Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy.
So why would the oil industry want to stack the negotiarions - following the money - what is it worth them them. Well in a recent article in the Economist magazine (about peak oil) there was this:
The IEA reckons that co-ordinated action to restrict the increase in global temperatures to 2ºC will restrict global demand for oil to 89m b/d in 2030, compared with 105m b/d if no action is taken.
So there is a difference of 16million b/d (that is Barrels Per Day) so given the cost of a barrel is currently around $70, so you can see that it represents $1120 million dollars per day in difference. So event mitigating the supply a bit - by obfuscating the science and promoting uncertainty is worth $millions per day.
That's why denial has been so well funded.
-
Schnews DIY Guide
3 comments:
Compared with how much being spent on prooving it ?
Sure that must have cost a bit, a denialist site speculated a stupid figure of $79 billion spent on climate research - stupid because most countries spend around 1% of their GDP on science (all of it) - so this figures seems vastly inflated. The US GDP in 2008 was 1.4 trillion, so 1% is 14 billion - which is years worth of the total budget for science? Come on, get real...
Anyway...even if you accept it - that's only 71 days worth of the oil money figure I quote.
Put simply the biggest inflated figure for the cost of proving it still is tiny next to the oil money at stake...
Post a Comment