• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shell foresaw climate dangers in 1988 and understood Big Oil’s big role

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,329
Reaction score
82,720
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Shell foresaw climate dangers in 1988 and understood Big Oil’s big role

shell-kaBI--621x414@LiveMint.jpg

Royal Dutch Shell

April 5, 2018

A Dutch journalist has uncovered Royal Dutch Shell documents as old as 1988 that showed the oil company understood the gravity of climate change, the company’s large contribution to it and how hard it would be to stop it. The 1988 report titled “The Greenhouse Effect” calculated that the Shell group alone was contributing 4 percent of global carbon-dioxide emissions through its oil, natural gas and coal products. “By the time global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the situation,” the report warned. The report, written by members of Shell’s Greenhouse Effect Working Group, said that scientists believed that the effects would become detectable late in the 20th or early 21st century. It was based on a 1986 study, although the document reveals that Shell had commissioned “greenhouse effect” reports as early as 1981. The documents were found by Jelmer Mommers, a reporter with De Correspondent. They were posted on the Climate Files website, which is sponsored by the Climate Investigations Center, an environmental activist group.

Shell’s working group knew three decades ago that climate change was real and formidable, warning that it would affect living standards and food supplies and have social, economic and political consequences. The working group also warned that rising sea levels could impair offshore installations, coastal facilities, harbors, refineries and depots. “With fossil fuel combustion being a major source of CO2 in the atmosphere, a forward looking approach by the energy industry is clearly desirable, seeking to play its part with governments and others in the development of appropriate measures to tackle the problem,” the report said. On Thursday, Shell issued a statement in response to the publication of the report. “The Shell Group’s position on climate change has been a matter of public record for decades. We strongly support the Paris Agreement [on climate change] and the need for society to transition to a lower carbon future, while also extending the economic and social benefits of energy to everyone,” the company said. “Successfully navigating this dual challenge requires sound government policy and cultural change to drive low-carbon choices for businesses and consumers. It requires cooperation between all segments of society.”

Very reminiscent of the [secret and hidden] tobacco company studies in the 50's-70's.

Related: 1988 Shell Confidential Report “The Greenhouse Effect”
 

Court Case to Force Shell to “Reinvest” More in Renewables

Guest essay by Eric Worrall Shell’s long term policy of cultivating green friends seems to have come unstuck, with a “Friends of the Earth” lawsuit which insists that Shell re-investing 5% of their profits in renewables simply isn’t good enough. Shell threatened with legal action over climate change contributions … Friends of the Earth Netherlands…
 
But of course nothing was illegal.

Yawn.....

But it’s certainly good evidence for upcoming trials looking at civil damages.

If Shell destroys the California coastline with a produce they *knew* to be harmful, they will go the way of Owens Corning with their asbestos problems, or Phillip Morris and tobacco.
 
But it’s certainly good evidence for upcoming trials looking at civil damages.

If Shell destroys the California coastline with a produce they *knew* to be harmful, they will go the way of Owens Corning with their asbestos problems, or Phillip Morris and tobacco.

4% of a 2 feet sea level rise is hardly destroying the California coast.
 
But it’s certainly good evidence for upcoming trials looking at civil damages.

If Shell destroys the California coastline with a produce they *knew* to be harmful, they will go the way of Owens Corning with their asbestos problems, or Phillip Morris and tobacco.

No need. The other side has to demonstrate that there is some actual harm they have done.

Or that Shell kept their knowledge secret.
 
Shell foresaw climate dangers in 1988 and understood Big Oil’s big role

shell-kaBI--621x414@LiveMint.jpg

Royal Dutch Shell



Very reminiscent of the [secret and hidden] tobacco company studies in the 50's-70's.

Related: 1988 Shell Confidential Report “The Greenhouse Effect”

American oil companies was presented with a report from The Stanford Research Institute as early as 1968 that warned that the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

A Harvard study also showed that om 80 percent of Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans. While at the same time 80 percent of Exxon’s statements to the broader public, which reached a much larger audience, expressed doubt about climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html
 
American oil companies was presented with a report from The Stanford Research Institute as early as 1968 that warned that the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

A Harvard study also showed that om 80 percent of Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans. While at the same time 80 percent of Exxon’s statements to the broader public, which reached a much larger audience, expressed doubt about climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

The key word in your post is "published." Exxon hid nothing. Moreover -- and this is the really delicious part -- the defense in the California trial is based on statements from the IPCC acknowledging uncertainty. The ironic result has been AGW advocates attacking the IPCC.:mrgreen:
 
The key word in your post is "published." Exxon hid nothing. Moreover -- and this is the really delicious part -- the defense in the California trial is based on statements from the IPCC acknowledging uncertainty. The ironic result has been AGW advocates attacking the IPCC.:mrgreen:

As a multibillion company Exxon did research to found out how their business would be affected by manmade global warming. The reason that they published their studies was probably to reduce legal exposure and that few people read scientific studies.

While at the same time they spend millions on supporting denier groups and their propaganda to halt needed actions on manmade global warming. There they were so successfully in their support that they even got powerful politicians to believe the denier propaganda. Like for example Trump, that in 2012 claimed that “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385

There Trump also after becoming president appointed Scott Pruitt, who is not convinced that carbon dioxide from human activity is the main driver of climate change, as head of the EPA.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epa-chief-pruitt-refuses-to-link-co2-and-global-warming/
 
The irrational obsession over Exxon never ends, but will in court when it becomes clear they didn't violate disclosure laws.
 
As a multibillion company Exxon did research to found out how their business would be affected by manmade global warming. The reason that they published their studies was probably to reduce legal exposure and that few people read scientific studies.

While at the same time they spend millions on supporting denier groups and their propaganda to halt needed actions on manmade global warming. There they were so successfully in their support that they even got powerful politicians to believe the denier propaganda. Like for example Trump, that in 2012 claimed that “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385

There Trump also after becoming president appointed Scott Pruitt, who is not convinced that carbon dioxide from human activity is the main driver of climate change, as head of the EPA.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epa-chief-pruitt-refuses-to-link-co2-and-global-warming/

Yours is a sad conspiracy theory. I take no responsibility for anything Trump does or says.
I do not believe human activity is the primary driver of warming. Please see the work of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv.
 
But it’s certainly good evidence for upcoming trials looking at civil damages.

If Shell destroys the California coastline with a produce they *knew* to be harmful, they will go the way of Owens Corning with their asbestos problems, or Phillip Morris and tobacco.

Shell product didnt harm anything. YOUR use of it did. So be prepared to pay your fair share of the civil damages.
 
You could say the same thing about tobacco and asbestos.

But then it would sound stupid.

Are you addicted to oil? Have you put gas in your car recently? If so, how are you not responsible for destroying the planet? You 'know' gasoline is harmful yet you use it anyway. Doesnt that make you a bit hypocritical
 
Are you addicted to oil? Have you put gas in your car recently? If so, how are you not responsible for destroying the planet? You 'know' gasoline is harmful yet you use it anyway. Doesnt that make you a bit hypocritical

My car sure is addicted to oil products. In fact, I keep meaning to fill up at a gas station that sells non-ethanol premium. It's across the river in Washington, about a 15 mile drive from my place.
 
Yours is a sad conspiracy theory. I take no responsibility for anything Trump does or says.
I do not believe human activity is the primary driver of warming. Please see the work of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv.

What do you mean that is a sad conspiracy theory? That you for example have a Harvard study that showed that 80 percent of Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans. While at the same time 80 percent of Exxon’s statements to the broader public, which reached a much larger audience, expressed doubt about climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

That the goal of Exxon is to make money to for the investors. So of course, they needed to understand how manmade global warming would affect their business.
While at the same time regulation to combat manmade global warming would of course hurt the profit of big polluters like Exxon. So, donating massive amount of money to denier groups was a cost-effective way to delay those regulations.

Just like spending massive amount on lobbying, marketing and PR was a cost-effective way for the paint companies to be able to continue to sell lead paint. Even if the cost for society was huge.

HBO'''s John Oliver Uses '''Sesame Street''' to Teach Congress About Lead | Fortune



Also, with the massive amount of money the fossil fuel companies have they could easily have set up their own alternative to the IPCC if they were real evidence against manmade global warming. Instead people that don’t believe in manmade global warming can only refer to a few scientists like Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. There a quick Google search also indicate that their studies seem to lack scientific merit.

https://www.theage.com.au/news/nati...l-warming-blame/2007/07/11/1183833599508.html

It’s also telling that even the fossil fuel companies now acknowledge manmade global warming and its negative effect.

https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-climate-science-in-u-s-lawsuit-idUSKBN1GX185
 
What do you mean that is a sad conspiracy theory? That you for example have a Harvard study that showed that 80 percent of Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans. While at the same time 80 percent of Exxon’s statements to the broader public, which reached a much larger audience, expressed doubt about climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

That the goal of Exxon is to make money to for the investors. So of course, they needed to understand how manmade global warming would affect their business.
While at the same time regulation to combat manmade global warming would of course hurt the profit of big polluters like Exxon. So, donating massive amount of money to denier groups was a cost-effective way to delay those regulations.

Just like spending massive amount on lobbying, marketing and PR was a cost-effective way for the paint companies to be able to continue to sell lead paint. Even if the cost for society was huge.

HBO'''s John Oliver Uses '''Sesame Street''' to Teach Congress About Lead | Fortune



Also, with the massive amount of money the fossil fuel companies have they could easily have set up their own alternative to the IPCC if they were real evidence against manmade global warming. Instead people that don’t believe in manmade global warming can only refer to a few scientists like Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. There a quick Google search also indicate that their studies seem to lack scientific merit.

https://www.theage.com.au/news/nati...l-warming-blame/2007/07/11/1183833599508.html

It’s also telling that even the fossil fuel companies now acknowledge manmade global warming and its negative effect.

https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-climate-science-in-u-s-lawsuit-idUSKBN1GX185


Yes, it is a sad conspiracy theory to claim climate skeptics are massively funded by Exxon et al.
 
The IPCC’s strategy, although successful in putting climate change on the international political agenda, has restricted the understanding of the problem and has downplayed the uncertainties, lack of knowledge, and unlikely, though possible, scenarios [link]
 

[h=1]What Did Shell Know and When Did They Know It?[/h]Guest ridicule by David Middleton It just doesn’t get any more fracking stupid than this: NEWS 06/04/2018 1:12 AM IST In 1998, Shell Predicted It Would Be Sued Over Climate Crisis Someday By Chris D’Angelo Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell was well aware of the world-altering climate risks associated with carbon dioxide emissions by at…
Continue reading →
 
Yes, it is a sad conspiracy theory to claim climate skeptics are massively funded by Exxon et al.

You for example have the Climate Deception Dossier that shows the deceptive tactics the fossil fuel companies have used through the companies own documents.

Their deceptive tactics are now highlighted in this set of seven "deception dossiers"—collections of internal company and trade association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests.

Each collection provides an illuminating inside look at this coordinated campaign of deception, an effort underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.WszuYy5uaUk

You also have the report from British research organization, Influence Map, that the fossil fuel companies have spent 115 million dollar a year to oppose efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oil-companies-climate-policy_us_570bb841e4b0142232496d97

The fossil fuel companies also have massive resources for lobbying. For example, that representatives for the gas industry met with the two European commissioners in charge of climate and energy policy and their cabinets 460 times during a period of two and half year. That was 30 times more meetings than meetings the commissioners had with public interest groups advocating a fossil-free future during that time.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-in-to-fossil-fuels-for-decades-a8028056.html
 
You for example have the Climate Deception Dossier that shows the deceptive tactics the fossil fuel companies have used through the companies own documents.



https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.WszuYy5uaUk

You also have the report from British research organization, Influence Map, that the fossil fuel companies have spent 115 million dollar a year to oppose efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oil-companies-climate-policy_us_570bb841e4b0142232496d97

The fossil fuel companies also have massive resources for lobbying. For example, that representatives for the gas industry met with the two European commissioners in charge of climate and energy policy and their cabinets 460 times during a period of two and half year. That was 30 times more meetings than meetings the commissioners had with public interest groups advocating a fossil-free future during that time.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-in-to-fossil-fuels-for-decades-a8028056.html

There is much less to all that than meets the eye. These are scary headlines that don't have much evidence or substance to back them up.
 
Back
Top Bottom