Print 101 comment(s) - last by PittmanKen18.. on Jul 7 at 12:03 AM

Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil CEO
He also addressed fears associated with drilling techniques and oil dependency

ExxonMobil's CEO defended oil and gas drilling by saying that climate change is something humans can adapt to.

Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil CEO, said issues like climate change, energy dependence and oil/gas drilling are blown out of proportion. He blames a lazy press, illiterate public and fear-mongering advocacy groups for the bad light placed on the oil industry.

Climate change is a controversial topic that has been subjected to much debate. Tillerson said that fossil fuels may cause global warming, but argued that humans can easily adapt to the warmer climate. More specifically, he said that humans can adapt to rising sea levels and climate changes because he doubts the validity of climate modeling, which predicts the magnitude of impact associated with climate change.

"We have spent our entire existence adapting," said Tillerson. "We'll adapt. It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution."

Others, however, disagree with Tillerson's assessment. Andrew Weaver, chairman of climate modeling and analysis at Canada's University of Victoria, said that adapting to climate change would be much harder than just preventing it in the first place.

In addition, adapting to climate change could be much more expensive than preventing it. According to Steve Coll, author of "Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power," adapting to climate change would require moving entire cities. A better alternative would be legislation that slows the process of global warming.

An example of such a measure is the proposed fuel standards for 2017-2025, which will require automakers to create vehicles capable of 54.5 MPG by 2025. The effort aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the country's dependency on foreign oil. These standards will cost the auto industry $157.3 billion and add an extra $2,000 to the sticker price of new autos, but it will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will finalize the fuel efficiency standards by the end of July 2012. Such measures could hit ExxonMobil's wallet with less gas used.

Tillerson also addressed the topic of consequences related to oil/gas drilling techniques, saying that drilling will always present possible risks like spills and accidents. But he mentioned that such risks are manageable and worth the end result, which is the energy provided.

Tillerson also said that drilling in shale formations doesn't pose life-threatening risks to those living nearby. However, drilling mixes millions of gallons of water with sand and chemicals that creates drilling wastewater. If this water is not treated, it can contaminate drinking water through cracked drilling pipes.

Tillerson also mentioned his problem with views on oil dependency. He said that there will always be access to oil, and that it doesn't matter where the U.S. gets oil because it is priced globally. Tillerson added that the U.S. only receiving oil from North America would still increase gas prices in the U.S. because it would cause a "disruption" in the Middle East.

Source: The Hook

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Talk about BS
By EricMartello on 6/30/2012 8:55:34 PM , Rating: 1
Takes an idiot to know an idiot, I guess.

Your razor sharp wit keeps everyone guessing.

On the other hand, reasonable people believe in syllogisms. When the laws of physics say that X causes Y, and X is a verified observable, then Y must be the expected outcome.

Now this is a physics problem? When did we shift into that realm of discussion. Meteorology =/= physics and observation does not tell the full story. You don't seem to get the fundamentals of science - that is to devise an experiment to test a hypothesis and either prove or disprove the hypothesis.

Performing experiments with the sole intention of supporting a hypothesis is what the "climate change" retards do. They choose a result they want then devise a series of "tests" or "experiments" that produce the desired result.

That's where science comes in, and where you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

It has already been established that you're the one in the dark here, as such none of your responses have been able to directly counter anything I said. You believe that shifting the topic to something less relevant (despite you being equally inept on the other topic) is going to bolster your flawed views.

You know, lowly little blue-green algae back in the day managed to transform the planet's entire atmosphere from anoxic and noxious into what it is today. Men (at least modern, industrialized men aided by modern technology -- a few billion of them and counting) are far more industrious and prolific over far shorter periods of time. We're terraforming our own planet all around us, and it is definitely within our collective power, as a globe-spanning technological civilization, to do so.

The origins of life on earth are still theoretical. Don't talk about it like it's a certainty. It doesn't matter what our atmosphere is now - we, as lifeforms, adapted to live in this type of atmosphere...but we could just as easily have evolved to live in a bath of scalding hot sulfuric to say that they organisms changed the earth for their own benefit is inaccurate - they adapted to exist on the earth as it was at that time, and continued to evolve as the earth changed.

For all that man has accomplished technologically, we're hardly making a mark on this planet. A few hundred to a few thousand years after man goes extinct, there would be very little if anything to show that we were ever here. The earth is going to go along its own way regardless of what we are greatly overestimating humans' collective influence on this planet as a whole.

Every year we excavate and spew into the atmosphere (and into the carbon cycle) more additional fossil carbon than 100 years worth of natural volcanic activity (yes, that's correct: look it up.) And that amount keeps on growing with each passing year, as the world's economies keep on growing. That's like an extra mega-volcano erupting every year, with clockwork regularity, for a couple of centuries in a row (projected). Nah, that couldn't possibly make any difference -- what, are you insane? Past mass extinctions on our planet have been caused by far less drastic upheavals.

How many mass extinctions have happened in recent time as a direct result of our gradual consumption of fossil fuels? Hint: none. Grats, you just made yourself look dumb again.

You're moronic analogy equating our emissions to that of a volcano are laughable. The effects of volcanos is evident in the land you are standing on. NOTHING we've done comes even close to making an entire continent.

You end by stating that it couldn't possibly make any difference, but let's note that you did not specify any difference that our industrialized civilization has made. You're simply trying to break it down into bite-size buzz phrases that other idiots like yourself can agree on without doing any real independent research. FYI reading biased materials provided by or funded by the organizations spreading this nonsense does not qualify as qualifies as indoctrinating yourself with additional stupidity.

What is making you so miserable about scientific facts and reality in general, pray tell?

You have yet to produce even one fact, nevermind a scientific fact.

And aren't you the bright bulb in the pantheon of science? Who the hell do you think you are to even have opinions on this matter? Do you feel qualified to bloviate or pass judgement on any other field of science where you personally have 0 expertise?

Here we go again, you are making assumptions about me when you don't even know a thing about me, other than I am smarter, richer and probably better looking than you. I can pass judgement on people who like yourself who are a bane to the human civilization, because you've consistently proven to have "strong opinions" with an inability to substantiate any one of your views. In other words you're wrong and in denial.

That line of BS has a strong ExxonMobil stench to it. It also has no relationship to any scientific fact or theory, or any manner of truth.

Really? So I guess there wasn't a recent scandal involving several McScientists who were deliberately falsifying "data" to support their worthless careers...or theories. By simply denying it you've essentially validated it as being true. For you to continue knowing that you're perpetuating a lie not only makes you an idiot, it makes you a scumbag.

So does your backyard, on a daily basis. Which of course means that your air-conditioning equipment is all a bunch of claptrap, because natural variation excludes ipso facto any possibility of artificial forcing. QED?

Your back yard would qualify as a "highly localized area". I am talking about the earth as a whole. Pwned by lack of reading comprehension...again.

Even more to the point, what do you actually know about heat transport through the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect, the balance of incoming solar and outgoing thermal energy on Earth's surface? Have you ever heard of the (hilariously, funded and championed by "skeptics") Berkeley Earth study? Do you know what the Sun's energy output has been like for the past 30+ years? Do you know what's been happening to Earth's glaciers and top-layer ocean heat content in the meantime? Do you think energy conservation no longer applies? Do you know anything about the science involved with these issues?

Attempting to shift the topic again because you're tired of looking like a horse's a55? We're talking about the global climate...i.e. average temperatures planet-wide. The underlying processes are irrelevant to this topic.

Do you think the earth had glaciers or liquid water when it formed? Do you think that trees and meadows full of frolicking unicorns were standard features? Apparently you do, because you're dumb...and dumb people believe sh1t like that.

Are you enjoying flouting your ignorance and brainwashed, programmed talking-point responses in public?

I'm not the one jumping back to google and wikipedia every time I post a reply to this thread...that would be you. It's obvious, because you don't know what you're talking about and the responses suggest you're trying to sound authoritative, but you are unable to directly contradict anything I've said.

Do you enjoy your open contempt for science and objective thought?

Are you an enthusiastic and knowing sock puppet for the likes of ExxonMobil, or are you just another hapless rube?

Why do you think asking rhetorical questions would be in your favor. You should be providing some kind of substance to support your position, not asking more inane questions that only make you look more foolish than you would have if you didn't reply in the first place. lol

RE: Talk about BS
By knutjb on 7/3/2012 2:31:10 AM , Rating: 2
The truth hurts. They will slam a successful company but fail to mention the real money made in oil is held by Venezuela, Iran, SA, Russia, Kuwait, UAE, to name a few...all governments.

Then they slam religion because it cannot be proven to their satisfaction. Yet they spew evolutionary theory as though fact but cannot reproduce said theory in the lab.

I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy in their argument and am not pushing religion. They push Global cooling, no global warming, no climate change! How vague can an argument get?

RE: Talk about BS
By c_woof on 7/6/2012 6:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
What a moron.

As the guy said, Exxon would be proud. So how long have you been on the payroll?
I guess then that you disagree with the CEO -- isn't that jeopardizing your paycheck?
So many words, so much blather, so little science.

"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki