Exxon a supporter of Carbon Credits?
Oil Companies behind Carbon Credits?
I found this article at another site. I knew Carbon Credits couldn’t be a solution.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
“Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.”
I am familiar with Roger Revelle’s work and actually spent some time on the RV Revelle on a naval project.
Revelle is the person who discovered thermo clines which are used by the navy to mask the activities of various vessels.
Revelle is the person who discovered that the oceans won’t take up atmospheric CO2 at the rate that some assume. In 1957, Revelle was already warning that we were conducting an experiment with atmospheric CO2 and that the earth couldn’t take up what we were producing.
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/Revelle.htm
“Meanwhile Revelle was studying (as usual with collaborators under an ONR contract) the results of a May 1955 test of a nuclear "depth bomb" that the Navy and AEC had exploded a few thousand feet underwater. His team found that the radioactive residues had spread out in remarkably thin sheets, stretching a hundred square kilometers but only a meter thick. Many years later Revelle recalled his surprise that "the water from one layer doesn't exchange with the water from another layer." It was one more example of how the huge resources of government nuclear programs made novel observational methods and data available for many kinds of research. In a 1955 report using the depth bomb test data, Revelle's group concluded that "radioactive wastes introduced into the upper layer might remain there for many years, and would be diluted by a volume of water only a fiftieth to a hundredth the volume of the ocean."(17) The same would apply to almost anything else introduced into the upper layer — including CO2, a compound for which the Navy and AEC had no interest whatsoever.”
“The draft calculations by the three teams had all addressed mainly the steady-state rates of exchange between atmosphere and ocean. But the crucial question for global warming was a transient effect, the net flux of new CO2 into the water. And as Revelle knew from the carbonate chemistry problems he had been rethinking since the Bikini atoll studies of 1946, sea water is hypersensitive to change. To match an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the number of CO2 molecules in the water would rise only as one factor in a cascading readjustment of the proportions of many types of molecules. In technical terms, sea water is a "buffered" solution, resisting the change in acidity that an increase of carbonates would involve. When some CO2 molecules were absorbed, their presence would alter the balance through a chain of reactions, and in the end some CO2 molecules would be expelled back into the atmosphere. To reach the new equilibrium, Revelle now calculated, the water needed to absorb only about a tenth as much gas as a simple-minded calculation would suppose. While it was true that most of the CO2 molecules added to the atmosphere would wind up in the oceans within a few years, most of these molecules (or others already in the oceans) would promptly be evaporated out.”
“Revelle did not make much of his discovery in this 1957 paper, which described it only in passing and obscurely. His main reason for writing the paper was probably to show that the subject deserved attention. His conclusion pointed to the next step — "An opportunity exists during the International Geophysical Year to obtain much of the necessary information." A historian who looked into the matter judged that "this famous paper was basically a grant proposal." Revelle soon did pull in some of the funds allocated for the International Geophysical Year so that he could pursue CO2 measurements. (See the essay on Money for Keeling.)(30)
Another two years passed before Bert Bolin and Erik Eriksson explained the sea water buffering mechanism in clear terms and emphasized what it meant. Unlike Revelle, they figured industrial production would indeed climb exponentially, and they calculated that atmospheric CO2 would probably rise 25% by the end of the century. Now the small community of geophysicists began to grasp that they could not rely upon the oceans to absorb all the emissions of fossil fuels.(31)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Bolin
Exxon is calculating that there will be an additional 60% more energy consumed in the near future.
http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/lamp_vol89_no1.pdf
On page 19 there is a piece on injecting CO2 into depleted oil wells, mines and other deep storage. Note that the reason Exxon is interested is that they own many of these potential storage sites.
