• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Confirmed: ExxonMobil knew about climate change in the 70s

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hackworth

Member
Two separate investigations have found ExxonMobil internal documents discussing the fact of anthropogenic climate change and how best to profit from it.

These documents date from the 1970s at the earliest. Exxon then embarked on a campaign of disinformation so as to guarantee access to profitable regions that were likely to undergo ice loss and general disruption, while preventing effective management of climate change.

[Link]

To be specific:

By 1978 Exxon’s senior scientists were telling top management that climate change was real, caused by man, and would raise global temperatures by 2-3C this century, which was pretty much spot-on.
By the early 1980s they’d validated these findings with shipborne measurements of CO2 (they outfitted a giant tanker with carbon sensors for a research voyage) and with computer models that showed precisely what was coming. As the head of one key lab at Exxon Research wrote to his superiors, there was “unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere”.
And by the early 1990s their researchers studying the possibility for new exploration in the Arctic were well aware that human-induced climate change was melting the poles. Indeed, they used that knowledge to plan their strategy, reporting that soon the Beaufort Sea would be ice-free as much as five months a year instead of the historic two. Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” a key Exxon researcher told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact.”

TLDR: ExxonMobil may have sent Earth's ability to support human civilization into terminal decline because they wanted more profits, and they can't plead ignorance.

Edited to add a skit from The Newsroom, which I somehow hadn't seen before today. [link]

Newsroom-Fact3-630px.jpg

Newsroom-Fact5-630px.jpg
 
Yet Republicans "don't" in the 2010's?

You're missing the point. Of course they know about it. They and others that side with the oil companies are purchased outright to say whatever those companies want them to say. This has nothing to do with truth or what people do or don't know, or intelligence levels or Republicans specifically (though almost all of them have taken this stance whereas Democrats have not). It has to do with money.
 

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Money is more important then people.

Another example of how utterly fucked America is.
 

Retsudo

Member
So will something happen for once? Can we gwt the pieces of shit that are still alive, and charge them with crimes against Humanity?
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
So will something happen for once? Can we gwt the pieces of shit that are still alive, and charge them with crimes against Humanity?
Fuck revenge. The only outcome I would want from this is an end to the "debate" and a swift pivot of the priorities of climate change
 
This shouldn't surprise anyone. This is 100% in-line with the scientific opinion of the day. If you think the geologists and environmental scientists in the oil industry are ignorant to these facts today, or yesterday, you're mistaken.
 

The Lamp

Member
It's awful. But the industry has, in general, a different attitude toward dealing with climate change these days. Engineering wasn't so ethical back in the 70s. Today, the energy industry leaders are the ones on the forefront of alternative energy technology and reducing carbon footprints.
 
Fuck revenge. The only outcome I would want from this is an end to the "debate" and a swift pivot of the priorities of climate change
holding the corporation financially responsible wouldn't be "revenge", though. It would be the right thing to do

It'll never happen, but they should be sued out of existence and the money used to fund alternative energy technologies.
 
This was pretty well known in the scientific community for quite some time.

The problem is convincing the public isn't a simple task. Opposition has simple buzzwords and dumbed down "charts"; adequately explaining things takes much more time and nuance. It's really partly a failure of scientists to properly get the word out there.

Imo of course.
 
I know vanishingly little about the clean energy industry so i might be wrong about this, but the funny part to me is that the oil industry seems to have lacked the creativity in criminal enterprise to have used this knowledge to corner the clean energy market in anticipation of their own technology and business practices slowly suffocating both the planet and healthy markets.

They could have retained their market dominance for generations AND ensured that the markets and planet would be healthy enough to exploit in perpetuity without all the messy business of fracking or war-mongering.
 
It's just not America. All of humanity has to share in the blame for this. The question is, what can be done about it, and how can Exxon be held accountable if at all?

that's really not very accurate at all. The West, yes. The lack of social action and legislative changes in the West, definitely. Some real cunts that happen to think they're Republicans? Absolutely.
Everybody else: marginal at best. Only recently did China become a real polluter on par with the US, and while it is very good at that, there was also no impediment on it by its benefactors aka multinational corporations. Which hold, by far, the overwhelming share of all pollution anyway.

Western nations and their businesses can be held accountable because they were in a position of knowledge and (potential) action. And aside from the lack of the latter, have (presumably) all lobbied against the manifestation of either in the larger social domain.
 

Mobius 1

Member
And nothing is going to happen because the government is on the payroll of the most powerful corporation on the planet.


If there was ever a fuck-you from a corporation to the world, there you have it.
 

Famassu

Member
It's awful. But the industry has, in general, a different attitude toward dealing with climate change these days. Engineering wasn't so ethical back in the 70s. Today, the energy industry leaders are the ones on the forefront of alternative energy technology and reducing carbon footprints.
Yeeeeeah, no. Oil sand excavations raping vast areas of land, attempted ventures to the Arctic Ocean (though luckily those proved to be too expensive), cheapening the price of oil so that it would keep its edge over renewables at a time when the technology is evolving quickly, going cheap on environmental protection, not doing much to prevent the ever-growing usage of oil etc. are not done by an industry that is trying to drive alternative energy technology. I mean, maybe they do say they are trying to do better, but their actions really don't support any of that. They will suck the oil wells dry if the world at large doesn't do enough to stop it. Some countries are waking up to the harsh reality (Sweden's aim for all renewables is a start, let's hope they succeed and can set an example to others), but others are still lagging behind severely.
 

Slime

Banned
In a perfect world this would be a huge scandal, heads would roll, and things would change.

As it is, I doubt anyone will even remember this a month from now.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
I think we had this thread, or is this the confirmation?

Fucked up nonetheless

Yeah, I remember something about a Swedish? company drilling in the arctic.

I think it's over. Earth is ruined. We can either find some solution to reverse the effects or start preparing the human race for what is to come.
 

dabig2

Member
In a perfect world this would be a huge scandal, heads would roll, and things would change.

As it is, I doubt anyone will even remember this a month from now.

If there's anything deserving of a multimillion dollar, years spanning investigative committee, it would definitely be this.
 

The Lamp

Member
Yeeeeeah, no. Oil sand excavations raping vast areas of land, attempted ventures to the Arctic Ocean (though luckily those proved to be too expensive), cheapening the price of oil so that it would keep its edge over renewables at a time when the technology is evolving quickly, going cheap on environmental protection, not doing much to prevent the ever-growing usage of oil etc. are not done by an industry that is trying to drive alternative energy technology. I mean, maybe they do say they are trying to do better, but their actions really don't support any of that. They will suck the oil wells dry if the world at large doesn't do enough to stop it. Some countries are waking up to the harsh reality (Sweden's aim for all renewables is a start, let's hope they succeed and can set an example to others), but others are still lagging behind severely.

Um, cheapening the price of oil is not exactly something the petrochemical industry is enjoying, you know that right?

Exxon, Shell, GE, etc. are the leaders in new technologies for carbon capture, solar energy, biofuels, etc.

The demand for petroleum is not going anywhere because nothing creates energy as we know it in a comparable level to petroleum products and petroleum is the only way to make various products we use in our daily lives.
 
I can't even wrap my brain around people like this actually existing. These are the kind of people that if you put in a movie as villains, I wouldn't believe them. "These guys are too evil to be believable as anyone who can actually exist."
 

boy that's a stupid video and I hope people don't actually feel informed from watching Newsroom.

Yeeeeeah, no. Oil sand excavations raping vast areas of land, attempted ventures to the Arctic Ocean (though luckily those proved to be too expensive), cheapening the price of oil so that it would keep its edge over renewables at a time when the technology is evolving quickly, going cheap on environmental protection, not doing much to prevent the ever-growing usage of oil etc. are not done by an industry that is trying to drive alternative energy technology. I mean, maybe they do say they are trying to do better, but their actions really don't support any of that. They will suck the oil wells dry if the world at large doesn't do enough to stop it. Some countries are waking up to the harsh reality (Sweden's aim for all renewables is a start, let's hope they succeed and can set an example to others), but others are still lagging behind severely.

There has already been rumblings in the industry of fear of stranded assets per say in the arctic, and an ex-exec of a major energy company flat out said that oil is going to stay in the ground.

Again, I've been saying this for a while now, but I think people are going to be quite shocked at the rate of solar and wind energy in the coming years. It's dropping in price and in many places wind is cheaper than gas, and in less than five years solar is going to be cheaper than gas. It took 40 years to reach 1% of global energy demand for solar, and it's going to take around 2 years to reach 2%, and that rate of growth isn't going to slow down anytime soon.

Renewable technology's aren't conventional energy sources, they are technology and inherently follow different rates of growth, with solar and lithon ion growing exponentially and dropping exponentially in price.

There is a reason why renewable energy has accounted for new energy capacity in the US this year on a near 2:1 scale when compared to natural gas (which is the only new source of fossil fuels in the US). It's getting cheaper, and as renewable energy becomes a greater part of energy demand fossil fuel will actually become more expensive due to the idle time during peak hours.
 
Um, cheapening the price of oil is not exactly something the petrochemical industry is enjoying, you know that right?

Exxon, Shell, GE, etc. are the leaders in new technologies for carbon capture, solar energy, biofuels, etc.

The demand for petroleum is not going anywhere because nothing creates energy as we know it in a comparable level to petroleum products and petroleum is the only way to make various products we use in our daily lives.
We can't do anything to curb the need for petroleum products in our daily lives?
 

NateDrake

Member
There has already been rumblings in the industry of fear of stranded assets per say in the arctic, and an ex-exec of a major energy company flat out said that oil is going to stay in the ground.

Again, I've been saying this for a while now, but I think people are going to be quite shocked at the rate of solar and wind energy in the coming years. It's dropping in price and in many places wind is cheaper than gas, and in less than five years solar is going to be cheaper than gas. It took 40 years to reach 1% of global energy demand for solar, and it's going to take around 2 years to reach 2%, and that rate of growth isn't going to slow down anytime soon.

Renewable technology's aren't conventional energy sources, they are technology and inherently follow different rates of growth, with solar and lithon ion growing exponentially and dropping exponentially in price.
I'm looking into putting solar panels on my home next year. The next 10-25yrs should see amazing growth for renewable as the technology matures and becomes more efficient and affordable.
 

noshten

Member
Bernie Sanders: DOJ Should Investigate Exxon-Mobil For Lying About Climate Change Since 1970s
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Bernie Sanders just wrote a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch calling for a Department of Justice task force to investigate oil and gas giant ExxonMobil. A short time ago, I got a chance to speak with the senator and ask him why.

SANDERS: There is evidence that suggests way back in the 1970s, Exxon's scientists did studies and told the leadership of Exxon that climate change was real and potentially very, very dangerous. That's what they told them. Exxon took in this information and then proceeded to spend tens of millions of dollars on organizations whose job in life was to deny the reality of climate change. If all of that is true, that happens to be against the law.

HAYES: But why can't -- that just seems like doing a terrible thing, but why would that be against the law? If you said, yes, we know this thing is true, and we're going to pay money to propagandizing --

SANDERS: Well, that is -- you know, that is a violation of racketeering legislation. It is very similar to what the tobacco industry was convicted of, and why they paid a huge settlement. It wasn't that they were selling a product that caused cancer and killed people, it was that they lied. They had evidence within the industry to say their product was causing serious health problems. And what did they do? They went public, as you know, and said, oh, no, I’m Dr. Jones, I’m smoking cigarettes, it’s great to you -- they lied. That is -- that's the crime here. And if it is true, and we want the attorney general and a task force to investigation, they are breaking the law.

HAYES: Yes. I mean, obviously, a U.S. Senator can’t -- I mean, the criminal justice system works in independent fashion for a reason, right?

SANDERS: Right, right.

HAYES: So, you’re asking for a task force to essentially a preliminary investigation --

SANDERS: Exactly.

HAYES: -- as opposed to reaching some conclusion.

SANDERS: And here's the significance and the importance of this, Chris. Look, I happen to believe, obviously, that climate change is real. It is one of the great planetary crises we face. The scientist community is virtually honest. But when you have people like the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil today spending huge amounts of money trying to deny that reality, it slows up the entire world from aggressively addressing what is an international crisis. This is serious stuff.

HAYES: Do you anticipate we're going to see a lot of fossil fuel dollars flowing into this next election?

SANDERS: Do I anticipate that? Hmm, let me guess. Koch brothers are on record as saying they will spend some $900 million in this campaign cycle. They make most of their money through fossil fuel. And the other big energy companies certainly will not be far behind. Yes. And here’s something I want to point out.

HAYES: Yes, please?

SANDERS: When you look at the Republican Party today, you know, which is reactionary in so many areas, but on this particular area, in many cases, most of these guys deny the reality of climate change or they say we’re not sure. How do you think that happens? It happens because the Republican Party is significantly funded by the Koch brothers and the big energy companies. And the day after some Republican gets up there and say, you know, I read this stuff here, I think climate change is real, we've got to do something -- their funding is gone, and they're going to be primaried.

HAYES: You know, it's interesting because I was listening to "Rolling Stone" author Tim Dickinson who just wrote a piece about the House Freedom Caucus, and one of the things he points out is actually, you know, the House Freedom Caucus is opposed to some of the big funders of the Republican Party on certain issues, right? Some of the trade stuff they’ve made some noise about. But one place where they're really aligned is on fossil fuels. You don’t see -- there's really just a shocking amount of unanimity over there.

SANDERS: I’m trying to think where is the exception is to that rule, but this is what I would 99 percent guarantee to you that any Republican who said climate change is real, we have got to take bold action to transform our energy system, that person would be primaried by big energy money and likely defeated.

HAYES: Yes. Lindsey Graham obviously has sort of managed to survive, although he's not doing particularly well in the polls. Do you -- do you think that essentially the war is turning on the power of -- you’ve been on Capitol Hill now for several decades. You're not from a statement like Kentucky, right, where they really have kind of a death grip. Do you think their power is ebbing in any way?

SANDERS: I think public consciousness is growing that climate change is real. People are seeing it with their own eyes. They’re seeing it in California in the droughts. They're seeing it in the southwest and other areas in terms of forest fires, which are worse and more numerous than used to be the case. They’re seeing it in a heat wave in Pakistan. They're seeing it with their own eyes, and people are saying, yes, we better do something about it.

HAYES: But you've spend a career talking to voters where they are right, and when you were talking to someone -- I mean, it occurs to me part of the problem is, you're talking to someone in Iowa in a diner, who’s watching jobs leave their town, right? Is this something that comes up when you're doing this -- when you're doing campaign events? Is this front of mind for voters?

SANDERS: I think the issue of climate change is on the minds than a lot more people than the pundits think. And I think it is growing. I think people are just very, very concerned. The evidence scientifically and what people are saying it's so real that people are saying, hey, I’m worried about my kids and grandchildren and what kind of planet they will be living in.

HAYES: You do hear that?

SANDERS: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Younger people, absolutely. But I think you're seeing it more with older people as well.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...r_lying_about_climate_change_since_1970s.html

If anyone hasn't watched Merchants of Doubt please do watch it
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3675568/


Just yesterday Forbes published a piece by James Taylor from The Heartland Institute - an Institute of doubt.

No, Bernie Sanders, Exxon Did Not Lie About Global Warming
Ultimately, Exxon’s top management sided with those scientists concluding humans are not creating a global warming crisis. Nevertheless, Bernie Sanders and his left-leaning media allies are attempting to portray as a “cover up” Exxon’s scientific conclusion and subsequent decision to fund scientists and groups who similarly report a non-alarmist global warming narrative.

Full disclosure: Exxon was once a minor donor to The Heartland Institute, for whom I serve as a senior fellow. Exxon last donated to The Heartland Institute in 2006.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...nders-exxon-did-not-lie-about-global-warming/

How are these jokers still being published by media - they should be barred for spreading misinformation. All these "think tanks" and the crooks that worked in Exxon should be put to trial until they are either behind bars or giving out names to other people who have put billions in mortal danger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom