“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.…

“Do we need a clean energy industry that depends on government handouts forever? Yes, if you ascribe to the climate disaster mantra…. Does anyone consider letting market forces drive technology development?”

An op-ed in Monday’s Houston Chronicle, “Houston is making a losing bet on fossil fuels,” greeted visitors to CERAWeek. Author Randall Morton attacked oil company CEOs and Houston business leaders for defending a “declining” industry. His opening sentence? “Leaders of the oil and gas industry are in Houston for CERAWeek, grappling with the inevitable decline of the industry.”

Morton then goes after the “economic development leaders at the Greater Houston Partnership [who] are doubling down on this declining industry.” He specifically identifies the GHP’s Energy Transition Initiative – hydrogen and carbon capture – as failed technologies.

Fair enough, but he misses a critical point. …

“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.…

“… despite the world investing more than $9.5 trillion on energy transition over the past two decades, alternatives have been unable to displace hydrocarbons at scale.”

“… many of us have been saying for a long time that the world has been trying to transition in fog, without a compass, on a road to nowhere.  Consumers … are demanding a transition that is affordable, reliable, and flexible, and that supports our climate ambitions.”

Aramco President and CEO Amin H. Nasser provided a realist moment to the CERA conference in Houston, Texas this week. His remarks follow.

We meet when the future of energy, and our role in the global energy transition, is incredibly high on the geopolitical agenda. But these conversations are no longer limited to Davos or D.C. because the hopes and ambitions of 8 billion energy consumers around the world are at stake. …