You know if the right wingnuts would only listen to what world leading industries are actually saying
Sarah Ortwein, President, Upstream Research Company, Exxon Mobil USA
"To make progress, we must continue to develop all renewable fuel sources, improve the way in which we consume energy and address the environmental challenges. Integrated technology plays an equal role in addressing this challenge: it increases efficiency, it can reduce environmental impact, it can improve safety and it can enable access to new forms of energy.
VP, Ecomagination, GE USA, Mr Vachon explained:
"The perception is that it costs to do the right thing. But, thanks to design and technology innovations, we don’t have to choose between economic performance and environmental performance any longer. In fact, through our own design innovations at GE, we have already saved $130 million. And we can translate this into an $840m annual fuel saving for our customers.
OMG being green will actually save GE customers nearly a billion a year?
Socialists!
Why would ExxonMobil say such a thing?
Business risks
Meeting growing energy demand will require navigating a host of risks — technological, political, regulatory, social, environmental, and physical. Since ExxonMobil’s operations include activities in a variety of environments, severe weather events can disrupt supplies or interrupt operations. While current scientific understanding of climate change provides limited guidance on how the risks of weather extremes may change in the future, we manage these risks through robust design and operations contingency planning.
And as for the dreaded carbon tax that will eat Grandma?
Carbon tax
Throughout the world, policymakers are considering a variety of legislative and regulatory options to address the risks of climate change. ExxonMobil believes that any cost policymakers put on GHG emissions should be uniform across the economy and predictable over time. It is important to allow this cost to drive the development and selection of steps to reduce emissions, rather than having governments select solutions. We believe an economy-wide, revenue-neutral GHG tax is the most transparent, efficient, and cost-effective way to establish such a cost at a national level. This tax, sometimes referred to as a carbon tax, could be tailored to specific national circumstances and could form a transparent basis for equitable international efforts to mitigate emissions. In any national program, the initial tax profile should be periodically adjusted to reflect new scientific knowledge of climate change risks, technological developments, policy experience, and the evolution of international cooperation.
However ExxonMobil plays both sides:
The world's largest oil company is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial, a new analysis shows.
Company records show that ExxonMobil handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds to such lobby groups in 2008. These include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas, which received $75,000 (£45,500), and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, which received $50,000.
Now I am not here to praise Exxon Mobil, far from it as they tend to be two faced at best. However their rhetoric is changing with each passing year, and words are important, they realize the resources are finite and need to diversify their business model. They are seeking government incentives to do so; I have no problem with this if it results in lower carbon emissions.
If companies can make better profits and reduce carbon emissions as a result then this is the most efficient way forward; encourage them to change.
Once the companies get on board with the reality [and they will because the economics will be a driving factor] right wing politicians in the US will join in just as have many of their counterparts in Europe, or their funding will dry up.
It's one of my few hopes in this that the multinationals see a better business strategy in reducing carbon emissions than emitting them.
I'm trying to be positive and companies tend to look further into the future than the next election cycle. Make it profitable to be environmentally responsible; and they will lead willingly and thereby create millions of jobs along they way.