OT:H*mo Sapiens-Capitalism-Greed-Corporations

In the 1970s scientists working for the oil companies privately confirmed to their employers that their research showed continued fossil-fuel burning would dangerously raise global temperatures. The oil companies kept the information tightly under wraps for decades.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

We now know that the strongest evidence for climate change was actually proposed not by socialists, or even by the new breed of climate scientist, but by research conducted by the fossil fuel industries themselves. Industry executives accepted the evidence presented to them as scientifically sound decades ago, and they then worked night and day to keep the public ignorant of their findings.

The Global Climate Coalition was formed in 1989 — secretly backed by Exxon, Texaco, and BP — and served as a powerful “independent” lobby group. When its own technical advisers concluded in 1995 that the science of global warming could not be denied, the coalition aggressively suppressed the report.

Another group, Informed Citizens for the Environment, set up by coal and utility companies, used advertising blitzes targeted at economically precarious groups to persuade them climate action would be harmful to their household finances.

A leaked 1998 internal memo from the American Petroleum Institute mapped out another multi-million dollar strategy, funding independent-seeming scientists to inject skepticism into mainstream debate in the media.

It seems the oil and gas crowd were & are quite willing to destroy the earth in pursuit of $. Many oil & gas CEOs became quite wealthy as a result of their lies.
No punishment or penalty has been incurred due to their behavior.
Just like the financial CEOs involved in the real estate bubble that exploded in 2008; they skated.

And their wealth continues to accumulate due to the current tax laws that do not tax unrealized capital gains.

The first Trillionaire has appeared. Or should we call him a “taxillionaires.” If it weren’t for laws that permit the wealthy to endlessly defer paying taxes by keeping their gains unrealized, there would be no trillionaires — and many fewer billionaires.

the most important thing about Musk’s wealth isn’t whether it stays above the 13-figure threshold — it’s that 94 percent of it comes from not having to pay taxes on unrealized gains.

According to Musk’s own account, when he sold his stake in Paypal in 2002, he netted $180 million, invested it all in SpaceX and Tesla, and borrowed to pay his living expenses. To get from $180 million to a trillion today implies annual returns of over 40 percent (returns that would be considered impossible for ordinary investors).

Allowing these returns to compound untaxed supercharges growth.

Suppose he were subject to the same taxes on his annual wealth increase that most higher-earning Americans pay on what they make and had to sell some Tesla and SpaceX shares to pay those taxes.

We crunched the numbers based on the latest figures, and found he’d be worth around $47 billion today — rich enough to afford the most lavish lifestyle imaginable, but not a trillionaire, and not richer than the G.D.P. of most countries.

It’s the same story for Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and other multibillionaires.

The vast bulk of their fortunes came from not paying taxes on their wealth as it grew. Without endless tax deferrals, they would have only a tiny fraction of what they own today (although that tiny fraction would still be a huge amount of money). Yet as things stand today, nothing stops them from wielding the power and influence their wealth buys to benefit themselves.

I guess my envy is showing along with Jonathan Cook’s, Bob Lord’s & Stephen Land’s.

Or is there something rotten in the State of the United States?

No wonder people are depressed or angry because they feel the deck is stacked against their path to prosperity. And believe that the rules have changed; removing economic rules for influence and corruption as a basis of advancement.

2 Likes

Hardly. They used publicly available research.

Governments didn’t want to take on the populace and disclose what the costs would be, not to mention the enormity of the task.

Looking at the global picture, here are the 2025 energy percentages…

Fossil fuels   86%
Nuclear         5%
Hydro           3%
Renewables      6%

https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review

DB2

1 Like

I’m sure you have a link for that statement.

Which is why the government didn’t challenge the oil industry obfuscation campaign? But actively in cahoots with the oil industry?

1 Like

Not that I’ve done a lot of digging in the archives, but climate change and the effects of greenhouse gases was certainly known. In particular, Steven Schneider of NASA and then Stanford published articles as early as 1971. For example, in a 1975 publication Schneider wrote:

“The effect of increased CO2 is well-known to be an increase in the temperature of the earth’s surface by an enhancing of the ‘greenhouse effect’ (Manabe and Wetherald, 1967).”

That 60-year old Manabe paper says that “According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2°C. Our model does not have the extreme sensitivity of atmospheric temperature to changes of CO2 content which was adduced by Moller.”

The Moller paper dates from 1963. Not that you or I were following these things, but they were hardly a secret.

DB2

1 Like

Link to an early Exxon white paper on climate change is below. It is a very impressive paper, given how little we knew about climate change at the time, and how accurate their climate projections for future decades were. It was written in 1982, and so we have some time to see how things turned out.

Below is a chart showing projected CO2 concentrations and temperature increase by year. You can kind of eyeball it for 2026. Actual temperature increase was 0.76 C and 427 ppm CO2. So they over estimated both, but correct in the trend and projecting anything that far in the future is a awfully hard.

Anyway, point is Exxon had a clear understanding of what was likely to happen.

4 Likes

Well, voters in western economies want their governments to fight climate change. They also do not want to pay any significant cost to fight climate change. And if required to choose between accepting a hot climate or paying the cost to prevent a hot climate, they will choose to accept the hot climate. They’d rather heat the planet than pay more for energy.

Greens tend to completely downplay the enormity of the scale of actually preventing climate change (actually an impossible task) so that they can pretend to themselves that there’s a way to fight climate change that doesn’t require paying an enormous cost.

Voters tend to vote politicians out of office who do things that impose significant costs on them. Only when we delude ourselves about the magnitude of the changes required can we convince ourselves that it’s a small number of special interests that are stopping effective responses to climate change. (That’s because the small number of special interests are currently fighting the trivial and ineffective responses to climate change, so it looks like they’re the problem. But all they’re doing is stopping stuff that wouldn’t solve the problem anyway. In reality, non-trivial and effective responses to climate change don’t even get proposed because they are utterly impossible to get done.

Which is why I think adaptation measures are the more sensible route. For example, it makes more sense to spend $100 billion on protecting the New York/New Jersey Bight from storms than it does to build a high-speed rail line from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

DB2

1 Like

A concerted effort to change to EVs from ICE vehicles, as has been done in Norway with incentives and modifications in behavior* need not be bankrupting, clearly it has not been in one country which has already done it.

Gas exhaust from ICE vehicles alone accounts for 25% of global emissions.

It took Norway 10 years to get from 3% EV sales to 95%, and with remarkably little disruption either economically or in their society.

*By “Changes in behavior” I’m not talking big stuff. Letting EVs drive in HOV lanes, or drive toll free on certain roads, those kinds of things. The change was incentivized almost entirely with carrots and not sticks. It can be done, except for those people who walk around with the long face saying “Oh, it can’t be done.”

It’s already BEEN done. See?

7 Likes

In 1990, Margaret Thatcher thought climate change was serious enough that she personally visited NCAR and sat through a 1-hour briefing from leading climate scientists.

But it hasn’t been done. The world still gets 86% of its energy from fossil fuels. That percentage has changed little this century (and we’re already a quarter of the way through). Yes, wind and solar have expanded, but so have fossil fuels. It is running to stay in place.

DB2

1 Like

I would imagine so. However, it is completely different pots of money. The CA high speed rail line was approved by California voters who presumably wanted high speed rail. Those voters never would have voted for shoreline hardening in NY/NJ.

There have been a number of missed notable opportunities to reduce green house gas emissions this century. For example, a cap and trade system. Which in fact almost did pass Congress, but was defeated by anti-science propaganda coming out of lobbyists like the Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute.

You might remember the Heartland Institute worked for the tobacco companies promoting the notion that tobacco is non-addictive and there were no ill-health effects from smoking cigarettes.

Despite having a very clear understanding of the effects of greenhouse emissions, ExxonMobil hired the Heartland Institute CEI to promote, similar anti-science propaganda, which their own internal conclusions disagreed with.

Some might call that lying. Some do call that lying.

7 Likes

I remember reading that memo in 1982 when it was circulating around the office in the Natuna project file.

1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf

The process engineers were pointing out that the CO2 incinerators we were planning would be the World’s largest single point source of atmospheric carbon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Natuna_gas_field#History

intercst

2 Likes