Paris Agreement. Exxon and Conoco want to stay.

[pete311]

I thought Trump was pro US energy and business. Exxon and Conoco telling Trump to stay in the agreement. Why isn't Trump listening to two of the largest oil companies?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/exxon-conoco-back-paris-climate-deal-as-trump-weighs-pact-exit

[jimnyc]

I thought Trump was pro US energy and business. Exxon and Conoco telling Trump to stay in the agreement. Why isn't Trump listening to two of the largest oil companies?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/exxon-conoco-back-paris-climate-deal-as-trump-weighs-pact-exit

If he does one thing, he'll get blamed for being in bed with big oil. He makes a decision against them, and the whining starts anyway.

https://i.imgur.com/wPcAqEE.gif

[aboutime]

I thought Trump was pro US energy and business. Exxon and Conoco telling Trump to stay in the agreement. Why isn't Trump listening to two of the largest oil companies?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/exxon-conoco-back-paris-climate-deal-as-trump-weighs-pact-exit


petey. Once again. You come here to show your true, liberal thinking, and colors.

You must be thinking HILLARY is the President, because SHE would need to ask them for permission to do anything....SINCE..."SHE OWES THEM SO MUCH IN RETURN".

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/oil-companies-donated-clinton-foundation-while-lobbying-state-department-2348832
Oil Companies Donated To Clinton Foundation While Lobbying State Department
BY DAVID SIROTA davidSIROTA AND NED RESNIKOFF @RESNIKOFF ON 04/05/16 AT 5:12 PM
RTSDL65
Hillary Clinton smiles as she is applauded at a campaign rally in Cohoes, New York, April 4, 2016. Photo: Mike Segar/Reuters
Faced with new questions last week about her cash haul from the oil and gas industry, Hillary Clinton and her campaign fended off the queries with a flat rejoinder: There is no explicit quid pro quo between major donations and public policies pushed by Clinton. The Clinton team also noted that the millions of dollars that flowed to her campaign and a super PAC supporting her White House bid came from the industry’s individual employees and lobbyists, not from the oil companies themselves.

But Clinton’s family foundation has accepted millions of dollars directly from major fossil fuel companies — including from those that lobbied her State Department just before the agency approved a controversial pipeline delivering what environmentalists call one of the world’s dirtiest sources of energy. The Clinton Foundation did not respond to International Business Times’ request for comment.

In 2009, the Clinton-led State Department approved a permit for the 400-mile Alberta Clipper pipeline, which is designed to pump up to 450,000 barrels of oil per day from the Canadian oil sands to Wisconsin (where recent polls show Democratic primary voters are concerned about its impact). According to federal lobbying records reviewed by the IBT, Chevron and ConocoPhillips both lobbied the State Department specifically on the issue of “oil sands” in the immediate months prior to the department's approval, as did a trade association funded by ExxonMobil.

Those three oil companies have delivered between between $2.5 million and $3 million to the Clinton Foundation. That is on top of money their executives and lobbyists delivered to Clinton’s campaign and super PAC in her 2008 presidential bid — the year before she approved the pipeline.

All three companies have made substantial investments in developing the Canadian oil sands served by the Alberta Clipper. Environmental experts interviewed by IBT agreed that any major oil company operating in the tar sands benefited from the State Department’s decision to approve the pipeline because it increased the overall amount of petroleum that can now be pumped to market from the remote region.

“A pipeline is like a highway for the transport of oil, and if you build a new highway then all of the businesses along that highway or at the end of the highway are going to benefit,” said Sarah Burt, a staff attorney at the environmental group Earthjustice, which filed a lawsuit to try to overturn the Obama administration's approval of the pipeline, which now may be further expanded. “Whether it’s because they are using that highway or because it frees up space on another highway that also goes from point A to point B, it’s still a general benefit for the transportation of oil.”

[revelarts]

question is will he flip? His supporters want us out. but big oil and the fear-adeled left want it.
i wonder how his daughter feels.

He's got to make a decision that requires some science facts. i wonder if he's up to it. or what's really is driving his decision on this.

i certainly hope he sticks... and doubles down.

[Black Diamond]

question is will he flip? His supporters want us out. but big oil and the fear-adeled left want it.
i wonder how his daughter feels.

He's got to make a decision that requires some science facts. i wonder if he's up to it. or what's really is driving his decision on this.

i certainly hope he sticks... and doubles down.

He has nothing to lose. The world hates him anyway.

[NightTrain]

I thought Trump was pro US energy and business. Exxon and Conoco telling Trump to stay in the agreement. Why isn't Trump listening to two of the largest oil companies?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/exxon-conoco-back-paris-climate-deal-as-trump-weighs-pact-exit

I guess that eliminates the favorite Moonbat soundbite of Blood for Oil!

Getting harder to peg, eh?

[Drummond]

I thought Trump was pro US energy and business. Exxon and Conoco telling Trump to stay in the agreement. Why isn't Trump listening to two of the largest oil companies?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/exxon-conoco-back-paris-climate-deal-as-trump-weighs-pact-exit

Answer: because Trump is not a Leftie nutter. It's really that simple !

The so-called 'agreement' only added up to a consensus which limits the rate at which pollution is added to. It does EXACTLY NOTHING to solve any existing, so-called 'environmental problem'. It only sets out to introduce inconsequential restraints on the rate it's ADDED to.

If pollutants exist as the pernicious agents we're assured they 'are' ... then mankind's technology is only capable of adding to it, not reducing it, not remedying ANY of it. Any propaganda suggesting anything different is nonsense.

Trump sanely chose to protect American jobs, rather than agree to restraints which have zero chance of doing anybody any good.

... oh, except Leftie propagandists. As to what they hope to gain from it .. you'd have to ask them, Pete. See if you can get honest answers from your comrades for once !