and FUNDING CONFUSION
Every year we buy and burn approximately —
3 billion tonnes of gas
4 billion tonnes of oil
9 billion tonnes of coal
That burning produces
50 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide
Money available to buy: – Public Opinion, Advertising,
Political Influence, Perception Management, Bribes, etc.
at say a tiny 1% of sales for coal and gas, and say
US $2 a barrel for oil, they would have available —–
——- $84 billion per year for public relations
(That’s over $1.5 billion a week.)
Below is the rubbish the money pays for, and in turn is fed to us. All to keep the fossil fuel and agrochemical organizations in business and thriving.
This is what they say, and how things work———-
All happened before
Yes, but only once in the last billion years. Over the last billion years continents have drifted slowly around the plant. Sea levels have varied by hundred of metres. At one time the whole planet was covered in ice and snow. It was a period called “Snowball Earth “. All these things happened, and the changes happened over millions of years. If life existed at the time it had time to evolve to suit. The one time it didn’t was 65,000,000 years ago when a fourteen kilometre size asteroid hit the planet and wiped out the few hundred million reign of the dinosaurs. So it did actually happened before, but only once.
It’s All Natural cycles
Over the last million years or so, every hundred thousand years an “Ice Age” would become established and then, due to very tiny perturbations in the Earth’s wobbles and its solar orbits the ice age would slowly dissolve into an Inter Glacial period of around 20 thousand years. All human civilisations that have ever existed have occurred in our current interglacial period. The Earth’s biosphere should now be very slowly cooling. Blaming our current warming on natural cycles is a marketed fiction.
They don’t mention that:- Sun light is now weaker than it has been for decades.
It’s all because the Sun is putting out more heat is another fossil fuel created and supported marketing fiction. The realty is the Sun is putting out less heat than it has for decades.
350 ppm – 400 ppm and we can’t stop it rising
I remember when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm. Then they started to rise and the tame fossil fuel scientists assured us that there would be no significant changes in weather factors at 300 ppm. Then we passed 300 ppm. Then 350 ppm became a safe figure, then 400, and maybe even 500 ppm when that starts to come up.
1.5°C then 2°C is probably okay
Average temperatures have been slowly rising . Remember a couple of years ago when the highly paid, very tame scientists consulting to the fossil fuel industries, told us that world temperatures has stabilize and were no longer climbing and we could therefore all relax. Now the public relations machinery admits temperatures are going up like crazy; but we’ll all be OK if we keep it below a 1.5°C.
They tell us now that because world temperature are going up, we “will possibly have to adjust to come changes in weather phenomena, in some parts of the world”. It’s now promoted that it’s only really dangerous if temperatures get to 2°C above the 1950 biosphere temperatures.
It’s sad, but every lie, every promoted fiction, put out by the fossil fuel industries is believed by some or other group of people.
Protecting biodiversity is hammered. Stopping the heating is carefully ignored.
It pays the fossil fuel and chemical industries to actively and financially support the protection of biodiversity. There are an enormous number of people especially in advanced Western Society that are now seriously concerned about the world’s environment. If we don’t get rid of the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we will all lose, and we then relegate to extinct, somewhere around 50 percent of all species currently living on planet Earth. Some argue it might be “only” 20 percent to 30 percent that we will lose.
There are thousands of species that will be lost. If each individual environmental movement can be coerced into spending all their efforts and interests on some rare cuddly creature or some specific breed of whales, bull nosed dolphins, bilbies, polar bears, or king penguins, or
whatever the fossil fuel public relations machine can dream up that could be “threatened”, they use it. They then feed the organizations money to save the polar bears or whatever, or to travel the world and carry out some essential research, and all becomes lovely, and the species will be “saved” and all will be well. The “minor” stipulation is only that the money is for the, polar bear/whatever, and only for the polar bears, and global warming issues are not ever to be on the “Polar Bear/Whatever agenda of the particular organization.
The whole thing is incredibly successful. Consider this: The IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, calls itself and is promoted as, “the global authority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it”. It is a union or all the major conservation organizations in the world. It’s the body that advises the United Nations on environmental issues. Google them and look up the membership list. But somehow, for some reason the IUCN has no meaningful interest in stopping, preventing or even minimizing global warming. Their pitch is how to have the wild life and live with the heating.
BELOW ARE MORE KEY MESSAGES. (THE FOLLOW UP EXPLANATIONS I’LL ADD OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS)
The fiction that trees help when actually they’re worse than useless
The concept of umbrellas in the sky to lower the sun’s heat, things like dumping sodium particles in the stratosphere could lower temperatures but the world’s oceans continue to become destructively acidic.
Remember “peak oil”. It was a giant fiction. But the message seemed to be that global warming couldn’t last as oil would run out. (But — the US, for example has enough for 800 years at current oil consumption rates)
“Capture and storage” is a giant “feel good” fiction. One ton of easy to mine fossil carbon fuel becomes 3 tonnes of CO2, and that’s over 2,000 cubic metres of expensive to capture and expensive to bury CO2.
Energy conservation is promoted for fossil fuels, but that’s utterly pointless. All it means is that we run out a few years later.
Energy conservation with nuclear energy is also utterly pointless. Humanity could never run out of nuclear energy.
Energy efficiency: Same comments apply as with Energy conservation. It’s a “feel good” public relations gimmick.
Solar cars are an oil industry, public relations programme. They fund the solar car races. The reality is that energy from solar cells on a motor vehicle cannot power a normal car’s air conditioner.
Hot rock technology is promoted as having great promise but reality is that it has too many expensive and probably unsolvable problems.
Photovoltaic is massively subsidized, but cannot handle one single rainy week.
Solar cells efficiency are not yet as efficient as a car engine running on ethanol
Battery breakthroughs get a lot of publicity but can never really be an economical system for more than one day’s power consumption.
Solar power can’t work without a full power grid connection that is rarely used but must always be on “stand by”. An unused base line power supply that’s rarely used is a huge, but carefully hidden cost.
Fusion energy is considered by the nuclear industry to always be available “50 year in the future”. We don’t have time to gamble on vague possibilities.
Gas, as an intermediary is a marketing fiction. Natural gas power generation produces around double coals greenhouse gas production
Agrochemicals do not produce more food than chemically free organic type agriculture. And on farm food production costs are negligibly different (see Rodale Institute organic food cost comparisons).