The Scientists Hired By Big Oil Who Predicted the Climate Crisis Long Ago (theguardian.com) 146
An anonymous reader shares a report: As early as 1958, the oil industry was hiring scientists and engineers to research the role that burning fossil fuels plays in global warming. The goal at the time was to help the major oil conglomerates understand how changes in the earth's atmosphere may affect the industry -- and their bottom line. But what top executives gained was an early preview of the climate crisis, decades before the issue reached public consciousness. What those scientists discovered -- and what the oil companies did with that information -- is at the heart of two dozen lawsuits attempting to hold the fossil fuel industry responsible for their role in climate change.
Many of those cases hinge on the industry's own internal documents that show how, 40 years ago, researchers predicted the rising global temperatures with stunning accuracy. But looking back, many of those same scientists say they were hardly whistleblowers out to take down big oil. Some researchers later testified before Congress, using their insider knowledge to highlight the ways in which the oil industry misled the public. Others say they have few qualms with how the petroleum giants handled their research. Few, however, could have predicted the imprint their work would have on history in efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for our climate emergency. The Guardian tracked down three of those scientists to see how they view their role today.
Many of those cases hinge on the industry's own internal documents that show how, 40 years ago, researchers predicted the rising global temperatures with stunning accuracy. But looking back, many of those same scientists say they were hardly whistleblowers out to take down big oil. Some researchers later testified before Congress, using their insider knowledge to highlight the ways in which the oil industry misled the public. Others say they have few qualms with how the petroleum giants handled their research. Few, however, could have predicted the imprint their work would have on history in efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for our climate emergency. The Guardian tracked down three of those scientists to see how they view their role today.
Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
Arrhenius is noteworthy because his is the first known prediction of Global Warming based on a hypothetical doubling of CO2,
Once upon a time, belief in physics was not a political stance.
Science has been political (Score:5, Interesting)
Science is only tolerated because it's too useful to the people in charge for them to completely discard it. But make no mistake, the ruling class is, always has been and always will be hostile to anything that can result in major society changes (as scientific advancement can). When push comes to shove their power, wealth and position is more important than your life and mine.
Re: (Score:3)
The delusions of power have greater impact on our lives than reality. The delusions forced on the majority under threat of violence from the minority. The believers accept and the minority the scientifically inclined, the reasoners, can not help but see the delusion for what it is and reality for what it is and express reality (some much more than others, especially the cowed or quislings). For those that use the threat of violence to enforce the delusions of power, expressing reality and exposing the delus
Re: (Score:3)
Reality is at odds with most politics, too bad reality always wins. The only choice to be made is how high do we want to stack the bodies before accepting reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is at odds with most politics, too bad reality always wins. The only choice to be made is how high do we want to stack the bodies before accepting reality.
The really nutty part was once upon a time the political party we are speaking of was on board with the physics involved, then they drifted to "free market solutions" to the problem, and now believe it is a Chinese hoax, doesn't exist at all.
So AGW denial takes it's place among Chemtrails, flat earth, faked moon landings, windmill cancer, 5G chips in vaccines, and heating your whole house with a clay pot and two tea candles.
Re: (Score:3)
Reality is at odds with most politics,
Let's not mince words. These days, reality is just at odds with a very specific type of politics. Those of conservatives and populists across the globe, such as the Republican party and Trumpism in the U.S, Bolsanaro in Brazil or Orban in Hungary. These parties and politicians are little more than the protectorate and extended arm of old-industry corporations and their plutocrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is at odds with most politics, too bad reality always wins. The only choice to be made is how high do we want to stack the bodies before accepting reality.
Unfortunately what you say is only kinda true. Reality wins in an absolute sense, since ... it's reality. But the costs of that reality, and specifically their distribution, defines who wins in a social sense. Well off people and the politicians they buy will not pay the costs of climate change.
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing about the fundamentals of AGW are in question. We know what the energy absorption and re-emission properties of carbon dioxide are, and as you point out, have known these properties since the 19th century. We can even calculate how much additional energy gets trapped for each tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere. The debates are not over whether industrial activity over the last two centuries is increasing the energy (mainly thermal) in the lower atmosphere and oceans, it's just what it's going to look like. We're now at least getting some sense of the thermal capacity of the oceans, which is allowing us to firm up models. And frankly, most of the deniers have backed off from what has been consistent magical thinking (literal magical thinking, as in, somehow, CO2 functions differently in Earth's atmosphere), and now just proclaim that we have to "adapt" (which is code for, we need to keep burning fossil fuels, and developing countries and coastal cities can go fuck themselves).
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing about the fundamentals of AGW are in question.
That isn't my impression. I have a relative (with a PhD in engineering), who claims that the CO2 absorption models must be totally wrong because they conflict with his armchair understanding. And, so he dismisses all of climate science rather than educate himself slightly on the science of atmospheric heat transport.
In part this seems to be driven by wishful thinking, and in part by being in a media bubble. I find that left-wing media manufactures outrage about climate change. And, right-wing media m
Re: (Score:3)
You're running up against the Salem Hypothesis [rationalwiki.org]. While it used to mainly apply to engineers' tendency towards Creationism, it also has of late applied to engineers imagining they have the training and knowledge to judge climate science. But if this guy thinks chemists and physicists have had carbon dioxide energy reemission properties wrong for over a hundred years, he's just gone completely into magical thinking mode.
Re:Prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
Once upon a time, belief in physics was not a political stance.
That is not how it worked. Most of physics, then and now, is apolotical, because it has no impact on people's lives. Like recently it was confirmed that black hole mergers result in a black hole that is at least as large as the two former black holes put together. No one is protesting in the streets because of that.
Similarly, what Arrhenius discovered had zero influence on people's lives in 1896.
In contrast, Galileo Galilei's discovery that the Earth goes around the Sun had a direct effect on people's lives, in that it shows that church dogma was wrong. Belief in physics was definitely a political stance at the time. Charles Darwin's theories caused plenty of political stir as well. In neither case the survival of our civilization was at stake.
Re: (Score:3)
Once upon a time, belief in physics was not a political stance.
Ya, but it was sometimes considered to be a religious one, so... progress?
(...checks the news...)
Never mind.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Those of you who tuned in their 1958 B&W TV could watch one of the finest science videos ever done. If you want to just watch the pertinent video, here is a two minute excerpt from the AT&T science show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
But, those who want to see a very creative show on meteorology, there is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Enjoy. And see how long people knew this was coming.
Belief in science? (Score:2)
The entire point of science is, that you do not have to believe.
You can check!
It's weird how Americans always treat science like a religion.
No wonder religious people in the US think they can argue that science is "just another ideologic belief system".
Also, outside of very religious states, like in the middle east, or the US, science is still as respected as ever. You can't beat usefulness. :)
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of science is, that you do not have to believe.
You can check!
It's weird how Americans always treat science like a religion. No wonder religious people in the US think they can argue that science is "just another ideologic belief system".
Well we do a huge jump of assuming about all Americans, now don't we?
Also, outside of very religious states, like in the middle east, or the US, science is still as respected as ever. You can't beat usefulness. :)
I'm assuming you are in Europe - Here's a question. Why do y'all make these impressive leaps to condemn all Americans? There are groups who like to make us look like we're all snake handlers. They have a different motive though. Our destruction.
No, most of us 'Murricans believe (or know if you like ) in science.
And those who don't like science, have company across the pond https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]. Europe has fla
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, belief in physics was not a political stance.
Something, something, hemlock, something.
I think the quote you're searching for is about Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"
Re: (Score:2)
The least you could do is credit the movie you stole that from.
Re: (Score:2)
The least you could do is credit the movie you stole that from.
I thought it was well known enough to omit that, but you're right. It was a Val Kilmer line from the movie Real Genius [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The least you could do is credit the movie you stole that from.
I thought it was well known enough to omit that, but you're right. It was a Val Kilmer line from the movie Real Genius [wikipedia.org].
I thought it was from Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure.
Re: (Score:2)
The least you could do is credit the movie you stole that from.
I thought it was well known enough to omit that, but you're right. It was a Val Kilmer line from the movie Real Genius [wikipedia.org].
I thought it was from Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure.
Real Genius: I drank what? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, belief in physics was not a political stance.
Something, something, hemlock, something.
As soon as I posted that, I thought of Bruno and Galileo Galilei, But surely to allow religion to call the shots in the political arena is kinda superannuated.
Sounds familiar.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, "Data LED" is a whole lot better than "Data CFL".
Re: (Score:2)
And what is wrong with the Canadian Football League?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a meme. CFL contains mercury which is a very toxic and exceedingly bioaccumulative heavy metal.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they're still data driven. They just tweak the data a bit until it drives them in the right direction.
Predicted but not reported... (Score:4, Interesting)
Scientists predicted global climate change, but Big Oil had a vested interest not to disclose the finding.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the media was rife with comments about how the CIA didn't foresee or predict this. The answer is simple, no entity is ever going to predict, or start with a premise of its own obsolescence. So predicting the fall of the Soviet Union, and the redundancy of the CIA is against self-interest, and continuation of an agency that consumes $36-billion in the budget. Contrast that to the KGB that for $4-billion did what the CIA, NSA, FBI did, plus other responsibilities. And the CIA has missed other events, so a redundant agency with $36-billion to waste with its head up its posterior.
So the big oil companies weren't going to release information that indicated fossil fuels were leading to global climate change. And its easier even if the results were released to continue as business as usual, no re-think of our activities as a species on this planet.
JoshK.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists predicted global climate change, but Big Oil had a vested interest not to disclose the finding.
They actually had an interest in discrediting the finding.
And still do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists predicted global climate change, but Big Oil had a vested interest not to disclose the finding.
AKA turkeys don't vote for an early christmas.
Re: (Score:3)
Did those death threats from scientists include the phrase "Fools! I will destroy you all!"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obsoleting Climate Science? (Score:5, Informative)
That's a very insightful observation indeed. But it applies to the Climate "Scientists" too — whether or not humanity really is facing Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change, relying on the people with vested interest in it remaining a burning concern to tell you about it is foolish.
Except that's mostly a myth.
First, research in climate change is just one part of atmospheric science research, and not even the largest part. The biggest part of atmospheric science is weather, including things like improving models of hurricane path prediction. As well as studying how atmospheric dynamics work on other planets. Even in Earth's climate, global warming is only part of the research-- most of the early research on greenhouse effect came in trying to work out how Milankovitch variations in insolation are amplified into the cycle of ice age glaciations.
But, second, you need to recognize the discrepancy in orders of magnitude. Oil companies are facing trillions of dollars of lost profits if their reserves decrease in value. Trillions. This is such a large number that it absolutely eclipses everything else.
Just in the US, Federal spending on "Climate Research" increased from about $8 bln in 2010, to $12 bln in 2017 [gao.gov]
And, if you look into that in detail, do you know what the largest item is? Department of Energy research on next-generation nuclear power plants and cleaner-burning coal power plants. You know what? The atmospheric scientists actually working on climate science aren't going to fudge their results so that Department of Energy programs that they have no part of continue to get funding. Particularly since, If funding for climate change disappeared tomorrow, they're not going to lose their jobs. They'll just work on different problems.
...
(Bunch of other stuff not related to the topic ignored).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Is it?
Yes.
Read line two. [Re:Obsoleting Climate Science?] (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it?
Did you stop reading after line one? The answer to that question was in the immediately following paragraphs:
First, research in climate change is just one part of atmospheric science research, and not even the largest part. The biggest part of atmospheric science is weather, including things like improving models of hurricane path prediction. As well as studying how atmospheric dynamics work on other planets. Even in Earth's climate, global warming is only part of the research-- most of the early research on greenhouse effect came in trying to work out how Milankovitch variations in insolation are amplified into the cycle of ice age glaciations.
Why not "bazillion"?
Because "trillions" is correct.
Did you hold your pinky to mouth typing that? World-wide oil production is about 100 mln barrels per day [eia.gov]. Even at the price of $100 per barrel (Putin's wet dream, that's now increasingly possible thanks to Biden's policies), that's still only about $3.6 trln a year. $3.6 trillion of total income, not profits. And the profit margin is under 7% [investopedia.com]...
This paragraph shows both that you don't understand the economics of the oil industry and that you can't do math. The first is understandable; most people don't. You're confusing marginal costs and sunk costs. Overall, the value of an oil company is primarily set by the value of its assets, and those assets are the company's reserves: the oil that they haven't sold. Yes: if this value drops to zero, the loss is trillions. Literally.
The math error is less understandable. Even taking your numbers, 7% of 3.6 trillion dollars per year means that the oil companies would lose a trillion dollars every four years. Yes, that adds up to trillions.
But this comparison of scale is not even relevant — whatever it is the oil companies are making (or risking to lose), the climate experts still don't want to lose their livelihood,
And if you'd read as far as line two of my post, you'd see that they won't. Climate is only a small part of atmospheric science. If nobody were funding climate research, there are plenty of other problems to work on.
(Bunch of other stuff not related to the topic ignored).
Ethics is not relevant to you, eh?
The remainder of your post was random mish-mash of disparagement of biologists. Apparently your theory was that if you throw shit at biologists, that slander will splash onto atmospheric science. Correct: that is not relevent.
Re: (Score:3)
Just in the US, Federal spending on "Climate Research" increased from about $8 bln in 2010, to $12 bln in 2017 [gao.gov] — anyone in the trade speaking out against its importance will be shouted down by colleagues, and fired, immediately.
Scrolling through that briefly, the biggest items I noticed were research in energy efficiency, renewable energy, sequestration tech, hydrogen tech, and nuclear fusion. If we had no problem with CO2, all of those apart from sequestration are still useful research.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
merely for saying COVID-19 could have been engineered in China. Scientists now admit, they didn't want to support that theory for fear of appearing to support Trump
You'll note that those scientists don't happen to include virologists. Because virologists are folks who know how you actually engineer a virus, and SARS-COV2 doesn't look like that.
The lab leak theory, engineered virus or not, relies on the presumption that a disease that reached epidemic levels in Wuhan in late 2019 was not widely circulating in Wuhan in late 2019. Which is pretty dumb, especially with records of people possibly getting sick with it as early as 2018. It also relies on the presumption t
Scientists hired by "big oil" will solve this (Score:2, Informative)
Not so long ago was an article on Slashdot about a carbon capture company paid by "big oil" to build a prototype carbon capture facility. Or at least that was a rumor going around. I have little doubt that "big oil" is investing in this technology because that is a vital step in the process of producing net zero carbon hydrocarbon fuels.
"Big oil" is being threatened by the electric car. If they can't find a way to keep selling fuel then they go out of business. Or at least that is the rumor. The path t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps they will 'solve' that, but what will be the point when we'll all already have electric cars by then?
Electric cars won't solve container ships and intercontinental air travel.
Re: (Score:2)
"Big oil" may have been a major contributor but they have the money, motivation, and expertise to solve this. I believe that they will solve this.
That big oil cock sure must taste good. Big oil will do whatever costs them the least.
Re: (Score:2)
That big oil cock sure must taste good.
WTF? How old are you? Does your mom know you are using her computer?
Big oil will do whatever costs them the least.
You mean like everyone else in the world?
Re: (Score:2)
"Big Oil" is just corporations with lots of money. They don't have to keep investing it in oil. They can invest in whatever will keep them profitable down the road. Working on the scale of decades, they have plenty of time to put themselves in position to stay in power (pun intended) without oil.
Re: (Score:2)
"Big Oil" is just corporations with lots of money. They don't have to keep investing it in oil. They can invest in whatever will keep them profitable down the road. Working on the scale of decades, they have plenty of time to put themselves in position to stay in power (pun intended) without oil.
That's right they don't have to invest in oil. Instead of petroleum they are investing in synthesized fuels, or that's the rumor.
I remember hearing how petroleum companies were investing in solar PV. This didn't work well for them. One problem was that people chose to invest in these companies because it was a "bet" on petroleum based fuels and chemicals. By "diluting" their focus on petroleum they were diluting the value of their stock.
Another problem was that they were being accused of sabotaging the
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Re:Scientists hired by "big oil" will solve) (Score:2)
Why should they solve it?
Because they want a better future for their grandchildren?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are rich enough you will avoid most of the consequences of global warming and hence your grandchildren will be fine.
Okay then, I can think of another reason. The person that can make a carbon neutral fuel that is a drop in replacement for current petroleum fuels is almost certainly going to make trillions of dollars. Is that a good enough reason for you?
Re: (Score:3)
The path to keep selling fuel is synthesized hydrocarbons
And instead of investing lots of R&D into that, they spent 1/1000th the money on lobbying to prop up their old business model.
Really, the shareholders of these oil companies should be pissed. One of the big oil companies would have developed into the leader on synthetic hydrocarbons, or biologically-generated hydrocarbons, or some similar technology, and made several trillion off it. Heck, big oil's delaying tactics mean battery tech advanced to the point of displacing hydrocarbons in passenger vehicl
Re: (Score:2)
"Big oil" is being threatened by the electric car. If they can't find a way to keep selling fuel then they go out of business.
I have an alternate strategy for "Big Oil". They have lots of money and lots of expertise (in science, supply chains, logistics, etc). The smart oil companies are using their money and expertise to transition from being oil companies to energy companies, including renewables. The problem (for them and for the world) is that they aren't doing that fast enough.
Time to pay for the damage (Score:4, Insightful)
Governments should subsidize R&D to do something useful with the carbon, e.g. carbon fiber.
We shouldn't set total elimination of fossil fuel as a goal, but its impact on the environment needs to be mitigated with the cost included in the product.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to phase in a carbon tax worldwide that funds removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Have you seen how much people complain when the price of gas increases?
Re: (Score:2)
They are starting to complain louder about flooding, wildfires, heatwaves, hurricanes, and a lot of major impacts caused by human caused climate change as well.
Re: (Score:2)
People who complain about price of gas increases vote the politicians out who did it. Children can't do that.
You might say those people are adult children, but their votes still make a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
The politicians who introduced the carbon tax here didn't get voted out very quick, at that they won the election (most seats, most votes, just not quite as many seats as the other 2 parties combined) where they finally lost power to the coalition of the left and the Green party who are pro-carbon tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Good. That means a carbon pricing scheme will have the desired result. People complain gas is getting too expensive, EVs become more attractive, and within a decade or two, ICE vehicles become a decided minority.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. That means a carbon pricing scheme will have the desired result.
I don't disagree. But the current thinking is to regulate carbon by dictate rather than establish a pricing scheme and associated market.
And credits for sequestration will be handed out based not only based on the amount captured, but whether the scheme is 'owned' by third world indigenous tribes or Chevron.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. That means a carbon pricing scheme will have the desired result.
I don't disagree. But the current thinking is to regulate carbon by dictate rather than establish a pricing scheme and associated market.
Yep. And it will be just as expensive to the end consumer, but less efficient at reducing emissions.
I understand your point about the political palatability, but it's really unfortunate, because simply pricing emissions in would be both cheaper and more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
because simply pricing emissions in would be both cheaper and more effective.
With what mechanism? Central planning fell out of favor several decades ago. Even self described communist regimes (China) use largely capitalist free market mechanisms.
Better to set a cap and let producers bid for the rights. Some will develop low carbon technologies and save money on permits. Others will choose not to and pass costs on to consumers. Consumers themselves will choose based on price. If cheaper low carbon alternatives exist, people will switch to them. If not, some people will choose to do
Re: (Score:2)
because simply pricing emissions in would be both cheaper and more effective.
With what mechanism? Central planning fell out of favor several decades ago.
This is precisely why a carbon tax is more efficient than trying to regulate emissions. Put a cost on carbon emissions, make it refundable for anyone who finds ways to actively pull CO2 out of the air, then let the market figure out what combination of emissions avoidance, carbon capture and carbon recapture and sequestration provides the most benefit. Far better than regulatory attempts to curb this emission source or favor that reduction.
Central planning is what a carbon tax avoids!
Ideally, the prici
Re: (Score:2)
Central planning is what a carbon tax avoids!
So, a market-based tax? I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing. But if I can go around to a few gas stations and get them to bid on the tax I'll pay on my next fill up, I'm all for it.
make it refundable for anyone who finds ways to actively pull CO2 out of the air
And you don't think that will take a huge bureaucracy to handle as a tax/tax credit scheme? It would be better to let markets handle those transactions. If the NYSE can't keep transaction costs down, people can take their carbon certificates to the LSE or NASDAQ.
Re: (Score:2)
A carbon tax leads to consumers deciding to spend their money on options that are cheaper, so it encourages a certain type of market solution rather then the government planning the economy.
Ideally it is revenue neutral, here (BC) the income tax was dropped by the amount the carbon tax brought in and it is all handled by the same bureaucracy as was already handling the other taxes.
When the Federal government brought in its carbon tax, the Provinces were allowed to run it if they chose as long as it was big
Re: (Score:2)
Gas is ~$3/gallon across the U.S. (some higher, some lower, depending on where you are). Yet, people are still piling onto the SUV/pickup truck bandwagon with abandon. Doesn't sound like people are complaining or, if they are, it's under their breath.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet they still buy hulking, gas-guzzling, SUVs and pickup trucks and live in those ridiculous McMansions out in the suburbs where they have to drive an hour or more each way to and from work every day. Sorry, not sorry. They bring the pain upon themselves.
If you structure your lifestyle more reasonably and responsibly... drive a 33/42-mpg Civic (Much more fun to drive than an SUV/Truck anyway.), avoid the hell that is suburban sprawl so you have a 35-minute train ride to work most days, or a 15-minute
Re: (Score:2)
And yet they still buy hulking, gas-guzzling, SUVs and pickup trucks and live in those ridiculous McMansions out in the suburbs where they have to drive an hour or more each way to and from work every day. Sorry, not sorry. They bring the pain upon themselves.
If gas were double or triple the cost it is today, people would stop doing that, which is the point. Oh, they'd still have the McMansions (I have one, and I quite like it, thank you very much), but they would commute in hulking, energy-sucking EVs and roof their McMansions with solar panels to keep their electricity costs down.
This would be good.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been too hot here to complain about the C$1.72 a litre gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies that are historically responsible should be required to remove what was emitted in the past.
So...wipe out all of their profits across history without allowing them to recoup the increased cost because what was produced has been sold long ago. You wouldn't have to look far to find unintended consequences here.
Re:Time to pay for the damage (Score:5, Insightful)
A good start would be to end ALL fossil fuel subsidies, so the cost of gasoline rises to the actual cost of producing it.
Re: (Score:3)
That would also involve having fossil fuel companies defend their supply chains with private military forces. Saw an article a while ago that calculated that the US military budget effectively subsidizes gas by about 25c/gal
Re: (Score:2)
That would also involve having fossil fuel companies defend their supply chains with private military forces. Saw an article a while ago that calculated that the US military budget effectively subsidizes gas by about 25c/gal
I don't think this is true any more. The US is approximately energy-independent in fossil fuels today, and could very easily be independent at need, with only a small increase in cost. Fracking has made this possible. Even if that weren't enough, oil shale and tar sands could do it, though at a higher price point. And the trend is toward both reduced consumption and greater domestic production.
Given all of that, it no longer makes sense for the US to go to war over oil, just as it never made sense for th
Re: (Score:2)
It was actually a rather recent and conservative estimate, details here:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It was actually a rather recent and conservative estimate, details here:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and... [vox.com]
Yes, but they're clearly just looking at what the US is spending on deployments in relevant areas. That isn't the same as saying that we're actually spending that money on defending oil supplies. Defending oil supplies may have been the past rationale for starting those deployments, but at this point I think the reason we're continuing them is a combination of inertia and other factors, not because we're actually concerned about maintaining the oil supply.
Re: (Score:3)
Ensuring companies pay for the "full lifecycle" of what they produce has always been suggested as the ideal situation. Problem is, you really have no way to ensure the money collected or taxed really goes towards that end.
EG. There was a big push for the computer hardware makers to offer free recycling programs so people could dispose of their outdated gear responsibly. Sounds great on paper, but the reality is, most of that recycling amounted to shipping the stuff to any nation willing to accept it (like
Re: (Score:2)
We need to phase in a carbon tax worldwide that funds removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
People are not going to vote themselves higher fuel prices. Can't anyone think of a solution that doesn't involve raising taxes?
Oil companies that certifiably remove the CO2 themselves would be exempted.
That would be unnecessary if there was no tax in the first place. If this did happen then I'd expect all kinds of fraud and abuse.
Companies that are historically responsible should be required to remove what was emitted in the past.
Right, so you pass that law, all the companies held responsible declare bankruptcy or just dissolve the corporation. Then a new company comes in existence, hires all the same people from the old company, buys all the assets from the old company and th
"decades before the issue reached the public"??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AGW was first predicted in the 19th century as CO2s properties became better understood. Anyone with some basic knowledge of physics can tell you bumping up the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere inevitably leads to capturing more thermal radiation. It's simple physics; the absorption/re-emission properties of CO2 coupled with thermodynamics.
Listen to big oil? (Score:2)
Good Point to Bring Up With Deniers (Score:2)
I have yet to hear any sensible response to this. Not that I get many sensible responses from such people on this topic in general, but this point is especially salient. C
Stunning accuracy? (Score:2)
"m carbon dioxide buildup would be 40 years later. We made a prediction in 1980 of what the atmospheric warming would be from fossil fuel burning in 2020. We predicted that it would be about one degree celsius. And it is about one degree celsius."
So they were out by a factor of 2 or more. Temperature rise in the last SEVENTY years has been about 0.7 deg C, and not all of that is CO2 related.
Climate Change was well known in the 1950ies (Score:2)
The problem has been common knowledge since the early 60ies. There are regular reports and documentaries from the 1970ies, the first TV documentary from 1958 discussing the problem. I clearly remember discussing this as a nine year old with my dad back in 1979.
This is what bugs me about this problem: it's really not news. We're just not addressing it even though that would've been due in the mid 80ies the latest.
Re:Are oil companies at fault here? (Score:5, Informative)
They knew their product was dangerous and intentionally misled the public and lured our leaders into corruption to continue reaping profits based on damage to paid for by future generations.
From the article:
"Some researchers later testified before Congress, using their insider knowledge to highlight the ways in which the oil industry misled the public. Others say they have few qualms with how the petroleum giants handled their research."
Blame Everyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Blaming a company for researching their field and impacts to their business is illegal? When there was no requirement to disclose that.
Then we need to put all parents in jail, because having children is a much larger impact on the environment and society than anything else! We have all known about impacts of Over Population, but only China tried to do something about it and most of the rest of the world considers them evil for doing that.
If you create your own facts, then you are the problem
Re: (Score:2)
Blaming a company for researching their field and impacts to their business is illegal?
No, free speech means you can blame pretty mush anyone you want.
Oh! You jumped in with your defense so quickly you appear to have missed your error.
The liability for the oil companies comes in the form of fraud. TL:DR: they lied so that people would give them money. Typically, parents do not turn a profit off their children, and if they do it's even less common to lie to get that profit.
Re:Are oil companies at fault here? (Score:5, Informative)
And, just at the right time, comes out an expose that shows how wrong you are, how oil companies used lobbying and financial support to deny climate change [theguardian.com]. So, please crawl back into whatever hole you came out of and don't bother posting until you have some real knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
You are totally missing the point. Assuming that they had not done any such thing, do you think the things would have been different? For last 30 years, their attempt to hide connection between climate change and fossil fuel has utterly failed and yet we see no change in public behavior. The cars have become bigger and bigger. People are buying solar and EV (I have both) today not because of environment concerns alone but because they make economic sense. I think that even if the oil companies had been 100%
Re: (Score:2)
Your premise that their attempt to hide the connection has failed is false. There are millions of people in the USA alone that continue to deny climate change. They follow Trump in this regard.
So, yes, without them spending many millions on disinformation, t
Re:Are oil companies at fault here? (Score:4, Insightful)
They did mislead public to the level of sponsoring "fake" studies with results fitting their propaganda, sending their operatives to conferences to obscure research related to human caused climate change and actively lobbying politicians to prevent any policies or statements confirming Earth warming, which would affect their bottom line.
Don't have links at hand, but there are numerous reports by scientists of loosing grants when their results upset oil/coal corps, too well dressed "scientists" at conferences interrupting their speeches with bogus claims, connections of certain politicians to certain coal brothers, oil corporations sponsoring certain labs or universities, when as a result people involved in climate research either getting fired or a whole research in this area being discontinued, etc.
According to google BP annual revenue for 2018 was about 303bln USD vs US NSA annual budged of 10.8bln USD - people claiming any global conspiracy of climate scientists should have their head checked.
"Let's let corporations to regulate themselves" and we'll have more Deepwater Horizons and Boeing Maxs.
Re:Are oil companies at fault here? (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean other than the big push for solar, the EVs, LED lighting, wind power, improved battery tech, etc. All of which might well have happened sooner but for the oil companies spending billions in advertising, bribes, and fake "independent" studies in order to make sure those things got minimal funding and support? You figure they spent all that money for funsies and it had no impact on anything?
Re: (Score:2)
We have all willingly benefited from Big Oil. The time to have gotten off of oil was before so many became accustomed to the benefits. 1946 would have been the best time. We should have stayed an agrarian society. No matter solar panels had not been developed yet or wind turbines. My dad did not get any sort of electricity until 1947. My grandmother cooked on a wood stove.
We could return to those times but unless we can force China and India to to the same and stop Africa from developing the climate will c
Re: (Score:2)
A hundred odd years back Exxon was running a mis-information campaign about lead and how adding a few grams to a gallon of gas was harmless contrary to what those chemical weapons experts claimed. Perhaps without that campaign and the campaign to get rid of public transport a decade or 2 later, we wouldn't have become so dependent on oil.
Re: (Score:2)
None of these tech would have happened sooner. Lithium batteries were not invented to fight fossil fuel and neither were any other tech you are talking about. There is little evidence that these wrong behavior actually contributed to suppression of any of these tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of those technologies probably would have come about sooner if not for the oil companies lobbying representatives to kill initiatives and other support either directly or through producing bogus "studies" that convinced representatives there was no need to support them.
Re: (Score:2)
What about nukes and Exxon secretly funding Greenpeace and such. During the '70's people got turned against nuclear in a big way and at the time nuclear was a valid option to fight global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They did fund the anti-nuke forces as back then nuclear power was an obvious way to combat global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
This global cooling crisis, was mostly corrected by policy (anti-smog laws). The Beijing Olympics,had China temporarily cut a lot of emissions into that city and surrounding area, to make the air breathable. This also raised the temperature of the city.
However increasing Smog to combat global warming, is not a good solution, because of the health issues with the Smog will make a lot of things worse than normal climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
This global cooling crisis, was mostly corrected by policy (anti-smog laws). The Beijing Olympics,had China temporarily cut a lot of emissions into that city and surrounding area, to make the air breathable. This also raised the temperature of the city.
However increasing Smog to combat global warming, is not a good solution, because of the health issues with the Smog will make a lot of things worse than normal climate change.
So what we need to do is increase smog and then build structures where we can live above it... wasn't there a movie about that... (grin)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)