Seldom in history are villains unambiguously villains. History is full of extenuating circumstances, actions meant for the good that go bad, intentions misunderstood, or vilification by the victors who are the true culprits. However, today our villains are extraordinarily clear. There are many but I am focused on the most egregious. The fossil fuel industry and its allies in the Republican Party.
Climate change need not have happened. The fires, storms, floods, rising seas, and the mass extinctions we see all over the US and the world was 100% preventable. Indeed, the leadership at Exxon could have been hero’s but, instead, they consciously chose financial reward and power. A choice that they knew would lead to today’s catastrophe. And the Republican Party was fully engaged in this crime.
For a long time, scientists knew that certain gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) trapped heat and warmed the atmosphere.[i] [ii]
It was common knowledge that our climate changed over time, following cycles that were not clearly understood. Climate science was in its infancy. And then the first signals of global warming and climate change began to appear.
By the mid-1970s scientists began to suspect that something was amiss and began to investigate the effect of greenhouse gases, CO2 and CH4. To develop insight into what was happening, they developed climate modeling programs to calculate the effects of known atmospheric variables. They received help from an unusual source, Exxon.
Scientists at Exxon, who were developing their own modeling programs, required comprehensive data about the climate. Their goal was to determine the impact of global warming on Exxon’s business and the company’s responsibility. To do this they needed to collect data globally. An Exxon super tanker was outfitted with a suite of monitoring devices that would gather data from all over the planet as the tanker made its rounds.
Even more unusual, Exxon shared its data with the emerging climate science community. In 1979, this openness earned a letter of praise, from the US Department of Energy. It highlighted the importance of Exxon’s efforts, “We are very pleased with Exxon’s research intentions related to the CO2 question. This represents very responsible action, which we hope will serve as a model of research contributions from the corporate sector. This is truly a national and international service.” Exxon was the model of a good corporate citizen.
Climate modeling was in its infancy and there were many uncertainties about its results. Scientists around the world and at Exxon worked to fill in the gaps. The accumulating data reinforced reasons to be concerned about the quietly growing threat.
In 1980, Exxon scientists understood that as the growing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would significantly increase climate temperatures and the dangers it posed. Roger Cohen, the head of theoretical sciences at Exxon’s Corporate Research Laboratories, wrote an internal letter that candidly spoke about what the data showed, “There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in earth’s climate … including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.”[iii]
Cohen acknowledged that this information could be harmful to Exxon but, to his credit, recommended, “…our ethical responsibility is to permit the publication of our research in the scientific literature,” Cohen warned, “…to do otherwise would be a breach of Exxon’s public position and ethical credo on honesty and integrity.” To their credit, Exxon allowed the data to be published.
Knowledge is value neutral. It is how you use what you know that matters: hero or villain. Tragically, Exxon chose villain. The openness that Exxon had shown came to an end. While Exxon’s science was laudable it was secondary to the purpose of the research. What impact would greenhouse gases and global warming have on Exxon the business. This is where Exxon’s leadership went to the dark side.
The science told them that the only way to deal with the ever-growing dangers of climate change was to stop burning fossil fuels. But this would lead to the end of pumping oil and gas. Exxon would need to leave its vast oil and gas reserves in the ground, stranding upwards to one trillion dollars (2021 value) in the ground.
Exxon’s research and resultant knowledge put them in an enviable position. They could diversify, focusing on the obvious fields of alternative energy production, carbon mitigation, and more efficient forms transportation, using their close connections with the auto industry. Or they could continue business as usual for as long as possible. To do that though, would require denying that there was a threat and then, as public awareness of the looming catastrophe grew, staling any resulting restrictive legislation.
In 1988, the New York Times published the article “Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate.” The article contained the Senate testimony of noted NASA Climate Scientist, James Hansen. Exxon had already buried its research, let go most of its climate science staff as a cost saving measure, and begun a disinformation campaign. Now, Exxon went full-in by increasing its disinformation, recruiting the American Petroleum Institute and right-wing think-tanks to challenge climate science, insisting that the science was too uncertain to be justify cutting fossil fuel emissions. Exxon also founded the Global Climate Coalition, whose members were some of the world’s largest businesses. They all shared the same goal, to stifle any government action that would reduce fossil fuel and reduce profits. Climate Denial was born.
The Republican’s pro-business philosophy made them sympathetic towards the Global Climate Coalition. The Climate Deniers had/have deep pockets and politicians in both parties benefited. But it was the Republicans, as a party, who embraced the lies and enthusiastically spread disinformation that blocked needed legislation.
That was over 40 years ago, when pro-climate legislation could have made a difference. Back then, reducing CO2 could have been done incrementally and would have given people and businesses adequate time to convert to alternative, non-polluting, energy sources. Indeed, alternative energy research and development would have advanced more quickly because there would have been broad public and government support. At that time, any action would have had long-lasting positive effects.
Had we been able to act then, the pall of smoke from forest fires in the West would not now blanket a broad swath of the US, from sea to shining sea. There would still be ice in the Arctic and the jet stream would have continued its ancient course, sparing us the calamity we’ve been experiencing. Had Exxon kept to its original ethical path, our seas would not be warming, acidifying, and rising. Had there not been climate denial, we would have avoided decades of super storms and super fires, a trillion dollars in damages, and the dislocation of 100,000s of Americans who lost their homes and jobs.
Seldom in history are villains unambiguously villains. Today the perpetrators are unmistakable. Their actions are so vile, that a new crime, Ecocide, has been proposed. On par with genocide, Ecocide is defined as the “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.” It will take time for the international effort to codify these new laws. But once in place, we will see trials similar to those at Nuremberg, when Nazis were held accountable for genocide.
Now when we watch the news, we have a word for what we see, Ecocide. And we can easily identify the criminals.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that Trump’s climb to power, today’s traitorous Republican Party, and the tragedy of COVID pandemic are the logical extensions of Climate Denial’s Big Lie. They built a deadly false reality that they spread using the same propagandists, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and others, that we are afflicted with today.
It is time to put these toxic forces where they belong, back in the ground alongside the oil, gas, and coal.
Notes
My primary source is Inside Climate News (Insideclimatenews.org) who was first to provide comprehensive investigative reporting on Exxon’s roll in our climate change disaster. ICN is one of the best sources for fact-based information on our climate and environment.
[i] In 1896, the Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, published the paper, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Earth, where he explained how the amount of CO2 in the air effected the temperature of the atmosphere. He included in his paper the work of another scientist, Arvid Högbom, who had researched the Carbon Cycle and identified, then quantified sources of carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon contributed by humans was calculated to be about equal to that produced by Nature. Arrhenius calculated that eventually this increase in greenhouse gases and the resulting temperature rise would become a problem. However, he did not see this as an immediate threat, because at the rate of carbon increase was so low that it would take thousands of years to reach criticality. Arrhenius had little way of knowing how rapidly industry would expand or the explosive growth in new uses for fossil fuels.
[ii] In 1965 President Johnson received a warning from his Science Advisory Council. They stated that if we continued burning fossil fuels, the carbon released, “… may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in the climate” by 2000.
[iii] These temperatures have been verified to be the tipping points upon which our survival as a society and a species depend. The lower point, 1.5°C (2.5°F), is where irreversible damage is done but the climate can find a new survivable but violent balance. At the upper point, 3°C (5°F), it is possible that we will have passed a point of no return, in which the climate enters a closed-loop cycle that is not reversable and will raise temperatures until the earth is uninhabitable.
About the Image
The image is a composite, the sky and flag are individual images covered by Creative Commons usage. I manipulated both images and color corrected so that they would work together.
The Flag is by Mike Mozart, JeepersMedia, CC-BY.
The sky is by Fractal Artists, CC-BY.
The image above, Stormy Skies, is mine, CC-BY.