Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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

A newly unearthed missive from Lenny Bernstein, a climate expert with the oil firm for 30 years, shows concerns over high presence of carbon dioxide in enormous gas field in south-east Asia factored into decision not to tap it.

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2”, or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.

However, Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.

Exxon said Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.

“What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; that it accepted the reality, instead of denying the reality as they have done publicly, and to such an extent that it took it into account in their decision making, in making their economic calculation,” the director of the Institute, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), told the Guardian.

“One thing that occurs to me is the behavior of the tobacco companies denying the connection between smoking and lung cancer for the sake of profits, but this is an order of magnitude greater moral offence, in my opinion, because what is at stake is the fate of the planet, humanity, and the future of civilisation, not to be melodramatic.”

Exxon, unlike other companies and the public at large in the early 1980s, was already aware of climate change – and the prospect of regulations to limit the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, according to Bernstein’s account.

“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,” he wrote.

“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,” Bernstein wrote in the email.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

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

A newly unearthed missive from Lenny Bernstein, a climate expert with the oil firm for 30 years, shows concerns over high presence of carbon dioxide in enormous gas field in south-east Asia factored into decision not to tap it.

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2”, or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.

However, Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.

Exxon said Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.

“What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; that it accepted the reality, instead of denying the reality as they have done publicly, and to such an extent that it took it into account in their decision making, in making their economic calculation,” the director of the Institute, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), told the Guardian.

“One thing that occurs to me is the behavior of the tobacco companies denying the connection between smoking and lung cancer for the sake of profits, but this is an order of magnitude greater moral offence, in my opinion, because what is at stake is the fate of the planet, humanity, and the future of civilisation, not to be melodramatic.”

Exxon, unlike other companies and the public at large in the early 1980s, was already aware of climate change – and the prospect of regulations to limit the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, according to Bernstein’s account.

“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,” he wrote.

“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,” Bernstein wrote in the email.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... er-funding" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

travelinman67 wrote:Interesting video on this from Ecuadorian intelligence...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uGU73QhWyx4

...edited by Saul Alinsky

Corporations are interested in environmental impacts...

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...

They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness....

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....

a facility that does a good job of controlling emission and waste is a well run facility...

The same is true for internal recycling, again a practice most companies follow. Its [sic] just good engineering.

AZGrizFan wrote:It wasn't a connection between fossil fuels and climate change. It was a connection between CO2 and climate change. And instead of ripping them a new one, why aren't you singing their praises for NOT tapping the field?

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:It wasn't a connection between fossil fuels and climate change. It was a connection between CO2 and climate change. And instead of ripping them a new one, why aren't you singing their praises for NOT tapping the field?

So much fail here I don't even know where to start.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
So much fail here I don't even know where to start.

Sounds like a "you" problem. Let us know when you figure it out.

Brock Landers wrote:Part of wants to try to understand why so many people on this board are denialists, but that's like understanding why D1B hates the Catholic Church. I'm afraid of what I'll find.

Brock Landers wrote:Part of wants to try to understand why so many people on this board are denialists, but that's like understanding why D1B hates the Catholic Church. I'm afraid of what I'll find.

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW, after reading the article linked at the top of this thread, go and read the article linked in the "New Totalitarians" thread and think about how people get brow beaten into getting into line. You know, you get to the point of going ahead and saying, "Oh yeah that's true" because you decide that further resistance if futile.

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW, after reading the article linked at the top of this thread, go and read the article linked in the "New Totalitarians" thread and think about how people get brow beaten into getting into line. You know, you get to the point of going ahead and saying, "Oh yeah that's true" because you decide that further resistance if futile.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW, after reading the article linked at the top of this thread, go and read the article linked in the "New Totalitarians" thread and think about how people get brow beaten into getting into line. You know, you get to the point of going ahead and saying, "Oh yeah that's true" because you decide that further resistance if futile.

You'd think it would be the opposite for scientists.