Home | About | Donate

Going Backward in Trump Era, Big Bank Investment in World's Dirtiest Energy Projects Surged in 2017


#1

Going Backward in Trump Era, Big Bank Investment in World's Dirtiest Energy Projects Surged in 2017

Julia Conley, staff writer

Going backward in the era of Trump—and despite international efforts to curb the climate crisis by reducing carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels—a new study out Wednesday details how major banks invested heavily in the world's dirtiest energy sectors in 2017, pouring $115 billion into tar sands, offshore oil drilling, and coal mining projects.


#2

No surprise when you consider that the coal miner has been Trump’s poster child since he ran in the 2016 primary.


#3

Divest Baby Divest!


#4

Good news, and at least a start. Lets hope the rest of the world’s government’s follows Norway’s lead!


#5

Donald Trump’s stock in oil pipeline company raises concern
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/25/donald-trumps-stock-in-oil

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., senior Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, called Trump’s investment in the pipeline company “disturbing” and said it fits a pattern evident in Trump’s transition team. “You have climate (change) deniers, industry lobbyists and energy conglomerates involved in that process,” Grijalva said.

Trump is invested in the world’s dirtiest energy and that has meant and will mean that he will be deregulating them and giving them special treatment because this represents profits for Trump as a stock holder. In short, this is a blatant conflict of interest. Trump will be pro Big Oil because it means he will profit.


#6

Thank heavens. It’s past time to ditch the anti science AGW crap and get moving on projects for cheap, plentiful, reliable generation.

Yes, I deny AGW…because denial of a non fact not only carries no moral penalty whatsoever, it’s quite the opposite. Denying flawed ‘science’ is not only moral, it’s vital. I’m also a flat earth denier, a central planning denier, and a denier of many, many other fundamentally flawed and false arguments. Call me a denier…I thrive on denying what is not true.

Yeah, you’re a polarizer Naomi. That’s OK though, without disagreement there is no progress.


#7

Yet another piece of mass distraction. The plutocrats and oligarchs who own Exxon, Mobile, etc. also own the Duopoly that is known as the U.S. Government, Congress and Supreme Court. These wholly-owned subsidiaries have been under near-total control of their plutocratic and oligarchical bosses at least since the Reagan Era, and really well before.

To attribute this to the Tweeting Idiot of Orange is beyond ridiculous. He is in his job exactly because he acts to draw attention away from the real power relationships in a capitalist empire.

People like Klein and Grijalva should know better. This kind of ‘journalism’ does not help people to grow up as we are truly running out of time.


#8

Trump has pretty much succeeded in taking AGW completely out of the conversation in the USA - even on the left. And with it, the admittedly inadequate technological mitigative measures - like home solar and electric cars, after a few fits and starts, are pretty much gone from my region. It must be quite a shock for a USAn to travel to countries where they are taking AGW seriously and see all the futuristic progress while the US resolutely clings to 19th century transportation and electric power technology.


#9

Corruption and propaganda are destroying our sense of community. Hope is priceless. Don’t give up.


#10

There is big money in clean energy these days. There is no reason for Wall Street to invest in dirty energy projects unless you or your company is a psychopath bent on the destruction of this planet. They are traitors to the earth and should be treated as such.


#11

I heard a great quote about hope last night. It went:

“Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are, and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are.”

― Augustine of Hippo

A tremendously powerful and insightful quote. But when it comes to the masses, we seem to be lacking both.


#12

Here is an interesting look at when Shell admitted that the production of oil and natural gas was leading to global climate change:

Big Oil has, for decades, known the repercussions of its business model.


#13

Internal oil company documents, some thirty years old, admit AGW (I prefer the term Anthropogenic Climate Disruption) is real, and the US Navy seems to think the resulting sea level rise needs to be addressed.

Do some research into thermohaline convector mechanics and get back to us—that is, if you’re not frightened into catatonia by the implications.


#14

already did my homework. not frightened. That process is consistent with the null hypothesis of natural causes.

As far as I’ve found in very extensive reading, the sole unique argument for AGW is …model based. There is not a single empirical argument for AGW which isn’t consistent with the null hypothesis.


#15

We’re some three centuries into an uncontrolled experiment with potentially catastrophic consequences, so studying models would seem not only prudent, but inescapable.


#16

No empirical evidence of warming huh? This graph, except the orange continuation, is entirely empirical determinations - the red spike being modern temperature readings. Does the spile at the far right look “natural” to you?


#17

Sure, I don’t have a problem with studying models. I have a big problem with making decisions based on ones which are not open for analysis by the public, using data which is ‘homogenized’ to make modeling simpler, and in which it is presumed error will even itself out by using enough models even when they all share similar flaws, etc.

Models are interesting tools. Putting too much trust into their outputs when the methodology is so secretive and untestable, not a good idea


#18

I didn’t say no empirical evidence of warming. I said no empirical evidence of human causation.

Besides, that graph uses ‘homogenized’ data, not actual empirical measurements. That data is intended as a modeling input, and represents mostly temperatures never actually measured or present at the time and place indicated. Real actual temperatures literally measured as is by a thermometer at a site at that time… influence atmosphere and environment, adjusted ones only influence models.


#19

The data represents global averages of proxy or real measurements on many points on the globe.

And actually, it is well established in several peer-reviewed studies, that, most likely (everything in modern science is probabilistic) 110 percent of the observed warming is attributable to human CO2 emissions. The extra 10% is due to, as is established by both physics (Milankovitch Cycle) AND empirical observation, absent human CO2 emissions, global temperatures should be not only not be dramatically warming, but should be cooling gradually.

But really, Am I, much less thousands of the world’ best scientific minds going to affect your brutish ideology-addled mind? Nope! Every point you make has been refuted thousands and thousands of times! So I’m finished, and I implore other commenters here to stop feeding this fucking troll.


#20

Here’s the actual graphs…

That explosive spike at the end looks pretty unnatural - or in rare cases where such a climatic spike may have been was natural, it was associated with a catastrophic global mass extinction such as the P-Tr event 251 MY ago.