“There is a strong intellectual case against the view that ExxonMobil ‘knew’ that CO2 was a threat to human betterment versus the continuous growth of consumer-desired, taxpayer-neutral oil and natural gas. In fact, Enron, not Exxon, was the bigger culprit in the climate-change-and-business saga.”

Geoscientist Lindsey Gulden speaks for the Climate Industrial Complex, not the average person who depends on oil and gas every minute of every day, when she portrays herself as a martyr for the cause of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation.

It is not easy to get fired by ExxonMobil, but there are underperformers and just bad apples in every batch. Lindsey Gulden appears to be one. On social media, she tells of just this experience, invoking climate alarmism.

But she does note one thing of interest: the company’s overhyped political play of carbon capture and storage, which is correct.…

“Let’s be clear. Nuclear power’s Secondary Financial Protection is not insurance. Insurance is a voluntary agreement among the parties in which all or a portion of a risk is transferred from one party to another in return for a payment, which is set by the participants, ideally in a competitive market. The SFP is a government mandated protection racket.” (Devanny, below)

“The only solution is a fixed compensation scheme with each plant being responsible for its own liability insurance. If a compensation scheme, based only on the dose profile each individual and business would have incurred assuming no evacuation, is combined with a radiation-harm model that recognizes our bodies’ ability to repair radiation damage within limits, the risk will be easily insurable.” (Devanny, below)

The notorious Price-Anderson Act, enacted in 1957 as part of a federal effort to get peaceful atoms into commercial use, has been extended seven times and is set to expire on its own terms next year (end of 2025).…

“Apologies are in order from Bloomberg Green. In terms of social justice, why hurt the average person as consumer, ratepayer, and taxpayer?”

“Trump’s Green-Bashing and Europe’s Right Put Climate Goals at Risk,” write Laura Millan, Zahra Hirji, Olivia Rudgard, and Jonathan Gilbert (maybe it takes four writers to tip-toe around the climate vs. social justice issue).

The Bloomberg Green authors call it “the campaign against climate.” Realists would call it a long overdue populist campaign for energy justice and against alarmism and energy rationing. And expect a lot more such protest in the future as Net Zero fails–and an “energy transition” back to the real thing (dense, stock, affordable, plentiful, reliable energies) occurs.

Here is the Bloomberg Green Daily story:

Politicians are vowing to roll back green policies and downplaying climate change ahead of key elections on both sides of the Atlantic, casting doubt on whether countries can maintain momentum in the transition away from fossil fuels.…

“Enron was the ‘greens’ favorite company, remember? Enron, in the words of a Greenpeace ex, was ‘the company most responsible for sparking off the greenhouse civil war in the hydrocarbon business.'”

Greenpeace was a fan of “green” Enron in the old days. Today, a Greenpeace UK leader has been trying to debunk me, based on my prior association with Enron and Ken Lay. And it has backfired with him just like it backfired when Joe Romm of Climate Progress tried the same thing 15 years ago.

Here is our exchange. I report, you decide. My final comment follows.

Martin Porter: so, tell us what it was like working for one of the most corrupt companies in US history? Did you ever visit your old Enron boss in jail??!?

Porter: … Do you miss those Enron days Rob Bradley??!?…