UN report: Effects of climate change even more severe than we thought

41,465 Views | 503 Replies | Last: 6 min ago by bear2034
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

calbear93 said:

chazzed said:



This won't survive any challenge. And so she sends it back the legislative body that will not pass anything accordingly.

I think climate change is real, but it is like wearing those knitted facial masks during covid. Pointess and purely performative. Montana alone will not impact anything about climate change. It has to be a global alignment without exempting / approving different standards for the worst polluters in China and India. We have to do something but this ruling is like thinking posting on BI where not one opinion has changed in the history of BI is making an impact on political sanity.
Shrugging our shoulders and doing nothing while we point fingers at that country and that country for being so much worse doesn't seem like a constructive solution.

If I'm headed for a tree at 60 mph, I'd still hit the brakes so I could hit it at 30 mph instead.
I don't think that is the right analogy. The right analogy is chopping off your arms and legs so that you can slow down from 60 to 59.9 while, instead of a tree, it's another driver going at you at a faster speed.

Insist that everyone make the same commitment. Don't settle for China and India to get a free pass and become more of a threat to our economic existence. Have some spine and don't fold because we want China and India to sign on as fast as possible and we want some performative display as if, without China and India committing likewise, we are going to make the necessary difference without making ourselves subservient to China and India in 10 years. They are already kicking our ass.

We shut down energy purchase from Russia, and what do China and India do? They purchase at a discount and sell it back to us. We are not dealing with morons. They are playing this smarter because they are not performative actors who need to win brownie points back home.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

calbear93 said:

chazzed said:



This won't survive any challenge. And so she sends it back the legislative body that will not pass anything accordingly.

I think climate change is real, but it is like wearing those knitted facial masks during covid. Pointess and purely performative. Montana alone will not impact anything about climate change. It has to be a global alignment without exempting / approving different standards for the worst polluters in China and India. We have to do something but this ruling is like thinking posting on BI where not one opinion has changed in the history of BI is making an impact on political sanity.
Shrugging our shoulders and doing nothing while we point fingers at that country and that country for being so much worse doesn't seem like a constructive solution.

If I'm headed for a tree at 60 mph, I'd still hit the brakes so I could hit it at 30 mph instead.
I don't think that is the right analogy. The right analogy is chopping off your arms and legs so that you can slow down from 60 to 59.9 while, instead of a tree, it's another driver going at you at a faster speed.

Insist that everyone make the same commitment. Don't settle for China and India to get a free pass and become more of a threat to our economic existence. Have some spine and don't fold because we want China and India to sign on as fast as possible and we want some performative display as if, without China and India committing likewise, we are going to make the necessary difference without making ourselves subservient to China and India in 10 years. They are already kicking our ass.

We shut down energy purchase from Russia, and what do China and India do? They purchase at a discount and sell it back to us. We are not dealing with morons. They are playing this smarter because they are not performative actors who need to win brownie points back home.
I have no problem insisting that India and China meet higher standards. I thought that's what past climate agreements were trying to do. I just feel we should do what we can now rather than do nothing because <China and India>.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

calbear93 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

calbear93 said:

chazzed said:



This won't survive any challenge. And so she sends it back the legislative body that will not pass anything accordingly.

I think climate change is real, but it is like wearing those knitted facial masks during covid. Pointess and purely performative. Montana alone will not impact anything about climate change. It has to be a global alignment without exempting / approving different standards for the worst polluters in China and India. We have to do something but this ruling is like thinking posting on BI where not one opinion has changed in the history of BI is making an impact on political sanity.
Shrugging our shoulders and doing nothing while we point fingers at that country and that country for being so much worse doesn't seem like a constructive solution.

If I'm headed for a tree at 60 mph, I'd still hit the brakes so I could hit it at 30 mph instead.
I don't think that is the right analogy. The right analogy is chopping off your arms and legs so that you can slow down from 60 to 59.9 while, instead of a tree, it's another driver going at you at a faster speed.

Insist that everyone make the same commitment. Don't settle for China and India to get a free pass and become more of a threat to our economic existence. Have some spine and don't fold because we want China and India to sign on as fast as possible and we want some performative display as if, without China and India committing likewise, we are going to make the necessary difference without making ourselves subservient to China and India in 10 years. They are already kicking our ass.

We shut down energy purchase from Russia, and what do China and India do? They purchase at a discount and sell it back to us. We are not dealing with morons. They are playing this smarter because they are not performative actors who need to win brownie points back home.
I have no problem insisting that India and China meet higher standards. I thought that's what past climate agreements were trying to do. I just feel we should do what we can now rather than do nothing because <China and India>.
Nope. That is not what the prior climate agreements did. It created an unfair advantage for China and India as developing countries (as if that reflects reality), allowing them to kick our ass further economically and for global influence.

I believe the 1997 Kyoto Protocol exempted China and India. Each country submitted their proposal under the Paris Agreement, and there is no enforceability for failure to hold up their end of the bargain? Why do we believe that China and India, who clearly were exploiting the Russia/Ukraine conflict to burn / sell more oil they refined from what they purchased from Russia, will not exploit this? And why should India get a subsidiary from us to meet their commitment? China doesn't have to reduce CO2 until 2030 and can reach peak until then. How is this fair in comparison to what US committed to doing before withdrawing?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Qeshm Dayrestan International Airport in Iran reported a heat index of 178F (81C) today.


https://x.com/us_stormwatch/status/1691596872903979036?s=42
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Qeshm Dayrestan International Airport in Iran reported a heat index of 178F (81C) today.


https://x.com/us_stormwatch/status/1691596872903979036?s=42


Sounds like a typical August day in Florida

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Qeshm Dayrestan International Airport in Iran reported a heat index of 178F (81C) today.


https://x.com/us_stormwatch/status/1691596872903979036?s=42

Not credible as an air temperature, it would be like someone claiming they run a sub-7 second 100m, but possible as the temperature on the ground of midsummer asphalt in tropical desert regions.


Quote:

The world record hottest temperature ever recorded is 134F (56.7C) in July 1913 at Furnace Creek, said Randy Ceverny of the World Meteorological Organization, the body recognized as keeper of world records.


Part of the more recent recorded rise in temperature is precisely attributable to the above phenomenon, urban surfaces like tarmacs, asphalt or concrete buildings storing heat and getting warmed up by the sunlight (Urban Heat Island phenomenon). As well, over time, many weather stations especially in local airports that were built in exurbs decades ago now find themselves in more urban settings with lots of concrete around them, which could result in increases in temperature up to 10F vs green spaces in the same region.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

bearister said:

Qeshm Dayrestan International Airport in Iran reported a heat index of 178F (81C) today.


https://x.com/us_stormwatch/status/1691596872903979036?s=42

Not credible as an air temperature, it would be like someone claiming they run a sub-7 second 100m, but possible as the temperature on the ground of midsummer asphalt in tropical desert regions.


Quote:

The world record hottest temperature ever recorded is 134F (56.7C) in July 1913 at Furnace Creek, said Randy Ceverny of the World Meteorological Organization, the body recognized as keeper of world records.


Part of the more recent recorded rise in temperature is precisely attributable to the above phenomenon, urban surfaces like tarmacs, asphalt or concrete buildings storing heat and getting warmed up by the sunlight (Urban Heat Island phenomenon). As well, over time, many weather stations especially in local airports that were built in exurbs decades ago now find themselves in more urban settings with lots of concrete around them, which could result in increases in temperature up to 10F vs green spaces in the same region.
You should explore the differences between the heat index and air temperature. One factors in the effects of humidity (which was extreme in this case) and the other doesn't. You are correct about the heat island effect.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:


You should explore the differences between the heat index and air temperature. One factors in the effects of humidity (which was extreme in this case) and the other doesn't. You are correct about the heat island effect.

Acres of airport tarmac in an area located almost exactly at the Tropic of Cancer will store and generate a whole lot of daytime heat in midsummer.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:


You should explore the differences between the heat index and air temperature. One factors in the effects of humidity (which was extreme in this case) and the other doesn't. You are correct about the heat island effect.

Acres of airport tarmac in an area located almost exactly at the Tropic of Cancer will store and generate a whole lot of daytime heat in midsummer.
That insane 178 degree heat index happened at 8:30 in the morning and the air temperature was only 100 degrees at the time. I doubt the daytime heating of the tarmac was in full affect at that point. The heat index record was largely influenced by the 97 degree dew point and the resultant 91 percent relative humidity at the time. Most likely the Gulf water was incredibly warm and putting vast amounts of moisture into the air.

Also, we don't know anything about the physical layout of the airport. Not all airports have their weather instruments 5 feet from the runway. It could have been 100 yards from the nearest concrete or pavement.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:


You should explore the differences between the heat index and air temperature. One factors in the effects of humidity (which was extreme in this case) and the other doesn't. You are correct about the heat island effect.

Acres of airport tarmac in an area located almost exactly at the Tropic of Cancer will store and generate a whole lot of daytime heat in midsummer.
That insane 178 degree heat index happened at 8:30 in the morning and the air temperature was only 100 degrees at the time. I doubt the daytime heating of the tarmac was in full affect at that point. The heat index record was largely influenced by the 97 degree dew point and the resultant 91 percent relative humidity at the time. Most likely the Gulf water was incredibly warm and putting vast amounts of moisture into the air.

Also, we don't know anything about the physical layout of the airport. Not all airports have their weather instruments 5 feet from the runway. It could have been 100 yards from the nearest concrete or pavement.

You can't possibly have a 78 degree spread between air temperature and a recorded temperature without some kind of physical anomaly or error associated with that station, it's plain common sense. Humidity alone does not result in that kind of a delta.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:


You should explore the differences between the heat index and air temperature. One factors in the effects of humidity (which was extreme in this case) and the other doesn't. You are correct about the heat island effect.

Acres of airport tarmac in an area located almost exactly at the Tropic of Cancer will store and generate a whole lot of daytime heat in midsummer.
That insane 178 degree heat index happened at 8:30 in the morning and the air temperature was only 100 degrees at the time. I doubt the daytime heating of the tarmac was in full affect at that point. The heat index record was largely influenced by the 97 degree dew point and the resultant 91 percent relative humidity at the time. Most likely the Gulf water was incredibly warm and putting vast amounts of moisture into the air.

Also, we don't know anything about the physical layout of the airport. Not all airports have their weather instruments 5 feet from the runway. It could have been 100 yards from the nearest concrete or pavement.

You can't possibly have a 78 degree spread between air temperature and a recorded temperature without some kind of physical anomaly or error associated with that station, it's plain common sense. Humidity alone does not result in that kind of a delta.
The heat index is not a physical temperature like the air temperature. It's supposed to be a perceived temperature by the body. When you get high temperatures and a high humidity, nearly saturated atmosphere, your body can't cool itself by sweating and having it evaporate. So, your body can perceive 100 degrees as feeling much, much warmer than that. It's why 100 degrees in Houston feels much worse than 100 degrees in the desert. I don't know that I believe the 178 degree heat index, but 100 degrees with a 97 degree dew point would surely feel miserable. I suspect the equation exaggerates extreme cases like this one but I have no way to determine that. I know the wind chill equation was altered fairly substantially about 15 or 20 years ago and wind chill values are generally less cold now.

If you want to plug the numbers in yourself, here's a heat index calculator. If you enter an air temperature of 100 degrees and a dew point temperature of 97, it does give 178 degrees as the heat index. If you lower the dew point temperature, it does fall off about 5 times as many heat index degrees, at least based on a few trials.

If you really want to dig deep, you can find the heat index formula and it's special case adjustments (apparently not needed in this recent situation) here. I have no idea why the formula is constructed the way it is. Maybe some day I'll look further, but I think the horse has been beaten dead by this point.

chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"A first-ever tropical storm watch has been issued for California as concern grows that Hurricane Hilary will unleash a prolific amount of flooding and rainfall to parts of the state."

https://abc7.com/hurricane-hilary-category-la-tropical-storm/13667263/
BearHunter
How long do you want to ignore this user?


climate change activists = arsonists?
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lets Go Brandon 16
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearHunter said:



climate change activists = arsonists?
It was a controlled burn. Smart forest management.
</s>
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I asked an east bay fire fighter how often they do controlled burns. Once or twice a year. Ridiculous.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
South American monsoon heading towards 'tipping point' likely to cause Amazon dieback


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/04/south-american-monsoon-heading-towards-tipping-point-likely-to-cause-amazon-dieback?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

South American monsoon heading towards 'tipping point' likely to cause Amazon dieback

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/04/south-american-monsoon-heading-towards-tipping-point-likely-to-cause-amazon-dieback?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

First of all, the Amazon region has actually been adding biomass, following the global trend of the earth greening due to higher levels of CO2 boosting photosynthesis, particularly in more arid regions like the Sahel, border of the Sahara Desert. The Sahara has shrunk by an area the size of Texas in the last 3 decades.

NASA video:


NASA research confirming the greening of the earth:

Quote:

From a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet's vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

Second, the entire premise of the Guardian article is based on a computer model:
Quote:

The study, published on Wednesday in Science Advances, examines how forest degradation and monsoon circulation are interlinked.

Using past observations and computer modelling, it finds that the Amazon and the South American monsoon are "one coupled system", in which the evapotranspiration by the tropical rainforest recycles moisture from the Atlantic Ocean so that it can move south across the continent.

In nearly every single alarmist study the last several decades, a computer model has been the main driver of that prediction. To my knowledge, none of these alarmist predictions have materialized. Agricultural output across the globe has been booming, with steadily growing crops of wheat, rice, soy and corn. This is also partially due to higher levels of CO2, a powerful fertilizer.

The biggest failure of computer model-driven alarmist predictions has been in predicting the level of global warming:


Here is a long list of dozens of failed alarmist predictions published in scientific articles or predicted by scientists and political figures:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/failed-prediction-timeline/

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If I ever post something that you agree with I am going to be concerned.

I am going to post in the music thread seeking your approval.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

If I ever post something that you agree with I am going to be concerned.

I am going to post in the music thread seeking your approval.

We don't see eye to eye on many subjects, but it's all good - hats off to you for being civil and forthright in this and most other conversations.
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can someone from the climate emergency contingent explain this?

https://electroverse.info/ushcn-weather-stations-decommissioned-yet-noaa-still-uses-their-data/

"However, from the late-1990s so the start of AGW catastrophizing, a time when you'd think more temperature stations would be commissioned to give us a better picture of the climate the number of stations began plummeting, from a consistent 1,200 between 1930 to 1996, to just 830 stations as of 2020 and falling.

Even more confusing, many of the stations that were decommissioned still feed temperature data back to NOAA, 'phantom data' that the government agency still incorporate in their official reportings.

As meteorologist John Shewchuk elaborates on X, "by 2020, NOAA was fabricating temperature data for more than 40% of all USHCN stations" "ghost stations," he calls them, with one example being Belle Glade, Florida:

The following slide (below) is taken from Shewchuk's accompanying video (posted to YouTube last year).
What it shows is the final 6-years of RAW data from the Belle Grade temperature station (2000 2005), followed by the ALTERED (aka 'ghost') data which is still running to this day despite the hindrance of no temperature station physically being on site.
Note: the monthly data values are in Celsius x100, with '-9999' readings indicating an error.

NOAA likely get around such brazen devilment legally by putting an 'E' after all post-2005 temperature readings; E standing for 'estimate' which when translated from establishment gobbledy-doublespeak means 'fabricated' to you and me.

These phantom temperature readings have seemingly helped government agencies such as NOAA warm the present and, by extension, cool the past a long-standing and long-exposed endeavor.
We're told that the U.S. is warming, that summers will soon become unbearably hot, but there is zero indication of this in the raw USHCN data the 1930s dust bowl era still rules supreme, and overall, summers have been trending cooler since 1895:

A warming trend only appears after the station data passes through NOAA's tax-payer-funded discombobulation machine, 'adjustments' that NOAA openly admit to but claim are necessary "to improve data quality":"




bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
President Trump a true Robin Hood - Villages-News.com


https://www.villages-news.com/2020/09/23/president-trump-a-true-robin-hood/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For the people who don't think writing something positive about Trump disqualifies a person from being taken seriously, can we please deal with the claims being made and not resort to shoot-the-messenger diversions?

Claim #1: Hundreds of USHCN stations are no longer recording temperature data
Claim #2: NOAA is still estimating temperature data for this defunct stations
Claim #3: Excluding these estimated readings, the raw data shows a slight decreasing trend in US temperatures, in sharp contrast to the "adjusted" data NOAA publishes which shows an increasing trend.

So which of these claims is false and why?
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

For the people who don't think writing something positive about Trump disqualifies a person from being taken seriously, can we please deal with the claims being made and not resort to shoot-the-messenger diversions?

Claim #1: Hundreds of USHCN stations are no longer recording temperature data
Claim #2: NOAA is still estimating temperature data for this defunct stations
Claim #3: Excluding these estimated readings, the raw data shows a slight decreasing trend in US temperatures, in sharp contrast to the "adjusted" data NOAA publishes which shows an increasing trend.

So which of these claims is false and why?
Maybe you should ask a climatologist or even better, someone at NOAA to explain this rather than us average citizens.

I do know from a friend of mine that due to budget issues, NOAA stopped paying people to take daily weather observations years ago. Not surprisingly, quite a few stations stopped taking daily observations.

I don't know how they are estimating temperatures, but they could be using other nearby stations. It wouldn't be exact, but it's better than no data at all. But I have no idea if that is what they are doing.

As for the plot, in recent years, with the "ghost stations", the the two sets match up well. It's in the past, where there are no "ghost stations", that the two sets of data deviate and that's why the lines through them differ. That's the opposite of what I'd expect from what your sources are describing.
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Penn professor, renowned climate scientist Michael Mann wins over $1 million in defamation suit:
https://www.thedp.com/article/2024/02/penn-professor-michael-mann-wins-defamation-lawsuit

Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chazzed said:

Penn professor, renowned climate scientist Michael Mann wins over $1 million in defamation suit:
https://www.thedp.com/article/2024/02/penn-professor-michael-mann-wins-defamation-lawsuit


Predictably, the reaction from some parties around here is <crickets>.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It looks like he won a lawsuit against a pundit who smeared his character by associating him with a sexual predator, Jerry Sandusky.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It seems that Exxon (Darren Woods, interview with Fortune just published) no longer denies that their product is causing Climate Change.

This is a big step!!


Nonetheless, they blame consumers.

Read all about it:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fury-exxon-chief-says-public-110026364.html


Fortune article paste:

Exxon Mobil CEO on the 'dirty secret' of Net Zero: 'People who are generating the emissions need to be aware … and pay the price'

"The dirty secret nobody talks about is how much all this is going to cost and who's willing to pay for it," Darren Woods said on Fortune's Leadership Next podcast.

BY JANE THIER
February 27, 2024 3:17 PM EST

As it stands, we're not on the path to net-zero emissions by 2050, Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods said. And maybe that's not Big Oil's fault.


"The dirty secret nobody talks about is how much all this is going to cost and who's willing to pay for it," Woods, who replaced Rex Tillerson at the helm of Exxon Mobil in January 2017, said. "If you look at the policies [governments] are putting out, the cost is very implicit. It's not an explicit cost."


Most objective analyses would suggest that "we've waited too long to open the aperture on the solution sets in terms of what we need, as a society, to start reducing emissions," Woods told Fortune CEO Alan Murray and editor-at-large Michal Lev-Ram on a recent episode of the Leadership Next podcast. Plus: "We're not investing nearly enough in the technology."

Exxon Mobil is No. 3 on the Fortune 500 and the largest gas and oil corporation in the U.S., having posted a $36 billion profit in 2023. The firm has "tabled proposals" with governments worldwide, Woods said, "to get out there and start down this path using existing technology." But it's been hamstrung by a need for cost transparencyand the fact that everyday people are responsible for generating the emissions too.



"People who are generating the emissions need to be aware of [it] and pay the price," Woods said. "That's ultimately how you solve the problem."


The cost of climate activism could be on consumers' shoulders

Woods, though the head of a fossil fuel giant, has some ground to stand on; he was the first oil and gas CEO to appear at a UN climate summit when he attended COP28 late last year, advocating for reducing emissions and investing in clean energy. In 2022, Exxon Mobil invested $17 billion in its lower-emission initiatives. It has long maintained that greenhouse gas emissions, not fossil fuels, are behind climate changeclaims over which it is now being sued.

The main issue, in any case, is that fixing the problem is currently too expensive, Woods told Murray and Lev-Ram. "People can't afford it, and governments around the world rightly know that their constituents will have real concerns," he went on. "So we've got to find a way to get the cost down to grow the utility of the solution, and make it more available and more affordable so that you can begin the [clean energy] transition."

Society is not currently on that path to 2050, in Woods' view. "The policies that are being put in place aren't aggressive enough, and don't incentivize the right kind of actions to be successful."


To have any chance of achieving carbon neutrality within the next 25 years, civilians must "be willing to pay for carbon reduction, because today we have opportunities to make fuels with lower carbon, but people aren't willing to spend the money to do that," he said. Businesses aren't keen on shelling out, either. "We could, today, make sustainable aviation fuel for the airline business, but the airline companies can't afford to pay."

The onus is both political and the personal

The challenge, in Woods' mind, is reframing the cost as necessary on both a corporate and personal level, rather than a nice-to-have. It's anyone's guess how long that would take. "I can't predict if we'll be successful in that space or not." A popular suggestion for passing the cost off to consumers is carbon taxes or a built-in charge on purchased goods, though many experts nonetheless encourage the most offending firms to shoulder the cost burden, not individuals.

It's larger society, in Woods' mind, that has fallen short of its own expectations. "Frankly, society, and the activistthe dominant voice in this discussionhas tried to exclude the industry that has the most capacity and the highest potential for helping with some of the technologies," he said. "How quickly will innovation come? How quickly can we scale [it]? How low can we get the cost? I, frankly, can't answer that."


Much work is left to be doneobviously. Woods points to one particular example: direct air capture, an advancement in which Exxon Mobil has invested heavily. "We just built a pilot plant prototype that we're working on to try and cut the cost in halfwhich by the way, will still be too expensive," he said. "But we want to get down on that curve. And there are a lot of companies out there trying to advance the technology in this space. How quickly will they succeed? I don't know the answer to that."

Murray pointed out the subsidies Exxon Mobil has received through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that are geared at encouraging low-carbon energy solutions. But Woods said that too is a Band-Aid solution. "The way that the government is incentivized and trying to catalyze investments in this space is through subsidies," he said. "Driving significant investments at a scale that even gets close to moving the needle is going to cost a lot of money."

The U.S. government is trying to "get things moving" through those subsidies, he added. "But I would tell you building a business on government subsidy is not a long-term sustainable strategywe don't support that." Exxon Mobil has committed to using its IRA subsidies to advance its low-carbon energy solutions, "but at the same time, we're advocating to move to market forces, either through regulation and prices on carbon."

The challenge with all those solutions, he said, "is the cost ultimately, explicitly bears itself in the price of products out there." And nobody wants to pay up.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

It seems that Exxon (Darren Woods, interview with Fortune just published) no longer denies that their product is causing Climate Change.

This is a big step!!


Nonetheless, they blame consumers.

Read all about it:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fury-exxon-chief-says-public-110026364.html


Fortune article paste:

Exxon Mobil CEO on the 'dirty secret' of Net Zero: 'People who are generating the emissions need to be aware … and pay the price'

"The dirty secret nobody talks about is how much all this is going to cost and who's willing to pay for it," Darren Woods said on Fortune's Leadership Next podcast.

BY JANE THIER
February 27, 2024 3:17 PM EST

As it stands, we're not on the path to net-zero emissions by 2050, Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods said. And maybe that's not Big Oil's fault.


"The dirty secret nobody talks about is how much all this is going to cost and who's willing to pay for it," Woods, who replaced Rex Tillerson at the helm of Exxon Mobil in January 2017, said. "If you look at the policies [governments] are putting out, the cost is very implicit. It's not an explicit cost."


Most objective analyses would suggest that "we've waited too long to open the aperture on the solution sets in terms of what we need, as a society, to start reducing emissions," Woods told Fortune CEO Alan Murray and editor-at-large Michal Lev-Ram on a recent episode of the Leadership Next podcast. Plus: "We're not investing nearly enough in the technology."

Exxon Mobil is No. 3 on the Fortune 500 and the largest gas and oil corporation in the U.S., having posted a $36 billion profit in 2023. The firm has "tabled proposals" with governments worldwide, Woods said, "to get out there and start down this path using existing technology." But it's been hamstrung by a need for cost transparencyand the fact that everyday people are responsible for generating the emissions too.



"People who are generating the emissions need to be aware of [it] and pay the price," Woods said. "That's ultimately how you solve the problem."


The cost of climate activism could be on consumers' shoulders

Woods, though the head of a fossil fuel giant, has some ground to stand on; he was the first oil and gas CEO to appear at a UN climate summit when he attended COP28 late last year, advocating for reducing emissions and investing in clean energy. In 2022, Exxon Mobil invested $17 billion in its lower-emission initiatives. It has long maintained that greenhouse gas emissions, not fossil fuels, are behind climate changeclaims over which it is now being sued.

The main issue, in any case, is that fixing the problem is currently too expensive, Woods told Murray and Lev-Ram. "People can't afford it, and governments around the world rightly know that their constituents will have real concerns," he went on. "So we've got to find a way to get the cost down to grow the utility of the solution, and make it more available and more affordable so that you can begin the [clean energy] transition."

Society is not currently on that path to 2050, in Woods' view. "The policies that are being put in place aren't aggressive enough, and don't incentivize the right kind of actions to be successful."


To have any chance of achieving carbon neutrality within the next 25 years, civilians must "be willing to pay for carbon reduction, because today we have opportunities to make fuels with lower carbon, but people aren't willing to spend the money to do that," he said. Businesses aren't keen on shelling out, either. "We could, today, make sustainable aviation fuel for the airline business, but the airline companies can't afford to pay."

The onus is both political and the personal

The challenge, in Woods' mind, is reframing the cost as necessary on both a corporate and personal level, rather than a nice-to-have. It's anyone's guess how long that would take. "I can't predict if we'll be successful in that space or not." A popular suggestion for passing the cost off to consumers is carbon taxes or a built-in charge on purchased goods, though many experts nonetheless encourage the most offending firms to shoulder the cost burden, not individuals.

It's larger society, in Woods' mind, that has fallen short of its own expectations. "Frankly, society, and the activistthe dominant voice in this discussionhas tried to exclude the industry that has the most capacity and the highest potential for helping with some of the technologies," he said. "How quickly will innovation come? How quickly can we scale [it]? How low can we get the cost? I, frankly, can't answer that."


Much work is left to be doneobviously. Woods points to one particular example: direct air capture, an advancement in which Exxon Mobil has invested heavily. "We just built a pilot plant prototype that we're working on to try and cut the cost in halfwhich by the way, will still be too expensive," he said. "But we want to get down on that curve. And there are a lot of companies out there trying to advance the technology in this space. How quickly will they succeed? I don't know the answer to that."

Murray pointed out the subsidies Exxon Mobil has received through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that are geared at encouraging low-carbon energy solutions. But Woods said that too is a Band-Aid solution. "The way that the government is incentivized and trying to catalyze investments in this space is through subsidies," he said. "Driving significant investments at a scale that even gets close to moving the needle is going to cost a lot of money."

The U.S. government is trying to "get things moving" through those subsidies, he added. "But I would tell you building a business on government subsidy is not a long-term sustainable strategywe don't support that." Exxon Mobil has committed to using its IRA subsidies to advance its low-carbon energy solutions, "but at the same time, we're advocating to move to market forces, either through regulation and prices on carbon."

The challenge with all those solutions, he said, "is the cost ultimately, explicitly bears itself in the price of products out there." And nobody wants to pay up.
This brings to mind three points. First, he says "we've waited too long to open the aperture on the solution sets in terms of what we need, as a society, to start reducing emissions." That's in large part because O&G companies including Exxon Mobil spent decades trying to convince the world (through BS thinktanks, BS science and paying off GOP politicians) that climate change isn't real. Every day we wait makes it harder, which is what scientists have been telling us for decades and O&G industry shills have been successful at delaying.

Second, he says "But I would tell you building a business on government subsidy is not a long-term sustainable strategy, we don't support that." O&G is one of the most subsidized industries in the US. Exxon Mobil, and others, already have built businesses on government subsidies. Here's just one example of a recent article. This happens through a number of tax breaks as well as more direct subsidies. Why hasn't Woods spoken out against these subsidies?

Third - shifting costs to properly incentivize proper behavior is one of the main tools the government has to address environmental issues. His industry has been fighting against gas taxes for decades and any government oversight. Obviously we need collective action to solve this problem - it's not going to happen one prius at a time. There are lots of examples of these types of national and global problems that can only be addressed with government action, but Exxon Mobil and the entire fossil fuels industry has been doing everything it can to support "small government" conservatives with the goal of preventing our government from taking any action because they know that inaction (other than to continue to expand their fossil fuel subsidies) is better for their bottom line.

It's nice that Woods now recognizes that we need to do something, but it's hollow at best.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just another example of how people act out of self interest.

If you can steal the cookie and get away with it, you probably will.

We see it in all arenas. Business, sports, politics.

One of the reasons why trump is so absolutely dangerous is that he intends to break down the laws that bind us to not stealing the cookie.
What we will be left with is anarchy, and everybody will be out to get their own for themselves.

Laws ultimately restrain the personal for the common good. And that's what required in tackling climate change.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I thought Y2K was supposed to kill us?

The Global Warming religion is packed w politics. Why else would California not label hydro and nuclear power 'green'?

The arrogant learned German idiots shut down nuclear plants, we blew up their NS2 pipelines, and now they're burning lignite and de-industrializing.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"The Global Warming religion is packed w politics."

Yes, every denier is on the Right. Do you know why?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

"The Global Warming religion is packed w politics."

Yes, every denier is on the Right. Do you know why?


Because we follow the facts, not emotion.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

"The Global Warming religion is packed w politics."

Yes, every denier is on the Right. Do you know why?
It's mostly financial - some conservatives do acknowledge the impacts and cause of climate change. The ones who are tied to fossil fuels, who shill for Putin, or who follow their tribe blindly of course continue to miss the mark.

Look at one of the most prominent GOPes in America right now - Elon Musk. He broke ties with Trump over Trump's climate change denialism. You can see in his tweets that he attempted to knock sense into Trump, was initially hopeful Trump would do the right thing (because Trump I'm sure told him what he wanted to hear before someone else convinced him otherwise).





There are also plenty of stories about this. Here, here and here.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Garbage in, garbage out.

California Enviros don't call hydro or nuclear power 'green'. Germany closed nuclear power plants (0 CO2), and is now burning lignite. Biden blew up NS2 pipelines, with massive environmental impacts. The Sierra Club prevents logging, thinning, controlled burns, and after decades, we now have gianf Super Fires which omit massive amounts of CO2.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.