Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Full text of scientist’s email

Below is the text of an email from Lenny Bernstein to the director of the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), who had asked for ideas to stimulate students for an ethics day announced by the Carnegie Council.


"Alyssa’s right. Feel free to share this e-mail with her. Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits, either current or future. They may take what appears to be altruistic positions to improve their public image, but the assumption underlying those actions is that they will increase future profits. ExxonMobil is an interesting case in point.

Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia. This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2. That CO2 would have to be separated to make the natural gas usable. Natural gas often contains CO2 and the technology for removing CO2 is well known. In 1981 (and now) the usual practice was to vent the CO2 to the atmosphere. When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I’m sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions.

The alternative to venting CO2 to the atmosphere is to inject it into ground. This technology was also well known, since the oil industry had been injecting limited quantities of CO2 to enhance oil recovery. There were many questions about whether the CO2 would remain in the ground, some of which have been answered by Statoil’s now almost 20 years of experience injecting CO2 in the North Sea. Statoil did this because the Norwegian government placed a tax on vented CO2. It was cheaper for Statoil to inject CO2 than pay the tax. Of course, Statoil has touted how much CO2 it has prevented from being emitted.

In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue. Natural resource companies – oil, coal, minerals – have to make investments that have lifetimes of 50-100 years. Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations. Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question – legitimately, in my opinion – the validity of some of the science.

Political battles need to personify the enemy. This is why liberals spend so much time vilifying the Koch brothers – who are hardly the only big money supporters of conservative ideas. In climate change, the first villain was a man named Donald Pearlman, who was a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. (In another life, he was instrumental in getting the US Holocaust Museum funded and built.) Pearlman’s usefulness as a villain ended when he died of lung cancer – he was a heavy smoker to the end.

Then the villain was the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a trade organization of energy producers and large energy users. I was involved in GCC for a while, unsuccessfully trying to get them to recognize scientific reality. (That effort got me on to the front page of the New York Times, but that’s another story.) Environmental group pressure was successful in putting GCC out of business, but they also lost their villain. They needed one which wouldn’t die and wouldn’t go out of business. Exxon, and after its merger with Mobil ExxonMobil, fit the bill, especially under its former CEO, Lee Raymond, who was vocally opposed to climate change regulation. ExxonMobil’s current CEO, Rex Tillerson, has taken a much softer line, but ExxonMobil has not lost its position as the personification of corporate, and especially climate change, evil. It is the only company mentioned in Alyssa’s e-mail, even though, in my opinion, it is far more ethical that many other large corporations.

Having spent twenty years working for Exxon and ten working for Mobil, I know that much of that ethical behavior comes from a business calculation that it is cheaper in the long run to be ethical than unethical. Safety is the clearest example of this. ExxonMobil knows all too well the cost of poor safety practices. The Exxon Valdez is the most public, but far from the only, example of the high cost of unsafe operations. The value of good environmental practices are more subtle, but a facility that does a good job of controlling emission and waste is a well run facility, that is probably maximizing profit. All major companies will tell you that they are trying to minimize their internal CO2 emissions. Mostly, they are doing this by improving energy efficiency and reducing cost. The same is true for internal recycling, again a practice most companies follow. Its [sic] just good engineering.

I could go on, but this e-mail is long enough."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
 
In no way does this indicate that Exxon knew about climate change. It says they were interested in learning about it.

If you get interested in nuclear energy and a nuke goes off somewhere on the other side of the world, does it mean that you are somehow responsible in part?

I see this e-mail as more of vindication for exxon mobile than some scandalous expose.
 
In no way does this indicate that Exxon knew about climate change. It says they were interested in learning about it.

If you get interested in nuclear energy and a nuke goes off somewhere on the other side of the world, does it mean that you are somehow responsible in part?

I see this e-mail as more of vindication for exxon mobile than some scandalous expose.

if OP wanted the deluded opinion of someone who thinks that NASA is engaged in a global warming conspiracy in order to take our money, then he would have posted this to morons.org, not rollitup.org.

Global warming is no different than the last H1N1 "pandemic", scare tactics to get you to buy into something that doesn't exist, just so money can be made off of you.
 
It's against RIU policy to spam your own commercial enterprises Buck.

why do you think that NASA is just making up global warming to take our money?

were you aware that KKK grand wizard david duke espouses essentially the exact same conspiracy theory as you do?

is it just coincidence that you and david duke think the same thing on this and so many other issues?

or do you just check and see what he has to say before you decide to parrot his opinion on things?
 
In no way does this indicate that Exxon knew about climate change. It says they were interested in learning about it.

If you get interested in nuclear energy and a nuke goes off somewhere on the other side of the world, does it mean that you are somehow responsible in part?

I see this e-mail as more of vindication for exxon mobile than some scandalous expose.

You have to be a paid shill, there is no other explanation. That, or you simply are undeniably stupid.
 
Umm yeah, the king of false accusations making more false accusations.

it's not a false accusation, you just repeated the same theory as KKK grand wizard david duke.

you:

Global warming is no different than the last H1N1 "pandemic", scare tactics to get you to buy into something that doesn't exist, just so money can be made off of you.

david duke:

http://davidduke.com/global-warming-is-still-a-hoax/

The Democrats saw the Global Warming scam as an opportunity to increase taxes...Not only would Global Warming be used to extort money...It is only the White nations of the West who are expected to cut their own economic throats.



see?
 
LOL there is no similarity at all you dumb shit.

you: global warming doesn't exist and is a scare tactic to get your money.

kkk grand wizard david duke: global warming is a hoax to extort money from you.

yep, not similar at all, except for the fact that it is the same exact retarded conspiracy theory.
 
you: global warming doesn't exist and is a scare tactic to get your money.

kkk grand wizard david duke: global warming is a hoax to extort money from you.

yep, not similar at all, except for the fact that it is the same exact retarded conspiracy theory.
LOL. Duke says it was a democrat plan to gain tax revenue, I say its a plan to make money for a select few. You say they are exactly the same. To you a woman and a walrus are the same thing. Why would anything you say be taken seriously? no one takes the village idiot seriously.
 
LOL. Duke says it was a democrat plan to gain tax revenue, I say its a plan to make money for a select few. You say they are exactly the same. To you a woman and a walrus are the same thing. Why would anything you say be taken seriously? no one takes the village idiot seriously.

david duke says they want to tax corporations. you say that any tax on corporations is paid for by the people.

you and david duke have the exact same conspiracy theory about global warming.

you both think it is a hoax and a scam, and you both think it is designed to take money from some to give to others.

both of you are racist conspiracy nut idiots.

but at least david duke is original and doesn't need to constantly plagiarize, like you do.
 
david duke says they want to tax corporations. you say that any tax on corporations is paid for by the people.

you and david duke have the exact same conspiracy theory about global warming.

you both think it is a hoax and a scam, and you both think it is designed to take money from some to give to others.

both of you are racist conspiracy nut idiots.

but at least david duke is original and doesn't need to constantly plagiarize, like you do.

So again, you need to resort to another lie in order for your post to even hold the tiniest of water.

Keep lying, its easy to refute lies, and lies are all you have. You're unable to think for yourself aren't you?

You and a child rapist are exactly alike.
Is that a lie?
 
MoDrama, you are denying that Exxon was aware, or knew of, climate change. That is your claim. You are making this claim either because you are a paid shill, or you are quite accurately, retarded.
 
isn't john christy totally buddy buddy with roy spencer, who is rush limbaugh's "go to" guy on all things global warming hoax?

he makes a lot of statements that have nothing to do with climate change at all but are instead 100% political.

complete hack. no wonder he's crying.
 
Back
Top