OPEC says oil not to blame for climate change

RAMSTORIA

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
PARIS, April 2 (Reuters) - OPEC said oil was not to blame for climate change and consuming countries should pay to fight the threat, while the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) said drivers could help by not buying Hummer sports utility vehicles.

"Oil is not responsible," the producer group's Secretary General, Abdullah al-Badri, told reporters on Thursday on the sidelines of the International Oil Summit in Paris.

"It is the industrialised countries which are making all this pollution in the world".

Scientists say the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil, is a key factor in climate change.

Badri said the revenues from high taxes that some industrialised countries, including most western European nations, place on oil products should be diverted to environmental projects.

OPEC, whose member countries pump more than a third of the world's oil, has supported the United Nations Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, which encourage reductions in emissions of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2).

However, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has also opposed plans to reduce oil consumption and advocated adaptation to climate change.

Badri criticised the subsidies developed countries offer to promote renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

Most of the larger international oil companies accept the role of oil and gas in man-made climate change.

Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L), the world's second-largest oil company by market value, told the same conference that drivers should help fight climate change by using more fuel efficient vehicles.

Recalling his happy student days driving a 2CV, a famously basic, and fuel efficient, Citroen, van der Veer said: "You don't need a Hummer to be happy".

Consumers and General Motors (GM.N), which owns the Hummer brand, have come to the same conclusion. Falling sales of the the military-derived vehicle, which has become synonymous with gas-guzzling excess, have prompted GM to put the Hummer brand up for sale. (Editing by Anthony Barker)
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSL225721020090402

im a skeptic and even i lold.
 
I don't believe there is any solid proof that global warming (now called climate change, lol) would stop even if everyone stopped driving cars. Remember that Earth by history has cycled in climate, including having an Ice Age which "warmed up" without any help from today's automobiles. While they have proved there is climate change, they still have yet to prove exactly how much of an impact we have on that, if any.
 
so they've decided to come out and say themselves instead of (in addition to?) paying others to say it for them.. not a dramatic change, but ballsy.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I don't believe there is any solid proof that global warming (now called climate change, lol) would stop even if everyone stopped driving cars. Remember that Earth by history has cycled in climate, including having an Ice Age which "warmed up" without any help from today's automobiles. While they have proved there is climate change, they still have yet to prove exactly how much of an impact we have on that, if any.[/QUOTE]

aren't you an engineer?

i'd have expected more rationality..

it's not just driving. the effect of all GHGs is pretty obvious, and the positive feedback is definitely too dangerous an aspect to risk with conservative thought.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In other news, Altria says tobacco doesn't cause cancer.[/quote]

damnit stole my line. Though was going the Mcdonalds doesn't equal obesity.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Meanwhile, let's continue to have wars over a substance that could be replaced with some modest effort.[/QUOTE]
What is this word "effort" that you speak of?
 
[quote name='Koggit']the effect of all GHGs is pretty obvious, and the positive feedback is definitely too dangerous an aspect to risk with conservative thought.[/QUOTE]

It is many things, but not "obvious." And there are dangers in whatever path is taken. Stopping developing countries from developing would have a huge effect on those countries' populations, as would doing things advocated by people like Al Gore in the developed world. It's a fallacy to claim that there is verified positive feedback, and also a fallacy to say that it's "too dangerous" to not do something when doing something also comes with a very high cost.

In other words, this is an incredibly difficult issue, and nothing about it is "obvious," except that the OPEC guy was full of political bullshit when he said what he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top