34 years ago Exxon-Mobile made a decision not to tap an enormous offshore gas field off of Indonesia because it would have involved venting huge amounts of pure CO2 gas into the atmosphere.
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
By Suzanne Goldenberg
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,
But Exxon wasn't about to share its knowledge of how potentially damaging releasing vast amounts of CO2 could be with the public. Quite the contrary they funded a campaign of misinformation to dispute scientists' growing certainty and alarm on Climate Change, that today has taken on a life of its own.
Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.
Exxon said on Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.
The White House and the National Academy of Sciences came out with reports on climate change in the 1970s, and government scientific agencies were studying climate change in the 1960s, she said. There were also a number of major scientific meetings on climate change in the 1970s.
So what is Exxon doing now to correct all the misleading information coming from climate deniers? Certainly not spending $30 million to counteract the web of lies they were the original architects of. Exxon isn't withdrawing its support of denier politicians acting on Exxon's old misinformation.
Meanwhile some Republicans want make teaching climate denial an option for local school districts. This would facilitate dumbing down students is districts run by less enlightened school boards.
Republican Senator Wants Schools to Teach 'Natural Causes' of Climate Change
July 9, 2015 Senator Roger Wicker wants to make sure that public schools can teach students about "the natural causes and cycles of climate change."
The Mississippi Republican and skeptic of the scientific consensus on man-made climate change has introduced an amendment to a sweeping Senate education bill updating the No Child Left Behind Act that calls on federal agencies to provide states and local education agencies with K-12 instructional materials outlining "the natural causes and cycles of climate change."
Wicker's amendment does not mandate that schools teach climate change in any particular way or even that they teach climate change at all. But the fact that it has surfaced as part of the debate over a much broader education bill speaks to the growing controversy over climate education.
It directs the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out educational materials highlighting "the uncertainties inherent in climate modeling and the myriad factors that influence the climate of the Earth.">