Companies at Copenhagen

E-mail to Congress:

In their December 14 Issue, Chemical and Engineering News says that chemical companies were in attendance at Copenhagen pitching their own concepts concerning climate control. They also mention a few other companies, which are not direct chemical companies.

A key question is why were they there?
Dow Chemical said, "A predictable climate policy would protect the environment and unleash investment in new technologies". I believe most business owners will agree that predictable policies are always favorable toward progress. However, in the case of climate change, a "predictable climate policy" could be "make every effort to control climate" or it could be "adapt to changes in climate". A company such as Dow has the responsibility to maintain its health and existence through operating profitably. It cannot take on the responsibility of social reform. That is either left to society, or in the present case, to the Obama Administration. When a Presidential Administration decides on a policy, it would be ridiculously self-destructive for a company not to comply. In the case of climate control, Dow Chemical must support the Obama Administration's position for political reasons, whether they believe it is a justifiable policy or not.

However, Dow also has a financial incentive in having the possibility of supplying chemicals relating to carbon dioxide sequestration. If carbon dioxide were not declared a dangerous pollutant, there would be no opportunity to sell anything to control it. The situation is similar with the support given to the Copenhagen conclave by BASF, although no statement is reported other they have signed the United Nations "Seal the Deal" campaign.

Coca-Cola had more to say, which was dangerous, because it allows me an opportunity to ask some very pertinent questions. Coca-Cola says they will use carbon dioxide as a refrigerant for their large cooling equipment. Does this make sense? Carbon dioxide has already been designated as a dangerous greenhouse gas. All refrigerant gases tend to leak from their systems, because they are under pressure and mechanical failures do occur. If we accept the carbon dioxide/greenhouse philosophy, do we want to allow an opportunity for greater concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through this potential leakage source? For smaller equipment, Coca-Cola says they would use hydrocarbons as the refrigerant gas. Let's be more specific. Do they plan to use methane? Methane has already been judged to be a greenhouse gas, even more potent than carbon dioxide. Why would we want to allow potential leakage to the atmosphere?

There were other business organizations present at the Copenhagen Conference. Some were suppliers of enzymes to improve efficiency of alcohol production from straw, making isoprene from renewables, rather than petroleum, etc. However, none of these had any bearing on climate change. They merely involve products and processes to substitute for petroleum.

The bottom line on this is that establishing any myth will gain subsequent supporters, who see an opportunity for profit in pursuing and expanding the myth. Because these profit pursuers support the myth, the support improves credence in the myth itself. I respectfully request that you, as a statesman, not fall for these deceptions and glibly contribute to the further destruction of our economy. Global warming from increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a hoax. Climate control in general is not within our scientific reach at present, nor is it likely to be for many millennia.