OPEC Fears Climate Campaigners
OPEC warns climate campaigners are “greatest threat to our industry going forward.”
The largest oil cartel in the world sits on top of countless trillions of dollars of crude, and understandably, they don’t want that value to fall–for any reason. But what happens when the public voice is heard by regulators who begin to create legislation that forces the oil companies to pay the true cost of oil extraction and consumption? The answer: stranded assets, by the cubic mile.
Speaking in Vienna, Mohammed Barkindo, who has just been re-appointed as Secretary General of OPEC, said due to our climate crisis “there is a growing mass mobilisation of world opinion… against oil”. Indeed there is; excellent observation. How about becoming part of the solution?
But let’s look at the “greatest threat” claim. For starters, how does one quantify such an abstract thing? Do they have some basis on which to make such a statement?
If nothing else, it re-enforces the broadly held belief that protests make a difference–a subject on which an enormous amount of research has been conducted. Here’s a Harvard University study that concludes that protests not only affect law-makers directly, but are effective in getting other people politically active.
FWIW, I think protesting is a gas. The women’s march. The march for science. Clean energy. Give me a good cause, a Saturday morning, and I’m there, along with thousands of others. Paradoxically, few of us are angry; we mean business and we make demands, but we know we’re there for the right reason, which allows us to do it with love in our hearts.
Craig,
“Give me a good cause, a Saturday morning, and I’m there demonstrating”.
Thus speaks the true dilettante. The shallow, part time Eco-warrior. The leftist “kumbaya” ineffectual liberal.
On Saturday morning you are an Eco-warrior, but come Monday as you fill your car with gasoline, all your resolutions have disappeared. That’s what comes of indulging precocious children and simplistic ideas.
Mohammed Barkindois a sincere and serious man, he doesn’t comprehend the silly sanctimonious hypocrisy of the leftist West. In his culture if something is forbidden, it’s forbidden! The concept of tokenism and hypocrisy isn’t a virtue in public life.
So here ‘s the challenge, get rid of every product made from oil, and then you may be able to speak against oil companies, but until then while you still rely on their products, you are merely a dilettante hypocrite.
GReetings. Mate from Down under Marco
True to form uou throw baby out with dirty water.
Yes its trye we need oil for 1,000 s of prodcut inputs to make our lives better.
Solar wind and components for green energy rely on oil inputs.
However OPEC and other oil producers are reading the Tea Leaves and they can see that demand for oil their cash flow is going to flat line in many advanced nations . EVs and urban living will replace part of their market.
So Craigs article was about that and not protesting atainst 5he evils of oil.
We are in a transition and ti.e of many possible outcomes. But pashing out is most reactionary indeed.
Oh yes You Aussies in Queensland are complicit in increasing global warming with your economic addiction to extracting nmmore coal to export to India and slowing India s transition to cleaner future.
Why don t you fellas get some Stds on solar quality. I read that shoddy equipment and poor installs are the culprit. Lots systems catching on Fire too.
Damn does that equate 5hat all solar is liberal wet dream ?? I think it and know it not to be reality.
So call me leftist now ?
Fyi and who ever else reads this Los Angeles Dept of Power building large multi megawatt solar f $ 0197 per kwhr plus lhalf the capacity of the solar with batteries f $.0156 per jwhr. Add them together and it is cheaper than new gas plant at $,065 per kwhr plus 30 years of more O & M costs.
I dont think this is leftists its sound Economics every capitalist dream!
I bid you a nice day
Silent: I appreciate this, but I caution you against wasting your time. MP knows perfectly well what my post was about. Apparently performing this for a living, he takes everything I write and twists it in an attempt to discredit it. He’s been doing this methodically since the site was launched a decade ago, literally 1000+ times, and he trolls other environmentalists’ sites as well. Laughably, he spends more time criticizing me than I spend writing the posts themselves.
Craig,
This may surprise you, but as I’ve said before, my replies to you take very little time. Mostly, I compose my comments as relaxation when traveling or as a distraction from more work matters. My average comment would take me no longer than 3-4 minutes at most. (that’s easy to ascertain from my composition).
“and he trolls other environmentalists’ sites as well”. You keep repeating this accusation, yet you never name any evidence to back this assertion.
You may notice I never criticize when you post articles about practical or valuable clean(er) technology, or objectively based observations.
In my reply to Silent, I quote real information which can be independently verified. In my life I try to aid the environment by introducing and promoting practical clean(er) technology, that I would adopt myself.
I don’t believe in substituting “moral” or political propaganda for reality, I believe that’s simply counter-productive.
I do believe hypocrisy should be called out and exposed whenever it’s encountered. Either put up when challenged, or shut up is a very Australian belief !
So when anyone, of any persuasion, advocates a belief or proposition I take the time and courtesy to carefully analyze the advocate and the proposition. I don’t call people names or slander them without being very sure of my facts, and I’m able to produce evidence to support my assertions.
My response to advocates, of all persuasions, is based on their ability to answer questions and how they implement their advocacy in their own lives.
Yes, I think a person who spends their life railing against the “evil’ oil companies, and lives in California, should drive a Tesla. I believe someone who advocates ‘journalistic freedom’ should raise their voice in defense of all journalists, not just those
who favour their beliefs, and remain silent while others are beaten and harassed.
Yeah, I believe all new clean(er) technology should be carefully considered and appraised with equal fairness and objectivity. I don’t believe ‘moral’ or political ideology should be allowed to prejudice such a procedure.
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe such principles make me a ‘troll’, but then I’m not hiding under the bridge for fear of a debate.
(timed response, 4.11 minutes)
Hi Silent,
Nice to hear from you.
You are quite correct, some of the current, and more wasteful, uses for oil will be replaced by alternate energy technology. However, that will be a considerable time in the future.
You will be pleased to hear some real progress is being made with the most environmentally harmful oil product, Marine Grade No 6 (bunker oil). This fuel was the single most pollutant of all industrial energy uses. (One ship equaled 50,000 cars, and with 100,000 ships, that equals 5 times the world’s entire road transport fleet !).
When we started our campaign to convince the Maritime industry to cease using this product we gained the support of the Oil industry (Chevron and BP in particular) and as a result the maritime industry responded (albeit slowly) to the extent where no new shipping is being built, even in Asia, equipped with bunker oil capacity.
This was achieved not so much by “moral” or political action, although stricter new maritime regulations were introduced, but by introducing new clean(er) technology which proved the economic benefits of using clean(er)fuels.
The Oil industry responded by producing cleaner, high grade fuels economically while also improving refining technology to eliminate bunker oil waste. The industry worked with maritime engineers to develop the newer and clean(er) engineering technology for a new generation of shipping.
The introduction of this technology will take time but the economics have allowed retro fitting to occur much faster than was originally anticipated.
Australia is a major exporter of coal. The last election is evidence of the voters reaction to interfering with coal production. Coal has the potential for being the cheapest and least pollutant of all methods of producing clean(er) energy. Clean(er) coal technology is already well advanced in both China and India.
Solar power is very useful, but has hidden environmental drawbacks. The sort of industrial scale solar project you describe requires massive government subsidies to produce the kind of economics you describe.
There is also the looming environmental problem of safe and economic disposal of solar panels. (a cost never factored into solar costings). These highly toxic panels are currently largely disposed of by either shipping to third world countries with no environmental regulations or dumped in the ocean, piled up in deserts etc.
Australia was an early adopter, and producer of high grade solar technology. Unfortunately, in 2007 a green-leftist government was elected and proceeded to dismantle the regulations, subsidize solar installations with taxpayer money, but no accountability and encourage the importation of a fllod of cheap imported panels and inverters.
The result was a massive scandal of corruption and disaster leaving the local existing industry in ruins while scam artists proliferated.
Silent,promoting new clean(er) technology is very worthwhile, as long as all the facts are known and carefully analyzed. Clean(er) technology should be subjected to the same careful scrutiny as any other technology.
My argument is that process is not assisted by emotive advocates lacking any objectivity or the pronouncement of precocious 12 year olds!
I certainly wouldn’t call you a socialist! If you ever decide to migrate to Australia, i would certainly employ you selling new clean(er) technology! 🙂