But..... Worth reading. Especially if you have been mislead into thinking big oil will finally be served up it's 'just desserts' when all the energy 'goes green' ( Like the bogus "clean coal and of coarse "green nuclear", imagine rolling eyes)
I have maintained all along, that big oil has their foot firmly planted in profit making that comes from the theory of man made global warming. Higher energy prices, carbon capture etc., Big Oil is there. As are the big banks. Especially Goldman-Sachs.
-Fast forward to 2010, and with the dirty stain of oil spreading inexorably over the clear blue waters of the Gulf of Mexico, threatening to choke the delicate wetlands of Louisiana and Florida
you can't help but make a link between the warning and the business model of BP. But there is an even better reason to "Think BP" when you hear the Earth Institute's warnings: a key member of its advisory board is none other than Carl-Henric Svanberg, chairman of BP and now perhaps persona non grata.
My oh my Earth Institute and BP, why am I not surprised? And, it get's better......
But what could the head of an oil company offer to researchers dedicated to helping "the world pave a path toward sustainability"?
Answer- Help me to make money?
Big-money projects concerning nuclear power and the conversion of solid waste into usable energy: here, green values and business opportunities mesh perfectly.
"We are developing the next generation of carbon-capture and storage technologies, as well as working on questions related to renewable energy," continues the institute's website. And these are areas where there is a lot of money to be made.
And no surprise, Earth Institute is touting solutions that will help BP and others make alot of money.
Like the big banks, who have, as is the norm, spread their misery globally.
Meanwhile, sitting on the board of another virtuous-sounding group - the Alliance for Climate Protection (ACP) - is one of the world's most famous green champions, Al Gore, the former Democratic vice-president, who founded the organisation in 2006. Alongside him sits Theodore Roosevelt IV. An "active conservationist", Theodore the Fourth is a member of the Wilderness Society's governing council, chair of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a trustee for the World Resources Institute - and a managing director of Barclays Capital.
But, not just Barclays or BP, there are also the not so hidden hands of Goldman-Sachs (be sure to read my previous post, linked below Goldman and the Carbon Bubble)
Consider another environmental-economics powerhouse, Generation Investment Management (GIM). Yes, Gore founded it, too, but this time with the aid of David Blood - chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management from 1999 to 2003.
Gordon Brown turned to a former World Bank chief economist for insight into the implications of a changing environment. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was published in October 2006. Lord Stern is the epitome of a wise mandarin, equally comfortable advising on business or morality
Bankers for insight into the environment? Or morality for that matter? Um... Okay.
Bankers have one concern and one only, sucking every last cent out of humanities pocket. If they can use environmental concern to do so, they will. Infact, it is not to much of a stretch to imagine them engineering the idea of environmental concern, bringing their 'concerns' through think tanks that they serve on the boards of...., reported on by the main stream media, to create your perception of man-made global warming as a reality.
And, what about Hadley CRU?
Mind you, one forward-looking feature was established with the government's support for new "climate-research" centres, such as the Hadley Centre at the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Research turned "decarbonisation" into a virtue - and a profitable one at that. Between 1990 and 2010, the Department of Energy provided a snug £180,293,252 for climate science research at the Hadley Centre.
Nice dollar amount to promote a specific agenda.
When you have the conclusion already at hand, you just make the science support it.
Rather like the intelligence fitting the policy in the lead up to the attack on Iraq??
It is economics, not environmentalism, that has driven the search for ethically superior energy from "clean" sources derived from previously sacrosanct areas of wilderness, the exploitation of which has suddenly been legitimised, perhaps as new "energy farms" or for "biofuels". Likewise, previously off-limits coastal areas have been designated as not only suitable but also positively benign sites on which to drill for oil and gas
After all, the long-term interest - one might say the fuel - propelling countries is money. We don't have an ethical foreign policy and we certainly don't have an ethical energy policy. With their pretensions to such, nations have found a way to infuse economic priorities with a virtuous, ecological, green tinge. It is greenwashing on a global scale.
So we sure as hell aren't getting ethical green policies that are going to change a dam thing!
I am going to skip through a bunch of this article to explain the some of the nonsense that is passing as 'green policies'. I have already mentioned the ill-named clean coal and clean green nuclear fuel nonsense.
Here is some more-
Although green groups may have revised their views on biofuels and may not like the policy now, they certainly helped to put it in place. As did Neste Oil, which just two years later, in May 2009, was able to lay the foundation stone for a renewable diesel plant in the port of Rotterdam. Neste's biodiesel is a blend of palm oil, rapeseed oil and waste animal fat. Its Rotterdam factory, at an estimated cost of €670 million.
But still, it is a good thing, isn't it? It is to save the planet, right? Not exactly. Biofuels make no sense economically or ecologically. As Alex Kaat, a spokesman for Wetlands International, an advocacy group based (like the Neste plant) in the Netherlands, puts it: "Deforestation and palm oil go hand in hand. It is definitely a very, very dirty fuel."
Then there is the issue of growing food crops for bio-fuel and starving people
Yeah, clean nukes!
By 2007, American farmers were already responding to the enticement of biofuel subsidies by planting more corn than at any point since 1944, in the process reducing rice, soybean and cotton crops to make room. In countries such as India, the price of rice jumped 10 per cent.
Canada has a nuclear industry to promote and happily backed a Kyoto protocol that made nuclear power "clean" again.
Consider today's post a follow up to this post and several other I have posted. Click on global warming label for additional info