“…the fossil fuel industry is much more frightened of the EPA than it is of Congress. The EPA is likely to come up with some very stringent measures. The EPA, Obama’s EPA, is run by a bunch of environmentalists, and people who are very worried about climate change. So if its left to them, the US is going to get a very very strong environmental policy on CO2. So at this point, the fossil fuel lobby is actually trying to promote action in Congress, of a type that would preempt action by the EPA. So what the fossil fuel lobby is working for, is a weak Waxman-Markey bill…. which would both set standards lower than what the EPA would do on its own, and which would preempt action by the EPA….

…one downside of this [ if the EPA were to be allowed to regulate CO2 ] is that the EPA doesn’t have the power to do something like introduce a cap and trade system, or something like a uniform carbon tax. So anything the EPA does is liable to be inefficient from an economic perspective”

http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/ publicLecturesAndEvents/ 20090506_1830_controversiesInTheEconomicsOfClimateChange.mp3

During the lecture itself, Heal noted that although the US is not often thought of that way, it is a major petro-state, i.e. the US is the third largest producer of oil in the world. There is Saudi Arabia at 9 million barrels of oil per day, then the US and Russia at around 7 million each. Kuwait, number 4, is a distant fourth at three and a half million per day. When you add in the coal and natural gas production, the US is by far the greatest producer of fossil fuel in the world.

Hence the fantastic power of the fossil fuel lobby in the US.

Can you say “conflict of interest”?

Here’s a hint: If you’re going to throw pathetic denialist garbage against a wall and hope it sticks, don’t do it on sites with Teflon wallpaper.

You didn’t mention the IPCC, but in case that was what you were referring to, remember that it’s now widely known that their process was indeed politicized, as so many deniers like to claim, albeit not in a way they know or want to recognize. Several countries forced some of the groups conclusions to be watered down, and at least one graphic, the infamous “embers chart”, was removed.

The evidence keeps piling up that the most recent IPCC report was quite optimistic, and we need to move much faster than its conclusions imply.

You don’t have a clue about how science works. Are you arguing that all scientists are in cahoots? That if researchers could prove that global warming was a scam that they couldn’t find money to support their studies? Exxon and Shell would be sending a fortune to universities and research institutes if the science showed even the slightest chance of supporting their industry.

The trouble is that the climate research is all going in one direction, leaving Exxon and the likes to fund bogus PR institutes that engage in astroturfing, trying to muddy the waters.

Your comments are lame.

The coin has two sides mate.

[JR: You got the smoking, gun, mate -- if only there were any "UN financed climate researchers."]

We should realize this is only the public, institutional contributions directly to the GOP.

What does it mean when an oil company buys TV advertising time for a non-political message? Such as energytomorrow.org It cements the dangerous myth that fossil fuels can be a solution.