Strøtanker om bæredygtighed

.
Her ses InsideClimate News’ lille introduktionsvideo til en artikelrække, Exxon: The Road Not Taken, som bygger på en omfattende afdækning af Exxons tidlige undersøgelser af klimaudfordringen, som viser, at Exxon allerede sidst i 1970erne havde et ganske præcist billede af CO₂-udledningernes potentielt ødelæggende indflydelse på vores livsgrundlag. 

InsideClimate News offentliggør i disse dage et omfattende undersøgelsesarbejde i en artikelserie, hvoraf der foreløbig er kommet tre dele (se listen nederst). Den kaster nyt lys over Exxons tidlige klimaforskning og dokumenterer uomtvisteligt, at virksomheden allerede meget tidligt havde et helt klart billede af konsekvenserne af, hvis man blot fortsatte med at pumpe olie op og afbrænde den som hidtil. Alligevel vælger virksomheden i 1989 at fornægte sin egen forskning og sætte masser af ressourcer ind på at benægte og slå tvivl om sine egne indsigter – deraf titlen The Road Not Taken.

Tilbage i 1977 holdt Exxons inhouse ekspert James F. Black en præsentation for selskabets ledelse, hvor han i ganske stærke vendinger klargjorde for hvad der ville ske ved den fortsatte afbrænding af fossile brændstoffer. Og året efter fremlagde han en revideret udgave af præsentationen for en bredere kreds i virksomheden. I den første artikel kan man læse:

“A year later, Black … took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles.  Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert. ‘Some countries would benefit but others would have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed,’ Black said, in the written summary of his 1978 talk.

His presentations reflected uncertainty running through scientific circles about the details of climate change, such as the role the oceans played in absorbing emissions. Still, Black estimated quick action was needed. “Present thinking,” he wrote in the 1978 summary, “holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.

Exxon responded swiftly. Within months the company launched its own extraordinary research into carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and its impact on the earth. Exxon’s ambitious program included both empirical CO₂ sampling and rigorous climate modeling. It assembled a brain trust that would spend more than a decade deepening the company’s understanding of an environmental problem that posed an existential threat to the oil business.”

Sådan ville et hvilket som helst ansvarligt selskab agere, og hatten af for det.

“Then, toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research. In the decades that followed, Exxon worked instead at the forefront of climate denial. It put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed. It lobbied to block federal and international action to control greenhouse gas emissions. It helped to erect a vast edifice of misinformation that stands to this day.

This untold chapter in Exxon’s history, when one of the world’s largest energy companies worked to understand the damage caused by fossil fuels, stems from an eight-month investigation by InsideClimate News. ICN’s reporters interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists, and federal officials, and consulted hundreds of pages of internal Exxon documents, many of them written between 1977 and 1986, during the heyday of Exxon’s innovative climate research program. ICN combed through thousands of documents from archives including those held at the University of Texas-Austin, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.”

Men at man på baggrund af en sådan indsigt standser videre undersøgelser og i stedet finansierer klimafornægtelse, det er utilgiveligt, det burde give anledning til et retsligt efterspil.

Det er skræmmende læsning, og jeg kan kun anbefale at læse InsideClimate News’ artikelserie i sin helhed. Her en opsummerende illustration fra artiklens anden del, som opridser, hvor meget af klimaforandringernes dynamik, Exxon havde indset allerede for 20-30 år siden – og valgte at fornægte.

Siden 1988 er verdens samlede udledninger siden industrialiseringens begyndelse rundt regnet fordoblet, og klimaudfordringen er dermed blevet mere end dobbelt så stor. Opgaven havde været så meget enklere og så meget mere overkommelig, hvis vi havde taget hånd om klimaudfordringen i 1980. Og mange af de klimaforandringer, som vil ske på grund af de mellemliggende 25 års manglende indsats, ville kunne have været undgået, hvis ikke Exxon og de øvrige olieselskaber på det skammeligste havde pantsat klodens fremtid for lidt kortvarig profit.

Allerede i 1979 blev det estimeret, at CO₂-udviklingen ville gøre, at koncentrationen ville passere 400 ppm omkring 2010, hvilket er meget tæt på, hvad der skete. Fra 1980 og frem ligger hovedvægten på modelstudier, og tredje del viser med endnu mere tydelighed, hvor langt man var i forståelsen af klimadynamikken og fastsættelsen af klimaets følsomhed. Det er ikke for meget at sige, at Exxon på dette tidspunkt var blandt de ledende forskningsenheder inden for klimavidenskaben, og ved flere lejligheder bidrog med videnskabelige artikler.

“Through much of the 1980s, Exxon researchers worked alongside university and government scientists to generate objective climate models that yielded papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Their work confirmed the emerging scientific consensus on global warming’s risks.

Yet starting in 1989, Exxon leaders went down a different road. They repeatedly argued that the uncertainty inherent in computer models makes them useless for important policy decisions. Even as the models grew more powerful and reliable, Exxon publicly derided the type of work its own scientists had done. The company continued its involvement with climate research, but its reputation for objectivity began to erode as it campaigned internationally to cast doubt on the science.”

“Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world’s largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions.”

En række af de største europæiske olieselskaber har her forud for klimakonferencen i Paris meldt ganske klart ud, at de ønsker at redefinere deres rolle, så de igen bliver en del af løsningen af verndes klimaproblemer frem for en del af dens destruktion, se blog-indlægget Seks europæiske olieselskaber melder klar til klimaindsats). Vi mangler stadig at se, hvor det ender – lige nu har de seks europæiske olieselskaber fået hjemmearbejde af Christiane Figueres og arbejder på reviderede forretningsplaner inden COP21.

De amerikanske olieselskaber har foreløbig takket nej til at deltage, menet firma som ExxonMobil (de to blev lagt sammen i 1999) kunne være et af de første af de amerikanske, som ‘faldt’ og meldte sig ind i nutiden med dens meget påtrængende problemer, som olieselskaberne med deres massive finansiering af klimafornægtelsen har deres meget store ansvar for har forsinket omstillingen til vedvarende energikilder dertil, at en 2°C-løsning synes stadig vanskeligere, hvor vi hvis vi havde taget situationen fuldt in i 1980 i dag kunne have været lang med en 1°C løsning og have fået lande som Kina og Indien ledt ud af det fossile helvede, deres storbyer i disse årtier er indhyllet i.

InsideClimate News afdækninger kommer i forlængelse af det ganske omfattende materiale, som Union of Concerned Scientists for nylig lagde frem om Exxons tidlige klimaindsigt (se blog-indlægget ExxonMobil på langtidsfornægtelse). Så lokummet brænder lidt under Exxons image. En talsmand fra Exxon, Richard Keil, har da også på baggrund af de første to artikler i serien The Road Not Taken været ude at benægte InsideClimate News’ perspektiv. Men han kan med rette bæve ved tanken om de retssager, som dette materiale i den grad inviterer til, med påstande om bevidst fortielse, om uagtsomt folkedrab, om forbrydelse overfor menneskeheden, om … hele den palet af problemer, som vi står med fordi vi har lagt alt for rigeligt i kakkelovnen, selvom vi vidste bedre og havde kunnet være i gang med en regulær klimaindsats for 25 år siden, hvis ikke virksomheder som Exxon aktivt havde modvirket det. For i et land som USA, hvor alt mellem himmel og jord prøves ved domstolene, synes det svært at komme uden om, og Exxon har en rigtig dårlig sag.

En dom med 50 års samfundstjeneste med den opgave at få al den CO₂, man igennem årene har pumpet op, bragt i varig sikkerhed under jorden igen, ville være på sin plads. 50 år, hvor oliepumperne så at sige pumpede CO₂ den anden vej. Så kunne vi stabilisere jordens klima ikke ved 450 ppm, som lige nu synes som det bedste, vi kunne nå, men komme tilbage til de 350 ppm, som er det niveau, vi må tilbage til for at langtidsstabilisere det globale klimasystem og genvinde jordens ismassiver.

Dette blog-indlæg vil blive udbygget og rundet af i takt med, at den fulde artikelserie foreligger.

Artikelserien Exxon: The Road Not Taken omfatter foreløbig:

1. Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song and David Hasemyer: The Road Not Taken. Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago, InsideClimate News 15.09.2015.
2. Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song and David Hasemyer: Exxon Believed Deep Dive Into Climate Research Would Protect Its Business, InsideClimate News 17.09.2015.
3. Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song and David Hasemyer: Exxon Confirmed Global Warming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate Models, InsideClimate News 22.09.2015.
4. Neela Banerjee & Lisa Song: Exxon’s Business Ambition Collided with Climate Change Under a Distant Sea, InsideClimate News 08.10.2015.
5. John H. Cushman Jr.: Highlighting the Allure of Synfuels, Exxon Played Down the Climate Risks, InsideClimate News 08.10.2015.
6. David Hasemyer & John H. Cushman Jr.: Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty, InsideClimate News 22.10.2015.
7. Nela Banerjee: How We Got the Exxon Story, InsideClimate News 10.11.2015.
8. Nela Banerjee: More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, InsideClimate News 01.12.2015.
9. Documents, (database med et stort antal Exxon kildeskrifter) InsideClimate News.

Update 09.10. – Los Angeles Times synes i samarbejde med Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism igennem et års tid at have forfulgt samme spor og fremlagde i dag den første af en række artikler om Exxons massive svigt af menneskeheden. Se:

Sara Jerving, Katie Jennings, Masako Melissa Hirsch & Susanne Rust: What Exxon knew about the Earth’s melting Arctic, Los Angeles Times 09.10.2015.

Update 14.10. – Under overskriften Exxon’s climate lie: ‘No corporation has ever done anything this big or bad’ opsummerer Bill McKibben i dagens The Guardian så fornemt situationen, at jeg har tilladt mig at kopiere hans hovedpunkter op her:

“By 1978 Exxon’s senior scientists were telling top management that climate change was real, caused by man, and would raise global temperatures by 2-3C this century, which was pretty much spot-on.

By the early 1980s they’d validated these findings with shipborne measurements of CO2 (they outfitted a giant tanker with carbon sensors for a research voyage) and with computer models that showed precisely what was coming. As the head of one key lab at Exxon Research wrote to his superiors, there was “unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere”.

And by the early 1990s their researchers studying the possibility for new exploration in the Arctic were well aware that human-induced climate change was melting the poles. Indeed, they used that knowledge to plan their strategy, reporting that soon the Beaufort Sea would be ice-free as much as five months a year instead of the historic two. Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” a key Exxon researcher told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact.”

But of course Exxon did dispute that fact. Not inside the company, where they used their knowledge to buy oil leases in the areas they knew would melt, but outside, where they used their political and financial might to make sure no one took climate change seriously.

They helped organise campaigns designed to instil doubt, borrowing tactics and personnel from the tobacco industry’s similar fight. They funded “institutes” devoted to outright climate denial. And at the highest levels they did all they could to spread their lies.

To understand the treachery – the sheer, profound, and I think unparalleled evil – of Exxon, one must remember the timing. Global warming became a public topic in 1988, thanks to Nasa scientist James Hansen – it’s taken a quarter-century and counting for the world to take effective action. If at any point in that journey Exxon – largest oil company on Earth, most profitable enterprise in human history – had said: “Our own research shows that these scientists are right and that we are in a dangerous place,” the faux debate would effectively have ended. That’s all it would have taken; stripped of the cover provided by doubt, humanity would have gotten to work.

Instead, knowingly, they helped organise the most consequential lie in human history, and kept that lie going past the point where we can protect the poles, prevent the acidification of the oceans, or slow sea level rise enough to save the most vulnerable regions and cultures. Businesses misbehave all the time, but VW is the flea to Exxon’s elephant. No corporation has ever done anything this big and this bad.

I’m aware that anger at this point does little good. I’m aware that all clever people will say “of course they did” or “we all use fossil fuels”, as if either claim is meaningful. I’m aware that nothing much will happen to Exxon – I doubt they’ll be tried in court, or their executives sent to jail.

But nonetheless it seems crucial simply to say, for the record, the truth: this company had the singular capacity to change the course of world history for the better and instead it changed that course for the infinitely worse. In its greed Exxon helped — more than any other institution — to kill our planet.”

Exxon havde muligheden for at handle, havde indsigten til at handle i tide, men gjorde det ikke. Jeg er ikke den store tilhænger af retssager, men Exxons attitude udviser så megen arrogance, at virksomheden fortjener at blive retsforfulgt.

Update 15.10. – Bill McKibben har i de seneste dage skrevet med en utrolig intensitet og vrede, og har skrevet om Volkswagen-fabrikkernes kæmpeskandale, at det er for intet at betragte ved siden af det massive svigt overfor menneskeheden, som Exxon har udvist ved at vide, hvad der var på vej, og så endda fornægte sin viden.

I konsekvens heraf har han i dag i protest sat sig foran en Exxon tankstation med den klare plan at blive arresteret, for herigennem at kaste mere lys over Exxon-skandalen, som synes så stor og så ufattelig i sin konsekvens, at ingen rigtig synes at have fattet den. Han skriver på Tumblr, at:

“This is not just one more set of sad stories about our climate. In the 28 years I’ve been following the story of global warming, this is the single most outrageous set of new revelations that journalists have uncovered. Given its unique credibility – again, it was the biggest corporation on earth – ExxonMobil could have changed history for the better. Had it sounded the alarm—had it merely said ‘our internal research shows the world’s scientists are right’ – it would have saved a quarter century of wheel-spinning. We might actually have done something as a world before the Arctic melted, before the coral reefs were bleached, before the cycles of drought and flood set fully in.”

Update 17.10. – Det lykkedes McKibben at blive arresteret kort tid efter, at han indledte sin lukning af Simon’s Quick Stop and Deli Mobil station i Burlington. Bulrington Free Press var på pletten og har en lille video af den helt udramatiske anholdelse. Som rutineret arrestant rækker McKibben frivilligt sine hænder bagpå for at lette den kvindelige betjents given ham håndjern på. Politimesteren i Burlington roste efterfølgende McKibben for sin høflighed og meddelte, at der er alles ret at protestere og “engage in civil disobedience”.

Om det har været medvirkende til, at demokrater i senatet nu stiller krav om en undersøgelse af, om Exxon har overtrådt amerikansk lov, må historikerne afgøre. Men i hvert fald synes der nu at være lagt op til, at Exxons gigantiske svigt overfor menneskeheden bliver prøvet ved de amerikanske domstole.

Samtidig har Obama-administrationen meddelt, at man indstiller al yderligere udstedelse af licenser til at eftersøge olie i det arktiske område samtidig med at Shell og andre, som har fået licenser, har fået afvist deres ønsker om at forlænge udvindingsfristen i en situation, hvor de fleste olieselskaber har skåret massivt tilbage på udvindingsprojekter for at klare sig igennem tider med lave oliepriser. Hvor Keystone XL-kampen har været lang og endnu kun næsten kan erklæres for afsluttet, kan McKibbens proklamerede sandsynlige næste fokus i klimakampen, at få standset olieudvindingen fra Arktis, vise sig at gå enklere i hvert fald i den nordamerikanske del. Norge derimod har stadig ikke opgivet Arktis, men skulle være til at flytte, Danmark (Grønland) er heller ikke bevidsthedsmæssigt nået til at standse den fossile udvinding, men der kunne være noget stort over, hvis Danmark fastholdt sine store krav til den arktiske zone med det løfte at friholde den fra fiskeri og råstofudvinding og gøre den til naturreservat. Rusland har for nylig proklameret store planer for den arktiske zone og vil nok vise sig at være den vanskeligste modstander, og det er nok ikke en opgave for 350.org, men for Obamas demokratiske afløser.

Se forudgående blog-indlæg: Skeptikerne i gabestokken, Skeptic Arguments sorted by taxonomy, Noam Chomsky om klimafornægtelsens dynamik, Heartland Institute – i klimafornægtelsens hjerte, Donald Brown: Forbrydelse mod menneskeheden, Klimaudfordringens fortielse i det amerikanske valg, Ikke 97% men 17.351 ud af 17.352 klimaforskere, Seks europæiske olieselskaber melder klar til klimaindsats, Olieselskaber på skrump, Shell-direktør: The Future of Energy,  Koch-brødrene – forbrydelse mod menneskeheden? og ExxonMobil på langtidsfornægtelse.

David Sassoon: Daniel Ellsberg: #ExxonKnew Is the Best ‘Thank You’ Since the Pentagon Papers, InsideClimate News 15.11.2015.

Lisa Song: Climate Scientist Michael Mann: Exxon Story ‘Confirmed Things We Long Suspected’, InsideClimate News 13.11.2015.

Eric Roston: Exxon Predicted Today’s Cheap Solar Boom Back in the 1980s, Bloomberg 04.11.2015.

Katie Sheppard: Bill McKibben Got Arrested While Protesting Outside An ExxonMobil Station, Huffington Post 16.10.2015.

Joel Banner Baird: Bill McKibben arrested in Vermont gas-pump protest, Burlington Free Press 15.10.2015.

Katie Herzog: Victory! Obama just blocked two Arctic drilling developments, Climate Progress 16.10.2015.

Suzanne Goldenberg: Obama administration blocks new oil drilling in the Arctic, The Guardian 16.10.2015.

Bill McKibben: Exxon Knew, Tumblr 15.10.2015.

Bill McKibben: Exxon’s climate lie: ‘No corporation has ever done anything this big or bad’, The Guardian 14.10.2015.

Alexander C. Kaufman: Exxon’s Climate Change Cover-Up Is ‘Unparalleled Evil,’ Says Activist, Huffington Post 14.10.2015.

Steve Benen: What Exxon knew about climate change, and when it knew it, MSNBC 12.10.2015.

Elizabeth Witman: Exxon Arctic Drilling Benefitting From Global Warming: Oil Company Denied Climate Change Science While Factoring It Into Arctic Operations, Report Shows, International Business Times 10.10.2015.

Naomi Oreskes: Exxon’s Climate Concealment, New York Times 09.10.2015.

Sara Jerving, Katie Jennings, Masako Melissa Hirsch & Susanne Rust: What Exxon knew about the Earth’s melting Arctic, Los Angeles Times 09.10.2015.

Inside Exxon’s Great Climate Cover-Up: From Early Climate Change Researcher to Epic Climate Denier, Democracy Now 24.09.2015.

Greg Laden: What Exxon Knew Then Is What We Know Now, Science Blogs 22.09.2015.

Stephen Lacey: Exxon Was Once the Leader in Climate Research. Why Did It Turn to Manufacturing Doubt? GreentechMedia 22.09.2015.

Michael Mann: Exxon Doubled Down on Climate Denial and Deceit, EcoWatch 21.09.2015.

Lonnie Shekhtman: Exxon knew about climate change decades ago, spent $30M to discredit it, Christian Science Monitor 19.09.2015.

Exxon’s History of Climate Change Research, (audio) The Media 18.09.2015.

Exxon Responds to InsideClimate News, (audio) The Media 18.09.2015.

Bill McKibben: What Exxon Knew About Climate Change, The New Yorker 18.09.2015.

Cindy Baxter: Exxon’s decades of advertising against climate change, PolluterWatch 17.09.2015.

Jason M. Breslow: Investigation Finds Exxon Ignored Its Own Early Climate Change Warnings, PBS 16.09.2015.

Jacqueline Ronson: Decades Before Its Denial, Exxon Was a Leader in Climate Change Science, Inverse 16.09.2015.

Andrew C. Revkin: A Deep Dive into What Exxon Knew About Global Warming and When (1978) it Knew It, New York Times 16.09.2015.

Katie Herzog: Exxon has known about climate change since the ’70s and is still trying to block climate action, Grist 16.09.2015.