T1B

Some States, Counties and Cities have filed law suits against the 5 largest oil companies claiming these companies knew about climate change risks and yet have done nothing to stop it. They are seeking to have the oil companies pay any costs that might arise from global warming or prep for such global warming.

Meanwhile these same states and cities and counties continue to purchase oil and gas for their own use. They continue to build more roads. They make building in urban areas difficult and encourage urban sprawl. What a freaking joke.

The funniest part of all this is though many of these same states and counties and cities have filed bond packages in recent years. These Bond filings do not mention any risks associated with global warming. In fact some of these bond packages outright down play global warming threats. Here are a few examples:

San Mateo County is suing the oil companies because it says in its complaint that it is "particularly vulnerable to sea level rise" and that there is a 93 percent chance the county experiences a "devastating" flood before 2050.

But San Mateo noted in bond offerings in 2014 and 2016 that the county "is unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur."

Imperial Beach, California claims in the lawsuit that it faces a very high danger from sea level rise and its economic vulnerability from climate change is valued at more than $106 million.

But no mention by the city toward investors that such disasters await them.


So if the States, Cities and Counties make these claims in court then a couple of things are likely to happen. One investors who have already purchased bonds can make claims that they were mislead and ask for damages. Two future bond packages are going to be more expensive for these States, Cities and Counties making it more difficult for them to raise money.

Just another example of political hypocrisy, and here’s hoping it comes back to bite them in the ass.

Ziske said that he exempted FL from drilling because that state is so dependent on the tourism industry.

FL Tourism Industry: $82 Billion
CA Tourism Industry: $126 Billion

I'm sure the fact that the FL guv is from the GOP & that Maralago is in FL had nothing to do with the decision...

Diego in Seattle wrote:Ziske said that he exempted FL from drilling because that state is so dependent on the tourism industry.

FL Tourism Industry: $82 Billion
CA Tourism Industry: $126 Billion

I'm sure the fact that the FL guv is from the GOP & that Maralago is in FL had nothing to do with the decision...

I agree that exemptions in general to legislation/regulation is bullshit. Whether or not the exemption has fukk all to do with the letter on the end of his name, is unclear.

As for the possible tourism relationship, I think the point is that Florida's tourism business, while smaller than Cali's in total dollars, is larger as a % of state GDP and more importantly, is very beach focused.

An oil slick along Florida's coastline will have a more dramatic effect on tourism than one along Cali's coast would. Cali's beautiful coastline would still be beautiful and tourists would still flock to it as much of it, north of LA is too fukking cold to swim in anyway. Florida's awesome flat wide beaches would become unusable if a large slick hit them, for quite some time.

Why would you want to scrub CO2? Global warming is a hoax.
Sin,
88pedos

smackaholic wrote:

As for the possible tourism relationship, I think the point is that Florida's tourism business, while smaller than Cali's in total dollars, is larger as a % of state GDP and more importantly, is very beach focused.

An oil slick along Florida's coastline will have a more dramatic effect on tourism than one along Cali's coast would. Cali's beautiful coastline would still be beautiful and tourists would still flock to it as much of it, north of LA is too fukking cold to swim in anyway. Florida's awesome flat wide beaches would become unusable if a large slick hit them, for quite some time.

You're even dumber than I thought.

On second thought, the idiocy of your logic here is pretty consistent with your normal level of idiocy.

It doesn't matter how stupid the excuse, if Pedobear floats it, 88Leftholic will pimp it.

Moving Sale wrote:Why would you want to scrub CO2? Global warming is a hoax.
Sin,
88pedos

You would know if you read the link. Or better yet if you were able to comprehend the words. But since that is above your ability it boils down to money.

And back to the main topic of the thread big oil is going to strike back. They are planning to sue CA and other states and counties saying the states and counties have defrauded investors by failing to disclose likely harm due to global warming. In addition they have not dissuaded their residents from purchasing said fossil fuels and in fact encouraged such purchases by building more roads. In fact much of the materials in said roads are petroleum based as are the transportation methods and refining and extraction methods.

Props to big oil for calling out this hypocrisy that will only end up costing tax payers their hard earned money.

Can't wait till we are drilling in ANWR

We?
STFU you pansyassed fuck.

Left Seater wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Why would you want to scrub CO2? Global warming is a hoax.
Sin,
88pedos

You would know if you read the link. Or better yet if you were able to comprehend the words. But since that is above your ability it boils down to money.

You really are one stupid fuck.

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Why would you want to scrub CO2? Global warming is a hoax.
Sin,
88pedos

You would know if you read the link. Or better yet if you were able to comprehend the words. But since that is above your ability it boils down to money.

You really are one stupid fuck.

Nice white flag.

I meant I was being sarcastic you dense pedo.

Mikey wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

As for the possible tourism relationship, I think the point is that Florida's tourism business, while smaller than Cali's in total dollars, is larger as a % of state GDP and more importantly, is very beach focused.

An oil slick along Florida's coastline will have a more dramatic effect on tourism than one along Cali's coast would. Cali's beautiful coastline would still be beautiful and tourists would still flock to it as much of it, north of LA is too fukking cold to swim in anyway. Florida's awesome flat wide beaches would become unusable if a large slick hit them, for quite some time.

You're even dumber than I thought.

On second thought, the idiocy of your logic here is pretty consistent with your normal level of idiocy.

Care to point out the flaws in my statement? I simply point out that going to the beach and actually going in the water is a big part of Florida’s tourism business and an oil slick would affect that greatly. Cali’s swimable beaches are pretty much all south of LA. The central and northern cal coastline’s tourism would not be affected as greatly. It would suck if you were a sea lion though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

smackaholic wrote:

Mikey wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

As for the possible tourism relationship, I think the point is that Florida's tourism business, while smaller than Cali's in total dollars, is larger as a % of state GDP and more importantly, is very beach focused.

An oil slick along Florida's coastline will have a more dramatic effect on tourism than one along Cali's coast would. Cali's beautiful coastline would still be beautiful and tourists would still flock to it as much of it, north of LA is too fukking cold to swim in anyway. Florida's awesome flat wide beaches would become unusable if a large slick hit them, for quite some time.

You're even dumber than I thought.

On second thought, the idiocy of your logic here is pretty consistent with your normal level of idiocy.

Care to point out the flaws in my statement? I simply point out that going to the beach and actually going in the water is a big part of Florida’s tourism business and an oil slick would affect that greatly. Cali’s swimable beaches are pretty much all south of LA. The central and northern cal coastline’s tourism would not be affected as greatly. It would suck if you were a sea lion though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, to you the only thing of any value on the coast is whether the beaches are "swimable" or not. Like I said, your idiocy knows no bounds.

I guess all of these places would be just fine with a nice thick layer of crude.

Nice m200L impression, Mikey.

The difference being that I never claimed to own or live in any of those places. Starting in CenCal and going north,

Point Lobos
Lands End SF
Humboldt Redwoods
Astoria, OR
Olympic Peninsula
Puget Sound
Strait of Juan de Fuca

Not too many “swimable” beaches in any of those places, at least not too many that Smackaholic would swim at.

Top of the hour radio news here in Fresno said multiple governments in CA could face combined hundreds of millions in fines by the SEC regarding their claims of potential damages from global warming in court claims but not disclosing this info to investors.

Would have been nice if the report included examples of similar SEC fines but no such luck.

Left Seater wrote:
Would have been nice if the report included examples of similar SEC fines but no such luck.

Thank ESPN for that.

And WTF are you doing in Fresno anyway? One of the few shitholes in California that prolly wouldn’t be damaged too much by a major oil spill.

Work. Back and forth here over the next ten days. A company that will remain nameless is bringing in regional managers for training. Sadly no time to get to Yosemite, but it pays the bills.

Mikey wrote:Astoria, OR

Your pic is of Astoria... right on the river. Banks are riprapped, so no beaches going on. Water is tolerably warm in late summer, but swimming in the World's Greatest Salmon Hole among thousands of boats is probably a bad idea. And while they ship oil/petroleum products through there in quaniity, no one has proposed drilling there.

BTW -- that pic is the original Bridge To Nowhere (was the last break in US101 before the Astoria-Megler Bridge, all 4.2 miles of it).

Puget Sound

Hood Canal has beaches and warm water and swimming, but no one has ever proposed drilling for oil there. It's a long way inland.

Strait of Juan de Fuca

No one has ever proposed drilling there.

Not in Puget Sound or the Strait of JdF but close enough to do some major damage with a spill.
My main point was that the value of CA / OR / WA coastlines goes way beyond SoCal beaches with 70 deg water to swim in.

I absolutely understand your point, but Puget Sound and Astoria wouldn't be effected by a spill. And they're not going to put drilling platforms in major shipping routes.

Sounds like Oregon is getting an exemption, anyway. Which is pretty moot, since I (along with a buhzillion others) have known for many years that there's no significant oil deposits off the Oregon coast.

Dinsdale wrote: And they're not going to put drilling platforms in major shipping routes.

All those little red circles south of LA are pretty much right in the entrance to the busiest port in North America.