Thread: Exxon adverts

Am I the only Telegraph reader who has noticed Exxon’s big advertising campaign this week?
Looks long on promises but we’ll have to see what they actually deliver.

Unfortunately, the ads don’t appear on the Telegraph website so I can’t give you a link but they are supposedly on Exxon’s own site :-
how do we meet the world?s growing energy demand while minimizing its impact on the environment?

PS - by implication Exxon do accept that GW is real and the primary cause is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
So, you contrarians, perhaps it’s time to move the debate on to what can be done to minimize ‘doomsday’.

Millenium3 wrote:-

Yes - I was hit by the two page spread - that's some sized advert in the broadsheet Telegraph.

I agree. Yesterday's was only a single page but it must be costing an arm & a leg.

Pity they didn't spend this on re-planting some of the fast disappearing tropical rainforests.

C_Steam wrote:-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clippo
PS - by implication Exxon do accept that GW is real and the primary cause is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Can't agree that certain conclusion - what it looks like to me is that they accept the political direction (basically no choice) and agree that as a world, we are damaging our mother earth.

Admittedly they never say categorically “we believe that GW is in part due to increased CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels” but I can’t see any other interpretation from Exxon’s own writings, For example from:-
climate

There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.7 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period — and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.
Climate remains today an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant, so it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world.

There are many other examples which I won’t bore you with.

With regard to :-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clippo
So, you contrarians, perhaps it’s time to move the debate on to what can be done to minimize ‘doomsday’.
Why? It isn't a case where doing less will make any difference - you'd have to rewrite society completely to achieve that.

It would seem that most everybody else, (scientists, world governments, the IPCC and even probably Uncle Tom Cobley & all, )disagree with you on this.
Why else, (apart from some irrational New World Order conspiracy), would they all be calling for gradual reductions in CO2 emissions ?

It seems to me from the tone of your post that you consider doomsday inevitable. Even if by taking reductive resource precautions now to mitigate CC, where I have doubts & uncertainties about the future is hundreds perhaps thousands of years from now is that all the useable fossil fuels will have been used and perhaps uranium as well. As someone put it on another blog, ‘how would you/I feel if the ancient Greeks, say, had used up all the fossil fuels in some gigantic act of profligacy’?

In my opinion, cutting back on the consumption throttle may give humanity more time to develop, for example, alternative energy sources.

PS – If you’re thinking of running up a mountain & hiding in a cave, other species have got there before you and by definition there's nowhere to go when you reach the top
Climate change hastens extinction in Madagascar's reptiles and amphibians