Big Oil: 'Together, We Can' ignore global warming

American Petroleum Institute ad promotes climate catastrophe

Posted by Brad Johnson (Guest Contributor) at 11:47 PM on 26 Apr 2008

Originally posted at the Think Progress Wonk Room.

The American Petroleum Institute, the trade organization for the oil and natural gas industry, has just begun running a feel-good commercial that argues "America's future" lies in drilling out domestic reserves of oil and natural gas. Here's what the ad says:

Oil and natural gas powered the past. But the future? Fact is, a growing world will require more. 45 percent more by 2030, along with greatly expanding alternatives. We have substantial oil and natural gas resources right here. Enough to power 60 million cars and heat 160 million households for 60 years. With advanced technology and smart policies, together we can secure America's future. Log on to learn more. [Text: EnergyTomorrow.org / The People of America's Oil and Natural Gas Industry]

Watch it:

The "facts" in Big Oil's ad are based on a 36-page API document [PDF] entitled "The Truth About Oil and Gasoline." This "primer" was published last week, with numerous figures and charts on oil company profits and gas prices, but nary a single mention of climate change or greenhouse gas emissions. Here are the facts Big Oil left out:

Future with 45 percent more oil and gas demand involves 60 percent more global warming emissions. The projection of "45 percent more by 2030" gas and oil demand is drawn from the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2007 report. The API accurately describes the increase in global oil and gas demand in the IEA's business-as-usual scenario, although United States demand is only projected to increase by less than 5 percent. However, API fails to mention the business-as-usual scenario also predicts energy-related carbon emissions would "increase by almost 60 percent" by 2030.
Business as usual spells catastrophic future. The IEA business-as-usual scenario would put the planet on a pathway [PDF] to "temperature change at equilibrium of about 4.9 to 6.1 degrees C [8.9 to 11 degrees F] compared to pre-industrial levels." That's five to seven times as much warming as we've already experienced, and would make catastrophic global change -- including mass species extinction, crop devastation, and significant sea level rise -- unavoidable.
Big Oil ignores the 'secure' scenario. The IEA's report includes a "450 Stabilisation Case," in which greenhouse emissions are limited such that atmospheric concentrations stabilize at 450 parts per million [PDF] of CO2 equivalent -- what the IPCC calculated is needed to avoid catastrophic climate change. In this scenario, total global oil and gas demand only increases by 10 percent from current levels, not the 45 percent that API says the world will "require."

The ad's tagline, "Together, we can secure America's future," mimics the We campaign climate activism spot that concludes: "Together, we can solve the climate crisis." The path Big Oil envisions -- even as warning signs increase -- would instead destroy the future of America and the rest of the planet.

For story: Big Oil: 'Together, We Can' ignore global warming
5 Comments | Post a Comment

the masters of spin

from the George Bush Skewl of Gubment and Publik Survis @ Texas A&M:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/action/showPdf?submitPDF ...

"more informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. We also find that confidence in scientists has unexpected effects: respondents with high confidence in scientists feel less responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming."

"Research on educational attainment and income indicates that persons of higher socioeconomic status are less likely to perceive climate change as risky.(20) Similarly, persons knowledgeable of the causes, properties, and effects of climate change have lower levels of risk perception."

"Conservatives and Republicans show more concern for global warming and climate change than liberals and Democrats"

"With regard to demographic variables, research consistently shows that women and racial minorities are more fearful of the risks of climate change.(19,20) In the risk perception literature, this phenomenon is called the "white male effect."(21,22,23) Higher risk perception among racial minorities is said to be a function of greater environmental hardship and distress--that is, minorities are disproportionately exposed to ecological hazards."

by greenfire8 at 2:05 AM on 27 Apr 2008

Mostly a plea for drilling.

Because of past political tinkering in foreign countries, the international oil companies have been excluded from almost all of the world's promising areas. They have been trying to exploit supply fears to get domestic restrictions removed/reduced, as this represents one of their last opportunities for large profits.

IMHO I do believe we have been too restrictive. In my way of thinking the real damage is that the myth that their would be no shortage if only we were allowed to drill is perpetuated. Most of these believers take the attitude, "they won't allow more drilling, so why should I conserve". Of course outside of Alaska, most of these restrictions are local issues, usually the opposition derives from overblown fears of offshore oilspills. Some is justifiable concern about oil&gas drilling on/near private housing, which rarely comes with mineral rights.

I happen to believe that somewhat less restrictive domestic oil/gas drilling restrictions can be separated from BAU in fossil fuels in general.

by bigTom at 7:31 AM on 27 Apr 2008

Millions for years...

...60 million cars and 160 million homes for 60 years.

Problem with that is, we have nearly double that amount (more so with cars), so that figure twidles down to 30 years. Then add in the amount of power needed for commercial, government, and industry, and twidle it down to 'bout 20 years, or less.

Plus the fact that we can't access all of the gas immediately, and it generally takes years for a typical field to become active (go from concept to actual production), and there's a serious lag time.

So, it ain't like it'll help us be more independent.

by Tasermons Partner at 10:52 PM on 27 Apr 2008

What matters

What matters is what comes first. And we have an industry that's pretending global warming doesn't even exist, and is promoting a completely catastrophic future.

Doesn't say much in favor of their judgment.

The Wonk Room

by Brad Johnson at 5:05 AM on 28 Apr 2008
[ Parent ]

time for homework people...

The reason they didn't mention anything is because the entire global warming hoax is based on two big lies 1st-CO2 does not cause warming 2 there is no warming that can be attributed to CO2 increases. The opposite has been proven true since 1998 as CO2 levels increase while the average temperature decreases. Notice I said proven, a concept which escapes the greens who think , conjecture from the self proclaimed intellectually superior athiests is the same as scientific proof.

It is a fools folly to buy into the lie period. .0011% is mans contribution to the greenhouse effect..thats eleven one thousands of one percent..insignificant at best. 95% of the greenhouse gas effect is from water vapor. Another fact that the left fail to put forth. Meawhile, expanding government legislation to stop the creature under the bed, (which doesn't exist) will legislate you and I into the dark ages if not a global depression that would make the 1930's look like the internet boom.

Wake up people do your homework, DOMESTIC OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION and domestic exploration and expansion of energy production HERE is the answer to most of today's problem.

by globalhoax at 7:18 PM on 29 Apr 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.