Not Just Exxon: The Entire Oil and Gas Industry Knew The Truth About Climate Change 35 Years Ago.

Unless “climate change” becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts.

American Petroleum Institute, “Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan”, 1998.

A recent investigative series by Inside Climate News  documented Exxon Corporation’s extensive knowledge–as early as 1977– of the reality of man-made climate change, and of its own role in creating increased greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions all but certain to result in a future of catastrophic warming to the planet.  ICN’s investigation also documented the abrupt and deliberate policy decision made by Exxon to become the industry  leader in financing and fostering the denial of climate science, a decision that ensured that the rest of the human race would be fed a stream of disinformation until it was effectively too late, while Exxon profited to the maximum extent possible before the truth became overwhelming and, in essence, un-deniable.

New reporting by Neela Banerjee for ICN now reveals that it wasn’t just Exxon, but the entire oil and gas industry through its mouthpiece, the American Petroleum Institute, that collaborated to perpetuate the denial and “uncertainty” charade, to soak in as much money for themselves as possible at the expense of the rest of us and all future generations who would have to live through the consequences of their deception:

The American Petroleum Institute together with the nation’s largest oil companies ran a task force to monitor and share climate research between 1979 and 1983, indicating that the oil industry, not just Exxon alone, was aware of its possible impact on the world’s climate far earlier than previously known.

The API’s task force was made up of the senior scientists and engineers from Amoco, Mobil, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Gulf Oil and Standard Oil of California, probably the highest paid and sought-after senior scientists and engineers on the planet.  They came from companies that, just like Exxon, ran their own research units and did climate modeling to understand the impact of climate change and how it would impact their company’s bottom line.  The leader of the task force, James Nelson, in probably one of the most ironic admissions in corporate history, acknowledged to ICN that the multi-company effort was initially called the CO₂ and Climate Task Force,but changed its name to the Climate and Energy Task Force in 1980.

In the heady days of the late 1970’s, before the Reagan era officially sanctioned corporate greed as an American value, there was actually some consideration by these companies of reducing emissions in order to spare the rest of the world the consequences of unchecked global warming:

API task force members appeared open to the idea that the oil industry might have to shoulder some responsibility for reducing CO₂ emissions by changing refining processes and developing fuels that emitted less carbon dioxide.

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.

In the same 1980 meeting the task force also heard from Professor John Laurmann of Stanford University on possible conversion to alternate energy sources. Laurmann advised the task force of the potentially catastrophic consequences with continued global warming if fossil fuel consumption continued unabated. From the meeting minutes of Laurmann’s presentation to the API task force:

LIKELY IMPACTS:

1 C Rise (2005): BARELY NOTICEABLE

2.5 C Rise (2038): MAJOR ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES, STRONG REGIONAL DEPENDENCE

5 C Rise (2067): GLOBALLY CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS

But this fleeting moment of concern and human conscience—just as it had it Exxon’s case—soon yielded to the enticing reality of seven and eight-figure executive salaries:

[B]y the 1990s, it was clear that API had opted for a markedly different approach to the threat of climate change. It joined Exxon, other fossil fuel companies and major manufacturers in the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a lobbying group whose objective was to derail international efforts to curb heat-trapping emissions. In 1998, a year after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted by countries to cut fossil fuel emissions, API crafted a campaign to convince the American public and lawmakers that climate science was too tenuous for the United States to ratify the treaty.

Nelson acknowledges that in the 1980’s API moved abruptly away from science-based analysis of the climatic impact of the fossil fuel industry and began taking a more “political” view towards protecting its interests:

“They took the environmental unit and put it into the political department, which was primarily lobbyists,” he said. “They weren’t focused on doing research or on improving the oil industry’s impact on pollution. They were less interested in pushing the envelope of science and more interested in how to make it more advantageous politically or economically for the oil industry. That’s not meant as a criticism. It’s just a fact of life.”

Nelson excuses this shift by blaming it on the growing influence of the Environmental Protection Agency, which is something akin to the Tobacco industry blaming its misleading propaganda on the efforts of the FDA to regulate tobacco. The campaign of manufactured disinformation and doubt that ensued was deliberate, well-planned, and well-financed, and continues to this day. The following is an excerpt from the API’s Action Plan memorandum of the API, 1998, setting forth the industry’s goals to sow public doubt in American media about something they had been well aware of for nearly twenty years:

PROJECT GOAL

A majority of the American public, including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science, and therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.

Progress will be measured toward the goal…[.]

Victory Will Be Achieved When

• Average citizens “understand” (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the “conventional wisdom”
• Media “understands” (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
• Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current “conventional wisdom”
• Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
• Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

Interestingly, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was identified as a “potential fund allocator” for the API’s initiative, which illustrates how long ALEC has been a willing tool of corporate malfeasance.  In 2000 the group found a natural ally in George W. Bush, whose campaign professions of sincere interest in reducing global carbon emissions were swiftly reversed once he obtained access to the Oval Office.  Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto treaty, well documented and attested to by then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill in Ron Suskind’s, “The Price of Loyalty,” was a classic corporate-inspired betrayal of the environment:

API and GCC were victorious when George W. Bush pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto agreement. A June 2001 briefing memorandum records a top State Department official thanking the GCC because Bush “rejected the Kyoto Protocol in part, based on input from you.”

READ BELOW AN EXAMPLE OF OIL INDUSTRY P.R. INSIDIOUSNESS. THE POISONED STILETTO WAS NEVER USED WITH SUCH DISASTROUS RESULTS. 
How can the bastards who write this misleading crap look in the mirror without puking?  Not to mention the sociopathic bastards and plutocrats that hire them. 

REINVENTING ENERGY

A press release from the American Petroleum Institute: WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 /PRNewswire/

---

A dramatic, arbitrary reduction in the use of oil -- as some environmentalists and government officials now urge -- would require Americans to make wrenching economic and personal sacrifices because oil products support the current pattern of American lifestyles and existing alternatives are either unaffordable or technologically infeasible on a wide-scale basis, according to a new book published today by the American Petroleum Institute.

"The miraculous energy panacea that some environmental activists seem to be dreaming of doesn't exist," says the book, "Reinventing Energy." In announcing the publication of "Reinventing Energy," Charles J. DiBona, president of API, said that the new book is intended to help (sic) the average American -- as well as the serious policy maker and the thoughtful environmentalist -- make wise choices about energy and the environment. He said that individual and public policy decisions too often are made in an atmosphere of hype and hyperbole. As a result, the facts needed to make the best choices can be hard to come by. "This book fills that gap," DiBona said. He said that "Reinventing Energy," which was written by a team of API economists and environmental analysts, could not be more timely.

---

He said that Americans owe it to themselves to examine the facts, reveal the realities obscured by the myths and look objectively at the topic of reinventing energy. As new technologies evolve, consumers should have the option of choosing fuel based on cost, performance and its ability to meet environmental goals, the book says. And while all fuels -- oil, natural gas, ethanol, electricity, solar, coal and other energy sources -- offer both advantages and disadvantages for many uses, oil's advantages outweigh any disadvantages at this time. The 99-page book examines the full range of energy issues and concludes that, for the foreseeable future, the facts simply do not support the contention of activists who believe that oil use must be curtailed and that Americans should be required to use less oil for transportation, heating homes and producing goods -- regardless of economic or lifestyle consequences.

---

Here is a summary of the book's findings: The world is not running out of oil. While U.S. oil production has peaked, in part due to restrictions that have prevented oil companies from exploring and producing in many promising areas, proved world reserves are higher now than ever before -- nearly a trillion barrels. That's enough to sustain current production for at least 45 years, even if not another barrel is found.

The need for imported oil is a manageable risk. Supply disruptions of oil imports are less of a danger than in past years because the world oil resources are abundant, the U.S. has developed strategic petroleum reserves that can be tapped to stabilize the market in case of a supply disruption and oil is being found in countries outside the volatile Persian Gulf.

Americans don't over consume energy. Facts show that Americans use energy as efficiently as other countries considering the size of the U.S., the energy-intensive industries that flourish here and the American lifestyle. U.S. economic growth depends largely on the availability of low-cost energy to transport goods over long distances and to power American industries such as paper, plastics and aluminum.

Environmental quality has gotten better -- not worse. American cities are far more smog-free than 25 years ago, by the U.S. government's own statistics. Of the six prevalent "criteria" pollutants measured, levels of five have declined from 1970 to 1993: lead by 98 percent, particulates by 78 percent, sulfur dioxide by 30 percent, ozone by 24 percent and carbon monoxide by 24 percent, according to the EPA. Only nitrogen oxide increased -- by 14 percent. As a result of cleaner- burning fuels and cleaner-running cars, tailpipe emissions have dropped by 96 percent since the advent of pollution controls. Americans don't have to give up driving their cars in order to have a cleaner environment.

Alternative fuels are far from perfect substitutes for oil. Reducing the amount of oil the nation uses only makes sense if we have another better source of energy to replace it. But that perfect substitute simply does not exist, at least not yet. No alternative fuel is pollution-free and some burn no cleaner than the most advanced gasoline fuel/vehicle system. They generally cost more and have performance limitations.

The implications of fossil fuel use for the global climate are, at best, uncertain. Society needs to look for a balance between the potential environmental implications of climate change and the economical growth that fossil fuel use provides. We must weigh proposed climate change policies, which may or may not provide benefits many years from now, against society's many immediate needs.

We need additional scientific research and the adoption of low-cost, high- benefit policies, but not an immediate, forced transition from oil. "Reinventing Energy" provides historical context for today's energy debate, explaining how changes in energy use have altered the shape and structure of society. Gasoline-powered automobiles, for instance, replaced horse-drawn carts and made it possible for middle-class workers to live in the new suburbs. "People have been reinventing how society uses energy since the dawn of civilization," the book says. The reinvention continues today as energy and technology evolve to ever more sophisticated levels, providing energy users with more efficient refineries and a new generation of cleaner-burning fuels. Despite the progress made in reinventing oil and oil products that meet tough new environmental standards, some environmental activists continue to advocate government policies that force Americans to make costly and wrong energy choices, the book says. "Americans are making the right energy choices now, based on the relative merits of the fuels available in the marketplace and the state of today's technology. Our current reliance on oil makes economic, environmental and common sense."

CONTACT: Molly McCartney 713-646-6961, or Joe Lastelic 202-682-8125, both for the American Petroleum Institute

Lobbyists for API found a cozy sinecure in the Bush/Cheney Administration. The article describes API lobbyist Philip Cooney, chief of staff on Bush’s Council for Environmental Quality, who  was discovered in 2005 to have rewritten federal research papers to sow doubts about climate change. Cooney resigned that year and went to work for Exxon/Mobil. The ICN investigation also documents the efforts of one Robert Campion, a senior scientist at Exxon and a member of the API task force, who was highly influential (and effective) early on in tamping down API’s emphasis on the effects and impact of continued, increasing CO2 emissions. An example of his efforts to dissuade a more aggressive agenda on CO2 by API is grimly ironic, in a black comedic sense:

Campion [urged a more limited agenda on CO2 emissions] because the Energy Department and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) were expected to issue a report “momentarily” based on an April 1979 climate symposium that “concluded no catastrophic hazards would be associated with the CO₂ buildup over the next 100 years and that society can cope readily with whatever problems ensue.”

(Eventually published in October 1980, the AAAS report offered more sobering forecasts than Campion had expected, describing risks to nearly every facet of life on Earth and concluding catastrophes could be avoided only if timely steps were taken to address climate change.)

Other writings by Campion from 1979 unearthed by the ICN investigation document him predicting that real-world effects of climate change would begin to manifest themselves after the year 2000:

He estimated that the effects would be felt after 2000, after a cyclical cooling period had passed. Because a cyclical warming trend was then expected post 2000, it would intensify climate change, “worsening the effect,” he wrote.

Of course we know  the end result of Exxon’s and the API’s efforts, begun all those 35 years ago.  We’re seeing them on the East Coast as we watch in benumbed silence while the warmest Christmas season in recorded memory unfolds around us, closing out the hottest year in recorded history, and brought on by the most severe EL Nino ever observed.  Meanwhile, their efforts to delay action on reduction of C02 emissions continue to find support in a Republican Party thoroughly beholden to the industry for its very existence. [And a do-nothing, treacherous Democratic party.] The few oil and gas company scientists who were willing to talk to ICN about their participation in the API’s task force (including API’s President who now claims he doesn’t even remember it) continue to insist that there is still doubt about the “consensus” of the scientific community:

Charles DiBona served as president of API from 1979 to 1997, when the organization shifted its approach on climate change from following the science to intense lobbying to discredit it. DiBona said in a phone interview that he did not remember the climate task force. Like Nelson, he does not accept the prevailing scientific consensus that climate change is being driven by fossil fuel combustion. “I think there is some question about the broader scientific community. There’s not much evidence that there is real consensus,” DiBona said.

DiBona, Nelson and the American Petroleum Institute only have to live with themselves and whatever passes for their sense of conscience. The rest of us, unfortunately, will have to live with the results of their decisions for the remainder of our lives.