Posts
Carbon carbon, Burn it up,
But our lives don't interrupt,
Don't alarm us with climate scare,
To be quite frank, we just don't care.
The numbers are in, and they do all the talking.
100 billion barrels of recoverable reserves.
That's the finding released by the CEO of Pioneer Resources, as reported by the vaunted Oil & Gas Journal.
It's not just quantity; it's also quality shale. "It's the perfect kind of shale," says geologist Gary Dawson. "It is jet black and brittle... It creates and contains vast quantities of oil and natural gas."
It's a field that's right here at home in the U.S.A. And there's currently just one company — trading at $8 a share — with a stranglehold on its production.
Identified in this report is the name of the company, in addition to the field's location, size, and potential. The free report puts a special emphasis on the $8 stock that we expect to yield stratospheric returns in the coming months.
The above was the ad from a pump-and-dump newsletter I've been receiving for years, while on the same day, the NYT's op-ed page published an article by Ted Nordhaus and M. Schellenberger decrying all the brouhaha about global warming, that ended with the phrase,
" While the urgency that motivates exaggerated claims is understandable, turning down the rhetoric and embracing solutions like nuclear energy will better serve efforts to slow global warming."
But none of the claims they listed in the article were exaggerated in the least , in fact, as Sam Carana and Robert Scribbler have been saying for at least 6 months, the MSM does exactly the opposite, it downplays the severity of the crisis, usually using the exact nonsense that nuclear energy, itself a nonsense phrase, a simple shorthand method to do exactly what the authors want to do to climate change, couch it in terms that hides the horrible repercussions of relying on it for an energy resource as evinced by both Chernobyl and Fukushima, it should rightfully be called, splitting atoms to cause a nuclear chain reaction in order to boil water, yet that may result, in fact pretty much will eventually result, in the release of radioactive byproducts to every place on earth. To accomplish this amazing feat of boiling water, in order to run a steam generator, matter that has been condensed in the heart of stars, by forcibly bonding atoms together under inconceivable gravitational pressure, thereby forging elements that otherwise would never exist, and destroying that matter to release its intrinsic energy. But nuclear energy sounds much more benign and safe. But it isn't. It's chillingly, intrinsically, irredeemably fraught with peril.
That is the real story here, not that the dangers of climate change are being overstated, but the fact that there is no way that humankind will take any measure, aside from the annihilation of large amounts of its population, to deter it.
This, in fact, is what will happen. Just as I documented the dawn of peak oil, and accurately predicted that its impacts, far from being mitigated, would merely be blamed on something else, and the Great crash of financial obligations built around cheap oil crashed in 2008, justifying my prediction that the only way to avoid peak oil was via an economic depression, so too, the only way to slow down, to any amount that is meaningful, the acceleration in global levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, will only come about via a mass annihilation, which, just as in the case of peak oil, will then be given a completely different reason for its occurring. Exactly the way that peak oil has been ignored, and the financial crisis has only to do with subprime, and various other financial con games.
The above two referenced articles spell out precisely why.
If CO2 is pouring into the atmosphere in ever greater and greater amounts, instead of reduced quantities, in the midst of a, well, really a depression, but, since that word's a no-no, let's say, stagflation, then, just what do you think would happen should all the hope hype about the economy have even a kernel of truth in it (it doesn't), but that the rate of CO2 exhaustion into the atmosphere would spike unprecedentedly, with those 100 BILLION barrels of recoverable reserves mentioned above, being burned at a faster pace than already planned. And since the EROI equation is so much less than it's ever been in the history of fossil fuel combustion, then the faster it is burned, the faster more of it needs to be burned to find the reserves to replace those that have been spewed into the atmosphere already, with those new-found reserves having even a smaller EROI, all the while replacing precious oxygen with poisonous CO2, and yet, and here's the kicker, as evinced by the unprecedented amounts of money, trillions and trillions of dollars, just sitting, uninvested in future production, on corporate balance sheets, leaving the vast swath of the population idle, waiting to die from lack of jobs, lack of water, (or a deluge of it) and, sooner than we may think, lack of food, as mass agriculture, more than any form of farming, requires predictability of the weather, which is disappearing, not because of "natural variation" in the climate, not because of exaggeration of climate change in the media, but because the rate at which CO2 is being poured into the atmosphere has become so drastically out of balance with any other world system that it has changed both the tropical rain forests and the Arctic from being what used to be referred to as 'carbon sinks', in that they absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, into "carbon pumps", in that they have been so altered in their respective ecology that they no longer function as they have for eons, the latter one, the Arctic, having been transformed so utterly that if it were a country, it would be the 4'th largest emitter of CO2 on the planet, behind only the US, China, and Western Europe, even as the authors of the op-ed cited above, fantasize that nuclear power will somehow be a "solution".
If CO2 is pouring into the atmosphere in ever greater and greater amounts, instead of reduced quantities, in the midst of a, well, really a depression, but, since that word's a no-no, let's say, stagflation, then, just what do you think would happen should all the hope hype about the economy have even a kernel of truth in it (it doesn't), but that the rate of CO2 exhaustion into the atmosphere would spike unprecedentedly, with those 100 BILLION barrels of recoverable reserves mentioned above, being burned at a faster pace than already planned. And since the EROI equation is so much less than it's ever been in the history of fossil fuel combustion, then the faster it is burned, the faster more of it needs to be burned to find the reserves to replace those that have been spewed into the atmosphere already, with those new-found reserves having even a smaller EROI, all the while replacing precious oxygen with poisonous CO2, and yet, and here's the kicker, as evinced by the unprecedented amounts of money, trillions and trillions of dollars, just sitting, uninvested in future production, on corporate balance sheets, leaving the vast swath of the population idle, waiting to die from lack of jobs, lack of water, (or a deluge of it) and, sooner than we may think, lack of food, as mass agriculture, more than any form of farming, requires predictability of the weather, which is disappearing, not because of "natural variation" in the climate, not because of exaggeration of climate change in the media, but because the rate at which CO2 is being poured into the atmosphere has become so drastically out of balance with any other world system that it has changed both the tropical rain forests and the Arctic from being what used to be referred to as 'carbon sinks', in that they absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, into "carbon pumps", in that they have been so altered in their respective ecology that they no longer function as they have for eons, the latter one, the Arctic, having been transformed so utterly that if it were a country, it would be the 4'th largest emitter of CO2 on the planet, behind only the US, China, and Western Europe, even as the authors of the op-ed cited above, fantasize that nuclear power will somehow be a "solution".
But don't be alarmed. Your lives won't change. Nothing will happen. You can still sit in your carbon-spewing SUV's while every day you wait in a long line that snakes around the block while waiting to pick up your children from day-care or elementary school; it's so touching to see how much you care for your children as you destroy their world.
No comments:
Post a Comment