On Saturday, I saw "The Inconvenient Truth" PLEASE see it. PLEASE lobby your mayor to sign the Kyoto Treaty.
On Sunday, while flipping through channels I happened to catch an episode of "Meet the Press". On this episode were:
The President of Shell Oil : John Hofmeister
ConocoPhillips chairman and CEO: James Mulva
Chevron's Chairman and CEO: David O'Reilly
They are going on tour with their message.
My first thought was:
They are trying to mitigate the power of "An Inconvenient Truth"
My second thought:
"They are trying to keep us from saving the frog"
For those of you who haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth", you must see it to get the frog reference (no telling). Go see it even if you know the science. (There are cartoons)
The President of Shell was speaking when I flipped to MSNBC. He was saying that we should not work toward energy independence. THat energy interdependence is GOOD FOR FOREIGN POLICY, because the whole world works together to the goal of oil extraction (I think...'yeah, for AMERICAN cars'). But considering how the Iraq war is going, it's a hard sale.
They also pushed for a relaxation of restrictions on domestic oil production - specifically in Alaska and along the coasts.
Then Tim Russert asks whether we will switch to alternative energies in 10- 20- 0r 30 years.
They said "no".
They said, maybe in 100 years.
And I thought:
100 years from never
Because we've been 15 years away from using fuel cell cars for how long? Emergent technology will stay emergent forever if these "people" have their way.
So these guys are going on tour with their anti-sustainability pro-status-quo message.
Briefly I wondered about their motivations. Why? Is money really that compelling? Why not innovate? Why not be visionary and lead the pack?
But I am through contemplating their withered souls.
Time to draw the line.
This is MY issue now.
We need a revolution in technology to come from an alternative source, not from the current oil companies.