This is HUGE, now we just need Exxon and a couple others and we can drop this absolutely ridiculous battles with these junk scientists and climate deniers!!!!! They can all just crawl further into their holes never to be seen again.

Clive Mather, President of Shell Canada appears to also share this view. As a major oilsands player in Canada, he is calling on the government to take action - emissions caps for example.

Many like minded executives want regulations imposed on the industry - otherwise they may be unable to justify the expenditures to the shareholders who are focused on short term profit.

The kind of leadership we need in the oilpatch to begin to address climate change, not spending endless time and resources denying the problem exists.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061120.RSHELL20/TPStory/?query=clive+mather

Shell seeks aid for CO{-2} storage Oil sands giant wants emissions caps, subsidies to encourage new technology

SHAWN MCCARTHY

GLOBAL ENERGY REPORTER

OTTAWA — As it moves ahead with a $10-billion plan to expand oil sands production, Shell Canada Ltd. is looking for government support for an ambitious project that would see it capture carbon dioxide emissions from its Edmonton-area upgrader and inject them into underground storage.

The company’s chief executive officer, Clive Mather, said the carbon capture and storage project represents a key strategy that would allow Canada to dramatically expand oil sands production while reducing — or at least not increasing — its greenhouse gas emissions.

But so far, provincial and federal governments have provided no incentives, either limits on carbon dioxide emissions or subsidies for abatement, for industry to pursue a technology that is currently uneconomic.

And Mr. Mather said, without government leadership, Canada will miss a golden opportunity to become a world leader in carbon capture and storage. “If Canada can establish a major operational model, you may actually promote Canadian industry in this area which would give it a competitive advantage in what I and others believe will be a significant business in the years ahead,” Mr. Mather said in a telephone interview…

This changes nothing. I’ll get excited when I see them actually doing something. Complaining about not getting another subsidy when oil prices are at an all-time high; whining about lack of political leadership: these are neither action nor leadership. (Don’t people see the irony in complaining about lack of leadership?) The oil companies have so much clout in this world that they could force the government to show leadership, enforce Kyoto, anything…if they wanted it. Look at OPEC. Look at Iraq. There’s no conspiracy, it’s just that when Big Oil talks, governments listen. If Shell is so concerned about the climate, it would roar. Yet it has done nothing but whimper.

And I’m not calling Hofmeister or Mather a liar. They’re just like any of us: concerned…talking…and doing absolutely nothing. But they have significantly more power than us.

I love DeSmogblog, but I suggest you change your focus. Denialists are out. Pious do-nothings are in. You’re going to see more and more statements of “concern” while nothing is done to back them up. It’s just changing one kind of smog for another. Complacency is the new denial. DeSmogBlog’s new role is to expose coroprate laziness and hypocrisy. Hold them to their expressions of concern.

Remember, Saudi Arabia signed Kyoto. Because they knew they could earn points for it, while not selling a drop less oil. We can’t let Shell et al get away with the same game. Please don’t let up on them until they’re taking actions commensurate with both their power, and the scale of the problem.

Can anybody tell me more about underground carbon storage? It seems to be of vital significance to the future of our planet, yet it’s very little talked about. Where’s the science on this one? Is it days, or decades away? Is there controversy? (I just know there’s controversy!)

I am a bit concerned that some people are banking on this solution, when it’s as yet unproven. The entire rationalization (such as it is) for pumping out the tar sands seems to turn on the fact that much of the carbon can be stored there… If it turns out not to work, then we’ll have borrowed on fake assets.

Anyway, I’d appreciate anyone letting me know.

While an overwhelming number percentage wise, no evidence of the actual numbers of scientists is offered, nor the survey from which this statistic is derived, source etc. And the generic term scientist is misleading - does this include every scientist on the planet? or merely a handful of atmosphere physicists and “climate scientists”? 98% has to be considered as an unsupported extravagant claim.

The myth of the debate being over originates from ………………… http://www.ippr.org/members/download.asp?f=/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf…………………….. Hit “download without registration” for a demagoguery manual……… Quoting:……………………………………….. “Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won.” …………………………………………………………………………… I advise also to take note of a different opinion:…………………………………………………….. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52381………………………………………………………. Quoting:……………………………………………………….. “The declaration that the debate on global warming is over by activists, politicians and liberal scientists is indicative more of their contempt of the public than it is a result of vigorous scientific examination. Global warming proponents rely upon the publics’ lack of scientific training and experience to force their agendas into the political arena and then establish their acceptance. When confronted with the reality that there are scientists still in the scientific community who 1) are not convinced that global warming is occurring for a variety of valid reasons and 2) are not convinced that humans have anything to do with global warming if it is occurring, the agenda-driven dismiss these dissenters by asserting that they are so few in number their objections are meaningless.”

The big point here is that there is no oil lobby. Big Oil is as divided as everybody else. Shell and BP are Green, Exxon is skeptical, and the rest are undecided. David http://www.climatechangedebate.org

Shell and BP have worked out that if carbon taxes are introduced then it’s actually financially beneficial for their shareholders. They’re no different to GE, the world’s largest supplier of nuclear power plants, agreeing that Climate Change is real…because they have the answer. The AGW debate is the greatest hoax of the 21st Century. It had its foundation in Europe’s desire to hobble the US economy (which is why the US would have to pay 66% of the total penalties if they signed up) due to Europe’s nanny state economies being unable to compete. The fact that the US didn’t sign has further harmed Europe’s competitive positioning, which has forced up energy prices and has seen their manufacturers increase their drive to set up in China and India. If you don’t believe that Kyoto is driven by European needs then there are two questions you need to answer. 1) Why is 1990 picked as the base year (the worst year on record for pollution in Europe, why not choose the average)? 2) Why is full carbon lifecycle accounting not included in the Protocol? i.e. the user pays the carbon tax? Note that Europe is a net importer of these products.