As I always say that corruption in western developed countries happens "under the table" & in eastern developing countries, "over the table." The perception around the world is that western developed countries are fair & free of corruption.
Ironically, these developed countries are the cause of all problems in the world; be it the climate change, terrorism, smuggling (guns, drug, human), financial & economic (recession, money laundering, world wide interest rate fixing scandal etc.), human rights abuses (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, CIA black prisons around the world, UN soldiers exploiting local civilians for sexual purposes etc.) etc.
This piece talks about how international fossil fuel companies; BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil publicly say that they are working towards sustainability & mitigating the adverse effects on the environment of their business, but secretly, payoff climate-deniers to create doubts in people's minds about climate change. Shell has just been permitted to exploit one of the last areas of the world not been spoiled by oil exploration activities, yet; the Arctic. Say goodbye to the pristine beauty of Arctic. Soon Antarctica will be in their crosshairs.
If you think I am wrong to say developed countries are the cause of most world-wide problems, then you should read my posts in my blog from Jan 2015 onwards, & you'll see how am I asserting that, or you can keep reading from now onwards, & you may learn something valuable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The oil giant BP has announced that they will no longer fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a lobbying group that routinely misrepresents climate science to US state legislators. It is the latest sign that some of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies appear to be warming to the overwhelming evidence that the unabated use of their products poses severe risks of disrupting the climate.
Last month, BP & Royal Dutch Shell announced their support for shareholder resolutions calling on them to commit to reduce heat-trapping emissions, invest in renewable energy, & show how their current business model would hold up against the strict limits on future emissions needed to limit the risk of major climate disruption.
Shell chief executive Ben van Buerden recently stated that “climate change is real & a threat we want to act upon. We are not aligning with sceptics.”
Even ExxonMobil, which spent $16m (£11m) between 1998 & 2005 to fund groups that spread disinformation about climate science, now prominently acknowledges on their website that “rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society & ecosystems.”
But appearances can be deceiving.
For one, BP still channels funds through its political action committee to climate science-denying US policymakers such as senator James Inhofe, chair of the senate’s environment & public works committee. While such direct contributions to politicians are a matter of public record, companies continue to sow climate doubt & influence climate policy in ways that are far more opaque.
For instance, recently released documents show that ExxonMobil gave more than $75,000 between 2008 & 2010 to secretly support the work of Willie Soon, a contrarian climate researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, well after the company announced it would halt such funding. Soon’s research has sought to downplay the human influence on global warming.
This follows revelations that Southern Company, one of the largest utilities in the US, spent $400,000 between 2006 & 2015 to fund Soon, supporting his research, Congressional testimony, & other “deliverables” while specifying that its funding be disclosed only with express company permission.
Robert Gehri, the Southern Company employee who authorised this funding was one of a dozen industry representatives who, on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, created a $6m campaign in 1998 that misled the public about climate science. Among other strategies, he oversaw the covert funding of “independent” scientists.
Some of the largest fossil fuel companies now publicly accepting mainstream climate science, continue to support climate denial through influential lobbying groups & trade associations. Shell, Chevron, & ExxonMobil still fund Alec, which misleadingly describes climate change as “a historical phenomenon for which debate will continue over the significance of natural & [human-caused] contributions.”
With their support, Alec promotes “model legislation” to repeal state renewable energy standards & roll back other climate & energy policies.
Shell, BP, Chevron, & ExxonMobil are also members & funders of the API & the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). Late last year, a leaked presentation from WSPA revealed a stealth campaign to block climate policies in California by backing a constellation of astroturf groups with names such as the “California Drivers Alliance” & “Californians Against Higher Taxes”.
Exactly how much fossil fuel companies have spent to support disinformation remains shrouded in secrecy, in part because they are not required to report their political & public relations spending. Robert Brulle, a social scientist at Drexel University, estimates that hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed from corporations, ideological foundations, & groups that oppose climate policy & often sow doubt about mainstream climate science.
Such spending is big money in politics, but it pales in comparison to the staggering costs of climate change. New York City alone estimates it will cost nearly $20bn over a decade to protect its citizens against rising seas & more extreme weather. The bipartisan Risky Business Project estimates that over the next 15 years, sea-level rise & storm surge are expected to increase damage from East & Gulf Coast storms by $2bn to $3.5bn. They also conclude that more extreme heat could cause corn, wheat, soy & cotton yields to decline 10% or more in some southern & midwestern counties.
Who will pay these & other costs of preparing for now inevitable changes? Right now, by default, this responsibility falls largely to taxpayers.
But shouldn’t fossil fuel companies bear some responsibility to pay for the harms resulting from their products?
Tobacco companies were found liable for damage from cigarettes. Those companies also deceived the public about the realities of scientific research on smoking. In fact, they funded some of the same scientists & groups fossil fuel companies have relied on to spread misinformation. The tobacco companies were held accountable, in part, because they colluded to deceive the public & policymakers about the risks their products caused.
Similarly, after scientific evidence on the cancer-causing risks of asbestos was established, producers of asbestos & manufacturers of products containing it were also held liable for damages.
The magnitude of the fossil energy industry’s contribution to the climate problem is enormous. Researchers have found that just 90 entities – including the world’s largest investor-owned fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, & Shell – are responsible for extracting the coal, oil, & gas that have produced about two-thirds of all industrial carbon pollution. For decades, these same companies have sought to obscure the risks of using their products, & sought to deny & delay regulation – increasing the risks society faces from a changing climate.
It is not too late for fossil fuel companies to take responsible action. Shell & BP’s support for shareholder resolutions calling on them to invest in low-carbon energy is a first step. But investors – & society at large – should expect far more.
We should expect fossil fuel companies to stop supporting climate disinformation & distance themselves publicly from trade associations & lobbying groups that do. We should expect them to make their political spending transparent. And we should expect them to pay a fair share of the costs of limiting the damages from climate change, which a more expedited transition to low carbon economy could have – & should have – avoided.
Peter C Frumhoff is the director of science & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists & a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science at Harvard University & the author with Erik M Conway of Merchants of Doubt, which is the subject of a new documentary, & The Collapse of Western Civilisation.
Ironically, these developed countries are the cause of all problems in the world; be it the climate change, terrorism, smuggling (guns, drug, human), financial & economic (recession, money laundering, world wide interest rate fixing scandal etc.), human rights abuses (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, CIA black prisons around the world, UN soldiers exploiting local civilians for sexual purposes etc.) etc.
This piece talks about how international fossil fuel companies; BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil publicly say that they are working towards sustainability & mitigating the adverse effects on the environment of their business, but secretly, payoff climate-deniers to create doubts in people's minds about climate change. Shell has just been permitted to exploit one of the last areas of the world not been spoiled by oil exploration activities, yet; the Arctic. Say goodbye to the pristine beauty of Arctic. Soon Antarctica will be in their crosshairs.
If you think I am wrong to say developed countries are the cause of most world-wide problems, then you should read my posts in my blog from Jan 2015 onwards, & you'll see how am I asserting that, or you can keep reading from now onwards, & you may learn something valuable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The oil giant BP has announced that they will no longer fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a lobbying group that routinely misrepresents climate science to US state legislators. It is the latest sign that some of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies appear to be warming to the overwhelming evidence that the unabated use of their products poses severe risks of disrupting the climate.
Last month, BP & Royal Dutch Shell announced their support for shareholder resolutions calling on them to commit to reduce heat-trapping emissions, invest in renewable energy, & show how their current business model would hold up against the strict limits on future emissions needed to limit the risk of major climate disruption.
Shell chief executive Ben van Buerden recently stated that “climate change is real & a threat we want to act upon. We are not aligning with sceptics.”
Even ExxonMobil, which spent $16m (£11m) between 1998 & 2005 to fund groups that spread disinformation about climate science, now prominently acknowledges on their website that “rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society & ecosystems.”
But appearances can be deceiving.
For one, BP still channels funds through its political action committee to climate science-denying US policymakers such as senator James Inhofe, chair of the senate’s environment & public works committee. While such direct contributions to politicians are a matter of public record, companies continue to sow climate doubt & influence climate policy in ways that are far more opaque.
For instance, recently released documents show that ExxonMobil gave more than $75,000 between 2008 & 2010 to secretly support the work of Willie Soon, a contrarian climate researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, well after the company announced it would halt such funding. Soon’s research has sought to downplay the human influence on global warming.
This follows revelations that Southern Company, one of the largest utilities in the US, spent $400,000 between 2006 & 2015 to fund Soon, supporting his research, Congressional testimony, & other “deliverables” while specifying that its funding be disclosed only with express company permission.
Robert Gehri, the Southern Company employee who authorised this funding was one of a dozen industry representatives who, on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, created a $6m campaign in 1998 that misled the public about climate science. Among other strategies, he oversaw the covert funding of “independent” scientists.
Some of the largest fossil fuel companies now publicly accepting mainstream climate science, continue to support climate denial through influential lobbying groups & trade associations. Shell, Chevron, & ExxonMobil still fund Alec, which misleadingly describes climate change as “a historical phenomenon for which debate will continue over the significance of natural & [human-caused] contributions.”
With their support, Alec promotes “model legislation” to repeal state renewable energy standards & roll back other climate & energy policies.
Shell, BP, Chevron, & ExxonMobil are also members & funders of the API & the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). Late last year, a leaked presentation from WSPA revealed a stealth campaign to block climate policies in California by backing a constellation of astroturf groups with names such as the “California Drivers Alliance” & “Californians Against Higher Taxes”.
Exactly how much fossil fuel companies have spent to support disinformation remains shrouded in secrecy, in part because they are not required to report their political & public relations spending. Robert Brulle, a social scientist at Drexel University, estimates that hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed from corporations, ideological foundations, & groups that oppose climate policy & often sow doubt about mainstream climate science.
Such spending is big money in politics, but it pales in comparison to the staggering costs of climate change. New York City alone estimates it will cost nearly $20bn over a decade to protect its citizens against rising seas & more extreme weather. The bipartisan Risky Business Project estimates that over the next 15 years, sea-level rise & storm surge are expected to increase damage from East & Gulf Coast storms by $2bn to $3.5bn. They also conclude that more extreme heat could cause corn, wheat, soy & cotton yields to decline 10% or more in some southern & midwestern counties.
Who will pay these & other costs of preparing for now inevitable changes? Right now, by default, this responsibility falls largely to taxpayers.
But shouldn’t fossil fuel companies bear some responsibility to pay for the harms resulting from their products?
Tobacco companies were found liable for damage from cigarettes. Those companies also deceived the public about the realities of scientific research on smoking. In fact, they funded some of the same scientists & groups fossil fuel companies have relied on to spread misinformation. The tobacco companies were held accountable, in part, because they colluded to deceive the public & policymakers about the risks their products caused.
Similarly, after scientific evidence on the cancer-causing risks of asbestos was established, producers of asbestos & manufacturers of products containing it were also held liable for damages.
The magnitude of the fossil energy industry’s contribution to the climate problem is enormous. Researchers have found that just 90 entities – including the world’s largest investor-owned fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, & Shell – are responsible for extracting the coal, oil, & gas that have produced about two-thirds of all industrial carbon pollution. For decades, these same companies have sought to obscure the risks of using their products, & sought to deny & delay regulation – increasing the risks society faces from a changing climate.
It is not too late for fossil fuel companies to take responsible action. Shell & BP’s support for shareholder resolutions calling on them to invest in low-carbon energy is a first step. But investors – & society at large – should expect far more.
We should expect fossil fuel companies to stop supporting climate disinformation & distance themselves publicly from trade associations & lobbying groups that do. We should expect them to make their political spending transparent. And we should expect them to pay a fair share of the costs of limiting the damages from climate change, which a more expedited transition to low carbon economy could have – & should have – avoided.
Peter C Frumhoff is the director of science & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists & a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science at Harvard University & the author with Erik M Conway of Merchants of Doubt, which is the subject of a new documentary, & The Collapse of Western Civilisation.
No comments:
Post a Comment