another gloomy milestone reached

[Craig380]

As Frankie Boyle recently said: halve your carbon footprint by killing and eating someone. If it's a pilot, even better ....

[Seeker]

Sorry to keep going on about this, but this story makes me so angry:

https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-pred...-954e514b0aa9/

tldr: Exxon predicted that the CO2 levels would be between 400-420 ppm by now; they made this prediction in 1982. They also acknowledged the results would be damaging but decided not to change their business model (or even mention it).

Originally Posted by Seeker

Sorry to keep going on about this, but this story makes me so angry:

https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-pred...-954e514b0aa9/

tldr: Exxon predicted that the CO2 levels would be between 400-420 ppm by now; they made this prediction in 1982. They also acknowledged the results would be damaging but decided not to change their business model (or even mention it).

I’m not sure why this would make you angry, it is hardly Exxon’s fault that it is meeting a demand by us people. If we are candid with ourselves we all know that using lots of energy isn’t good for the environment (and we knew that 40 years ago), but it doesn’t stop Joe public flying off on holiday a couple of times per year, running a 4x4 car to take the kids to school as well as a BMW for work as well as a SV650 for weekend fun and having a hot tub in the garden. It doesn’t stop the third world’s population doubling every 40 years or the largest organised religion decrying birth control.

It is easy to blame someone else (particularly if it is a large and wealthy company), but the real fault is the selfish gene that nature has given us that means we will soon overpopulate this planet.

Ho hum.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Othen

I’m not sure why this would make you angry, it is hardly Exxon’s fault that it is meeting a demand by us people.

OK: back in the 1980s it was announced there was a hole developing in the ozone layer over the poles, this was said to be a BAD thing.

The culprit was determined to be CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) and steps were taken to use different chemicals and, for a while, it started to close because we took action. (note: I know it has stopped closing recently because of two reasons - the growth of the number of people using a/c and someone in China is illegally still using the old CFCs).

In the 80s we still believed in science and, if we had had the conversations that we are only just started having now, humanity's continued existence might not be in question.

Exxon discovered a potentially species ending scenario and hid it for the sake of their profits, that should make anyone angry.

Originally Posted by Seeker

OK: back in the 1980s it was announced there was a hole developing in the ozone layer over the poles, this was said to be a BAD thing.



The culprit was determined to be CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) and steps were taken to use different chemicals and, for a while, it started to close because we took action. (note: I know it has stopped closing recently because of two reasons - the growth of the number of people using a/c and someone in China is illegally still using the old CFCs).



In the 80s we still believed in science and, if we had had the conversations that we are only just started having now, humanity's continued existence might not be in question.



Exxon discovered a potentially species ending scenario and hid it for the sake of their profits, that should make anyone angry.

I hope you don’t think I’m being difficult, but I’m still having trouble understanding what you are angry about. I certainly remember understanding that CO2 and nitrous oxides were pretty bad things for the environment when I took my A levels (40 years ago), so I don’t think this is something Exxon (in particular) has somehow hidden from us. If Exxon had decided to stop selling us petrol 40 years ago would that have helped? Of course not, Exxon would have ceased to exist (as an energy company) and someone would have stepped in to fill our demand for cheap but dirty power.

I still see the culprit here as us people (all of us), we demand lots and have no scruples about damaging the environment if it costs us even a little (just look at the number of fridges being fly tipped in country lay-bys just because councils have started to charge a tenner for proper disposal).

The biggest issue remains overpopulation (nationally and globally), but our response isn’t to limit the population rise, it is to build more houses and salve our consciences with a little bit of recycling.

It is in vogue (well, I think it always has been) to look for scapegoats to blame, and large, successful companies are fair game (there wouldn’t be any point blaming unsuccessful companies would there, they have all gone to the wall years ago). It doesn’t matter whether it is for the environment (energy companies must be to blame for selling is all that petrol we didn’t want), our health (tobacco companies for forcing people to smoke), accidents (it must be the car manufacturer making people crash into one another) and so on... someone else is always to blame.

Anyway, I think we will have to differ about feeling angry at Exxon. I still think the problem is overpopulation, and we continue to do nothing about it (the UK is a microcosm of the world in this respect, our population increases by 300,000 every year, mainly due to immigration - we know that but our only response is to blame successive governments for not building enough houses).

It is a nice day - I think I might go out and enjoy it on one of my bikes


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Adam Ef]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

[Seeker]

First of all, if a company is producing a dangerous product maybe they should cease to exist. However, they wouldn't have ceased to exist they would have investigated other means of making a profit as they are belatedly investing in alternative energy now.

Neither Exxon's nor Shell's investigations in global warming were for public consumption. The Shell report was marked confidential and the Exxon report was only leaked in 2015. So, yes, they did conceal their findings and worse still lobbied governments to show that rising CO2 levels was not a problem. Furthermore as you suggest, they blamed the consumer, (and governments) not the product.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...hange-warnings

I took my A levels in the 70s and CO2 was not mentioned as a problem (no internet), in fact I recall my chemistry teacher saying that CO (ie monoxide) wasn't a problem (from car exhausts) because people would breathe it in and convert it to CO2 (not sure for how long though!).

It was known in 1896 that increasing CO2 in a closed system would allow heat to be trapped, but it wasn't until the 60s that a few scientists started suggesting that this might be a major climate problem but by the late 70s we were more concerned about a nuclear winter courtesy of the Cold War.

So, a few scientists knew that CO2 was going to be a problem, the internet wasn't available until 1983 and the major oil companies hid their findings (and tried to say it's fake news). Yes, I'm still angry. How can we change our ways if, in this case, the facts are hidden and worse contrary facts are pushed to governments making the science look questionable?

Yes, it's fashionable to blame the other person but in this case, justified (imho). I suspect it would be easier to switch to a more expensive alternative energy regime than tell people not to have children.

Originally Posted by Seeker

First of all, if a company is producing a dangerous product maybe they should cease to exist. However, they wouldn't have ceased to exist they would have investigated other means of making a profit as they are belatedly investing in alternative energy now.



Neither Exxon's nor Shell's investigations in global warming were for public consumption. The Shell report was marked confidential and the Exxon report was only leaked in 2015. So, yes, they did conceal their findings and worse still lobbied governments to show that rising CO2 levels was not a problem. Furthermore as you suggest, they blamed the consumer, (and governments) not the product.



https://www.theguardian.com/environm...hange-warnings



I took my A levels in the 70s and CO2 was not mentioned as a problem (no internet), in fact I recall my chemistry teacher saying that CO (ie monoxide) wasn't a problem (from car exhausts) because people would breathe it in and convert it to CO2 (not sure for how long though!).



It was known in 1896 that increasing CO2 in a closed system would allow heat to be trapped, but it wasn't until the 60s that a few scientists started suggesting that this might be a major climate problem but by the late 70s we were more concerned about a nuclear winter courtesy of the Cold War.



So, a few scientists knew that CO2 was going to be a problem, the internet wasn't available until 1983 and the major oil companies hid their findings (and tried to say it's fake news). Yes, I'm still angry. How can we change our ways if, in this case, the facts are hidden and worse contrary facts are pushed to governments making the science look questionable?



Yes, it's fashionable to blame the other person but in this case, justified (imho). I suspect it would be easier to switch to a more expensive alternative energy regime than tell people not to have children.

We continue to differ, but that isn’t a problem, I have no desire whatsoever to convince anyone else of my views on overpopulation (I’ve thought Thomas Malthus was right since discovering his writings in O level history).

I do still find a humorous irony in people on an Internet forum specifically for gasoline powered motorcycles arguing that petrol is a dangerous product that should not have been sold to Joe Public for the past 40 years. If this was forum was treehuggers.org I’d see no contradiction, but it isn’t, so I do


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SV650rules]

@othen. We agree that overpopulation is the elephant in the room but the problem is, as you pointed out the worlds manor religion especially RC and 15l4m both frown on birth control as their business model needs as many followers as possible and birth control is bad for their business. Added to that global businesses want a continually expanding market and advertising industry is always sending us messages to ditch the old and in with the latest fad, be it cheap clothes, expensive perfume or a new car or TV. We are also lured by ridiculously cheap flights and faraway destinations where locals profit little from tourism and profits go to multinational corporations and the damage done to areas by tourists is ignored.

Most of the extinctions and critically endangered animal population crashes are not due to climate change but to poaching and loss of habitat due to exploding human populations. Humans see animals as pests until we find a use for them, then they become a business opportunity.

I do agree that global warming is a strange topic on a website dedicated to petrol powered motorbikes though. We only need about 25 bhp to get around quite quickly on a bike, but we keep wanting more power.

[ethariel]

We (the 1st World Countries so to speak) have been through the 'build build build step of cultural evolution, now the larger part of the world is catching up and doing exactly the same as we did but on a much larger scale.

If the Uk, heck even the whole of Europe went (buzz word alert) 'Carbon neutral' or even 'Carbon Negative' it wouldn't make one iota of a difference with the African nations, India and China all barreling forward with very little if any interest in cutting back on emissions (why should they, we didnt).

Yes there is a change in the weather, seasonal shift forward i think, but at the end of the day it will take a collective earth to fix the issue and that's never ever going to happen in our lifetimes, our grandchildren's maybe but that's still a pipe dream.

Think the original 'Blade Runner' that's what we are heading for climate wise, just wonder how it will all come out in the end (Tho i'll not be about to worry about it)