This week,
the heads of some of the largest
oil companies in the entire world
were testifying before Congress,
and the topic was misinformation.
And indeed, we got it,
including at that testimony.
Turned out they could find ways to
misinform us even when they were
sort of technically telling
the truth.
So they suggested that there is
a long term need for oil and
gas, but they do claim to believe
in anthropogenic climate change.
And they said that fossil fuel
emissions contribute to global
heating.
Some critics have called them out
for using that term rather than
something like cause or drive,
because it is technically true that
it contributes to it but
it's not like seventh on the list.
It's that like it's mostly
the cows, and there's a little bit
of gas there at the end,
that's not how that works at all.
But the misinformation of course
was more significant than that.
And some of the grilling of
the executives that happened,
had to do with some of the long
term misinformation that's happened
over literally decades,
to muddy the waters around
the science of climate change as
well as a number of other topics.
And in fact at one
point each of the executives and
these are executives of ExxonMobil,
BP, American Chevron and Shell.
There were industry trade
group reps as well.
But they were asked, have you ever
funded directly or indirectly
misinformation campaigns?
And they all said no.
And they were all big old fat liars
when they were saying that,
not true at all.
So, the guardian has a nice little
write up of some of the even just
more recent disinformation
campaigns, let alone some of
the historic ones that we've talked
about in the past.
So for instance, for years,
Exxon has been spending millions of
dollars to run ads about its
investments in algae fuel, even
though to spend very little on the
actual research and it has no plans
to bring the product to market.
It's the sort of thing that you can
put in an ad during the Super Bowl
or on MSNBC, and it looks like
they're looking beyond oil.
In fact, BP likes to
call themselves beyond petroleum,
like they're looking beyond it.
But they're not acting
like they're looking beyond it.
For Chevron,
they had an ad back in 2020 that
highlighted their commitment to
carbon capture and sequestration
as a climate solution.
So sure, we're going to keep
polluting but don't worry we'll
suck it back out of the air and
we'll stick it in the ground or
something.
Well, according to
The New York Times, Chevron is only
spending what they call pocket
change on the technology,
while doubling down on oil and
gas production and exploration.
Also, the technology that
they're touting doesn't work.
They have a big project in
Australia that's been called
a disaster from the beginning.
And now it's just venting CO2 into
the atmosphere,
which I think is a very poetic end
to this whole nonsense actually.
One more, Shell has touted its new
a net-zero commitment as evidence
that the company is committed to
climate action.
They in fact did that at
the testimony yesterday.
Company documents over say quote,
Shell's, operating plans and
budgets do not reflect Shell's
net zero emissions targets.
Well if the operating plans and
budgets don't, what other than
the ads actually would.
But there's a lot more
misinformation where that came
from, but that just that's
a little teaser for you,
some appetizers of misinformation.
What do you think about this?
I know we showed some videos
of them being grilled yesterday.
>> Yeah, so Katie Porter did
a great job with this yesterday.
On the issue John just brought up,
she had this hilarious example
where she filled a jar full of M&Ms
and then said, okay,
this is how much money you spend
on oil exploration or
all energy resource overall.
Now let me show you how much you
spend on renewable energy,
which you say is just a giant part
of what you're doing,
it was a couple of M&Ms.
And that was based on the actual
money that they spent.
And you look at the two jars and
you're like this is a joke.
So that's why I love her show and
tell.
And so if you're confused as
to whether they were doing this on
purpose and if they misled you, I
want to read you some more quotes,
okay, so you're clear.
This is from a 1998 action plan
memo created by Exxon, Chevron,
the American Petroleum Institute,
and others.
So it said, develop and implement
and national media relations
program to inform the media about
uncertainties in climate science.
To generate national, regional and
local media coverage on
the scientific uncertainties,
and thereby educate and inform
the public, stimulating them to
raise questions with policymakers.
That would appear to be
manufacturing doubt, and
that was their battle plan.
So when they answered today, golly,
gee, us trying to say that maybe
it's not happening, and lie about,
we'd never would do that.
Except for all of our internal
memos that indicate that's exactly
what we plan to do,
and in fact did do.
CEO Lee Raymond in 1997 said,
quote, the case was so
called global warming is far from
air tight.
So they've never done any of that.
Now, I do want to give you one more
quote, then we'll go to Nina for
her reaction.
In the 1980s,
they had an internal memo.
And now we all know this, and
they're confronted by it, and
they still are lying about it.
An Exxon scientist told the company
in 1981 that it was, quote,
distinctly possible that climate
change caused by its business model
would, quote,
indeed be catastrophic.
And then in parentheses,
at least for a substantial fraction
of the Earth's population.
Catastrophic for a substantial
portion of the earth's population.
They continueD to do
it all the way up until now,
for 40 straight years, knowing that
it's going to be catastrophic for
all of us, and then they made
an action plan to lie all of us, so
they can make more money.
>> Mh-hm.
>> Cash is king or queen.
And they are very comfortable in
their bed of cash while they
destroy Earth.
And very few people can go up to
space.
[LAUGH] >> So
let Mother Earth burn.
>> Yeah.
>> Rest of us burn down here
on Earth.
And you got a few trillionaires,
billionaires that will go to
outer space.
This is a shell game literally,
the pun is very much intended.
Or to use a Wizard of Oz example,
don't pay attention to the man
behind the curtain.
>> Mh-hm.
>> And they know nothing is
going to happen.
I mean, I'm glad that Congress
held the hearings, that I'm glad.
And the honorable Katie Porter,
I mean, I just got to step up my
show and tell game let me I'm
trying to step up my, so I'm glad
that they are having the hearings.
But now the question becomes
what are they going to do?
>> Yeah, so we took one
step in that direction today.
It was a positive step, but I want
to address the cash point to.
So, Representative Maloney who's
running these hearings,
actually did a really good job and
so she was opposed by a progressive
in the last primary.
I don't know if that's
what motivated her by honestly.
But I care if they motivated or
the good run progressives and
primaries but I care that she's
doing the right thing now so
great that's wonderful, right.
And so she's had brought these
folks in which we should have
brought in a long time ago but
again I'll take it.
And she said okay now we're
subpoenaing you guys,
because you're not being dishonest,
we're asking you for documents, and
you're not giving us the documents.
This is not optional.
So here's a subpoena
for all of you.
We come bearing gifts too, okay?
You get a subpoena, you get
a subpoena, you get a subpoena for
all those oil executives that
showed up, and again, we
should have done this decades ago.
It's telling that we didn't do it
decades ago, but finally,
democrats are saying in Congress,
yeah, no you're going to have
to show us your internal
documents about how you lied to us,
why you lied to us, how much money
you made lying to us.
Because remember guys,
we're paying all the cost.
So they make the money,
they make the profit and
they take it home, and
they say climate change costs.
So the tune of potentially
trillions of dollars, you guys
pay that, taxpayers pay that,
why am I paying for
the cost of your business?
Those are good questions that
we could find out in the darkness.
Now, the other thing I want to say
about cash John is, the Republicans
throughout the hearing of course,
all they did was defend the oil
executives.
>> Yeah. >> And he kept apologizing
to them.
And they make sense, one of
the guys from Louisiana like,
Louisiana is devastated by climate
change and the true storms, etc.
And he's like, but
we're making money.
And he said, well why would we
start making money, who's we?
We're not making any money, but
he is by the way,
he got paid nearly a million
dollars from fossil fuel companies
in campaign contributions,
otherwise known as bribes.
>> Yeah and like,
making money as your state is
flooded isn't a noble pursuit.
On the Titanic,
the band kept playing but
it wasn't for tips.
That's not what they were doing.
But that's the thing that's worst
about this we know
that the effects of climate change
are going to be unequal, and that
people who are already worst off
are going to be hit the hardest.
And along the way, we're beset on
all sides by a variety of different
groups that are allowing this to
continue happening because they're
all making money.
The companies are making money from
not having to change their way of
business.
The politicians are making money in
terms of donations as well as
you know being on their
boards afterward.
So the politicians
are just directly making money like
Joe Manchin like he doesn't care
about any of this he's making bank
right now.
And the media companies, many of
them also have BP ads, even though
nobody watching MSNBC can just go
and buy a barrel or anything.
For some reason there's still
ads for BP.
So everybody's making money.
There's no action even when we
deliver the White House,
the Senate, and the House.
We'll talk about Sinema supposedly
doubling down on doing something
about climate change, but it
certainly doesn't feel like that.
Despite all of that, I'm glad
that they're doing the hearings.
If only so
that we can convince more people of
what needs to be done.
I found some evidence.
Vice was talking about the results
of a poll that asked people whether
they believe that humans have
committed to climate change, that
we're the reason that's happening.
And in particular, are oil and
gas companies responsible for it.
And a majority, 60% say that they
think that oil and gas companies
are, 83% of Democrats,
just 27% of Republicans.
But when you tell them about, for
instance, what Cenk was talking
about that they've had the research
for decades, they purposefully lied
to conceal it,
you get those numbers even higher.
About seven points more for pretty
much every group actually overall,
the Democrats even the Republicans
go up looks like nine points there.
When you reveal to them,
that these corporations have been
lying to them.
Now unfortunately, it's just sort
of a silver lining to show polls
like that the idea that, well if we
get more people to believe this
that'll matter, wouldn't be
true at a functioning democracy.
Unfortunately, we're broadcasting
from America.
But it's something at least,
the ship will go down with a lot of
people knowing what's going on at
least.
I mean, you really
make a really good point, John,
about the fact, we want to
believe that knowledge is power.
And it is power but
how we act upon that knowledge
really is the real power.
And can the people put enough
pressure to bear on the elected
officials to make the move?
>> Mm-hm.
>> It doesn't seem as
as such that we can make the move.
So then what makes them move?
Well, we got to get more different
people to run for office.
because if they were moving on
behalf of the people,
things will be a lot different in
a whole bunch of categories.
>> So in fact, we're now
in the middle of a bill where we're
discussing climate change, right?
So the reconciliation bill and
it got gutted.
The most important climate change
provisions were taken out.
Why were they taken out?
Is it because the majority of
Americans don't think that there's
climate change or the government
needs to take action?
No, the poll that John gave you
is one of dozens of polls that
show not only that the overwhelming
majority of the country thinks
there is climate change,
it's man-made, and the government
should do something about it.
But actually when you go to younger
Republicans even they agree, right?
And so, the numbers are as usual on
the issues overwhelmingly on our
side.
But it doesn't matter not only
Republicans.
And by the way,
every Republican wanted to gut
climate change legislation.
Every single one of them, okay?
But, of course, corporate Democrats
like Joe Manchin said yeah,
I'm with the oil companies,
the coal companies, and not on my
watch, you're not going to tackle
climate change, I'm killing it.
And he did and
they let him kill it.
So greed and corruption still wins.
So that's why I get a little
frustrated sometimes when we go,
from good people and they mean
well, and I want them to be active.
I love that they're active.
But thinking that hey,
if we do a rally and
we'll get public attention.
We already won.
The public totally agrees with us,
right?
The reason we're not winning in
action, is because Politicians take
corporate PAC money.
And as long as they take corporate
PAC money, we're
never going to win in Congress.
Look, I've said this that
a thousand times on federal
background checks on gun control,
97% of Americans agree with us, and
we still don't have it.
It isn't the popularity,
it's the politicians and
if they continue to take bribes,
we're screwed.
And look at the greed that it
creates.
So John used the Titanic example,
which then it made me remember
the World Trade Center example.
So the second tower,
there were people
that were ordered back to work.
After the first tower got hit,
they said don't worry about it in
all the loudspeakers.
And I remember the story,
this wife that comes down,
there's a manager, her husband
happens to be in the same building.
They're in different companies.
She comes down, and he's like,
I was told that we have to go back
to work and I'm telling my workers
to go back to work.
She said, I will divorce you unless
you come down right now.
Saved his life,
everyone else in that floor died.
What good was it to make profits
for an extra five minutes
when you're about to die?
And that's what the analogy is for
the whole planet.
And these guys in the Republicans
and Joe Manchin are saying, well,
we got to make more money for
five more minutes before the planet
explodes because >> SpaceX, I mean,
that's where they're going,
they don't they really don't
give a damn.
I mean that's what this comes
down to.
>> Yeah, they don't.
And guys, you can actually be
against greed, I know it seems in
Washington it's impossible that you
could be against greed, everybody's
going to take the money.
No, Chevron once offered to do
advertising on The Young Turks and
we said no.
See, there, boom.
That wasn't hard.
>> You could have at least
ask me, honestly.
>> [LAUGH] And by the way,
just to be absolutely clear,
I'll give you one last fact.
Just 20 fossil fuel companies
create one-third of all
of the climate change in the world.
So are they a contributing factor?
No. >> They are the factor.
>> Yeah. >> They're
the largest factor.
Okay add one more bit of bad news
some breaking news today on this.
So we've basically won on
the public.
Not everyone believes, but
we're a stupid country,
not everyone's going to.
We need to win in Congress and
we need to win the Senate on
climate change.
And that is very difficult.
We are very close,
but it's super difficult.
Then after that, after we get that
and we get the president to he's
willing to say that he believes
that he cares about it.
We also unfortunately,
have the Supreme Court because as
we've said many times over the past
few years, if you give a super
majority to conservatives on
the Supreme Court bad things will
happen for a very, very long time.
And so breaking news today.
Supreme Court agrees to consider
limiting EPA's authority to curb
greenhouse gases from power plants.
We'll hear appeals from coal mining
companies and
Republican-led states.
And I thought, well, that's bad.
And then, I saw an update to it,
turns out not just
the EPA's authority.
SCOTUS has agreed to take up
Congress's constitutional authority
to delegate to the EPA the power to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
So in theory, if we ever do get
enough senators and congress
people, they might no longer have
the constitutional authority
according to conservatives,
to ever do anything to limit these
emissions.
>> In 1971, Lewis Powell wrote
a memo saying that corporations
should take over the government,
and one of the most effective ways
to do that was to take
over the Supreme Court.
Richard Nixon then put them on
the Supreme Court just months
later, after reading that memo.
They've taken over
the Supreme Court the only way to
fight back is through an amendment.
Wolf-pack.com if you don't get
the money out of politics,
you're never going to be able to
overrule the Supreme Court.
The only thing that could do that
is the constitution.
So pass an amendment, otherwise,
they're going to drive us to
extinction.
>> Yeah, no, it's an absolute power
corrupts absolutely.
And this is what this is
an example of and then also,
elections have consequences.
>> Yep.
>> Any old blue just won't do.
>> Yep, if you thought Joe Manchin
was going to be on your side just
because he's a Democrat,
we're wrong.
>> Yeah, that's right. >> On the
other hand, if you thought voting
for a Republican in the general
election was a good idea.
Now we have a 6-3 Supreme Court, so
you were wrong.
>> That's right. >> Now the correct
answer is primary corporate
Democrats with progressives
who don't take corporate PAC money,
and then fight like hell to
get a constitutional amendment.