MEDIA WATCH: Big Oil propaganda use TV adverts to con NZers

ByMartyn Bradbury

As NZ faces its worst heatwave after the hottest year, Big Oil in NZ are using TV adverts to pimp their propaganda claims that NZ must continue issuing exploration of the very energy source that is causing the fucking climate to dramatically warm in the first place.

It’s like being told you need another cigarette after being diagnosed with cancer.

The oil industry KNEW that petrol pollution was causing climate change back in the 1990s and their response was to fund climate denial groups to con people into believing the science wasn’t clear out, just like the tobacco companies did by pretending tobacco doesn’t cause lung cancer.

By ending future exploration, NZ is sending a clear message that the age of oil is over and that we must diversify into new energy development. The climate is screaming to us in agony from global warming and these pricks are trying to trick NZers into feeling sympathy for them!

Fuck big oil and fuck their propaganda!

Similar Posts

5 Comments

  1. I wonder how many of these front organisations funded by oil and coal companies to deny climare change have influenced New Zealanders and sucked them in with their corporate propaganda? Quite a few, judging by comments from individuaos on blogs and social media.

    It’s ironic that those who view corporations with considerable distrust and hostility are only too willing to be sucked in by their propaganda.

  2. Well said, again, Martyn.

    Of course big oil has been churning out propaganda to con NZers for decades (as have the manufacturers and sellers of vehicles, and a plethora of other ‘burn the future’ organisations.)

    If you follow the links you read that it was 1977, over four decades ago, that the first warnings emerged:

    “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,” Black told Exxon’s Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.

    It was July 1977 when Exxon’s leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.
    A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon’s Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.’

    So, here we are, not quite at the point of achieving 2oC above baseline just yet, but are on track to do so (and more) in the not-too-distant future.

    Nobody knows how fast or how high temperatures will rise, since there is no precedent for such rapid disruption of natural systems.

    The ice cover in the Arctic is arguably one of the best canaries in the coal mine to watch for the ’10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles’ suggested in the article. Sea ice cover is currently way below the 1981-2010 median.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  4. From The Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand (PEPANZ) website page on Climate Change.

    https://www.pepanz.com/oil-and-gas-new-zealand/responding-to-climate-change/

    At the same time, the demand for energy is growing as the world’s population increases, economies develop, and we become more urbanised.

    The world will continue to require access to affordable and reliable energy to power industry, heat homes, light cities and transport people and goods.

    While there is no doubt the world’s energy mix will change significantly over the coming decades, to meet the world’s energy demand we will need to use more of everything – including oil and gas.

    In fact, the International Energy Agency forecasts that oil and gas will still continue to make up over half of the word’s energy consumption in 2040.

    Natural gas will be an important transition fuel as the world tackles climate change. It generates the least CO2 of fossil fuels (with half the emissions of coal), but retains all the advantages.

    Natural gas is instantly available, offsetting the intermittency of supply by solar and wind power – the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. Gas is also relatively affordable.

    If natural gas is the answer, why do we convert a third of it into methanol and ship it overseas?
    https://www.chemicals-technology.com/projects/motunui-methanol-plant-taranaki-new-zealand/

    1. ‘If natural gas is the answer, why do we convert a third of it into methanol and ship it overseas?’

      I know your question was rhetorical but it’s ‘fun’ to answer: in the mad world we live in, converting methane to methanol and selling the methanol overseas helps provide funds needed for NZ to pay for its oil imports. It’s a bit like selling NZ wine overseas to pay for imported wine.

      Another aspect is GDP. The economic system promotes and rewards inefficiency and waste. So that’s what we get.

Comments are closed.