The climate change smokescreen

The title of an interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which focuses on the on-going PR campaign to deny climate change that has, at least in part, been funded by the big oil boys.

"There are at least three other reasons the oil companies' PR campaign has had success for climate change deniers. First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed as political orthodoxy rather than objective knowledge, a curiously postmodern argument."

Interesting to note that Exxon Mobil has announced that it will "cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change." This piece claims that it took a shareholder revolt to get that decision. I seem to recollect that they denied funding any such organisations a couple of years ago.

Interesting conclusion too .....

"The tide slowly turned on tobacco denial and the science finally was accepted. Some people still choose to smoke and some pay a price for it.

But climate is different. There are no 'smoke-free areas' on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign."

(Hmmmm ... no smoke free areas? Try a British pub. Mind you, you'd better hurry, at the rate they are closing there will be very few left soon.)

I wonder if the UK press will pick up on this? It could perhaps be the signal for another extremely entrenched and divisive war of words. With the great majority stuck in the middle in no-mans land again!

Addendum: From the International Herald Tribune, a piece entitled 'Convincing the skeptics'.

Big Oil returning to Iraq?

I have to confess I wondered how long it might be before the big oil boys started to try to get back into Iraq. This from the Independent reports that they are already negotiating their return with the Iraqi government.

So overthrowing Saddam was, hmmmmmm, solely about weapons of mass destruction? Methinks likely not.

Addendum:
Looks like I'm not the only one pondering that last statement - see this very enlightening article from ukwatch.net, which suggests that peak oil concerns were the primary reason for the war in Iraq.

The seabed scramble continues

Whilst Norway, Russia, Denmark, Canada and the USA argue about how to divvy up the seabed of the Arctic, the UK is part of the rush to grab potential seabed resources too, as this from the Telegraph reports.

"officials are watching with a mixture of awe and suspicion as Britain and France stake out legal claims to oil and mineral wealth as far as 350 nautical miles around each of their scattered islands across the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans."

"The forgotten relics of the Empire make Britain a player in the marine race. There are the waters off the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, already home to a clutch of oil exploration companies; the Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific; Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean; and a string of outposts such as Montserrat, the Caymans, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, and Bermuda."

As far as I recollect, Ascension Island is an extremely tall underwater volcano that has only the very top sticking out of the water; so it sounds like some extremely deep drilling technology is going to be required! Oh well, Big Oil makes the world go round, and Big Oil gets what it wants most of the time, as well as having the money to finance ridiculously deep exploration rigs.

But, to me, this is all rather sad, and highly indicative of one of humanity's basic instincts, Greed!

Syncrude

Perhaps it ought to have been named SinCrude given the damage that recovering oil from oil tar sands causes to the environment.

A fascinating insight into the booming Alberta Tar Sands extraction industry from Time Magazine. Canada looks set to become the 'Venezuela of the north', and its all down to those nice chaps from big oil's biggest, ExxonMobil.

Well worth a read.

A Global Warming Denier's Conference

I had a sneaking suspicion that something like this might eventually happen, and it has, and is, as reported by The Raw Story.

Now I have no problem with opposing sides of any argument being put, but the acid test comes in the figures provided, and in the large majority acceptance of the underlying science. Fox and friends argue that "We just did a report looking at how the network news shows have covered climate change. ... 13 to one, the people they put on are on one side saying it's not a debate. ... On CBS it's 38 to one."

Sorry guys, but those sort of numbers simply reflect the numbers of scientists who genuinely believe in (Probably and/or Likely) Man Worsened Climate Change, versus those who don't.

And, interestingly, how would you like to take a guess at just who some of the friends of Fox News are funded by? Seems that Big Oil has some very long tendrils of influence.

Addendum:
More on this conference from Daily Kos.

Darfur - is the deafening silence broken at last?

The genocide in Darfur has been going on for what seems years now. Ostensibly, at least according to the current Sudanese government, this dispute between local farmers started over water (the shortage thereof), has caused the deaths of over 200,000 people and created the displacement of an even greater number to refugee camps within Sudan and in its neighbours. The fighting has even spread over the border into Chad and supposedly into Ethiopia too.

Yet the world's major media seems to have generally ignored the entire issue, until now. So what appears to have made the media realise that there is actually an important story behind Darfur?

Ahhhhh, I see, an internationally renowned member of the big screen fraternity, Stephen Spielberg, no less, has made the media luvvies sit up and take notice by stepping down from his role as artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics opening and closing ceremonies. Now that's something really worth getting worked up about.

Isn't it amazing how a bit of celebrity can raise the media image of an issue whilst the deaths of hundreds of thousands can't?

Yet still not a peep about the fact that Darfur lies right across what is probably the largest potential oilfield in Sudan. Is it me?

Hydrogen from petroleum?

I missed this yesterday (well, I don't often trawl through stock exchange regulatory announcements), but feel that it is still worthy of comment.

It's about Exxon-Mobil, with partners, developing a new unique technology that "reduces carbon emissions and offers advantages over other Hydrogen delivery systems".

So I read on, with interest, the biggest of the big-oil boys looking at Hydrogen generation systems was definitely an eyebrow twitcher. Oh, the technology will use "liquid fuels ... gasoline, diesel, ethanol or biodiesel and convert them into hydrogen onboard the vehicle where it will be used in a fuel cell power train."

They claim that "it has the potential to be up to 80% more fuel efficient than today's internal combustion engine technologies and reduce CO2 emissions by up to 45%."

Now that's some claim and I'd like to see and understand more of the potential of this technology, but, and perhaps I'm being a little picky here, its fuel source is still petroleum, ethanol or bio-diesel based, so doesn't this sort of technology simply perpetuate big-oil's existing storage and distribution infrastructures.

And one other thing. Though I've forgotten an awful lot of my chemistry over the years, surely if you remove all (or most) of the Hydrogen from a bunch of complex hydrocarbon molecules as a fuel source, aren't you going to be left with an awful lot of Carbon, CO2 and other nasties to dispose of?

Don't like the answers? Get rid of it!

This little article reports on some Canadian scientists who are involved with the IPCC reports. It seems that their government has withdrawn the funding for further research into some aspects of climate change. It "it has shut down a federal climate change research network and blocked new studies on the impact of rising greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere."

I guess in many ways, it is the prerogative of the funder to decide whether or not to continue funding. Yet this is another in a long line of climate change research projects which have been terminated by governments who appear to be in thrall to the companionship of the big oil brigade.

Meanwhile, others seem to have little or no problem in obtaining research funding

Talking of big oil, Exxon has lost its status as the planet's most valued business to Petrochina whose valuation exceeds $1 Trillion! (That's larger than Russia's entire stock market value!)

From Woodstock to Wall Street in 3 years

Those of you who have watched the growing development (and debate) of bio-diesel may remember 'Bish' from the film "Everything's Cool". He will probably be remembered as almost singlehandedly starting the now rapidly growing bio-diesel market.

This from CNNNews reports on the rapid growth of bio-diesel, to the point where there may be the first two IPOs later this year. Total bio-diesel production in the USA grew from 25 million gallons in 2004 to 250 million last year. The market has more than doubled every year since 2004 and will hit $1 billion this year.

"Biodiesel is the rock star of fuels," says Will Thurmond, author of Biodiesel 2020: A Global Market Survey. "It has moved from Woodstock to Wall Street."

Also it is interesting to note that some of the Big Oil boys are really beginning to get in on the act now - Chevron, ConocoPhillips etc. Hmmmm, that's got my eyebrows twitching; where there are megabucks to be made, the big sharks suddenly appear.

Bush Administration Must Publish Climate Change Reports

Environmentalists won a court case on Tuesday over the white house's reticence to publish climate change reports which are required by law. The full story is from Associated Press.

"Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Tuesday that the Bush administration had violated a 1990 law when it failed to meet deadlines for an updated U.S. climate change research plan and impact assessment."

"The plaintiffs - the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace - said the ruling was a rebuke to an administration that has systematically denied and suppressed information on global warming."

So it appears to be true - even the big guys do lose sometimes. It will be very interesting to see just what the report, when eventually issued, has to say, especially if some of the Big Oil funded boys are involved in its creation.

The Truth About Denial

I recommend an eye-opening article from Sharon Begley in Newsweek Science & Technology which attempts to show just how much effort Big Oil and its friends and cohorts have put into supporting the 'climate change isn't man made' club.

"the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion."

"There was an extraordinary campaign by the denial machine to find and hire scientists to sow dissent and make it appear that the research community was deeply divided"

The article describes a good deal of the politics and chicanery that has gone on at top level in the US; including how several attempts to pass legislation on CO2 emissions have been strangled etc. All in all, well worth a few minutes perusal.

"It's enough to make you wish that climate change were a hoax, rather than the reality it is."

Quite!

Addendum: 7/8/2007

According to this article from Canada.Com, the media isn't helping too much either. It would seem that the US and Canadian media have quite a strong tendency to tone down any climate change article in comparison with their brethren in Europe.
I just loved this example - "the New York times ran an article noting that 'global warming is an unequivocal fact likely to make summers hotter and winters warmer for the next few centuries, with potentially dire consequences for the ecosystem' -- then spent the next 17 paragraphs discussing the likely effect on groundhogs."

The Energy Solution That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Oooooh! I first thought, another perhaps daring to suggest we sort of try to limit the human population growth somewhat? But no, in a cogent and logical comment article Raymond J. Learsy argues that the US could dig its way out of the thrall of the oil barons by ......... rationing.

"it became clear to me at least, that those with a vested interest in oil, oil production, oil and energy distribution, oil governance, are all for conservation, protecting the environment, as long as it does not negatively impact the price of oil and energy."

"lets consider ethanol and alternative fuels, but we don't really have a viable infrastructure in place, and can it really displace meaningful amounts of oil. What is the environmental impact of all bio based fuels among such as cellulosic, corn, sugar based ethanol? Of course we support biofuels if they are sustainable."

His translation:-

"lets stay with oil as long as we can, or as long as we can ask questions that cause programmed doubt to derail the urgent development of alternative fuels and alternative solutions."

"the consumer is playing against loaded dice."

Well, no one will argue against that last point. What he says may, at least in part, be true, but I think he's a brave chappie who just may have stuck his head over the parapet a little too far. Those Big Oil boys have some very big guns!
And starving the planet's largest consumers of petrol is going to be an immense ask!

Sometimes you ask the right questions .....

.... but you get the wrong answers ..... sometimes you may get the right answers, but by asking the wrong questions. Sometimes you think you are right, and you are not.

I hate being wrong, I always have; but I hate things that hide the truth, or what potentially may be the truth, whether deliberately, or by silence, even more. So when you come across something that casts an entirely different light on a subject that you've being banging on about, you just have to swallow your pride and share it - whether it is actually right, or wrong, or neither.

Confused? .............. Then allow me to elucidate.

A little while back I posted a few items either on, or that mentioned, the potential geo-political outcomes of global warming - famine, mass migration, wars etc. and about how even the UN was assessing current conflicts such as that in Sudan as being a direct consequence of global warming that has occured already.
See 18th June - Arms dealing - the career of the future?
and 21st June - Today's forecast - heavy wars.

So it was with great interest that I came across this piece on Sudan's oil production activities.

Some very interesting facts appear in this:-

"Sudan only started producing and exporting oil in July 1999, with the completion of an export pipeline that runs from central Sudan to the Red Sea port of Bashair."

"Sudan is now the third largest crude oil producer in Africa." (I knew it had some minor oilfields - but third behind only Nigeria and Angola - in less than a decade!!)

"The Sudanese Energy Ministry estimates total oil reserves at five billion barrels." (Nice little asset to sit on.)

"Sudanese sources estimate that Darfur and Kordofan may be the areas richest in oil in the entire country."

So where is this going? Well, take another look at THAT region name in the last statement again, and then take a look at concession block 6 on the map in the attached link. Block 6 is reckoned to be the most promising as far as future production is concerned (i.e. read - the biggest oilfields).

Block 6 just happens to sit right across a big chunk of the Darfur region.

So the prolonged drought has forced conflict between the farmers and nomadic groups and there is insufficient water to go around?

Excuse me for being ironic - but now I'm beginning to think all is not at is seems, and not as we have been led to believe. Methinks I smell the very strong stench of PetroDollars in the air. And do I detect, perhaps, just a whiff of PetroDollar funded ethnic cleansing in Darfur? Perhaps I'm adding 2 + 2 and making 5, but it has certainly made me think again.

What do our readers think?

And I'm not even going to mention the fact that both the Chinese and the West, including the US (despite current sanctions), have major oil exploration and exploitation activities going on in Sudan, to muddy the mix even more.

Oh, I just did. Sorry.

And sorry for being wrong - well, maybe wrong.

Addendum:

Is there anybody out there who subscribes to The Irish Times who might let us know what the main thrust of this article (5/7/2007) is?
UN hides behind climate change to mask Darfur inaction.

Free infinite energy again!

Well, let's wait and see.

Steorn have been banging on about this magical free energy device for almost two years now, but only a few 'scientists' have been allowed to see and review it. It purports to generate free energy from the interaction of several magnets.

They say they are going to publicly show the device in London today (At The Kinetica Museum, Old Spitalfields - 18:00. Though the Kinetica site, rather confusingly, says it is closed until the 5th July) and are supposed to be showing it on the internet too!

Perhaps if this Orbo gizmo actually works, then maybe they have another contender for the future replacement of Big Oil's current CO2 producing products?

Addendum:

Having found zero news items about this on the morning of the 5/7/2007, I took another look and the public showing has been moved to today. Let's see what tomorrow brings.

Addendum 2:

Now they are having problems with the demo unit, and the display at Kinetica will not open until 6/7/2007 for public viewing of the Orbo free energy technology.

Addendum 3:

Oh dear ...... things aren't going too well. The demonstration has now been cancelled indefinitely due to technical problems caused by excessive heat. See Steorn announcement.

With a track record like the one they are rapidly developing, no-one is going to believe anything they say at all soon!

Make fun of the big boys and you end up getting hurt.

Remember the prank pulled by The Yes Men on Big Oil about the spoof product Vivoleum?

Well, it appears that the big boys at Exxon were not amused - it seems that they actually managed (allegedly) to get the ISP to pull The Yes Men site and their email capabilities, for a while at least.
See The Inquirer for details.

Isn't it amazing just how much the school playground pecking order and real world big business are alike? Make too much fun of the big boys and you will usually end up getting hurt.