Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

zeupater

JKenH wrote: »

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.

Hi

Nice attempt at spinning a position, even though the need to introduce a note of rudeness is duly noted, but in reality the point being addressed was ...

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....

... however, as the product of any carbon based combustion (as demonstrated) is CO2 then any act, position or lobbying employed to prolong the combustion of carbon based fuels when the potential for alternative energy sources existed must be considered to have impacted on the cumulative production of CO2.

At this point it must be considered that current RE technologies in the form of wind & solar generation are based on concepts which have been around for decades before the current move towards adoption and that there is no design or manufacturing reason for the technologies to not have been adopted decades earlier by using exactly the same support mechanisms as have been employed over the past decade-or-so.

A reasonable argument can be made that analysis of energy requirements & trends was globally allowed (by various governments & institutions) to be conducted & controlled by the energy industry itself (eg annual BP Energy Outlook) and that considerable effort was expended through high intensity international lobbing to require that industry was best placed to provide expertise in their field ....

Running parallel to the control of information & high level lobbying is the very real probability that the high level of FF industry involvement in RE industries would simply have been to control & influence the development of the sector so as to not impact on revenue & margins in the core business. At the beginning of this decade some of the major RE brands were synonymous with, or subsidiaries of, major FF corporates yet investment in manufacturing capacity and supply had been highly constrained for years despite the ability of the sector to provide whatever investment was deemed necessary, resulting in the maintenance of uncompetitive product & highly constrained availability.

It's not beyond any test of reasonableness to conclude that intentionally suppressing information regarding known negative impacts of carbon combustion and constraining the growth of RE through major ownership could be used to intentionally prolong the productive & profitable life of carbon based fuel & energy industries ....

In such circumstances the burden of proof isn't 'beyond reasonable doubt' as in criminal cases, but 'balance of probabilities' as in civil cases, so a considerably lower bar to measure against .... so in terms of whether the FF sector deliberately suppressed both important information & the RE sector to protect the bottom line the simple question arises as to where the balance really lies relative to the burden of measurement ...




It's all relevant ....
Z

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

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

You may have a point ... "probably not" anywhere else in the world - but this is the USA so "Possibly not" may be closer!:D

Over the period in question, Exxon's earnings have been sufficient to pay dividends, support dividend growth, and increase the share price. I'm not sure how shareholders are going to prove any 'loss' in financial terms.

Corporations routinely gather intelligence on which they base their decisions. It hardly makes any sense to give yourself that edge & then share that information with the public & your competitors.

JKenH

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Nice attempt at spinning a position, even though the need to introduce a note of rudeness is duly noted, but in reality the point being addressed was ...



... however, as the product of any carbon based combustion (as demonstrated) is CO2 then any act, position or lobbying employed to prolong the combustion of carbon based fuels when the potential for alternative energy sources existed must be considered to have impacted on the cumulative production of CO2.

At this point it must be considered that current RE technologies in the form of wind & solar generation are based on concepts which have been around for decades before the current move towards adoption and that there is no design or manufacturing reason for the technologies to not have been adopted decades earlier by using exactly the same support mechanisms as have been employed over the past decade-or-so.

A reasonable argument can be made that analysis of energy requirements & trends was globally allowed (by various governments & institutions) to be conducted & controlled by the energy industry itself (eg annual BP Energy Outlook) and that considerable effort was expended through high intensity international lobbing to require that industry was best placed to provide expertise in their field ....

Running parallel to the control of information & high level lobbying is the very real probability that the high level of FF industry involvement in RE industries would simply have been to control & influence the development of the sector so as to not impact on revenue & margins in the core business. At the beginning of this decade some of the major RE brands were synonymous with, or subsidiaries of, major FF corporates yet investment in manufacturing capacity and supply had been highly constrained for years despite the ability of the sector to provide whatever investment was deemed necessary, resulting in the maintenance of uncompetitive product & highly constrained availability.

It's not beyond any test of reasonableness to conclude that intentionally suppressing information regarding known negative impacts of carbon combustion and constraining the growth of RE through major ownership could be used to intentionally prolong the productive & profitable life of carbon based fuel & energy industries ....

In such circumstances the burden of proof isn't 'beyond reasonable doubt' as in criminal cases, but 'balance of probabilities' as in civil cases, so a considerably lower bar to measure against .... so in terms of whether the FF sector deliberately suppressed both important information & the RE sector to protect the bottom line the simple question arises as to where the balance really lies relative to the burden of measurement ...




It's all relevant ....
Z

Ah, yes of course, it must be spin. Did you seriously think I was arguing burning fossil fuels does not produce CO2? No of course not, that was simply a diversion but to what end I have no idea.

What you say regarding the intentions of Exxon may be true but this is at the moment just posturing and supposition. The phrase I used was ‘whether that had any impact on CO2 levels is what has yet to be demonstrated.’

You suggest it may be but it hasn’t yet.

What you and I are arguing about here is semantics, while what I actually take issue with are statements like

“So, whilst the World was ready to accept the problem, and start to act, we were deliberately mislead and delayed for about 20-30yrs, with serious action, and deployment of RE, starting around 2010, a good 20-30yrs late.“

And

“They probably cost us 20yrs of action, delaying the big push to around 2010.”


It could be argued that the Green lobbyists campaigning against nuclear power had just as much, if not more, influence on the continued rise in CO2 emissions as the FF lobby’s attempts to block the roll out of clean energy.

JKenH

For anyone interested this is ExxonMobil’s take on the controversy.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Energy-and-environment/Environmental-protection/Climate-change/Understanding-the-ExxonKnew-controversy#whatIsExxonKnew

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

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

No, I don't think we should give in to The Three Amigos and not report positive news for RE.

That's like saying don't report info on Big Tobacco losing court cases on an 'end smoking' forum.

As the FF industry is held responsible for their actions, which have obviously led to vastly more CO2 today in the environment than if we'd started the RE revolution 20-30yrs earlier, then they will have to act more, both in switching to RE, and reducing their efforts to hobble RE.

That's great news for RE.

[I note that you are steadily increasing your efforts and posts that attempt to dictate what I (and others) can say on here. Whilst that is no surprise to me, I thank you for being ever more transparent now in your actions. M.]

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

No, I don't think we should give in to The Three Amigos and not report positive news for RE.

That's like saying don't report info on Big Tobacco losing court cases on an 'end smoking' forum.

As the FF industry is held responsible for their actions, which have obviously led to vastly more CO2 today in the environment than if we'd started the RE revolution 20-30yrs earlier, then they will have to act more, both in switching to RE, and reducing their efforts to hobble RE.

That's great news for RE.

[I note that you are steadily increasing your efforts and posts that attempt to dictate what I (and others) can say on here. Whilst that is no surprise to me, I thank you for being ever more transparent now in your actions. M.]

This of course completely overlooks the fact that the FF industry does not have any legislative powers - that's the role of governments. If you want to place blame, that's where you should be looking - or if you want to take it further then blame the electorate for electing those governments.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

No, I don't think we should give in to The Three Amigos and not report positive news for RE.

That's like saying don't report info on Big Tobacco losing court cases on an 'end smoking' forum.

So this is an end fossil fuels forum, is it? Right, got it now. Why not just call it that and be done with it.

Oh, what is it that is heating your home and getting you about?

Mummy, can you drive me to the climate change protest in your 4x4 please?

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

It could be argued that the Green lobbyists campaigning against nuclear power had just as much, if not more, influence on the continued rise in CO2 emissions as the FF lobby’s attempts to block the roll out of clean energy.

Yes it could be argued, especially if someone wanted to spin the argument away from criticism of the FF industry, but that doesn't in any way excuse the FF industry, it simply throws mud around to confuse the discussion.

On a personal note, I fully supported nuclear up to around 2010, then perhaps 10% till around 2012, then 0% since.

My position has been simple, nuclear is low carbon and cleaner than coal, so we should have rolled out far, far more in the 80/90's. But then again the FF industry was telling us all not to worry, and that facts and science should be ignored ..... baseless opinions are more important (why does that sound so familiar?)

But as RE costs fell, the argument for nuclear weakened, and with the recognition of the need to reduce and remove coal, nuclear became pointless.

Pointless in the sense that RE could be rolled out far faster, didn't carry any of the risk factors, and by 2010-12 it could be seen that RE would be cheaper than nuclear, before the nuclear could be commissioned*, so there remained no further reasons to support it.

*This is an important point, as my position regarding nuclear shifted before RE was cheaper, but to clarify, was after it was clear that RE would be cheaper on deployments that would be commissioned before new nuclear. So by ~2012 it was clear that any new nuclear built, would be more expensive (on commissioning) than RE commissioned at that same time. In reality, RE dropped much further and faster.

Martyn1981

An issue that possibly doesn't get mentioned enough on here, as it's not energy, but would buy us some time for RE rollout, is the issue of soil and the possibility of returning large amounts of carbon into it.

There are some great lectures/TED talks on the subject, but here's some potentially good (and cheap) news:

UN Scientists Say There Is A Way To Delay Climate Change For 20 Years For Pocket Change

$300 billion is pocket change? It is if you think on a global scale. It’s what the governments of the world spend on the military defense every 2 months. Barron J. Orr, lead scientist for the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, says that paltry sum of money would be enough to delay the worst effects of an overheating planet for up to 20 years — time that could be used to find more permanent solutions to global heating so we and our heirs can continue to enjoy living on Earth.

We have lost the biological function of soils. We have got to reverse that,” Orr tells Bloomberg News. “If we do it, we are turning the land into the big part of the solution for climate change.” Rene Castro Salazar, an assistant director general at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, tells Time that almost half of the 5 billion acres of land around the world that have been degraded by misuse, overgrazing, deforestation, and other human factors could be restored at a cost of $300 billion. At least a third of the world’s land has been degraded to some extent, directly affecting the lives of 2 billion people, says Eduardo Mansur, director of the land and water division at the FAO.

Assuming that happened, the restored soil could capture enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to keep average global temperatures from spiraling out of control. It’s not a permanent cure — more like a surgical dressing that protects the body and gives a wound time to heal.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yes it could be argued, especially if someone wanted to spin the argument away from criticism of the FF industry, but that doesn't in any way excuse the FF industry, it simply throws mud around to confuse the discussion.

On a personal note, I fully supported nuclear up to around 2010, then perhaps 10% till around 2012, then 0% since.

My position has been simple, nuclear is low carbon and cleaner than coal, so we should have rolled out far, far more in the 80/90's. But then again the FF industry was telling us all not to worry, and that facts and science should be ignored ..... baseless opinions are more important (why does that sound so familiar?)

But as RE costs fell, the argument for nuclear weakened, and with the recognition of the need to reduce and remove coal, nuclear became pointless.

Pointless in the sense that RE could be rolled out far faster, didn't carry any of the risk factors, and by 2010-12 it could be seen that RE would be cheaper than nuclear, before the nuclear could be commissioned*, so there remained no further reasons to support it.

*This is an important point, as my position regarding nuclear shifted before RE was cheaper, but to clarify, was after it was clear that RE would be cheaper on deployments that would be commissioned before new nuclear. So by ~2012 it was clear that any new nuclear built, would be more expensive (on commissioning) than RE commissioned at that same time. In reality, RE dropped much further and faster.

So what you are saying is you were pro nuclear in the 1980s and 90s after Chernobyl but you were quietly doing your sums which in 2012 enabled you to forecast what the wholesale cost of wind would be compared to nuclear at some as yet to be determined point in the future. So I don’t suppose the prices achieved at the latest round of CFD auctions came as any surprise to you. All you had to do was look at your 2012 spreadsheet and there they were.

It’s a shame you didn’t work for HMG or an investment bank as you could have made a fortune. Instead you chose to spend your time on here saving the world. Maybe you’ll get a mention in the New Years honours list - a new category perhaps, the MBM.