Warmists Are Demanding House Democrats Investigate Exxon Over ‘Climate Change’

Good idea. Let’s have people who use way more in terms of fossil fuels than the average citizen investigate a fossil fuels company

Environmentalists Urging New Democratic Congress To Investigate Exxon

An influential environmentalist organization is urging the upcoming Congress to investigate ExxonMobil and other major fossil fuel companies regarding their alleged contribution to man-made climate change. (snip)

350.org, an environmental activist organization, is circling a petition that encourages Democratic lawmakers to investigate ExxonMobil over its knowledge and contribution to climate change. The accusations ring very similar to the #ExxonKnew campaign that’s been waged for several years against the major oil company.

“Launch a congressional investigation into ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel corporations for propagating confusion and denial about the scientific truth of climate change and for hiding the risks posed by their business activities to the planet,” read a portion of 350’s letter demanding “real climate leadership” from the upcoming 116th Congress.

Jamie Henn, a 350 co-founder, told Axios that an investigation into Exxon and other big oil companies should be a priority for the House Technology, Science and Space Committee.

Here’s an idea: if Warmists do not like fossil fuels, then they do not have to use them.

Democrats are already planning to dive in come next year and hold hearings on ‘climate change’. Would they attempt the same types of investigations we’ve seen in states? Most likely not. Exxon and other fossil fuels companies are beating back all sorts of legal assaults, and, most likely, the House Democrats are going to go full overreach after Trump, having no time to overreach by going after Exxon.

Regardless, what this is about is attempting to use the power of Government to go after entities involved in Wrongthink. Nothing Fascist about that, eh?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

32 Responses to “Warmists Are Demanding House Democrats Investigate Exxon Over ‘Climate Change’”

  1. Jethro says:

    Congress is charged with oversight. Hearings are what they do.

    • gitarcarver says:

      The problem is Jeffery that courts have all said that any legal case against Exxon for the reasons that the Democrats want to exploit is a non-starter.

      Therefore, the only reason to “investigate” Exxon is to punish them for a legal activity.

      • Jethro says:

        Are you certain you know what a potential “investigation” by the House would entail?

        Selling cigarettes is a legal activity but Congress still investigated the tobacco industry.

        • gitarcarver says:

          Are you certain you know what a potential “investigation” by the House would entail?

          Yes. Don’t you? Or are you agreeing to something out of ignorance?

          Selling cigarettes is a legal activity but Congress still investigated the tobacco industry.

          So because Congress did something that makes it right or legal?

          • Jethro says:

            We didn’t agree to anything, nor did the incoming Dems. It was a request from an activist group.

            Is your point that Congress should not consider the issue, because… Why?

            Is it your ‘argument’ that Congress should take no interest in organizations if they conduct legal business? Seems like a nice cover for crime. Do you think that Congress should take no interest in Planned Parenthood? Facebook?

          • gitarcarver says:

            We didn’t agree to anything, nor did the incoming Dems. It was a request from an activist group.

            You have advocated for an investigation of this type for some time.

            Is your point that Congress should not consider the issue, because… Why?

            Because Congress has no authority in this case. None.

            Is it your ‘argument’ that Congress should take no interest in organizations if they conduct legal business?

            That’s correct. Congress should stay out of the way of companies acting legally.

            Seems like a nice cover for crime.

            Democrats don’t care about crime Jeffery. They care about causes and advancing an agenda at the expense of the rights of others.

            Do you think that Congress should take no interest in Planned Parenthood? Facebook?

            Congress took an interest in Planned Parenthood because it is part of specific government funding. Do you know of any specific funding Exxon receives?

            Facebook?

            Arguably Facebook should not have gone near Congress.

            So perhaps you would grace us with the legal theory as to why a company that has not committed a crime, not receiving any funds from the government and not part of a government run program should have to answer to Congress?

          • Jethro says:

            You have advocated for an investigation of this type for some time.

            You’re mistaken. We have never advocated that Congress investigate Exxon, and we’re not advocating it now. We DO acknowledge that the people have an interest in regulating corporations, being as how they are government created entities. No company is forced to incorporate, they incorporate for their own protections. Incorporation is worth millions to corporations, and trillions to the economy.

            That’s correct. Congress should stay out of the way of companies acting legally.

            See above regarding government created corporations.

            Democrats don’t care about crime Jeffery. They care about causes and advancing an agenda at the expense of the rights of others.

            You’re entitled to your opinion, even one as biased as that.

            Congress took an interest in Planned Parenthood because it is part of specific government funding.

            Exxon is a corporation and as such receives significant benefit from the nation. Investors are not liable for any malfeasance or debts of the corporation. What is that worth? Since government creates corporations shouldn’t corporations have some government oversight? Or are you suggesting that Congress should make no laws granting incorporation?

            why a company that has not committed a crime, not receiving any funds from the government and not part of a government run program should have to answer to Congress?

            Both houses of Congress have broad authority to conduct investigations. As the Supreme Court observed in Watkins v. United States , 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957): “The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad.”
            While a congressional investigation must bear some relationship to legislative action, the fact that an inquiry fails to result in any legislative action has no bearing on the underlying authority to investigate. As the Supreme Court observed in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 509 (1975), the legitimacy of congressional inquiry is not defined by what it produces: “The very nature of the investigative function – like any research – is that it takes the searchers up some ‘blind alleys’ and into nonproductive enterprises.

          • gitarcarver says:

            You’re mistaken. We have never advocated that Congress investigate Exxon, and we’re not advocating it now.

            Yet here you are, continuing to advocate for it.

            See above regarding government created corporations.

            Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

            Exxon is a corporation and as such receives significant benefit from the nation.

            Another deflection from you. Planned Parenthood receives government funding. The law Zachrial quoted deals with the idea that programs and funding created and issued by the government may have oversight. That is not applicable to Exxon as it is not a part of any governmental program nor does it receive government funding.

            Watkins v. United States

            Nice try, but a fail.

            You left out several parts that are relevant: The power of Congress to conduct investigations, inherent in the legislative process, is broad, but it is not unlimited.

            So as I said, just because the Congress may want to look into something does not give them the legal authority to do so.

            No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress.

            There is no legitimate Congressional task here. That’s the point.

            There is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure where the predominant result can be only an invasion of the private rights of individuals.

            A corporation is by definition, a legal fictional person. Rights extend to corporations. The only reason for any hearing, as noted in the petition, is to expose Exxon for some alleged activity that is not in any way shape or form illegal.

            Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund

            The basis of the case was: The Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, pursuant to its authority under a Senate resolution to make a complete study of the administration, operation, and enforcement of the Internal Security Act of 1950, began an inquiry into the various activities of respondent organization, to determine whether they were potentially harmful to the morale of United States Armed Forces.

            Therefore the Senate was looking into a legal issue on something that it had passed.

            There is no such issue with investigating Exxon.

            The law is clear. Congress does not have, as you want to believe, unfettered investigatory authority.

    • formwiz says:

      It is? They are?

      Funny, I don’t see that word anywhere in Article I.

      • Zachriel says:

        formwiz: Funny, I don’t see that word anywhere in Article I.

        It’s considered inherent, as Congress can’t pass laws or regulate the executive without knowing what is going on, and the courts have so held. However, Congress has passed laws which give it the explicit power of oversight in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, passing laws being an explicit power of Article I.

    • Yes, oversight of the Executive Branch, which is tasked with enforcing the laws passed by the duly elected Judicial Branch.

      Not over private entities acting within the law.

      That was possibly the most Progressive thing I’ve seen you write, Jeff. You guys really do think Government has control over us all. But, y’all also seem shocked when the government comes after you.

  2. david7134 says:

    Exxon, I own stock in you. So I have learned that all you have to do is ignore Congress and they can’t do a damn thing about it. All Exxon does is sell gas which we have to have and which we buy as a necessity. If you want people to believe in the climate religion, come up with another means of ridding the planet of CO2 rather than taxes and world government. I favor elimination of CO2 sources such as liberals, start there.

  3. Lets follow those breadcrumbs. The accusation is that Exxon contributed to GW and knew about it. But don’t consumers of Exxon’s products actually do the “contributing”? and aren’t GW activists the most “knowledgeable” about the harm that their own contributions do?

    It seems like unless the GW activists are all living in caves wearing clothing made from animal hair, that they are in fact guilty of everything they claim Exxon should be punished for.

    • Jethro says:

      The fear in the fossil fuel industry is that fossil fuels will become the next “tobacco”.

      Do you blame lung cancer victims more than the tobacco companies that lied and suppressed evidence of tobacco toxicity?

      • formwiz says:

        It will have to get past McConnell.

        It will also have to get past physics because there is no real substitute for fossil fuels.

        As for tobacco, you always had the option to cut back or quit. Smoker’s throat and other expressions, so people knew it wasn’t good for them. In them thar days, people took responsibility for their actions.

        • Jethro says:

          Did tobacco company execs take responsibility for their actions?

          Did investment bank execs take responsibility for their actions (Great Recession)?

          Why is it that only working class “little” people need responsibilities?

          • david7134 says:

            Jeff,
            You are stupid, we all get that. You are aware that both apples and oranges are roughly round, but there is a difference. But you likely can’t understand that either.

          • Jethro says:

            Thanks dave.

            We will give your input the attention it deserves.

          • formwiz says:

            Did Senators Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, and Barack Obama take responsibility for their actions (Great Recession)?

            PS People had been smoking tobacco for millennia and knew there were risks. Government replaces that with they decide what will kill you.

          • Jethro says:

            Clinton, Dodd and Obama did not cause the Great Recession.

            Regarding tobacco, can you support your claim that people knew it was unhealthy for millennia? (No, you can’t.)

            For decades, tobacco corporations sold addictive cigarettes that were killing 100s of thousands of people, and the corporations knew it and hid it. The nation didn’t ban cigarettes, arrest the executives or sue the investors (since investors aren’t responsible for the actions of a corporation).

      • Dana says:

        Mr Bodine asked:

        Do you blame lung cancer victims more than the tobacco companies that lied and suppressed evidence of tobacco toxicity?

        Yes.

        Only an absolute moron didn’t know that cigarettes were both harmful and addictive, even before the silly warning labels on cigarette packages, yet people picked them up and started smoking them anyway.

        I was interested in one woman who smoked; I didn’t stay interested long because kissing her was like licking an ashtray.

        Cigarettes are just plain nasty, and virtually everyone who smokes hated that first cigarette, but kept trying them until they ‘acquired’ the taste for them. Well, I s’pose that that first shit sandwich would be pretty awful, but who knows, you keep eating them long enough and maybe you could acquire the taste for them.

        Me? If I don’t like something the first time, I’m not stupid enough to keep trying it!

      • Dana says:

        Mr Bodine wrote:

        The fear in the fossil fuel industry is that fossil fuels will become the next “tobacco”.

        You mean, where the costs get jacked up so high but still get passed on to the consumers?

        Tobacco is optional; it may be difficult for some people to quit, but quit they can, and life can be lived without tobacco. Fossil fuels? Nope, those really aren’t optional, not yet, and probably not for a long time to come. So jacking up those costs will simply make people poorer.

  4. Dana says:

    We watched an episode of “Building Off the Grid” yesterday on DIY Network, about this house, in the Rocky Mountains outside of Boulder, Colorado, in which the homebuilders opted for this fancy solar power system, complete with GPS and motors, which always keeps the unit situated for top efficiency as the sun moves across the sky the earth’s rotation changes the angle of the sun toward the property. The system will power the entire very large house, including an electric cook top. Great system.

    And it only cost $100,000! If your electric bill averages $200 per month, or $2,400 a year, it will tale only 41 years and eight months to break even!

    Assuming, of course, nothing goes wrong with the system.

    I s’pose that, given inflation, the average of $200 a month will increase, but if you didn’t have a spare hundred grand laying around, and you had to include that extra money in your mortgage, that inflation advantage would be eaten up by mortgage interest.

    We can all hope that new technology will result in less expensive, renewable, less polluting energy production, but that day is not yet here. When it does arrive, it will be courtesy of the top research companies, one of which just happens to be ExxonMobil.

  5. formwiz says:

    We will give your input the attention it deserves.

    We hope you and all your little voices do that because Dave jhas more sense than you. (and them)

  6. formwiz says:

    Vote them out and elect a Congress that does YOUR bidding.

    No, vote them out and elect a Congress that follows the Constitution.

    Clinton, Dodd and Obama did not cause the Great Recession.

    The Hell they didn’t. The sub-prime mess was all their doing, despite how much the Lefties try to hang it on Dubya. In fact (something you avoid like the plague), Zippy, the Friend of Angelo, and the Hildabeast were the 3 biggest recipients of bank money back in those days.

    Regarding tobacco, can you support your claim that people knew it was unhealthy for millennia? (No, you can’t.)

    Matter of fact (there’s that word again), I can. Even the Indians knew too much smoking gave you breathing problems and, as I said earlier, things like smoker’s throat and smoker’s cough were known problems associated with smoking.

    addictive cigarettes that were killing 100s of thousands of people

    Hundreds of thousands? Yeah, right. People knew it was tough to quit smoking. they didn’t need a Surgeon General’s Report to tell them.

    And, as for the addictive part, booze has the same effect. So does marijuana.

    Why don’t you start railing against all your Lefty friends pushing pot. We know it’s addictive, we know it’s a worse carcinogen than tobacco, we’ve seen auto accidents skyrocket in states that have legalized it, along with child and pet overdoses, we know it causes chromosome damage, we know it leads to brain damage, we know it increases hypertension, now they say it increases stroke risk.

    We don’t hear you complaining about that.

    • Jethro says:

      I support the decriminalization of pot, but discourage its use. Although marijuana is not acutely toxic (it’s hard to overdose), any substance that changes perception and reaction can be responsible for accidents. As marijuana use increases, so will accidents.


      cigarettes that were killing 100s of thousands of people

      Hundreds of thousands? Yeah, right.

      Cigarette smoking has killed millions of Americans, hundreds of thousands each year.

      Cigarette smoking kills more than 480,000 Americans each year, with more than 41,000 of these deaths from exposure to secondhand smoke

      .

      https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/resources/data/cigarette-smoking-in-united-states.html

      We understand that many Con Men imagine that the CDC is part of the “Deep State” that hates capitalism and loves communism.

      • Mangoldielocks says:

        I support its legalization as well. The problem as you have discussed before is that smoking marijuana must be bad for you lungs given the tar that builds up on a bong. Yeah back in the day I partook a time or two but for the most part its what I see today from a relative who lives in Washington State. His bong looks discusting so I have to think that Marijuana is destined to increase health risks and lead to unexpected consequences.

        Isn’t this one of the things the Obama administration and Obamacare tried to discourage. New regulations telling kids what and how to eat in schools to reduce obesity so that their are less health problems which leads to lower health costs? In kind I expect legalizing Marijuana is going to cause these same kind of long term and expensive health risks.

  7. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    You used to work for Pfizer, I think you told us that. As such, do you think Pfizer had a responsibility to confess that lipitor really does nothing for the average individual and that it caused far more side effects than reported, especially at recommended treat levels which were far greater than initially thought necessary? Pfizer had that information but did nothing to make it known until much later in the drugs history.

    • Jethro says:

      If drug corporations suppress evidence of lack of efficacy or more severe or frequent adverse events they absolutely should be held responsible. You have claimed before that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are ineffective, but medical science does not agree with that. And all medicines have adverse effects that always have to be balanced against the benefits.

      As we’ve pointed out, because of USPTO policies, drug corporations are incentivized to ‘cheat’ and ‘lie’. Why? Because the potential profits are so great. There is no free market in the pharmaceutical industry where the drug corporations are protected by very generous patent protections.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8390 access attempts in the last 7 days.