CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, in an on-the-record speech to the Council of Foreign Relations that is publicly available online, has now said that it is clear that burning fossil fuels warms the planet.
His actual words are:
“So I’m not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have an impact. It’ll have a warming impact. The — how large it is is what is very hard for anyone to predict. And depending on how large it is, then projects how dire the consequences are.”
I discovered this video in an article by Bill Blackmore on the US ABC News about how American news directors just aren’t covering the latest stories on climate change – possibly because of political and corporate agendas but also possibly because it’s TOO BIG TO HANDLE. It’s worth a read but I think it’s letting news directors off the hook. The real reasons they aren’t talking about the new data is due to corporate agendas. Yes, the story is huge. Of course it is. But that’s only MORE reason to give it the coverage it deserves.
Where’s Will McAvoy when you need him?
My guest IN THE STUDIO today is John Cook, astrophyscist, web developer, and founder of Skeptical Science, an absolutely brilliant resource for anyone needing to refute the common climate change denialist.
We talk about what motivates climat change denialists (and the difference between being a SKEPTIC and a DENIALIST) and some of the refutations of their most common arguments.
Follow John on Twitter at @skepticscience.
While waiting in the Apple Store Chermside today (waiting, that is, for them to replace the hard drive on my 5 month old 17″ Macbook Pro for the second time in a week), I started reading the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 report. The report was recently released by Beyond Zero Emissions, a non-profit group based in Melbourne. Their report details how Australia can become a zero carbon-emitting country by 2020. In their introduction, they remind us that Australia has the highest carbon emission per capita ranking in the entire world.
I had forgotten that fact, so I tweeted:
Let’s remember during this election that Australia has the highest emissions per capita IN THE WORLD. We are a disgrace.
A few hours later I saw this tweet in response:
I wish to express my utter disdain for what @Vzzzbx just retweeted from some twat called @cameronreilly (see next tweet)
I don’t know who this Ches Trulson guy is, but it always amuses me when someone just slags me off and doesn’t try to debate the facts. It’s usually the sign of a limited intelligence. But I popped over to read more of his Twitter feed, just in case he was someone to take seriously.
Here’s a sample of his Twitter feed, following on from the ‘disdain’ post:
We live in a first world country, this means our emissions are worse than much of the world. Bad? Sure.
France is also a first world country, but their emissions are one-third of Australia’s. And France’s emissions per capita have reduced by 40% since 1979, while Australia’s have grown by 40%.
It’s also really fucking big, and our population is spread across a large area. Again, bad. We also have a varied and harsh climate. Bad.
Russia is a pretty big country as well and their climate is pretty harsh. Their emissions have dropped by 30% since 1992, while Australia’s have grown.
Except of course, that none of that is practical to change, or any of our fault. Yet I should feel ashamed? Get fucked.
This is what amuses me the most. “None of that is practical to change or any of our fault.” That kind of lazy, defeatist attitude is precisely WHY we are the worst emitters in the world. Huge brains like Ches just throwing up his hands and saying “not my fault”. Of course it’s not your fault, Ches. Meanwhile, the ZCA2020 report says it *is* practical to change – in fact, we could be a zero carbon emission country within ten years – if we can get people like Ches to pull their heads out of their asses.
I’m all for living sustainably, but Aus is not a significant problem IMO, and making us feel bad about it is helpful in no way whatsoever.
Aw, diddums. Did Bad Cameron make you cwy? Grow up, dude. It’s precisely because we are a first world country that we are a significant problem. The rest of the world (read: the developing countries who are still trying to pull themselves out of poverty) are looking towards the first world countries as guidance. If we don’t seem to be taking this stuff seriously, then why should they? Australia should (IMHO) be leading the world on this issue. We have the wealth. We have the political stability. We have the intelligence (well…. some of us). Perhaps most importantly, we have huge sources of renewable energy. Let’s lead the world for once in something other than sport and racist actors.
Hard to argue convincingly over twitter, but whatever, rage subsiding.
Well here’s you chance, Ches. Argue convincingly here. If you can.
Oh, and this from a guy who does marketing for cigars and pergolas? Hilarious.
Yeah I see what those things have to do with each other. No, wait…. I don’t. Please enlighten me. Of course, this is all coming from a self-confessed “car nerd”. I guess when you’re a “car nerd”, the whole idea of reducing carbon emissions is likely to induce cognitive dissonance.
On other Twitter fronts….
My mate Ben Wilks took umbrage to my retweet about how stupid Gillard’s “small Australia” policy is.
@cameronreilly umm, ok. Population has doubled in the last 15 years. Property prices and traffic ARE QUALITY OF LIFE. Seriously, WT?
Actually, Ben – no. Property prices and traffic are NOT quality of life. At all.
This whole “small Australia” policy is seriously dysfunctional. Here’s why:
According to the IMF, Australia ranks #10 in GDP per capita.
On top of that, we have one of the lowest population densities in the world.
If we can’t have quality of life while we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world with one of the lowest population densities – then we are seriously messed up.
This all reminds me of a story Clive Hamilton (he of the internet filter) wrote about in one of his earlier books, Affluenza.
I don’t have the book in front of me, so I’ll paraphrase it. He wrote that the average net household income in Australia has increased by something like 300% since 1950. And yet when you survey the Australian population and ask them “do you have enough to get by”, something like 75% of people say “no”.
We’re messed up, dysfunctional.
When you have an individual who has everything going for them and yet they feel oppressed, it’s often a sign of a psychosis or mental illness.
When you have an entire population who has everything going for them and yet they feel like they don’t have enough to get by, what does that say about the general psyche of the country?
(pic via suburbanbloke’s flickr)