Big Oil knowingly ruined climate

This April 2016 video says about itself:

Smoke And Fumes: An Introduction to the Deep History of Oil and Climate Change

This is a story about how the world’s most powerful industry used science, communications, and consumer psychology to shape the public debate over climate change. And it begins earlier—decades earlier—than anyone suspected.

Take action: here.

This 19 May 2016 video says about itself:

Smoke And Fumes Part 2: What They Did With What They Knew

Once they knew of climate risks, oil companies had a choice: act to reduce CO2 emissions or continue business as usual. How did they respond?

By Chris D’Angelo:

Big Oil Could Have Cut CO2 Emissions In 1970s — But Did Nothing

New documents show the industry chose to prioritize costs over the planet

05/19/2016 07:52 pm ET

In 1963, Esso (now Exxon Mobil) patented a design for a “novel and highly efficient electrode“ for use in fuel cells — a possible means of decreasing carbon emissions and producing cleaner-burning vehicles.

Research into this innovative technology, the company said at the time, “has been greatly accelerated.”

But, as Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law, likes to say, “Did you start driving a Prius in 1968?”

Muffett’s point, which he supports with dozens more documents his group released Thursday, is that American oil companies were well aware of the risks their industry posed to the environment by the 1960s. And they could have taken actions to significantly reduce carbon emissions.

The new documents, Muffett said, show that oil companies “clearly preferred to invest in research to explain away the climate risks,” instead of on technologies to reduce emissions.

The Center for International Environmental Law last month published documents showing the oil industry was aware of the potential role of fossil fuels in carbon dioxide emissions and the associated climate risks as early as 1957 — decades earlier than had previously been documented — and covered them up.

This second trove of documents, Muffett said, doesn’t contain a “smoking gun” like the first set, but does highlight how the U.S. oil industry studied, understood and chose not to act on climate change.

“Here’s still more evidence that this industry both understood climate issues [and] had the capacity to cut pollution,” Muffett said. “What really emerges from our research is which side of the coin the oil companies decided to pursue.”

For example, a 1980 Exxon corporate document released last month by the DeSmog Blog Project refers to existing technology that could remove carbon dioxide from power plant emissions.

“It is assumed that the major contributors of CO2 are the burning of fossil fuels,” the document reads. “There is no doubt that increases in fossil fuel usage and decreases of forest cover are aggravating the potential problem of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Technology exists to remove CO2 from stack gases but removal of only 50% of the CO2 would double the cost of power generation.”

“They could have deployed it very rapidly,” Muffett said of the technologies, “But they decided it was too expensive.”

The American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade group, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment after business hours.

The new documents also show that during the same period, oil companies funded research into other pollutants that may offset climate warming; carbon sinks that would reduce the need to control emissions; and alternative theories on the cause of climate change, some of which are still being tossed around by climate change deniers today.

Between the 1950s and 1970s, the industry also financed studies into how petroleum products could be used to control the climate. The research included burning oil to clear areas of fog and smog, and constructing massive “artificial heat mountains” out of asphalt to increase rainfall. As early as the 1980s, oil companies were beginning to invest in taller oil rigs that could withstand rising sea levels.

Bigger drilling rigs, Muffett said, are “an example of the profound distinction of how these companies were protecting their own interests” and not the public’s.

This week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that April 2016 was the 12th consecutive month to set a global temperature record.

Tom Sanzillo, finance director at the Cleveland-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, told Vice there is a clear potential, perhaps even likelihood, that these documents will result in litigation against oil companies.

“This looks like it’s pretty serious, and it just seems to get worse,” Sanzillo said.

The Center for International Environmental Law plans to release additional documents in the near future. For now, the group’s new searchable database allows users to identify connections between companies, research institutes and individuals.

Report: Exxon Has Understood Climate Risks Of Oil Sands For Decades. The InsideClimate News investigation comes amid news that President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, 12/13/2016 09:02 am ET: here.

21 thoughts on “Big Oil knowingly ruined climate

  1. Pingback: Stop BP polluters’ British Museum artwashing | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  2. Pingback: Clinton chooses Vice Presidential candidate Kain, helping Trump? | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  3. Pingback: Support Native American anti-fracking pipeline action, petition | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  4. Pingback: Clinton, Trump, space and other science | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  5. Pingback: Real Donald Trump, fictional Lawrence Limburger | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  6. Pingback: Bernie Sanders speech against DAPL pipeline | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  7. Pingback: Climate change cause of wars, Dutch general says | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  8. Pingback: Trump’s cabinet of generals | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  9. Pingback: Donald Trump’s billionaires’ cabinet | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  10. Pingback: Global warming, Exxon and Trump’s Tillerson | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  11. Pingback: Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  12. Pingback: BP polluters, bad British Museum sponsors | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  13. Pingback: Hurricane Harvey disaster in Texas, USA | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  14. Pingback: Hurricane Maria threatens Puerto Rico, other Caribbean islands | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  15. Pingback: United States cities sue Big Oil for climate change | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  16. Pingback: Syria signs Paris climate agreement, only Trump against | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  17. Pingback: British Conservatives’ Russian oligarch money | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.