“We cannot allow oil executives to blackmail us,” concludes Houston Chronicle business editorialist Chris Tomlinson. “They are not prophets; they are business people looking for profits.” And you, sir, are an elitist telling motorists and travelers of all ages and income levels to go eat cake.
He just keep doubling down against consumers who naturally choose the best energies–the plentiful, cheaper, more dependable ones. And so Chris Tomlinson closes out his repugnance week at Houston’s World Petroleum Congress with a peculiar rant:
…Yes, Big Oil’s leaders promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as long as they can make money. But failure to provide the industry with $11.8 trillion in capital between now and 2045 will trigger an energy crisis that they insist will make the public forget all about the climate crisis.
The false, wasteful crusade of anti-capitalist, anti-energy deep ecologists needs to be demoted. And Chris Tomlinson needs to get off the hate train as energy density continues to drive the world market.
Climate change is a political issue. A business issue. The climate does not need to be saved; in fact, humankind needs to be saved from a political and intellectual elite pushing authoritarian climate policy.
Perhaps Chris Tomlinson should get fired, not the oil executives and ministers that promote their products in the face of climate alarmism and forced energy transformation. And perhaps it is Tomlinson who needs to take his blinders off and start over with his understanding of energy and of government intervention, not to mention climate science (or the lack thereof).
The Houston Chronicle business editorial writer has long been prone to hyperbole and astringency.…
“The [U.S.] oil industry was a half century old when the depletion allowance and other special tax favors were introduced regarding the relatively new area of business taxation…. The North also taxed crude oil during the Civil War, so there is an offsetting example of a penalty, not a subsidy.”
A half-truth by wind and solar advocates is, ‘the fossil-fuel industries have long had subsidies, so we should have it too.’ This tit-for-tat needs historical clarity to show the difference between consumer-driven industries that really do not need tax breaks (and should not have received them) versus industries that are dependent on special government largesse to exist and grow.
In one of my LinkedIn exchanges with a climate alarmist/forced energy transformationist, my critic stated:
…Rob Bradley It would appear you have never read The Prize, which for someone in the oil and gas industry is inexcusable.