Description:
Rep. Jamie Raskin shuts down Republican Ron Johnson and delivers a brilliant breakdown on how fossil fuel companies have intentionally deceived the public about their “commitment” to achieve zero net emissions. Raskin rips apart Johnson for being a climate fatalist and so much more in epic fashion.
Some of the world’s largest oil companies have privately expressed skepticism of the Paris agreement, federal climate regulations and their own goals of reaching “net zero” emissions by mid-century, even as they publicly voiced support for these efforts, according to documents that congressional Democrats released Tuesday.
The documents also detail industry efforts to fund university research into the environmental benefits of natural gas. They were obtained by Democrats on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee and the Senate Budget Committee as part of a years-long investigation.
Democrats say the findings demonstrate that the oil industry has misled the public about its role in causing and addressing climate change, an allegation the industry rejects. The new documents come as oil companies already face a wave of lawsuits that seek to hold them responsible for extreme weather events fueled by global warming.
One 2018 exchange shows an ExxonMobil executive downplaying the impact of the Paris agreement on the company’s plans for continued fossil fuel production.
The oil giant in 2015 voiced support for the landmark agreement, which calls for limiting global warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and ideally to 1.5C (2.7F). But Pete Trelenberg, Exxon’s manager of environmental policy and planning, wrote that these targets should not influence internal decision-making on exploration and production of oil and gas.
“I don’t think hypothetical 1.5 deg C scenarios (vs hypothetical 2 deg C scenarios) should really change our thinking vis a vis upstream strategies,” Trelenberg wrote. “We don’t yet see the world even approaching a 2 deg C pathway … let alone a 1.5 deg C pathway.”
Raskin’s prepared speech was indeed good (I especially liked the phrase “deceptive, false, and soothing”), but his direct response to Johnson to was super lame sauce. It reminds me of the Bush-Kerry debates in 2004. Kerry spent so much effort being civil with Bush, when he should have just devastated him. Johnson here doesn’t deserve civility – he deserves open mocking.
More than mocking ~ he’s a clear and present danger to all of our grandchildren
Agreed it was a brilliant speech by Jamin, in reply to the plant food/alarmist meme from Johnson. The only very sad note is was delivered near the end of the first quarter of the twenty first century, instead of the later years of the twentieth century, when serious action should have been taken. Still I suppose better late than never. I wonder what the senate speeches will be like in anther twenty five years.
Raskin give a good description of Big Oil’s climate deception, but he did not “rip apart Johnson for being a climate fatalist and so much more in epic fashion.” Johnson gave numerous pseudo scientific denialist arguments readily available in denialist blogs. Any climate scientist could have torn them apart, one by one.
In just one of many examples, Johnson said that CO2 lags warming so CO2 cannot cause warming. This is false per the 2013 paper by Shakun, et. al. , among other evidence described here.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages/
The “CO2 always lags” myth pertains to ice cores in Antarctica. When the global average temperature is considered, CO2 leads the temperature rise. The increase in CO2 caused by the temperature rise is a positive feedback. Regardless, there is no question that human-caused increases in CO2 cause increases in global warming.
Another counter argument is that we are on the cooling side of the Milankovitch cycle, yet we are warming.
Ron Johnson is a Gish Galloper of climate denial. Unfortunately, Jamie Raskin does not have the scientific background to counter it. He should have invited a scientist to accompany him.