Quote:
Originally Posted by kn
I've stayed out of the climate change debate because I'm not sufficiently educated to counter the position. But you only get contrarian positions from conservative news outlets. I know Rutherford has frequently brought in scientists with different points of view, and investigative journalists who have exposed academics who falsify evidence and academic journals whose peer review process in questionable. Funding plays a big role too and if the funding comes from a source that seeks to justify a certain answer, that's obviously problematic.
Some headlines:
Astronauts condemns NASA global warming endorsement:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...rsement/469366
Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate change:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...titute-climate
That doesn't mean I'm a climate change denier. I don't know enough about the science to have an opinion. Meanwhile I see scandals on both sides of the issue. Since it is now such a political issue, it's hard for me to know what to believe. |
But it doesn't really matter. Every other jurisdiction in the world is moving to more climate friendly initiatives. We can just close our eyes and plug our ears and pretend its not happening but that's only going to put us at disadvantage.
Look at these quotes from BP, Chevron and Shell.
Quote:
The big three oil companies and climate change adaptation
Let’s look at how the big name oil companies (Shell, BP and Chevron). Why those three companies? All three companies track their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. All three acknowledge that climate change is real. BP, once known as British Petroleum, even goes so far as saying that BP stands for “Beyond Petroleum.”
Now let’s look specifically at how each company plans to adapt to climate change:
Royal Dutch Shell
The company known commonly as Shell acknowledges that carbon emissions “must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.” Specifically, the company believes that as it “increases its gas and oil production to help meet growing demand” it must focus on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency in its operations.”
However, Shell also says that global population growth and economic development “may double energy demand by 2050” so “all energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of people’s needs.”
Chevron
Chevron admits that fossil fuels are a “contributor to increase in greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere.” The company acknowledges that “there is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.” Two things caught my attention: Chevron is working at U.S. federal and state levels and internationally “to contribute to climate change policy discussions,” and it is investing in research and development (R&D) of technologies “that may reduce emissions or improve efficiency.”
BP
BP supports “policies that we believe can address climate change,” including a carbon price that “applies economy-wide and treats all carbon equally, whether it comes out of an industrial smokestack or a car tailpipe.” The company believes that carbon pricing will do two things: make energy efficiency and conservation more attractive, and make what it calls lower-carbon fuels (it lists natural gas, nuclear and renewables) more cost competitive. In addition to regional and national carbon pricing schemes, BP supports the creation and implementation of a global cap-and-trade system.
|
These are big industry players who are shifting their business towards "greener" ways of exploration. Whether the science is settled or not is irrelevant, business is moving this way and Alberta has the opportunity to be at the forefront of this technology.