Evidence of Fossil Fuel Companies Funding of Climate Science Denial and Climate Policy Interference Kert Davies - Climate Investigations Center Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines New York City September 27, 2018 CLIMATE INVESTIGATIONS CENTER Themes of this presentation: WHAT FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES KNEW - Oil companies studied the science internally for decades and funded academic scientists. Companies deployed scientists into the UN IPCC process. Oil company scientists briefed other corporate representatives about the growing consensus. Simultaneously, they funded discredited climate denier scientists as a counter voice. CORPORATE EFFORTS TO STALL THE CLIMATE POLICY PROCESS Focusing on the time period since the late 19805. These include: Climate science denial campaigns aimed at discrediting climate science impacts assessments, attack individual scientists, specific studies, reports and institutions. Campaigns aimed at destabilizing the process starting with Rio Earth Summit and for example, undermining the Kyoto or Paris agreements Campaigns against national greenhouse gas reduction measures such as the Obama Clean Power Plan or McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF CORPORATE FUNDING OF CLIMATE DENIAL CAMPAIGNS AND ORGANIZATIONS Campaigns executed by oil trade associations like American Petroleum Institute, and NGOs like Competitive Enterprise Institute being funded by ExxonMobil and other corporations ExxonSecrets.org Launched in 2004 HDUJ EHHIJNNOBIL FUNDS CLIMFITE SKEPTICS TOOLS - INSTRUCTIONS LOFIO MFIP MFIP PRINT MHP FIND PERSON ORCHNIZFITIONS CLEFIR HTML VERSION FIBOUT LINKS SEFIRCH SUBSCRIBE C02 Coalition 9 Patrick J. Michael: S. Fred Singer 9 Craig Exxon Secrets 5? Robert C. Jr. 9 Richard Lindaen George C. Marshall Institute ?tannin?! FIrneri-z:an Council on Science and Health The Fiduoncement of Sound Science Coalition Heritage Foundation CFFICT - Committee for a Constructiue Tomorrow UJestern Fuels Cato Institute Greening Earth Sacietg 1mm") Heartland Institute Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station LIMATE NVESTIGATIONS ENTER HaroithnocdD ensitAllnmaaMPl Climate Files - The collection has 195 posts comprised of more than 200 documents, emails, transcribed video and audio files representing several thousand pages of content. - A detailed index of these documents will be submitted with my testimony. Global Political Backdrop 1979 - First World Climate Conference in Geneva 1980 - Reagan elected - no pressure 19805 - Montreal Protocol ozone layer takes center stage 1988 - UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change formed 1992 - Rio Earth Summit - voluntary action only 1995 - Berlin Mandate - call for mandatory action 1997 - Kyoto Protocol - mandatory framework begun 2000 - Bush elected - withdraws U.S. from Kyoto Protocol 20005 - Corporate funding of climate denial increases WHAT FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES KNEW BLIMATEEILES Hard tn finil Documents All il One Place HOME SEARCH HOW TO EXXON KNEW ABOUT 1988 Shell Con?dential Report 'The Greenhouse Emct' CONFIDENTIAL THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT This 1988 Shell report, discovered by Ielmer Mommers of De Correspondent, shines light on what the company knew about climate science, its own role in driving global C02 emissions, the range of potential political and social responses to a warming world. The confidential report, ?The Greenhouse Effect,? was authored by members of Shell?s Green- house Effect Working Group and based on a 1986 study, though the document reveals Shell was commissioning ?greenhouse effect? reports as early as 1981. Report highlights include: 0 A thorough review of climate science literature, including acknowledgement of fossil fuels? dominant role in driving greenhouse gas emissions. More importantly, Shell quantifies its own products? contribution to global C02 emissions. A detailed analysis of potential climate impacts, including rising sea levels, ocean acidifica? tion, and human migration 0 A discussion of the potential impacts to the fossil fuel sector itself, including legislation, changing public sentiment, and infrastructure vulnerabilities. Shell concludes that active engagement from the energy sector is desirable. . A cautious response to uncertainty in scientific models, pressing for sincere consideration of solutions even in the face of existing debates. 0 A warning to take policy action early, even before major changes are observed to the climate. In short, by 1988 Shell was not only aware of the potential threats posed by climate change, it was open about its own role in creating the conditions for a warming world. Similar documents by ExxonMobil, oil trade associations, and utility companies have emerged in recent years, though SEND US 0 TOP POSTS 8. PAGES 1965 President's Science Advisory Committee Report on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide 1988 Shell Confidential Report ?The Greenhouse Effect? 1991 Western Fuels Association Annual Report 1991 CATO Climate Denial Confer? ence Flyer and Schedule 1995 Global Climate Coalition Draft Climate Change Science Primer 1999 Shell ?Sustainable Develop? ment making it happen" Report and Internal ?Sounding board" feedback 1999 Shell Report ?Listening and Responding The Profits and Principles Advertising Campaign? 1994 Shell Report ?The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect A review of scientific aspects? 2001 ExxonMobil's Randol Memo to White House on IPCC Team In short, by 1988 Shell was not only aware of the potential threats posed by climate change, it was open about its own role in creating the conditions for a warming world. Similar documents by BoronMobil, oil trade associations, and utility companies have emerged in recent years, though this Shell document is a rare, early, and concrete accounting of climate responsibility by an oil major. HOWEVER. BY THE TIME THE GLOBAL WARMING BECOMES DETECTABLE IT BE TOO LATE TO TAKE EFFECTIVE COUNTERMEASURES TO REDUCE THE EFFECTS OR EVEN TO STABILIZE THE 4 ?mean?; will llprovu the understanding and likely wtcolu. However. by the tin ch. glob-1 tuning Deco-u detect-h1- i: could be too late to calm counter-allure! co nducn th- off-cu or own to "mu-e the litu-tton. View the entire document with Documentcloud Fossil fuels are driving C02 emissions Throughout the report, Shell acknowledges the central role of fossil fuels, and oil in particular, in increasing C02 emissions. While the authors note the uncertainties and limitations of contempo? rary climate models particularly around the timing and intensity of impacts there is little ambiguity about the responsibility of the oil industry. The report states, ?Although C02 is emitted to the atmosphere through several natural the main cause of increasing C02 concen- trations is considered to be fossil fuel burning." Later, the authors quantify Shell?s products? unique contribution to global C02 emissions by seg- ment. According to this internal analysis, Shell?s products (oil, gas, and coal) were responsible for 4% of total global carbon emissions in 1981.. This is one of the earliest examples of carbon ac- counting by an oil major, and consistent with Ricth Heede?s ?Carbon Majors? methodology of tracing carbon responsibility back to the producers. TABLE 8: CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL EMISSIONS FROM FUELS SOLD BY THE SHELL GROUP IN 19847(p. 60), Table 8. Contribution to global CO2 allusions from fuel: sold by the Shell Group In 19814 (lource: Shell Coll) carbon onintom (gig-tennis of c-rbcn) fuel tot-1 Group world shun all. 2.56 50?) 0.20 5-: 0.80 12?) 0.03 (0.59) coal 2.56 30?) 0.02 0.63 IOU 0 (0.01) total 6.55 (100?) 0.15 ll! NCE - Fonvcomrcill Energy (bio-all) View the entire document with Documentcloud 2001 ExxonMobil's Randol Memo to White House on IPCC Team 19 91 Information Council on the Environment Test Denial Cam? paign Plan and Survey Natuna Gas Field - Early 19805 THEY KNEW IT WOULD BE Exxon abandons gas project, north of Borneo, because they could not figure out how to deal with C02. 71% C02 by volume in deposit. Exxon estimates the natural gas would have twice the climate impact of coal if released. Would be the largest single point source on earth. ?Distant-Sea Exxon?s Natuna Gas Field a Major Source of C02 In 1980, Exxon acquired the rights to develop the Natuna field, one of the world?s largest untapped reservoirs of natural gas. Soon after, the company determined the field would be the world's largest point source of carbon dioxide. Exxon still owns the 4" Detail area Natuna license but has shelved its development indefinitely. ANI) IPPINE Natuna VIETNAM gas field Natuna Is. SUMATRA ll, RNEO CELEBES 5 A Jakarta 1 1,000 miles jA VA ,l HORN Insult-t' News Nov 1982 Memo to Management I EXONI BESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY I PO BOX 101, FLORHAM PARK, NEW JERSEY 07932 I C0 GREENHOUSE EFFECT M. E. GLASER Cable: ENGREXXON. N.V. 2 Manager A TECHNICAL REVIEW November 12, 1982 992 "Greenhouse" Effect 82EAP 266 PREPARED BY THE TO: See Distribution List Attached COORDINATION AND PLANNING DIVISION Attached for your information and guidance is briefing material on the C02 "Greenhouse? Effect which is receiving increased attention in both the scientific and popular press as an emerging EXXON RESEARCN AND ENGINEERING COMPANY environmental issue. A brief summary is provided along with a more detailed technical review prepared by CPPD. The material has been given wide circulation to Exxon management and is intended to familiarize Exxon personnel with the subject. It may be used as a basis for discussing the issue with outsiders as may be appropriate. However, it should be restricted -to~Exxon personnel and not distributed externally. APRIL 1, 1982 Very truly yours, ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE, PPM (V) Nov. 1982 Memo to Management Cont. Figure ,3 GROWTH OF ATMOSPHERIC C02 AND AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE AS A FUNCTION OF TIME Observed :4 2?lst Century Study 7: CPD 620 TI s't'Ce?r?u?f - - 3.2 No Fuels-Liquid And Gas Balances Same As In 2151 Century Study 580 . . . . Tut?1960 AVERAGE TEMPERATURE . PROPRIETARY INFORMATION FOR AUTHORIZED COMPANY USE ONLY about 5 years to the late 2090's. Figure 3 summarizes the projected growth of atmospheric CO concentration based on the Exxon 21st Century Study-High Growth scenario. 33 well as an estimate of the average global temperature increase which might then occur above the current temperature. It is now clear that the doubling time will occur much later in the future than pre- viously postulated because of the decreasing rate of fossil fuel usage due to lower demand. Exxon 1988 Internal Document ?The Greenhouse Effect" EXXON POSITION EMPHASIZE THE UNCERTAINTY IN SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE POTEN- TIAL ENHANCED GREENHOUSE EFFECT. URGE A BALANCED SCIENTIFIC APPROACH. 0 DUE TO CURRENT SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY, EXXON IS NOT CONDUCTING SPECIFIC IMPACT STUDIES WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR COMPANY OPERATIONS 0R GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS. EXXON HAS NOT MODIFIED ITS ENERGY OUTLOOK OR FORECASTS TO ACCOUNT FOR POSSIBLE CHANGES IN FOSSIL FUEL DEMAND OR UTILIZATION DUE TO THE HOUSE EFFECT. RESIST THE OVERSTATEMENT AND SENSATIONALIZATION OF POTENTIAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT WHICH COULD LEAD TO NONECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF NONFOSSIL FUEL RESOURCES. Shell 1988 ?Confidential? Report on 1981-1986 Internal Study HOWEVER, BY THE TIME THE GLOBAL WARMING BECOMES DETECTABLE IT COULD BE TOO LATE TO TAKE EFFECTIVE COUNTERMEASURES TO REDUCE THE EFFECTS OR EVEN TO STABILIZE THE SITUATION. (M) monitoring will improve the understanding and likely outcomes. However. the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilise situation. CONFIDENTIAL The likely time scale of possible change does not necessitate immediate remedial action. However. the potential impacts are sufficiently serious for research to be directed more to the analysis of policy and energy options than to studies of what we will be facing exactly. Anticipation of climatic change is new, preventing undue change is a challenge which requires international cooperation. With fossil fuel combustion being the major source of 002 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. Oil Companies Funding Academic Studies in 19905 Mobil foundation. lno grant recon-nor. ORGANIZATION Lelont?Doherty Geological Cbservatory, Columbia University Palisades. 21? 0003. lo,? ORGANIZATIONAL comm L. (?ox noommnum. nosxt UNXT tC0 . DIV. MCOIP. ENS CWIDXNATIN GIANT J. C, Kildrow ORGANIZATION: n. om IY own CORPORATIONS ?00 NOT mun nus Cowanies contributing at least For Foundation Use Only $25. 1,91 - 335.000 l?92 - 825.000 - 325.000 UNIT?bo'cif?T en cocr- La-ont-Doharty is a world-wide leader in earth and atsiospheric studies :t has organized a consortiu- o! petroleu- coweniea to hind the developaent or an iwroved model or energy tranaler between the atnosphere and oceans. is critical to i-provmq global climate Iodels and to iqrovinq the prediction of global warning and XPIICA are acting as focal points or petroleum industry eftort La-ont-Doherty researchers continue to develop an isproved coquter model for energy transter between the at-osphere and the oceans This coquter model will become part at the larger vandals predicting the iqact or increased greenhouse gas emissions on global clilate. Ulti-ate these mdela will be the basis for regulatory action unont Donut-,- researchers recently reported two with significance for constructing better global clilate oodels: a negative teedback nechanis- which coqensates tor the ottect of waiting sea ice on teqereture rise and that slall-scale geographic features can have large :Ppact on the shape or ocean currents. halting accurate ocean modelling more dittlcult than anticipated. La-ont-Doherty is one o! the (ew centers in the world capable or conducting a program or this type. They combine the earth science and coeputinq background necessary (or high quality nodal develops-anti Global waning is likely to be the key international enViron-ental issue 0! the l990n while there currently are no regulations lilitinq e-issions of greenhouse gases. such regulations are a real possibility within the next five years, technical lHIOIPdtlon and understanding will be key to Hobil's ability to participate in the debate on these regulations. unant~l>oherty conducts annual se-inars for sponsors or this program, a: which tile Mobil scientists involved in the global waning issue can gain (irst hand understanding o! the role or the oceans in global warming and develop persona; relationships with sons 0! the key experts on this issue Continued support 0! this eltort. particularly in light of recent lindinqs, and participating at level is tax no" valuable to Mobil than nerely reading papers which will eventually be publiahed CORPORATE EFFORTS TO STALL THE CLIMATE POLICY PROCESS Case Study 1996 Document: IPIECA Report on COPZ and IPCC Proves multiple corporations were actively contributing science to the IPPC 2nd Assessment Report Present at the COP were representatives from multiple companies who attended as members of IPIECA and GCC delegations Exxon Mobil Chevron Texaco (now Chevron) BP Total Rum Wham 0N 01w: (Pitt) CDPZ 8-191" 11", Oman "Present for at least part of the meeting were Robin Aram (Shell - ICC delegation), Lenny Bernstein (Mobil - GCC delegation), Brian Flannery (Exxon - delegation), Clem Malin (Texaco - ICC delegation), Jean Marvillet (Total - delegation), Bill Mulligan (Chevron - GCC delegation), Tito Sale (ENI - WEC delegation), Peter Scupholme (BP - delegation) and John Shinn (Chevron - delegation). This report draws on a report by Lenny Bernstein." Present for at least part ofthe meeting were either on the or other delegations were Robin Amm (Shell - ICC delegation). Leon) Bernstein (Mobil - delegation). Brian Henrien (Exxon . Charlotte Grew (ll?llzCA), Lois Jolman (Texaco . ICC delegation), Klam Kohlhase (BP - delegation). Clem Malin (Texaco - ICC delegation). Jam Marvillet (Total - delegation). Bill Mulligan (Chewon - GCC dclegatm). Tito Sale (FNI - delegation). Peter Scupholme (BP - delegatim) and John Shinn (Che-won - delegation). This report draws on a report by Lenn} Bernstein Case Study: 1995 Global Climate Coalition draft document titled ?Predicting Climate Change: A Primer? Global Climate Coalition 1995 Draft Science Primer Mobil Oil Corporation AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT PO. BOX 1031 PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08543-1031 December 21, 1995 To: Members of GCC-STAC Attached is what I hope is the ?nal draft of the primer onglobal- climate change science we have been working on for the past few months. It has been revised to more directly address recent statements from IPCC Working Group I and to re?ect comments from John Kinsman and Howard Feldman. We will be discussing this draft at the January 18th STAC meeting. Ifyou are coming to that meeting, please bring any additional comments on the draft with you. If you have comments but are unable to attend the meeting, please fax them to Eric Holdsworth at the GCC o?ice. His fax number is (202) 63 8-1043 or (202) 638-1032. I will be out of the of?ce for essentially all of the time between now and the next STAC meeting. Best wishes for the Holiday Season, Zed/41% L. S. Bernstein GCC Draft Primer 1995 This primer addresses the following questions concerning climate change; l) Can human activities a?ect climate? The scienti?c basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied 2) Can future climate be accurately predicted? GCC Draft Primer 1995 APPROVAL DRAFT Predicting Future Climate Qhange: A Primer In its recently approved Summary for Policymakers for its contribution to the Second Assessment Report, Working Group I stated: balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernable human in?uence on global climate. The Global Climate Coalition?s Science and Technical AdvisoryOCornmittee believes that the IPCC statement goes beyond what can _be justi?ed by current sc1ent1?c knowledge. APPROVAL DRAFT The limitations which prevent climate models from accurately predicting ?xture climate also limit their ability to assess whether a human impact on climate has already occurred. Claims that human activities have already impacted climate are currently unjusti?ed. However, the improvements climate models could make an assessment of human impacts on climate possible. Alternatively, a suf?ciently large, short term change in climate consistent with model predictions could be used as proof of a human impact on climate. GCC Draft Primer 1995 3 . GCMs are huge models which require supercomputers to run in any reasonable time. Computational limitations require that they use large grid sizes, typically 500 km. on a side. These cells are larger than many of the unportant physical features in the system they are trying to model, for example, the width of the Gulf Stream. Computational limits also mean GCC Draft Primer 1995 APPROVAL DRAFT There Alternate Explanations for the Climate Chan eWhich cc rre I he Last 120 Years? Several arguments have been put forward attempting to challenge the conventional view of greenhouse gas-induced climate change. These are generally referred to as "contrarian" theories. This section summarizes these theories and the counter-arguments presented against them. Solar Variabili Contrarian Zheogy Counter-arguments Solar radiation is the driver for the climate Direct measures of the intensity of solar system. Any change in the intensity of the radiation over the past 15 years indicate a solar radiation reaching the Earth will maximum variability of less than a?ect temperature and other climate su?icient to account for no more than 0. parameters. Dr Robert Jastrow, Director of temperature change. This period of direct the Mt. Wilson 0 rvatory, and others have measurement included one complete 11 year GCC Draft Primer 1995 APPROVAL DRAFT Role of Water Vapor Contrarian 1722052 In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the tropo~ sphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which Counter-arguments Lindzen?s 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions atthe surface would lead to cool- er, drier conditions at the top of the tropo- sphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to ?nd the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen?s hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While GCC Draft Primer 1995 . APPROVAL DRAFT Detailed temperature records do not agree with :eenhouse warming. 0 niversity of - res of hypotheses about how greenhouse warming should affect temperature. Only two will be discussed in detail. First, if greenhouse gases were responsible for the increase in global average temper- ature, one would expect daytime maximum temperatures to increase. What is actually happening is that daytime maximum temper- atures are staying constant, while nighttime temperatures are increasing. Michaels While some scientist argue that greenhouse warming has already occurred, most say that it cannot be separated from all of the other factors a??ecting climate, including the urban heat island effect and aerosol cooling. Thus, the fact that the erature record as warming scenario does not diminish the potential threat from substantially higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse GCC Draft Primer 1995 Cl'llC?Il? The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission?induced climate change. jastrow' hypothesis about the role of solar variability and Michaels' questions about the temperature record are not convincing agents against any conclusion that we are currently experiencing warming as the result of greenhouse gas emissions. However, neither solar variability nor anomalies 1n the temperature record offer a mechanism for off-setting the much larger rise in temperature which might occur if the Case Study: Documents detailing Bush State Department meetings with Global Climate Coalition, ExxonMobil and others United States Department of State 1 I If J?w JUN 2 RELEASED IN FULL BRIEFING MEMORANDUM UNCLASSI FIED SIS 10: - Under Secretary Dobriansky room: 035 - Ken Brill, Acting \Ckgy? SUBJECT: Your Meeting with members of the Global Climate Coalition, June 21, 2001, 9:10 9:50 3.11:. On Thursday morning you will speak to members of the Global Climate Coalition a group formed a number of years ago to coordinate the participation of business and industry'in domestic and international climate change policy making. GCC members are completely supportive of the Administration's position on climate change and the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. A.i_ Au?. 90TQS rejected Kyoto, in part, based an input from you. POTUS believes, however, we need to show leadership on this iSSue to advance U. 5. domestic and international policy objectives- Case Study: Exxon documents doubting science LJKJ Global warm who' 5 righ akJO\Jla QfCORPORATION ?au 19.01; From theghairmon Climate change: don't ignore the facts The issue rear/It?s into r?l'm?y hon/c pocketbook mourn! the world. by Lee R. (Shainiuut. Exxon (?onxiniliou ln zht- debate am global of most critical facts has bet ome one of the most ignored- the undeniable link between economic vitality and energy use Achievmg economic remains one of the world criti all needs. and with good reason. It cit-alts more and better jobs improves our quality of life and enables us to safeguard the crud ronment. When economies grow their energy consumption rises. it's no accident that nations with the highest standard of living have the highest thrt'wita use ofenerm'. about 85 percent "l?m'h comes whethc Iotor fuel. and could raise the l?oday. however. a multinational xhbatrh considered action effort. under the auspices of the IA he . Vthile bets by 50 percent. The ether of United Nations. is under way to cut 'eVlng tration taxes could be slower eco- the use of mu rafts. based on ti: incretir $327,313: 31:33:97" 13:1 on climate change thtory afleitt . - a economic growth ?3351mm.? . . In July. the S. administration. our cont could ll'll?llCl severe Wilho?? lull Wbuc discussion and I these hit- administration has also debate. and to the mm- chit-arty remains one of the world 5 could no u. m. of?tradable . . everyone. outpost-d the concept of: percent is' for fuel usatu? - another term binding international agreement . I I umans brAmtioning. requiring developed nations to I . that ev w? should 35k Mu?, greenhouse K33 emissions ca ee Mm? patted questions about how a rationing pmgrani after the year gum and committed sions lo bould work. What International agency would decide how the . ed . . I melt of what fuel each nation may have ?permits? to use? mm a" m? 0 'lhin each country. who would decide how much gasoline an ment. This policy. if implemented. has ominous economic implications that could touch pocketbooks and impair lifestyles throughout and even beyond the industrialiu-d world. Developing nations. which will account for most of the grouth in gn-enliouse gas emissions. are excluded from most mtission-reduction proposals. but they're not immune to their impact. in our increasingly integrated world economy. policies that limit growth in industrialized nations affect trade with developing nations and hinder their economies as well. This would have profound implications since developing nations face real and immediate problems the World Bank says one-third of the world? mpuladun lacks adequate sanita- tion and more than one billion people an without safe drinking water - conditions that inevitably lead to disease and suffering. Solving these problems pomlat, nomic growth. which. in tum. requir Palm uh has Proponents of the global warming tl of greenhouse gases - especially ca world temperatures to rise and tha reason. tSee Global Wanting - page 4.) Yet scienti?c evidence [ions of ('02 would continue to rise developing world. Unfortunately. huge economic uncertainty have not merited act issue and trying to stir up unreast industrialized worid should cut bat and that develope nations shoul actions by the end of next year. 'lhi for longer- term research to determ impacts global limate. ligh coca In advocating this course of action. ni?tant costs of mandated reduce lrdible forecast predicts continued economic growth and ?raised consumption of fossil fuels in both industrial and belt-ping nations. The International Energy Agency has said regardless of what assumptions it makes about economic yowth. energy prices and energy efficiency. it sees global demand growing substantially. Met-ting unnalistic targets for reductions in greenhouse gas missions will require extreme measures involving intmsetl l'nlnl government control over energy use. Such measures bold inclutlt- higher energy taxes. fuel rationing and other dtsigned to limit energy mnsumption. Studies by authoritative organizations such as and Juries River Associatcx show that taxes required to reduce hail fut-l use to unit) levels be substantial. They could about 60 cents to lhl? price of a gallon of gasoline the United States. more than quadru- ling the federal excise tax on hividual or business could use etery month. or how much hing all one could have for home heating? ~00! Mil. nod-d 'ith these considerations in mind. what's the lest way to manage the issue of potential Mal climate change? First. we must understand it better. and 's why boom is its ovm risearc Id supports that of others dealing with Hated science. economics and picy options. In addition. a constructive mach should consider ls: Taking drastic action imme Hely is unnecessary since ny scientists agree :F's ample time to better Merstand climate sys- Ins and develop the best hum-m umttyies. I Mandating reductions in fossil fuel use now is needlessly expensive. it would force replacement of major ponions of energyconsuming capital stock. such as power plants and other facilitits. before the t?ltfl of their useful life. It would be far less costly to replace this equipment when it would normally be retired. I Policy prints-sails should undergo careful analysis and disclo sure oi their economic. social and competitive impacts. antl their acceptability and consequences should be tested in thorough and open public debates I "anion is needed. it should come in the form of truly global measures that include developing nations. since they will amount for most of the growth in gru-nhouse gas muss-ions. I increased c?icietity in energy supply and demand should be encoumzed by libt-Ialin?ng trade. opening world markets and reducing government intervention and subsidies. The world needs more opportunities for tech nulugy transfer through market mechanisms such as investment. This Will help to improve nt rgy ef?cietity and i missions In developing countries I Natural means of carbon dioxide absorption should be part of the analysis of the issue and any policy approach. Measures could include slowing deforestation and encour- aging sountl forest management practises. I Voluntary. market-based steps. along with a better understanding of how humans and t-cosyanems can adau to potential climate change. alter the best hopc for setting policies that are rational. scientifically sound and costefledivr. bod-i9 with tan: Whatever choices We ultimatcly make about global climate change. let?s build on a foundation of facts. Perhaps the most important is the worldwide need to achieve continued economic while minimizing the impact on die environ- inenL Economic vitality. energy use and environmental protection are strongly interrelated. and the world needs all three. Economic growth improves the quality of life and helps pay the of protecting the environment. A slnuig emonmy in turn depends on the availability ol abundant. competitive. affordable and increasingly cleaner supplies of energy. with price and availability being determined in a freely operating Pretipitous. poorly considered action on climate thange could inflict severe economic damage on industrialized nations and dramatically change your way of Those who say otherwise are drawing bad stienoe. faulty logic or unrealistic assumptions '0 must reicct policies that will clearly impose a hetivy burden of costs but offer bene?ts that are largely speculative and undefined. Case Study: 1996 Exxon presentation on health effects of climate change 1996 Exxon presentation on health effects of climate change PURPORTED IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON HUMAN HEALTH September 19, 1996 INTRODUCTION International Attention Focused on Relationships Among Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, Ecological Stress and Human Health National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Sponsored Conference on Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change on Health (9/95) - c'ences Inc. . - Exxon Biomedical I Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report Reviews "State of Knowledge" . . . Raises Significant Health Concern Medical Journals Relate Climate Change to Incidence of Disease Popular Press Raising Issue of ?Megastorms? ?Global Fever? ?Emerging Infectious Disease? 1) Greenhouse Gases Increase Due Primarily to Fossil Fuel Use 1996 Exxon presentation on health effects of climate change THE HYPOTHESIS 2) Accumulation Leads to Increase in the Average Global Temperature . . . 1 - in the Next 100 Years 3) Global Warming Will Affect Ocean/Air Currents and Humidity, Lead to Climatic and Geographic Changes Wintertime Precipitation Increase More Severe Weather Events . . . Increased Rainfall Drought Increase in Number and Severity Northern Snow Cover and Alpine Glaciers Decline Sea Level Rise (0.3 - 0.5 by 2100) El Ni?o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Increase Frequency THE HYPOTHESIS (cont'd) 4) Changes wiII Strain Major Ecosystems Decrease in Diversity of Species Increase in Number/Range of ?Opportunistic? Species Relocation, Possible Reduction, of Agricultural Sites 5) Human Health will be Impacted by Climatic Changes Suffering and Death Due to Thermal Extremes Injury, Death Due to Weather-Related Disasters 1996 Exxon Presentation On Health Effects Of Climate Change THE HYPOTHESIS (cont'd) 6) Human Health will be Indirectly Impacted by Physical and Ecological Changes . Range/Activity of Disease Vectors and lnfective Agents Will Increase . . . Alter Range, Intensity and Seas?onality of Vector- Borne Diseases Increase in Water-Borne Diseases Through Disturbances in Fresh Water Ecosystems Population Displacement Due to Rising Sea Level, Regional Declines in Food Production, Weather Disasters . . . Lead to Increase in Malnutrition, Injuries, Infections, Civil Strife 1996 Exxon Presentation On Health Effects Of Climate Change CONCLUSIONS (cont?d) Minority View: Evidence Must be Weighed . . . Plausible Mechanisms Defined . . .Relative Significance Assessed Climate Change is Likely a Marginal Factor. . . More Critical Issues Exist: Malnutrition, Personal Hygiene, Drug Use, Food Prep, Urbanization, Population Growth, Trade and Travel, Evolution of . Microbes, Inadequate Public Health 0 Impact of Climate Change on Human Health will Remain Speculative . . . Provides a Potentially Emotional Issue 1996 Exxon Presentation On Health Effects Of Climate Change 0 Identify Scientific Leaders with Diverse Views . . . Encourage Active Participation in Debate 0 Promote Concept of Relative Risk . . . Significance of Climate Impacts Vs. Other Disease Factors Op-Ads: Mobil 1996-97 Dbplay Ad 20 - No Title .Vi ii Yuri Trim 1/93? ?ll l: Jul 25 l?niQiicsl Historical NclurLlIx-rs: The Noll \tirL IKSI \\Ilh illdc\ D): All With climate change, what we don?t know can hurt us:- lt has been said climate is what we expect; weather is what we get. Weather is capricious and chaotic. By contrast. climate in the 10.000 years since the last Ice Age has been assumed to be quite stable and serene. an assumption that is crumbling in the face of ever more sophls ticated measurements. It now appears that the climate in this period has actually been quite volatile. changing Earth in ways that may dwart the impact of human activity and complicate pre- dicting climate trends. Nevertheless. the human factor In global climate change and the chance that we might be headed lor damaging social and economic dislocations cannot be ignored. In the second of three reports on global climate change. we look at eftorts to achieve an ecologi- cal balance. The evolving scenes at climate change and the known behavior of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?their long Ii'e and global. cumula- tive bu?dup?argue for a carelul and comprehen- swo approach to their control. Unfortunately. policy decisions now being consdered in United Nations climate change negotiations could lead to premature. inequitable and ultimately counter- productive measures. At stake ere of dol- lars in technological and Industrial changes. potentially disruptive trade wars and an unproce- dented trensfer of wealth. A critical lactor is timing. The compressed timetable of these negotiations tends to create an unwarranted sense ol crisis A gradual approach ?one that would not result in an apprecrable buildup of gases over the next 100 years?would allow us to improve our understanding of the potential threat and to develop more ethCient technology to deal with it. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change itself recognizes the dynamlc nature of greenhouse-gas decision- making. It requires periodic review "In light of the best available scientific information on climate change and its impacts, as well as relevant tech- nical. socual and economic information' There is great pressure to assign responsi- billty tor the stabilization and reduction ot emis- sions. along with the cost. almost entirely to the industrialized world, While the developing world would be spared the initial burden, such selective controls would penalixe all nations in the long run. Imposing controls only on the industrialized world wowd likely cause what eoonomets call "cat- bon leakage? wthe transfer ol energy- intensive industries to less- -regu ated countries, where they would offset the bene?ts of emission reductions. Beyond this. the cost of mitigation. even tor the wealthiest nanons. would weaken their purchasing power and lead to a reduction in imports from the developing oountnes? depriwng them at a pow- ertul impetus for growth and prosperity. The U.N. climate control negotiations rely on an arbitrary classificemn 01 countries as either developed or emerging. While much of the world falls short of a decent standard ol living?nos 2 billion people have never seen a light bulb. and half of them rely on wood or other biomass for fuel?the developing world as now defined includes a growing list of commercial power- houses Among developed countries, oattems ct energy use are so diverse that an equal percent- age reduction in emissions by all would be both untair and uneconomical. Independent studies?by the Australian Department at Foreign Affairs and Trade as well as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ?increa3ingiy pelnt to internet or?al cooper- ation and worldWIde implementation of control measures as sensible and cost-eftective, Such an approach would include funding and technol- ogy for emission controls to flow trom developed countries to the rest of the world. in return for credits for their own mitigation measures. A oo- operative. international approach. we believe. of- lore a win- wm for all nations Next: we re all In [hrs Iogefher. M?bil? thla) Ad 26 -- No Title ii lurk l. . l?ri-iQiitlxl ?hltl?k' .Il Manon-r?: The \cu York i Zillhti viilh lildcx lel As the debate over climate change heats up scienca is being up staged by the call for solutions At stake is a complex esue many questions. Some we know for certs-n. Others am tar from certain First. we know greenhouse gases account for less than one percent of Earths atmosphere. The ability of these gases to trap heel and warm Earth is an important part oi the climate system because it makes our planet habit- able Greenhouse gases largely ot water vapor. with i srnailer amounts at mmon oioitide methane and nitrous oxde and traces of chlorofluoro- carbons (CFCS) The focus of cori- cam is While most of the CO: emit- ted by far is the result of natural phenomena?- namely respiration and decomposrtion. most attention has centered on the three to four percent related to human actNities?bur'irig of luels. deforestation. The amount of carbon GOXIOB tn the atmosphere has risen in the last 100 years. leading soieritisls to conclude that the increase is a result of man-made activities Although the linkage between the green- house gases and global warming is one laclor. other variables could be much more important ii- the climate system than emlssions produced by man. The UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Danel on Change (IPCC) thought ll had lour?d the magic bullet when it concluded that the one? (Egree Fahrenheit use In global temperatures over Science: what we know . and don?t know Carbon Errissloris humanActtvuggs??ur. emissmris reduce the natural I?iieimmcim 96 131'! "in?K1"- lhe past centu?y may bear a "fmgerpr-nt" of human actIVity. The soon blurred when an IPCC lead author conceded to the inhe-ont in computer Climate modeling Nonetheless. nations at Kyoto are being asked to embrace proposals that could have potentially huge impacts on economies and Ii?estyles. Natio'is are being urged to cut emis Sions Without knowing either the severity oi the problem?that is. Will Earth's tempera- ture increase over the next 50-100 years7?or the eificacy of the solution?mil cutting CO: i Drobiem'.? Within a decade. science is I.koly to prowde more answers on what factors af'ect g?obal warming. there- by improvmg our deci- sronlmaking We lust dO'l?l have this informa- tion today. Answers to quest-cos on climate change wil require more reliable mmuremertts of temperature at marry places on Earth. better understanding of c?ouds and ocean cinenls along greater computer power. This process shouldr?t be short-Circuited to satis?y an artilICiai deadline. me the conference in Kyoto. Whatever erfect rncreased corcentral one of man-made gases may have. it wil develop slowly over decades. Thus there is time lor seien lists to retina their understanding of the climate system. while governments. industry and the pa:- lic work to find practical rreans to control green- house gases. it such measures are called Ior Adopting quickJix measures at this point could pose grave economic risks for the world i I M?bi The energy- I Mm mob? corn. drum-2W to makaa Case Study: 1998 API Global Climate Science Communications Plan 1998: Industry backlash plan leaked @311?: New? INDUSTRIAL GROUP PLANS T0 BATTLE Draft Proposal Seeks to Depict Global Warming Theory as a Case of Bad Science By .- - - Jr. WASHINGTON. April 25 Indus- try opponents oi a treaty to light global warming have drafted an amv bitiuus proposal to spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the environmental accord is based on shaky science. Among their ideas is a campaign to recruit a. cadre oi scientists who share the industry's views ol? climate science. and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists. politicians and the public that the risk oi global warming is too I SUNDAY, APRIL 26, 1998? otls 3111195 A1 Industrial Group Plans to Fight Climate Treaty Continued From Page i nations should cut emissions oi greenhouse gases. and the treaty was modified last year to require further reductions in emissions to levels well below those oi l990. over the next In to is years. But the Unit- ed States Senate has not yet agreed to that treaty provision. which could require deep reductions In American consumption oi iossli luels. Documents describing the pro- posal to undermine the mainstream view were given to The New-York Times by the National Environmen- Trust. whose work in support oi the global-warming treaty is it. noticed by philanthropic organiza- tions. including the Pew Charitable Trusts. the biggest oi Ute nation's pro-environmentgrant makers. Phil Clapp. the president of the environmental trust. said he or? mined the papers from an industry Exposing the plan at this another prominent skeptic on global warming, Is Involved with two other groups mentioned In the plan: the ,?Gcorge C. Marshall institute. where Seltz is chairman, and the Ad- vancement oi Sound Science Coall~ lion. where he is on the science advi- sory board. On Monday, the National Academy oi Sciences disassociated Itseli from the most recent el?iort to drum up support among skeptical scientists. That effort came in the [arm oi a statement and petition on global warming circulated by Dr. Seitz. a ritt'c's afthe ?gfeenhouse effect? would be backed up with $5 million. threat. "public opinion Is open to change on climate science." Supporters oi the plan want to raise money quickly to spend much oi It between now and the November negotiating session in Buenos Alrcs, where important details oi the inter- national treoty are to be decided. A proposed media-relations budg- et oi $600,000. not counting any man- ey {or advertising. would be directed at science writers. editors, colum- nists and television network corre- spondents. using as many as 20 "re- spected climate scientists" recruited expressly "to inject credible science and sclentliic accountability into the global climate debate. thereby rats- questions about and undercutting the wlsdom.? Among the tasks. the petroleum institute's memorandum said. would be to "ldentiiy. recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach." What the industry group wanted to provide._lhe memorandum said, was rpcnurcr on climate SCI- 1998 API memo ?Global Climate Science Communications Team? CGCI who contributed to the developmt of the plan are A. 10hr! Adm, John Adam Associatc: Candace Sdemcc and Environmtal Pohc)? Project: David Rodabard, Comn?ttee For A Consb?udSVc 7mm Jd?'ty Saltnon. T114: - - titutc; Lee Cmigm Issues Council; Ly?nn and Frontiers of Freedom Peta: Clary. Americans for Tu Refoxm: Randy - . Robert Cehz-L The Southern Company: Chevron Sound Scimo: Coalition; and] Walker. Institute. Exxon, Southern Company and Chevron on the team 1998 API Global Climate Science Comms Plan - Goals Will Be- Aymge dtinms ?furldets?and" (r?cngxu?ze) Win dim?: sdcnas Won vf Wham? w?adnm." Media "understands" (mg-limos) W65 in climate science. viewpoints thatdullauge the ctf'nmt ?cmtimal Iraiwhyseniorleadezsl?p MWantbassadm to?wsewhoslupedm po?cy thaKyoto treatyon ?rebasisofextantsdence appurw'beuuxof reality. 1998 API Memo - Action Plan Global Climate Saint. Communications Action Plan among than: Commas) who dun ti: mausmm'm swarm change. Wwbematmamm?mdmamcpm 15 . - Unless mpasal is defeated and the dehmu?fmge, menu?n: be noanmLWuan-dedamwaogforourm. [twi?be mlytomhb?dzm'formesdme?outo WW ad?iwivs??esoala?mgcm 1998 API Memo- Metrics Measurements Various metrics will be used to track progress. Thu: measurunznt: will have to be de?nined in ?ashing out the ac?On plan and may include: Ending public/ government of?dal opinion surveys and periodic follow-up . sunny: on the percentage of Americans and government ot?dz?s who We signi?cant uncertainties in climb: science. . (Eden; the percent of media articles that raise questions about climate 5?ng @r of Mamba: of to our materials on climate science. . Number of communiations on dim?: science received by Manbexs of Congress cons?hacqs. - ?aws-z of ruf?e tall; show appearances by odes?oninz the "om? 1998 API Memo- Budget W2 1. National Medis Rehtions hogan: Develop and implemcgt .1 fulion?lfnedu :eh?om program to inform the media about uncertainties an chenateiwcace: t0 genmte national, regional and local media coverage on t1}: meg-1151: meuhinties. and thereby educate and inform the public. them ?9 raise quest-Ian: with policy makers- Global Climate science Data Center Budget $5,000,000 (Spmd aver two years mnum' um) National Direct Outreach Program Budget - $300,000 National Medil Program Budge! - $600,000 plus paid advertising II. Global Climate Science Information Source: Deveiop and implement a program in infect credible Science and scienti?c accountability into the global climate debate, theze'by raising q?estians about and undercuding the ?eraiunc Scienti?c. 1?;an ?no un'? Ina-u. Hu- added of EVIDENCE OF CORPORATE FUNDING OF CLIMATE DENIAL CAMPAIGNS 1998 API Memo - Funding It IV. FundinyI-?und Allocation: Develop and implement Fragrant to obtain - funding, and to anaeste funds to ensure that the program it is carried out effectively. Tactics: This skate-5y will be innplemented as soon as we have the 39-:th to proceed. ding sources were identi?ed as Anaen'can Petroleum Institute :3 Embers; Busing Round Table (EXT) and. is members, Edison Electric Ins?nzte and i8 mess; Independent of America (1PM) and us; and the National and. its members Potential. fund allocates were identi?ed as the American Legislative Exchange Committee Fox-A Constructive Tomorrmv (GAGE). Competitive Total funds Required to Implement Program through November19'98 $2,000,900 (A SiFi-?mt of funding for the GGDC $91.11 be deferred until 1999 and beyond) 1998 API Memo Conspirators in EXO Chevron SOUTHERN A COMPANY Funders Front Groups BB Business Roundtable? API Exxon Funding To Front Groups Moior Recipients of Known Exxon Funding 1997-2077 $2,100,000 /$587,000 ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 0 FA $1?940?700 $686,500 54 LE 1:31:53; The Exuiumgu INSTITUTE $1,165,000 \865, 000 NBCC $1272 000 $870,? 000 Mfg-?ii an Tl of PEI KEY ?Hc?tage ?Foundatioq 137 TM FREEDOM ExxonMobil Funding of Denial Organizations We have collected records of Exxon and ExxonMobil grants totalling $38.7 million from 1992-2017 Over $5 million in grants specifically earmarked for climate related work (This is an underestimate, as we do not have all the Mobil Foundation records and there are records missing for the merger year1999) ExxonMobil Foundation funding of climate denial groups doubled between 1998 and 2003 and peaked in 2005. 5% Total Exxon funding to denial organizations $4,000,000 - $3,500,000 $3,000,000 - $2,500,000 - ?s $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 - $1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140 Year T_ip of The Iceberg Amoco, Chevron, Shell, and Texaco funding climate denial organizations in the 1990s Amoco Foundation (1991; 1993 to 1994) Chevron Shell Oil Company Foundation Texaco Foundation (1991) Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, The Heritage Foundation, American Legislative Exchange Council, and Global Climate Coalition Case Study: Cooler Heads Coalition Global Warmg org ?Cooler Heads Coalition? Initial grant to Competitive Enterprise Institute in 1997: $95,000 earmarked for ?Global Climate Change Program and other support? IVCW 1?)le Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. Global (Ilimatc (Ihamgv Plow-am and other support 95,000 Consumer Alert, Inc. Washington, D.C. 10,000 . ?l I ?1 ?v I 3.1. A Cooler Heads Coalition 0 Multiple NGO members of the Cooler Heads Coalition were funded by Exxon and ExxonMobil in subsequent years, with known funding totalling nearly $11 million. Approximately $3 million of the $11 million in grants were designated on Exxon documents as climate specific grants. 0 On Exxon documents, grants to Cooler Heads Coalition groups had labels such as, ?Climate Change Issues (Opinion Leaders and Public Education Efforts)?, ?Global Climate Change Outreach?, and ?Climate Change Science?. Organizations that received climate specific grants from ExxonMobil while members of the Coalition include: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition Fraser Institute National Center for Public Policy Research Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy Reason Foundation/Reason Public Policy Institute Consumer Alert Frontiers of Freedom George Marshall Institute Heartland Institute Heritage Foundation Competitive Enterprise Institute Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow Citizens for a Sound Economy American Legislative Exchange Council Three Cooler Heads Coalition members received over $1M from Exxon after 1997, eight groups received over $500,000 (source: Exxon published grantmaking.) Case Study: Revealing discrepancies and omissions in ExxonMobil financial reports Discrepancies Between Public ExxonMobil “Worldwide Giving” Report and IRS 990 Filing For ExxonMobil Foundation Discrepancies Between: Annual ExxonMobil “Worldwide Giving” Report and IRS 990 Filing For ExxonMobil Foundation Worldwide Giving Report : IRS 990: Discrepancies and Omissions Between: Annual ExxonMobil ?Worldwide Giving? Report And IRS 990 Filing For ExxonMobil Foundation Worldwide Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Washington, D.C. 90,000 Report: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow PO. Box 65722 Washington, DC 20035 Climate Change 8: Energy $70,000.00 2005 Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow PO. Box 65722 Washington, DC 20035 General Operating Suppon $20,000.00 2005 IRS 990: Case Study: CEI TV Ads CEI 2005 TV ad ?They call it pollution. We call it Life? (.nmpt'HIh? upnu lmmuu 2006 Exxon Statement To Royal Society of London E>o