SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Climate campaigners say oil companies involved are only trying to distract from the role they've played in creating the global climate crisis. (Photo: Thomas Hawk/flickr/cc)
Climate Groups: Don't Be Fooled, Industry-Backed Carbon Tax Just Latest Scam
"Buried in pages of supposedly 'free market' solutions is new regulation exempting polluters from facing legal consequences for their role in fueling climate change."
Jun 20, 2017
Actually, no, major fossil fuel companies and "left-wing enviros" have not found common cause in an industry-backed carbon tax proposal.
Though that was the misleading headline from the right-wing Daily Caller on Tuesday after it was reported that a plan by the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) to create a tax on carbon emissions would receive endorsement from ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, and other large corporations--climate justice campaigners were quick on Tuesday to distance themselves from the proposal which they characterize as a scam and a distraction.
"Exxon is signing onto this carbon tax proposal because they know it's dead-on-arrival, but hope it will distract from the ongoing investigations into whether the company lied to the public and its investors about climate change."
--Jamie Henn, 350.orgPut forward earlier this year by former secretary of state James Baker and other Republicans, the CLC plan is based on a market-driven scheme that would scrap many emission-reducing regulations while instituting a fuel tax that would be passed on to consumers. As the New York Times notes, the "proposal also says companies that emit greenhouse gases should be protected from lawsuits over their contribution to climate change."
According to Naomi Ages, senior climate campaigner for Greenpeace USA, the plan is nothing but corporate opportunism masquerading as a solution to the crisis of human-caused global warming.
" ExxonMobil will try to dress this up as climate activism, but its key agenda is protecting executives from legal accountability for climate pollution and fraud," warned Ages. "Buried in pages of supposedly 'free market' solutions is a new regulation exempting polluters from facing legal consequences for their role in fueling climate change."
Along with Ages, Jamie Henn, communication director and co-founder of 350.org, said the oil companies involved are only trying to distract from the role they've played in creating the global climate crisis. Both ExxonMobil and Shell are under investigation for allegedly deceiving both the public and their investors for decades regarding what they knew about the role carbon emissions played in heating the planet.
"It's important to separate the game from the truth," said Henn. "Exxon is signing onto this carbon tax proposal because they know it's dead-on-arrival, but hope it will distract from the ongoing investigations into whether the company lied to the public and its investors about climate change. Exxon has a decades-long track record of misleading the public on climate change; this is just more of the same delay and deceit."
Ages agreed. "Across the globe, communities, shareholders, and top law enforcement agencies are launching investigations and litigation against fossil fuel companies. A nicely worded public relations exercise is no cure for decades of deception."
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, was scathing in her critique of the proposal and the oil companies backing it.
"This plan being promoted by notable conservatives and their industry allies is particularly absurd: It would scrap many existing pollution controls--common sense rules that tackle carbon emissions at their source--in favor of a market-based scheme that would push added costs onto consumers, not polluters."
--Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch
"If ExxonMobil and many of the world's largest fossil fuel corporations are lining up behind a carbon tax," she said, "you can be certain such a plan will have zero effect on their ability to maintain business as usual. That means continued oil and gas extraction, continued air and water pollution, and a continuing steady march toward irrevocable climate chaos. This plan being promoted by notable conservatives and their industry allies is particularly absurd: It would scrap many existing pollution controls--common sense rules that tackle carbon emissions at their source--in favor of a market-based scheme that would push added costs onto consumers, not polluters."
Like her colleagues in the climate justice movement, Hauter said that faux solutions which let the industry off the hook should not be allowed to supplant real efforts to curb emissions that would create a faster transition to renewables.
"Only cutting carbon emissions at their source--by keeping fossil fuels in the ground and transitioning rapidly to clean, renewable energy--will quickly reduce emissions and effectively tackle the worst effects of impending climate chaos," Hauter said.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Actually, no, major fossil fuel companies and "left-wing enviros" have not found common cause in an industry-backed carbon tax proposal.
Though that was the misleading headline from the right-wing Daily Caller on Tuesday after it was reported that a plan by the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) to create a tax on carbon emissions would receive endorsement from ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, and other large corporations--climate justice campaigners were quick on Tuesday to distance themselves from the proposal which they characterize as a scam and a distraction.
"Exxon is signing onto this carbon tax proposal because they know it's dead-on-arrival, but hope it will distract from the ongoing investigations into whether the company lied to the public and its investors about climate change."
--Jamie Henn, 350.orgPut forward earlier this year by former secretary of state James Baker and other Republicans, the CLC plan is based on a market-driven scheme that would scrap many emission-reducing regulations while instituting a fuel tax that would be passed on to consumers. As the New York Times notes, the "proposal also says companies that emit greenhouse gases should be protected from lawsuits over their contribution to climate change."
According to Naomi Ages, senior climate campaigner for Greenpeace USA, the plan is nothing but corporate opportunism masquerading as a solution to the crisis of human-caused global warming.
" ExxonMobil will try to dress this up as climate activism, but its key agenda is protecting executives from legal accountability for climate pollution and fraud," warned Ages. "Buried in pages of supposedly 'free market' solutions is a new regulation exempting polluters from facing legal consequences for their role in fueling climate change."
Along with Ages, Jamie Henn, communication director and co-founder of 350.org, said the oil companies involved are only trying to distract from the role they've played in creating the global climate crisis. Both ExxonMobil and Shell are under investigation for allegedly deceiving both the public and their investors for decades regarding what they knew about the role carbon emissions played in heating the planet.
"It's important to separate the game from the truth," said Henn. "Exxon is signing onto this carbon tax proposal because they know it's dead-on-arrival, but hope it will distract from the ongoing investigations into whether the company lied to the public and its investors about climate change. Exxon has a decades-long track record of misleading the public on climate change; this is just more of the same delay and deceit."
Ages agreed. "Across the globe, communities, shareholders, and top law enforcement agencies are launching investigations and litigation against fossil fuel companies. A nicely worded public relations exercise is no cure for decades of deception."
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, was scathing in her critique of the proposal and the oil companies backing it.
"This plan being promoted by notable conservatives and their industry allies is particularly absurd: It would scrap many existing pollution controls--common sense rules that tackle carbon emissions at their source--in favor of a market-based scheme that would push added costs onto consumers, not polluters."
--Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch
"If ExxonMobil and many of the world's largest fossil fuel corporations are lining up behind a carbon tax," she said, "you can be certain such a plan will have zero effect on their ability to maintain business as usual. That means continued oil and gas extraction, continued air and water pollution, and a continuing steady march toward irrevocable climate chaos. This plan being promoted by notable conservatives and their industry allies is particularly absurd: It would scrap many existing pollution controls--common sense rules that tackle carbon emissions at their source--in favor of a market-based scheme that would push added costs onto consumers, not polluters."
Like her colleagues in the climate justice movement, Hauter said that faux solutions which let the industry off the hook should not be allowed to supplant real efforts to curb emissions that would create a faster transition to renewables.
"Only cutting carbon emissions at their source--by keeping fossil fuels in the ground and transitioning rapidly to clean, renewable energy--will quickly reduce emissions and effectively tackle the worst effects of impending climate chaos," Hauter said.
Actually, no, major fossil fuel companies and "left-wing enviros" have not found common cause in an industry-backed carbon tax proposal.
Though that was the misleading headline from the right-wing Daily Caller on Tuesday after it was reported that a plan by the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) to create a tax on carbon emissions would receive endorsement from ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, and other large corporations--climate justice campaigners were quick on Tuesday to distance themselves from the proposal which they characterize as a scam and a distraction.
"Exxon is signing onto this carbon tax proposal because they know it's dead-on-arrival, but hope it will distract from the ongoing investigations into whether the company lied to the public and its investors about climate change."
--Jamie Henn, 350.orgPut forward earlier this year by former secretary of state James Baker and other Republicans, the CLC plan is based on a market-driven scheme that would scrap many emission-reducing regulations while instituting a fuel tax that would be passed on to consumers. As the New York Times notes, the "proposal also says companies that emit greenhouse gases should be protected from lawsuits over their contribution to climate change."
According to Naomi Ages, senior climate campaigner for Greenpeace USA, the plan is nothing but corporate opportunism masquerading as a solution to the crisis of human-caused global warming.
" ExxonMobil will try to dress this up as climate activism, but its key agenda is protecting executives from legal accountability for climate pollution and fraud," warned Ages. "Buried in pages of supposedly 'free market' solutions is a new regulation exempting polluters from facing legal consequences for their role in fueling climate change."
Along with Ages, Jamie Henn, communication director and co-founder of 350.org, said the oil companies involved are only trying to distract from the role they've played in creating the global climate crisis. Both ExxonMobil and Shell are under investigation for allegedly deceiving both the public and their investors for decades regarding what they knew about the role carbon emissions played in heating the planet.
"It's important to separate the game from the truth," said Henn. "Exxon is signing onto this carbon tax proposal because they know it's dead-on-arrival, but hope it will distract from the ongoing investigations into whether the company lied to the public and its investors about climate change. Exxon has a decades-long track record of misleading the public on climate change; this is just more of the same delay and deceit."
Ages agreed. "Across the globe, communities, shareholders, and top law enforcement agencies are launching investigations and litigation against fossil fuel companies. A nicely worded public relations exercise is no cure for decades of deception."
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, was scathing in her critique of the proposal and the oil companies backing it.
"This plan being promoted by notable conservatives and their industry allies is particularly absurd: It would scrap many existing pollution controls--common sense rules that tackle carbon emissions at their source--in favor of a market-based scheme that would push added costs onto consumers, not polluters."
--Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch
"If ExxonMobil and many of the world's largest fossil fuel corporations are lining up behind a carbon tax," she said, "you can be certain such a plan will have zero effect on their ability to maintain business as usual. That means continued oil and gas extraction, continued air and water pollution, and a continuing steady march toward irrevocable climate chaos. This plan being promoted by notable conservatives and their industry allies is particularly absurd: It would scrap many existing pollution controls--common sense rules that tackle carbon emissions at their source--in favor of a market-based scheme that would push added costs onto consumers, not polluters."
Like her colleagues in the climate justice movement, Hauter said that faux solutions which let the industry off the hook should not be allowed to supplant real efforts to curb emissions that would create a faster transition to renewables.
"Only cutting carbon emissions at their source--by keeping fossil fuels in the ground and transitioning rapidly to clean, renewable energy--will quickly reduce emissions and effectively tackle the worst effects of impending climate chaos," Hauter said.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.