I think it's a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown.
As long as I am chairman, [regulating global warming pollution] is off the table indefinitely. I don't want there to be any uncertainty about that.
Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up?
I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where anytime a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure, that is again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.
I am just thinking how unfair it is of you to quote their own words. It is a low blow to use what ExxonMobil has actually said against them. I mean, that is kind of a cheap shot, don't you think?
I cannot imagine any objective finding that CO2 is a pollutant. If that's true, God is a polluter.
Global warming science is uneven and evolving.
Medicaid is a study in contradiction. Thanks to it, America's neediest get health care paid for by taxpayers. Often they get better health care than taxpayers can afford for themselves. The program is both 'free' and break-the-bank expensive. It lets poor people look rich and rich people look poor, and it rewards lawyers and druggists with real wealth. Medicaid works so well it's going broke.
I appreciate that in China, people are hungry to prosper in the global economy. What they need is a body of elected representatives who will widely debate and freely pass a strong national energy policy. Selling China an oil company will only take pressure off its rulers and further delay the arrival of democracy.
