Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Climate Change [AKA Richmond Chevron, etc.][Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: d.topete73(--nospam--at)gmail.com, seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Climate Change [AKA Richmond Chevron, etc.]
- From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 20:44:48 EDT
Ouch, that hits close to home. From what I know, having lived in Richmond CA for the past 25 years, what you say is right on the mark, if OT. Of course Chevron blames the higher incidence jof cancer downwind of their refinery on "all those lower class smokers."
In a message dated 5/5/08 9:39:01 AM, d.topete73(--nospam--at)gmail.com writes:
One example I know of is Chevron, and their refinery in Richmond, CA. (FYI... Richmond is in western Contra Costa County = much less affluent socio-ecomonic region, while their HQ is in San Ramon, in eastern CoCo County = very affluent)
They apparently have a habit of determining how much property tax they pay the county every few years. while they add new structures, they get away with setting their tax rate. And, when the county supervisors and city officials in Richmond say, "hey- how many times are you gonna give a "shelter-in-place alert" and not pony up for vital health care services necessary near your refinery?", Chevron threatens legal action against the City and County which is strapped? Local residents suffer various ailments, particularly respiratory conditions, as well as higher rates of cancer. Chevron (and others) records multi-billion dollar profits on a quarterly basis. Yet, when the City of Richmond says "you can't take what's legally ours..." (i.e. taxes owed), big oil will put up a legal fight to avoid paying.
Do a search of the San Francisco Chronicle, The Contra Costa Times, The Oakland Tribune and others, and you'll see plenty of evidence.
If I strayed OT, so be it. big Oil sets their own rules, which becomes very easy to do when one of their own is a high ranking official within the executive branch of government.
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Bill Polhemus <bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc> wrote:
David Fisher wrote:
I think it would also be nice if the politicians stop taking money from the
I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to this from any leftist.
What is it that, to you, is wrong with "oil companies?" Do you realize how much tax revenue they represent? Do you realize they are no longer "oil companies," but "energy companies?" There are now no domestic refineries owned by any of the large "oil companies." Because of environmental red-tape and a subsequent decline in profitability, they have all been sold to small operating companies such as Valero, Frontier or Hunt.
Most "oil companies" are now solely involved in upstream production, almost entirely offshore, and in petrochemicals.
So, what is it that "the oil companies" do, that has people like you so upset? If they suddenly ceased to exist (or were "windfall profits-taxed" down to miniscule size) what benefit do YOU see that would come of it? How, for instance, would it benefit the millions of pensioners and investors who own their stock - the de facto IDENTITY of "oil companies"?
I'd seriously like to know. This "evil oil companies" mantra is hollow, possessed of nearly ZERO factual argument. So please, try and lay one on me.
Or find another mantra.
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.
- Prev by Subject: Re: Climate Change
- Next by Subject: CMU Spec
- Previous by thread: MaAcArthur Maze, Fire Collapse and Reconstruction-A Bridge Seminar
- Next by thread: Conical washers