| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
This, of course, could also be posted under the thread about energy company "ethics."
| Quote: | ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.
The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.
“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2,” or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.
Rockefeller family tried and failed to get ExxonMobil to accept climate change
Read more
However, Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.
Exxon said on Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.
Some climate campaigners have likened the industry to the conduct of the tobacco industry which for decades resisted the evidence that smoking causes cancer. |
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
Hmm. Wonder who got paid? I also wonder who is surprised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | Is Global Warming Causing More Shark Attacks?
Michael Bastasch
Burgess has said human beach activities are the main driver of shark attacks. For one thing, the population is increasing across the country and more people are going to the beach, especially during the summer time. That not only means more people in the water ... |
Hawaii's top shark expert told me he suspects urine attracts sharks at least as much as blood does.
More people = more piss = more sharks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In a curious bit of behavior that I have noticed, Isobars scurries to take my name of the recent posting list, without responding to the posting. Get it down the list however. Strange silence from those who have defended the carbon industry. I was expecting claims of having spoken truth to power, or at least to have been duped by the unethical behavior of ones close friends in the oil industry.
Systematic lying for 27 years hardly seems something to be proud of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Science and ethics, ethics and science, both can be bought, it all depends on which scientists you need to buy, whether it's the evils of Coke or global warming, take your pick while you pic your side.
You need a scientist to push your cause? Show them the money.
Al Gore figured that out a long time ago.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away From Bad Diets
By Anahad O’Connor
August 9, 2015 5:25 pm
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/?_r=2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With this being so common, it amazes me how anybody can believe the so call "consensus" about global warming. If the "science" has an element of politics in it, you can believe there is some serious money behind both sides of the "consensus", rendering the issue moot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NW--You have no concept of science, of any sort. Or politics as actually played. Rant on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | | it amazes me how anybody can believe the so call "consensus" about global warming. |
No informed person still believes the "97% consensus" ever existed, now that it was exposed as completely and deliberately fraudulent, as explained and referenced here months ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wynsurfer
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 940
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Informed by who? The people causing the problem? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
In my local paper a few days ago. Keep in mind that it was a democrat controlled state government when this program was implemented.
| Quote: | By Herbert M. Eckerlin
North Carolina’s solar farm program provides for unprecedented opportunity and prosperity for the few at the top. But for the rest of us, the opportunity for success is diminishing. Here’s why.
The typical solar farm in North Carolina is 5 MW, requires about 40 acres of land and costs between $11 million to $14 million. A solar farm can be erected by solar developers in two to three months. They generally do a good job and have become quite wealthy in the process. Once the solar farm is in operation, little additional labor is required.
Who is paying for all of these solar farms? To answer, we have to refer to Senate Bill 3, passed by the N.C. General Assembly in 2007. This 28-page bill was written to promote the development of renewable energy in North Carolina, but a significant portion of the bill focuses on solar energy systems. The bill required all utilities in the state to buy renewable power in accordance with the following schedule: In 2012, 3 percent of retail sales should be solar; in 2015, 6 percent; in 2018, 10 percent; and in 2021, 12.5 percent.
The law requires the utility to buy all the green power generated by the solar farms, even if the utility doesn’t need it. In other words, the utility might have to shut down some of its boilers to adjust to the green power available. The utility must pay the solar developer for the green power generated (currently, this cost is in the $0.06 to $0.07 per kwh range). This cost is substantially higher than what it costs the utility to generate the power in-house. Keep in mind that this green solar power is intermittent and available about five hours per day on average.
Another objective of Senate Bill 3 was to get people to invest in this new technology. This is accomplished by offering potential investors a state tax credit of 35 percent. For example, an investor can put $2 million into a solar farm and reduce taxable income by 35 percent, spread over a five-year period. This was a game-changer and has attracted many investors such as large banks, insurance companies and large companies that have large electric loads (for example, Walmart, Lowe’s, Google, Amazon, etc.). The response to this tax credit offer has been so positive that a typical solar farm can be funded with only five or six investors. In fact, the tax credit is so attractive that the solar developer often does not have to put any of his own cash into a project.
The final step in evaluating this solar farm process is to determine the effect that the tax credits have on the state’s economy. In 2014, for example, the tax credit incentive program enabled solar farm investors to reduce their overall tax obligation to the state by a total of $124 million. This is a significant benefit for solar farm investors and a significant loss to state government. In practical terms, this revenue loss reduces the services that the state can provide. It affects a whole host of issues (salary increases for our teachers and state employees, economic development, highway construction).
We also have to recognize that the $124 million loss is for 2014 alone. That figure will increase because so many more solar farms are being built. And we can’t forget that each investor will claim his tax credits over a five-year period. This means that an investor who took the first tax break in 2014 will still be realizing tax benefits on investment in 2018. This is a bit scary.
My sense is that my friends in the solar farm business did not anticipate the negative effect this program would have on the state’s tax structure and its economy. I certainly did not. However, now that the results are in, it is time for the General Assembly to re-evaluate Senate Bill 3 and the entire solar farm program. We can’t continue down this path if we want our state and our people to prosper.
Herbert M. Eckerlin, Ph.D., is a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at N.C. State University.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article30339861.html#storylink=cpy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
feuser
Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1508
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | Science and ethics, ethics and science, both can be bought, it all depends on which scientists you need to buy, whether it's the evils of Coke or global warming, take your pick while you pic your side.
You need a scientist to push your cause? Show them the money.
Al Gore figured that out a long time ago. |
I am not sure where these billions of dollars (I guess all those lavish government grants?) are that motivate climate scientists to sound the alarms.
It would be a lot easier to cash in for a scientist after becoming a shill for the carbon industry. Unfortunately for them, conducting legitimate science that proves CO2 polluters innocent of climate change seems quite impossible.
_________________
florian - ny22
http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| feuser wrote: | | It would be a lot easier to cash in for a scientist after becoming a shill for the carbon industry. |
And even easier to make tired, mindless statements about an industry without any knowledge. Since it is so easy to "shill" for the carbon industry, it should be no problem for you to provide us with public statements from the shills for any of the, say, top ten oil and gas companies, which demonstrate that your proposition isn't just ignorant bias. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
