[Peakoil] ExxonMobil has its eye on the biggest business opportunity of all time

[Ruth Cully]

You might be interested to know that some of the geo-engineering proposals include detonating nuclear devices within volcanoes, to trigger eruptions that spew out clouds of ash and cool the earth's temperature. Then, when we start to freeze, we can burn more fossil fuel...  perpetuum mobile!
The down side of a new technology is often not understood or acknowledged until decades after it has caused massive damage (e.g. cigarettes, asbestos, heavy metal pollution, ionising radiation, antibiotic resistance). I once hoped that as people grasped the reality of climate change, they might develop a better appreciation of the limitations of technology as a panacea. Scientific research is generally conducted under strictly controlled conditions within a closed system. However, if a technology is to be commercialised and deployed by up to 7 billion humans, we need exhaustive and conclusive analysis of its safety. I guess my hopes were dashed when, shortly after the Howard government stopped denying global warming, it announced that the solution was to expand the nuclear industry. So, fry, freeze or ionise, if capitalism doesn't curb its greed we won't have a planet.        
Ruth

> From: myrmecia at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 16:58:46 +0100
> To: peakoil at act-peakoil.org
> Subject: [Peakoil] ExxonMobil has its eye on the biggest business	opportunity of all time
> 
> These guys would sell their mothers, sell their children!
> 
> ExxonMobil is now conceding that global warming is happening, but is positioning itself to profit from geo-engineering treatments it advocates to treat the symptoms. Yes, you read right: They want the world to burn more fossil fuel on the assumption that this will exacerbate global warming. And greater global warming will increase the demand for "something to be done". And the only thing that our culture will agree can have an effect of the desired size and over a sufficiently short time frame is geo-engineering. With any luck, they reckon, they should be able to profit from the biggest urgent business opportunity of all time. They could even be the saviour of life on Earth. At least this is the story they are preparing to sell.
> 
> Don't you just love capitalism! They are selling the futures of their kids, grandkids and so on.
> -----------------------------
> Keith Thomas
> myrmecia at gmail.com
> 074 2929 4146
> ------------------------------
> 29/06//2012 12:58 -- Guardian (UK)
> 
> Financial: Global warming is real, ExxonMobil boss concedes: But no need to cut use of fossil fuels, says Tillerson: Oil giant has been seen as climate change denier
> 
> 
> ExxonMobil, the world's biggest independent oil company, has conceded that the world faces global warming but claimed that climate change science was very unclear, and engineering solutions were needed rather than any reduction in the use of fossil fuels.
> 
> Rex Tillerson, the Exxon chief executive, said shale and other "unconventional" oil and gas sources offered a convenient way to meet future demand. Opposition to fracking and other practices was stoked by a lazy press and a public illiterate in science and engineering, he said.
> 
> Exxon has traditionally been seen by critics as a climate change denier and funder of thinktanks responsible for research that has fuelled scepticism.
> 
> But responding to questions after a speech in New York at the Council on Foreign Relations, Tillerson said the company had spent a lot of time and effort investigating carbon pollution.
> 
> "I am not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have an impact. It'll have a warming impact. How large it is, is what is hard for anyone to predict." That in turn would affect how dire the consequences were. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around . . . we will adapt to that. It's an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions. The fear factor that people want to throw out there to say we just have to stop this, I do not accept . . . It's not a problem that we can't solve." Tillerson said that climate change was clearly a great challenge but there were more "pressing priorities that we as a human being race and society need to deal with.
> 
> "There are hundreds of millions, billions of people living in abject poverty around the world. They need electricity that they can count on, that they can afford. They need fuel to cook their food on that's not animal dung."
> 
> The comments seem to represent a change from the views of his predecessor, Lee Raymond, but they point to nothing that will convince environmentalists that the basic business model of oil and gas will alter.
> 
> Andrew Weaver, chairman of climate modelling and analysis at the University of Victoria in Canada, disagreed with Tillerson's characterisation of climate modelling. He told the Associated Press that modelling could give a good sense of the likely types of climate change. And adapting to those changes would be much more difficult and disruptive than Tillerson seemed to be acknowledging, he said.
> 
> Steve Coll, author of the recent book Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power, said he was surprised Exxon was already talking about ways society could adapt to climate change when there was still time to try to avoid its worst effects. Research suggested that adapting to climate change could be far more expensive than reducing emissions now, Coll said. "Moving entire cities would be very expensive."
> 
> Legislation or regulation to slow emissions of global warming gases would probably lead to lower demand for oil and petrol, and could reduce Exxon's profits.
> 
> Tillerson expressed frustration at public concern over new drilling techniques that tap natural gas and oil in shale formations under several US states. He said environmental advocacy groups that "manufacture fear" had alarmed a public that did not understand drilling practices - or maths, science or engineering in general. He blamed "lazy" journalists for producing stories that scared the public but did not investigate the claims of advocacy groups. Drilling for oil and gas would always involve a risk of spills and accidents, he said. But the risks were manageable and worth taking because they were small given the amount of energy they produced. Drilling in shale formations, he said, posed only a small risk to those living nearby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peakoil discussion list run by ACT Peak Oil Inc.
> We also have a low volume announcement list. To join visit http://act-peakoil.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/peakoil-announce
> You are subscribed as ludlow at live.com.au
> http://act-peakoil.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/peakoil/ludlow%40live.com.au