Cont: Global warming discussion V

[dann]

The Sick Times on bsky, Sep 17, 2026
This week at The Sick Times, Selina Nwulu argues that corporate interests have had more say in our behaviors toward both COVID-19 and the climate crisis than any evidence-based public health response.
thesicktimes.org/2026/09/15/d...

Denial is a tactic for both the COVID-19 and climate crises (The Sick Times, Sep 15, 2026)
Corporate interests have had more say in our behaviors toward both COVID-19 and the climate crisis than any evidence-based public health response.
Fossil fuel companies have long led climate change minimization and denial, stalling our collective ability to respond. Some of these companies even ran coordinated misinformation campaigns to obscure the real impacts of the climate crisis, despite knowing since the 1970s the deathly consequences of fossil fuel expansion. During the Biden administration, ExxonMobil lobbied to weaken key climate initiatives so that they could continue their business operations, despite public statements in favor of tackling climate change.

The second of the two embedded links is to this article:
Inside Exxon’s playbook: How America’s biggest oil company continues to oppose action on climate change (Unearthed, June 30, 2021)

It has paragraph about how ExxonMobil targets senators, not only Republicans but also Democrats:

“On the Democrat side we look for the moderates on these issues”, McCoy continued, highlighting figures including Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema; John Tester, senator for Montana; and Chris Coons, senator for Delaware, President Biden’s home state.
“Senator Coons… has a very close relationship with Senator [President] Biden, so we’ve been working with his office – as a matter of fact our CEO is talking to him next Tuesday and having those conversations and just teeing it up, and then that way I can start working with his staff to let them know where we are on some of these issues,” McCoy said.
He added that he targets senators like Mark Kelly, Democrat senator from Arizona, New Hampshire Democrat senator Maggie Hassan, and Florida Republican senator Marco Rubio, who are up for reelection in 2022.

Since the article is from 2021, it says nothing about how ExxonMobil targets James Talarico, but since nobody is more 'moderate on these issues' than him, he is a very obvious target.

 

[dann]

I haven't quite finished with Stout's post from Tuesday, Sep 15:

Meanwhile in Canada, our educations of higher learning are teaching that, yes individual action does matter. CBC

Good to see that the universities are finally catching up to me and willing to toss the whole idea of individual actions don't matter, all you need to do is complain, to the bottom of the priorities pile where it belongs.

I googled this question – mainly because I already knew that it's what the fossil-fuel industry does; It's not just Stout and Myriad!
"Why does the fossil-fuel industry encourage individuals to save energy?"
This was Google's short answer:
"The fossil-fuel industry encourages individuals to save energy primarily to shift blame for climate change from corporate polluters onto ordinary consumers. [1]"

It surprised me how blunt the answer is. There's really no beating around the bush here.
Like me, you may also have noticed a peculiar consistency in Stout's arguments (Myriad is not as consistent):
1) On the one had, he insists the it's up to individual consumers to limit the use of fossil fuels.
2) On the other hand, he gleefully reports that those individual consumers don't actually do that – not because they can't but because they just love fossil fuel too much!
And now you know why: Stout is simply following Big Oil's playbook!

Google continues:

Shifting Responsibility

• • The Carbon Footprint Concept: Energy giants like BP popularized the idea of the individual "carbon footprint" and launched personal carbon calculators in the early 2000s. [1, 2]
  • Deflecting Accountability: By framing global warming as the result of personal lifestyle choices, companies distract the public from systemic production emissions and lobby efforts. [1, 2]
  • Delaying Regulation: Focusing on individual behavior change helps stall government policy, carbon taxes, and mandatory caps on fossil fuel extraction. [1, 2]

Managing Demand

• • Smoothing Consumption: Promoting energy efficiency helps utilities manage "peak demand," reducing the risk of grid overloads and expensive infrastructure upgrades. [1]
  • Maintaining Reliance: Encouraging small conservation steps lets consumers feel virtuous while keeping overall structural dependence on oil and gas intact. [1]

Google links to these articles, among others:
How oil companies put the responsibility for climate change on consumers (The Conversation, Oct 11, 2023)
Big oil coined 'carbon footprints' to blame us for their greed. (The Guardian, Aug 23, 2021)
This is Google's summary of the BP campaign:

How the Campaign Worked

• • The Launch: BP spent millions on a rebrand known as "Beyond Petroleum".
  • The Tool: In 2004, they released the first online personal carbon calculator.
  • The Goal: The campaign encouraged people to track and reduce their daily energy use. This distracted the public from the heavy pollution caused by fossil fuel production. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The second of the two embedded links is to this article:
Inside Exxon’s playbook: How America’s biggest oil company continues to oppose action on climate change (Unearthed, June 30, 2021)

our CEO is talking to him next Tuesday and having those conversations and just teeing it up, and then that way I can start working with his staff to let them know where we are on some of these issues,” McCoy said.

I don't see anything wrong with that. The government should be taking note of where major businesses are on issues. The government should also be informing them about where the future is going and how it can help them adapt to it. America consumes ~20 million barrels of oil per day. The EIA estimates a reduction of 15-25% by 2050, which means oil companies will still have a large presence for many decades to come.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Google links to these articles, among others:
How oil companies put the responsibility for climate change on consumers (The Conversation, Oct 11, 2023)
Big oil coined 'carbon footprints' to blame us for their greed. (The Guardian, Aug 23, 2021)
This is Google's summary of the BP campaign:

Carbon Footprint

The term carbon footprint was first used in a BBC vegetarian food magazine in 1999, though the broader concept of ecological footprint, which encompasses the carbon footprint, had been used since at least 1992, as also chronicled by journalist William Safire in the New York Times.

6 years later BP used it to 'blame us for their greed'. Perhaps this is true, but if so it's ironical because if it had been successful BP would have lost a ton of revenue.

In practice of course they didn't have to worry. Only a few greenies would bother to even calculate their 'carbon footprint', let alone do anything significant to reduce it. The actual effect was that the vast majority either ignored it or realized there wasn't much they could do about it - which is exactly the message you are pushing. Whether by accident or design, BP's advertising campaign correctly informed the public of how much an individual in 2005 could affect GHG emissions by 'being the change'.

If the purpose really was to 'blame us for their greed' it failed miserably. However I don't think that was the intention, I think it was just 'green washing'. But was BP just green washing? In 1999 BP Solar was the largest manufacturer of solar panels in the world. I think they saw the future and were readying themselves to transition away from oil when the time came. Note that North Sea oil production peaked in 1999 and the field is now 90% depleted. BP put their North Sea business up for sale in July 2026.

BP has said it is putting its North Sea business up for sale in a move that would end 60 years of production in the region by the oil giant. The decision follows a review of BP's operations as it seeks to slim down the group.

Why is BP 'slimming down'? I think they see the writing on the wall. In 2005 consumers didn't have much opportunity to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Today they do, and with high fuel prices due to the wars in Ukraine and Iran they have more incentive to do so.