Tag: Exxon

Categories
United States of America

October 16, 1979 – Exxon memo on the potential impact of fossil fuel combustion

Forty five years ago, on this day, October 16th, 1979, an Exxon Memo on Potential Impact of Fossil Fuel Combustion is sent.

see also https://thenib.com/climate-crisis-comix/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that. Exxon had been looking at CO2 build up. They’d had discussions with oceanographer Wally Broecker. There were bits of equipment on oil tankers and so forth. And they’d done the calculations. And they basically knew what was coming, and made fairly accurate predictions of what was coming. See for example this June 6, 1978 presentation.

What we learn is that in the words of the website, “Exxon knew.”

What happened next. In early 1980 Exxon and Texaco were talking about setting up a climate taskforce. As late as October 25, 1982 – Exxon held “Climate Processes & Climate Sensitivity” symposium. But then in the mid-80s, Exxon pulled the plug, and started funding denial, started making as much money as they could, which is a lot of money. And in 2006, the Royal Society had taken the unusual step of telling them to knock it off with the denial – September 4, 2006 – Royal Society to Exxon: “Knock it off with the funding to #climate deniers”– with limited effects. Dark money is still going towards these groups. Whether it’s Exxon or Exxon’s mates, who can say. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

October 16, 1956 – will H-bombs knock the world off balance!?

October 16, 1990 – Green groups say yes to “Ecologically Sustainable Development”

Categories
United States of America

August 20, 2016 – Exxon’s gonna get sued?

Eight years ago, on this day, August 20th, 2017

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says in an interview with the New York Times that his office’s investigation into Exxon is focused less on what the company knew about climate change years ago, and more on whether the company in recent years failed to report the potential impact of climate change regulations on its future business. In other words, the AG’s office is conducting “a straightforward fraud investigation.” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/science/exxon-mobil-fraud-inquiry-said-to-focus-more-on-future-than-past.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Americans love suing people. And there were various attempts to sue Exxon. These were initially based on how long they’ve known about climate change, but as the Attorney General makes clear, just getting them on today’s fraud is probably your best bet.

What we learn is that “this isn’t a Court of Justice son, this is a court of law”. The people who made the decisions to stop Exxon, working on low carbon, and the people who funded and led all the denial and delay and obfuscation do indeed deserve to be at The Hague and then sentenced to a low lying prison. But that’s not going to happen. Because the laws are not always written for the rich, they are always enforced for the rich.

What happened next, I think the court cases dragging on and on, of course.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

August 20, 1997 – Australian Mining Industry operative misrepresents the #climate science. Obvs.

August 20, 2018 – Greta Thunberg’s first protest

Categories
United States of America

May 8, 1980 – Nature article “CO2 could increase global tensions.” Exxon discussed underneath. Delicious ironies abound.

Forty four years ago, on this day, May 8th, 1980, there was an ironic juxtaposition in the British science journal Nature…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the synfuels battle had just happened. And Americans, political leaders had been warned about the geopolitical consequences of CO2. Other people were saying the same stuff. 

What we learn is that CO2 was a really live issue in the late 70s, early 80s. People knew what was coming, they couldn’t say exactly when. And history is full of these delicious little moments, I guess.

What happened next, Exxon gave up on renewables and being vaguely responsible and all the rest of it and switched to denial very effectively. American politicians continued to be aware of CO2. There were congressional hearings, Senate hearings and then after 1985 it really picked up steam. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

May 8, 1972 – “Teach-in for Survival” in London

May 8, 1992 – UNFCCC text agreed. World basically doomed.

May 8, 2013 – we pass 400 parts per million. Trouble ahead.

May 8, 2015 – denialist denies in delusional denialist newspaper

Categories
United States of America

February 29, 1980 – Texaco and Exxon talk about setting up a greenhouse taskforce…

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 29th, 1980,

Bruce S. Bailey of Texaco offered “for consideration” the idea that “an overall goal of the Task Force should be to help develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation,” according to the minutes of a meeting on Feb. 29, 1980. 

Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too

The minutes also show that the task force discussed a “potential area” for research and development that called for it to “‘Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.’ This would include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing and requirements.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Exxon had known about the climate issue, and had been offering to do further research more recently than that. And obviously, outfits like Texaco and Exxon were in talks about what could be done; “Oh, I know, let’s set up a workshop”

What we learn

Corporates have their pressures and it is akin to that MacMillan Manoeuvre thing, but it’s also a necessary first step. So what we learn here is that oil companies were on it in the late 70s, early 80s. In the same period that Carter was talking about Global 2000.

And they didn’t speak up when Reagan came in and started backpedalling/ignoring this stuff (James Watt, Anne Gorsuch) because it helped them take their foot off the gas (or maybe, more accurately, put their foot on the gas).

 What happened next Exxon changed its tune. And then in 1988, began serious resistance to the climate issue.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
United States of America

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 30, 1998, two of the Seven Sisters join at the hip.

1998 – Exxon and Mobil sign a USD$73.7 billion agreement to merge, thus creating ExxonMobil, the world’s largest company

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Mobil had, by this time been doing “advertorials” and so on (see Herb Schmertz- https://marketingcraftsmanship.com/2013/07/05/the-herb-schmertz-era-when-public-relations-had-some-balls/

that the German provocateur and artist Hans Haacke had spoofed.

What I think we can learn from this is that Omnicorp is on the horizon, as per the Onion “Our Dumb Century”. These immensely powerful concentrated interests well, you can break them up and they recombine, recoalesce. It’s like that scene at the end of Terminator two (spoiler), where he’s been in the liquid nitrogen, they shoot him, he is destroyed. And then the pieces and Mercury start to come back together.

What happened next

Exxon continued to fund denialist groups (provoking the Royal Society into writing a public letter in 2006 telling them to knock it off), and is now getting sued for what it did to block action.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

That Hans Haacke/Bourdieu book “Free Exchange”

https://raphaeldelamer.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/bourdieu-pierre-haacke-hans-free-exchange.pdf

Categories
Denial United States of America

August 3, 1988 – Exxon tries to downplay “the greenhouse effect.” Again.

Thirty five years ago, on this day, August 3, 1988, an Exxon PR flak is drafting bullshit about “THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT”, draft written by Joseph M. Carlson, an Exxon Public Affairs Managers.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3024180/1998-Exxon-Memo-on-the-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone had started to bang on about climate change. And so Exxon needed to go public. But going public and saying, “yeah, we’ve known about this for 10 years and we decided a while back that we were going to be obstructive” would not be particularly helpful. So instead, they tried to baffle people with bullshit and passive language and all the rest of it. 

What I think we can learn from this

What we learn is that this is just how corporates behave unless forced to do otherwise.

What happened next

Exxon funded loads of denialist groups, to the extent that the UK Royal Society asked them to knock it off. With limited effect.

#ExxonKnew

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Fossil fuels United States of America

June 6, 1978 – Exxon presentation about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty five years ago, on this day, June 6, 1978, Exxon got told about the climate crisis to be caused by its product… We know this thanks to the hard work of the folks at Inside Climate News and Exxon Knew.

6 June 1978 PRESENTATION SHARED WITH EXXON MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE from Exxon Research and Engineering Science Advisor, James Black

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Exxon had been aware of the climate issue like anyone else for a long time. They were beginning to liaise with certain scientists, like Wally Broecker, to do some investigation of their own and to offer Exxon facilities, ships etc. as platforms from which useful data could be measured.

What I think we can learn from this. This isn’t necessarily an effort at silencing or cooptation (in fact, that would be a perverse reading). This is just a big company trying to figure out what’s going on.

What happened next

Of course, since then, Exxon has done pretty much everything within its power to block climate action, because that action would impinge on their profits.

The predictions their scientists made in the 1970s? Pretty good… https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

September 4, 2006 – Royal Society to Exxon: “Knock it off with the funding to #climate deniers”

On this day, September 4 2006, the Royal Society (venerable Science outfit, 360ish years old) asked the American oil company Exxon to knock it off with the climate denial support.

https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2006/royal-society-exxonmobil/

On this day the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 379.04 ppm Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

Exxon had been/has been an enormous source of climate denial, despite their own scientists saying in the 1970s that yes, indeed, global warming because of the burning of fossil fuels was going to be a serious thing. A bunch of scientists who don’t like hand-to-hand combat coming out and saying “stop right there thank you very much” was a big deal.

What happened next?

Exxon got sneakier about it, is all.

Categories
Australia Cultural responses United States of America

May 30, 1990 – Midnight Oil do a gig outside Exxon’s HQ in New York

On this day, May 30, 1990, Australian band “Midnight Oil” held an impromptu concert in New York, outside Exxon’s HQ. You can see the footage here

Exxon were villain du jour because of a certain carelessness the previous spring in Alaska.

We didn’t know then, but Exxon already had a solid ten years of climate knowledge under its belt – they knew that their product would wreck the planet, but why, erm, rock the boat?

You might also like this song, by “Max Q”

Why this matters. 

Culturally, we can resist.  Economically, persistently, strategically? Not so easy.

What happened next?

Midnight Oil kept burning.  They stopped while Peter Garrett, lead singer tried to change the system from within.  Have since resumed.


Exxon?  Oh, Exxon kept up their boundless love and generosity for future generations by, you know, funding denialist outfits, getting IPCC chairs sacked – the usual.

Categories
Science Scientists

March 26, 1979 – Exxon meets a climate scientist

On this day in 1979, a few weeks after the end of the First World Climate Conference, Wally Broecker, the oceanographer met with Exxon scientists who were studying climate change and fossil fuels.

Broecker, to his apparent dismay, had coined the had been the first to use the term global warming in an academic context. (According to Alice Bell’s book “Our Biggest Experiment”, he  offered 200 bucks to anyone who could find an earlier example so he wouldn’t be lumbered with the unwanted title. 

Broecker also famously later compared the climate system to a sleeping beast and suggested that we stop poking it with a sharp stick.

What’s Exxon in all this? Well, “Exxon knew”. Exxon was doing its own studies of the climate problem, the carbon dioxide problem in the late 70s, early 80s. And this involved talking to scientists who knew what they were talking about. And Broecker most certainly was one of the scientists who really knew what he was talking about 

You can read more about this at the truly excellent “Inside Climate News”

Wallace Broecker

See also the page on Inside Climate News about “Exxon: The Road not taken.”

Exxon: The Road Not Taken

Why this matters

We need to remember that Exxon knew, and that scientists, quite rightly will talk to different constituencies they are paid out of taxpayer funding, and they should talk to not just the grassroots groups, but the biggies. And we need to know that in 1979, there were people seriously worried about climate. And these weren’t just hippies living in communes. This was the elite and it would be another 9 or 10 years before the issue would successfully break through and the co2 concentration had gone up and more kit had been built, and more norms around production and consumption had been established. And yes, yes, the population had gone up too;  we have two problems. The one that we in the West really need to do something about is overconsumption, exploitation, imperialism, hyper-extractivism, murder, you name it. And once we’ve done all of that, and paid reparations, then we can start to lecture other people about having too many babies.