Slashdot Mirror
Rockefeller Fund Dumping Fossil Fuels, Hits Exxon On Climate Issues (cnbc.com)
mdsolar quotes a report from Reuters: The Rockefeller Family Fund said on Wednesday it will divest from fossil fuels as quickly as possible and "eliminate holdings" of Exxon Mobil, chiding the oil company for allegedly misleading the public about the threat of climate change. The move by the U.S. based charity, which will also include coal and Canadian oil sands holdings, is especially notable because a century ago John D. Rockefeller Sr. made a fortune running Standard Oil, a precursor to Exxon Mobil.
Given the threat posed to the survival of human and natural ecosystems, "there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons," the fund said. Exxon did not immediately comment. In a letter posted on its website, the Rockefeller Family Fund said Exxon's conduct on climate issues appears to be "morally reprehensible."
Given the threat posed to the survival of human and natural ecosystems, "there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons," the fund said. Exxon did not immediately comment. In a letter posted on its website, the Rockefeller Family Fund said Exxon's conduct on climate issues appears to be "morally reprehensible."
Anything with the name "Rockefeller" on it originated from fossil fuels because that's where old John D. made his money.
1. That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly.
2. There are no lack of other sources of energy. Hydrocarbons are hardly the only solution.
3. There are other ways to produce plastics and similar materials.
So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I get the whole Greenwashing that happened there, but seriously - no matter the {whatever} you hold concerning AGW, three things are constant:
1) Barring thermonuclear warfare or a wayward asteroid, global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do),
Yes to the first part: Yes, human sources of climate change are not the only source of climate change; the other sources are still there.
and will continue on its current trend.
...and no to the second. There is very very good evidence that the current trend is due to human activities. There simply are no natural sources of change that have this magnitude of effect this quickly that we would not be able to see. (Remember, we do measure solar output. One thing we know: the current trend is not due to solar variability. If we stop these activities, the current trend will stop. (Although it will take a while to do so.)
2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy)
You just said "unless there are other sources of energy, we have to use the current sources of energy." That statement is a tautology.
OK, so it is desirable to develop new sources of energy if we don't want to use the current sources. Fair enough. Let's get to it.
...
Plastics (made from petroleum) are the backbone of technology and civilization at this time - no viable replacement has yet arisen that doesn't require even more damage to the ecosystems, or can last nearly as long when the requirements call for longevity/durability. (e.g. yeah you can make plastic from corn, but it'll be much shorter-lived and will require massive up-scaling in agriculture, which presents problems of its own.)
1. Plastics account for so small an amount of the hydrocarbon usage that you can't even notice it on the pie chart. ...and plastic isn't the problem, since turning fossil hydrocarbons into plastics puts the carbon into the plastic, not into the atmosphere.
2.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
1. No, it hasn't. Radically and slowly, but not radically and quickly. http://www.scientificamerican..... Nothing comes close.
2. They are not the best we have because of their polluting nature. Even aside from climate change they have large negatives. They do indeed have a huge infrastructure advantage.
The total amount of oil in North America is of minimal relevance; somewhat more relevant is the expected cost of extracting oil as time goes on since that makes oil seem ever-worse by comparison. Also your entire counterargument is moving the original goalpost, which stated that oil was inarguably the only option. This said I'm going to need a cite on proven oil reserves lasting 100 years. I've never heard of anything close to that, and couldn't find it from a quick search. In fact, it sounds like the *worldwide* estimate, from actual oil companies, is about half that: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/world.... "North America alone" has a small slice of that.
3. I advocate we keep using oil for those purposes. It's not a major source of pollution -- at least, not the same kind of pollution -- and it's a small fraction of our overall oil use, so that use really can last hundreds of years. This said, given that this oil use is at a much lower scale, the "nothing else is viable at the scale needed" argument doesn't work as well.
1) electricity can do it, but the infrastructure to charge is simply not there in many places. With multi-hour charge times in some cases, it wouldn't take much to get stuck somewhere waiting for hours for a person to be done charging their car.
2) range. it's still not even remotely as good in affordable consumer models. I don't want something that's going to leave me high and dry after 75 miles, and I don't want to have to own a second vehicle for long-range trips.
3) No, I wouldn't because the electric vehicle that currently fits my criteria is still an $80,000+ vehicle. Nobody seems interested in producing something practical for regular people yet.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Consideringit was Standard Oil who equipped the Nazi war machine with their ability to turn coal into oil... yeah.
The geek takes hold of a meme and can't let it go.
Direct conversion of coal to synthetic fuel was originally developed in Germany. The Bergius process was developed by Friedrich Bergius, yielding a patent in 1913. After World War I several plants were built in Germany; these plants were extensively used during World War II to supply Germany with fuel and lubricants.
Indirect coal conversion (where coal is gasified and then converted to synthetic fuels) was developed in Germany by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923.
During World War II, Germany used synthetic oil manufacturing to produce substitute (Ersatz) oil products by using the Bergius process (from coal), the Fischer --- Tropsch process (water gas), and other methods.
Synthetic fuel
The US Bureau of Mines first studied the extraction of oil from oil shale between 1925 and 1928.
Between 1928 and 1944, the Bureau experimented with coal liquefaction by hydrogenation using the Bergius process. A small-scale test unit constructed in 1937 had a 100-pound per day continuous coal feed.
Between 1945 and 1948, new laboratories were constructed near Pittsburgh. A synthetic ammonia plant Louisiana, Missouri (Missouri Ordnance Works) was transferred from the Army to the program in 1945. The plant was converted into a coal hydrogenation test facility. By 1949 the plant could produce 200 barrels (32 m3) of oil a day using the Bergius process.
Part of the personnel were German scientists, who had been extracted from Germany by Operation Paperclip.
Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program