Contrary to that Other Web Site

Presenting contrary arguments to Petroleum Industry propaganda site.

A study guide for interpreting that other web site

That other web site: energytomorrow.org - seems to have one purpose: to promote and secure the use of fossil fuels far into the future.   This is a time when we are about to decide to stop further carbon dioxide emission.   Our future depends on minimizing CO2 emmisions immediately.

For decades now, energy companies have funded PR campaigns that try to deny global warming, deny the science and actively inject confusion into the discussion.   Now that the science is well settled - their tactic is changing.   They accept that global warming exists, then dodge the question of whether it is clearly human caused or can be mitigated. Then they move directly to a message that might be re-stated as:  “While we look for a solution, lets keep using oil and coal.”   They ask us to ignore the more aproper action which is to immediately lower all usage, and halt all fossil fuel usage as soon as possible.

They craft a deceitful message saying they want to be part of the solution.   Their strategy is to prolong the widespread use of carbon fuels.  Right now all climate science and engineering dictates the only real solution is to halt all the CO2 emissions - and carbon fuel is the biggest source.   Since the flow of carbon fuels is so highly profitable, their quandary is how to continue the heavy flow and heavy profits.

The way they choose to de-demonize their carbon commodity by connecting carbon fuels as the main way to save the economy - hence our future.   And following classic propaganda principles, they will discuss alternative energy - but never permit the difficult discussion of the most daunting solution: the immediate halt to all carbon fuel combustion.

The Amercian Petroleum Institute is killing our future - just to extend theirs.

ExxonMobil alone delivered $40 Billion to stockholders last year.   The API industry group spends millions on PR and marketing campaigns to keep the world burning carbon fuels and avoid facing the stark science of how CO2 damages our future.   That is so wrong, so unethical, shameful and such horrible corporate behavior - but that’s probably just business - stockholders expect a full effort to keep profits flowing.   Despite the science, they show little concern for dangerously increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.   That’s not right.

As public policy better synchronizes with climate science, we can expect the petroleum industry to use new tactics to mold public opinion, forstall taxation and keep their trade moving.   We might anticipate their messages such as “extending dialog”, “exploring all the solutions”, “energy for our future”, etc.   All this as a way to deflect and delay anything that constrains their business.

“CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual.  In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”  - Dr James Hansen to Congress 6-23-08

This is Planetary Treason. And they know it. They try to deny it.  Deflect it. Global Warming is here. Made worse by humans burning carbon fuels. Stop it. CO2 levels are out of control. They know they should turn around. Shame Change now.

Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas responsible for global warming and climate change.  Like no other number, the monthly CO2 reading is an objective and current indicator of how we are doing. The number speaks for itself.

Manufacturing Uncertainty:

“It’s all about questioning the science to gum up the works. The companies pose as if they are defending open debate and inquiry and are trying to make scientific data available to everyone. In reality, once they get the raw data, they spend the vast resources at their disposal to discredit independent research”

An excellent video is The Most Important Video You’ll Ever See

Just like an alcoholic who refuses to admit the problem, the API American Petroleum Institute is denying the danger of carbon dioxide emissions.

The legion of hydrocarbon fuel companies is terrified that civilization will soon take the big step of defending its future by seriously limiting CO2 emissions. 

The option they offer is that we can have some easy energy right now and drill for more later.  Lost is the option of a radical carbon fuel cut back.

We should be hyper suspicious of the message dispensed at energytomorrow.com... they seem to be saying "Keep using oil while we look for more"  and "Our oil helps the economy"

The science says all CO2 has to stop.  But their Marketing campaign avoids mention of carbon dioxide emissions.  But that is the most important issue of all.

Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions
H. Damon Matthews
Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Ken Caldeira Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, California, USA

Current international climate mitigation efforts aim to stabilize levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, human-induced climate warming will continue for many centuries, even after atmospheric CO2 levels are stabilized. In this paper, we assess the CO2 emissions requirements for global temperature stabilization within the next several centuries, using an Earth system model of intermediate complexity. We show first that a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absence of additional emissions. We then show that to hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero future carbon emissions.

Our results suggest that future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales.   http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032388.shtml

Recent comment from RealClimate.org: 

  
...unabated CO2 emissions to the atmosphere would have climatic consequences that would persist for a thousand years, which they define operationally as "forever", as in the sense of "Irreversible".

It is not really news scientifically that atmospheric CO2 concentration stays higher than natural for thousands of years after emission of new CO2 to the carbon cycle from fossil fuels. The atmospheric CO2 concentration has a sharp peak toward the end of the fossil fuel era, then after humankind has gone carbon neutral (imagine!) the CO2 concentration starts to subside, quickly at first but after a few centuries settling in a "long tail" which persists for hundreds of thousands of years.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/irreversible-does-not-mean-unstoppable/langswitch_lang/in

Big Oil knows it is enabling the problem and hastening our demise.  They know all about the CO2 elephant in the room.  They are just lying about it.

BBC interviewed experts about the financial meltdown; their words have been echoed elsewhere:

“We knew what was wrong, We just didn’t know how to fix it”

I can give props to monetary industry experts for honesty, although it was a very late conversion.   On the very day that Wachovia bank went down, was seized, then sold - Wachovia continued to show its TV commercial showing

people with cash raining down upon them from above. The unmistakable message:  “Easy Money!” This is a visual statement that even at the very end the monetary irresponsibility was still in play.  Or at least through the transition to new owners.

But there really can be no new owners for the carbon fuel industry.  Knowing what is wrong is something energy companies are working hard to fight.  Because they know exactly how to fix it - namely halting all CO2 output. Coal is the worst.   One could imagine a TV commercial with lumps of coal falling from the sky, like free cash, which in a sense, is exactly what is happening with soot particulates - but the cash falls on the stockholders.

When TV commercials stop spewing forth, then I will know something is really changing.   Since all TV commercial messages are expensive to produce and to present, they are financial investments that work to sell something we really don’t want to buy.   Like any investment buyers - viewers - should exercise great caution interpreting their message.

The first step in fixing anything, is to clearly state that you know what is wrong.

The Professional Denier's script
Purpose is to delay organized reaction that could limit carbon fuel consumption

For optimal delay - try to prolong time between each statement, begin:

"There is no such thing as global warming"
 
"OK there is some warming
        But the science is still not certain

"OK most ALL Scientists agree that there is warming
        But some scientists do not completely agree.

"OK I see that you don't really need to be a scientist to see the warming
        But it is not warming everywhere

"OK I see the data says average global temps are warming
        But your data collection is flawed

"OK I see that data has been collected for years just about everywhere
        But not the oceans, the oceans are still just fine

"OK I see the oceans are warming most everywhere
        But Antarctic ice is increasing

"OK I see the Artic ice is melting, and Greenland ice cap too.
        But that is natural cyclical change

"OK I see that there is no regular cycle to explain our industrial age
          But global warming is not really caused by humans

"OK I see the warming may be greatly enhanced by humans
        But we cannot possibly do anything about it.

"OK maybe we should try to do something about it.
        But it won't be a problem for another century

"OK maybe it is smarter to face the problem sooner rather than later,
        But we should not be overly concerned or act with too much haste

"OK we should be really concerned and start to act right now
        But we should not be too anxious or worried

"OK we should be worried
        But we should certainly not be alarmist

"OK maybe we should sound the alarm,
        but we should not panic.
        

( "OK that should delay things for a few decades, can we have our paycheck now?)
 
Richard Pauli 9-08