The Fossil Fuel Industry has Known they are the Leading Cause of Climate Change for Decades

While some in the fossil fuel industry now appear to support climate science, the truth is they have been acting to obscure the facts for decades. ExxonMobil and the whole fossil fuel industry has known that they are the leading cause of global warming for more than half a century.

A letter by Benjamin Franta titled "Early oil industry knowledge of CO2 and global warming" confirms that the fossil fuel industry knew about its impact. The letter published by Nature reads as follows, "archival documents show that even before Keeling published his measurements [in the 1960s], oil industry leaders were aware that their products were causing CO2 pollution to accumulate in the planet’s atmosphere, in a potentially dangerous fashion."

A Guardian article Franta said: "American oil’s awareness of global warming – and its conspiracy of silence, deceit, and obstruction – goes further than any one company. It extends beyond (though includes) ExxonMobil. The industry is implicated to its core by the history of its largest representative, the American Petroleum Institute [API]."

According to API research conducted in 1954 by the California Institute of Technology fossil fuels were shown to have increased levels of atmospheric CO2 in the preceding century. It should come as no surprise that the results were never published. Subsequently a researcher at ExxonMobil (then known as Humble Oil Co.) found that the carbon isotopes in tree rings corroborate the unpublished Caltech findings.

In 1959 as the American oil industry celebrated its centennial Nuclear physicist Edward Teller addressed the Energy and Man symposium, an event organized by the API and the Columbia Graduate School of Business. Teller linked carbon emissions from fossil fuels saying they were "contaminating the atmosphere". Here is an excerpt of Teller's remarks:

"Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect," Teller said. "It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe."

In a 1965 speech to members, American Petroleum Institute president Frank Ikard outlined the findings of a report by then-president Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee. 

"The substance of the report is that there is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out," Ikard said, adding, "One of the most important predictions of the report is that carbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas at such a rate that by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts."

In 1968 the American Petroleum Institute received a report on air pollution it had commissioned from the Stanford Research Institute, and its warning about carbon dioxide was clear:

"Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000, and these could bring about climatic changes...there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe...pollutants which we generally ignore because they have little local effect, CO2 and submicron particles, may be the cause of serious world-wide environmental changes."

Oil companies knew that fossil fuels cause climate change but they hid this knowledge. Even more damning they devised devious disinformation campaigns designed to undermine the public's support for the facts. They have used their tremendous wealth and power to buy politicians and political outcomes.

As they stymied climate action they increased extraction. As a consequence we are now faced with a climate emergency that demands rapid action. As stated by the president of API more than a half century ago, "time is running out".

Related
API's Long History of Climate Denial and Disinformation
Fossil Fuel Industry Buys Politicians and Political Outcomes
Ending Fossil Fuels Really is the Answer
Fossil Fuel Industry Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds
War on Science Makes Fossil Fuels a Climate Archvillain

Read More»

Fossil Fuel Industry Buys Politicians and Political Outcomes

The fossil fuel industry has used their immense power and wealth to subvert the facts and manipulate the public. Republicans are complicit in this sophisticated anti-science campaign of disinformation. The Price of Oil calls the fossil fuel industry, one of the "most powerful lobbies in the United States, if not the world. And they are peddling their influence both through lobbying on the Hill and by lining the campaign coffers of our representatives."

In March 2015 President Obama called out Republicans for their resistance to climate action and their support for fossil fuels. Calling them "shills for the oil companies or the fossil fuel industry," Obama explained their conduct by saying, "there’s a lot of money involved".

Follow the money

If you want to know how the fossil fuel industry has hijacked the narrative follow the money. A study published last summer in the journal Climatic Change revealed how the fossil fuel industry buys politicians and political outcomes. According to the report, the industry outspent green groups 10 to 1 in lobbying on climate change from 2000 to 2016. Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle shows that during this time lobbyists spent more than $2 billion trying to influence climate legislation in the U.S. Congress.

The fossil fuel industry provides huge cash donations to legislators on both sides of the aisle, however Republicans get the vast majority of that money because they religiously support the interests of the industry even when it is at the expense of their constituents.

When we follow the money the trail leads to Republican legislators. They are the chief recipients of fossil fuel money in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Republicans pocketed $47 million of the $52.3 million the oil and gas industry gave out in campaign contributions to current senators. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has received nearly $3.1 million from fossil fuel donors throughout his career as a federal lawmaker. He ranks fourth behind Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

The fossil fuel industry provides considerable rewards to Senators who use their authority to influence policy. For example a group of 22 Senators got together to urge Trump to ignore the science and exit the Paris Climate Agreement. Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) led a coalition of Republicans who co-signed the letter which told the president to exit Paris. They were also successful in killing the Clean Power Plan and undermining the Clean Air Act. All at the behest of the fossil fuel industry.

Here is a summary of the money Republican Senators have received from the fossil fuel industry:

Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyoming): $728,766
Senator Roy Blunt (R-Missouri): $1,143,574
Senator John Boozman (R-Arkansas): $281,352
Senator Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi): $462,890
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas): $3,031,956
Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho): $440,937
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas): $2,484,520
Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming): $513,733
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): $772,179
Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma): $1,800,000
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah): $281,620
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky): $1,975,245
Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky): $286,465
Senator David Perdue (R-Georgia): $184,250
Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho): $209,900
Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas): $817,150
Senator Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota): $204,900
Senator Tim Scott (R-South Carolina): $523,276
Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama): $532,846
Senator Luther Strange (R-Alabama): (NO DATA AVAILABLE)
Senator Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina): $263,400
Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi): $686,876

As reviewed by the Center for Responsive Politics, here is a summary of what Republican members of the House of Representatives have taken from the oil and gas industry based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving of $200 or more. (All donations took place during the 2017-2018 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Friday, February 01, 2019):

Cramer, Kevin (R-ND) $417,646
McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $405,850
Hurd, Will (R-TX) $394,677
Ryan, Paul (R-WI) $365,878
Brady, Kevin (R-TX) $353,735
Scalise, Steve (R-LA) $324,695
McSally, Martha (R-AZ) $294,077
Walden, Greg (R-OR) $288,150
Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN)$272,999
Culberson, John (R-TX) $270,680
Denham, Jeff (R-CA) $265,598
Sessions, Pete (R-TX) $225,200
Graves, Garret (R-LA) $210,150
Gianforte, Greg (R-MT) $192,888
Olson, Pete (R-TX) $190,578
Flores, Bill (R-TX) $167,350
Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) $165,900
Mullin, Markwayne (R-OK)$162,950
Upton, Fred (R-MI) $154,250

Trump has reportedly received $223,428 from the oil and gas industry.

Killing ballot initiatives

The oil industry use their deep pockets and their communications expertise to kill climate action. Two recent examples can be found in midterm ballot initiatives that were defeated in Washington and Colorado. According to public records the fossil fuel industry spent more than $50 million to crush the two initiatives.

Washington’s initiative (I-1631) would have put a price on carbon emissions, While Colorado's Proposition 112 asked voters if they wanted to reduce oil and gas drilling.

The Washington initiative failed even though such a carbon tax would have contributed $1 billion per year into climate friendly investments including job creating low-carbon infrastructure. The plan had the support of Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, labor unions, tribal nations, low-income communities, and over 600 organizations and businesses.

To defeat 1631 the fossil fuel industry broke a record for the most money ever spent to defeat a ballot initiative. Almost all of the 31 million used to oppose 1631 came from oil companies (BP America, Phillips 66, Andeavor, Chevron USA, and Koch Industries).

The fossil fuel powered opposition to 1631 raised $31.5 million, those opposed raised about $15 million. Those in opposition to Proposition 112 raised $35 million, mostly from the oil and gas industry (PDC Energy, Anadarko Petroleum, SRC Energy, and Noble Energy). The side supporting 112 raised about a million dollars.

Killing green policy

The industry is also working to kill progressive science-based policy approaches to address climate change. Republicans have maligned the proposed Green New Deal, and when we follow the money we can once again see the influence of the fossil fuel industry.

The oil and gas industry want to kill the Green New Deal because it calls for a phasing out of fossil fuels. There is no way we can address the climate crisis without addressing fossil fuels as the elephant in the room. The fossil fuel industry is far from ready to acquiesce and they are leveraging their hold on politicians to kill any policy initiatives that threaten their business model.

As revealed by Oil Change International, Senators who oppose the Green New Deal received an average of seven times more donations from the fossil fuel industry than those who support it.

The 12 senators co-sponsoring the Green New Deal resolution have collectively received around a million dollars of funding from oil and gas companies, averaging around 90,000 per senator. The 88 senators that oppose the Green New Deal have received $59 million in oil and gas funding. That averages out to more than 650,000 per senator.

A similar dynamic exists in the House of Representatives. Collectively the Green New Deal’s 85 co-sponsors in the House received $2.2 million from oil and gas industry and $24,250 from the coal industry. Compare this to the other 350 representatives who accepted nearly $50 million from oil and gas and $5.1 million from coal.

"The Green New Deal shows the level of ambition that climate and energy policy could have if Big Oil, Gas, and Coal’s grip on Washington were weakened," David Turnbull, a spokesman for Oil Change International, said in an email to HuffPost. "The cosponsors of the Green New Deal have by and large bucked the influence of the out-of-control fossil fuel industry, and that shows in their willingness to stand up for bold climate solutions like what we see in the Green New Deal resolutions."

Dark money

Thanks to the Citizens United ruling and the influx of dark money, the fossil fuel industry actually spends far more than reviewed here. Some of the way that they circumvent lax disclosure laws include multi-million dollar ad campaigns and funneling cash through front groups like Americans for Prosperity (the latter recently killed a public transit ballot initiative in Nashville).

There are a plethora of conservative organizations that undermine democracy through their opaque influence. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), is a fossil fuel supported group that wields tremendous influences over state governments.

In recent decades the fossil fuel industry including ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into climate denial front groups like Heartland, Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. These organizations advocate for fossil fuels by being the front line purveyors of lies. Their tactics include criticizing climate science and publishing their own pseudoscience. They also host conferences, sponsor panels, and write op-eds and letters.

These groups have been instrumental in casting doubt on credible science. As reported by Inside Climate News, Greenpeace revealed the following:

"ExxonMobil led corporate donations to think tanks, giving nearly $31 million between 1998 and 2014 to 69 groups that spread climate misinformation. The Koch brothers, whose conservative ideology dovetails with their petrochemical business interests, led giving among individual magnates, donating more than $100 million since 1997 to 84 groups."

According to the same source Heartland received $650,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006.

As reported by Brulle between 2003 and 2010, 91 groups promulgating climate denial received more than a half-billion dollars from 140 foundations. This includes dark money which uses unnamed financial vehicles that shields the identity of donors.

All is not lost, if voters push back in sufficient numbers they can make a difference. While Big Oil can wield their money and influence it is not always enough to undermine the will of the people. In Washington and elsewhere, fossil fuel industry candidates were defeated by candidates who embrace science. The 2018 Midterm election also saw Democrats flip the House and return facts to their rightful place.

Related
Ending Fossil Fuels Really is the Answer
Fossil Fuel Industry Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds
API's Long History of Climate Denial and Disinformation
War on Science Makes Fossil Fuels a Climate Archvillain
The Fossil Fuel Industry and Republican Climate Change Deception
Proof of disinformation from Fossil Fuel Companies
Exxon's Crimes Against Humanity
Exxon is not the Only Bad Apple: The Whole Fossil Fuel Industry is Rotten to the Core
Fossil Fuels Lies and misinformation
Fossil Fuel Powered Manipulation
Big Oil's Legacy of Lies Misinformation and Subterfuge (Video)

Read More»

Economic Assessments Overwhelmingly Support Climate Action

Conservatives commonly argue that acting on climate change is too costly, however, this is contradicted by a slew of economic assessments. When we look at the data it becomes clear that conservatives use economic insecurity to obscure the facts and control the narrative.

There are a number of studies that show global warming undermines economic growth, but the most compelling data comes from cost benefit assessments.

Myriad reports reveal both financial incentives for climate action and disincentives for inaction. Studies reveal that there is a multi-trillion dollar opportunity associated with transitioning to a low carbon economy. Recent research from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate finds that climate action could deliver a $26 Trillion opportunity through 2030.

Although economic arguments are commonly used to oppose climate action, cost/benefit analyses (comparison of the costs of inaction versus the benefits of action) reveal powerfully persuasive math.

The medical costs alone justify climate action. A recent WHO report concludes that the health gains from meeting the terms laid out in the Paris Agreement would more than make up for the financial costs. The Lancet report points to the costs of inaction. "About 712 climate-related extreme events were responsible for US$326 billion of losses in 2017, almost triple the losses of 2016," the report says.

While it is hard to assign an economic value to suffering it is fair to say that it gets dramatically worse as the planet warms. Although estimates vary widely, economic costs are a bit easier to quantify. By 2060 the annual cost of climate change are estimated to be between $1.5 trillion and $20 trillion.

In 2005 the German Institute of Economic Research and Watkiss et al. suggested that by 2100 the cost of inaction (just damages) is approximately $12 trillion while the total cost of climate action (cost plus damages) is approximately $20 trillion. Some scientists have pegged the damage from climate change at $54 trillion while others say the costs of a high-emissions scenario would be between $89 and $535 trillion by the end of this century. Still others report that the cost of climate impacts could exceed $600 trillion. To put these numbers into perspective the total amount of wealth in the world today is $280 trillion, according to a Credit Suisse report.

An even more costly estimate is contained in a study titled, "Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change: a review of the UNFCCC and other recent estimates ". The report indicates that if we do not invest in climate-resilient infrastructure the cost of climate change could be as high as $1,240 trillion. The same report claims we can preempt the problem by investing a cumulative total of $890 trillion in the green economy.

Not only are the costs of climate impacts exorbitant, the costs of climate action are frequently overstated. In a February 2019 Guardian article Erwin Jackson, director of policy at Investor Group on Climate Change, suggests that economic models predicting that climate action will augur an economic apocalypse are all wrong. Jackson explains that economic models have consistently underestimated clean energy, overestimated the cost of environmental regulations and exaggerated the impact on jobs.

He cautions us to "beware of economic doomsayers" and he points to apocalyptic Australian newspaper headlines which he says are "designed to scare people into not acting on climate change by making them feel insecure in their lives."

He draws on the economic climate policy models of Brian Fisher that suggest that even under dramatic emissions reduction scenario we will see economic growth (GDP, jobs, income etc), albeit at a slightly slower pace.

He references graphs posted on twitter by Michael Liebreich, the founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Liebreich points out that economists have consistently underestimated the speed at which clean energy is decreasing in price and the scale at which it is being deployed.

Economic support for climate action holds true in both microeconomics and macroeconomics. Many corporations have amassed data that shows sustainability benefits their bottom lines. A January 2019 paper from Brookings titled Global Economic and Environmental Outcomes of the Paris Agreement shows that broader macroeconomic trends also have a significant impact on economic outcomes.

The Brookings paper concludes that countries that unilaterally withdraw from the Paris Agreement are worse off than those who stay in. Although there are gross costs associated with participating in emissions reductions this is offset by net benefits.

Almost all economists agree that climate change will hurt the economy. This view was presented in a 2018 article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled, Benefits of curbing climate change far outweigh costs, by Dana Nuccitelli.

Carbon can be cut cheaply, Nuccitelli says and she points to a study by Regional Economic Models, Inc. and Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. which explored the merits of carbon pricing. Nuccitelli found that growth would only be marginally affected by transitioning to a low carbon economy and she summarized the findings as follows:

"[A] steadily-rising carbon tax whose revenues were all returned equally to American households would grow the economy, with a net GDP increase of $1.3 trillion over 20 years. Among economists with expertise in climate, there’s also a 95 percent consensus that the US government should commit to cutting carbon pollution, with 81 percent favoring a market-based solution like a carbon tax. And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014 report found that meeting the Paris targets would only slow annual economic growth by 0.06 percent—in other words, rather than increasing by say 2.3 percent per year, global GDP would increase by 2.24 percent per year."

Here are three examples of papers that conclude global warming undermines economic growth. The first is a 2012 paper in the American Economic Journal and the second is a 2015 study by Stanford scientists published in Nature Climate Change and the third is 2015 research also published in Nature.

In a letter, published in Nature, Marshall Burke and a team of scientists quantified economic costs of higher temperatures. Jackson summarized the research as follows:

"limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would likely save the global economy more than $20 trillion by the year 2100 as compared to 2 degrees Celsius warming—at a cost of about $300 billion. That means the benefits of curbing climate change would exceed the costs by about 70-to-1. The study also only accounts for temperature effects on GDP and not other damaging factors like sea level rise, and is thus likely a conservative estimate....global warming of 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures in 2100 would reduce global GDP by about 10 percent as compared to 2 degrees Celsius global warming. A temperature of 4-to-5 degrees Celsius would make us 10 percent poorer yet, as compared to 3 degrees Celsius. Those would be massive economic losses that could exceed $100 trillion. And it wouldn’t just impact poor countries—a working paper recently published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond found that global warming could significantly hamper economic growth in the United States as well, especially in the hotter Southern states. The paper found that if we meet the 2 degrees Celsius Paris climate target, US economic growth will only slow by about 5-to-10 percent, but global warming of 3-to-3.5 degrees Celsius would dampen the American economy by twice as much—10-to-20 percent."

Although the values people assign to environmental variables vary, the overwhelming logic of emissions reduction is beyond reproach. Most of the data points to a net savings associated with climate action. No matter how you look at the problem the costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of action. The benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions outweigh the costs of runaway climate change.

With benefits outweighing costs by as much as 70-1, cost benefit analyses make a powerful economic case that is hard to refute with facts. The IPCC, PwC, Citibank and many others have put forward economic assessments that support climate action. In the final analysis our economy and the survival of life on Earth is dependent on the health of the planet.

"Acting on climate change will have costs but the costs of not acting will be far, far larger. Better that we come together and manage a fair and effective transition than continuing to delay and pay a much, much greater bill later," Jackson says and he points out that explaining the costs of acting will be less than many expect because, "people and markets can innovate faster than they often expect".

There is no doubt that change is difficult, there will be costs and there will be losers. However, if reason prevails the overwhelming logic of climate action will supersede those with suicidal tendencies who argue that we can't afford to act.

"It will take an immense effort to meet the Paris targets, but not a terribly costly one, relatively speaking. In fact, the opposite is true—failing to curb climate change would cripple the global economy. That’s why the benefits of climate policies far outweigh their costs," Jackson said.

If responding to an existential threat and contributing to the survival of myriad species is not sufficient justification, there are also relative material benefits that may encourage the recalcitrant to embrace climate action.

Related
Trump and Republicans Ignore the Costs of Climate Change
Climate Economics: Trump and Republicans Ignore the Math
Economic Arguments Used as a Pretext to Torpedo Climate Action
Climate Crisis Economics: A Serious Threat and a Real Opportunity
We Cannot Afford to Deny the Cost of Climate Change
Summary of Recent Reports on the Costs of Climate Action/Inaction
Predictions about the Costs of Climate Action are Wrong
The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Acting on Climate Change: A Cost Benefit Analysis

Read More»

Fossil Fuel Industry Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

The fossil fuel industry is run by duplicitous hypocrites who prioritize their financial interests at the expense of both people and the planet.  Although they have known about the adverse impacts of burning hydrocarbons for decades, they have used their immense wealth and power to manipulate public opinion through clever disinformation campaigns. They buy politicians who help them to sew doubt by questioning good science simply to cast aspersions on its veracity.

Their hypocrisy is evident in their false allegation that climate science is produced for the money rather than as a part of scientific inquiry. Although this allegation was debunked in a New York Times article it is an effective albeit devious disinformation strategy.

It is the height of hypocrisy to discredit climate scientists by suggesting that the results they generate are driven by money when this is precisely what the fossil fuel industry does. The American Petroleum Institute (API) and fossil fuel companies have paid scientists to produce reports that attribute global warming to sources other than the fossil fuel industry. One example is the work of Willie Soon who falsely claimed that solar cycles are responsible for climate change.Between 2003 and 2015 Soon's research received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from API and oil companies like ExxonMobil, the Charles Koch Foundation and the Southern Company.

ExxonMobil has engaged in a number of legal challenges that have attempted to hide its history of covering up what it knew about the role of fossil fuels as a cause of climate change. This includes efforts to prevent Massachusetts attorney general’s office from accessing millions of records relating to its 1980s research.

An even more egregious act of hypocrisy is their use of the courts to try deny people the right to protect themselves against the climate crisis. The fossil fuel industry created the problem and they then proceed to challenge people's right to defend themselves. This is unconscionable, even by the standards of the industry.

As explored by Triple Pundit's Jan Lee last year, ExxonMobil was planning to sue communities in California, Massachusetts and New York for trying to hold the industry accountable.

The industry that created the climate crisis and then covered up its existence is now asking tax payers to finance a barrier to protect them from climate related extreme weather and sea level rise Although the industry receives massive subsidies they are nonetheless asking for more tax payer dollars. This is hypocrisy at its best, they refuse to take responsibility for the problem they created but they will take public money.

As reported by CBS, these powerful purveyors of climate denial are asking a climate denying federal government to build 60 miles of concrete seawalls, earthen barriers, floating gates and steel levees to protect petrochemical facilities along the Texas Gulf Coast. The government has already fast-tracked an initial $3.9 billion of the $12 billion that Texas is seeking to build the sea walls.

They hide the truth and obscure the facts, they cast doubt on good science and demean good scientists. Together these observations lead to the inescapable conclusion that the hypocrisy of the fossil fuel industry knows no bounds.

Related
Fossil Fuel Industry Buys Politicians and Political Outcomes
Ending Fossil Fuels Really is the Answer
API's Long History of Climate Denial and Disinformation
War on Science Makes Fossil Fuels a Climate Archvillain
The Whole Fossil Fuel Industry is Rotten to the Core
Exxon's Crimes Against Humanity
Fossil Fuels are at the Core of the Climate Crisis
Oil CEO Supports Science and Decries Climate Denying Politicians

Read More»

Ending Fossil Fuels Really is the Answer

Climate change is a complex multi-dimensional problem, however, there is a solution.  If we understand what causes the problem the solution becomes obvious. Fossil fuels are responsible for deadly air pollution and climate change. As the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions fossil fuels are at the core of the crisis. We know that we must radically reduce the amount of carbon we emit into the atmosphere but such reductions are impossible as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels.

We will never be able to stave off climate change until we deal with the fact that fossil fuels still power 80 percent of the world’s economy. We are facing a life and death struggle and yet we continue to extract more dirty energy than the climate can possibly bear.

Led by the fossil fuel industry 100 companies are responsible for 71 percent of global emission. Despite their culpability, or perhaps because of it, people who are in the dirty energy industry are not receptive to science-based discussion. No one knows this better than Canadian climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. She recently said, "the toughest groups I've spoken to have been the executive leadership board of an oil and gas company".

As revealed by a summary of salient findings, carbon emissions from fossil fuels have created a climate emergency. The physics of climate change are incontrovertible and recent research convincingly demonstrates that ending fossil fuels is the solution. 

According to a recent modeling study published in the journal Nature Communications* phasing out fossil fuels could keep temperatures within the upper threshold limit of 1.5 C. According to this study there is a 64-66 percent chance of staying below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels if we immediately phased out of all fossil fuel infrastructure (ie replace fossil fuel power plants, factories, vehicles, ships and planes with zero-carbon alternatives). However, the study warns that the longer we wait the harder it will be. If we wait until 2030 to start phasing out fossil fuels our chances of staying within the upper threshold limit would decline to 33 percent.

Another study published in Nature Geoscience corroborates the notion that we can curb climate change if we act now.

The fossil fuel industry realized the problem more than 40 years ago. American Petroleum Institute president Frank Ikard acknowledged this in 1964 when he conceded that the obvious solution would be to find alternatives to fossil fuels. Quoting from a report by Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee, Ikard said, "… the pollution from internal combustion engines is so serious, and is growing so fast, that an alternative nonpolluting means of powering automobiles, buses, and trucks is likely to become a national necessity."

Failing to quickly transition away from fossil fuels will cost us dearly. Anyone who says we cannot afford it has not reviewed the math.  The truth is we cannot afford not to.

----------------------------------------

*Current fossil fuel infrastructure does not yet commit us to 1.5 °C warming, Christopher J. Smith, Piers M. Forster, Myles Allen, Jan Fuglestvedt, Richard J. Millar, Joeri Rogelj & Kirsten Zickfel, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07999-w

**Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C, Richard J. Millar, Jan S. Fuglestvedt, Pierre Friedlingstein, Joeri Rogelj, Michael J. Grubb, H. Damon Matthews, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Piers M. Forster, David J. Frame & Myles R. Allen, https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031

Related
Fossil Fuel Industry Buys Politicians and Political Outcomes
Fossil Fuel Industry Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds
API's Long History of Climate Denial and Disinformation
War on Science Makes Fossil Fuels a Climate Archvillain
Market Forces are Killing the Fossil Fuel Industry
Oil is a Bad Investment
Curbing Fossil Fuels
The Risks Associated with Stranded Fossil Fuel Assets
The Fossil Fuel Industry has Reason to be Nervous

Read More»

Program - Blockchain Technologies and Applications for Business

Blockchain Technologies and Applications for Business. Innovation and collaboration can solve the world’s most pressing problems. The two month long program starts on March 28, 2019. It is an online course that requires between 4 and 6 hours per week. The velocity of technological change is staggering, the digital revolution is marching through industry at a fast clip and blockchain is part of the spectacle. The business value-add of blockchain will grow to slightly more than $176 billion by 2025, and it will exceed $3.1 trillion by 2030. Almost 85 percent of executives say their organizations have at least some involvement with blockchain technology.

Your Learning Journey

During this online journey, you’ll connect with Berkeley’s faculty, industry leaders, and peers from every corner of the globe, taking a deep dive into the applications of blockchain technology for business and society. Taking a case-based approach featuring use cases from finance, healthcare, supply chain management, and consumer products, you’ll collaborate through moderated discussion boards and join faculty for live interviews with industry leaders, including Q&A. In addition, there are live office hours to supplement the live and recorded sessions. Learning Journey Program Topics

Starting with the fundamentals of what blockchain technology is, this program takes participants on an interactive journey through many different applications of blockchain — and what the future could hold for this technology.

Modules

Module 1: Overview of Blockchain Technology
Module 2: The Cryptocurrency Network
Module 3: Strategic Applications of Blockchain Technology in Existing Businesses
Module 4: Entrepreneurial Ventures Using Blockchain
Module 5: Regulatory and Policy Considerations of Blockchain Technology
Module 6: Blockchain for Good
Module 7: Privacy and Risks in Using Blockchain Technology
Module 8: Future of Blockchain Technology

COMPANY EXAMPLES

Financial Case: Deutsche Bank

How does a financial institution with $1.7 trillion in assets under management begin to assess the opportunities that blockchain technology may offer? Learn how Deutsche Bank is executing its strategy to become a more digital bank by harnessing innovation in its internal incubator, Deutsche Bank Labs. Deutsche Bank is experimenting with blockchain technology to deploy "smart contracts" to make the life cycle of corporate bonds more efficient.

Supply Chain Case: MAERSK

Could blockchain be the holy grail for the largest shipping company in the world? Could this technology help to eliminate onerous paperwork and reduce fraud and shipping delays? Should Maersk create an industry platform for all shippers or go at it alone?

Program Faculty
 
Maura O'Neill, Lecturer, Distinguished Teaching Fellow, Entrepreneurship. Maura is a lecturer and distinguished teaching fellow in entrepreneurship at UC Berkeley. In 2016, she received the UC Berkeley Earl F. Cheit Award for Excellence in Teaching. She also advises startups, global companies, foundations, and global government agencies on innovation and new technologies. Maura is best known for adapting venture capital and drug discovery methods to global development by co-creating the Development Innovation Venture Fund that has expanded into the Global Innovation Fund. Her research and interests include regulatory and policy in blockchain and cryptocurrency as well as entrepreneurship and disruption from blockchain. She also teaches the Blockchain Technology and Strategy program at UC Berkeley.

Blockchain - Certificate

Upon successful completion of the program, UC Berkeley Executive Education grants a verified digital certificate of completion to participants. This program is graded as a pass or fail; participants must receive 80 percent to pass and obtain the certificate of completion.

Note: After successful completion of the program, your verified digital certificate will be emailed to you in the name you used when registering for the program. All certificate images are for illustrative purposes only and may be subject to change at the discretion of Berkeley Executive Education.

Click here for more information.

Read More»

Event - Asian Conference on Sustainability, Energy & the Environment 2019 (ACSEE2019)

The 9th Asian Conference on Sustainability, Energy & the Environment 2019 (ACSEE2019) is an international sustainability conference that take place May 20, 2019 - May 22, 2019, at the Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan. The conference theme for ACSEE2019 is Independence & Interdependence.

This important thematic lens encourages wide reflections on the importance and interrelation of such concepts as autonomy and identity, rights and responsibilities, and power and control; and within a variety of contexts from politics and geopolitics to energy, sustainability and the environment; and from education, technology and logistics, to culture and language; from psychology and security, to considerations of equity and justice.

The technological and logistical advances of globalisation have enabled us to become independent and empowered as never before, but at the same time they have made us more dependent on the very things allowing autonomy. While technologies allow us to communicate with those on the other side of the world, they can also make us detached from those immediately around us, and in some cases alienated, or lonely. And yet this increased interconnectedness offers great opportunities to work together to solve some of the world’s most pressing issues, and reminds us of our responsibilities towards each other. Our independence is contextualised in the relations we enjoy with others; in our families and communities, shared institutions, in our wider societies, geographical and political entities, and finally as a part of the one world we all share.

Keynote and Featured Speakers at ACSEE2019 will provide perspectives from a variety of academic and professional backgrounds on this conference theme.

Speakers

• Eddie Bruce-Jones, Birkbeck College School of Law, University of London, UK
• Toshi Nakamura, Co-Founder & CEO, Kopernik

Call for papers

For more information or to submit an abstract click here.  Final abstract submission deadline is March 08, 2019 and the registration deadline for presenters is April 05, 2019

IAFOR Conferences

This event is organized by the International Academic Forum (IAFOR) is a research organisation, conference organiser and publisher dedicated to encouraging interdisciplinary discussion, facilitating intercultural awareness and promoting international exchange, principally through educational exchange and academic research. IAFOR welcomes academics from all over the world to their interdisciplinary conferences held in Asia, Europe, North America and the Middle East. Their events provide a unique international, intercultural and interdisciplinary environment in which to hear the latest world-class research and network with leading academics, professionals and practitioners.

Their conferences are meticulously planned under the direction of prominent academics to ensure that they offer programmes of the highest level, and are supported by some of the world’s leading academic institutions, including the University of London (UK), Virginia Tech (USA), University of Barcelona (Spain), Waseda University (Japan), University of Sussex (UK), Medill School of Journalism (USA), Moscow State University (Russia) and The University of Tokyo (Japan).

By facilitating dialogue between the world’s academics and thought leaders, IAFOR has become a pioneer in providing the research avenues and visionary development solutions that are necessary in our rapidly emerging globalised world.

IAFOR Research Centre (IRC) – “Innovation and Value Initiative” The IAFOR Research Centre (IRC) is housed within Osaka University’s School of International Public Policy (OSIPP), and in June 2018 the IRC began an ambitious new “Innovation and Value Initiative”. Officially launched at the United Nations in a special UN-IAFOR Collaborative Session, the initiative seeks to bring together the best in interdisciplinary research around the concept of value, on how value can be recognised, and measured, and how this can help us address issues and solve problems, from the local to the global.

The Asian Conference on Sustainability, Energy & the Environment (ACSEE) is held alongside The Asian Conference on the Social Sciences (ACSS) in Tokyo, Japan. Registration for either conference permits attendance in the other.

Click here to register.

Read More»

Event - American Climate Leadership Summit 2019 (ACLS19)

The 8th Annual American Climate Leadership Summit (ACLS19), will take place on May 1-2, 2019 in Washington, D.C. The event is subtitled Breakthrough: Solutions and Leadership. Consistent with the Breakthrough theme this event will explore strategies and ideas to help transform climate action into a true national priority.

ACLS is the nation’s largest and most diverse gathering of leaders dedicated to broadening and catalyzing action and advocacy for effective climate solutions to redirect America toward climate action.  As the organizers explain on their website, if there was ever a time to bring leadership together to share learning, build collaboration, and publicly support climate solutions, this is that time. Now more than ever we need climate mitigation and advocacy, so that we can boldly move the needle on solutions.
Who attends

ACLS19 will be attended by five hundred leaders and innovators from across the US, representing a multitude of constituencies, will collaborate on strategies to expand and accelerate leadership to restore our climate.

At this event participants will

• Learn the latest science and technology on climate and solutions from leading experts.
• Share and hear success stories from a diversity of organizations and communities. 
• Learn how to engage and support frontline communities in successful climate advocacy. 
• Collaborate across sectors and constituencies to develop new partnerships, synergy. 
• Inspire and empower a rising generation of diverse leaders to elevate climate action and advocacy. Explore and plan for ways to “breakthrough” to achieve rapid, meaningful climate solutions.

Speakers

• Heidi Binko Executive Director and Co-founder, Just Transition Fund
• Andrew Bowman President, Land Trust Alliance Gail Christopher.png Gail C. Christopher, DN Chair of the Board, Trust for America’s Health
• Rev. Dr. John Dorhauer General Minister and President, United Church of Christ
• David T. Dyjack, Dr.PH, CIH Executive Director, National Environmental Health Association
• Jay Faison Founder, ClearPath
• Jonathan Foley Executive Director, Project Drawdown
• Vanessa Hauc Correspondent, Noticias Telemundo
• Lisa Jackson Vice President, Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives, Apple news_wind_Tom Kiernan_npca.jpg Tom Kiernan President and CEO, American Wind Energy Association
• Ken Kimmell President, Union of Concerned Scientists
• Bret Kugelmass Managing Director, Energy Impact Center
• Celinda Lake President, Lake Research Partners
• Christine McEntee Executive Director and CEO, American Geophysical Union
• Bob Perkowitz President, ecoAmerica
• Carter Roberts President and CEO, World Wildlife Fund
• Dr. Joseph Romm Founding Editor, ClimateProgress.org
• Meighen Speiser Executive Director, ecoAmerica
• Ellen R. Stofan, PhD John and Adrienne Mars Director, Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum
• Benjamin Strauss, MD CEO and Chief Scientist, Climate Central
• Jalonne White-Newsome Senior Program Officer, Environment, The Kresge FoundationThe Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse Senator (D-RI), U.S. Senate

Click here for the agenda.
Click here to register.

Read More»

Oil CEO Supports Science and Decries Climate Denying Politicians

There are some in the fossil fuel industry who publicly acknowledge the veracity of climate science there are even a few who criticize climate denying politicians.  As reported by the CBC, Suncor president and CEO Steve Williams wonders how the science on the right and the left can be different. "It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the science of the left-wing is different than the science of the right-wing," Williams said adding conservatives should just cop to the reality that climate change is real. "Hey, it's just a fact. Let's get some facts out on the table," Williams said.

The Suncore CEO also described conservation and energy efficiency as a no-brainer. "It makes sense to consume things sensibly. Common sense is not a big part of the conversation that normally goes on on this thing," he said. "Energy efficiency, the sensible use of what is a finite resource."

William's support for energy efficiency is in stark contrast to an administration that has adopted what has been called an insane energy policy. His most strident criticism was aimed at politicians who pander to climate deniers.

"I find it scary. And I find the current politics of it — where if you want to vote this side of the politics or that side of the politics, you have to be a believer or not a believer — is complete nonsense, and we shouldn't allow that framing of the debate," Williams said adding, "I hope some of those politicians get brave enough to stand up and take some different positions on it."

Williams will retire in May at Suncor's Annual General Meeting on May 2, 2019.

"I hope some of those politicians get brave enough to stand up and take some different positions," Williams said. "It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and economics have taken on some strange political ownership."

Read More»

Forget the Border Wall Climate Change is the Real Emergency

American president Donald Trump is ignoring the real crises while exploiting the emergency powers of the executive branch to create fake ones. Trump is flouting the Constitution by seeking to finance a border barrier without the approval of congress. The effort is a political stunt to appease his base. There is no threat from illegal immigration and any weaknesses that do exist will not be solved by building a border wall.

As explored in a GMO post at the beginning of this year, climate change is the real emergency border walls are a ruse that threaten both flora and fauna. While the fear being generated around the caravans of migrants is fabricated, the evidence supporting the existence of the climate crisis is clear and irrefutable.

The Trump administration says that erecting border walls justifies declaring a state of emergency, however they don't appear to know what the word means. Emergency is defined as, "a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action." By the president's own admission his border walls do not meet the definition of an emergency. While there is no need for a border wall the urgency of the climate crisis cannot be overstated.

Climate communications specialists argue that people will turn away from the facts if the truth is too scary. However, we can no longer deny that the repercussions of global warming are horrifying and we just don't have time for a soft sell. As explained by Greta Thunberg, "If you have a child that is standing in the middle of the road, and cars are coming at full speed, you don’t look away because it is too hard to see, you run out and get that child away from there."

The task before us is daunting, we must engage in wide ranging climate action and we must do so at scale. The fact that we are rapidly running out of the time makes the climate crisis a real emergency requiring urgent action. As revealed by the climate clock our window of opportunity is closing fast. The most recent IPCC report tells us we have less then 12 years to act. Simply put we no longer have the time to coddle people's fear.

The facts are undeniably frightening, but we must confront the truth and we must do it soon. Only then can we marshal the resolve necessary to move forward with scalable solutions.

Climate change is an existential threat. The truth about climate change is more terrifying than most people realize. At best there will be food shortages and wars, at worst we will see cataclysmic flooding and the planet will cease to be able to support life as we know it. Books like "Uninhabitable Earth," by David Wallace are beginning to tell the horrifying truth.

Runaway climate change is the stuff of nightmares. Violent hurricanes, deadly heatwaves, prolonged drought, increased flooding, water shortages, agricultural losses, mass starvation, war, unprecedented migrations, mental health issues, and the widespread transmission of infectious diseases, are among the impacts of climate change.

Make no mistake about it climate change augurs mass extinction. Around 252 million years ago climate change caused an extinction event that wiped out 70 percent of all vertebrate species and 96 percent of all marine species. The Great Dying as it is known took place in the Permian-Triassic period.

We are a savagely destructive species. Human activity is on track to wipe out half of all wildlife on Earth. People are far from immune they will also suffer and die. In fact millions are already dying from air pollution and climate change.

A World Health Organization report, released at COP24, concluded that at least seven million people a year die prematurely because of pollution, and millions more become ill. As reported in an Intelligencer article, a hundred million people could die from air pollution, and another hundred million could be made homeless by climate change.

People are dying and the situation is destined to get far worse as the planet continues to warm. People are beginning to rise up and demand that governments declare a climate emergency. Organizations like the Extinction Rebellion are among those that are making such demands. Others are helping to organize. Climate Mobilization has collaborated with Anya Grenier to create a document called, Blueprint for a Climate Emergency Movement.

Many people have been circulating climate emergency petitions and some cities and counties have already declared climate emergencies. These cities and counties are part of the Citizens’ Universal Declaration of Climate Emergency which calls for urgent action. At least 40 cities and counties have already declared such a state of emergency. This includes:

UNITED KINGDOM

• LONDON
• BRADFORD
• BRIGHTON-HOVE
• BRISTOL
• CORNWALL
• FOREST OF DEAN DISTRICT
• FROME
• KIRKLEES
• LAMBETH
• LANGPORT
• LEICESTER
• MACHYNLLETH
• MILTON KEYNES
• OSWESTRY
• OXFORD
• POWYS
• SCARBOROUGH BOROUGH
• STROUD
• TOTNES
• TRAFFORD

UNITED STATES

• HOBOKEN, NJ
• MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD
• BERKELEY, CA
• HAYWARD, CA
• LOS ANGELES
• NEW BRITAIN, CT
• OAKLAND, CA
• RICHMOND, CA
• SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CA
• CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, CA

AUSTRALIA

• BALLARAT
• BYRON SHIRE
• DAREBIN
• GAWLER
• MORELAND
• VICTORIA PARK
• VINCENT
• YARRA CITY

CANADA

• HALIFAX
• VANCOUVER
• EDMUNDSTON

Such declarations are intended to unleash concrete actions in the form of aggressive efforts to achieve zero-carbon goals. This includes everything from retrofitting buildings to electrifying transportation infrastructure.

Recently US Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon announced plans to introduce a resolution to declare a national climate emergency. On Twitter Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar called on the next president to do the same.

When sane leadership returns to the White House it is possible perhaps even likely that we will see the declaration of such an emergency. As explained by Dan Farber, professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, this could give a future president the power to pause fossil fuel extraction and limit the use of vehicles with an internal combustion engine. The president could even use these powers to extend loan guarantees to quickly scale critical energy infrastructure. These are only some of the ways that the president could respond as Farber points out a national emergency affords nearly 150 special powers.

If the declaration of a climate emergency is sufficiently widespread we may be able to avert the worst of the climate crisis. This will save countless life forms including humans.

Read More»

API's Long History of Climate Denial and Disinformation

The American Petroleum Institute (API) exists to serve the interests of the fossil fuel industry. They have been discrediting the facts and spinning the truth for decades. API is behind a raft of disinformation efforts designed to undermine science and manipulate public perceptions. Through front groups and politicians they fund climate denial and the denigration of science.

Through studies they have commissioned and conferences they have hosted API has become familiar with the science of climate change. However, they are in the business of countering science that challenges their core mission. To do this they craft false narratives and spit out fake data that serves their agenda. They are purveyors of doubt challenging sound science. They are authors of fake narratives like the false choice that forces people to choose between the economy and the environment.

API's efforts to distort the facts dates back more than a half century. In the 50s a biochemist named Arie Haagen-Smit from the California Institute of Technology, identified oil as the cause of smog. His research showed that nitrogen oxide emissions and uncombusted hydrocarbons from cars and refineries formed smog when exposed to sunlight.

API counter-attacked by funding scientists who rebutted Haagen-Smit and disparaged him personally. API succeeded in delaying the implementation of smog limits with a false but familiar assertion that the science was too uncertain to justify new laws or expensive pollution-control equipment. This claim has crumbled under the weight of the research. The Clean Air Act of 1970 has provided trillions of dollars in health and economic benefits. An Environmental Protection Agency study calculated that the benefits of the Clean Air Act amount to $2 trillion a year by 2020.

API claims the science linking fossil fuels to global warming is not clear, however this is contradicted by their own research. For example, API hosted a conference at Columbia University in 1959 which clearly stated that fossil fuels are causing global heating.

By the late 60s industry researchers were warning API about CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels this included specific warnings that there could be "melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels".In 1968 the American Petroleum Institute received a report on air pollution it had commissioned from the Stanford Research Institute, and its warning on carbon dioxide was direct:

"Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000, and these could bring about climatic changes...there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe...pollutants which we generally ignore because they have little local effect, CO2 and submicron particles, may be the cause of serious world-wide environmental changes."

A 1969 paper noted that carbon dioxide levels would rise, "as our combustion economy continues to consume increasing amounts of fossil fuel". As summarized by Benjamin Franta "API had this long-running awareness of climate change and climate science, and in that history the message they were getting from scientists was that climate change was real."

The API obfuscates to influence government policy. In 1967 API Chairman Robert Dunlop, addressed U.S. legislators who were investigating the potential of electric vehicles. Dunlop said:

"We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a practical electric car can be mass-produced and marketed, it will not enjoy any meaningful advantage from an air pollution standpoint. Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have long since been controlled."

Others draw on API "research" to support the fossil fuel industry. The National Industrial Pollution Control Council is a Commerce Department advisory committee made up of industry executives. In the 1970s they drew on API "research" to make inaccurate statements like, "Carbon dioxide concentrations do appear to be increasing for reasons not well understood,". The purpose of this subterfuge was to delay action as they called for further study. As the Council explained in the 1970s, scientists would have to wait until the year 2000 to determine "whether or not a serious problem exists". They also added that reducing pollution would "impose impossible administrative and enforcement burdens".

API's efforts are largely focused on breeding doubt about the certainty of climate science and supporting pseudoscience. API directly funds researchers that provide alternate explanations for climate change that do not involve fossil fuel emissions. Willie Soon is one such scientist, he falsely claimed that solar cycles are responsible for climate change. Between 2003 and 2015 Soon's research received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from API and oil companies (ExxonMobil, the Charles Koch Foundation and the Southern Company).

The denial strategy was revealed in a leaked draft memo in 1998. The memo was titled "Global Climate Science Communications Plan," and it lays out their official position which has been to question the existence of climate change and/or its anthropogenic origins by claiming the science is uncertain. The goal is to allow them to keep reaping profits from dirty energy for as long as possible.This is now the go to strategy for climate deniers.

API has a track record of denying the veracity of climate science and attacking scientists including those who contribute to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They also use their resources to resist any attempt to enact climate policies.

API has known that fossil fuels cause climate change for at least 60 years. Today API continues to obfuscate calling for more research while pushing for expanded fossil fuel extraction.

API's influence is troubling. They have always had easy access to the most senior levels of government and their influence has only grown under the presidency of Donald Trump. Just ahead of Trump's inauguration API president Jack Gerard said this is a "once-in-a-generation opportunity" to reshape energy policy. It appears Gerard was right.

Read More»

The Fossil Fuel Industry is Dying

All around us there are clear signs that the fossil fuel industry is dying. For some divestment from fossil fuels is a proactive strategy that mitigates against the risks of stranded assets while others see it as a basic moral imperative. Whatever the reason the trend away from fossil fuels is unmistakable. Much of this momentum is being created by local community movements. However, there are also a number of trends at the international and national levels that foreshadow the end of dirty energy.

Allianz, the world’s biggest insurance company by assets, said it would cease insuring coal-fired power plants and coal mines, and Maersk, the world’s largest maritime shipping company, said it would end its use of fossil fuels, and be carbon neutral by 2050. Even some fossil fuel companies are coming to terms with their own end. Repsol is the first major fossil fuels producer to say it would no longer be seeking new oil and gas leases.

Ireland is the world’s first country to divest from fossil fuels, and New Zealand is euthanizing its oil industry to combat climate change. Eleven European nations have either closed their coal fleets or they have announced that they will close them. This includes France by 2023, Italy and the UK by 2025, and Denmark and the Netherlands by 2030. Spain shut down most of its coalmines last year. Denmark has joined China, India and 14 other countries that have pledged to ban internal combustion engines by 2040.

Even the United States is being impacted by changing market forces. The US set a new record for coal plant closures in 2018, with 22 plant closures in 14 states. This effectively shut down 15.4GW of dirty energy.

The collapse of oil prices may be the most powerful evidence we have that fossil fuels are dying. Oil prices have fallen from a high of almost $120 a barrel in 2014 to $30 in 2016. This led to a record number of oil and gas company insolvencies and bankruptcies in recent years.

According to a 2016 CNBC article there were 100 bankruptcies in the North American oil and gas sector with an expectation that there will be at least 100 more. A study by the UK accountancy firm Moore Stephens indicates that 16 oil and gas companies went insolvent in 2016. To put this into context there were no insolvencies in the oil and gas sector in in 2012. As indicated by Canadian Government statistics the annual insolvency rate for Mining and Oil and Gas Extraction spiked to 3.1 in 2016 and 2.1 in 2017. As reported by the Insolvency Insider there were 12 oil and gas insolvencies in Alberta in 2018.

In 2017 Royal Dutch Shell agreed to sell $8.5 billion worth of its Canadian oil sands assets. The company's chief executive warned that the industry risked losing public support without progress towards cleaner energy.

Thierry Lepercq, head of research at French energy company Engie, believes the cost of oil will continue to decline. "Even if oil demand continues to climb until 2025, its price could drop to $10," Lepercq said. In 2017 Stanford University economist Tony Seba published a report which predicted the collapse of the price of oil and the end of fossil fuel powered cars.

No matter how you look at it fossil fuels will end, it is only a matter of time.

Related
Diminishing Profits Signal the Beginning of the End of Oil

Read More»

A Brief Chronological Summary of Climate Science

The science of climate change has been the subject of study for almost two centuries. Global warming was first addressed by French mathematician Joseph Fourier who described the greenhouse effect in 1824. The relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature increases was explored by Swedish scientist Svante August Arrhenius in 1903 and climate feedback effects were documented by Russian climatologist Mikhail Budyko in the 1950s. In 1954 the California Institute of Technology outlined the link between fossil fuels and increased levels of atmospheric CO2. Subsequently a researcher at Humble Oil Co. found that the carbon isotopes in tree rings corroborate the unpublished Caltech findings.

In 1959 Nuclear physicist Edward Teller warned that carbon emissions from fossil fuels would warm the Earth and cause sea levels to rise. Here is an excerpt of his talk titled "Energy Patterns of the Future":

"Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect," Teller said. "It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe."

In 1960, Charles Keeling first published the measurements of atmospheric carbon that have come to be known as the "Keeling curve". In the late 1950s observations at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii measured 315 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric carbon today we see levels in excess of 410 (ppm). The Earth has not been at these levels in more than a million years.

In 1964 President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee submitted a report titled "Restoring the Quality of Our Environment," which linked carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels to global warming. This report warned that time was running out and it further laid out the solution:

"… the pollution from internal combustion engines is so serious, and is growing so fast, that an alternative nonpolluting means of powering automobiles, buses, and trucks is likely to become a national necessity."

A 1968 Stanford Research Institute report warned that increasing levels of CO2 cause climate change:

"Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000, and these could bring about climatic changes...there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe...pollutants which we generally ignore because they have little local effect, CO2 and submicron particles, may be the cause of serious world-wide environmental changes."

In 1975 Wallace Smith Broecker popularized the term 'global warming' in a remarkably accurate paper that correctly predicted increasing atmospheric CO2 would warm the planet. Broecker was also the first to recognize the global system of ocean currents now called the Ocean Conveyor Belt. This is a tipping point which he referred to as the "Achilles heel of the climate system". He predicted that minor temperature increases could keep the water from sinking in the North Atlantic and this could shut down the conveyor and impact global weather patterns.

In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen told a U.S. congressional committee that there is a cause and effect relationship between greenhouse gasses and observed warming. Increasing atmospheric emissions are part of "an experiment that could have devastating effects," Broecker said in 1997.  "We're playing with an angry beast — a climate system that has been shown to be very sensitive."

Taken as a whole the science supporting the existence of anthropogenic climate change is unassailable. As explained by the Royal Society:

"Rigorous analysis of all data and lines of evidence shows that most of the observed global warming over the past 50 years or so cannot be explained by natural causes and instead requires a significant role for the influence of human activities."

Climate change is now the most studied phenomenon in human history and the body of evidence is irrefutable. There is no reason to doubt the thousands of studies that corroborate the finding that anthropogenic factors are heating the planet to dangerous levels.

Read More»

President's Day Special Report: How Trump's Contempt for Climate Science Harms the National Interest

President's Day celebrates the honor and leadership of George Washington, the first president of the United States (1789–1797).  America's founding father urged tolerance for all religions and the most enduring quality assigned to Washington is his truthfulness, a quality that is altogether lacking in Donald Trump. According to the cherry tree myth, when Washington was six years old he damaged his father’s cherry tree with a hatchet. When confronted by his father young George said, "I cannot tell a lie…I did cut it with my hatchet."

Although the story was the invention of a Washington biographer by the name of Mason Locke Weems, it speaks to what Weems described as Washington's "Great Virtues".* When one thinks of Trump virtue does not come to mind. His legacy is indelibly linked to his mendacity.

While Washington has been ranked by scholars as among the greatest American presidents, Trump has earned the distinction of being the most deceitful president in the history of the Republic. Trump has lied thousands of times since becoming president. Here is a summary of some of these lies as reviewed by the Washington Post and Robert Reich. To watch more of Trump's lies captured on video click here.




Trump administration's war on climate science

The president and those that he has appointed to his cabinet commonly deny the facts about climate change and regularly misinform the public. At the end of last year Trump tried to bury his own government's climate report and rejected its findings. 

The science of climate change has been the subject of study for almost two centuries. The major findings and the body of evidence have come to the irrefutable conclusion that human activities are the cause of climate change.

The Trump administration has a well earned reputation of flouting science. They ignored the science supporting the Paris Climate Agreement and rolled back more than 40 fact-based environmental regulations. Trump's appointee Scott Pruitt virtually eradicated science at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Trump repeatedly proposed budget cuts for climate science at NOAA, NASA’s Earth science program, National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies. The Trump administration has terminated research projects, hobbled scientific infrastructure and harassed scientists.

As reported in an LA Times article by Michael Hiltzik the Trump administration has devastated scientific research. "Among the up-is-down, night-is-day practices of the Trump administration, one of the most dangerous and disturbing is its habit of turning America’s leading science agencies into hives of anti-science policymaking."

Trump appears to have no interest in the facts. As revealed by E&E News reporter Scott Waldman in a Climatewire story, Trump has never had nor has he ever requested a climate briefing from scientists.

This is consistent with a leaked memo that purports to expose the administration's climate change denial strategy. The threefold approach involves highlighting the uncertainties, trashing the science and ignoring it altogether. In a damning condemnation of the Trump administration, Brett Hartl of the Center for Biological Diversity said, "This administration doesn't even have a scientific support document at all."

At the end of 2018 a Union of Concerned Scientists report detailed the "monumental disaster" of the assault on science at the Department of the Interior. According to the report Trump's former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke took a "multifaceted approach to wiping science out of its policymaking." Zinke used the same tactics employed by Scott Pruitt to harass and ultimately purge scientists at the EPA. Like Pruitt, Zinke has removed publicly available information about climate change at the department.

After Zinke was forced to resign due to ethical violations, deputy secretary David Bernhardt became the acting chief. The latter is responsible for revoking directives on integrating climate science and other devious techniques to undermine science in the department.

In fairness Trump and his appointees are not the first to lie about climate change. Republicans and the fossil fuel industry have been lying to the public for years. Now this unholy trinity is working together to undermine the facts.

Consequences of rejecting climate science

Lies have consequences particularly when they are told by the leader of the free world. The impact of Trump's lies about climate change could prove catastrophic. These lies obscure fact-based policy decisions including climate action.

Trump's rejection of efficiency initiatives and support for fossil fuels make it harder to achieve the required emissions reductions thereby increasing the likelihood that we will see warming beyond the upper threshold limit of 2 C.

The implications of Trump's rejection of science are very serious both for policy and the impact that it has on his Republican supporters. Trump's lies about climate change augur massive economic costs. One of the most dangerous aspects of Trump's rejection of science is the division that it fosters.

This administration is also a threat to human health. Climate change is the the single biggest health threat we face according to The Lancet Countdown. A total of 150 experts from 27 academic institutions and intergovernmental organizations, including the World Health Organization and the World Bank concluded:

"A rapidly changing climate has dire implications for every aspect of human life, exposing vulnerable populations to extremes of weather, altering patterns of infectious disease, and compromising food security, safe drinking water and clean air."

Pollution compromises cardiovascular and respiratory health. A World Health Organization report, released at last year’s COP24 climate summit in Katowice, Poland, echoes the Lancet findings, noting that at least seven million people a year die prematurely because of pollution, and millions more become ill.

Former EPA administrator Pruitt's murderous legacy will live in infamy for contributing to air pollution. The most serious consequence of Trump's rejection of climate science concerns the prospect of triggering tipping points from which we may not be able to recover. 

Why Trump lies

Trump lies because it is a strategy he has successfully employed throughout his life. As explained in a Politico article on the psychology of Trump's lies, "When we are overwhelmed with false, or potentially false, statements, our brains pretty quickly become so overworked that we stop trying to sift through everything." Dictators have long understood the power of a lie. Adolf Hitler described a propaganda technique known as "the big lie," in his memoir Mein Kampf. Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels said, "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."

Trump sews division to erode the basis for a shared understanding. The Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that there is a strong correlation between incompetence and self rated intelligence. Research published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour reveals that people who know the least, think they know the most. The inference being that those who are most in need of the facts are least receptive to them. When it comes to climate change denial people have adopted the viewpoint of their (Republican) ideological affiliations.

Here is a summary of how and why Trump lies including the Dunning-Kruger effect, Robert Reich on Trump's ten step plan of deception, and a strategy to control the narrative called dead-cat theory. These videos also include discussions of some of the ways that we may be able to parse Trump's comments and combat his lies.




Hope in the face of urgency

The road ahead of us is daunting, our time is running short and the potential consequences of unchecked climate change are horrifying. We are facing a climate emergency as the window of opportunity to act is rapidly closing. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests we have 12 years to take decisive action.

As Dan Rather said, "We need to damn the lies and expose the truth". We need science to help us to expose deception and discern truth from falsehood. Despite the darkness that is the Trump administration there are reasons to hope that 2019 may be a turning point for climate action.

There are reasons to believe that science is making a comeback. Democrats have flipped the House of Representatives and unlike their Republican colleagues they embrace science. The most recent polls suggest the Americans are also embracing the truth about climate change in ever increasing numbers.

* Mason Locke Weems to Mathew Carey, January 12, 1800, in Paul Leicester Ford, Mason Locke Weems: His Works, His Ways: A Bibliography Left Unfinished, 3 vols. (New York: Plimpton Press, 1929), 2: 8-9. 

Related
Trump's America: State of Lies
War on Science Makes Fossil Fuels a Climate Archvillain
Opposition to Science Invites a Climate Catastrophe
The Implications of Trump's Reprehensible Rejection of Climate Science
Why Trump Does Not Want a Science Advisor
Scientists Take on Trump and GOP Climate Denial
Sham Hearings Make a Mockery out of Climate Science
The Implications of the Trump Administration's Disdain for Science

Read More»