American Petroleum Institute Hosts Conference Call with Bloggers, Journalists
by Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, St. Louis, MO on 04.20.07
You probably wouldn't be surprised to learn that we, like many online media outlets, regularly receive invitations to participate in press events held by businesses, non-profit organizations and government agencies. You might be surprised (as were we, quite frankly) to read that we got one last week from the American Petroleum Institute. Yes, you read that right: API invited Treehugger, as well as EcoGeek, The Oil Drum, Green Options, and Maria Energia to participate in a conference call with the organization's CEO, Red Cavaney this past Wednesday. The topic of the call: energy and the environment. Also participating were bloggers and writers from NewsWatch (the Houston Chronicle), the Wall Street Journal Energy Roundup, Fortune/CNN Money, and ShopFloor.org (National Association of Manufacturers).
We accepted API's invitation. While we're always a bit suspicious about the motivations behind outreach from businesses and organizations that have historically shown hostility towards environmentalism, we also believe that open dialogue is the only way to address that hostility, and perhaps even change it. We held no illusions, though: we know the claims that have been made about API's involvement in efforts to challenge the scientific consensus on global climate change and human contributions to it. We went into the call with our radars on "high."
As one would expect from someone in such a position, Cavaney was personable and knowledgeable. Each of us asked at least one question, and he took the time to answer at length -- the transcript of the call is eighteen pages long. As one also might expect, he was ready for questions on peak oil, climate change, alternative fuels and the politics of energy and the environment. We all heard about the oil and natural gas industry's desire to "be at the table, and ... share our experience" in discussions about possible mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, and that the industry is "willing and open to listen to others." When asked directly about API's position on the scientific consensus that climate change is largely caused by human activity, Cavaney responded,
We’re not scientists that are experts in that area. We have concluded that there’s sufficient signals that it’s important we get on with trying to mitigate, you know, the outcomes that may flow from the path that we’re on, and so we’re focused on being a part of that. Individual companies or individuals themselves may elect to choose to put funds, participate in research and all, but from our standpoint, you know, we’re moving forward with trying to be on the solution part of that ledger. We think that there are valid and honest questions that are up there, but, you know, those will be left to others to try and resolve and work on in the times ahead.We certainly weren't expecting an open and warm embrace of the scientific consensus that points to the burning of hydrocarbons as a major contributor to global warming. As Cavaney's commitment to solutions was expressed with caveats regarding API member participation and a nod to "valid and honest questions" about the science of climate change, we'll likely continue to view their commitment to mitigating the effects of climate change with some suspicion.
We won't go so far as to say we think API's CEO was being disingenuous. Rather, he and his industry colleagues have been forced to address what may seem like an interminable dilemma: how do you promote the development and sale of products that have made the oil and gas industry incredibly wealthy and powerful, but which are also contributing to one of the greatest environmental challenges ever faced by humankind? We won't pretend that this dilemma will be easy for the petroleum industry to resolve -- there is a lot at stake, and not just oil company profit margins. The peak oil theorists are definitely right when they note that oil and gas provide the foundation of western economic power. At the same time, the threats posed by climate change loom large, and portend even greater economic and political upheaval than an aggressive shift away from fossil fuels. That shift may be all that can really mitigate the effects of the climate crisis: Cavaney is right that, even with the prospect of peak oil, there's still a lot of the stuff in the ground. There's certainly enough to do lasting damage should we choose to use it as indiscriminately as we have in the last century. We genuinely hope that API acts in the spirit of cooperation and commitment to solutions that its CEO expressed to us. ::EnergyTomorrow.org (in PDF)
" how do you promote the development and sale of products that have made the oil and gas industry incredibly wealthy and powerful, but which are also contributing to one of the greatest environmental challenges ever faced by humankind?"
All these companies are concerned about profit maximization for the next quarter. They should realize that if the oil lasts longer, greenhouse emissions will be reduced, and they'll still make just as much money in real dollars, with interest.
But they want to make the money all at once. This is partly because business executives in the US tend to be gym majors, not mathematicians.
The Russians have tons of minerals, and they insist that western oil companies pay for all the exploration and extraction costs. As a result, the oil sits in the ground until prices are high, and lasts longer. Our domestic and middle east reserves are draining fast, and Alaska won't last long, and the Russians are only beginning to exploit theirs, just as prices are beginning to ascend.
Translation: We (API) are running out of the stuff, at least in the non Russian world [and as BonyM (Oh those Russians) knew a long time ago, and a few API members have been reminded of recently, ya can't trust them Ruskies] .... so we better jump on the Global Warming bandwagon, whether it's caused by humans or not. Guarantees high prices, great PR and lots of gummerment handouts.
Yikes, mega oil and the eco brown shirts workin together! Gonna cost me bigtime.
There's reason to be cautious in dealing with the oil and gas lobby. For one thing, they've backed some notorious climate change "skeptics" to sue those who dispute their credentials. Note Tim Ball's suit against the Calgary Herald and Jim Johnson, an Alberta professor:
http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/572/9
This is made possible by Canada's medieval libel laws which Dan Burnett analyzes in this article:
http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=371&rssid=4
The BC version of thsi law is actually one of the worst. Despite having no actual false statements of fact to point to, BC financier Wayne Crookes has sued practically the entire Internet (google, yahoo, Wikipedia and more) to keep critics of his in the Green Party of Canada invisible. He's demanded tthat google refuse searches about him and his allies in that party, who took it over in 2004 over strong objections from former officers and leaders.
(an Ottawa Citizen story about the takeover)
http://www.egyptiangreens.com/docs/general/index.php?eh=newhit&subjectid=5135&subcategoryid=270&categoryid=37
(and the current lawsuit about the critics of it)
ttp://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3a8fb6c1-9186-4064-9d58-3d2b8ede376d
The demand to suppress searches seems like lunacy since the very facts that he objects to are spread by the lawsuit. But experts believe that if he can force these large players to give up identifying information of his critics, then it will be easier to identify other political critics of the world's most repressive regimes. Nothing prevents Kim Jong Il or Vladimir Putin from filing suit in BC and likewise demanding information on critics. This in itself is a major free press and political freedoms issue, especially if he can force punishment on US players.
There could be another layer to the motivations. Some people believe that the Green Parties in BC and federally in Canada have been funded in part by players who want "vote splitting" to keep the Liberals and New Democrats out of power, it may be notable that some of the funders of David Chernushenko's campaign for Green Party of Canada leadership have had their motives sharply questioned. One of them apparently has ties to the uranium mining industry. Chernushenko opposed the deal between Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May to reduce vote-splitting, and has opposed other deals originating with the grassroots of the party. It's hard to say whose side he plays for.
http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/001689.html
There's a lot going on. People should be cautious before taking oil and resource industry financial players at face value. They are involved in a lot of things and it's hard to say what their real motives might be.
They may simply want to identify the leaders of the climate change awareness movement, to target them in another round of lawsuits and threats of same.