Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

@1wdh+1as7VmJq
There are a planet full of plants that take issue with your definition of CO2 being “waste”. Fun fact during the Pleistocene (the glacial time period we are still coming out of) CO2 concentration got down to 180 ppm. Plant life ceases to exist at 150 ppm. We were 30 ppm away from the death of the planet. Highest CO2 concentration was during the Cambrian at 4000 ppm. This was the time period when life took off on the planet. If you actually work at Exxon, go find a geologist and get a history lesson that is longer than the noise climate “scientists” study.

Why would the public be required to pay for the proper disposal of waste by a private company?
Why isn’t it a requirement for their license to operate?
Why would exxon –after all the shameful denial– would expect to make waste management a profit center, and not something they have to do to keep in business??

@1ttg+1as7VmJq

Do you think ev subsidies are not going away? Do you think EVs will ever reach price parity with an ICE vehicle?

If both are yes. Who cares? The reality is that ICE infastructure will be reduced and that will impact O&G bottom line.

@1hzo – actually, the O&G “subsidies” are really tax breaks .... most valuable AFTER the companies have already made a huge profit. The Tesla (and other EV) subsidies are used to reduce the sale price of the cars to well below the cost of manufacture. Without the subsidies, only the Hollywood elite would be able to afford Teslas.

INFRASTRUCTURE!!!!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cleantechnica.com/2020/08/03/tesla-subsidies-how-much/amp/

The idea of a subsidy isn’t really a bad thing — its the government’s way of investing in a company. That’s how I see it, and honestly, it’s supposed to be a good thing, not a bad thing.

The idea of an entity putting money into a company, whether it’s via stocks (for example, an index fund buying massive shares in a company) or a state or local government giving tax breaks for a certain amount of time in return for a company keeping a promise (for example, moving there and creating jobs). So, keep that in mind when comparing Tesla and the other automakers below.

@owb+1as7VmJq

Did you fail economics 101? Supply vs demand. Lol. Increase costs means reduced usage. O&G will definetly be impacted by higher prices. It will also mean a faster transition to alternatives.

This mindset that O&G is the only way to solve transportation problems is going to catch many people by surprise in the coming decade. Especially those in the developed world.

Also, is anyone expecting EV/renewable subsidies to go away? If no, then the reality is O&G econos today vs subsidized renewables are competing for energy market share. Crying and complaining that they wouldn't stand on their own without the subsidies is just non–sense.

@owb that must be why API and EM fight so hard to keep their subsidies...to keep prices from rising? next time try thinking a little.

@lhx+1as7VmJq
Go ahead and take away the “subsidies” from the oil companies. Won’t do anything to oil companies, it will just drive up cost of end users. Go for it.

Now take Tesla’s subsidies away and they die the next day. It is 100% of their profit.

Get it?

As a US taxpayer, I would feel much more generous if EM didn't have the express corporate strategy of offshoring as many jobs a possible. If I'm going to fund a carbon capture operation, I'd rather fund domestic one.

@qyx+1as7VmJq

Nothing wrong with government funded energy projects. Most of population in developed world agrees to see their tax money supporting a shift off O&G. Especially given all the health benefits from making a switch.

Fwiw, O&G also gets support from the government through accelerated tax schedules, poor assistance programs, public transportation networks, etc. So let's get rid of that scam before commenting that other government programs are a scam.

Ummm, anything alternative energy or climate change related requires government money. That’s the scam.