Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

A new angle on the Global Warming debate

0 helpful
18 replies

by jardinier 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

[Source -- The Guardian]
The head of one of the world's biggest oil companies has admitted that the threat of climate change makes him "really very worried for the planet".
Lord Ron Oxburgh, chairman of Shell, says there is an urgent need to capture emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, which scientists think contribute to global warming, and store it underground - a technique called carbon sequestration.
"Sequestration is difficult, but if we don't have sequestration then I see very little hope for the world," Lord Oxburgh said. "No one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon dioxide that we are pumping out at present ... with consequences that we really can't predict but are probably not good."
His comments will enrage many in the oil industry, which is targeted by climate change campaigners because the use of its products spews out huge quantities of carbon dioxide, most visibly from vehicle exhausts.
Lord Oxburgh's words follow those of the British Government's chief science adviser, David King, who said in January that climate change posed a bigger threat to the world than terrorism.
"You can't slip a piece of paper between David King and me on this position," said Lord Oxburgh, a geologist who replaced the disgraced Philip Watts as chairman of the British arm of the oil giant in March.
Companies including Shell and BP have previously acknowledged the problem of climate change and pledged to reduce their own emissions, but the issue remains sensitive, and carefully worded public statements often emphasise uncertainties over risks.
Supporters of sequestration say it will allow a smoother transition to reduced emissions by allowing the world to burn coal, oil and gas for longer. Critics argue that the idea is an expensive and probably unworkable smokescreen for continued reliance on fossil fuels.
Last year it was revealed that British ministers were considering plans for a national network of pipelines to carry millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from power stations to be buried under the North Sea.
"You probably have to put it under the sea, but there are other possibilities. You may be able to trap it in solids or something like that," Lord Oxburgh said.
The situation is particularly urgent, he said, because many developing countries, including India and China, are sitting on huge untapped stocks of coal, probably the most polluting fossil fuel.

18 replies

by jimhm

Looks like after all those years of hinding behind other sheets - the true Greenie has come out of a Shell Oil - hum. Now what are the Greenies going to cry now.. I would say this man will not last long as the head of Shell - he will take his 30 or 50 million dollar golden Parachute and retire...Forced retirement that is ...

The Greenies lose another round - Oh that right I mean - Communist they aren't Greenie's the're the old "Red's" ...

by cactus pete

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=investor-en&FC5=&FC4=&FC3=/investor-en/html/iwgen/company_information/board_of_directors/boards_of_parent_companies.html&FC2=/LeftHandNav?LeftNavState=1,2&FC1=

or

http://tinyurl.com/yvpgu

Non-executive Chairman of Shell Transport
Born November 2, 1934. A British national, appointed a Director in 1996 and non-executive Chairman in March 2004. Latest date for retirement by rotation 2004 and he will retire in 2005 following his 70th birthday. Held a number of scientific and university appointments including Chief Scientific Advisor, Ministry of Defence and Rector, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine. Chairman SETNET and Chairman House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.

Board Committees: Social Responsibility Committee (Chairman), Shell Transport Nomination Committee

by oz_media

Actually in BC the focus has moved away from Global Warming, that was the 90's and simply isn't trendy enough anymore.

Today the issue is LOW level pollutants, a main focus of BC Air care for car emmissions. It is known that MOST vehicle emissions cause more harm to people on the street than to our atmosphere, hydrocabons break down at altitude and CO levels of MANY cars are within a somewhat resonable level now since air care testing started. I have seen cars with over 6.0% CO get removed from the streets and now anything over 1.5% fails and the average is less than 0.5%.

So now the focus is turning to LOW level emsissions, colorless odorless gasses that are harming us as we walk the streets. Again, CO is the main contender. Police departments have seen a MASSIVE decrease in sick leave since Air Care was started, the patrolmen and traffic cops were constantly having migraine issues, lung problems, and even heart attacks as a result of carboxyhemoglobin. This HAS been reduced and now the city and the province are focusing on what other low level emissions we can reduce.

I rpefer this approach really, if we CAN protect ourselves, YES IT IS PROVEN, we must therefore be in turn reducing any effects these emissions have on our atmosphere.

Instead of having those that are globally concious make a difference and those who are ignorant to their effects on the world call it a GREENIE issue, they have now PROVEN that we are suffering from our own emissions and we CAN do something about it, no myths to disprove, no unproven issues, no POSSIBLE effects, just real time pain and suffering that nobody can deny (for he's a jolly good....sorry).

Anyhow, anyone who doubts that low level emissions are harming US as we live and breath each day, has his/her head up his/her **. There is NO DENYING IT.

By reducing our emissions to help us in the present day, we are also in turn reducing the POSSIBLE effects on global warming.

Kind of an instant/preventative measure.

You don't have to be a greenie (whatever that is supposed to mean)to save your own children. Damn SOME countries go to war to prevent POSSIBLE harm.

This HARM is MUCH more real than any attack that Saddam had planned and is definitely a WMD that we expose ourselves to each day.

by jimhm

Same here Oz - they are looking into low level polution from these small power generatation planets around. That PA is like number 3 or 4 in the nation for lung deaths due to that polution.

I can agree with correcting those problems - fix the small ones - will help any bigger ones.. can't boil the ocean can you ... have to boil it a buckett at a time...

Hum - hydrogent vehicles - na not for another 20 years... but did I read something about GB and Hydrogent powered generation for the home?

by oz_media

Hydrogen powered cars MAY or MAY NOT make the market in the future, many Hybrids are now hitting the streets but for a full Hydrocar, it will take time.

We are now sgreeing on the same issue that you argued over for days in the last thread.

Low level pollutants WILL help global warming if/when, it is confirmed, if not, we haven't done any harm have we?

This was my point I was trying to make before that you simply refused to see, we CAN control our pollutants by making VERY simple changes in our daily routines. This MAY turn out to be also protecting our planet from Global Warming, therefore pollution and global warming are/may be related.

So lets not worry about Global Warming, lets worry about what we have proven is harming us, OUR pollutants. Now if one day we find that we reduced global warming effects by saving ourselves, then so be it, if they are in no way related whatsoever at least we are protecting ourselves and our children.

I believe in REAL measures that effect us TODAY. In many cases this may protect us tomorrow as well.

OM

by jimhm

We were just coming from different sides of the same street - I was saying don't lump Polution with GL - when Polution is our problem...

I will agree - clean the air / water and earth..but use intelligance - and proven technologies....

by oz_media

As for proven technologies, if you are referring to hydrogen auto's, they have a LONG way to go yet. Electric autos, I watched a Toyota electric test car make it two blocks per day for several weeks until they stopped road testing it.

The internal combustion engine is not a bad thing in itself ad is actually a VERY efficient way of generating horsepower from the energy inherent in gasoline. We just don't push our auto manufacturers to make better cars, better bodies, higher compression, better suspension and tires that would add another 20-30% to our mileage, and burn fuel better. We can but we don't.

germany did, Sweden did, Gret Britain did, France did, Austria did. Canada didn't and the USA didn't, why not? We are too busy complaining about GAS prices (as if that is the issue) or government taxes on gas (again not the issue). Neither of these solutions will reduce emissions, in fact they will help increase them as we will drive more often with cheaper gas. Cheaper gas also means the actual physical properties of the gas we buy will be effected. Companies don't give without taking, if tghey are forced to reduce cost, they will, at OUR expense. Poorly refined fuels with more additives and detergents that are more harmful to your engine than well refined gas with fewer additives.

We will only see action when everyone is on the same page, this forum is a good example of how separated we actually are. A democrat is pissing in the wind when talking to a Republican and vice versa, they will never see eye to eye and therefor ewill never agree that either one has a case to be made. Segragation inside our countries (not different than racism)is what keeps us from moving ahead to achieve common goals. Countries where politics are not the forefront of every decision or statement made are able to move ahead much better and progress their nations, we are simply stifled by our own politics and personal predjudices.

OM

by pctech

I am not surprised to see intelligence used by members of TechRepublic. Most of us that answer questions at TechRepublic are quite use to having to rely on our intelligence to sort out different problems everyday. We spend a great deal of our time trying to help others that are not as knowledgeable as we may be in our chosen field. This does not make us more intelligent, only more knowledgeable than those that rely upon our expertise.
I rarely see intelligence brought into play when "hot" issues, such as global warming and polution are being discussed. Polution is a known killer of all forms of life on Earth. Yet, I often see those that take the position that it is too costly to commerce to work "clean". Our economies will suffer, they will say. I have long looked beyond the "upfront" cost of anything in life and consider the long term returns. When it comes to polution, I prefer to err on the side of caution. While I will never qualify to become a member of the Mensa Society, I am intelligent enough to know that we simply can not pack our bags and move to the next planet, should we allow polution to overcome us on this planet. I consider this to be simple deductive reasoning. I consider those to be in favor of profits over a cleaner environment to be mislead by the "upfront" cost of doing so and ignore the long term, much higher cost, of not doing so.

by dc_guy

In the industrial world, the key to reduction of greenhouse gasses is telecommuting. Ninety percent of American workers spend their workdays staring at a computer screen and talking on the telephone -- devices that they have at home. Add a webcam and a second workstation for video to silence the cries of the dinosaurs: "We can't work without face-to-face meetings."

Any manager who can't manage people without being able to physically spy on them in their cubicles should be sent to Remedial Management Class.

Cut commuting by 90% and you'll cut auto emissions by 99%, because stop-and-go driving is the dirtiest kind. You'll also cut the need for incessant purchases of new cars, the production of which is a highly polluting industry as well as other-resource-intensive.

The effects cascade. People who spend work at home don't need nannies driving all over town to take care of their children. They don't need to subsist on convenience food, another resource-intensive industry that pollutes both the air and water as well as our arteries. They also don't need as many clothes and shoes, briefcases and umbrellas.

A telecommuting American workforce will reduce America's profligate consumption as well as its pollution, and the reduction of stress will reduce its out-of-control health care costs. It's time for American workers to rediscover the benefits of organizing and demand the perfectly sane and philanthropic right to work at home.

by oz_media

Unfortunately not a feasible one though. I know your case and agree wholeheartedly, unfortunately most employers do not. The employer doesn't see worth unless someone is sitting at a desk for some reason. Other issues such as cost to convert to home networking are easily recovered by lower bills for office space, heating, electrical etc. Again, they don't see this as a solution though, most employers are the touchy feely kind that need to see physical bodies in the workplace to feel productive.

I am lucky enough that my former employer signed a contract with me when I went out on my own, they NOW see value that I couldn't drill into their heads for three years before.

another client also has me remote admin, but all their staff is in the office full time.

The other issue, as this DOES address SOME pollution reduction, is driving jobs, not the semi's (Diesel doesn't do too much harm as it is mostly harmless hydrocarbons, black smoke)but al the gas delivery trucks, UPS, Puro-sooner-or-later, FedEx etc. With literally thousands of trucks (mainly gas) running 24/7, they need to be monitored closer for emissions. People would still be making sales calls all day, consultants and technicians need to be on the road etc. So while telecommuting will HELP, it cannot be seen as a resolution on its own and therefore a mreo effective solutions needs to be found.

Here's one, without building hydrogenm or electric cars, the aotu manufacturers are completely capable of building cars that burn gasoline much more efficiently. Building better bodies, better suspension and higher compression motors, the auto manufacturers can build cars that burn cleaner, get better mileage and last longer, they have been forced to do it in Europe but in North America all we have done is complain about the price of gas and expect taxes to be reduced. Neither will resolve the polution issues. I don't care if gas is $2.00 gallon, if I get 80MPG. I don't care if taxes are reduced if we are still killing ourselves. The idea is not to burn more gas for less money, it's to simply burn less gas.

We can all reduce our emissions at home, work and on the road very easily, but MOST don't bother to care or simply laugh it off as 'greenie BS'.

Until the entire nation gets on the same page, we will never see an end to killing ourselves.

Well, Europe stepped up to the plate. Isn't north america supposed to be the advanced culture? Or at least many people think we are, I can tell you first hand, Europeans are light years ahead of North america on issues such as pollution, recycling and over consumption. We've had fun being consumer pigs for enough years already, it would be nice to see both our countries start to act responsibly for a change, like that would ever happen.

by jimhm

I investigated and wrote the telecommuting rules for my company - with the assitance of HR/Legal/Advisory services - The kicker is - we have VPN / We pay for Cable connection to the home - IP Phone switching to their home - its like they are in the office -

A majority of the managers can't do it - if they don't see you in that ditch - digging a hole - then they don't think you are working...

Management has to change from managing people to managing the tasks and the job ... but then again that is harder to do - and there are so many bad and lazy managers out there - that can't understand ..

Our major problem was the number of hours people were working - it was higher than those in the office - during the test and evaluation period - and it wasn't because they wanted it - they enjoyed doing it - working when they wanted to - not 7 to 4 ... then run out the door..

by jimhm

Did anyone catch the Discovery HD - Earth programs this weekend... They were talking about the volcano Mt Sarat (SP) - an the amount of SulferDix and CO2 was more green house gases than man has introduced in the past 10 years.

Kind of blows that Man thing out of the water for Green House stuff -

I still say correct the Polution - but on geological time scale - man has very little effect on the planet... we will only kill ourselves if we aren't careful...

But for man - making earth warmer - Na - just can't happen... and isn't happening.. the Global Warming zellots can't blow enough smoke up peoples butts to get them to believe it ... some will - but they don't want to research for themselves... and find the truth..

by maxwell edison

You global warming advocates often claim that it's a forgone conclusion that there is general consensus within the scientific community that human activity is indeed causing global warming.

1. Define "scientific community" by describing those "scientists" who are both educated and experienced in whatever fields which would qualify them as being a person who can offer an expert opinion -- make that an expert conclusion based on their own findings or the review of other's findings. And, of course, define the field in which those particular scientists work. A nuclear scientist, for example, who works for the Atomic Energy Commission wouldn't qualify.

2. Show me the results of reliable poll conducted by a reliable polling organization which showed that the "scientists" you described above -- and ONLY the scientists you described above -- agreed that human activity was causing global warming, and that concluded there was a "general consensus" among those people that human activity is causing global warming.

3. Define "general consensus". Would that be at least 50 percent of those scientists polled? 60 percent? 76.8 percent? 100 percent? The poll results are necessary to reach this conclusion.

4. And as a matter of full disclosure, who do these "scientists" work for, and who pays their salary and/or provides their means of income?

You continually cite these people and presume to speak for them. How about defining and identifying who they really are?

by tonythetiger

It would seem to me that "Concensus" would be contrary to the scientific method these people (claim to) hold dear!

by maxwell edison

.....is that I don't believe they can adequately answer it. But hey, I'm "open-minded" on the issue, and perhaps they'll find what I was unable to find.

It's said that if there is an irreconcilable difference on an issue, then back-up and check the premise. If they can prove THEIR underlying premise that there is indeed a consensus of [b]qualified climate-type scientists[/b] on the issue, then I might even change my mind. But if they can't prove it, do you think they might change their mind? They might change their position when climate-change causes hell to freeze over!

I submit that the notion of human-caused global warming is a lie, which is built on a lie, which was built on a lie. They're arguing the final lie (the final claim), but I want to first look at the first lie -- or their claim -- and start from there. Therefore, I ask, okay guys, can you show me the "consensus of scientists", and prove it? (And a "consensus of scientists" should be pretty close to 100 percent of "qualified" opinion.)

I'm not holding my breath, however.

by hlhowell9

You do realize that of all the gases, hydrogen is the only one known to escape into space naturally. That without hydrogen, we lose all water, and most organic chemicals. running anything on free hydrogen is a disaster of even greater potential than global warming.

Think of the atmosphere as a vegas slot machine. We pump 100 moles of hydrogen into it, say 0.1% escapes. We recycle the hydrogen, and again lose 0.1% (0.1% is a very conservative number). i.e. 0.999 compounded. In 100 cycles we have lost 10% of the hydrogen (that would be 100days of use given normal consumption rates.) in 20 years, or 2000 cycles, the remainder would be 13.5% of our current hydrogen. Of course it wouldn't be that bad, would it????

Regards,
Les H

This discussion is closed to new replies.