General discussion


A new angle on the Global Warming debate

By jardinier ·

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.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Sounds like the Greenie's got a Snoop in the House

by JimHM In reply to A new angle on the Global ...

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" ...

Collapse -

He's already planning to leave

by Cactus Pete In reply to Sounds like the Greenie's ...,2&FC1=


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

Collapse -

Local Issues

by Oz_Media In reply to A new angle on the Global ...

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.

Collapse -

Same Here Oz

by JimHM In reply to Local Issues

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?

Collapse -

Hydrogen will come in time

by Oz_Media In reply to Same Here Oz

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.


Collapse -

Just coming from different sides of the same street

by JimHM In reply to Hydrogen will come in tim ...

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....

Collapse -

I'll buy that

by Oz_Media In reply to Just coming from differen ...

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.


Collapse -

Intelligence - not an ugly word.

by pctech In reply to I'll buy that

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.

Collapse -

The potential of a hydrogen ecological disaster

by hlhowell In reply to Hydrogen will come in tim ...

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????

Les H

Collapse -

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

by DC_GUY In reply to A new angle on the Global ...

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.

Related Discussions

Related Forums