y ago

Where's the accountability? We're facing a global crisis. Once again, the rich are insulated from the consequences of their greed, while the poorest suffer the most. It's high time those who sold us out should have to answer for their actions. Something on the order of seven billion counts of reckless endangerment should do it.

ethbr0 5y ago
Like Exxon losing 3 (of 12) board seats in May to Engine No. 1's ESG proxy fight, via the support of major institutional investors? https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-27/exxon-lost-a-climate-proxy-fight https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-27/exxon-...
- Forbo 5y ago
  Boo hoo, they lost some board seats! What a world!! We treat pot dealers more harshly than these fucks. Give me a fucking break. I'm sick of it.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    You know that boards elect CEOs and approve pay packages? So the Exxon CEO just lost 25% of his boardroom support.
    - eggsmediumrare 5y ago
      I would rather see him lose his job, wealth and freedom, but I guess it's a start?
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        In the words of Meatloaf, a shove down the road to two out of three ain't bad. And given that we're talking about the ~12th largest corporation in the world by revenue, a 25% swing in support seems appropriate. Exxon suddenly becomes unable to operate because we put Greenpeace in charge? Worse things than climate change happen. Big ship, gentle turns.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

h2odragon 5y ago

Many years ago, I got to see an Exxon "Legislative Affairs Coordinator" speak to a group of small landowners about how they could make their own lobbying efforts more effective. In less than 10min this lady had the crowd ready to burn her at the stake. She told them things like "your voice doesn't matter," urged them to donate all the money they could to Exxon's lobbying efforts (with unspecified goals), on the basis that at least it would get something done, even if it wasn't what they wanted. "Donate to our people, and our people will take care of you." Then, she told them that actual grass-roots organizations like theirs were socially dangerous, because they wouldn't stick to their original mission but inevitably became cults, essentially. Something like "the best thing this organization can do, today, is vote to dissolve immediately" All this was in exchange for a several thousand dollar speaking fee, which was the largest expense behind the venue for the event.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kwthrows 5y ago
>Then, she told them that actual grass-roots organizations like theirs were socially dangerous, because they wouldn't stick to their original mission but inevitably became cults, essentially. After OWS I find it hard to disagree with this statement.
- h2odragon 5y ago
  Build enough organization to effectively work towards a goal, say passing a particular bill; and once the goal is met, the bill is passed, it seems such a shameful waste to let the organization dissolve, when it could be re-purposed to another similar use. Recycling is good in other contexts, right? Also, sometimes, the organization was built and the cause fought as a route to empowerment for the people doing the organizing, in which case the goals are irrelevant. Sometimes the goals were the true reason, in the beginning, but the empowerment becomes too seductive and they fall aside. Humans is tough to wrangle.
  - 5y ago

ttctciyf 5y ago

See also the leak[1] of big oil PR maestro Rick Berman's 2014 speech to oil execs, pleading for funds to combat rational debate and reliable information about fracking. “Think of this as an endless war,” he told them. “And you have to budget for it.” > He said the industry needs to dig up embarrassing tidbits about environmentalists and liberal celebrities, exploit the public’s short attention span for scientific debate, and play on people’s emotions. > “Fear and anger have to be a part of this campaign,” Berman said. “We’re not going to get people to like the oil and gas industry over the next few months.” > Berman also advised that executives continue to spend big. “I think $2 to $3 million would be a game changer,” he said. “We’ve had six-figure contributions to date from a few companies in this room to help us get to where we are.” > But always cover your tracks, he suggested, adding that no-one is better equipped at doing so than his firm. “We run all this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity,” he said. “People don’t know who supports us. We’ve been doing this for 20-something years in this regard.” [2] Plenty more in the transcript at [1], and the article at [2]! 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/politics/pr-executives-western-energy-alliance-speech-taped.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/politics/pr-executives... 2: https://www.desmog.com/2014/10/31/oil-and-gas-industry-s-endless-war-fracking-critics-revealed-rick-berman/ https://www.desmog.com/2014/10/31/oil-and-gas-industry-s-end...

raxxorrax 5y ago
Putins idea of outright banning foreign NGOs suddenly sounds reasonable.
- galangalalgol 5y ago
  They would just set up domestic NGOs and funnel money into them through mules.
- pydry 5y ago
  I dont honestly know why anybody would allow the National Endowment for Democracy in. It's tantamount to giving another country the ability to vote in your elections.
5y ago

nexus_dave 5y ago

They were able to do it because the government is/was huge. If it wasn't and if they did not have so much power, there wouldn't have been anyone to lobby.

kcatskcolbdi 5y ago
The problem with this line of thought (and generally libertarian ideology) is the requirement of a threat of violence to conduct commerce. The violence can't come from the parties involved because if there's an imbalance it ruins the neutrality of trade. But the threat of a violent outcome (jail, or fine with physical enforcement) must be present to prevent theft. Once you accept that you have to give a 3rd party the monopoly on violence you are now effectively giving them the authority to do as they please. You can wax on about how government should have less power on internet forums, but organizations with power and weapons don't give up that power without using the weapons.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Without a government and with a system of competing law enforcements backed by armies who setup different laws, and a system of competing private court systems, we may get fairer treatment. Perfect justice is impossible to achieve (someone will always be able to bribe someone else), but by spreading out the corruptible people and by putting them in competition on a market (where reputation matters), you will get a fairer system than the disgusting monopoly we have right now.
  - kcatskcolbdi 5y ago
    Why would we get fairer treatment instead of treatment that exclusively favors the people with the most money and weapons?
    - Goronmon 5y ago
      I thought a system that favors the people with the most money and weapons was the whole point of the libertarian idealogy?

tut-urut-utut 5y ago

Whenever this kind of leaks appears, some minority of people get outraged for a few days, and it ends like that. For a change, I'd like to finally see some consequences for such behaviour. Some action to actually limit influence of lobbying from big corporations. But honestly, I just don't see this happening, as long as some distant government is allowed to take important decisions on its own. Maybe the only balance against lobbying would be if more countries had some form of Swiss-like direct democracy. Not perfect, since people can also be influenced through various means, but it's much harder to "lobby" people to vote for something that is not in their interest that to "lobby" a group of politicians that don't care about people.

nszceta 5y ago
Nothing will change in government long term until one or more of the following conditions are met: - talking heads on television stop telling people how to rationalize their diminished standard of living (resentment of the status quo will grow when people start to think independently) - fuel shortages (massive disruption to lifestyle) - electricity shortages causing blackouts or brownouts (massive disruption to lifestyle, damage to expensive household appliances) - food shortages Actually even this is not enough; there are so many countries that fulfill these criteria and are still terrible. I guess this what the second amendment was made for. Why would those in power ever allow a change to a voting system which effectively maintains their existing power structure?
- handrous 5y ago
  > I guess this what the second amendment was made for. Eh, it's probably part of what it's intended for, but private ownership of small arms is, at best, a minor factor in whether revolutions succeed. Having the majority of your own, or a foreign, military on your side, is much more important. Or, if your military sits it out, widespread private ownership of small arms isn't really that big a factor anyway. ... now, if you're an unpopular faction trying to take over, and the military sits it out, that's another matter. Then having guns is very useful. Or if you're trying to destabilize things with guerrilla tactics and terrorism so the government becomes unpopular and successful revolution is feasible. TL;DR: "We need guns to protect us from tyranny" is a well-loved, but poorly-justified, case for the second amendment. > Actually even this is not enough; there are so many countries that fulfill these criteria and are still terrible. Relative deprivation drives revolt. Guarantee every Somali exactly $2,500—no more, no less—a year and 99.99% of the population will deify you. Do the same in the US—let's say it's even PPP adjusted—and you'll be dead inside a month, and they may make a national holiday to celebrate the wonderful event that was your assassination. I suppose very very slow changes might not have this effect, but I don't think the effects of climate change will be that slow. > Why would those in power ever allow a change to a voting system which effectively maintains their existing power structure? The "American revolution" itself was arguably better called a "war for independence" precisely because it had little effect on who was on top in American society—so, given that heritage, I'm going with "no, definitely not".

DoubleDerper 5y ago

Twitter response from Darren Woods, Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil... “The individuals interviewed were never involved in developing the company’s policy positions on the issues discussed. We condemn the statements and are deeply apologetic for them, including comments regarding interactions with elected officials.”… https://twitter.com/exxonmobil/status/1410389477214801922 https://twitter.com/exxonmobil/status/1410389477214801922

pjerem 5y ago
Yeah of course, they even were some trainee on internship.
yawaworht1978 5y ago
Interesting choice of words, nowhere did he say that it isn't true.
- defterGoose 5y ago
  If you ask me, at least that's a step in the right direction. Not a big one, but still...

anon_d 5y ago

Feel like the solutions to so many problems is just tariffs. Tariffs on all imports and exports, tariffs on moving things between states too. Significant tariffs would fuck these people so hard.

noobermin 5y ago

I'll say that this is not new. The thing is the only real movement to at least deal with one aspect here (remove lobbyist influence of politicians) is being pushed by a very minor section of the democratic party but the powers that be in both parties in the US are pushing back against them, and so the cogs keep turning without halt.

gadders 5y ago

I mean, isn't that sort of their whole job? I'm sure all lobbysists do it.

doggodaddo78 5y ago

No surprises. FF need to be banned on a hard timeline.

ineedasername 5y ago

A good time to plug the movie Thank You For Smoking, a satire about lobbyists (tobacco in particular) that label themselves "Merchants of Death". Quote: "That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong."

Dumblydorr 5y ago

While cigarette makers killed hundreds of thousands of humans with their lies and confusion tactics, these fossil fuel barons are destroying our entire ecosystem and ways of life for billions of coastal or equatorial people, hell even the Pacific NW is turning into a desert. All to make a buck so rich fossil fuel magnates get another yacht or another mansion. It's disgustingly selfish. Where are the punishments for this mass serial killing of our environment?

a_bored_husky 5y ago
They have money.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
missedthecue 5y ago
A lot of the Pacific northwest has been a desert for thousands of years.

LatteLazy 5y ago

We, the public, have known (not suspected, known) for decades. We've done nothing. Are big oil companies a problem? Yes. Are they the problem? No, we are.

dschuetz 5y ago

Shady oil lobbyists doing shady lobbyists' things. And also, water is still wet in 2021.

kumarski 5y ago

Love all this stuff coming out. My entire stock thesis is that the renewables mafia have infiltrated halls of power politically, economically, and technically. Certainly....the media. My gamble on all of this is that we'll consume more natural gas/kwh than would be expected. I'll be closely watching $TELL, $FCG, $HYLN, $SD, $AR, and Torix(midstream company - OTC markets).

MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago
I’m making a similar investment. We’re already seeing scarce capital flowing to the O&G sector limiting development of new fields/sources of oil. I think oil prices will stay high (similar to coal) going forward as long as US shale producers can’t access capital like they could before. Existing producers that can live off cash flow could reap the rewards of these high prices. I own quite a few US-based oil companies to play off what I think will be a very long term trend. (This is not investment advice.)
m1117 5y ago
That's the problem that a lot of people are acting from their money perspective.
- kumarski 5y ago
  The renewables folks ensure more lithospheric exhaustion/kwh. If they won't listen, then I'll make money on it.
- hogFeast 5y ago
  No. It isn't. The reason why a lot of hedge funds are scooping these shares up is precisely because of the environmental lobby. The environmental lobby thinks purely in first order: I am a good person, I will save the environment, I am fighting evil, oil companies are evil, they must be shut down immediately. But the reason why Exxon produces oil is not related to wanting to pollute. Them embracing environmentalism, as the lobbyist wisely points out, is neither here nor there because environmentalism doesn't mean they aren't going to stop producing either. The reason why pollution happens and Exxon produces oil is because people need oil. If people stopped consuming oil, Exxon would just do something else. Therefore, investing in oil and gas is pretty much a lock because it is fairly obvious now that environmentalists are jacking up the oil price, jacking up the gas price, consumers will starting paying triple the price to get to work, electricity bills are going to skyrocket, and oil and gas companies are going to do amazingly well. Again, the key point here is that oil demand is, if anything, rising whilst supply is going to stop growing or, most likely, shrink significantly in the next five years (something like $500/barrel looks reasonable to me, and double digit NG). If environmentalists thought about this from the money perspective, they would realise that Exxon are nothing to do with it...but, as ever, it is easier for people to believe that a secret cabal of people who aren't like them is actually controlling the world, and that is why people disagree with them. Also, it is far easier to believe this than take this to consumers, convince them of your arguments (rather than believe Exxon is bribing everyone), and tell them why they should pay more. Again, it is far easier to believe that Exxon are to blame, and that everyone would agree with you if it wasn't for Exxon, than recognise that you need to work to put in progress (Greenpeace are the classic example of a totally ineffectual, self-centered approach to activism...their campaigns are usually aimed at causing maximum disruption for other people, maximum press to boost the profile of people involved, and minimum attempt to actually appeal to other people's rationality...if Greenpeace didn't exist, the world would be the same).

rishabhd 5y ago

Pardon my ignorance, but how is lobbying legal? Isn't it actually funding and nominated people for incentives, unlike a true democracy. Isn't it effectively quid-pro-quo?

lifeformed 5y ago
The people benefiting from lobbying make the rules about it.
klyrs 5y ago
In the US, bribing politicians is seen as a free speech issue, and not corruption for some reason.

m1117 5y ago

This article and the comments just confirm to me that the humanity is doomed.

fnord77 5y ago

capitalism, working as intended.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rio_de_mierda 5y ago

If one wanted to replicate their methods, what's their source text and who are the key luminaries in the field? More importantly, is there research into the most effective methods to disrupt/disable this kind of malignant activity? There's gotta be something more effective than "investing in public education and civic engagement."

billfor 5y ago

That's what Lobbyists are supposed to do: manipulate politicians and public for their boss. Big Tech does the same thing. No need to be surprised.

billfor 5y ago
You know, if you're going to downvote it, have the guts to explain what you think a Lobbyist is or should be. I remember a decade ago when Hackers was not a echo chamber.

GaryTang 5y ago

First thing I did when Biden won was buy option calls on oil/gas. Was a no-brainer.