Brett,

I'll have to agree with you on this one. It's a public affairs decision to cash in on the business aspects of global warming. In some respects, I don't blame them. If the Goracle can make money off global warming, why not ExxonMobil. It sort of boils down to this piece out of EcoWorld:

"Top management at oil companies aren't stupid. If 90% of the world's energy production comes from burning something, and if the entire political establishment in the world is hell-bent to curtail burning anything because it's going to destroy the planet, then the price of oil will stay in the stratosphere, and only the established cartels will continue to pump oil, and their profits will reach unprecedented levels."

"When the oil companies tried to inject reason into the global warming debate - back when it was still a debate, oil companies were fighting the good fight - and now they've said fine, hang yourselves, we'll just get richer. The real question is, if you want to demonize oil companies (which we do not want to do, thank you very much), is what took them so long. Global warming hysteria is the best thing that ever happened to big oil."

I am somewhat dissapointed by the comment that the moderator is "swallowing his cynicism". Why be so cynical? Why can't a company, even the evil BIG of big oil, develop opinions and company policies over time based upon studies as they are completed?

Please note that the exxon representative does not even delve into the only important part of this debate, the A in GW. It is the paper that attempts to color the article by pointing out that exxon dared to give money to groups that deny the religion. To the author's credit, it is pointed out that exxon has given an enormous amount of money to the study of climate and charities.

I'm sorry, I did not see it in the post, is Reuters News Service psycho-conservative, ultra-conservative, just conservative, fair and balanced, just liberal, ultra-liberal, or psycho-liberal?

WE need this information so as to be better informed. Doesn't everyone think?

I like Paul's logic. It has actually led me to think that Global Warming is a conspiracy started by big oil to artifically inflate the value of their product by reducing demand. This way they can slow the supplly side by a slightly higher rate then the demand decrease artifically inflating the cost per barrel. It has the additional bonus of slowing withdrawal so now we actually won't run out of oil in our life time. Geez, they are smart.

According to the article, Exxon says that they always believed in the science of climate change. They simply funded these "scientists" and "scientific organizations" to muddle the issue because, as they put it, they were "opposed to the Kyoto Protocol."

LOL.

Hey, at least they're coming clean about it now. If they're opposed to Kyoto, that's fine, but paying scientists to blur the issue in the hopes of artificially creating skepticism -- just because they're opposed to Kyoto -- is quite sketchy.

Wow, Darren, you really are a corporate apologist if there was one. The media is evil and liberal, people who agree with the scientific consensus on AGW are really just communists, the whole thing is just a conspiracy to bring down America, but...corporations like Exxon can "develop opinions and company policies over time based upon studies as they are completed."

Reuters is neutral. You guys deride the media as 'liberal' in so many of your posts here. And it seems that conservative squawk radio spends half of their airtime ranting against the media. Yet, when Brett makes an observation about a particular newspaper being conservative -- an accurate one, I might add -- you guys are whining like school children.

It's too funny.

As usual, more sales than substance. And for contributing $139 million, how is that compared to $35 billion in profits a quarter? And as for doubting the "threat of global warming", that is worded way different than doubting global warming as a threat to the planet. It could very well be a threat to "business as usual". And what will they do now that the auto industry is to increase mileage to 35 mpg by 2025, if the House agrees? And why now is the price of oil up to $69 and gas at the pump $2.85 here? Could it be the US demand is down, and the global demand is up?
To know what is happening in oil one should surely know http://www.peakoil.com/ Last year briefings to both Houses of Congress and the DOD were made in July of 2006. So the big boys see the future, however they like it or not.

Mark:

Reuters is neutral. Sure if you say so.... Don't really think that is your call now is it? Say, since you feel that you can inform us as to the position of the media, can you please let us know what you think of these two? Foxnews and CBS. I believe that Brett opened this can of worms, he should really be the one to continue it. I look forward to this response.

Not really a corporate apologist, I can just look at the issue from a non-involved position meaning that I do not have anything to gain from either saying that a corporation is good or bad. I don't think the media is evil, you are right though, I do think that many are liberal and they slant the news in that direction. Consensus studies, of which you are so fond, have agreed with that assessment.

I don't think AGWers are communist, just incorrect in their concern about the "A" part. The fact that many then outline "fixes" for the problem that are based in policies that are economically designed to negatively impact sound economies seems a bit communistic to me. Especially since China is excluded in the solutions since they are "third" world. By the way, did you happen to see that they are now close, if not already, to surpassing the rest of the world in the CO2 they emit? Will be curious to see how the proposals will be changed to address that.

Dave:

Maybe $139 million is small potatoes compared with their profits but the fact remains that I doubt any other company has put that kind of money toward the issue at hand. Want to know why they are making all that money? Talk to the crowd who won't allow cheaper sources of raw product. Talk to this same crowd that insists upon using old refineries. And finally, talk to the crowd that insists that different parts of the country use different blends of gas. They are the same ones, and seemingly, the same ones who are concerned about the "A" in GW. By the way, these same ones will be responsible for the large increases in profit that farmers and food producers will be seeing. Will you be complaining about the profits of farmers? My guess is that percentage will be higher for big farmers and big food soon as compared to big oil.

"Not really a corporate apologist, I can just look at the issue from a non-involved position meaning that I do not have anything to gain from either saying that a corporation is good or bad."

Uh-huh. I've never seen you say anything critical of a corporation, so this sounds disingenious.

"I don't think AGWers are communist, just incorrect in their concern about the "A" part. The fact that many then outline "fixes" for the problem that are based in policies that are economically designed to negatively impact sound economies seems a bit communistic to me."

The market has been a complete failure on environmental and safety issues -- and it always will be. The government must lead on these issues. I'm sorry, but you market worshippers need to understand where the strengths and weaknesses of the market lies. This is not a strength.

Can you quantify how much regulations have hurt us in the past? History has showed us -- time and again -- that any "hurt" from regulations is transient. After the transitory period, the economy churns along; in many cases, at an even faster rate than before the regulations took place.

This isn't about science for you guys. Your 'skepticism' is based on an anti-government, corporate apologist agenda. This is why there's a difference between deniers and skeptics. Skeptics have no agenda other than to further the science by asking questions. Unfortunately, there are very few skeptics around, especially on this blog.

Mark:

Actually, to be even more sincere, I am not a coporate cheerleader either. Corporations are what they are and beyond that, I don't really get involved so I would probably not write anything negative.

You are right on the money that the market has failed in dealing with environmental and safety issues. Of course, right as in, about 20 years ago. Through efforts of environmetalists and safety advocates, the market is very different now. Back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's safety and the environment did need these advocates. At this point though, and through their hard work, the market would be able to address it because the general public is informed.

You are accurate in saying that I question governmental regulation. Often, it is punitive and subjective. It's real value is to confuse people to the point of giving up. Can I think of a case where regulation has hurt the economy, absolutely. Why do you think we are paying $3.00 for gas. Not all of it is taxes. Much is in different blend regs and lack of refining capability due to restrictions in construction. I have seen first hand how effected the economy is from that and here in Central Ohio, we have a pretty good economy.

Actually, it is all about science to skeptics and probably deniers too. How you interpret the science to be settled is beyond me after reading the IPCC summary that BT linked to. I am not anti government as much as anti too much government in things about which they are more worried about appearence than substance.

At this point though, and through their hard work, the market would be able to address it because the general public is informed.

Darren, I think Mark is getting at a different point -- one that I thought you and I discussed awhile ago, but maybe I'm mis-remembering.

Elementary game theory provides a framework to understand why government intervention is generally needed to make the market work for things like environmental and safety issues. For the sake of analytic simplicity, assume all players are "rational" (I know this is wrong, but please bear with me).

Suppose the question is emissions, and suppose the proposal is for a voluntarily-purchased emission control device. We can construct a table, where the columns are (a) "everybody else buys it" and (b) "nobody else buys it" and the rows are (1) "I buy it" and (2) "I don't buy it."

In the cells of the table, we can construct the returns from each scenario. The maximum gain is from the top left -- emissions are minimized. The worst-case outcome is in the lower right -- nobody buys the device.

Now consider the other two cells. If I don't buy the device, and everybody else does, then the return is only a TINY BIT lower than if I buy the device -- if everybody else buys the device, then my contribution is minimal. On the other hand, if I buy the device and NOBODY else does, then I've just wasted the cost of the device -- my tiny savings won't make a dent in the overall problem. Thus, my rational decision process leads me to decide not to buy the device.

The problem is that it leads everybody else to the same answer -- the system tends to settle in the worst possible outcome. One way or another, an outside agency has to intervene in order to change this outcome. That intervention can be direct, as in mandating the purchase, or indirect, as in changing the cost structure so each player's rational choice is to buy the device. In problems like this, an unrestrained, unregulated free market comes to exactly the worst outcome.

The fundamental problem with the free-market model, as applied to problems like this, is that the immediate cost of the resource in question does not reflect the long-term consequences of the consumption or use of the resource. It doesn't matter whether the resource in question is oil, healthcare, or anything else, the outcome is the same.

BT:

Good points and I see and understand your thought process.

I just think that the government no longer makes rational decisions on many things. Doesn't matter who is in the White House. The government at all levels is run by individual wonks who attribute their decisions to the "good" of society but yet really don't have to prove it. Essentially, they make decisions and place the responsibility on "government" as though "it" is a person.

And no, I don't really have a better answer. I just see a lot of waste in time and money when dealing with any government.

And no, I don't really have a better answer. I just see a lot of waste in time and money when dealing with any government.

Well, isn't this the rub?

If we start with a problem that we all agree is real -- for example, how to allocate limited healthcare resources, or how to control pollution -- and we say "there's too much waste in time and money when dealing with any government", then what do we do?

If we don't deal with the government, and we don't offer an alternative, then don't we end up with unrestrained, unregulated "free market" capitalism? And didn't we just agree that for a specific set of problems, this results in the worst possible outcome for society?

It seems to me that whether we want to or not, we are unavoidably faced with a class of problems that demand some form of outside intervention/regulation. It seems to me that the question then becomes a contrast-and-compare between the "waste in time and money" of all of the proposed alternatives along with some proposed method for measuring how successfully the chosen effort is solving the problem at hand.

As far as I know, as imperfect as it may be, the current approach practiced by the United States (and it's democratically-elected international counterparts) is the best answer we've come up with so far.

I suggest that we no longer have the luxury of just throwing up our hands, saying "Government sucks", and walking away.

Yes, BT's point and my point are similar.

BTW, Darren, if you look at history, most of our big technological and medical breakthroughs either came through public funding or public-private partnerships. The market is good at taking those technological breakthroughs, applying it to a larger scale and making incremental improvements on it. That's how our system works -- and it's worked quite well. Since you claimed, in another thread, that federal R&D is a waste of money, what system do you propose? Only corporate R&D? If that's what you want, technology would move much slower.

BT/Mark:

Yep, it is the rub alright.

It's too bad we can't throw our hands up. Would be nice.

I kinda wish we could toss everyone who is currently in the government out and start over with a fresh bunch of people who aren't entrenched. I think it is the entrenchment that leads to many of the waste issues I consistently harp about. Sadly, in my job, I often see the waste first hand.

I really don't think that federal R & D is a waste unless it is overlapping fields in which private companies can make money. I think the system is fine as long as most of the money goes to the issue. I think that too much of the money ends up eaten by the process. In other words, the government has too much overhead. I know, I know, if there were less overhead, corruption may be more prevalent, but if you look at it now, corruption is a major issue even with the overhead.

Maybe if we shut the government down and reboot, things would be better.

Mark,
From a purely economic position, regulations have cost -plenty. Since 1985 nearly $4 trillion dollars of manufacturing has been sent overseas to less "regulated" nations. For 17 years, we have progressively sent more and more manufacturing and fabrication overseas. Regulations have kept refined oil at an artificially high price due to restrictions on refinery construction. Since 2003 when Sarbanes Oxley was passed, about $2 trillion dollars of financial services work had been lost to places like London and Hong Kong.

Yes, we've been able to absorb these "costs" due to an global economy that continues to grow. Unless you are or have been employed in manufacturing or IPOs, the effects are small. However, most of the regulations have resulted in the shift of pollution from the 1st World to the 3rd World - the net effect globally is nil.

We have yet suffered through a major recession since 1982. Regulations have thier biggest impact on contracting economies -see the economic policies of Hoover and Rosevelt on this, or more recently, Japan (recession from 1993-2005).

"Since 1985 nearly $4 trillion dollars of manufacturing has been sent overseas to less "regulated" nations. For 17 years, we have progressively sent more and more manufacturing and fabrication overseas."

Don't most free-market idealists support outsourcing? That's simply the result of globalization. People that argue against outsourcing or sending jobs overseas are viewed as protectionists.

Besides, we've become an information economy. I think that has done more to lead to the demise of the manufacturing sector than any regulations have. The economy has evolved and will continue to do so; unfortunately, for some businesses such as manufacturing, it means they will be less important than they used to be.

"Regulations have thier biggest impact on contracting economies -see the economic policies of Hoover and Rosevelt on this, or more recently, Japan (recession from 1993-2005)."

Wait, didn't Roosevelt's 'socialist' policies help lift this country out of the Great Depression?