October 9, 2015
A Completely separate, independent journalistic team is now reporting this story in one of America’s largest newspapers.
Among those interviewed was Ken Croasdale, senior ice researcher for Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary, who was looking into the well known physics of climate change, to determine what impacts there might be on Exxon’s exploratory efforts in the far north.
Between 1986 and 1992, Croasdale’s team looked at both the positive and negative effects that a warming Arctic would have on oil operations, reporting its findings to Exxon headquarters in Houston and New Jersey.
The good news for Exxon, he told an audience of academics and government researchers in 1992, was that “potential global warming can only help lower exploration and development costs” in the Beaufort Sea.
As Croasdale’s team was closely studying the impact of climate change on the company’s operations, Exxon and its worldwide affiliates were crafting a public policy position that sought to downplay the certainty of global warming.
The gulf between Exxon’s internal and external approach to climate change from the 1980s through the early 2000s was evident in a review of hundreds of internal documents, decades of peer-reviewed published material and dozens of interviews conducted by Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental Reporting Project and the Los Angeles Times.
Documents were obtained from the Imperial Oil collection at Calgary’s Glenbow Museum and the Exxon Mobil Historical Collection at the University of Texas at Austin’s Briscoe Center for American History.
I’ve been pointing out he eerie media silence on Inside Climate’s recently released double-atomic bombshell story on what Exxon knew, and when they knew it, about climate change.
More below: Read the rest of this entry »
October 9, 2015
In the run-up to the talk I gave last night in Port Huron, MI, I gave an interview to Paul Miller, at WPHM radio.
Talked about what the ordinary citizen needs to know.
October 8, 2015
The Sierra Club, Environmental Media Association and RYOT launched today the first-ever virtual reality climate change public service announcement, which offers 360 degree panoramic shots that catapults viewers into the heart of the Arctic to explore frontline communities and melting glaciers.
Our presumed Speaker of the US House of Representatives could make Congress even less climate friendly than it already is.
On the other hand, having Kevin McCarthy as the Face of Climate Denial would be a great boost for truth in advertising.
Boehner’s presumed successor is Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California. McCarthy, the No. 2 Republican in the House, would be as bad—if not worse—than the Ohio congressman on climate change and environmental issues, political and environmental experts said. They said the other potential candidates, Florida Rep. Daniel Webster and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs the Tea Party-aligned House Freedom Caucus and has not officially announced interest in the position, are just as dismal.
“Let me not pull any punches: McCarthy’s going to be horrible,” said RL Miller, chair of the California Democratic party’s environment caucus and founder of Climate Hawks Vote, a super PAC that works to elect climate-conscious candidates. “His district is Bakersfield, California, deep red rural farm country. He stands up for oil companies and for big agriculture.”
McCarthy, a businessman, has risen quickly through the Congressional ranks since he was elected to the House in 2006. Two years after starting in D.C., he became Republican chief deputy whip, moving to majority whip in 2011. He became majority leader in 2014 when Virginia Republican Eric Cantor unexpectedly lost his seat to Tea Party candidate Dave Brat.
“Energy is the issue I care most about,” McCarthy told The Wall Street Journal in 2014. McCarthy, 50, is a fourth-generation resident of Kern County, which produces approximately 75 percent of California’s oil and 58 percent of its natural gas. If the county were a state, it would rank fourth in oil production in the nation, according to the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce. The oil and gas industry is McCarthy’s fourth largest campaign donor, contributing more than $825,000 over his Congressional career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks donations.
For more insight into the New Speaker’s unique oratorical stylings, see below.
October 8, 2015
Wow, here’s an idea. How about instead of cutting teacher’s pay and shortchanging our children, we turn our schools into energy producing centers? Solar City is doing it now.
As a self proclaimed energy geek, there are a lot cool technologies that I can get excited over. Today’s announcement though is one I have waited to see for many years. SolarCity has just completed, in one summer I might add, a $20,000,000 installation that enabled the Temecula Valley Unified School District to save $500,000 in the first year alone. The amazing part is not that they put no money down for it, nor that it allows them to preserve numerous programs with the revenue they saved. The amazing part is that it includes energy storage to mitigate peak demand charges and protect critical loads WHILE saving them that much money.
Storage has been around for a long time and so has solar. However SolarCity’s ability to combine the two under a single PPA and create that much value is absolutely game changing. Any entities who like paying the price for crowded lines on an energy grid, please look away, but for all those who want the solution that beats the lowest cost of grid supply energy and mitigates future volatility, watch the video above.
October 8, 2015
How to get the media’s attention? Here’s an idea that might work..
If you’ve been following the historic spotlight that Inside Climate News has been shining on Oil Giant Exxon’s long-time research into climate change impacts – well, you’re way ahead of most human beings. The silence of the mainstream media outlets on this story may be as stunning as the story itself, which is saying a lot.
Meanwhile, as I’ve posted yesterday, we’re witnessing a classic exercise in misdirection, as Congress begins investigating – not what Exxon knew and when they knew it – but rather, the small group of scientists who have had the temerity to write a letter asking the President and Attorney General to file a Racketeering case against the fossil fuel industry, much as was done against the tobacco industry, almost 20 years ago.
When coupled with the emerging consensus and sense of urgency that polls are showing among a majority of voters, heading into an election year that will likely be one of the hottest in history – the pieces are in place for a game changing political earthquake.
In 1980, as Exxon Corp. set out to develop one of the world’s largest deposits of natural gas, it found itself facing an unfamiliar risk: the project would emit immense amounts of carbon dioxide, adding to the looming threat of climate change.
The problem cropped up shortly after Exxon signed a contract with the Indonesian state oil company to exploit the Natuna gas field in the South China Sea—big enough to supply the blossoming markets of Japan, Taiwan and Korea with liquefied natural gas into the 21st century.
Assessing the environmental impacts, Exxon Research and Engineering quickly identified Natuna’s greenhouse gas problem. The reservoir was contaminated with much more carbon dioxide than normal. It would have to be disposed of somehow—and simply venting it into the air could have serious consequences, Exxon’s experts warned.
Exxon’s dawning realization that carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect posed a danger to the world collided with the company’s fossil fuel ambitions.
“They were being farsighted,” recalled John L. Woodward, who wrote an internal report in 1981 on Natuna’s climate implications.
“They weren’t sure when CO2 controls would be required and how it would affect the economics of the project.”