Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 5, 2015 at 7:19

Lack of progress on climate change, says former Shell boss

Friday, June 5th, 2015 By Nicky Stubbs  blueandgreentomorrow.com

The former chairman of Shell has said that fossil fuel divestment is a rational approach to investment within the energy industry, warning that little progress has been made within the oil industry on tackling climate change.

Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, who spent four decades at the oil giant Shell, urged the oil and gas industries to do more to tackle climate change, saying that the lack of progress is “distressing”.

He said that he remained pessimistic about the prospect of addressing global warming, but said that it was encouraging that investors are beginning to realize the benefits of divestment – which he sees as a rational approach.

He said, “I have met precious few people who think we will stay within 2C. But one encouraging sign is a much higher level of interest from investors.”

His remarks came just as the New Carbon Trust released a report detailing the high awareness of climate and carbon risks among boardroom members ....

Moody-Stuart, who is now chairman of the Foundation for the UN Global Compact, urged board members to take a more proactive role in addressing environmental issues.

“The report [by New Carbon Trust] highlights the dichotomy of the two realities acknowledged by most businesses – the needs which must be met today, while beginning on what is often still a relatively modest process of change, and the very much more radical changes needed if we are to meet what can sometimes seem still distant challenges,” he said.

“This gap in perceived realities has closed only modestly over the last 20 years. Closing it at the required speed will regard unprecedented alignment and combined action by business, investors, governments and consumers. No one group can achieve progress without the support of the others.”

Shell is also trying to position itself as a solution to the problem of climate change, but is still coming under intense criticism over drilling operations in the Arctic region.

Speaking in Vienna on Thursday, Shell’s current boss Ben van Beurden stressed that the oil and gas industries can no longer ignore the importance of renewable energy.

“In a world where, as we heard recently, Saudi Arabia has ambitions to become a ‘global power in solar and wind energy’, the vision of a long-term future powered in the main by renewables is one none of us can ignore,” he said.

“It’s also a vision I would encourage all OPEC members to take seriously. Not least because I believe twenty years from now, if we don’t act, global public opinion will be unforgiving.”

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on June 10, 2015 at 3:18

IMHO, I think the climate change debate is overblown and manipulated for the gain of a few. On the other end of new light bulbs, solar panels, carbon trading are entities likely to get much richer while the middle class gets much poorer.

I think there are contradictory claims that seem to be force fed to a public that's too busy to actually look into its claims. There are nuggets like this that appear occasionally.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06/03/global-warming-standstillpau...

And then the purveyors of climate change are just absurd

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/gassy-cows-emit-more...

Let's say, for the sake of argument, the earth has warmed, which I think is generally accepted to some extent; though don't ask me how we can go back beyond recent history with data collection:

1. What makes us confident our activity is the chief cause (and not solar flares which have been more active)

2. What makes us so sure changes in how we live will will cure it?

Behind the science are people. People with political agendas and government induced fortunes await them. I need convincing before I willingly turn over the energy industry to bureaucrats and the elite.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on June 10, 2015 at 4:17

Keith,

It could not be better said!!!! Thanks. I have two degrees in life sciences and no one has said or is saying anything about the science/chemistry of carbon. CO2 is very soluble in water. So most of the CO2 is absorbed in the atmosphere by atmospheric water vapor. It is rained out as dissolved CO2. This CO2 then forms new carbonate reefs, etc. in the oceans/gulf. What it comes down to is the proponents of climate change keep harping on the subject until the public believes that there is a problem. That is the same about fracking. If you keep saying it enough then most will end up believing. Thanks for the post and some input into the reality of the discussion about climate change. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 10, 2015 at 4:26

The science is overwhelmingly on the side of man influenced climate change.  You have to be a big conspiracy fan to think all that science is made up by people with a political agenda.  Just as with the fracking debate there will always be contrary opinions and debates concerning interpretation of data but as time goes on the general facts become irrefutable.  Nuggets don't outweigh the vast amount of data generated over the last decade. 

It is past time for leaders to accept the inevitability of climate change and move the public debate to what is a reasonable response.  The only rational response to the potential consequences of a warming global climate is to change the way we source our energy.  That can be done with a gradual shift that takes advantage of the current surge in unconventional hydrocarbon production.  Phase out coal, sooner than later.  Transition electrical generation to natural gas.  Continue incremental increases in CAFE standards.  Invest in alternate energy sources particularly battery technology.  Formulate a long term plan involving a number of efforts that don't require people to change appreciably how they live now.

The science will evolve as changes are made and the results become known over time.  Hopefully there will be time to do more if needed.  There will certainly be time to do less if warming is limited.  The real question for leadership is what are the consequences of doing nothing or not enough. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on June 10, 2015 at 4:36

The problem is most of that data was corrupt. So now that some time has past the agenda is to restart the debate because people have a very short attention span and don't remember that the data was and is corrupt. 

The science will evolve as changes are made and the results become known over time.  Hopefully there will be time to do more if needed.  There will certainly be time to do less if warming is limited.  The real question for leadership is what are the consequences of doing nothing or not enough. 

No this will be a world tax, primarily on the US and it will never go away. It will be used to punish the US for innovation. Taxes I might remind you once enacted NEVER go away. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 10, 2015 at 4:38

Then we will agree to disagree. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on June 10, 2015 at 4:43

I guess my question to you is: Do you have the chemistry to make an informed statement or is this just an opinion on your part because of corrupt data and opinions from political hacks?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on June 10, 2015 at 4:53

Let me be clear too, I don't have the chemistry background to have an informed opinion, lol. I did terrible in advanced sciences.

I just watch, learn and make observations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 10, 2015 at 4:56

I read numerous articles each day including those on the science supporting climate change.  I have a science back ground and an open mind.  Joe, your rhetoric sounds disturbing like that of Gary Anselmo. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on June 10, 2015 at 4:59

Now you are getting into name calling. WOW.......

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on June 10, 2015 at 5:03

I don't think it's a scientific conspiracy no more than Hollywood has one to corrupt our youth. I just think it's a group of people with unified micro and macro goals and similar philosophies taught from similar educations. No different than any other movement that thinks and moves  together.   

I'm just waiting for proof that a political agenda is not informing the scientific agenda. Science is not static and changes, in the 70s they were predicting an earth cooling

You used the term man influenced. That could be significantly different than man made/caused climate changed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 10, 2015 at 5:25

I'll leave it the members to decide the relevance of magazine covers from the 70's.  If we devolve into posting quotes and links, we could be here for a very long time.

NASA

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Then again, we could just agree to disagree.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page