On the rare occasions when I get some time to myself - or during the times that I feel the need to take myself away from work before I go postal - you’ll likely find me bumbling around an art gallery. In London, I love the NPG and Tate Modern. Aberdeen art gallery is surprisingly good. Vancouver art gallery was surprisingly awful. When I lived in Houston they were all closed because, y’know, covid.
I find that this - along with playing music - is a consistently great way to hit the mental ‘reset’ button - but occasionally, much like playing a band, they also produce a moment of magic. One such moment occurred a few years during a convalescent trip to Adelaide (which has fabulous galleries), when I stumbled across this piece:
It stopped me in my tracks. At the time, it felt like looking in a mirror. I was stressed, I was unhappy, I was struggling to think clearly, I felt like my head was disintegrating…. I felt like this looked. Seeing it in three dimensions somehow helped me rationalise what I was feeling, and start thinking about putting the pieces back together.
I’m writing about it because working in this industry can be brutal. Everything is big - big hazards, big risks, big investments, big decisions - in the field, on the panel, in the boardroom. We encounter all kinds of people and, without putting too fine a point on it, they aren’t always people with whom you’d like to go camping in a tent. We’ve all had to handle more than our fair share of bullies and narcissists.
I’m writing about it because looking out for each other has never been more important, and that looking out for someone is as simple as checking in. I’m a big fan of www.ruok.org.au, principally because they publish a lot of really practical advice about how we can help each other. A conversation can change a life.
I’m also writing about it because significant pressure is applied through some of the nonsense that the mainstream media peddles. Climate narrative + no differentiation between coaloilandgas (checkout my last post on this) = perceived pressure on those of us who are working hard to make sure y’all don’t freeze in the dark. Perceived when we read it, real when we feel it from our friends & families, real when we stare down protestors, real when we sit quietly wondering if we’ve made good career choices.
Imbalance in this is area is one of the reasons why I picked up the pen, so to speak. Be glad this is a metaphor: if it were a real pen you’d have no hope, my handwriting is awful.
Let’s take this from the abstract, and look at an example. Here’s a slice of prime misleading nonsense at the mild end of the scale from the ABC: https://amp-abc-net-au.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/100777076
“Leaking methane from natural gas-burning stove tops is releasing the greenhouse-gas equivalent of hundreds of thousands of cars, and cooking on gas stovetops is posing a risk to health, according to new research.”
“According to today's results, gas leaks from stovetop cookers in 40 million homes in the US produced about 28,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases every year, or the equivalent of the emissions from around 500,000 petrol cars.”
“…the fact we're still burning fossil fuels in our homes "is nuts”.”
OK, first up, pipeline gas is odourised with mercaptans. As anyone who has ever handled a canister knows, this stuff stinks, even in the tiny tiny quantities used. Even the whiff of gas that comes out in the fraction of a second before the click of the ignitor is detectable. If you can smell this in your house and you’re doing nothing about it, you’ve got bigger problems.
Secondly, let’s do some simple maths that I expect most journalists could manage (noting that you’re reading words written by an engineer). 28,000 tonnes of GHG* per year divided by 40 million homes = 2 grams per day per house.
Two. Grams. Per. Day.
But it’s 500,000 petrol cars! Sounds dramatic, hey? Well, in the scheme of global emissions, that’s a pretty good definition of two thirds of not much. Not to mention that chasing 2 grams out of 40 million households seems like a disproportionate waste of effort when much more effective options are available.
Oh, and it’s inferring a result on 40 million homes from a sample of 53.
But why let science get in the way of a good story?
Perhaps it’s political science we’re following. I can’t see any point of even publishing this, other than to create fear and scare some exhausted, paranoid young parent into spending money they probably don’t have to change their cooktop for one that is more expensive to run. (For the record, I like induction cooktops. Easy to clean.)
It’s not as if it’s just the mainstream media either. I’ll get stuck into *that* IEA report another day.
However, however, however… I am determined that this place will not be a constant negative rant. I want to highlight the good and great also, so with that in mind I was delighted to read this recently:
It really nails the reality of the situation we’re in, and kudos to the Forbes editorial team for having the fortitude to publish it. Based on recent years, it’s either a serendipitous lapse in judgement, or an indication of a brave new direction. Either way, I applaud it.
Read it, share it… and to the handful of journalists that I know subscribe to my posts, please consider it as good source material for increasing the energy literacy of your readership.
The energy industry is a pressure cooker, and some of us even like it - no pressure, no diamond, and all that. But we can help each other deal with it, and do what we can to alleviate the unnecessary and misleading propaganda.
AB
* This number isn’t in the referenced paper; to make the rest of the rest of the numbers in the story work (i.e. the 500,000 car part) we need to assume that it refers to methane and not CO2e, plus use the 20 year GHG factor of 80, much higher than the standard 25 times. A favourite trick of the hyperbole inflators.
Hey Andrew - Good content. Actually, shared R U OK with my 17 yr old daughter. Thanks for including this cool resource in your reflection.