American Petroleum Institute

petroleum-institute-information-peak-oil

The EPA announced yesterday that it is seeking to cut air pollution. Based on the fact that the Bush Administration’s EPA never sought to cut air pollution, this is a wondrous thing.

Of course, who could possibly argue with the idea of cleaner air? The EPA’s stated goal is to propose a stricter standard for smog-producing pollutants that, according to the New York Times, “would bring substantial health benefits to millions of Americans.” No mess, no fuss, no debate—if you’re a homo Sapien who uses his lungs to intake oxygen this is a good idea.

Uh …

According to the American Petroleum Institute, the chief lobbying firm for oil companies, government environmental standards are a bad thing. They call the EPA’s moves “an obvious politicization of the air-quality standard-setting process that could mean unnecessary energy cost increases, job losses and less domestic oil and natural gas development.”

In a word: Evil.

Can anyone here imagine holding a job where you literally represent the needs and desires of a community that kills the planet; that has expressed no regard for the earth unless it somehow produces profit? Whether you believe man-made global warming to be true (I do) or not (seriously, open your eyes), who can possibly argue with fewer emissions? With cleaner air? With safer water? Can a price actually be placed on these endeavors? Like, you don’t want your kids breathing in cancer-causing chemicals, but not for $100,000?

Uhg.

8 thoughts on “American Petroleum Institute”

  1. Gee Jeff, in this day and age of government excess and intrusion that is already ruining the economy to the point of saddling our children with debt that can’t be paid, I think those who have a dim view of further government meddling as “evil” start from a pretty legitimate point, especially given the miserable track record of government supervision on just about anything in our lives..

    And and as far as “opening your eyes” about global warming, how about stepping outside in any part of the country undergoing record cold waves, and then maybe use those same eyes to read the e-mails at the heart of the Climategate scandal that the elite media curiously refuses to report on.

  2. My thought is that we should hate the message, not the messenger. Perhaps I’m a bit sensitive to this because my late father was employed by the organization you’re discussing. I have no great love for the petroleum industry, but I judge people as individuals, not by the people who sign their paychecks. Hell, I worked at AOL and taught people how to defy consumers’ wishes and NOT cancel their subscription. Was I a soulless corporate whore? Sure, and I hated every minute of it. I also hated the idea of foreclosure. Practicality triumphs over principle, so don’t assume that everyone in that type of job is some evil, environment-hating ogre.

    1. Sorry, Richard. But I can’t agree. We all have bills to pay—but that doesn’t make it right to work for the cigarette company. And it does say something about a person. Not everything … but something.

  3. With all due respect, that’s horseshit, Jeff. There are plenty of professions that are ripe for similar criticism. You noted tobacco companies, which is correct. What about the liquor industry? What about defense attorneys? Are you making the assumption that anyone who works at a job that you find objectionable somehow becomes less of a decent and moral person?

    If you feel that you can judge a person by the job they do, so be it. I think it’s a narrow-minded and simplistic approach, but it’s your blog. I’m not defined by the job I perform; it’s part of my life, but I would hope that I would be evaluated as a person, not by the signature on my paycheck.

    You’re extremely fortunate that you have the talent to make a living doing something that you love. Not everyone has that option. And if it comes down to working someplace with which I have some sort of moral objection or suckling at the government teat, I’ll take the former anytime.

    1. Richard, I just can’t agree. Let’s say one works for Phillip Morris. Or ExxonMobil. He can probably make the case that what he does doesn’t cause negative results, because his specific task might be something directly unrelated to, say, cancer sticks. But if you work for a company that directly, unambiguously advocates for cigarettes, or against global warming … well, it does say something about that person.

  4. First off, the “Climategate” scandal? Eeg. More anti-science crap from flat-earthers. If your faith in God isn’t enough for you, don’t try to pretend that it’s science, too. Sounds like a personal problem.

    Everyone bears personal responsibility for their part in this planet. That goes for people who lobby for the oil industry, too.

    What they do affects the whole world, and they need to be called out. They’re destroying a world that they don’t own.

Leave a Reply to Richard Cancel reply