Home | About | Donate

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

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.

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

Divest Baby Divest!

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

4 Likes

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.

4 Likes

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.

2 Likes

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

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.

1 Like

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

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?

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.

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.

1 Like

Oh, so you’re a “flat-earther.” Why would anyone take anything you say seriously, after making that admission?

Do you use GPS at all in your daily life? If so, then by relying on that technology that uses satellites orbiting this oblate spheroid (more precisely a geoid) should give you great pause, since the flat-earth bullshit could never sustain orbiting satellites.

By the way, not that you care, William of Occam was a cleric in old England that during a theological argument said something to the effect that: “postulates should not be unnecessarily compounded.” We know this today as Occam’s razor, and the modern re-statement is, “the simplest explanation is most often the best.” Sorry, but your flat-earth nonsense doesn’t fit this criteria.

So, as you navigate to your next flat-earth convention, do not use your GPS enabled devices because it is based on a physical reality which you obviously completely reject.

Have a nice day. Hey, how do you flat-earthers even reconcile night and day? You know, when I look up at the moon, even if I were a sheep herder looking up at the night sky I would notice that the light that shines on the moon creates light and dark that exactly resembles light from a directed source falling on an apple or a peach, or the obviously empty heads of morons like you.

He said he was NOT a flat-earther. He was calling the overwhelming scientific consensus on dangerous global warming to be “flat earth”.

Don’t feed the troll.

Sorry; can’t believe I missed that. I’ve been on this forum long enough to know to completely understand another’s comment before responding, but this time I flew of the handle. As for feeding the troll, no offense, but you should take your own advice. No matter the outrageous provocation I usually resist the temptation to respond, but this time I blew it. The most recent issue of Scientific American just arrived, and it contained a very blunt review of the actual occurrences of the effects of global warming, climate change, that are not based on models, but on observation. The article stressed that if anything, the models that have been most heavily relied on underestimate the rate of the change that is actually observed to be occurring. Old news to most readers here, but I guess SA felt it necessary to keep plugging away. They no longer talk about preventing it, but about preparing for it, if that is even possible.

Always when articles appear here that talk about climate change and fossil fuels those on this or any other forum have to try to discriminate for themselves between the quacks and those that simply wish to continue the status quo. We grew up in coal country and have witnessed firsthand man’s ability to drastically transform our environment. You were correct above about the effect of DJT on America’s collective discourse. I see it as the delirium of the terminal patient.

Been sitting here for the last ten minutes trying to figure out how to say yet what’s on my mind and the only thing that I can come up with is this: One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them. Greed - the confluence of business, government, and media.

1 Like

Solar power is frowned upon heavily by oil and electric concerns. The Earth is their power provider stronghold. Big oil can jack the price of a gallon of gas whenever they see fit, currently $2.59 a gallon when it should be under a dollar per gallon. Ready to jack the price to the moon. Easy pickings.