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 -

A nice idea

by Oz_Media In reply to I've said it before and I ...

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.

Collapse -

I wrote our telecommuting - but some don't get it

by JimHM In reply to I've said it before and I ...

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..

Collapse -

Did anyone watch - Discovery HD

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

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 **** 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..

Collapse -


by maxwell edison In reply to A new angle on the Global ...
Collapse -

Proof, please

by maxwell edison In reply to A new angle on the Global ...

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?

Collapse -

Since when is science a popularity contest?

by TonytheTiger In reply to Proof, please

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

Collapse -

The reason I asked the question. . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Since when is science a p ... 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 qualified climate-type scientists 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 **** 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.

Collapse -

definitive response from leaders of science academies of major nations

by LexVA In reply to The reason I asked the qu ...

Related Discussions

Related Forums