Big oil asks government to protect it from climate change

oil ... the only product taxed harder than alcohol and tabbaco yet is as close to nessesary as something can be without being food water or shelter

also taxed bye the gal so even if the price droped the govt gets there same cut

weather they should or shouldent pay they will thats there golden goose n u dont shoot the goldent goose

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So your saying that since their margin isn't the highest, they should get more breaks despite high profit amounts?

Oil is doing well.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So your saying that since their margin isn't the highest, they should get more breaks despite high profit amounts?

Oil is doing well.

Nope, never mentioned the tax breaks. TBH, I'm not entirely in favor of those tax breaks. I'm talking about the OP. The facilities are very much a resource the overall nation depends on and, as such, need to be on the list of assets which receive civic infrastructure considerations like seawalls. Airports, hospitals, sports arenas, shopping malls... all "for profit" facilities, all recipients of seawalls, storm barrier protection, and other new infrastructure improvements. It's why corporations pay taxes to begin with.

As far as their margin goes, I'm pointing out the fact that a 6.5% margin isn't indicative of a company that's fleecing anyone. They make their "record profits" based solely off of the fact that record sales of oil increase every year. More rats require more cheese. The federal government has collected a record revenue from income tax this year... www.cnsnews.com... has that stopped anyone from whining about the tax cuts?

only on ATS: big oil is defended.

mad times indeed

originally posted by: odzeandennz
only on ATS: big oil is defended.

mad times indeed

Oh my God, someone has an opinion which differs from someone else's... what crazy times we live in for this to happen!!!


Seriously man, does freedom of thought not have value to you?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Kharron

I'm sorry, but humans need to stop trying to contain nature and actually adapt to its inevitable change, especially along coastlines (this is where our current societies of stagnant coastal cities is a liability...and that should have been known long ago).

As for AP titling and spinning it the way that they have, that's journalistic malpractice, and only accepted by those easily persuaded to accept such things.

What a funny story to use as a soapbox for your rant on the current administration, though. No promises fall apart because of this one spun story--that's an odd claim to make.

Is the climate changing? yes.

Did AP say man-made climate change? No.

This is not about who is causing the climate change, although it is hypocritical for the oil industry to ask for help. This is about the rich industry asking for taxpayer help when they have trillions of dollars available to protect their own assets.

I understand that the only way for some people to discuss these topics is to derail them into something else -- but I'll ask you to get back on topic.

Do you support taxpayers paying for these private projects?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kharron

The nation runs on oil, therefore the facilities related to it are in the public's best interests to keep operational. Unless and until real viable alternatives are found (and no, covering the nation from tip to tail with wind turbines that put out a small fraction of the power as coal fire, natural gas fire, and oil fire generators do is not a viable alternative), we run on oil.

The nation also runs on water and food and electricity and so on. Do taxpayers need to buy fencing and roofing and pay for security for all these other vital parts of our country, or is private business a private business and supposed to take care of itself?

Enough of corporate mooching and welfare. I would think conservatives would agree with that, not jump ship to support the corporations.

Tax payers had every right to be angry over the 500 million lost on Solyndra, but when 12 billion is to be wasted on oil many of those same people come out to defend it.

a reply to: Kharron

I understand that the only way for some people to discuss these topics is to derail them into something else -- but I'll ask you to get back on topic.

You, like the author of the article, clearly implied the hypocrisy of "Big Oil", and conflated "future hurricanes and other natural disasters" with climate change.

This stuff just cannot be made up. After denying any climate change for decades and even persuading the people that could be persuaded that it didn't exist, the Big Oil is now asking for federal protection and for the taxpayer money to be used for the building of a wall in the Gulf, protecting the oil industry locations from future hurricanes and other natural disasters.

Whether these particular companies have denied "climate change for decades" and "persuaded that it didn't exist" is unknown, or at least unverified, by you or the author. Why?

a reply to: Kharron

Ugh... This was around LONG before millions of people jumped on the global warming bandwagon. Coastlines erode. It's what they do. You don't have to be a genius to know this.


errrr.... I guess you have to be a genius to stop blaming random crap on global warming when this stuff has been around for ages.


Just call me professor Stallion, please.

Wait no... Most professors are liberal commies these days. Never mind. Duck is fine.

a reply to: Lumenari

Because to the Cult of Gore, seasons are indisputable proof of "Climate Change." The source has just spun what was a story about protecting infrastructure from hurricanes into more "proof" that the world is going to end unless cows stop farting and we stop breathing.

So we have not needed to pay for these in the past, so you agree we should not have to pay for them now? right?

a reply to: JHumm

Maybe because south of all of those refineries are more cities and towns, more people, and more industry?

Most of these places the OP is referring to are hours away from the coast.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
a reply to: Kharron

I understand that the only way for some people to discuss these topics is to derail them into something else -- but I'll ask you to get back on topic.

You, like the author of the article, clearly implied the hypocrisy of "Big Oil", and conflated "future hurricanes and other natural disasters" with climate change.

This stuff just cannot be made up. After denying any climate change for decades and even persuading the people that could be persuaded that it didn't exist, the Big Oil is now asking for federal protection and for the taxpayer money to be used for the building of a wall in the Gulf, protecting the oil industry locations from future hurricanes and other natural disasters.

And yet, did I or the article ever say man made climate change? There are two types of deniers; those who deny that climate change is man made and those who deny that climate change is happening at all.

Which one are you so I know how to reply to you?

Are you claiming the weather changes are not climate change or are you denying that weather patterns are changing at all, that everything is the same as it's been?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Seriously man, does freedom of thought not have value to you?

Funny you say that, pretty sure on many posts you call people derogatory names that do not think exactly the same way you do. I could be wrong, but pretty sure I have seen it.

a reply to: Kharron

And yet, did I or the article ever say man made climate change? There are two types of deniers; those who deny that climate change is man made and those who deny that climate change is happening at all.

Which one are you so I know how to reply to you?

Are you claiming the weather changes are not climate change or are you denying that weather patterns are not changing at all, that everything is the same as it's been?

You made the accusation. I am merely saying it is without merit, presented without evidence, and therefor false.

Which one of these companies in particular denied climate change?

How did they deny climate change, and what makes you believe that any of these companies were "persuading the people that could be persuaded that it didn't exist"?

Or, are you making false allegations?

I think you're right about the appeal to governments for money. Surely they have enough money for the protection of their own facilities. But according to your article, "this one would protect homes, delicate ecosystems and vital infrastructure". Is that a problem?

Interesting.

Another option would be to move all the industry in Texas to another location. I wonder how much damage that might do to the country?

Look at New Orleans. Built below sea level in one of the dumbest moves in US history and yet nobody is saying that they should pay for it all themselves without any federal money. The Mississippi and the marine traffic is important to the country.

That industry in Texas benefits the whole country. Protecting it at a federal level makes absolute sense if you leave the nonsense out of the conversation. It's lunacy to think that if a hurricane wiped out that industry it's not a national problem. The damage to the US economy would be massive and far worse than what it costs to protect against it. Hopefully rational minds will prevail. The prices at the pumps could double overnight which would drive the prices of all goods up at the same time. The impact would be nationwide.

Of course radicals think you could just end oil today, which is patently absurd.

That oil is in fact a low profit business is just a fact. That whole bit of nonsense about the evil oil companies is not reality. Sadly activists seldom deal in reality.

a reply to: Kharron

Electricity, water, and food are already heavily tax payer subsidized industries in the USA. Infrastructure to produce, house, and deliver them all are funded routinely out of tax payer budgets. Where is a thread in which you're singling them out as you are with an industry with a much lower profit margin?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Interesting.

Another option would be to move all the industry in Texas to another location. I wonder how much damage that might do to the country?

Look at New Orleans. Built below sea level in one of the dumbest moves in US history and yet nobody is saying that they should pay for it all themselves without any federal money. The Mississippi and the marine traffic is important to the country.

That industry in Texas benefits the whole country. Protecting it at a federal level makes absolute sense if you leave the nonsense out of the conversation. It's lunacy to think that if a hurricane wiped out that industry it's not a national problem. The damage to the US economy would be massive and far worse than what it costs to protect against it. Hopefully rational minds will prevail. The prices at the pumps could double overnight which would drive the prices of all goods up at the same time. The impact would be nationwide.

Of course radicals think you could just end oil today, which is patently absurd.

That oil is in fact a low profit business is just a fact. That whole bit of nonsense about the evil oil companies is not reality. Sadly activists seldom deal in reality.

Interesting.

Yet another option would be for the trillion dollar industry to take care of itself, without corporate welfare. I understand that when we talk about banking and big oil, people will always find reasons to make it sound vital and therefore the welfare is justified.

But do they not have enough money to take care of themselves? Are we all going to get free gas vouchers for building their walls?

No, this is taxpayer money simply gone to welfare, while we cut social nets like there is no tomorrow.

Priorities. Corporate welfare isn't one.

originally posted by: Kharron
Are we all going to get free gas vouchers for building their walls?
.

No, but we do manage to avoid shelling out $7 a gallon like most European countries do.

a reply to: Kharron

Like other oceanfront projects, this one would protect homes, delicate ecosystems and vital infrastructure,

It's not just to protect them.

You actually believe the oil companies pocket the profits? You believe that infrastructure is not the responsibility of government?

How do you think the oil companies pay for developing new sources with gas prices so low? They don't and development stops until prices go up enough. The savings from this would far outweigh the cost.

One of governments main responsibilities is to provide infrastructure and protection to not just the people, but also industry. They are heavily taxed and if not for that, why? What you are saying is that the government building and maintaining infrastructure you rely on is welfare. I thinks its why we pay taxes.

You need to view this without activist filtered lenses to understand it IMO. Beyond that we will have to agree to disagree, which is fine. We both have opinions.