It's been a hard few months for BP, that oil giant.
The oil giant that knew that they were doing damage to the environment back
in the 1950s, but decided to cover that all up.
Anyway, it turns out that they just reported their second-quarter profits,
and apparently they were 70% lower than their quarter-two profits from last year.
>> Speaker 2: No.
>> Speaker 1: Which must mean that they're really struggling.
So what were their profits?
They only made a tiny profit in the second quarter of this year of $2.6 billion.
One quarter profits, not revenue.
But it's 70% lower than last year.
So they're really struggling here.
>> Speaker 2: We should give them money.
Our government should hand them large sums of money.
>> Speaker 1: They certainly love to subsidize oil companies.
There's no question about that.
But in all seriousness, Big Oil does make an obscene amount of money, and
they certainly did so in quarter-two.
Even if you wanna compare what they made last year to this year,
still stands $2.6 billion in profits.
Now, let's take a look at this graphic that gives you a sense of how much money,
how much in profit various fossil fuel companies reported for
the second quarter of 2023.
As I mentioned, you have BP at 2.6 billion, Chevron at 6 billion,
ExxonMobil at 7.9 billion, and Shell at 5.1 billion.
Really, really struggling.
I'm glad that we subsidize them, because they really need it.
They really need it, John.
>> Yeah, you talk like a person who doesn't do millions or
billions in investments.
If ExxonMobil, for instance,
had only made a billion dollars in profit, why even do it?
Literally, why get out of bed in the morning if you're just making a billion
dollars in three months profit?
>> Speaker 1: Such a good point.
Yeah, I mean, look, I think that if we don't subsidize oil companies,
they might just get up and leave to another country.
>> Speaker 1: Yeah, the important thing, too, is that since Exxon only made was it
$6.9 billion in profit, they clearly cannot lower the price of gas.
>> Speaker 1: 7.9, get it right.
$7.9 billion.
>> Speaker 2: Sorry, that extra billion, that would make it worthwhile.
That's why gas prices are still so high,
is because they're clearly losing lots of money.
So the entire thing is utterly ridiculous.
I look at that list of the profit per company, and I just think with all
of the climate apocalypse going on right now, many of you will die.
But that is a sacrifice that they're willing to make for
massive amounts of money.
>> Speaker 1: Yeah, no, they're definitely willing to make that sacrifice.
They made that decision literally back in the 1950s.
We'll get to that in a moment.
But first, what are they doing with those profits?
They are spending it on stock buybacks to further enrich their shareholders.
So let's talk a little bit about that.
Let's put the graphic up.
All right, Big Oil, stock buybacks, just for the second quarter of 2023,
BP plans on spending $2.1 billion on buybacks Chevron,
$4.4 billion, Exxon, $4.3 billion, and Shell $3.6 billion.
>> Speaker 2: So the vast majority of their profits.
>> Speaker 1: Yeah, they take their profits.
So they're like,
let's make more profits by artificially inflating the value of our shares.
Our shareholders are happy.
We're happy.
We compound the profits here.
Why not?
The only people who lose in the end are people like us,
who have to live in ever-hotter conditions,
who have to deal with extreme weather events, unbearable droughts
that lead to unbearable wildfires that are more difficult to contain.
I mean, the list goes on and on.
Insane flooding in parts of Florida because of the rising sea levels.
Just but God forbid we have government policy.
Places the burden of dealing with the climate emergency onto
these incredibly lucrative businesses that have gotten us
to the situation we're in in the first place.
This is the reason why I got so angry about how the electric car policy is
being implemented in states like California,
because there's virtually no help in certain cases, right?
If you live in a building and you need to install the charging stations,
ain't no one from the government hitting us up to help us financially with that?
>> Speaker 2: They should.
>> Speaker 1: And by the way, I think that there should be some sort of penalty,
some sort of tax, whatever you wanna call it, however you wanna implement it,
that forces these fossil fuel companies to hand over some of their profits to help
everyone else that's struggling with the situation that they've created.
>> Speaker 1: Yeah.
>> But there's no conversation about that.
We're still subsidizing them.
It's crazy.
>> Speaker 2: Yeah, I think there might be a California state law requiring a new
construction that they put some in, and there might be money available to
the owners of the buildings if they want to install them.
But, yeah, they should be subsidizing in all the different ways that they can.
>> Speaker 1: Absolutely. >> Speaker 2: That's what subsidies
are for, is for
helping get over the initial difficult financial hump of new technologies.
Oil, not a new technology.
>> Speaker 1: And finally,
I just wanna shed more light on what I keep referencing.
So back in 1956, BP realized that they were not just BP.
So according to Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Jeff Merkley,
Big Oil companies knew as early as 1956 that the business they were
engaging in was warming the planet.
That burning fossil fuels would increase global temperatures.
And so in the 1970s, both Shell and Exxon conducted
internal research as well, and it backed up the same warnings.
And like Big Tobacco, the oil companies engaged in a massive disinformation
campaign to cover up the damage they were causing.
The three senators claimed that Big Oil even used some of
the same lawyers and experts as Big Tobacco.
And of course, Big Oil couldn't have gotten away with this cover-up in
these lies if it weren't for the politicians they bribed.
So just let's end on this.
What do these bribes look like.
So since 1998, that was a long time ago.
So you should expect the numbers to be high.
But did you expect them to be this high?
Since 1998, BP has spent nearly $144 million lobbying our
government to essentially allow them to keep doing what they're doing,
get away with the subsidies they've been getting from our federal government.
You have Chevron, okay?
Nearly $206 million on lobbying, ExxonMobil more than $302 million.
And then you have Shell.
Well, I guess BP has spent the least on lobbying,
but Shell spent 176,000,
a little more than $176,600.
This is how the system works.
And so the reason why we talk about corruption so
often is because it makes a difference in how legislation is decided,
how regulations are decided on the legislation that gets passed.
It is a problem, to say the least.
And look, Citizens United was what, in 2012?
>> Speaker 2: Sounds about right.
Was it 14?
>> Speaker 1: No, not 14.
>> Speaker 2: Somewhere around there.
>> Speaker 1: Anyway, my point is the lobbying accelerated after that point,
after the passage of Citizens United.
>> Speaker 2: Definitely.
>> Speaker 1: And we're definitely suffering the consequences of that right
now as we speak.
And by the way, as you guys all have noticed, and
as we've been covering on this show for weeks now, this summer is one of
the hottest summers on record, if not the hottest summer on record.
July one of the hottest months on record.
People are suffering the consequences of fossil fuel companies,
what they've done to the environment, and they're cool.
They're good because they're benefiting from the profits.
They don't care, right?
They're able to do whatever they need to do to get themselves to safety.
I don't know how much longer they're gonna be able to do that.
But everyone else is struggling, and
we have the government banning plastic straws and plastic bags and
making us all think that the onus is on the individual to deal with this problem.
No, how about we actually go after the people and
the companies that got us into this mess in the first place?
>> Speaker 2: I do both, but- >> I'm fine with both.
I am fine with both.
But if you have somehow persuaded yourself that you're saving the planet
by foregoing the plastic straw, you're wrong.
That's not enough.
Not even close.
>> Speaker 2: No, definitely.
Well, they're different problems. They're both environmental, but
they're different problems.
I think that those CEOs are just smart enough to take the advice of Ben Shapiro
and just turn on the AC.
It's really as simple as that.
We reassured.
>> Speaker 1: Yeah, there are a lot of people who are disconnected from
the realities of normal people, and that's a perfect example of that.