Michael Giberson
From the Houston Chronicle‘s coverage of CERAWeek:
… later in the day, ConocoPhillips’ [CEO James] Mulva drew applause from the crowd when he blasted “hydrocarbon deniers” for questioning the potential of natural gas to meet future U.S. energy needs.
In an interview afterward, he said he wasn’t necessarily calling out the administration.
“It can be current and past administrations. It can be Congress. It can be states,” he said, anyone with “unintended, ill-informed opinions” about the industry.
Whatever the case, he said, the result is the same: an unrealistic call for the world to move quickly away from fossil fuels “when we know that oil and gas and coal, there’s not going to be an alternative to them for decades to come.”
Anyone with “unintended, ill-informed opinions” about the industry? Could be a pretty big group.
You’ve given me a great entry for my next “jargon watch” blog entry.
I ignore anyone who uses terms such as “denier” or “anti-science”.
I deny the allegations and I defy the alligator.
“unintended”? As in “Oops, I just kinda forgot about the wonderful things fossil fuels do to us” and that’s why I’m pushing for clean energy?
Sure are a lot of forgetful young people then… maybe it’s some sort of adolescent Alzheimer’s.
All you dreamers should stop thinking that you can get un-addicted to fossil fuels. We own the congress. Now we own the supreme court. You will never win.
Forget about renewables. We will never let that happen.
«Whatever the case, he said, the result is the same: an unrealistic call for the world to move quickly away from fossil fuels “when we know that oil and gas and coal, there’s not going to be an alternative to them for decades to come.”»
The scary thing about it is that this statement is actually true. There’s no viable alternative now, nor will there be for many years.
It would be nice if the careers in applied nuclear science floated up at the sexiness level of those in natural gas, at least. As it is the decisions on what’s Secret (lunch schedules, foodie interests) on a given day are still asymmetric. Wind farms and energy storage won’t be terribly likely as long as doing chat roulette at work is considered terrorism of the most prosecutable kind; the GUI plugins for ops rules VM access and chat roulette would seem distinct otherwise.
While we’re at it though, how about making a few more industries for greenhouse gases; with accountability for emissions deferred to mixed agencies’ reportage in Congress? Can we make silanes work like that? How about some kind of graphene stock that reflects IR, somewhat more practically?
Last April, Salazar said President Obama told him regarding the comment period “to make sure that we have an open and transparent government” and to make sure that DOI was “maximizing the opportunity for the public to give us guidance on what it is they want us to do” about expanding domestic energy exploration and development.
Well, the public provided no small amount of guidance. The Interior Department announced in September it had received more than 530,000 comments. It did not say, however, how many supported or opposed expanded drilling. It’s now four months after the close of this extended comment period, so where are the results? What happened to the open and transparent process?
Instead, on Jan. 6 Salazar announced plans, as the energy news service Greenwire put it, that “will require more detailed environmental reviews, more public input and less use of a provision to streamline leasing.” In other words, we were being promised more stalling, not more drilling.
Indyfromaz.wordpress.com
Pingback: Jargon Watch « Organizations and Markets