They prioritized private profits over protecting our economy, safety, human health, and a livable world.  They know that failure to address their pollution is resulting in catastrophic damages and losses for us, society, and nature, yet they work relentlessly to delay addressing it.

The scientific consensus

The scientific consensus is unequivocal:  "Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence."
- climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.

Exxon and other oil and gas majors accept the scientific consensus about climate change.

They accept sound economic principles:  it shouldn't be free to pollute

Climate change now costs the U.S. $150 billions annually in damages, losses, higher taxes and insurance rates, and inflationary pressures from associated food and water challenges, and costs are increasing.  These are "external" costs of using fossil fuels - they are not reflected in price of fossil fuels, but we pay it for using them in other ways.  These costs are an implicit subsidy to the fossil fuel industry, making fossil fuels artificially more competitive against better options and suppressing investment and innovation in better solutions.  Economists' gold-standard approach to address the failure of the market to account for these costs in the price of fossil fuels is to internalize them in a way that protects family budgets and U.S. businesses.  Ie., a steadily rising, border-adjusted, cash-back carbon fee paid by fossil fuel producers (clcouncil.org/economists-statement).

They say they support carbon pricing

78% of the 50 largest oil and gas companies with a public opinion about carbon pricing support the approach to address climate pollution from their products. - Science Direct

Exxon - “We believe a price on carbon emissions is essential to achieving net zero emissions”
- corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/news-releases/statements/our-position-on-climate-policy-and-carbon-pricing 

BP - “BP supports a price on carbon because it's fair, efficient and effective”
- bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/who-we-are/advocating-for-net-zero-in-the-us/carbon-pricing-in-the-us.html

Shell - “Shell advocates for governments to use carbon pricing”
- shell.com/sustainability/transparency-and-sustainability-reporting/advocacy-and-political-activity/carbon-pricing.html 

Chevron - “Carbon pricing should be the primary  policy tool to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. It incentivizes the most efficient and cost-effective emissions reductions while enabling  support to affected communities, consumers, and businesses.” - chevron.com/-/media/chevron/sustainability/documents/2021-chevron-supports-well-designed-climate-policy.pdf

TotalEnergies - “TotalEnergies supports the implementation of carbon pricing mechanisms. TotalEnergies signed the participant statement on carbon pricing titled "The Energy Transition & Care for our Common Home" at the Vatican on 14 June 2019.” - totalenergies.com/sustainability/stakeholder-relationships-advocacy/advocacy-principles

Shell - “Demand-side emissions reduction efforts are required for climate goals to be achieved because supply-side constraints alone would be ineffective in reducing global emissions. ConocoPhillips believes a well-designed pricing regime on carbon emissions is the most effective tool to reduce GHG emissions across the global economy and, in particular, to address Scope 3 end-use emissions. A revenue-neutral carbon tax that is transparent, predictable and cost-effective to administer would be an effective policy option.... A price on carbon would also provide a stable and predictable market signal that would impact investment flows and end-user choices in a manner that minimizes adverse local economic and social impacts of an energy transition.” - conocophillips.com/sustainability/managing-climate-related-risks/public-policy/carbon-pricing/

The American Petroleum Institute (API) - “Rather than a patchwork of federal and state regulations and mandates that could ineffectively address the climate challenge, an economywide government carbon price policy is the most impactful and transparent way to achieve meaningful progress.” - api.org/climate#carbon-price

The Public and Experts Support a federal Carbon Fee and Dividend with a CBAM

The majority of voters in towns across NH (including Rep. Notter's Merrimack) support legislation or consideration of the Carbon Fee and Dividend policy at the state and federal levels.

Leading U.S. Economists from across the political spectrum recommend the approach, saying it is good for families and businesses, and holds other countries accountable:  US Economists' Statement on Carbon Dividends.

A leading Conservative Economist explains why:  The Winning Conservative Climate Solution.

U.S. and International climate experts say without a policy like Carbon Fee and Dividend we will fail to achieve important climate goals.

Many co-benefits of the Carbon Fee and Dividend policy have been identified for family budgets and US businesses in independent studies.

Business groups and organizations support the solution.

Carbon Pricing is Necessary for a Safe Future

• • “We cannot solve the climate crisis without effective carbon pricing.” - U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen

  • “Explicit carbon prices remain a necessary condition of ambitious climate policies” - IPCC

  • “Carbon pricing is a critical part of the policy mix needed to both meet the Paris Agreement goals and support low emissions growth.” - World Bank

The Cash-Back Dividend Makes It Work for People

• When all the money collected from a polluters fee paid by fossil fuel producers is returned to all households on an equal per-capita basis each month, 2/3rd of all families come out ahead (Household Impact Study).

• So why does Rep. Notter never mention the cash-back dividend when she talks about the 2020 bill to implement a cash-back carbon pollution fee on imported fossil fuels in NH?  Ask her!  But we know the cash-back dividend is not something a fossil fuel industry bad actor front group wants people to know about because it makes the solution popular and fair.

A CBAM Makes U.S. Businesses More Competitive and Holds Free-Polluting Countries Accountable

• When we put a price on pollution in the U.S. economy, we can use a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to charge a carbon polluters import tariff at the border in trade with free polluting countries and rebate U.S. exporters.  This makes U.S. businesses more competitive in the U.S. market, holds free-polluting countries accountable for their pollution, and will drive the world to close the growing global carbon price gap as we need for our safety.

Who Wants the Out-of-State Fossil Fuel Industry to Maximize Its Profits by Setting Us to Ignore Mainstream Science and Economics and Pay Enormous Consequences of Delaying the Transition to an Efficient Clean Energy Economy? 

Ask your representatives to learn about the sources of influence that lead some (e.g. receipts) down the dead-end path that benefits out-of-state polluter interests at the expense of the citizens, businesses, economy, and natural splendor of New Hampshire.   Our state should stop being manipulated by the fossil fuel polluters' two-faced game of propaganda and delay.

Legislators who attend all-expenses-paid conferences to Koch Network-funded events to be taught polluter talking points and legislative priorities are not good for New Hampshire.  Those who choose to remain willfully ignorant about the bad-actor tactics of polluting corporate interests are not the right people to represent us.

It results in embarrassing bills such as 2025 NH HCR1, of which Rep. Notter is a co-sponsor, about which the Granite Geek writes, "An NH bill pretends climate change doesn’t exist because it’s too scary to face" - concordmonitor.com/2025/01/07/another-nh-bill-pretends-that-climate-change-doesnt-exist-because-its-too-scary-to-face/#comment-210264.   It results in damaging bills like HB219, which aims to eliminate the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard, which although less ambitious than those of surrounding states, does require some level of energy diversity away from fossil fuels.  New Hampshire can do better. 

A large majority of American adults (69%) support our country’s goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050♥️  as our part of the international Paris Accord agreement to keep global warming at a relatively safe level.  It's time for Representative Notter and her ilk to accept mainstream science and economics so our state doesn't pay high costs from being left behind.  Their first step on the path to redemption is to listen to experts, acknowledge the global progress and trade implications of carbon pricing, and help close the growing U.S. carbon price gap by supporting  a federal, border-adjusted, cash-back carbon fee on fossil fuel production (bit.ly/carbon-price-gap-presentation).

♥️ - PEW RESEARCH CENTER (2022): “Americans Largely Favor U.S. Taking Steps To Become Carbon Neutral by 2050,”