Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

ABrass wrote: »

Welcome to three pages earlier. May I suggest this goes to the circular pointless thread?

Perhaps it would be easier if I just re-named this thread the "The Three Amigos defend the FF industry in ever decreasing circles, and ever expanding desperation" ...... thread. :rotfl:

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Perhaps it would be easier if I just re-named this thread the "The Three Amigos defend the FF industry in ever decreasing circles, and ever expanding desperation" ...... thread. :rotfl:

Or you could just stop posting FF news and concentrate on RE.

zeupater

JKenH wrote: »

No denial here. It is well reported what Exxon got up to but whether that had any impact on CO2 levels is what has yet to be demonstrated ....

Hi

.. :doh:.. You must be kidding (hopefully!) !! .... In that statement you're effectively saying that the product of combustion has yet to be demonstrated to create CO2 or that the release of CO2 arising from combustion of fossil fuels has no demonstrable impact on CO2 levels ...

Simple consideration for combustion reaction fossil & hydrocarbon fuels .....
Carbon Based - Solid Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O
Hydrocarbon Based (methane) - CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O

... point demonstrated using basic GCE chemistry known, taught & learned decades ago (well before the timescales being discussed!!).

Above this, knowing or estimating the type & mass of fuel subjected to the combustion process allows a pretty reasonable estimate of the mass of each of the combustion elements and therefore the total mass of CO2 released to the atmosphere, therefore proving that there is an impact on CO2 levels.


This is an undeniable proof when applying current scientific consensus in the field of chemistry, a consensus that has stood sound for centuries and should therefore be considered fact.

The issue surrounding the position maintained by fossil fuel industries regarding CO2 isn't linked to increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentrations as this is scientifically undeniable, it's simply the relationship between combustion products (eg CO2 and particulate matter) and climatic & health impacts.

The argument then moves to a position that revolves around whether the industry knew about negative impacts and intentionally suppressed or maliciously misrepresented the known impacts & consequences for corporate gain, an example of which has been accepted in the referenced post as "It is well reported what Exxon got up to" .... !!!

A simple review of the position on scientific & logic grounds would therefore conclude that the points raised are undeniable, therefore non-acceptance of the position synergy as described cannot reasonably be considered as "No denial" ... unless the majority of scientific consensus since the late 18th century is demonstrably wrong!


Denial ??? .... well it depends on what is being denied, furthermore, it depends on why a strategy of denial is employed and who is performing the denial ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

For those who like SUV's (and I do like the look), it's not good news.

SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal

I'm assuming the change in emissions from 'other cars' is due to the fall in sales.

Perhaps we can have a rule that if you own a SUV, then all your other cars have to be Uniti 1's?

New all-electric Uniti One city car launched

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

.........The argument then moves to a position that revolves around whether the industry knew about negative impacts and intentionally suppressed or maliciously misrepresented the known impacts & consequences for corporate gain, an example of which has been accepted in the referenced post as "It is well reported what Exxon got up to" .... !!!

Did they break the law as it stood at that time? Probably not. If they did it for "corporate gain" then the shareholder's claim is also null & void ... unless they all wish to pay back those dividends of course?

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Did they break the law as it stood at that time? Probably not. If they did it for "corporate gain" then the shareholder's claim is also null & void ... unless they all wish to pay back those dividends of course?

Green AND ethical .....

JKenH

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

.. :doh:.. You must be kidding (hopefully!) !! .... In that statement you're effectively saying that the product of combustion has yet to be demonstrated to create CO2 or that the release of CO2 arising from combustion of fossil fuels has no demonstrable impact on CO2 levels ...

Simple consideration for combustion reaction fossil & hydrocarbon fuels .....
Carbon Based - Solid Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O
Hydrocarbon Based (methane) - CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O

... point demonstrated using basic GCE chemistry known, taught & learned decades ago (well before the timescales being discussed!!).

Above this, knowing or estimating the type & mass of fuel subjected to the combustion process allows a pretty reasonable estimate of the mass of each of the combustion elements and therefore the total mass of CO2 released to the atmosphere, therefore proving that there is an impact on CO2 levels.


This is an undeniable proof when applying current scientific consensus in the field of chemistry, a consensus that has stood sound for centuries and should therefore be considered fact.

The issue surrounding the position maintained by fossil fuel industries regarding CO2 isn't linked to increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentrations as this is scientifically undeniable, it's simply the relationship between combustion products (eg CO2 and particulate matter) and climatic & health impacts.

The argument then moves to a position that revolves around whether the industry knew about negative impacts and intentionally suppressed or maliciously misrepresented the known impacts & consequences for corporate gain, an example of which has been accepted in the referenced post as "It is well reported what Exxon got up to" .... !!!

A simple review of the position on scientific & logic grounds would therefore conclude that the points raised are undeniable, therefore non-acceptance of the position synergy as described cannot reasonably be considered as "No denial" ... unless the majority of scientific consensus since the late 18th century is demonstrably wrong!


Denial ??? .... well it depends on what is being denied, furthermore, it depends on why a strategy of denial is employed and who is performing the denial ....

HTH
Z

No, we are not arguing about the chemistry of combustion but thank you for the lesson anyway.

It is a shame that your ability to follow an argument doesn’t match your chemistry skills or you would have realised that what we are arguing about is whether Exxon’s lobbying had any impact on the roll out of RE, hence CO2 levels. Mart doesn’t agree with me but he didn’t have any problem working out what I was saying.

But thank you for your input, I am sure it will be appreciated by some.

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

Did they break the law as it stood at that time? Probably not. If they did it for "corporate gain" then the shareholder's claim is also null & void ... unless they all wish to pay back those dividends of course?

Hi


"Probably not" may be a little strong as the senior management have particularly stringent duties regarding corporate reporting which would obviously require observing GAAP requirements for contingent liability accounting .... an argument could be made that in knowingly suppressing information they held regarding the cumulative climatic & health effects of their operations, a corporate body would be wilfully avoiding a binding requirement to properly account for and represent their true financial position to both the financial market & their own shareholders according to legislative mandates .... just an example, but one which would definitely move the term 'probably not' to somewhere on the other side of 'possibly not' and certainly opens the path for questions regarding financial disclosure, including ones to the corporate executives from the owners & other stakeholders.


HTH
Z

ABrass

Why don't we stop arguing the toss here and see what the court case brings...?

JKenH

ABrass wrote: »

Why don't we stop arguing the toss here and see what the court case brings...?

But perhaps not report it on the green and ethical thread.:)