“Whatever it costs will be minimal compared to our overall revenues, and we’ll get that back many times over, by running a more efficient company and by growing morale among our employees. This program is a huge morale builder…
“From what we see within our own company and from reading polls, the younger generation gets the issue of climate change completely. I think it will grow our appeal to younger audiences and bond our programming to them.”
That is Rupert Murdoch on embracing a carbon neutral empire and activism journalism. You can read the complete interview here:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/05/16/murdoch/index.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The only way Rupert can go carbon neutral is through the gonzo accounting of the IPCC. This spiv has a newspaper empire, remember? That is, he is an integral part of the chain of custody for one of the major carbon emission sources, newsprint.
But the Eurospivs at the IPCC have specifically rorted the accounting standards so that all the emissions from newsprint are sourced in the country where the tree that provided that carbon came from. And the emission is deemed to have already taken place before Rupert even gets his rolls of newsprint.
Surprise, surprise, the eurospivs have quietly organised a huge advantage for themselves and every other nation that sources the bulk of their paper products from abroad, mostly non-Kyoto listed countries. Meanwhile, countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, who have foregone development to maintain extensive productive forest resources are penalised for the very ecological benefits they have maintained for the world.
And surprise, surprise, key companies involved in the extensive paper carbon chain of custody, like the Murdochs, the Gore’s, the Packers and all our household literati names, have avoided responsibility for what the consumers of their products do with the carbon that is handed to them in good, stable, order and condition.
In every other major carbon industry, from coal, petroleum, natural gas etc, the responsibility for emissions is assigned to the last entity in the carbon chain, the one who actually takes the action that gives effect to the emission.
Almost 50% of national emissions are assigned to the power generating companies. And if any costs are to be attached to those emissions they will be attached to the power companies who will then pass them on to their customers, without whom there would be no emissions. The same applies to the transport sector etc.
But in the wood carbon chain of custody, where the emission is deemed to take place before the tree leaves the paddock, the domestic suppliers are forced to compete in a market where Rupert is free to source his carbon from third world nations who, under Kyotos interuptus, have no cost attached to their carbon and, therefore, have no need to pass any carbon cost (tax) down the chain of custody.
And this means that Rupert and his consumers have no mix of sanctions or incentives, whatsoever, to deal with their carbon products in a way that will keep it in stable long-term storage.
But that won’t stop his extensive stable of journalistic sleaze wallahs from wallowing in one of the most hideous displays of hypocritical self congratulation the world has yet seen.
I nominate this post for prize for Best Use of the word Spiv.
Yes Ian, lets just ignore that trees are considered part of short cycle carbon as opposed to coal and oil which are being dug up out of long cycles.
Lets also ignore that there is no international standard for going carbon neutral and it certainly has nothing to do with IPCC accounting. In fact, for all we know, Rupert will be looking at embodied lifecycle emissions from all products the paper produces. Low and behold, he could even be looking at forestry practices from which his paper is sourced.
Ian – your post wins ‘best use of Spiv’ category and a lengthy list of nominations for
-worst understanding of carbon cycles
-quickest knee jerk reaction to a public announcement
-most confusing backhanded support for a cause no-one can quite grasp
-most number of insinuations without subtantiation
Thank you SJT, the hour bringeth forth the man?
Bollocks, Anthony. Why would he waste any effort in dealing with carbon that he is not required to account for under IPCC accounting standards?
As for your suggestion that I have the “worst understanding of carbon cycles”, I was the private forestry sector’s national spokesman on greenhouse issues from 1997 onwards. And I didn’t see you at any CSIRO workshops on the impact of climate change on temperate forests. And, funny, I don’t think any of us would recall seeing anyone called Anthony on the list of members of the AGO’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory’s Consultative Panel on Land Use Change and Forestry.
Best put your head back up your own backside, the view is a bit easier to process from there.
Price rationing of fossil fuel use is at hand in any case people – perhaps the most effective way of forging towards a carbon neutral utopia. Forget about the global warming debate. Nothing will affect your life more than energy price inflation and ultimately energy supply security. Fuel prices are at record highs in the US atm and there are analysts calling shortages and rationing before summer’s end. So when you figure out where to store your carbon, then it might be time to start pondering on some other really important lifestyle altering matters.
Anyone in business who doesn’t jump on the AGW bandwagon is stupid. You get more money from people if you look “green.”
And after the craze is over, you just change your policy and go after another craze.
Some times, you just gotta make bell-bottom pants when the time is right.
Global warming exaggerated, insufficient oil, natural gas and coal
By Kjell Aleklett
Climate change and global warming has become part of our everyday life,
and central to this debate is the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). The
fossil fuels that we use contain carbon and hydrocarbons, and in the
combustion of these fuels, carbon dioxide is released along with energy.
In the present climate debate, however, the amount of available fossil
fuels does not appear to be an issue. The problem, as usually perceived,
is that we will use excessive amounts in the years ahead. It is not even
on the map that the amount of fossil fuels required in order to bring
about the feared climate changes may in fact not be available.
Mexico’s giant oil field Cantarell is afflicted with problems and the
production is in rapid decline. In 2005, the Mexican national oil
company Pemex presented two scenarios for the ultimate production; one
optimistic in which it was assumed that 50% of the initial oil under
ground would ultimately be recoverable, one pessimistic assuming only
30% recoverability. That the trend appears to validate the pessimistic
scenario is naturally disastrous for Pemex and the Mexican state, but
our climate is the winner.
There is an important decision to be made. Should we regard the oil
remaining in the ground as a source that could result in future CO2
emissions, or should we accept that this oil for the time being actually
remains in the ground? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) considers it a resource.
In its gigantic simulations, resembling a “SimCity game”, IPCC has
simulated our future, and the participating families of the game are A1,
A2, B1 and B2. Each family has a certain development in terms of
population and GDP growth, energy and land use, available resources and
technological progress. The real temperature-raising bad guys are the A2
family. If left unconstrained, they will make the world average
temperature 3.6 degrees Celsius higher by 2100. On the low extreme, the
gentlest member of family B1 will only make the temperature increase by
one degree.
The presupposition for any temperature increase is that we consume great
quantities of oil, natural gas and coal. The fact that IPCC exhorts our
politicians to curtail the use of fossil fuels gives the impression that
the fossil resources are enormous, but there are reasons to doubt this.
At Uppsala University we study global energy resources, and have
recently put forward a detailed analysis of future oil production. By
disaggregating the production into 6 well-defined sections, we are now
able to present a time frame for the global maximum production capacity,
“Peak Oil”. It will occur between 2008 and 2018. If the world’s giant
fields, which produce 60% of the oil, behave like Cantarell in Mexico,
we have the “worst case” of a peak in 2008. But if instead the most
optimistic prognosis for Cantarell is applicable, and global demand
increase is simultaneously dampened, then we have the “best case” of
maximum production in 2018.
We can now calculate how much energy/CO2 that can be produced during
this century by using oil, and compare it to the amount required by the
IPCC-families. To our surprise, the families A1, A2, B1 and B2 require
more oil than what is realistically possible.
If we move on with the analysis and study future natural gas production
in relation to the IPCC scenarios, the picture is even clearer. In North
America, natural gas production is in decline, just as the production
from the giant gas fields of northwest Siberia which stand for 90% of
Russia’s production. Plans for making liquid fuels from natural gas in
Qatar have been cancelled. Projected ports for the handling of liquefied
natural gas in the US and Europe are being downscaled, as the global
supply of liquefied natural gas will probably be lower than was expected
only a year ago.
Natural gas is widely seen as a “gentle bridge” to a future sustainable
society. Today, the bridge appears to be shorter than expected, but as
for CO2 emissions, again we are winners.
The third fossil source of CO2 emissions is coal. According to a widely
held view, the amount of available coal is virtually endless. However,
when we do detailed studies of production profiles in the six countries
harboring 85% of the world’s coal reserves, we discover clear signs of
peaking coal production in certain regions. Moreover, we notice a
decline in production of the highest quality coal, that is, the coal
with the highest energy content per volume. In the US, the world’s
second largest coal user, the volume of mined coal is increasing while
the total energy content is decreasing. Has US already reached “Peak
Coal” in terms of energy?
China will soon reach its maximum coal production capacity, leading to a
situation where Russia alone will be sitting on the last large coal
reserves. Future production in Russia will determine when we will reach
“Peak Coal” at the global level. In contrast to conventional wisdom, we
will be CO2 winners.
The sum of all fossil resources that the industry considers available is
presented annually in BP Statistical Review. According to this rather
optimistic estimate, the total energy of all oil, natural gas and coal
amounts to 36 Zeta joules (ZJ), a gigantic amount of energy. This is
more than what our research group considers likely, but it is still less
than what do the scenario families A1, A2, B1 and B2 require. The fossil
energy will not be sufficient.
The A2 family is our number one enemy, so let us study its appetite for
energy. Up to 2100, IPCC prognosticates that A2 will need between 70 and
90 ZJ, that is, twice as much as the industry believes is available.
Then there is another detail that is never discussed, namely that all
scenarios will need fossil energy also after 2100.
We do not have to discuss or doubt the established historic rise in
temperature, but we have to discuss and doubt the future temperature
increases that the IPCC scenarios project and the fossil resources that
IPCC assumes in its prognoses.
We need a new assessment of future temperature increases based on a
realistic consumption of oil, natural gas and coal.
Only with that knowledge we will be able to make sensible decisions for
the future. The big issue will be that too many will have to make do
with too little energy. When debating, we will probably have to replace
the word “environment” with “energy”, but the energy policy needed will
also need to make the environment a winner.
The article is a translation of the article “Klimathotet är överdrivet
eftersom oljan (naturgasen och kolet) inte räcker” published in the
leading Swedish newspaper DN, Dagens Nyheter, on May 18, 2007. The
author Professor Kjell Aleklett, Uppsala University, is also president
of ASPO, The Association for the Study of Peak Oil&Gas.
Article found at :
http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=29845
Original article :
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=572&a=651149
Despite Motties repeated and very appropriate use of the word spiv, because thats what they are, it is an idiocy to say who cuts the tree down cops the penalty, but with coal it is the burner who does so.
This means the Japanese take all our wood chip with out penalty,and then come back for more by buying up all arable the land in the SE of Australia to plant gum trees to get a credit (for period) which they then will be able to chop down at a penalty to us for more wood chip, and all the while taking the coal.
Murdoch (and Branson) are not the goodie goodies they would like us all to believe. Its business after all.
It it, that’s why they want to do something about global warming, it will affect their businesses.
But we haven’t signed up so who cares. Small point but the whole issue is irrelevant. Emit with pride.
Gee, I don’t know Ian.
Maybe he thinks about credibility risk… something you clearly aren’t too worried about.
Ian, your appeal to authority makes me smile and laugh.
Just the other week I had the pleasure of listening to a spokesperson for land use management group advocating for up front allocation of emission credits from forestry projects.
Of course, he argued methodology was no obstacle. Apparently ensuring emission credits are climate neutral is also no obstacle. Go figure.