The word "fossil fuels" has the interesting connotation of being outmoded fuels, fuels of a past time. No wonder the industry tries to change the word. The geology professor and fracking adviser Alan R Carroll calls them "geofuels" and has written a book about fossil fuels under this title. This book is a rhetorical masterpiece in defending the indefensible, namely, continued dependence on fossil fuels, mainly by asking irrelevant questions and giving nice scientific answers. This book looks at fossil fuels from a geologic perspective which glosses over the mundane necessities of what to do today to maintain the living condition for one species. Interesting example how the science of geology makes itself palatable to the fossil fuel industries, which are the main employers of geologists.
I am disappointed but not surprised that the University of Utah, along with their refusal to divest, has invited Carroll and made his book available to everybody on campus. Carroll will give a talk named "What Everyone Should Know About Fossil Fuels (Before They Divest)" -- Thursday, March 3, 2016, 4-5 pm, Room 310, James Talmage Building at the SE corner of President's Circle of U of Utah. Here are some quotes from the book, with my comments: > If we are not going to run out of fossil fuels soon, our > best hope for avoiding their negative consequences is to > develop other energy sources that can outcompete them. This > will not be easy. (335) No word about taxing fossil fuels or outright phasing out and banning their mining. No word about the many toxic chemicals which have accumulated in fossil fuels along with the concentrated energy. He takes the capitalist system as given without alternatives, he does not even want to regulate it. In the last two chapters of the book, I have not seen any reference to our social structure, which according to many scientists is the main obstacle to the changes necessary to prevent climate catastrophe. > As bad as the effects of global warming may become over > the next century, famine and malnutrition are by nature more > immediate problems. (p. 346) This is not an either-or but they must go hand in hand. Combating famine and malnutrition do not preclude combating climate change but they are one and the same if you are doing it right. Of course, if you try to do it on the cheap and use fossil fuels to bring peoples out of poverty now, you are giving them a "poisoned chalice" (Asad Rehman) and you robbing the future of future generations everywhere on this planet. > Fossil fuel extraction technologies are evolving rapidly, and > several different approaches to mitigating their atmospheric impact > are also being explored. (p. 345) My guess is that he is talking about CSS and several ways of geo-engineering. We should teach our students why these "remedies" are not likely to work, instead of kindling their hope for miraculous technologies. After promoting miracle cures, the book in its very last paragraph dismisses one of the approaches which might in fact make a difference, and which will happen whether we want it or not: > In the end the only truly "green" energy strategy is to use less of > it. This will not be so easy to do, however, because energy use is closely > associated with wealth. Most of us in the developed world probably do > not want to return to the horse-and-buggy lifestyles experienced by > our ancestors only a few generations ago. Since we cannot escape the > negative consequences of our own energy consumption, we will be > forced instead to choose the consequences we deem least damaging. (p. 346) _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
