Monday 20 August 2018

BP and Big Oil Drive Society Over the 'Climate Cliff'

Published on
by

"What is a 'world class' reserve of oil to BP, is 'world destroying' to everyone else."


Earlier this summer, BP agreed to buy U.S. shale oil and gas assets for $10.5 billion, expanding the British oil company's footprint in "some of the nation’s most productive oil basin." (Photo: Mike Mozart/Flickr/cc)
At the end of July, as the American wildfires began to take hold in California, British oil giant BP made its biggest financial deal in nearly twenty years.

In retrospect it would have been hugely symbolic if one of the largest oil companies in the world, BP, which had so badly devastated the Gulf of Mexico eight years earlier with the Deepwater Horizon spill, had taken this moment to say it was investing in renewables.

All you had to do was look at the flames burning – and listen to the experts saying this was climate change in action – to know that urgent action was needed.

But BP did not do that. As Reuters reported, BP agreed to buy U.S. “shale oil and gas assets from global miner BHP Billiton for $10.5 billion, expanding the British oil major’s footprint in some of the nation’s most productive oil basins”.

That’s a whopping $10 billion invested in more climate failure. BP Chief Executive, Bob Dudley, said in a statement: “This is a transformational acquisition for our (onshore U.S.) business, a major step in delivering our upstream strategy and a world-class addition to BP’s distinctive portfolio.”

Dudley told analysts in July: “I can’t remember when it has looked this good,” referring to the growth opportunities he saw for BP over the coming decade.

What is a “world class” reserve of oil to BP, is “world destroying” to everyone else. It may look good to Bob Dudley, as long as he doesn’t look at the news regarding soaring temperatures and wildfires ripping parts of California to burnt shreds.

Remember this is the company that promised to go “beyond petroleum” nearly twenty years ago. But still it just keeps on drilling.

And here lies the disconnect the oil industry is in. No matter how many scientific papers there are warning about climate change, no matter how many scientists there are saying that climate change made this summer’s heat-wave twice as likely, no matter how many financial experts are warning about stranded assets and that the oil industry is risking billions of share-holders’ money, the oil industry carries on drilling.

It is not as if BP doesn’t know the financial penalties of reckless oil exploitation: it is still paying off some $66 billion nearly in penalties and clean-up costs, related to the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010.

There are other warning signs too. As Reuters expands: “The sale ends a disastrous seven-year foray by BHP into shale on which the company effectively blew up $19 billion of shareholders’ funds. Together, that is $85 billion of funds destroyed by investing in oil and gas.

Even the FT noted that : “The poor record of international companies in making successful acquisitions in US shale is a reason for investors to be wary.”

Not content with burning $85 billion, they want to risk another $80 billion. As a recent report from Wood Mackenzie outlined this week, the industry is also about to splurge another $80 billion on upcoming mega projects in LNG development in Mozambique, the Arctic, Papua New Guinea, and Canada, and oil projects in Nigeria, Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico, Senegal, and the North Sea, as well as the Caspian, and Uganda.

The oil industry carries on burning money, oblivious that they are driving us all over a “climate cliff”. Since BP’s announcement, new scientific research about the dangers of positive feedbacks on climate change, which I blogged about here, and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has received huge media attention. And rightly so.

As Dr. John Abraham, a professor of thermal sciences at the University of St. Thomas in the US, noted two days ago in the Guardian, “The problem is, humans collectively are not doing enough … There still is time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. But, it is far too late to avoid all climate change – it is already here. What we are hoping for now is enough wisdom and will to at least stop short of going off these cliffs.”

The oil industry is full of very well-paid people who should understand the science and risks of climate change. They may be rich, but they do not seem to be wise. They drive blinkered towards the cliff.
https://admin.commondreams.org/author/andy-rowell
Andy Rowell is a staff blogger for Oil Change International in addition to working as a freelance writer and investigative journalist who specializes in environmental, health and lobbying issues. Follow him on Twitter: @andy_rowell

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/08/19/bp-and-big-oil-drive-society-over-climate-cliff

Watch What Bill McKibben Calls 'One of the Best and Most Straightforward Videos about Climate Change I've Ever Seen From a Political Leader'

published on
by


With the last five years the hottest since records began, Senator Bernie Sanders says that "What Trump and his friends in the fossil fuel industry are doing is criminal."

"I believe that if we are bold—if we have the courage to take on the fossil fuel industry, if we are prepared to invest in sustainable energy—we can make the necessary changes to save our planet." (Photo: David McNew/Getty)
Bill McKibben, the author numerous books on human-caused global warming and co-founder of the global action group 350.org, said on Friday morning that he had just watched "one of the best and most straightforward videos about climate change I've ever seen from a political leader."

It was a video posted online by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who represents McKibben's homestate of Vermont. Sanders also remains one of the most tireless voices in Congress about the threat of the climate crisis and one of the few who has proposed legislation ambitious enough to impress both climate scientists and the community of activists demanding a rapid and complete transition off fossil fuels

With the hottest years on record all occurring in the last five years—and with no end in sight—Sanders warns in his new video that "we cannot simply sit back and allow this beautiful planet to be destroyed."


Here it is:

What Trump and his friends in the fossil fuel industry are doing is criminal.



"My simple message to all of you," Sanders concludes in the video, "is that we have got to stand up together, we have got to fight back, we have got to get active in the political process, and we have got to make it clear that the issue of climate change is certainly one of the great issues facing our nation and the entire planet... I believe that if we are bold—if we have the courage to take on the fossil fuel industry, if we are prepared to invest in sustainable energy—we can make the necessary changes to save our planet. And that is exactly what we have to do."

Trump's 'Immoral' Plan to Allow Coal States to Self-Regulate Could Send 365 Million Tons of Carbon Into Atmosphere

Published on
by

"Yet another reminder that this administration values polluter profits over Americans' basic right to clean air."



President Donald Trump is expected to unveil a rollback of the Clean Power Plan on Tuesday, allowing states to regulate their own fossil fuel emissions levels. (Photo: Rainforest Action Network)
Weeks after President Donald Trump moved to keep California from applying its own stringent regulations to auto emissions, White House officials indicated that the president would soon unveil a plan to give several other states the right to self-regulate regarding pollution—but the states in question this time are coal producers, and Trump's proposal is likely to cause an explosion in emission rates as well as a worsening of the climate crisis.

At a rally in West Virginia on Tuesday, Trump is expected to unveil a plan to allow states to determine whether they'll regulate coal plant emissions, and if so, how.

Isn't this exactly the opposite of their position on auto emissions? I wonder why. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/climate/trump-clean-power-rollback.html 


"Emissions are going to go up, and I don't mean from where they would have been under the Clean Power Plan, but relative to the trends now," Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force, told the New York Times. "This is to put the thumb on the scales and bring coal back."

The Environmental Protection Agency estimated in a 300-page analysis that the plan would affect about 300 coal plants, likely keeping them in operation and going against the will of 65 percent of Americans who, according to Pew Research, say the development of renewable energy should take precedence over fossil fuels.

The plan could release about 365 million metric tons of carbon into atmosphere which would have otherwise been prevented from being released under President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan, according to the Washington Post.

Under Trump's proposal, wrote Juliet Eilperin at the Post, carbon emissions will be reduced by just 1.5 percent—at the most—from 2005 levels by 2030, compared with the 19 percent reduction that was expected with the Clean Power Plan.

"These numbers tell the story, that they really remain committed not to do anything to address greenhouse gas emissions," Joseph Goffman, who worked in the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation between 2009 and 2017 and helped write the Clean Power Plan, told the Post. "They show not merely indifference to climate change, but really, opposition to doing anything about climate change."

The proposal is expected to fully de-fang the Obama administration's regulation, which is currently suspended due to the lawsuit several coal-producing states filed to block the rule.

Climate action groups over the weekend were bracing for Trump's announcement of the disastrous proposal.


Yet another reminder that this administration values polluter profits over Americans' basic right to clean air...https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/climate/trump-clean-power-rollback.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate 

Saying Goodbye to Planet Earth

Published on
by

On the the dawn of the Anthropocene and how humanity has engineered our own march toward collective suicide


"The question is are we smart enough to deal with the effects of our own power?" (Photo: Sanmonku)
The spectacular rise of human civilization—its agrarian societies, cities, states, empires and industrial and technological advances ranging from irrigation and the use of metals to nuclear fusion—took place during the last 10,000 years, after the last ice age. Much of North America was buried, before the ice retreated, under sheets eight times the height of the Empire State Building. This tiny span of time on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old is known as the Holocene Age. It now appears to be coming to an end with the refusal of our species to significantly curb the carbon emissions and pollutants that might cause human extinction. The human-induced change to the ecosystem, at least for many thousands of years, will probably make the biosphere inhospitable to most forms of life.

The planet is transitioning under our onslaught to a new era called the Anthropocene. 

This era is the product of violent conquest, warfare, slavery, genocide and the Industrial Revolution, which began about 200 years ago, and saw humans start to burn a hundred million years of sunlight stored in the form of coal and petroleum. The numbers of humans climbed to over 7 billion. Air, water, ice and rock, which are interdependent, changed. Temperatures climbed. The Anthropocene, for humans and most other species, will most likely conclude with extinction or a massive die-off, as well as climate conditions that will preclude most known life forms. We engineered our march toward collective suicide although global warming was first identified in 1896 by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius.

"The failure to act to ameliorate global warming exposes the myth of human progress and the illusion that we are rational creatures."
The failure to act to ameliorate global warming exposes the myth of human progress and the illusion that we are rational creatures. We ignore the wisdom of the past and the stark scientific facts before us. We are entranced by electronic hallucinations and burlesque acts, including those emanating from the centers of power, and this ensures our doom. Speak this unpleasant truth and you are condemned by much of society. The mania for hope and magical thinking is as seductive in the Industrial Age as it was in pre-modern societies.

Ate and Nemesis were minor deities who were evoked in ancient Greek drama. Those infected with hubris, the Greeks warned, lost touch with the sacred, believed they could defy fate, or fortuna, and abandoned humility and virtue. They thought of themselves as gods. Their hubris blinded them to human limits and led them to carry out acts of suicidal folly, embodied in the god Ate. This provoked the wrath of the gods. Divine retribution, in the form of Nemesis, led to tragedy and death and then restored balance and order, once those poisoned with hubris were eradicated. “Too late, too late you see the path of wisdom,” the Chorus in the play “Antigone” tells Creon, ruler of Thebes, whose family has died because of his hubris.

“We’re probably not the first time there’s been a civilization in the universe,” Adam Frank, a professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester and the author of “Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth,” told me when we met in New York.

“The idea that we’re destroying the planet gives us way too much credit,” he went on. “Certainly, we’re pushing the earth into a new era. If we look at the history of the biosphere, the history of life on earth, in the long run, the earth is just going to pick that up and do what is interesting for it. It will run new evolutionary experiments. We, on the other hand, may not be a part of that experiment.”

Civilizations probably have risen elsewhere in the universe, developed complex societies and then died because of their own technological advances. Every star in the night sky is believed to be circled by planets, some 10 billion trillion of which astronomers such as Frank Drake estimate are hospitable to life.

“If you develop an industrial civilization like ours, the route is going to be the same,” Adam Frank said. “You’re going to have a hard time not triggering climate change.”

Astronomers call the inevitable death of advanced civilizations across the universe “the great filter.” Robin Hanson in the essay, “The Great Filter—Are We Almost Past It?” argues that advanced civilizations hit a wall or a barrier that makes continued existence impossible. The more that human societies evolve, according to Hanson, the more they become “energy intensive” and ensure their own obliteration. This is why, many astronomers theorize, we have not encountered other advanced civilizations in the universe. They destroyed themselves.

“For a civilization to destroy itself through nuclear war, it has to have certain emotional characteristics,” Frank said. “You can imagine certain civilizations saying, ‘I’m not building those [nuclear weapons]. Those are crazy.’ But climate change, you can’t get away from. If you build a civilization, you’re using huge amounts of energy. The energy feeds back on the planet, and you’re going to push yourself into a kind of Anthropocene. It’s probably universal.”

"Scenarios for dramatic climate change often center around the year 2100, when most adults living now will be dead."
Frank said that our inability to project ourselves into a future beyond our own life spans makes it hard for us to grasp the reality and consequences of severe climate change. Scenarios for dramatic climate change often center around the year 2100, when most adults living now will be dead. Although this projection may turn out to be overly optimistic given the accelerating rate of climate change, it allows societies to ignore—because it is outside the life span of most living adults—the slow-motion tsunami that is occurring.

We think we’re not a part of the biosphere—that we’re above it—that we’re special,” Frank said. “We’re not special.”

“We’re the experiment that the biosphere is running now,” he said. “A hundred million years ago, it was grassland. Grasslands were a new evolutionary innovation. They changed the planet, changed how the planet worked. Then the planet went on and did things with it. Industrial civilization is the latest experiment. We will keep being a part of that experiment or, with the way that we’re pushing the biosphere, it will just move on without us.”

“We have been sending probes to every other planet in the solar system for the last 60 years,” he said. “We have rovers running around on Mars. We’ve learned generically how planets work. From Venus, we’ve learned about the runaway greenhouse effect. 

On Venus the temperature is 800 degrees. You can melt lead [there]. Mars is a totally dry, barren world now. But it used to have an ocean. It used to be a blue world. We have models that can predict the climate. I can predict the weather on Mars tomorrow via these climate models. People who think the only way we can understand climate is by studying the earth now, that’s completely untrue. These other worlds—Mars, Venus, Titan. Titan is a moon of Saturn that has an amazingly rich atmosphere. They all teach us how to think like a planet. They have taught us generically how planets behave.”

Frank points out that much of the configurations of the ecosystem on which we depend have not always been part of the planet’s biosphere. This includes the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water and warm air up from Florida to Boston and out across the Atlantic.

“Hundreds of millions of people in some of Earth’s most technologically advanced cities rely on the mild climate delivered by the Gulf Stream,” Frank writes in “Light of the Stars.” “But the Gulf Stream is nothing more than a particular circulation pattern formed during a particular climate state the Earth settled into after the last ice age ended. It is not a permanent fixture of the planet.”

“Everything we think about the earth just happens to be this one moment we found it in,” he told me. “We’re pushing it [the planet] and we’re pushing it hard. We don’t have much time to make these transitions. What people have to understand is that climate change is our cosmic adolescence. We should have expected this. The question is not ‘did we change the climate?’ It’s ‘of course we changed the climate. What else did you expect to have happened?’ We’re like a teenager who has been given this power over ourselves. Just like how you give a teenager the keys to the car, there’s this moment where you’re like, ‘Oh my God I hope you make it.’ And that’s what we are.”

“Climate change is not a problem we have to make go away, in a sense that you don’t make adolescence go away,” Frank said. “It is a dangerous transition that you have to navigate. … The question is are we smart enough to deal with the effects of our own power? Climate change is not a pollution problem. It’s not like any environmental problem we’ve faced before. In some sense, it’s not an environmental problem but a planetary transition. We’ve already pushed the earth into it. We’re going to have to evolve a new way of being a civilization, fundamentally.”

"The question is are we smart enough to deal with the effects of our own power?"
“We will either evolve those group behaviors quickly or the earth will take what we’ve given it, in terms of new climate states, and move on and create new species,” he said.

Frank said the mathematical models for the future of the planet have three trajectories. One is a massive die-off of perhaps 70 percent of the human population and then an uneasy stabilization. The second is complete collapse and extinction. The third is a dramatic reconfiguration of human society to protect the biosphere and make it more diverse and productive not for human beings but for the health of the planet. This would include halting our consumption of fossil fuels, converting to a plant-based diet and dismantling the animal agriculture industry as well as greening deserts and restoring rainforests.

There is, Frank warned, a tipping point when the biosphere becomes so degraded no human activity will halt runaway climate change. He cites Venus again.
The water on Venus got lost slowly,” he said. “The CO2 built up. There was no way to take it out of the atmosphere. It gets hotter. The fact that it gets hotter makes it even hotter. Which makes it even hotter. That’s what would happen in the collapse model. 

Planets have minds of their own. They are super-complex systems. Once you get the ball rolling down the hill. … This is the greatest fear. This is why we don’t want to go past 2 degrees [Celsius] of climate change. We’re scared that once you get past 2 degrees, the planet’s own internal mechanisms kick in. The population comes down like a stone. A complete collapse. You lose the civilization entirely.”
Chris Hedges
Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us MeaningWhat Every Person Should Know About War, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.  His most recent book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/08/20/saying-goodbye-planet-earth