RECENTLY, I WAS BROUGHT UP SHORT by a comment following one of my columns. Not one of the usual lot from my critics! The column was on global warming and the comment was from someone who didn’t disagree with me but felt it time for me to move on and away from this issue. This was about a month ago — and, by and large, I have been obedient since. Obviously the Valero issue is related but this also involved other local problems. But I want to reflect (in writing) on the possibility that my “fixation” is wearing out my audience! While every column has always provided new and additional data, new findings and concerns, still, the issue remains constant, and who in the hell wants more gloom and doom when their flower garden is fading, their adolescent is hanging with the wrong crowd and the air conditioner has broken down!
Then I also find myself considering that no matter the significance of this message, repetition is often prelude to boredom. Very true. And we are talking perhaps 80 to 100 years in the future before the full weight of the problem reveals itself. I will not be around to reap what has been sown… nor will my friendly critic. Nor, most certainly and revealingly, any of the executives of the fossil fuel corporations participating in their eternal quest for greater profit (and clearly greater salaries, dividends, beautiful homes and luxurious vacation retreats), at whatever environmental or human cost.
And yet… is there not some responsibility I bear for that future. Is there any responsibility both I and my friendly critic share for the following: (Today, I will touch on — quote at length — a number of highlights from a powerful piece, that make a compelling case for the incredibly overwhelming magnitude of the problem.)
Like Big Tobacco, Big Energy Targets the Developing World for Future Profits, by Michael T. Klare, May 27, 2014 (This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. This is a huge (and powerful) piece from which I include a number of highlights by quotation.)
“An increase in carbon sales to non-OECD countries will help create a humanitarian catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions.” Italics mine.
“…As concern over climate change begins to lower the demand for fossil fuels in the United States and Europe, they are accelerating their sales to developing nations, where demand is strong and climate-control measures weak or nonexistent. That this will produce a colossal increase in climate-altering carbon emissions troubles them no more than the global spurt in smoking-related illnesses troubled the tobacco companies.
“The fossil fuel companies — producers of oil, coal, and natural gas — are similarly expanding their operations in low- and middle-income countries where ensuring the growth of energy supplies is considered more critical than preventing climate catastrophe. …an increase in carbon sales to such nations will help produce more intense storms and longer, more devastating droughts in places that are least prepared to withstand or cope with climate change’s perils.
In short, one could suggest, precisely those countries being targeted by the humanitarianism of Big Energy!
“The energy industry’s growing emphasis on sales to these particularly vulnerable lands is evident in the strategic planning of Exxon Mobil, the largest privately owned oil company. “By 2040, the world’s population is projected to grow to approximately 8.8 billion people,” Exxon noted in its 2013 financial report to stockholders. “As economies and populations grow, and living standards improve for billions of people, the need for energy will continue to rise… This demand increase is expected to be concentrated in developing countries.”
This assessment, explained Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, will govern the company’s marketing plans in the years ahead. “The global business environment continues to provide a mix of challenges and opportunities,” he told financial analysts at the New York Stock Exchange in March 2013. While the demand for energy in the developed economies “remains relatively flat,” he noted, “energy demand for the economies of the non-OECD countries is expected to grow about 65 percent to support anticipated growth.”
“In recognition of this trend, Exxon has undertaken a wide variety of initiatives intended to boost its sales capacity in China, Southeast Asia and other rapidly developing areas. In Singapore, for example, the company is expanding a refinery and petrochemical facility that make up its “largest integrated manufacturing site in the world.” Meanwhile, the hydrocarbon processing facility at the chemical plant is being doubled to meet the rising demand for petrochemicals used in making plastics and other consumer goods, especially in China. (“China alone is expected to represent over half of global demand growth” for these products, Tillerson observed last year.)
“To promote its products in China, Exxon has established a “strategic alliance” with the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec), one of China’s state-owned energy giants. A key goal of the alliance is the establishment of an “integrated world-scale refinery and petrochemical complex” in eastern China which, Exxon officials noted, is to “become a major marketer of petrochemicals throughout China and petroleum products throughout Fujian Province.”
“Next on the company’s (Exxon Mobil) agenda is a plan to draw on the natural gas being extracted in ever greater quantities from domestic shale formations in the United States via hydro-fracking and convert it into LNG for export to Asia. Although various American politicians have been pushing the strategic export of such supplies to Europe to “rescue” that continent from its reliance on Russian gas, Exxon has other ideas. It sees Asia, where gas prices are higher, as the natural market for its LNG — and US foreign policy be damned.
Big Energy’s “Humanitarian” Mission
“In promoting such policies, Exxon’s executives are careful to acknowledge that growing concerns over climate change are generating increased resistance to fossil fuel consumption in Europe and other First World areas. When it comes to the rest of the planet, however, such concerns, they claim, should be outweighed by a “humanitarian” impulse to provide cheap fossil energy to poor people.
The sheer blinding humanity of Exxon, brings tears to the eye and a lump to the throat!
Asked why global warming shouldn’t be of greater concern, “I think there are much more pressing priorities that we… need to deal with,” Tillerson told the Council on Foreign Relations in June 2012. “There are still hundreds of millions, billions of people living in abject poverty around the world. They need electricity… They need fuel to cook their food on that’s not animal dung… They’d love to burn fossil fuels because their quality of life would rise immeasurably, and their quality of health and the health of their children and their future would rise immeasurably. You’d save millions upon millions of lives by making fossil fuels more available to a lot of the part of the world that doesn’t have it.”
That is not to mention the millions upon millions upon millions of lives across the globe that will be lost or crippled by the results!
“Nor are only the oil and gas companies pursuing this strategy. So is Big Coal. With coal demand declining in the US, thanks to the growing availability of low-cost natural gas generated by fracking, the coal firms are shipping ever more of their American output to Asia, which will contribute significantly to increasingly the carbon emissions there.
Looked at from another perspective, diminished carbon emissions from coal in the United States — much touted by President Obama in his embrace of natural gas — has no significance when it comes to climate change, because of the greenhouse gases being produced when all that coal is consumed in Asia.
“In the end, all these efforts to boost fossil fuel sales in Asia and other developing areas will have one unmistakable result: a sharp rise in global carbon emissions, with most of the growth in non-OECD countries. According to the EIA, between 2010 and 2040 world carbon dioxide emissions from energy use — the main source of greenhouse gases — will rise by 46 percent, from 31.2 billion metric tons to 45.5 billion. (Italics mine.) Little of this increase will officially be generated by the planet’s wealthiest countries, where energy demand is stagnant and tougher rules on carbon emissions are being put in place. Instead, almost all of the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere — 94 percent of it — will be sloughed off on the developing world, even if a significant part of those emissions will come from the combustion of US fossil fuel exports.
What the hell, at least you’ve improved the standard of living for those who continue to live! (Well some, for a while!) But as Rex Tillerson would say no gain without pain!
“In the view of most scientists, an increase of carbon emissions on this scale will almost certainly lead to a global temperature rise of at least four degrees centigrade and possibly more by the end of this century. That’s enough to ensure that the changes we are already seeing, including severe droughts, stronger storms, raging wildfires and rising sea levels will be eclipsed by exponentially greater perils in the future.
Everyone will share in the pain from such warming-induced catastrophes. But people in developing lands — especially the poorest among them — will suffer more, because the societies they live in are least prepared to cope with severe catastrophes. “Climate-related hazards exacerbate other socioeconomic stressors, often with negative outcomes for livelihoods, especially for people living in poverty,” the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change observed in its most recent assessment of what global warming will mean for planet Earth. “Climate-related hazards affect poor people’s lives directly, through impacts on livelihoods, reduction in crop yields, or destruction of homes, and indirectly through, for example, increased food prices and food insecurity
“Certainly, the giant fossil fuel companies bear a moral, if not as yet in our society a legal, responsibility for the intensification of climate change and the lack of serious response to it. Beyond this, their carefully planned strategy of selling carbon products to those most at risk can only be viewed as outright immorality… Big Energy’s new “smoking” habit will be deemed a massive threat to human survival.
“Above all, Big Energy is insuring that one small ray of good news when it comes to climate change — the contracting use of coal, oil, and gas across the developed world — will prove meaningless. The economic incentive to sell fossil fuels to developing countries is undeniably powerful. The need for increased energy in developing countries is no less indisputable. In the long run, the only way to meet these needs without endangering our global future would be through a mammoth drive to expand renewable energy options there, not by shoving carbon products down their throats. Rex Tillerson and his cohorts will continue to claim that they are performing a “humanitarian” service with their new strategy. Instead, they are actually perpetuating the fossil fuel era and helping to create a future humanitarian catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions.
It is possible that the magnitude of the tide of disaster that lies ahead given our current course might justify a bit of repetition.
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Damn your detractors, Jerome, we want your input. Big Oil, Big Pharma, and offshoring Corporate America are soul-less entities no different than Big Tobacco. They are fueled only by profits and humans and the environment lost or damaged in their quests are only collateral damage. They are pathetic entities at best.
Peter, what do you suppose big green sustainability is driven by. The common welfare of mankind? If you buy that, I have some property for sale just east of Miami that I will make you a really good to buy!
Big and Green appeals more to me than Global Warming, polluted skies, asthmatic lungs, persistant drought, perennial wildfires, hurricanes, and floods. But I was never a tobacco smoker so I escaped the lure and immorality of Big Tobacco’s quest for income despite obvious links to cancer. I don’t believe any human should be collateral damage in the march for silly-assed income. Good luck with your aspirations.
JLB,
We hear ad nauseam of the Koch Brother’s and how their money has a reverse Midas touch to those who receive any amount from them. Earlier this year Forbes had an article on the subject of money in the MCGWA business. They actually rake in cash hand over fist compared to those who would dare to voice an objection or question the sanctity of their ‘noble’ cause.
Five environment-specific groups alone raise more than $1.6 billion per year (Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club).When global warming activists claim global warming skeptics receive the lion’s share of funding in the global warming debate, they are lying through their teeth.
‘Dark Money’ Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming ‘Denier’ Research
Who’s the lesser evil, Mr. Lund?
Should we not strive for honest debate?
Are lies in support of a good less wrong than lies in support of evil?
So I repeat, who’s the lesser evil, Mr. Lund?
There are those who create and give,
and those who just carp and whine.
Carp and whine.
Even the crow on the wire knows when
the other birds have had enough.
Carp and whine.
pb
So I repeat, who’s the lesser evil, Mr. Lund?
You will have to be more specific as to how you define good and evil in that question, Peter.
But I will say this:
Searching for the truth in terms of climactic variation is a good thing, obviously. Our climate sustains us and we have a responsibility to sustain the planet. However, we need to perform that research based on real scientific analysis. When I see detractors being fired, ridiculed, attacked based on a disagreement on the causes, that weakens the case of the alarmists.
When I see people making the claim that “97% of climate scientists agree…”, I recognize that the person is citing a bogus stat based on one study that has been previously refuted.
Yes, I am stubborn, my wife told me that when I was 18 years old, and I will paraphrase a great American here:
“Yes, I am stubborn, hell I admit that. What I don’t like about Monty is he won’t admit it” – General George S. Patton
“A bogus stat?” Which of your global science deniers are not fueled by the petroleum industry? Other contributors here in other days have already pointed that out.”Define good and evil?” You appear to enjoy circling the wagons for the sheer joy of circling the wagons…if that pleases you, enjoy yourself.
A phoney stat?
Yes, the 97% number is bogus. It is explained why here:
“A funny thing happened on the way to the apocalypse”
.”Define good and evil?” You appear to enjoy circling the wagons You asked the question of me to choose between A and B. I asked you to clarify those parameters. If the question is not easily defined in your mind, how can I give an answer?
Peter Bray said: You are neither informative nor entertaining,
When did this become about me?
People on this forum often complain about threads turning into a “juvenile romp” or other such phrases, you first amongst them. Now you turn the conversation away from a discussion of the issues and redirect it, in a juvenile fashion, towards me. Why?
Dennis:
You go from a discussion of environmental and political matters to some digression about you and your wife’s opinion of you since you were 18 and then some obstinant political leader…you circle your wagons as if you think it’s entertaining and informative and it’s not. Good luck with your circular and circuitous logic, Sunday entertainment it’s not.
pb
You are correct Dennis.
Best of the Web—
Beyond the anti-science, anti climate change crowd
More information for Mr. Page and our appointed and elected representatives to seriously contemplate….
“Wishful Thinking About Natural Gas”
“Why fossil fuels can’t solve the problems created by fossil fuels”
“How Gas (CH4) Heats the Atmosphere Much More than CO2 ”
“Isn’t gas still better than oil for heating homes? Perhaps, but oil doesn’t leak into the atmosphere, which brings us to a crucial point: natural gas is methane (CH4), which is a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO2.”
“As a result, gas leaks are a cause for enormous concern, because any methane that reaches the atmosphere unburned contributes to global warming more than the same amount of CO2. How much more”?
“The argument is complicated because while CH4 warms the planet far more than CO2, it stays in the atmosphere for much less time. A typical molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere about 10 times longer than a molecule of CH4. In their Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the GWP for methane is 34 times that of CO2 over the span of 100 years. However, when the time frame is changed to 20 years, the GWP increases to 86”!
“It gets worse. CH4 and CO2 are not the only components of air pollution that can alter the climate. Dust particles from pollution or volcanoes have the capacity to cool the climate. As it happens, burning coal produces a lot of dust, leading some scientists to conclude that replacing coal with natural gas may actually increase global warming. If they are right, then not only is natural gas not a bridge to a clean energy future, it’s a bridge to potential disaster.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/07/28/wishful-thinking-about-natural-gas
Jerrry I do not doubt your passion . But at the same time you are on the losing team.; The big issue I have with that is that you and your small group of so call intelliects followers in town fall into the same group. Jerry are you not aware that the Keystone Pipeline will happen. We will now ship a lot of fossil fuel overseas. Jerry are you and your limited group aware of that? It appears you are and your friends are not. Just play and sing a song and the worlds problems are over. I think not.. Take a good look at the folks that are your followers. I believe they are not up-to-date on what is happening in this wondwerful world. Just anti fossil fuel, big business and many other things. Everyone of thse folks would be living out in the Mohave Dessert in a tent if it was not for big business. Join in and contribute and maybe there could be some positive changes. But words and songs and poems just do not get it. All the places where that is going on are believe me third world country’s. By the way most of your followers do not even know what a third world country is. That in a nut shell is you and your followers problems. Now Jerry your group of so called intellects will come back at me with I guess A poem or A song. . Just where is “tail gunner joe when we need him” loved McCarthism That comment should set some of your low grade intelects free. We are winning Jerry and you are losing.
I find Mr. Page to be very intolerant of the poor and lacking in compassion for people who suffer from our terrible economy.
We have people suffering in this country. Living paycheck to paycheck. And Mr. Page wants them to pay more for energy, food, utilities, gasoline …
Quite insensitive if you ask me.
Recently a four day conference occurred in Venezuela where the subject of the impact of global warming/climate change was discussed in some detail.
It would be interesting to read Mr. Pages’ take on this event in general and specifically to the release of a 13 page document called the “Margarita Declaration”.
Two quotes from the ‘Margarita Declaration’:
“The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system. To combat climate change it is necessary to change the system.”
Ensure the financing by the developed countries to developing countries for such transformations, and for compensation and rehabilitation of the impacts of Climate Change. Financing must not be conditioned, and the management of the funds supplied shall be in the hands of the Peoples.
The Manifesto released confirms what many have long suspected:
The real goal of a significant number of people who are promoting man as the sole cause of global warming seek to destroy capitalism, confiscate its wealth and redistribute that wealth as “the Peoples” see fit.
For the record: I would not put Mr. Page in the above category, but I would at least hope that he would acknowledge that the element mentioned is both very large within the MCGWA community , as well as being largely denied by the same.
Of note regarding the link above: Contained is a list of the 130 organizations in attendance at this event, as well as those who signed (or sponsored) the declaration.
I would encourage all to read the list of sponsors.
All these anti fossil fuel freaks are clueless.. They have no knowledge ACCEPT what they read in the NYT or better ye itt is brought to their attention. Can you just think about these folks for a minute. It will only take a second. if these folks hAD TO write A REPoRT on global wARMing/climate change can you just think for a moment how it would sound. I just fuissed the Nancy Pelosi on that one,. They would look to Howdy Doody. Now thinkl about that.
They are mounting their come bAack. All backed by songs and poems. Never solved a thing. I sdo believwe President Reagan did solve that issue. Bt rhe way so did JDFK. Now just what do you no nothing Liberal Progessives have in mind. A cipcake or or cake bake. Oh yea that solves everything. aLONG
They are mounting their come back. All backed by songs and poems. Never solved a thing. I do believe President Reagan did solve that issue. By rhe way so did JFK. Now just what do you no nothing Liberal Progessives have in mind. A cupcake or or cake bake. Oh yea that solves everything.
And now for something completely different (Monty Python).
In the early days of harvesting the wind energy in the Montezuma Hills of Solano County, developers found resistance from the duck clubs in the marshes. They were concerned that the turbines would cause a decrease in the numbers of ducks available to blow out of the sky. They eventually agreed to mitigation involving habitat restoration.
Here is an article where SMUD indicates wind energy production at less than 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/environment/renewable-energy/wind.htm
And now, back to our regular programming.
Thankyou, Stan, let the Oily Petro Backers compete with those prices!
pb
Jerome – I really enjoy your articles. I read just about every word and most of the comments until they degenerate into name calling. I think my comment was more to the point of, there are three camps when it comes to climate change; those who believe we must take drastic action now, those who don’t believe a word of it, and those who have other things to worry about and prefer to kick the can down the road. I suppose there is a fourth camp that believes that man will continue down this present course because it’s the path of least resistance, and human history has shown we will follow the path of least resistance until something catastrophic changes the course of the path. I find myself in that camp. I’ve said it before, a global correction in the global population will turn the tide for climate change, because there will not be the population to support. We will be reduced to patchy areas of limited population that can be self sustaining in energy production as well as agricultural production. After that, natural carbon cycles will sequester the excess. The exception to that train of thought would be if we found a way to speed up the carbon sequestration cycle.
Mr. Klare is correct in that increasing carbon sales to non-OECD countries will lead to correction I refer to. Human psyche will not allow us to watch those in other parts of the world starve or die of thirst until we are threatened in the same way. Alterative energy like solar and wind power does very little to reduce our dependence on transportation energy. There is not enough land mass to produce the volumes of diesel and jet fuels from alga and biomass that we presently consume daily. All of these alternatives work, but not on a scale our global economy presently needs.
Great societies rise and fall – Greek, Roman, Mayan. Maybe the one that will rise after our will have a population that only lives until they’re 35 where they seek Renewal or make a run for Sanctuary. The warning cries of the concerned few will have no sway over the masses. We will continue down this present path until something changes our course.
For the record – my grass is browning and the flowers are wilting. My adolescent has yet to find the wrong crowd, but high school starts in a few weeks. If she looks hard enough, she’ll find them. The last I checked, my AC still works.
Please keep writing. I’ll keep reading.
~Dave