Climate Change, brought to you by Statoil

Post by **clv101** » 05 Feb 2013, 13:36

Here's a short blog about how New Scientist could be seen as part of the problem:
http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2012/11/new-sc ... y-statoil/

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 05 Feb 2013, 13:56

Monbiot talked about that very problem some time ago. Yet we continue to fund these people.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 05 Feb 2013, 17:13

New Scientist are part of the problem not the solution if they continue to support activities like this, providing their readership to Statoil’s HR department.

I see what you are saying, but there's another way one might look at it.

The cunning folk at Reed Business Information, who own New Scientist, and who to the last man and woman are passionate environmentalists, have come up with a cunning plan to take money off Statoil to fund their scientific publication. In similar manner they've also conned Honda, BASF and Brennan, the other firms that have full page ads in this week's copy.

Of course the clever readers of NS would never be influenced by such commercialism, let alone enter the competition run jointly by NS and Statoil to win a trip to Svalbard and a helicopter ride to the Troll platform. (Fancy Statoil calling one of their Arctic platforms Troll.)

To win you have to write in no more than 100 words which energy technology you think will have the biggest impact on our lives in the near future and why. That doesn't just mean energy generating technologies but any device or process that could save energy or perhaps trigger a new world-changing industry or behaviour.

You've got till just midnight tonight to enter the competition.

My own entry would be just three words long. Tradable Energy Quotas.
But I'm not entering as I really, really wouldn't want to win that 'fabulous' prize.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 05 Feb 2013, 17:33

The issue here is that as I read this article, on the New Scientist website, it’s surrounded by no fewer than three large adverts from Statoil.

I've just looked at that link on the NS website, and, curiously, click on as I may, I don't get any adverts for anything other than NS itself. They must know something about me.

Post by **clv101** » 05 Feb 2013, 17:39

biffvernon wrote:
The issue here is that as I read this article, on the New Scientist website, it’s surrounded by no fewer than three large adverts from Statoil.
I've just looked at that link on the NS website, and, curiously, click on as I may, I don't get any adverts for anything other than NS itself. They must know something about me.

This was back in Nov - I guess the Statoil budget ran out!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 05 Feb 2013, 18:36

Ha! Still, NS often carries adverts from big oil, pharma and motor in daft juxtaposition with articles.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 05 Feb 2013, 23:43

I think the tech thatt'll have the biggest impact on our lives in the near future will be nuclear. Erm, note the word "impact"

Post by **clv101** » 05 Feb 2013, 23:59

biffvernon wrote:
To win you have to write in no more than 100 words which energy technology you think will have the biggest impact on our lives in the near future and why.

Surely it has to be conventional petroleum extraction technology's failure to grow then roll over into decline that'll have the biggest impact on our lives... 'cos oil's rather important.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Feb 2013, 08:30

I see the above post is date stamped Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:59 pm, the exact expiry of the competition, so that's the winner.