How Exxon Tried to Undermine Climate Change Science (npr.org) 70
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Guardian:
ExxonMobil executives privately sought to undermine climate science even after the oil and gas giant publicly acknowledged the link between fossil fuel emissions and climate change, according to previously unreported documents revealed by the Wall Street Journal.
The new revelations are based on previously unreported documents subpoenaed by New York's attorney general as part of an investigation into the company announced in 2015. They add to a slew of documents that record a decades-long misinformation campaign waged by Exxon, which are cited in a growing number of state and municipal lawsuits against big oil... In 2008, Exxon pledged to stop funding climate-denier groups. But that very same year, company leadership said it would support the company in directing a scientist to help the nation's top oil and gas lobbying group write a paper about the "uncertainty" of measuring greenhouse gas emissions...
The documents could bolster legal efforts to hold oil companies accountable for their alleged attempts to sow doubt about climate science. More than two dozen U.S. cities and states are suing big oil, claiming the industry knew for decades about the dangers of burning coal, oil and gas but hid that information.
More context from NPR: Earlier investigations found Exxon worked for decades to sow confusion about climate change, even though its own scientists had begun warning executives as early as 1977 that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels were warming the planet, posing dire risks to human beings. By the late 1980s, concern was growing domestically and overseas that fossil fuel use was heating the planet, increasing the risks of extreme weather. In response, the Journal reported, Exxon executive Frank Sprow sent a memo to colleagues warning that if there were a global consensus on addressing climate change, "substantial negative impacts on Exxon could occur." According to the Journal, Sprow wrote: "Any additional R&D efforts within Corporate Research on Greenhouse should have two primary purposes: 1. Protect the value of our resources (oil, gas, coal). 2. Preserve Exxon's business options."
Sprow told the Journal that the approach in his memo was adopted as policy, in "what would become a central pillar of Exxon's strategy," the paper said. A few years after the memo, Exxon became the architect of a highly effective strategy of climate change denial that succeeded for decades in politicizing climate policy and delaying meaningful action to cut heat-trapping pollution...
Last year, Exxon said it plans to spend about $17 billion on "lower emission initiatives" through 2027. That represents, at most, 17% of the total capital investments the company plans to make during that period. Exxon recently said it is buying a company called Denbury that specializes in capturing carbon dioxide emissions and injecting them into oil wells to boost production. It's also planning to build a hydrogen plant and a facility to capture and store carbon emissions in Texas.
The new revelations are based on previously unreported documents subpoenaed by New York's attorney general as part of an investigation into the company announced in 2015. They add to a slew of documents that record a decades-long misinformation campaign waged by Exxon, which are cited in a growing number of state and municipal lawsuits against big oil... In 2008, Exxon pledged to stop funding climate-denier groups. But that very same year, company leadership said it would support the company in directing a scientist to help the nation's top oil and gas lobbying group write a paper about the "uncertainty" of measuring greenhouse gas emissions...
The documents could bolster legal efforts to hold oil companies accountable for their alleged attempts to sow doubt about climate science. More than two dozen U.S. cities and states are suing big oil, claiming the industry knew for decades about the dangers of burning coal, oil and gas but hid that information.
More context from NPR: Earlier investigations found Exxon worked for decades to sow confusion about climate change, even though its own scientists had begun warning executives as early as 1977 that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels were warming the planet, posing dire risks to human beings. By the late 1980s, concern was growing domestically and overseas that fossil fuel use was heating the planet, increasing the risks of extreme weather. In response, the Journal reported, Exxon executive Frank Sprow sent a memo to colleagues warning that if there were a global consensus on addressing climate change, "substantial negative impacts on Exxon could occur." According to the Journal, Sprow wrote: "Any additional R&D efforts within Corporate Research on Greenhouse should have two primary purposes: 1. Protect the value of our resources (oil, gas, coal). 2. Preserve Exxon's business options."
Sprow told the Journal that the approach in his memo was adopted as policy, in "what would become a central pillar of Exxon's strategy," the paper said. A few years after the memo, Exxon became the architect of a highly effective strategy of climate change denial that succeeded for decades in politicizing climate policy and delaying meaningful action to cut heat-trapping pollution...
Last year, Exxon said it plans to spend about $17 billion on "lower emission initiatives" through 2027. That represents, at most, 17% of the total capital investments the company plans to make during that period. Exxon recently said it is buying a company called Denbury that specializes in capturing carbon dioxide emissions and injecting them into oil wells to boost production. It's also planning to build a hydrogen plant and a facility to capture and store carbon emissions in Texas.
Re:scapegoating (Score:4, Interesting)
You know there's a lot of middle ground between /r/anticar and Robert Moses [wikipedia.org], right? I'm disinclined to deeply engage on this subject but suffice it to say am extremely skeptical and weary of knee jerk hostility to the automobile and non-MDU housing. I'm typing this message from my backyard, watching the squirrels tease my cat, and I'm sorry, but that's just a better lifestyle for a lot of people than having fucking wall neighbors and only seeing trees and grass in parks. I'll join you on that carbon tax hill though.
It ain't scapegoating to call out the fossil fuel industry for climate denial either. Eventually, one way or the other, that industry is going to become irrelevant. Exxon and friends have a choice, they can become the next Sears, or they can diversity into green energy and other sectors. Sears should have been what Amazon is today, they had all of the infrastructure and wherewithal to pull it off, and look where they are now. Sears at least could plead ignorance. Exxon and friends are ignoring what their own people are telling them.
Re:scapegoating (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm typing this message from my backyard, watching the squirrels tease my cat, and I'm sorry, but that's just a better lifestyle for a lot of people than having fucking wall neighbors and only seeing trees and grass in parks.
No one said it wasn't a better lifestyle. What people are saying is that it is not a sustainable lifestyle if everyone wants it and thinks he/she deserves it. To put it another way, you can see it as that YOU can enjoy it because ~40 people in poorer countries can't.
This is exactly like planes and flying around. Flying around is fun, fast and not that expensive nowadays. Getting to spend a week-end in Barcelona, another one in Prague, a few days in Oslo, is a nice lifestyle. But if everyone on earth has the same right to fly around, then everyone would only be allowed ~4-5 flights a lifetime. If you take more than that, you just implicitly assume than some people have less rights than you to use planes (Somalians, poor people in general, pick whatever makes you feel good).
Or you can just feel good by saying "but technology will come along, and we will find new magic ways to create energy later, so let's enjoy what we have now as much as we can". All while ignoring the orders of magnitude needed (efuels, minerals needed for batteries, hydrogen, carbon capture... all those silver bullets that once you try to do the maths, you realize are so far off to make a difference).
As a backyard owner myself, I do enjoy that lifestyle too. I just don't lie to myself about what it means and implies.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
If you take more than that, you just implicitly assume than some people have less rights than you to use XXX
Replace XXX with whatever (planes, houses, smart phones). The hobos in my city can't afford anything other then tents as homes. I'm not waiting for them to catch up before I buy my house.
Nobody is denying Somalis from flying except themselves. Kill the tribal warlords, vote in a modern democracy and build a viable economy.
Re: scapegoating (Score:2)
Right, where the *viable* economy has the world moving faster toward global burning and crop failures within decades time. The actual problem is that what we have been selling to the world as progress really isnt. The guy selling bananas off his bike in Africa is part of a life that has a future, we are not. It is a tough pill to swallow but we have to change.
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t share your pessimism regarding the ability of technology to solve this problem. Even if I did, it wouldn’t matter, because ”Accept a lower standard of living” is a surefire electoral loser. The richest countries with the highest per capita carbon footprint are all democracies, so, unless your idea is to do away with democracy, you better hope there’s a technological solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Hope ain't going to replace energy though.
I sure do hope a magical technological solution comes, but the odds of it are pretty low. And to be fair, we already had one that we could have implemented 50 years ago on a global scale: nuclear. This wouldn't have solved the problems, because uranium is also only available in finite supplies, but it would have given us ample time to research and build actual Gen IV reactors, and then to research and build fusion reactors. But a minority of anti-nuclear people, sup
Re: (Score:2)
As you point out, we already have a technology that would largely (not entirely; you can't put a fission reactor into an airliner) solve this problem.
The history of human civilization is one of real and imagined resource shortages being overcome with the development of new technologies and markets. The only thing missing here is a lack of awareness and political will to do it, since there isn't an actual shortage here, just externalities (climate change) not baked into the price we're paying.
You can't en
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with what you say.
Also, I don't actually blame the fossil fuel industry. They could have raised awareness, that's true, but they are merely fullfilling the demands of every one of us. We are the ones addicted to using hundreds, if not thousands, of technological slaves: the machines built and powered by fossil fuels, which allow us the lifestyle that we enjoy.
the simple fact is most human brains can't wrap themselves around problems of this magnitude until they begin to directly affect them.
Given inertia of GHG, and CO2 in particular, in the atmosphere, this is why when people realize they need to take concrete action it will be t
Re: (Score:3)
People who want oak trees and squirrels should be able to live that lifestyle. That's not the problem.
The problem is public policies that impose sprawl on people who don't want it. Many people prefer to live in urban centers, but that is where housing is most expensive and least available through deliberate government policy restricting development. In California, over 90% of urban building permits are denied, which understates the problem because so many potential builders don't even bother applying.
People
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with anything that you say. NIMBYism is forestalling progress on many issues with direct and indirect connections to climate change.
I hear you on the policies that create/impose sprawl too. What I will say is you omit a critical look at the other side of the coin, where people refuse to address problems like traffic congestion, problems that contribute to climate change (fun fact, your vehicle is more efficient at cruising speed than it is in stop and go traffic) and lower quality of lif
Re: (Score:3)
You seem shrill when you call any criticism scapegoating, since scapegoating usually involves singling out a person or group for unmerited blame and consequent negative treatment. [wikipedia.org]
Sure, there are many other factors, but corporations like Exxon need to be held accountable for their efforts or they become dangerous to the people who they sell products to.
Many people have pointed to the Frank Lloyd Wright's vision of Broadacre City, which foreshadowed modern Suburbia [nextcity.org]
However, it was really the automobile industr [umich.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
However, it was really the automobile industry that promoted and profited from Suburban sprawl (and the petroleum industry that served it) [umich.edu]
Never mind how much people like yards.
not to mention that General Motors purchased and dismantled urban light rail systems that further forced people into using petroleum powered conveyance [wikipedia.org]
Cars offer far more granular personal transportation than trains. They probably did not need much forcing.
Re: scapegoating (Score:2)
Actually, restricting coal to save the power has two effects:
- Whoever decided the quotas is godlike
- The cost and profits skyrocket
People (cultured) are generally poor because they fail to identify which business people and economists tell them the truth, buried in a deluge of propaganda and information operations. It is not their fault, but it is a high price to pay. If one thing is needed in school is to teach skepticism and critical thinking. That is the basic toolset even ahead of math and literature.
Old News (Score:3)
Congrats on scooping a story that Frontline [pbs.org] did over a year ago. The NPR piece at least acknowledges previous reporting. The Guardian link is barely above clickbait.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't PBS and NPR basically the same organization? They both fall under the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, because see the other reply to your comment....
More to the point though, Frontline is its own production. If PBS Newshour "scooped" this story I'd have made the same comment.
Deserves the... (Score:4, Interesting)
NO SHIT award, closely followed by an award for Fossil fuels industry funding the anti-nuclear movement [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
They will fund anything that makes people use more oil and gas. They have been pushing gas as a "greener" source of electricity for years.
Maybe it's time we thought about nationalizing these companies. They clearly can't be trusted. We could prosecute them for crimes against humanity, but we do still need oil and gas products as we transition so we need them to keep operating. Having them nationalized with all the profit put into building up replacement renewables is one way to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see Hannity weep over that
CorePirate neo-Fascist execrable (Score:1)
If the CxO's determine the direction of a company, and a company can have no direction or purpose without the executives, then why are the companies held accountable instead of the executives? Corporate veil popping.
Re:CorePirate neo-Fascist execrable (Score:5, Insightful)
If corporations are people for the purpose of free speech, then why should they not be convicted like people for committing crimes?
Re: (Score:1)
then why should they not be convicted like people for committing crimes?
For the same reason we don't deal with drunk drivers by putting the car on trial.
Corporations can face civil fines, but only people can commit crimes. If the CEO breaks the law, the CEO should go to jail, not the file cabinet with the articles of incorporation.
Re:CorePirate neo-Fascist execrable (Score:5, Insightful)
When was a car granted free speech rights held for a "person"? (and this does not count [wikipedia.org])
Either we recognize SCOTUS rulings as absurd, or we follow the letter of the law on all "persons"
Re: (Score:1)
Here's the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The only place it mentions "people" is about the right to assemble.
For free speech, it just says "no law".
That seems clear to me.
Re: (Score:3)
IANAL and I am pretty sure you are not either, let the professionals explain it
HUMAN RIGHTS - Does “We the People” Include Corporations? [americanbar.org]
"Courts continue to this day to wrestle with the basic question of who or what counts as a person with protectable rights. Flash forward to 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations have First Amendment political rights to buy ads in all American elections. If the logical flaw in Dred Scott was mistaking a person (Mr. Scott) f
People wishing they could downmod the article (Score:1)
Downmod me instead, just to show how you're scared of the truth. Yes, everything you believe about climate change came from Exxon and the likes.
You know who I'm talking to.
It is settled. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Surprised, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Surprised, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Politicians from all sides are in bed with big oil and gas. In some places you may legitimately have left wing parties that aren't, but overall, ruling politicians love money and can give away policy decisions, and fossile companies have a lot of money and they need some policy decisions. That's just a logical partnership for them.
I am just a cave man (Score:2)
unfrozen and brought back to life by your scientists.
Your world frightens and confuese me.
Re: (Score:2)
They question in my mind is what is the difference between corporations having free speech rights and criminal conspiracy?
Borrowing from libertarian arguments against unions, every person working for a corp. is forced into support for positions they may not have.
And then you get to the hard-on libertarians have for public sector unions affecting their work conditions. How is this any different?
Re: Surprised, anyone? (Score:2)
If there were actual leadership in these companies it would not be so, they would have transitioned to energy companies working in nuclear and renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
If there were actual leadership in these companies it would not be so, they would have transitioned to energy companies working in nuclear and renewables.
Instead they continue to be highly profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Exxon Tried? they succeeded and it's not past tense, they continue to win and if Exxon somehow decided to pivot to another less profitable income stream they couldn't stop the Frankenstein monster they created! Big tobacco delayed the science at least 30 years and they are so tiny by comparison.
Just look at the posts on /. by their rubes who have made it part of their identity and without it impacting their income are as devoted as they are to compensating for their small penises.
As soon as anything favor
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed
Re: ***THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS*** (Score:2)
Reiterated statements made in all caps? Well I'm convinced, where do I sign up?
We are gonna use every joule (Score:2)
I’m not making any judgements here. Right or wrong, good or bad. Wha
Re: We are gonna use every joule (Score:2)
And yet, Amish will have had nothing to do with it, billions in the third world will have had nothing to do with it, all the other life forms will have nothing to do with it, etc. The retarded world destroying while self aggrandizing western *success* tard is not a product of biology, but of ideology. There is no other time in human history where a society was thought of as good and successful for having large empty homes with people living outside in tents on the streets. The isolation of successtards from
Re: (Score:2)
There is no other time in human history where a society was thought of as good and successful for having large empty homes with people living outside in tents on the streets.
I'm pretty sure that's not true. You might not be aware of any other such time in history but that doesn't mean it hasn't ever happened before.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that we would close an oilfield or coal mine before the resource has been fully mined to the point that it's no longer profitable? Ridiculous. Every barrel of oil that gets displaced by solar power? Some other part of the world will purchase and burn it instead.
You were saying? [bbc.co.uk]
This single exception aside, however, I fear your opinion is more likely than not to be broadly correct, for the next ~20 years. Once more scientists and green politicians have shot themselves in the foot by pushing for "net zero by 2050". Businesses then interpreted this as "there's no need for us to stop doing anything until 2050, phased transition be damned".
The insanity (on both 'sides') is mind boggling!
Re: We are gonna use every joule (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's like Coca Cola and the sugar industry (Score:2)
Unhealthy products will kill users, fossil fuels kill everything including non-users.
What did you expect? (Score:1)
If your industry is threatened by a lot of popular tripe theories and you don't defend yourself, you deserve to get hosed.
Tried? (Score:2)
Yet the muzzling continues by the fanatics (Score:1)
But of course, the climate fanatics won't mention those items because they don't support their cause
Re: (Score:1)
> That's not how science is supposed to work
Exactly. It's why I dont believe any of this.
I was told to suspend my belief that we are still in the last days (geologically speaking) of an ice age, the cause of which nobody can explain, yet it apparently happened so obviously we can expect to still be warming up as we are nowhere near the temperatures we were at before the ice age.
I've been told that everything about the sun is understood and there is no way in hell that in the short time we have monitored
This is about fuel choice, not urban design (Score:3)
People are going on and on about suburbs and sprawl and all that, and it's beside the point. You can design cities that way after switching fuels.
Exxon did not just promote oil for cars, but oil for everything. American power was much more about oil-burning before the 1973 spike of oil prices by five hundred percent. That caused a huge recession because we were so dependent on one fuel for nearly everything. We switched power generation away from oil, dropping use for that by 70% within a few years, all of it gone in a decade.
If Exxon had told the truth, or just admitted to the truth when others told it instead of harassing them, calling them liars, we could have switched away many years earlier. It was always technically possible.
Exxon is not just some corner store. It has a huge place in our society, has many privileges that come from that size and power. They should be held to correspondingly greater account.
Company promots their product, news at 11PM (Score:1)
So the complaint is that they were promoting their product while downplaying its failings, call me shocked. NPR seems to think this is something unique to the fossil fuel industry. It's not like solar/wind companies provide overly rosy energy production figures while downplaying the environmental/decommissioning costs. Or pharmaceutical companies praise their drugs effectiveness in certain cases while quietly paying people hush money on the side in the cases where the side effects maims/kills someone.