Sorry not to have posted much today–both of your bloggers are up to their ears in things. But my latest Science Progress column just went up: It’s about recent revelations of the “what did they know and when did they know it” variety concerning the fossil fuel industry and global warming. Here’s a sampling of my take:
At this point, anyone who seriously engages with the historical, journalistic, and also increasingly legal record on climate change over the last 20 or so years will find a gap between the state of scientific understanding on the one hand, and what some prominent corporate players were saying on the other. Inevitably, then, industry was either advised competently about the science and ignored it—as the latest memo would appear suggest—or was ill-advised, which is hard to believe given the size and scientific resources of most of these companies.
In addition, there’s at least some evidence, cited above, that industry at times set out to fight against the science much like the tobacco industry did—a strategy epitomized by the famous tobacco “doubt is our product” memo.
An interesting question now becomes whether someday, all this will matter for anything other than to generate outrage over the fossil-fuel industries’ shenanigans. For instance, the ongoing Kivalina case, a global warming lawsuit which takes on a number of oil and power companies and tries to seek damages for the plight of a threatened Alaskan village, contains a conspiracy charge. As the lawsuit puts it:
“There has been a long campaign by power, coal, and oil companies to mislead the public about the science of global warming.” ExxonMobil, in particular, is singled out in the case as “the most active company in such efforts.”
In this sense, the latest industry document “helps us factually build the case of what they knew and when they knew it,” explains Matt Pawa, who has specialized in bringing global warming cases against industry and is centrally involved in the Kivalina case. “They clearly had a sense they were causing massive harm to the planet.”
But it’s just one piece of evidence to that effect. The real question, over the next ten years, is whether a judge will determine that the fossil fuel industry’s tobacco-like strategy merits a tobacco-like legal verdict.
You can read the full column here.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
The last question is the most important one. Assuming these huge multinationals can find a national court that would actually impose penalties large enough to do some damage, it may have some damaging impacts on that nation’s energy security (the company simply picks up and leaves whatever nation imposes the fines, vacating capital which could be punished).
I doubt the United States could do it given their perpetual oil addiction, but should a viable alternative present itself in the next fifteen to thirty years, I could see it. The companies, Exxon especially, seem to deserve it.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
That memo is a bit late; I think it was as far back as 1992 (but certainly no later than 1994) when a number of people in industry got together and said “hey, is there anything to this global warming thing and if there is, what can we do in the interim to provide for the demands of industry as we move towards less reliance on fossil fuels?” 17 years later and many hundreds of millions spent on research, and there is still comparatively little happening. Some corporations seem to have chosen to run a stealth propaganda campaign against change, perhaps for no other reason than maintaining a higher return to the shareholder in the short term – and directors and CEOs can always use the ‘market excuse’ – it is their duty to give the shareholders the highest returns.
On the other hand a number of very big corporations have been spending a lot of money addressing issues and over the years they have convinced other corporations to join them; the money spent by any groups on a propaganda campaign for the status quo are just dwarfed by what others spend on solving problems. So why don’t you hear too much about solutions? Well, industry still has an awful lot of issues to work through ranging from collecting enough information to help develop a functional regulatory framework through to sorting out technical issues between competing interests in government leases for areas, and the people doing the work have to deal with different people on all sides – internal conflicts of corporate interests, government agencies, non-government groups, etc. Don’t expect a miracle cure overnight. If there is any conspiracy to lie as in the tobacco industry, it’s very very small and not well organized.
If you’re chasing a conspiracy story you’re after the wrong rabbit; it may be better to learn more about what the oil and gas industry are doing to address issues than to hunt for a story on a minority which are neither well organized nor well funded (well, certainly not as well funded as the other side).
May 4th, 2009 at 10:28 am
MadScientist –
I think you place too much faith in the fossil fuel industries. Are they considering varying scenarios where global warming’s forecasted effects take place? I think so, and they are fashioning plans to profit in whatever means they can. If carbon-free energy investment looks profitable they will perhaps work it into their plans. Are they motivated to save the planet? No – that in and of itself is not in the equation, I can assure you. What is in the equation is to maximize profits. That is what they do – nothing else. Different corporations will have different blends of short-term versus long-term visions. A long term vision may or may not incorporate attempts to help save the planet. A short term vision obviously will not.
I would also not trust corporate leaders to be knowledgeable about AGW. I have heard interviews with various heads from coal, oil, and auto – many in hard denial of the evidence.
Is that hard to believe? Well, listen to the words of some of our senators and representatives who oppose the upcoming energy legislation (Shimkus, Gingrich, Barton, Bachmann, Boehner to name but a few). And listen to the outright propaganda coming from Fox News and the right wing talk radio personalities.
The denial movement has legs, and lots of support. To underestimate it is a big mistake. I for one am not comfortable with letting industry get their ducks in a row, or for trusting it to do the right thing. They is the enemy.