EXXON HATES YOUR CHILDREN - Green advertising

[aubrey]

Yes, they give all that stuff away, don't they?

Why do you hate the idea of renewables so much, Marchesa? They're going to have to be used some time; better trying to find a good way of using them now than when we have no choice at all (and no time left), isn't it? Or do you think that oil and gas will last forever?


Exxon (and the rest) are forever lobbying to reduce safety requirements for their projects; they probably don't actively hate anyone's children, but they don't much care about the children of the people living where they drill, either: it will always be OK, except when it isn't.

[aubrey]

The problem is not with profit, pal, (why do you keep doing that?) but the way that oil companies continually lobby to lift regulations that make their industry more safe. Of course accidents will happen, but more will happen if the company involved go in half cocked.

This is the same way that you get more accidents in privatised mines than nationalised ones; private companies assume that it won't happen to them (and safety procedures eat into their profits); they are often not even prepared when it does (as in that mine accident last year, or maybe the year before, when the company did not even have any rescue equipment).


Of course renewable energy is expensive now; computers used to cost thousands. That's how this sort of thing works.

Just imagine how long oil would last if it was only used for emergencies?

[pippop]

Dec 11, 2012 9:17:20 GMT aubrey said:

The problem is not with profit, pal, (why do you keep doing that?)...

We are not allowed to do that now.

[aubrey]

It took years and years to get lead out of petrol - how many people - children - did that effect while the oil companies were saying that lead never harmed anyone? How many people are killed by car pollution now (which Boris Johnson denies is much of a problem)?

How are you so sure that there will not be a renewable energy invention? The idea of mass computing came about because of the microchip, which no one had really foreseen (though obviously someone must have done). Even SF got that wrong (though SF is really more of a sociology genre than a science genre, and not really meant to be predictive of technology): space men still had slide rules in the SF magazine illustrations of the 40s.

All global companies "lobby" for their interests, aubrey, get used to it.

They're lobbying against their interests as well. Shell could have saved billions last year if they'd had decent safety procedures in place. What they're lobbying for is their extremely-short-term-if-everything-goes-well interests.

[admin]

Dec 11, 2012 11:11:30 GMT pippop said:

Dec 11, 2012 9:17:20 GMT aubrey said:

The problem is not with profit, pal, (why do you keep doing that?)...

We are not allowed to do that now.

Correct but Aubrey could have missed that so just for him. Welcome back to the board. We now have a zero tolerance of insulting language. Even the milder stuff like pal and dear will be removed but you need to know that the WHOLE post will go. Members who think this is a bit too much can still go to places like science board MCL etc or better still open up a board themselves and make a better job of it. I remind members to make use of the report to mod button for any post that they feel breaks the new rule.

[marchesarosa]

I expect aubrey was a consultant on this piece of green propaganda judging by his failure to condemn it.

Who denies that extractive industries have a mixed record of social costs and benefits?

Does Aubrey think the state can do better than private enterprise to keep us fed, healthy and warm, etc, etc etc ? Let's hear it for state controlled industries, aubrey, ra ra ra!

We have laws to enforce health, safety and environmental protection. That's the most important role of the state - protection of citizens. When we are self-sufficient in gas and oil, aubrey, thanks to fracking, we will also have control over H & S and environmental protection on our national territory. Win win!

Yay, to coin a phrase!

[marchesarosa]

Why do you hate the idea of renewables so much, Marchesa? They're going to have to be used some time; better trying to find a good way of using them now than when we have no choice at all (and no time left), isn't it? Or do you think that oil and gas will last forever?

Why do you hate oil, gas and coal so much, aubrey?

I do think that oil, gas and coal have a an indefinitely long future, actually. People are ever more ingenious in extractive technology and the "market" (price mechanism, basically) means that as price goes up the incentive to find cheaper and easier alternatives increases. That's how it works, aubrey - basic economics!

We don't need wind and solar renewables, however (they are redundant as well as grossly expensive and inefficient) because we already have a viable form of alternative thermal energy should fossil fuels "run out" (which they won't). We have nuclear energy already and various new forms of it in the research pipeline. Sure, it requires public subsidy, but then so does your fav option - wind. And nuclear has the advantage of always being on tap.

Don't worry, aubrey, the future is orange (for the "glow" of thermal energy) as they used to say!

Don't forget to ask Visitor about the batteries! I'm dying to hear how Tata is going to run its steel mills on batteries.

[marchesarosa]

[jean]

Actually marchesa, it isn't good board etiquette to talk about posters on a board they are not allowed to be members of, where they therefore cannot reply to whatever you choose to say.

It's a tendency I've noticed among your members before, and it is deplorable.

This is the sort of thing I mean:

In my experience most people are a mixture of "right" and "Left" in their views. It is only the professional ideological cadres and their foot soldiers, like dear Aubrey, that strive for "consistency" and think they can predict all of a person's opinions on the basis of knowing one.

radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=hobnobbing&action=display&thread=1742&page=1

[marchesarosa]

Isn't Aubrey allowed on the Science board? I wonder why?

I've just looked. He is there but has never posted. His choice, presumably.

Don't be so precious, jean. I VERY rarely cross board, whereas it is your speciality.

[jean]

I'll admit I was making assumptions there, marchesa, because I don't know whether he's ever applied to join.

If you would welcome him as a member, though, perhaps you should invite him yourself?

[marchesarosa]

Tell pippop to catpee the above post. I think "precious" may be classed as abusive in pippopland and probably "pippopland", Too!

I would rather aubrey let the Science board alone. He would not be an asset. He doesn't know anything about either science or the climatological debates and therefore would be no asset.

[aubrey]

Dec 11, 2012 13:10:58 GMT admin said:

Dec 11, 2012 11:11:30 GMT pippop said:

We are not allowed to do that now.

Correct but Aubrey could have missed that so just for him. Welcome back to the board. We now have a zero tolerance of insulting language. Even the milder stuff like pal and dear will be removed but you need to know that the WHOLE post will go. Members who think this is a bit too much can still go to places like science board MCL etc or better still open up a board themselves and make a better job of it. I remind members to make use of the report to mod button for any post that they feel breaks the new rule.

Well, I apologise, but I was only quoting the previous post (which seems to have gone now: but it was there when I quoted it).

and think they can predict all of a person's opinions on the basis of knowing one.

Actually, it's the other way about. If you knew the rest of (say) C Monckton's views, you could be pretty sure of knowing what he felt about AGW.

The only way a certain many-named character on these MBs surprised me in his views was in what he wrote about Israel: everything else he posts - on immigration, gay rights, drugs, AGW etc etc etc, is the standard right wing line, more or less extreme (I don't know if he's here or not: he used to be).

I don't think that my idea about allowing (not forcing) a ten year old (or was it eight?) to read a certain book by William Burroughs is a left wing view; but it certainly isn't right wing.

Anyway, onwards:

Does Aubrey think the state can do better than private enterprise to keep us fed, healthy and warm, etc, etc etc ? Let's hear it for state controlled industries, aubrey, ra ra ra!

Yes, obviously: for the last two, anyway: probably not food, though there is not enough regulation there.

Why do you hate oil, gas and coal so much, aubrey?

I don't. They'd be better nationalised, though. A lot safer.

The oil industry does all it can to pretend that pollution from oil burning does no harm, as they did with leaded petrol. The nuclear industry pretends that nuclear waste is easily storable, if only they could work out some language that people in the future can easily read (Danger!); and they pretend that no accident or spillage ever happens, until afterwards. (Mind you, that thing at Sellafield never happened, did it - that was at some place called Windscale, completely different.)

And, as I said, coal mines are more dangerous now that they're private.

I do think that oil, gas and coal have a an indefinitely long future, actually.

And you call me a fantasist (indefinite is a long time).

People are ever more ingenious in extractive technology and the "market" (price mechanism, basically) means that as price goes up the incentive to find cheaper and easier alternatives increases. That's how it works, aubrey - basic economics!

But this doesn't work for renewables, for some reason.

[jean]

Dec 11, 2012 16:08:41 GMT marchesarosa said:

Don't be so precious, jean. I VERY rarely cross board, whereas it is your speciality.

I never write about anyone in a place where they can view my comments, but cannot respond.

I'm glad to hear that aubrey is a member of your board, so that he can respond if he wants to - that's as it should be.

[aubrey]

Dec 11, 2012 16:15:37 GMT marchesarosa said:

Tell pippop to catpee the above post. I think "precious" may be classed as abusive in pippopland and probably "pippopland", Too!

I would rather aubrey let the Science board alone. He would not be an asset. He doesn't know anything about either science or the climatological debates and therefore would be no asset.

Oh, I think I'd fit right there in with those qualifications.

(I can't remember whether I've tried to get on there or not, though).


I'm off to the post office now.