Sour Grapes from ExxonMobil’s CEO
“Any fool can despise what he can’t have” is the moral of the most famous of the Aesop’s fables (“The Fox and the Grapes“).
Sadly, Big Oil is incapable of participating in the rapid migration to renewable energy; oil and gas exploration is an extremely specific core competency, one that is extremely expensive to develop—and one whose capabilities don’t carry over into solar, wind, and the rest. So here comes Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, with his tongue-in-cheek explanation to his shareholders why he won’t invest in renewable energy: “We choose not to lose money on purpose.”
Apparently, a group of investors had asked him to add a climate change expert to the company’s board. The Associated Press reports that group pointed out that the “company has to be making plans for the future,” and suggested, “Let’s get an expert on the board to deal with a critical question.”
Nothing doing. Tillerson says no, and 79% of the shareholders follow along with the boss.
It’s disappointing that a group of this size is digging in its heels and taking a position that essentially says “we’re making money, so screw humankind.” Sure you’re making money. Your business model calls for using the planet’s atmosphere and oceans as your garbage can, and you’re not paying a nickel for it.
Yes, it’s disappointing, but it’s hardly astonishing. The tobacco industry still debates the fact that smoking causes cancer. Of course, no one believes them, and thus Big Tobacco (the industry that sells the only legal product that, when used as directed, causes death) is the most reviled group on the planet. Apparently Big Oil doesn’t have a problem in vying for that position.
Again, it’s sad.
The controlling interests in our society have not yet decided it is to their private advantage to shift from filthy ancient sunlight to the clean modern stuff. The immensely profitable fossil energy industry is grandly subsidized – according to the IMF more than $5 trillion annually, if you include government-allowed externalized costs… that’s pretty rich music.
However beneficial renewables will be to our United States, the rest of the globe, and health and well-being for ourselves and our progeny (and all the web of life we rest in), there is a substantial transition cost for all those firms that continue to regard these resources as competition.
The formidable lobbying power of fossil fuel interests ensures that the feeble attempts to subsidize renewables will continue to be sporadic, unpredictable and anemic. We may also expect the campaign of misinformation, concealment, and discredit to endure long past the tipping point.
If we want to escape indentured servitude and act with true liberty, we will find instruction in the words of a man who accomplished those feats in great measure, Frederick Douglass:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to, and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Exxon-Mobil and its ilk are quite well organized, and not for altruistic public benefit.
If we logical, critically thinking and imaginative humans want to see our national security and political sovereignty preserved – and if we want to defend ourselves and our posterity against the lethal ravages that fossil fuels inflict upon the biosphere and the economy – we had best get organized.
Oh grow up ! The US oil industry is not ‘subsidized”, except by some weirdly distorted impossible to quantify, calculations !
Your claim that “fossil energy industry is grandly subsidized – according to the IMF more than $5 trillion annually ”
Is a disingenuous falsehood. The report does not emanate from the IMF ! It’s an unauthorized research paper from some people who happen to work at the IMF. (a very different thing altogether ! ).
Even this research paper relies on some really weird calculations. $500 billion a year spent subsidizing consumer fuels in Russia (primarily Siberia) The cost of transporting fuels to US weather stations in the Antarctic. Venezuela provides virtually free fuel, to it’s people etc.
The paper includes the authors estimate of those countries who have no Pigovian tax, but it the opinion of the researchers, should. The researchers than add what they believe the tax should be and include it as a subsidy !
The paper also adds in the cost of road congestion,accidents and road damage. Irrationally, the congestion is based on the number of vehicles, not emissions! ( The paper assumes EV’s won’t have accidents ! ).
To be fair, the report itself, doesn’t claim to be accurate, or even conclusive. The authors describe it as merely a “discussion paper”.
But in your hatred of oil companies, you have represented this …ah, discussion paper as being an accurate report of direct “subsidies’ to the oil companies.
The main advocate for publicizing this paper, the green advocates Lindsay Abrams, and George Monbiot admitted when challenged that the contents had been misrepresented, and reported inaccurately, were unashamed. Both claimed that it was “alright to spread false information about the oil industry, as long as some of it’s believed ! “
Again, you begin with an ad hominem attack. Attacking the messenger – rather than addressing the actual message – conveys all the gravity and cerebral impact of, “Yeah? Well… You suck!”
It’s a pathetic and impotent tactic that carries no weight with thinking people.
You quite selectively edited my text, to eliminate these words, “fossil energy industry” and these words, “if you include government-allowed externalized costs…” That’s a naked and shallow attempt to develop a straw-man argument.
You claim, “The US oil industry is not ‘subsidized”, except by some weirdly distorted impossible to quantify, calculations !” This is patently false, even by any standards most advantageous to oil devotees. It’s also irrelevant to the debate, as the estimate I quoted from the IMF website covers a wider array of activity than just “[t]he US oil industry…”
Your hyperbole thus lacks credibility, and your straw-man effort is deconstructed as follows:.
Firstly, I clearly stated, “fossil energy industry” which encompasses considerably more than oil.
Secondly, concerning subsidies to the US oil industry, Forbes (not a liberal bastion) reports, “The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel.” Robert Rapier, author of the article, states, “…both oil production and consumption are subsidized in various ways. But these subsidies aren’t the cash payments to oil companies that many people imagine. If they were, they would be much easier to eliminate.”
It’s quite clear from any reasonable reading of the facts that subsidies to the US oil industry are not zero, as you claimed.
My citing of the report on the IMF website is an effort to get thinking people to consider all those “soft” costs that are hardening by the minute.
Concerning the paper, “How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies?” – which is in fact posted on the IMF website – it carries the following disclaimer and summary:
“Disclaimer: This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF. The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate.”
“Summary: This paper provides a comprehensive, updated picture of energy subsidies at the global and regional levels. It focuses on the broad notion of post-tax energy subsidies, which arise when consumer prices are below supply costs plus a tax to reflect environmental damage and an additional tax applied to all consumption goods to raise government revenues. Post-tax energy subsidies are dramatically higher than previously estimated, and are projected to remain high. These subsidies primarily reflect under-pricing from a domestic (rather than global) perspective, so even unilateral price reform is in countries’ own interests. The potential fiscal, environmental and welfare impacts of energy subsidy reform are substantial.”
The report on the IMF website is not a collection of nonsense. Interested parties can get informed by reading the paper here:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0
Concerning the very different subject of just direct US Government subsidies to the energy industry (oil and others), see Table ES3 here at the US Energy Information Administration website:
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
Cameron,
Er, ….let’s see, hmm,..you made a claim, I quoted you verbatim ““fossil energy industry is grandly subsidized – according to the IMF more than $5 trillion annually ” . These are your words, not mine !
I refuted your claim, pointing out that it’s not “according to the IMF”, and is disavowed by the IMF . Either, I’m right or wrong. It’s that simple.
I would have expect you to do one of two things 1) Substantiate the report as an official document by the IMF, or, 2 ) apologize, and acknowledge your error.
Instead, you are outraged at me for pointing out your factual error !
As to to the paper itself, the authors do not claim the accuracy or status you attribute to what amounts to merely a “discussion paper”.
The report is full of vague inconsistencies, (none of which you address) . Inclusion of the costs of providing heating in Siberia, the disingenuous extrapolation of ordinary tax deductions, available to any business as a “subsidy”, the countless cases of erroneous double, and multiple counting of costs throughout a supply chain to produce grossly inflated figures etc, etc all make any conclusions, very dubious.
But, you have no interest in critical analysis. Your sole interest in this ‘report’ is the propaganda value to validate your own ideology.
Like George Monbiot and Lindsay Abrams, you will go on misrepresenting this report, for your own purposes, hoping that enough repetition, people will accept it’s veracity.
As for your link to a 2013 EIA report, it hardly strengthens your contentions. The report is already outdated, since the coal component has been affected by the sudden rise of US domestic NG, and two of the old oil allowances have expired.
In addition, even this report identified only approximately $5 billion in “subsidies’ to the non electricity sector When such items as “tax credit funded investments in energy-efficient windows, furnaces, boilers, boiler fans, and building envelope components etc” are deducted, amounted to less than $ 1.1 billion in subsidies to the US Oil industry !
Now, I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but $1.1 billion in tax credits to an industry that pays more than 500 times that amount in tax, and generates more than $1.1 billion per week in foreign exchange, (helping the US balance of trade) seems pretty trivial, in comparison to the tens of billions paid in subsidies to the uneconomic production of US corn ethanol !
Cameron, as I see it, the difference between you and me, is I analyze reports and data for creditability and accuracy, while you seem to accept any information, no matter how dubious, based solely on whether it bolsters your preconceived ideology, or philosophical beliefs.
For example, I do not reject the ” Protocols of Zion “, because they’re repugnant, but because they’re forgeries. I regard the Gospels of St Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and the writings of St Paul as the most precious of documents given to mankind, but I wouldn’t attempt to advance the authenticity, or historical accuracy of those gospels, in any serious analysis.
Critical analysis, is essential. Anything else is just propaganda. Propaganda, even in a good cause is still propaganda. Opinion, not fact. Opinion, containing fact is more credible, but it’s still just opinion.
“IF WE WANT TO PRESERVE A LIVABLE EARTH, WE NEED TO MEET OUR ENERGY NEEDS WITHOUT RELEASING THE EARTH’S LOCKED-AWAY CARBON!”
I read the above somewhere the other day. And truly, in the face of the present climate peril, there is an unending body of knowledge that consigns every one of the so-called Big Oil to the wrong side of history. For once let us all exult in the great good fortune that, thanks to democracy, the creative environment in most parts is a plateau of freedom where even the most “indigent and insignificant” of humanity is even now dreaming up possibilities that would sooner or later permit this realization of a “livable earth”—the scope and potential for the persevering common folk to “gift” the world a most significant lifeline has never ever been greater in all the long half-lit caverns of human history than the present timescape.
The extant joyous labor (by sane individuals in many regions) to find the Holy Green Energy Grail is a triumph of the human spirit! Without a shade of doubt, the mighty victory upon which henceforth all succeeding human endeavors to heed the command of the Great Knower (To Dress And Keep The Earth) would hinge.
Of course Big Oil and their hench folks (in power and glory) itch to see this lofty, selfless enterprise fail. They gloat in their imagining of the Great Flop! But in the present environment the gradual incremental march of renewables is already proving right the Green Faithful’s side of the challenge.
Know why Big Oil will ultimately fail? Because we (the rest of humanity not infected with that evil malaise called GREED) are not their accomplices!
Llord Aidoo, that’s a powerful turn of phrase you have there ! A real old time, hell fire sermon ! Well done !
Now having preached righteously against the wicked, what replacements do you offer for the essential products of the wicked ? I’m sure that you’re eager to expound with equal vigor, a practical plan of action to resolve the issue ?
I’m agog ……
Well, I guess you can’t be accused of being objective or even rational when it comes to oil companies !
All the major oil companies hire huge departments, full of highly qualified environmentalists. These employees oversee billions of dollars invested in thousands of important research projects, with environmental benefits.
But, oil companies are businesses. They exist to make money. Good corporate governance is all very well, but the primary duty of the board is to return the best dividend to shareholders, and ensure the business grows.
Each member of the board is required by law, to ensure a duty of care to the shareholders/investors. If you don’t like Exxon, then don’t buy Exxon shares ! It really is that simple !
But when you mother, daughter, sister etc, needs to be rushed to hospital for life saving treatment, thank Exxon !
Without Exxon on the other oil companies, there’s no blacktop to drive on, tyres for the ambulance, no paint, computer, no life saving technology, no ambulance. In fact, no Hospital!
IWithout the major oil companies, the US economy wouldn’t exist. There would be no ‘alternate energy ‘, bankrupt nations can’t afford to feed themselves !
The Oil companies are not altruistic organizations. Why would you think they should be ? But in an America with declining manufacture, high tech companies who don’t pay tax, and a debt burden greater than GDP, the oil/gas companies are America’s only golden goose.
But hey, that’s cool, stand round and keep abusing the last of America’s fading great enterprises. See how you like dealing with the PRC, or Russian Oil corps.
Last year Exxon contributed more to the US economy in a day, than the entire alternate energy industry did in a year !
Demonizing, any essential industry on moral or ideological grounds, is counter-productive.
I know you feel that way. I appreciate your feedback.
Craig, the real problem with environmental extremists, is they discredit serious environmental debate and initiatives.
When my son’s were still children, they became concerned about the habit of smoking enjoyed by their mother and grandparents. My older son, now a Doctor, asked me if it was true, that ” smoking cigarettes kill ” .
My reply, was that although I didn’t like smoking, like everything in life, smoking possessed an element of risk to health. While some people seem unaffected, others died or suffered severe health problems. Every individual must decide whether the risk, is worth the benefit.
My principle concern was to provide sensible, accurate, creditable information. By doing so, I hoped my children would be more inclined to believe me, when the time came to advise on the risks of alcohol, and drugs.
By advocating extravagant, unscientific, and extreme claims, green activists confuse and discredit the real environmental message. No PR hack could do a better job of harm to public opinion as over excitable ‘green’ advocates ! These activists have developed a new religion from environmental causes.
These people are better defined by what they hate, than what they love !
The only thing propping up the US economy at the moment, is the sudden increase in domestic energy supply (largely from natural gas and oil). No one has published any rational, or creditable plan allowing the disengagement of the fossil fuel industry from the world economy.
That’s the real crux of the environmental dilemma. There are no real alternatives. No “grand initiative” that will work on an industrial scale. No amount of chest-beating, sanctimonious ranting against “greed” and oil companies, will change anything. Smug sermons warning of impending Armageddon, and demands to reorganize society to exclude the wicked, may be acceptable from the pulpit of one of those little fundamental churches, but should have no place in public policy.
Oil companies, like Exxon, produce oil and gas. That’s what they are good at. Their shareholders shouldn’t expect them to do anything else. If you want to invest in a wind farm, then buy shares in a wind farm !
The major western Oil companies went through a phase of trying to be “energy companies”, and after losing hundreds of billions, (while losing ground to other oil industries) decided to concentrate on what they know best, Oil !
Craig, as an American, you should be very relieved by the astonishing technical achievements by Exxon, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips Co. etc and other smaller members of the oil industry. If you remove their contribution to the US economy, well,…there is no US economy !
Environmental progress can only be achieved, by a lot of small improvements to achievable targets. This means identifying achievable priorities, and making realistic investments.
The world is littered with too many failed Grand Schemes, proposed by ideologues and funded by public money. It’s time to concentrate on smaller, but realistic projects, with a better chance of success.
Improvements in less pollutant technologies for Oil, gas and coal usage, are of far more practical benefit to the bio-sphere than fantasy claims about miraculous new technologies, that never occur.
I hear you. I know where you stand. I thank the fossil fuel boys for the magnificent job they did in the 20th Century. Now, however, because we’re lighting our planet on fire, it’s time for a new paradigm in energy. Fortunately, that’s in the process of happening (almost) purely on the basis of market economics alone.
Craig, I think that while awaiting a brilliant new energy dynamic to emerge, we should be diligently undertaking a range of smaller, practical, economic, and non-disruptive environmental programs.
Cleaner Coal technology, sequestration technology, abolition of maritime Bunker oil, even a program to breed out methane emissions from ruminants (just to mention a few ).
These, like many others, are easily achieved with a minimum of social and economic disruption. Neglecting the dull, ( but possible) , in favour of listening to sermons about grand schemes that never work, seems to me, counter-productive.
I know how you feel on this, and love your idea on the abolition of maritime Bunker oil.
Btw, coal, fortunately for us all, is going away: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/06/06/norway-no-more-coal/.
Very well put, Craig. People like you and Cameron and others who point out so eloquently the pure self-interest of companies and CEO’s like this are able to sway public opinion.
“The love of money is the root of all evil,” is something we learn as children. And yet, many of us are are fooled by the argument that if something makes money or lowers the cost to the consumer, then by default it must be good. That is not true. HOW such ends are achieved must be constantly examined and judged. Sending jobs overseas, polluting the planet, laying off or overworking employees to squeeze more profits and higher bonuses for the top of the pyramid is not to be applauded. it is to be reviled.
Fundamentally, I think a lot of people feel this in their hearts and are quite conflicted. They want to be on the “winning team,” but don’t recognize that their team is cheating to win. That is not our values as a nation or even as humanity.
Please keep up the good fight to make clear that what they here is not “pragmatic.” It is GREED.
Actually, the whole world, and not just the U.S., must practically eliminate power sources that emit CO2. However, that is unlikely to happen until doing so can be economically justified.
The following link gives the relative costs of various energy systems:
https://cna.ca/news/myth-busted-nuclear-is-actually-second-cheapest-source-of-electricity/
Careful, the world needs some atmospheric CO2 ! 🙂
But you are essentially correct. Industrialized nations needs lot’s of cheap energy. Poor nations need lot’s of cheap energy to industrialize, and lift their people of poverty.
Electricity generation can be produced relatively cheaply, and in vast quantities, by Thorium reactors. but the world needs to do more about minimizing the pollution emissions from existing fossil fuel power production, with better filtration technology, including sequestration etc.
A lot of small non-disruptive savings, eventually are more effective, than grand schemes which never materialize.
We’ll see. You know where I stand on this, i.e., that I’m….http://2greenenergy.com/bullish-on-renewable-energy/
…. and for reasons that have very little to do with morality.
This blog discussion began by saying “Sadly, Big Oil is incapable of participating in the rapid migration to renewable energy” but if that is true it’s only because big oil management and/or big oil stock holders don’t want to participate. I can say that because I’ve offered and I’m still offering both big oil and utilities a chance to participate by co-developing and demonstrating the advanced alternative energy technology I’ve invented, patented, tested, demonstrated and further developed.
Les,
I’m very curious, you say you have the answer, but why haven’t you approached an expert in commercializing such projects?
Why not approach Craig ? If someone as respected as Craig, was prepared to put his name to having completed due diligence on your product, I’m sure a lot of doors would open.
(Don’t assume oil companies are so reactionary. Remember the lithium battery was developed in an Exxon lab, Chevron rescued Geo-thermal, and BP developed mass production Solar.)
He and I have had a lengthy discussion on the subject. Biomass generally is a weak area for me, so I referred the concept to a colleague whose life work has been centered around this area. He was not as enamored of the concept as Les is. That closed the case for me, as again, biochemistry is not my thing.
marcopolo… Despite your above assertion that I’m outraged at you, I assure you that I’m not so powerfully moved.
Your effect – like mine – on the affairs of our species will probably be fairly negligible in the long term. Thus, anything you say here is unlikely to produce outrage in me.
However, as I have in the past, I’m going to yet again share a very few suggestions with you on maintaining civil discourse. My continuing observation of your many interactions with me, and with many other folks here, lead me expect these are suggestions you’ll continue to ignore. Yet I persist in hope….
Try not to open your response with an attempt to insult: “Oh grow up !” (your words)
Try refraining entirely from ad hominem attacks, false equivalents, or straw-man argumentation in your responses.
Try not to omit the vital context in one half of a sentence you’re quoting when you attempt to refute the other half of that sentence…
For example (as I mentioned to you in my earlier comment above), when quoting me, you quite selectively dismembered the second sentence in my opening paragraph, to eliminate these words, “fossil energy industry” and these words, “if you include government-allowed externalized costs…”
……
So, let’s review…
I mentioned a report on externalized fossil energy costs, which resides on the IMF website, written by IMF researchers.
Then I noted that fossil energy players will remain fiercely resistant to competitive sustainable alternatives that harvest modern sunlight energy.
I observed that fossil energy players and their allies exercise undue influence upon the political leadership of nations.
I shared my perception that fossil energy players will remain combative and deceitful as they try to maintain their dominant position, regardless of the wider consequences to humanity and the other living things in the biosphere.
I suggested that we humans had best get organized so as to move more quickly toward modern sunlight energy alternatives.
…
You then began your initial response to my comment with your attempt at a personal insult.
After your attempted insult, you then immediately claimed – with a fascinating combination of inaccuracy and hyperbolic insistence – “The US oil industry is not ‘subsidized”, except by some weirdly distorted impossible to quantify, calculations !”
I’d be surprised if you genuinely believe that “government-allowed externalized costs” (my words that you omitted) are an equivalent to the direct US government subsidies.
Your omissions and assertions have thus clearly drawn a false equivalence between externalized costs governments allow on the one hand, and direct subsidies on the other – yet they are obviously very different.
I find it extremely revealing that you didn’t remotely attempt to address any of the observations that I shared concerning the behavior of fossil energy players and their allies.
Instead you focused the remainder of your comment entirely on the report I mentioned.
…
In my response to your comment, I called your attention to your exclaimed “US oil industry is not ‘subsidized” ” falsehood.
After I shared documentation of direct US government subsidies for the US oil industry – you sidestepped admitting their existence, and instead sought to minimize and dismiss them, when you made the following statement:
“As for your link to a 2013 EIA report, it hardly strengthens your contentions. The report is already outdated, since the coal component has been affected by the sudden rise of US domestic NG, and two of the old oil allowances have expired,” (your words).
However, the report on the IMF website doesn’t limit itself to direct US Government subsidies. Instead, it illustrates – though imperfectly – the many varieties of indirect subsidy in the form of massive costs that the global fossil energy industry incurs, but which government allows it to externalize.
By the way, you’ve more recently stated that the report, “is disavowed by the IMF” (your words) – I find your assertion most intriguing, considering that the report remains clearly posted on the IMF website.
This report has a measured boilerplate disclaimer, of commonplace content, and a specific summary (both of which I quoted for you).
You may pick and choose among the report’s data and debate this or that among the reports findings, or disapprove of the methodology, but I’ll be sadly impressed if you can maintain your denial that such externalized costs exist in colossal quantity in many forms.
…
I’ve seen you repeatedly assert the indispensability of oil in the workings of our human society.
I don’t at all dispute that we as a species (and particularly we here in the US) have come to use it so ubiquitously, and to such great effect, that we’ve allowed our lives to be intricately engineered around its ready availability. Indeed, I’ve repeatedly called attention to that increasingly alarming fact.
Oil’s dominant presence in our lives may seem to you to be inextricable, and even perhaps to be worth all the costs, externalized or not. You may choose not to accept that it’s a toxic and finite resource from which we must now in earnest begin to move firmly away.
Your position and perspectives notwithstanding, we must wean ourselves off this prehistoric poison while it’s still readily available enough for us to scale up the proven modern sunlight energy harvesting alternatives, and the infrastructure modifications necessary to that transition.
The present indispensability of fossil sunshine in human affairs is not an argument for delaying the weaning process. The longer we delay, the more difficult, painful and disruptive the transition will be.
…
Incidentally, you may also not accept a different analysis of externalized costs that was published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). You may believe that it’s publish date in 2009 renders it outdated.
Nonetheless, the description heading that analysis neatly summarizes the thrust of my original statement in this thread. My purpose in that original statement was to direct attention to the many government-allowed externalized costs – costs that I continue to assert need to be strongly considered (and gradually but steadily internalized).
That description – published by the National Academy of Sciences – reads as follows…
“Despite the many benefits of energy, most of which are reflected in energy market prices, the production, distribution, and use of energy causes negative effects. Many of these negative effects are not reflected in energy market prices. When market failures like this occur, there may be a case for government interventions in the form of regulations, taxes, fees, tradable permits, or other instruments that will motivate recognition of these external or hidden costs.”
By the way, included in the beginning pages of the analysis is the following notice:
“The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.”
Of course – much like the IMF researchers’ report on the IMF website – the beginning pages also contain this boilerplate disclaimer:
“Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project.”
…
For those interested, here is a link to the externalized costs analysis published by the National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12794&page=R1
Let me make this one comment to MarcoPolo: I know Cameron, and he’s not outraged. He doesn’t “do” outrage. 🙂
My goodness, I’m relieved you’re not in the slightest bit bothered by my response to you, (I’d hate imagine the fulsomeness of your response if you were ! ) .
I’m sure you also weren’t intending to be condescending, in providing advice, on how to frame responses to you.
Having perused your lengthy and convoluted explanation of why something really is what you claims it to be, despite irrefutable proof it’s not, I can understand why it’s impossible for you to admit making an error.
There’s if a very great difference between an non-endorsed discussion paper prepared by some IMF employees and contributors, and an authorized report endorsed by the IMF as a definitive study.
As for the rest of your dissertation, there is no doubt that every area of human activity is inter-connected. In compiling evidence for or against, any activity all sorts of extraneous issues can utilized to justify a wide range of opposing views.
Cutting through all your rhetoric, you really have no definite plan to achieve your goal, outside of vague claims which are unsubstantiated. In my opinion, your advocacy is hypocritical (although i sure you don’t consider yourself to be a hypocrite).
You accept the wealth, security and prosperous economy, including all the benefits the fossil fuel industry provides, while reviling the industry, and all who work in the industry.
Even that might be sort of acceptable, if you could provide any evidence of a practical alternative. But you don’t except some vague waffle about better Solar. To me, such self-righteous, moralizing, advocacy is major contributing factor to a lack of any real environmental progress.
Yours is just a slightly more gentile version of the delusional ‘green’ protesters in Germany, who claim to be demanding action on climate change, but whose irrational ambition is to disrupt a conference of representatives of some of the most powerful industrial economies, thus preventing any discussion of climate change policies !
Weird, irrational, and causing great harm to public sympathy.
My position, is very clear. I pay great respect to the immeasurable advances in human prosperity, and civilization, made possible by the advent of the fossil fuel industries. I acknowledge all industries producing great benefits, will also have downsides.
It’s not possible for 7 billion people inhabiting this planet, to abandon industrialized civilization, and live a bucolic existence, in an ideologically pure Shangri-la !
No one is saying that research and development of new, and more environmentally beneficial technologies isn’t to be applauded, and encouraged. What I am saying, is that endless tirades against the fossil fuel industry, is pointless, and counter-productive, when no large scale alternatives exist.
Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/06/06/what-we-practically-mean-by-subsidies-for-fossil-fuels/,
Craig,
Perhaps you should reconsider your lack of understanding of Exxon’s position. Consider the value to the US economy provide by the technology of Hydraulic Fracturing.
The hysterical reaction, by fossil fuel haters, and wildly unscientific claims, gave rise to politically motivated bans, and demands for immediate cessation of the practice. Several prominent advocates and legislators even opposed research or subsidies, claiming they would be influence by the oil/gas industry , and on that basis should be discouraged.
Well after 4 years of controversy, the EPA has finally released it’s findings and conclusions.
(no the musings of a few employees, but an official government funded, peer reviewed, report, Cameron).
Naturally, the EPA, being the EPA, examined every negative aspect very carefully, but finally concluded. (summarized)
1)No evidence fracking has had any “widespread, systemic impact on drinking water.”
(The EPA study looked beyond just drilling activities at all the mechanisms by which fracking could impact the water cycle, including withdrawals of water for use in fracking, spills of fracking fluids and produced water, the potential for underground migration of liquids and gases, and the treatment and discharge of wastewater, The EPA allowed that in a very small number of cases, poorly conducted “fracking ” could have exasperated existing water contamination)
2) The EPA reported that the riskiest part of the fracking process involves moving chemicals and the process of preparing them to be mixed with the fracking water. This is where spills can, and do, occur. The EPA found that these undesirable events, are avoidable with the application of proper drilling and casing techniques.
3) The EPA report concluded that, as in any industrial process, a very small percentage of accidents and bad practice will occur, but given the side and scale of the industry, these will be relatively infinitesimal. The EPA recommended vigorous monitoring and appropriate regulation of fracking practice, including the appropriate disposal of radio-active waste.
However, this report didn’t sway the opinion of fanatical opponents, such as Earthworks Policy Director Lauren Pagel, who issued a statement saying:-
” Today EPA confirmed what communities living with fracking have known for years, all fracking pollutes drinking water ! he Obama administration, Congress, and state governments must act on that information to protect our drinking water, and stop perpetuating the oil and gas industry’s myth that fracking is safe.”
Polluterwatch.com, opined ” pressure from oil and gas companies “crippled” and “corrupted’ the EPA’s report”
As was expected, (like Cameron) most fracking opponents seem to be completely unable to accept any interpretation, except their own. They retreat back into the old ” “you haven’t proved there aren’t aliens” argument.
The EPA report is very comprehensive, but by no means definitive. It’s simply an analysis of the best evidence available. That doesn’t mean it should be considered cast in stone, nor does it mean research shouldn’t continue. But it does mean that the information contained within the report, can’t be simply ignored or disingenuously distorted, by “green” advocates, without a considerable loss of credibility.
Contrary to the opinion of the Industry, I believe the government(s) do have a role in regulating the practice, but without stifling innovative technological improvements.
More importantly, the industry is racing ahead with technology that will not only make hydraulic extraction more efficient, but far safer and more environmental.
But, to bring it back to your original observation, what Chairman or CEO, would encourage the appointment of a board member, who would have prevented such a commercial bonanza for Exxon and it’s shareholders ! ?
The EPA said if found “No evidence fracking has had any “widespread, systemic impact on drinking water.” The key words there are “widespread” and “systemic” so this leaves those open to interpretation and fracking itself is not widespread since it’s focus is in Pennsylvania and other key states, and it can be said that fracking for gas is not a cause of systemic water pollution as there are some areas that don’t seem to be as effected as other, at least not yet it would seem. But this leaves open the question of why fossil fuel execs are so quick to oppose fracking in their own neighborhoods when it raises it’s ugly head in their neighborhoods.
That’s a good point. But I don’t think anyone’s saying that there haven’t been accidents.
Marcopolo (whoever that is) says “the industry is racing ahead with technology that will not only make hydraulic extraction more efficient, but far safer and more environmental” which is laughable in my view. Perhaps gun makers will be racing ahead with technology that will not only make shooting one’s self more efficient, far safer and more environmental.
Les,
Your reaction is to be expected. It’s very hard for people who are passionately committed to an ideology, or vision of the future to accept they were mistaken.
For many years, I was perfectly satisfied that M. King Hubbert’s theory of “Peak Oil’ was not only accurate, but had arrived. It was difficult for me to admit I was not only wrong in timing, but so drastically wrong ! In the last 3 years, ” Peak Oil ‘ has receded from public debate, and major environmental publications like “The Oil Drum” , have closed down, or ceased mentioning Hubbert’s 40 year old prediction.
Just as all those earnest scientists who contributed to the “Club of Rome’s ” much applauded prediction that 1977 would be ” the Year the Stork passed the Plough ” ! . In the sixties it became a widely accepted, “consensus ” of scientists, academics etc, that with taking drastic, even draconian, action, as of 1977 the world would slide into irreversible famine, and not survive into the 21st century.
But, of course it didn’t happen ! Within a decade, despite rapid population growth, the world began to over produce food !
It’s hard to admit when you get it wrong :).
Until his death in 2007, I was a long time friend of the Australian engineer and lecturer, Ted Pritchard. Ted had devoted his entire life to producing a modern Steam Car. Ted was an accomplished engineer, well respected and very likable. [ http://www.eoas.info/biogs/P005253b.htm ]
During every fuel crises, or when the price of gasoline increased sharply, the media would give Ted a burst of publicity. Ted built several working prototypes, each to a high standard of production ready quality.
Over the years, Ted received government grants, and support from all sorts of private investors. Despite our friendship, and my high regard for his ability as an engineer, I never believed his passionate vision was commercially realistic.
The history of innovations is littered with talented failures. Idea’s whose time didn’t arrive, or promoters just didn’t tick all the right boxes. It’s easy to get bitter, invent conspiracy theories, and blame the short sightedness of public.
It’s much harder to just admit, that the failure may be your own. People don’t often buy what you believe they need, they buy what they like. If you want to sell your products, it’s a good idea to be flexible, and understand the needs of your market. (Not your need, their needs).
Selling environmentally friendly technology, is very difficult. ( I know, I’ve been at it 18 years). It’ll be even more difficult as governments begin to reduce, or repeal, incentives and subsidies.
The oil/gas and even coal industries, employ hundreds of thousands of highly qualified engineers and scientists, to continually upgrade and improve their technologies. In addition, these industries have access to the best laboratories and research facilities. The Oil and gas industries are very good customers for any manufacturer with new technology that will improve efficiency.
Nano-robotic, octopus drilling, sophisticatedoil well management, artificial intelligence, hydro-carbon ‘sniffers’ and a myriad of new technology is transforming the fossil fuel energy industry, in ways inconceivable ten years ago.
Of course, there will always be errors, poor management decisions, small wildcatters, creating environmental pollution, along with a percentage of genuine accidents and miscalculations. As the EPA observes, these are to be expected with an industry of this size and scale. Nothing is perfect, but the US people (and the rest of the world population) have decided that the economic benefits are worth the downsides.
But the era of the unqualified, hobbyist, “backyard inventor” is over. The dynamics are just too large and complex.
There’s an upside to all this economic prosperity created by fossil fuels. More funding will become available for the development of newer technologies, with lower base costs. More funding to reduce the emissions from existing technologies. (much easier to achieve than a complete restructuring of social economies).
The future looks bright for environmentally friendly technologies. Not a revolution, but a more modestly paced evolution.
Craig; I suggest you require all commenters to use their real names..
Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/06/07/huge-organizations-peril/
https://www.iisd.org/gsi/fossil-fuel-subsidies
In the news is this piece of info; Delegates representing almost 200 countries stopped short of confronting major underlying issues such as whether to set a global goal for phasing out greenhouse gases this century in the upcoming Paris meetings.
These goals (if they ever materialize in any form that resembles what is needed) should have been put in place decades ago and there is only one firm (my firm) that can enable humanity to be up to the task of saving itself.
If you are braver than Craig and wish to contact me to discuss how to proceed please do so.
lol