http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/CERA_speech.htm
Here is a speech by Jim Mulva, Chairman and CEO of ConocoPhillips, taking (what I believe to be) a relatively enlighted view of energy companies' interests in energy and environmental policy. Because these issues will likely be an important part of the general election, I'm interested in what people think about it.
This is an important speech. I like it when he says:
Energy development in these new areas should be conducted under stringent environmental oversight. This will be a necessity for earning public approval. The industry has no reason to fear such oversight. It has the modern technology and practices to operate in an environmentally responsible manner.
and ...
Another key step by government would be to make fossil fuels more environmentally acceptable. It could do this by promoting carbon capture and storage. To do so, government must first create a regulatory framework that incorporates sufficient economic incentives.
then ...
We should also take encouragement from the fact that our industry has awakened to the need to engage the public. We are fortunate too that the world still has enormous untapped energy potential. There are promising technologies available to bring these resources to market -- while also reducing carbon emissions.
My take ...
I think the Energy Industry is beginning to understand that being a good corporate citizen is essential to the bottom line. It's not that Californians object to off shore drilling; it's that they object to spoiling the coast. It's not that refineries are bad for Tulsa, it's that technologically outdated refineries that create environmental hazards are bad for Tulsa.
Tulsa could be a leader in developing new technologies for the industry and Tulsa could also be an incubator for independent energy companies that will benefit the most as we move into peak oil.
Thank you for posting this speech.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
This is an important speech. I like it when he says:
Energy development in these new areas should be conducted under stringent environmental oversight. This will be a necessity for earning public approval. The industry has no reason to fear such oversight. It has the modern technology and practices to operate in an environmentally responsible manner.
and ...
Another key step by government would be to make fossil fuels more environmentally acceptable. It could do this by promoting carbon capture and storage. To do so, government must first create a regulatory framework that incorporates sufficient economic incentives.
then ...
We should also take encouragement from the fact that our industry has awakened to the need to engage the public. We are fortunate too that the world still has enormous untapped energy potential. There are promising technologies available to bring these resources to market -- while also reducing carbon emissions.
My take ...
I think the Energy Industry is beginning to understand that being a good corporate citizen is essential to the bottom line. It's not that Californians object to off shore drilling; it's that they object to spoiling the coast. It's not that refineries are bad for Tulsa, it's that technologically outdated refineries that create environmental hazards are bad for Tulsa.
Tulsa could be a leader in developing new technologies for the industry and Tulsa could also be an incubator for independent energy companies that will benefit the most as we move into peak oil.
Thank you for posting this speech.
I wonder whether a Democratic president and Congress would find this to be something to work with when developing an energy policy.
energy companies are already moving into alternative energy. that is why they are talking this way now. You don't sing the praises of alternative energy until you get your money into alternative energy.
The energy companies need to pay attention to alt fuels, otherwise they will be playing b!tch to ADM and Cargill in 20 years, or animal fat producers like IBP, Seaboard, and Tyson.
I'm amazed Hometown was able to complete a post in the political section without mentioning how Reagan totally ****ed up the energy industry and we will pay for it over the next century.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The energy companies need to pay attention to alt fuels, otherwise they will be playing b!tch to ADM and Cargill in 20 years, or animal fat producers like IBP, Seaboard, and Tyson.
IBP = Tyson. Tyson bought them several years ago.
With the money Exxon, CP, Chevron, et al has, they could buy any of those ag companies and not bat an eye.
But they know that ethanol is short sighted, thats why they are covertly pumping money into hydrogen technology.
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
This is an important speech. I like it when he says:
Energy development in these new areas should be conducted under stringent environmental oversight. This will be a necessity for earning public approval. The industry has no reason to fear such oversight. It has the modern technology and practices to operate in an environmentally responsible manner.
and ...
Another key step by government would be to make fossil fuels more environmentally acceptable. It could do this by promoting carbon capture and storage. To do so, government must first create a regulatory framework that incorporates sufficient economic incentives.
then ...
We should also take encouragement from the fact that our industry has awakened to the need to engage the public. We are fortunate too that the world still has enormous untapped energy potential. There are promising technologies available to bring these resources to market -- while also reducing carbon emissions.
My take ...
I think the Energy Industry is beginning to understand that being a good corporate citizen is essential to the bottom line. It's not that Californians object to off shore drilling; it's that they object to spoiling the coast. It's not that refineries are bad for Tulsa, it's that technologically outdated refineries that create environmental hazards are bad for Tulsa.
Tulsa could be a leader in developing new technologies for the industry and Tulsa could also be an incubator for independent energy companies that will benefit the most as we move into peak oil.
Thank you for posting this speech.
I wonder whether a Democratic president and Congress would find this to be something to work with when developing an energy policy.
I'm not hopeful in that regard.
I'm a lifelong Democrat and I have been unhappy with the way my party is demonizing the oil industry. I liked the oil industry friendly policies of Ann Richards and think it would serve my party well to work with the oil companies and seek their support.
Oil will be with us for a long time and will own emerging energy sources. We can expect the oil corporations to have a long life. Small oil companies will be especially profitable as we enter an era of peak oil. Tulsa is well positioned to benefit and could easily play a larger role with either more private or government leadership.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The energy companies need to pay attention to alt fuels, otherwise they will be playing b!tch to ADM and Cargill in 20 years, or animal fat producers like IBP, Seaboard, and Tyson.
IBP = Tyson. Tyson bought them several years ago.
With the money Exxon, CP, Chevron, et al has, they could buy any of those ag companies and not bat an eye.
But they know that ethanol is short sighted, thats why they are covertly pumping money into hydrogen technology.
I got you on your filet minions the other day, you owed me one...LOL!
That's right, I thought they bought Excell is Excell still on it's own or were they swallowed by "BIG T" as well?
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
This is an important speech. I like it when he says:
Energy development in these new areas should be conducted under stringent environmental oversight. This will be a necessity for earning public approval. The industry has no reason to fear such oversight. It has the modern technology and practices to operate in an environmentally responsible manner.
and ...
Another key step by government would be to make fossil fuels more environmentally acceptable. It could do this by promoting carbon capture and storage. To do so, government must first create a regulatory framework that incorporates sufficient economic incentives.
then ...
We should also take encouragement from the fact that our industry has awakened to the need to engage the public. We are fortunate too that the world still has enormous untapped energy potential. There are promising technologies available to bring these resources to market -- while also reducing carbon emissions.
My take ...
I think the Energy Industry is beginning to understand that being a good corporate citizen is essential to the bottom line. It's not that Californians object to off shore drilling; it's that they object to spoiling the coast. It's not that refineries are bad for Tulsa, it's that technologically outdated refineries that create environmental hazards are bad for Tulsa.
Tulsa could be a leader in developing new technologies for the industry and Tulsa could also be an incubator for independent energy companies that will benefit the most as we move into peak oil.
Thank you for posting this speech.
I wonder whether a Democratic president and Congress would find this to be something to work with when developing an energy policy.
I'm not hopeful in that regard.
I'm a lifelong Democrat and I have been unhappy with the way my party is demonizing the oil industry. I liked the oil industry friendly policies of Ann Richards and think it would serve my party well to work with the oil companies and seek their support.
Oil will be with us for a long time and will own emerging energy sources. We can expect the oil corporations to have a long life. Small oil companies will be especially profitable as we enter an era of peak oil. Tulsa is well positioned to benefit and could easily play a larger role with either more private or government leadership.
Your party demonizes big business to their own detriment constantly. Tell me what is good about that for the average American middle class worker?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Your party demonizes big business to their own detriment constantly. Tell me what is good about that for the average American middle class worker?
I happen to think that lots of Rs demonize the government to their detriment, especially the poorest folk in the reddest states. These are the people who could be helped most by the federal government, given the leg up that they need in an economy that favors those who already have resources.
I don't think you're wrong that Ds tend to demonize business, but we're the other side of the R coin, which tends to demonize government first. We just locate the problem differently. Like reality-based Rs, reality-based Ds think both business and government exist to complement one another. However Ds tend to emphasize a point that Rs largely won't: Business has no imperative to help those without economic power.
Amongst the Ds that I talk to, that's the biggest problem with letting our economic system dictate our method of governance rather than the other way around. Large chunks of the populace get left out, because as economic units their worth is miniscule.
One last point: I think there's a distressing tendency amongst conservatives to look at any government control of the economy as communism, while being willfully blind to the fact that economies have been controlled since the beginning of civilization -- including ours -- and that it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how. Making the immediate leap to OMGSOCIALISM makes it impossible to have an honest dialogue about how governance of the economy should move forward.
And as for the speech linked, I really really liked it. It's a great (and sadly, rare) example of business trying to make the case that what's right can also be what's profitable.
The most interesting thing to me was how badly he seemed to want the federal government to step in and impose some sector-wide environmental guidelines (read: regulations) to streamline and consolidate all the state initiatives out there. It was also a pretty trenchant criticism of the Bush administration, saying in essence that inaction on environmental policy is a policy in its own right, but absolutely the wrong one. An abdication of responsibility is also an abdication of power, and it leaves others to be the decision makers.
I've been mentally grouping this with the growing rebellion of businesses statewide against HB1804. To me it's been another example of business clamoring for -- and not getting -- a federal response to a pivotal issue. The states have been responsive to the immigration dilemma, but the solutions are wildly inconsistent between them, and business is looking for a single policy it can follow nationwide.
These are two issues where a single federal response is crucial, because in the broadest sense, these are still decisions that speak to our economic infrastructure. Not so much highways and bridges and airports, etc, but how to address labor and energy, respectively, both of which are the building blocks of any economy.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Your party demonizes big business to their own detriment constantly. Tell me what is good about that for the average American middle class worker?
I happen to think that lots of Rs demonize the government to their detriment, especially the poorest folk in the reddest states. These are the people who could be helped most by the federal government, given the leg up that they need in an economy that favors those who already have resources.
I don't think you're wrong that Ds tend to demonize business, but we're the other side of the R coin, which tends to demonize government first. We just locate the problem differently. Like reality-based Rs, reality-based Ds think both business and government exist to complement one another. However Ds tend to emphasize a point that Rs largely won't: Business has no imperative to help those without economic power.
Amongst the Ds that I talk to, that's the biggest problem with letting our economic system dictate our method of governance rather than the other way around. Large chunks of the populace get left out, because as economic units their worth is miniscule.
One last point: I think there's a distressing tendency amongst conservatives to look at any government control of the economy as communism, while being willfully blind to the fact that economies have been controlled since the beginning of civilization -- including ours -- and that it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how. Making the immediate leap to OMGSOCIALISM makes it impossible to have an honest dialogue about how governance of the economy should move forward.
Local republicans certainly like to demonize local big business.
Democrats can be pro-business just like Republicans can. Both can also be anti-business. Populists are often the real anti-business crowd and they can be of either party depending on how they view social issues. Roscoe and Henderson are left wing populists, Medlock and Bates are the right wing version. But this is where they have common ground.
Hmm, only big business demonizing I ever hear out of Republicans might be "corporate welfare" to AA, Spirit, or some such other company.
I'm not really aware of anyone who totally demonizes the larger employers in the city (okay- with the exception of the city gov't, county gov't and ORU [;)])
What are some examples you are thinking of, Swake?
Oh, BTW- anytime I see Jim Mulva's name my mind is always directed back to that Seinfeld episode:
"Ohhhhh, Delores!!!"
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hmm, only big business demonizing I ever hear out of Republicans might be "corporate welfare" to AA, Spirit, or some such other company.
I'm not really aware of anyone who totally demonizes the larger employers in the city (okay- with the exception of the city gov't, county gov't and ORU [;)])
What are some examples you are thinking of, Swake?
Oh, BTW- anytime I see Jim Mulva's name my mind is always directed back to that Seinfeld episode:
"Ohhhhh, Delores!!!"
[}:)]
BOk getting an "inside deal" on 2025 bonds, F&M getting an "inside deal", F&M building a bank at 71st and Lewis, The Tulsa World is the center of all evil, Manhattan and Flinto secretly being behind all votes to build anything, Williams is behind everything, downtown landowners enriching themselves, American Airlines evil for taking handouts, Quik Trip being dirty getting the mayor to level the Camelot for them, all developers are evil (this is only mostly true), St Francis and the Warren Foundation blasted for the Channels, Bok and Kaiser for the river vote...
Do I really need to go on?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hmm, only big business demonizing I ever hear out of Republicans might be "corporate welfare" to AA, Spirit, or some such other company.
I'm not really aware of anyone who totally demonizes the larger employers in the city (okay- with the exception of the city gov't, county gov't and ORU [;)])
What are some examples you are thinking of, Swake?
Oh, BTW- anytime I see Jim Mulva's name my mind is always directed back to that Seinfeld episode:
"Ohhhhh, Delores!!!"
[}:)]
BOk getting an "inside deal" on 2025 bonds, F&M getting an "inside deal", F&M building a bank at 71st and Lewis, The Tulsa World is the center of all evil, Manhattan and Flinto secretly being behind all votes to build anything, Williams is behind everything, downtown landowners enriching themselves, American Airlines evil for taking handouts, Quik Trip being dirty getting the mayor to level the Camelot for them, all developers are evil (this is only mostly true), St Francis and the Warren Foundation blasted for the Channels, Bok and Kaiser for the river vote...
Do I really need to go on?
Swake, that's city politics and cynicism in a nutshell. Complaints are heard on all sides and from all political stripes.
I don't think you can draw a direct line from the Tulsa GOP party to any of those comments. They certainly are not official party stances any more than they are out of the local Democrat party.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hmm, only big business demonizing I ever hear out of Republicans might be "corporate welfare" to AA, Spirit, or some such other company.
I'm not really aware of anyone who totally demonizes the larger employers in the city (okay- with the exception of the city gov't, county gov't and ORU [;)])
What are some examples you are thinking of, Swake?
Oh, BTW- anytime I see Jim Mulva's name my mind is always directed back to that Seinfeld episode:
"Ohhhhh, Delores!!!"
[}:)]
BOk getting an "inside deal" on 2025 bonds, F&M getting an "inside deal", F&M building a bank at 71st and Lewis, The Tulsa World is the center of all evil, Manhattan and Flinto secretly being behind all votes to build anything, Williams is behind everything, downtown landowners enriching themselves, American Airlines evil for taking handouts, Quik Trip being dirty getting the mayor to level the Camelot for them, all developers are evil (this is only mostly true), St Francis and the Warren Foundation blasted for the Channels, Bok and Kaiser for the river vote...
Do I really need to go on?
Swake, that's city politics and cynicism in a nutshell. Complaints are heard on all sides and from all political stripes.
I don't think you can draw a direct line from the Tulsa GOP party to any of those comments. They certainly are not official party stances any more than they are out of the local Democrat party.
That's TULSA city politics in a nutshell, not everywhere. And I agree it is NOT part of the local republican party stance, but these view are very common among prominent Republicans and Democrats.
There is a strong populist streak in Tulsa in both parties. Politicians and others on both sides pander to and inflame that populist streak for political gain and that has created a great deal of mistrust of and cynicism for all city institutions here, both public and private
Roscoe and a northside Grocery Store, Henderson and the chief, KFAQ and 2025, Medlock and the failed north Tulsa county annexation are all good examples of this.
The cynicism that has been created is what is stopping this city from being able to accomplish much of anything lately. And when doing anything in the city is a bloody fight developers and companies move outside the city. Look at the stupid fights over a Target on Memorial and residential infill in Midtown. It's why any vote for any form of tax for a baseball stadium is going to fail. It's very sad.
Okay, I was still stuck on:
quote:
Local republicans certainly like to demonize local big business.
Thanks for clearing it up that there are equal-opportunity DB's in both parties.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Okay, I was still stuck on:
quote:
Local republicans certainly like to demonize local big business.
Thanks for clearing it up that there are equal-opportunity DB's in both parties.
Douchbaggery is alive and well in Tulsa, it's a fact.
quote:
Populists are often the real anti-business crowd and they can be of either party depending on how they view social issues. Roscoe and Henderson are left wing populists, Medlock and Bates are the right wing version. But this is where they have common ground.
The same dynamic looks like it will torpedo the MAPS for Millionaires (//%22http://www.mapsformillionaires.org/%22) vote in OKC. No more free lunches (//%22http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17808622%22) for fascists.