™   

Climate Change verses Corporate change.

 

Mr M. King Hubbert said, in 1956, that oil extraction in America would peak after 15 years and then decline, never to revive. At the time oil extraction was relentless and oil companies said he was mad. In 1971 U.S oil production duly peaked, as he predicted, and has declined since.

 

The U.S started with 10% of the worlds oil for 4.3% of the worlds population. It now consumes over 25% of the worlds oil production and imports two thirds of this. You can draw your own conclusions as to America's motives for becoming involved in re-stabilising a countries leadership where there are significant oil reserves. If the prospect of 'new' oil had not played such a key role in deciding its involvement or not, then perhaps we would not have seen certain conflicts ever take place to begin with. The impact on the environment is usually the very last thing on the minds of those involved in military conflict, which has included burning oil fields.

 

There is nothing new under the sun as they say. From primitive through to medieval times history is littered with examples of the 'big boys' bullying others, you have, I want, I take it. The only difference in this 'civilised society' is that they wear suits today and wave important looking documents while they rob you. At least the English highwayman, Dick Turpin, had the decency to wear a mask.

 

The volatile energy commodities market, with production and demand together with market manipulation still plays a disproportionate role in renewable investments. The Institutional Investor for August 2009 reported ' the investment opportunities in climate change depend significantly on the price of energy. The surge in oil prices to more than $145 a barrel last year made alternative-energy sources economically viable and conservation measures compelling. Carbon's impact on corporate bottom lines dwindled when oil prices collapsed, though.'

 

China has over taken The United States of  America on Annual Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with a whopping 6.1 billion metric tons, 21% of the worlds 30 billion metric tons as shown on carbongoodguys.com interactive world emissions map. China's population has grown to an estimated 1.4 billion  individuals, who are now looking to equip themselves with the same standards of living that many in the west, have taken for granted for years. Energy production from coal fired power stations, using old technology  contributes hugely to their  environmental impact on the planet and global warming. Reports towards the end of August 2009, show China has imported 48 million tons of coal from around the globe in the first 6 months of 2009, although new reports suggest a significant reduction on these imports due to China reopening old coal mines of their own to satisfy demand. All big coal fired power plants are undeniably dirty and are responsible for 40% of the total Co2 emitted by human activity every year. One such plant in Spremberg, Germany, owned by the Swedish utility Vattenfall, captures and isolates nearly 95 percent of the CO2  in a 99.7 percent pure form. That CO2 is then compressed into a liquid and given to another company, Linde for potential sale to the makers of carbonated beverages such as Coca-Cola and to oil firms to flush more petroleum out of declining deposits. There is also the possibility of pumping the carbon dioxide deep underground in specific rock layers. This is surely a 'stop gap' approach for cleaning up an already out of data energy source, with huge environmental consequences on climate change for companies and their financiers who are unwilling to 'stump up' the extra cash to improve planned and existing power plants around the globe.

 

A sense of well being is portrayed to us with terms like 'corporate social responsability' . If you still have doubts as to where global corporations true intentions and values lie, then consider this example that attacks our very survival, the food chain. 'The little Earth book  by James Bruges'  published by Alastair Sawday ( now replaced by the 'Big Earth Book' who have kindly given Carbon Good Guys permission to reproduce) reported the following under 'The Terminator - force the poor to buy our seed' ;

 

'Terminator technology was a logical  business solution. Rather than paying lawyers to sue farmers for saving and sowing patented seed, the seed could be genetically designed to commit suicide. This reduced its yield, and did not exactly improve humanity's ability to cultivate, but Monsanto's friend in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) were happy to help. Lets just quote them.

Monsnato: "Terminator technology will open significant world-wide seed markets to the sale of transgenic technology, for crops in which seed currently is saved and used in subsequent plantings."

United States government spokesman Willard Phelps: "Terminator technology's primary function is to increase the value of proprietary seed owned by US seed companies and to open up new markets in second and third world countries."

Melvin J Oliver, US Department of Agriculture scientist, a government not a company man, explains: "Our mission is to protect US agriculture and to make us competitive in the face of foreign competition. Without this there is no way of protecting the patented seed technology".

After intense worldwide hostility, Monsanto agreed to delay marketing terminator seed for further studies on environmental, economic and social effects. They grudgingly admitted, "We need some level of public acceptance to do our business." However, terminator seed continue to be patented, including one that becomes sterile only after three generations - a farmer can be fooled into thinking he can replant the seed.

 

Other companies were also turning plant welfare on its head for commercial gain. AstraZeneca was developing seed that is sterile unless its own chemicals are applied. Novartis was even developing plants whose resistance to viruses and bacteria have been removed.

 

But that is not all; controlling humanity's food source is only a part of Monsanto's ambitions. To quote Bob Shapiro when Chief Executive, " It is truly easy to make a great deal of money dealing with primary needs: food, shelter, clothing". What you are seeing said Robert Farley of Monsanto in 1998 after describing its purchase of seed companies around the world, "is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain".

 

The government of Brazil, responding to the will of the people, banned the planting of GM Soya. Monsanto spent $600m in buying Brazilian seed companies and encouraging farmers to smuggle large quantities of GM seed across the border. Monsanto has not been charging royalties. The government was forced to cave in and Brazil is no longer a GM free country.

 

The very existence of mankind hangs in balance with Global warming now an issue requiring to be address now, while we still have a chance over the next 10 years or less to reverse climate change from carbon dioxide emissions. Respected figures of the science community such as James Lovelock have warned for decades of the impact we are having on the planet. Corporations can not be allowed to dictate the agenda or timescale of this planets existence any longer. It is time for earths inhabitants to demand and receive more action to halt climate change now.

 

 

 

                         ™