The bosses of the four biggest polluting companies in history talking about how they can help solve global warming may seem like the height of hypocrisy.
Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell are responsible for more than 10% of all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution, and yet here they are, talking under the banner: "Natural gas as a core pillar for a sustainable future of the planet".
Exxon boss Rex Tillerson manages to use the word environment 13 times in his opening address. "[Our industry] can deliver significant environmental benefits", he says, while Shell's Ben Van Beurden followed with "gas can help in securing a sustainable energy future."
These comments reflect the key theme at this year's World Gas Conference in Paris, as energy bosses look to rebrand their fossil-fuel businesses as a crucial weapon in the fight against climate change. (Or rather half their businesses - there was no mention of the fact they are also major oil producers).
It is factually correct that burning natural gas produces significantly lower carbon emissions than burning coal for the same energy output, and a bit less than burning oil.
But it is also factually correct to state that renewables produce much less carbon (usually none at all in actual use, but one should consider the often FF derived energy used in making the RE equipment)
Better still would be to use less energy in total AND to produce as much of that as possible from renewables.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Also note that you only need to leak a very few percent of that gas to the atmosphere without burning it, and its climate change impact is greater than coal.
The key, pivotal word there, as highlighted by 3rd rock, is 'rebrand'.
Life beyond the individual human level is largely and increasingly made up of spin. What these companies are talking about has absolutely nothing - zilch, nada, fúck all - to do with global warming.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
clv101 wrote:Also note that you only need to leak a very few percent of that gas to the atmosphere without burning it, and its climate change impact is greater than coal.
Indeed, methane is a potent greenhouse gas and small amounts lost by leakage are as harmful as much larger volumes burnt efficiently.
The liquefaction of natural gas to facilitate tanker transport involves a lot of complex plant that not only consumes energy but gives many opportunities for leaks.
The LNG tankers themselves also involve losses by leakage and boil off.
On the other hand, to the substantial carbon emissions from coal burning should also be added all the methane that escapes from coal mines.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
