Executives with Shell Oil Company have been secretly meeting with environmental groups for more than two years to establish support for a nationwide tax on carbon emissions.
Since the beginning of 2016, Shell, an international oil and gas giant based in the Netherlands, has met with officials from the Niskanen Center, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), World Resources Institute and the Nature Conservancy regarding the implementation of a U.S. carbon tax and to discuss a host of other climate change issues, according to a report from E&E News.
The talks began during the 2016 presidential election, with the understanding that a Hillary Clinton administration would likely mean more regulation of the fossil-fuel industry.
However, the communication continued after President Donald Trump’s upset victory. What began as face-to-face meetings in Shell’s Washington, D.C., offices and at restaurants in the first two years shifted to communication over phone calls and emails.
Communication with Shell continues on a weekly basis, but participation among the different environmental groups varies.
“We value our partnerships with the private sector, including companies like Shell, and believe that these partnerships are important for achieving durable policy solutions,” Jason Albritton, a senior adviser for the Nature Conservancy, stated to E&E News.
Also confirming the meetings was Environmental Defense Fund spokeswoman Victoria Mills, who said EDF regularly meets with companies to build support for climate change legislation in Congress.
The concept of a carbon tax — a charge levied upon companies according to the amount of CO2 they emit into the atmosphere — has been pushed by environmentalists as an alternative to strict government regulations.
Shell has long been supportive of the idea.
While passage of carbon pricing legislation is highly unlikely in the GOP-controlled Congress, some Republicans have embraced it.
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo, who represents a competitive Miami district, introduced a bill in July that calls for a tax on CO2 emissions.
However, Curbelo has admitted himself that the legislation would likely go nowhere, and he has since been subjected to attack ads for introducing it.
Read more at Daily Caller
Well that ends buying Shell gas .
Shell conspires with criminals promoting a scam to fleece tax energy users ?
Say it isn’t so .
No wonder the eco -anarchists didn’t go after Shell .
Maybe Shell has been working behind EXXON’s back . Who knew ?
Adios Carlos . You tried to screw tax payers now it’s time for you to get a real job .
I quit Shell a long time ago.
This is a clincher that I will never buy Shell products again.
I will remember this every time I see a Shell sign.
I believe that the energy companies know that we’ll pay a steep(er) price for fuel. We have before. It won’t hurt them as much as you’d think. The radicals on the Left have rabies and Big Oil fears them. BP got beat up badly for their transgression. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
Concur, boycott shell. And the irony, this was the company that apartheid survived on for decades, someone in the left needs to remember they are the ones that hurt Nelson Mandela’s struggle for so many years.
It’s not a “carbon” tax. It’s a CO2 tax. They can’t even get science right…but that’s a given and I’m preaching to the choir here.
We dont need any more stupid taxes on everything from Glocks to Big Macs just to fund some dumb projects by a bunch of unreasonible little twats I can still remember a bunch of Eco-Wackos/Hypotcrites protesting against a Shell Oil Rig in their Plastic Kyacks
Though I adamantly disagree with a carbon dioxide tax, I think I understand the reason Shell has been working for it. Believing that Clinton or that the next president after Trump would support excessive regulation to reduce carbon dioxide, such a tax would be an alternative. Unlike regulations designed to impact the oil companies’ ability to extract oil, a CO2 tax would shift the financial burden to others. Depending on the tax it could be other companies that emit CO2, the consumer, or both.
Also remember that the three motivations that started the global warming fraud were forced de-industrialization, expansion of the power of government, and an excuse to create new taxes.
I rarely use Shell because where I live they are much more expensive than other stations. At this moment they are 26 cents a gallon more expensive than a station that is just down the street. The highest difference I have seen was 52 cents compared to a station that was half a mile away. Still, on occasion I did use Shell when it meant avoiding significant traffic to get to another station, or on a cross country trip when all of the stations off of the freeway were close in price. This has ended. I’ll never use Shell again.
I don’t knowingly purchase Shell energy products and I’m doubling down on that behavior!
Carbon/CO2 taxes are ultimately regressive, just like the attitudes of anyone who champions excessive energy taxes. Shell is less than intelligent about the money-sucking environmental groups promoting this “SHELL-GAME’.