Climate crisis - How oil companies hushed up research results | DW Documentary

I feel like there's always a connection to my ancestors here. I know that every piece of bark here, every strip, every layer that is inside every ring of the tree, there is a part of their DNA, a part of their energy here, because they were here. when this tree was where there was grass and things around it instead of now where it clings, it seems to be its last days just a few years ago, a maritime forest was located here in the US state of South Carolina, the salt water has Killed the trees, Queen Quet as she is known as the elected leader of the Gulag Gichi people and the African American community on the southeast coast.

They have lived on this land for centuries. You just need to get to the coast to see how the weather affects us. We have seen the sea levels. During the climb we have experienced more intense hurricanes than we have ever experienced in my lifetime and that is why for years we have been telling people and politicians to look at what is happening, something is wrong here. The rapid rise in sea level is one of the most visible consequences of Oil and gas

companies

have known for more than 40 years that fossil fuels are related to

climate

change, but they did not change course, quite the opposite; in fact, the most shocking thing we've learned in the last five or six years is that these

companies

the oil companies the largest companies in the world had their own scientific programs within the company they had a very deep understanding of the

climate

crisis

before the rest of us really this is from the early 1990s this public relations film from the oil giant Shell shows a scientist taking gases from the atmosphere and measuring the temperature of the ocean to investigate climate change the multinational was investigating how its products affected the atmosphere its business rivals were doing the same total BP Chevron and especially the oil giant Exxon we are on our way to Florida to meet a former member of Exxon's

research

department it is an unusually rainy day in a sunny state that is a magnet for Retirees Martin Hawford now spends his time making airplane models as a physics professor at New York University.

He studied changes in the Earth's atmosphere in In the late 1970s he was one of the first scientists to predict rising temperatures. . He had enough evidence that I thought the greenhouse effect would begin to warm the atmosphere sometime in the late 1980s. In the 1990s we would begin to see the effect, according to our calculations. The first line of the graph shows the increasing amounts of atmospheric Co 2 in parts per million or PPM for short. The second shows the expected rise in global temperatures in degrees C. The graph is part of an internal investigative report from 1982 that was revealed by the American press in 2018, a trove of documents shows that Exxon already knew the risks of burning fossil fuels when we head to Switzerland to meet with climate

research

er Sonia Senat, she will show us the current concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

She is one of the world's leading climate scientists the 1982 graph predicts a concentration of 420 parts per million by 2020 which was almost exactly the concentration that was actually reached in 2020 419 parts per million the publication of the documents triggered a political earthquake in Democratic lawmakers in the United States Congress called a House hearing on the oil industry's efforts to suppress the truth about climate change in 2019. Do you swear or confirm that the testimony you are about of giving is the truth as a whole? the truth and nothing but the truth, so Dr. Hord helped me. You are the first main witness.

It was Professor Martin Hofford with his calculations from 1982. Dr. Hoffer. His work with Exxon focused on the carbon cycle and climate modeling. I have a slide up. So in 1982, 7 years before I was born, Exon accurately predicted that by this year 2019 the Earth would reach a carbon dioxide concentration of 415 parts per million and a temperature increase of 1°C. Dr. Hofford, That's right, we were excellent scientists, yes. you were yeah you were so they knew they knew and I guess they knew what some of the consequences of that one degree Celsius change would be. Some of them not all at all.

I would like the opportunity to discuss that if anyone asks me. Hofford said. that his findings had been conveyed to Exxon's top executives. He resigned in 1987, 6 years after beginning his consulting work for Exxon because he realized that his research was not causing any change in the company's strategy. I was there because I thought I could. It was very naive of me. I thought I could influence them to change their business plan, but you have to understand that Exxon was generating tens of billions of dollars in quarterly profits and the shareholders were making a lot of money, so if you put yourself in that position.

I have a company where I am very profitable, my shares do not generate much money, however we are destroying the planet, people would say well, I will not be here in 20 or 30 years, I will have a nice golden parachute where they give me a lot of shares and I will do well. We can only speculate why the executives of Exxon and other oil multinationals did not listen to the scientists. Research by Kurt Davies of the Washington Climate Research Center has shown that companies even launched a massive counter-campaign to question science. Dozens of documents reveal their strategy to foster doubt about climate change and its causes was exactly a war against science.

They were fighting the trend that people were starting to look at the health impacts of climate. They were very upset because people were talking about climate extremes that connected it to climate change. Anything that raised public awareness or increased political energy around this issue, they tried to kill it. The first seeds of doubt were sown in 1988 in this internal Exxon. memorandum, a company spokesperson recommended downplaying climate science findings and emphasizing the uncertainty in scientific conclusions about the possible increase in the greenhouse effect. Speaking to representatives of the oil industry in 1996, proponents of the global warming theory say that higher levels of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, are causing global temperatures to rise and that the burning of fuel is the reason. fossil fuels, but scientific evidence remains inconclusive on whether human activities affect the planet. climate so there is simply no reason to take drastic action now in December 1997 the oil giants came under increasing pressure in Kyoto 192 states, including the United States, signed a historic agreement calling for a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases the situation is serious climate change could be catastrophic for our children and grandchildren because the Kyoto Protocol represented a threat to the businesses of American oil companies.

Lower emissions would mean lower demand for their products and ultimately jeopardize their business model, prompting them to renew their efforts to challenge climate change. That was the goal of this communications plan issued by the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's leading trade association, in 1998. Its main objective is the manipulation of public opinion and the media. Victory will be achieved when average citizens understand or recognize the uncertainties of climate science. The recognition of uncertainties becomes part. of the conventional wisdom media understand or recognize uncertainties in climate science within this campaign, they are addressing politicians, of course, but they are also addressing everyone, all of us, they are addressing the media.

Media outlets that try to influence the way the topic is covered. and in some of these documents they even address school teachers. They come up with their own lesson plans to try to achieve balance in school systems so they know that concern about climate change starts very early and they want to manipulate kids who want teachers. Thinking about it, they want people to debate whether this is a problem or not. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on lobbying and advertising. Climate activist Richard WS has seen how well this strategy has worked over the past few decades.

They did it with money. The amount of ads they publish is simply mind-blowing. They started in the late 80's and early 90's and have continued for the last 30 years bombarding the public with the notion that climate change. CH isn't sure maybe it won't happen now, it won't. It's that bad, we can't survive without oil and gas, if we don't have oil and gas, you won't be able to drive a car, you won't be able to heat your house, which are patently false, obviously, um, but you know, with enough money and enough advertising. you can convince people of almost anything and that's what they've done, why did they do it?

Do you think probably the worst thing is that they were deliberately manipulating the facts to protect their profits and they didn't? they want to be blamed they didn't want to be regulated they didn't want to be controlled we asked the American Petroleum Institute API to respond to these accusations in an interview dozens of our emails went unanswered then we received this statement the record of the past two decades shows that the industry has achieved its goal of providing reliable and affordable American energy to American consumers, while substantially reducing emissions and our environmental footprint. Any suggestion to the contrary is false.

The oil industry paid thousands of lobbyists to obstruct or delay any kind of climate action. and environmental regulation is common knowledge, but few lobbyists have been caught boasting about their methods in May 2021. Undercover investigators working for the environmental NGO Greenpeace filmed Exxon Mobile's top lobbyist, Keith McCoy. Exxon is the fisherman when you have the opportunity to talk to a member of Congress, you know, you know, you know, it's, I, I like it, it's efficient, right, you know, you have bait, you throw that bait just to attract them because they're a captive audience. , they know they need you and me.

I need them, it was an eye-opener to a lot of people that they know what they're doing, they know how they're manipulating the political system here in the United States, do we aggressively fight some of the science? Yes, did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yeah, that's true, but there's nothing, there's nothing illegal about that, you know, we were taking care of our investments, we were taking care of our ours, uh uh. Our shareholders, California Democratic Rep. Rocanah, were particularly upset by the video. Kaa is a member of the House oversight and accountability committee that organized a hearing to investigate the companies about the disinformation campaign that was the Catalyst.

I mean, Keith McCoy was basically on tape. bragging about his role in killing climate legislation bragging that he gave the rhetoric the company gives the rhetoric about caring about the climate but behind the scenes they are killing legislation to address climate and I said we have to get them involved Explain this and people said you can't get the CEOs, they'll never come, so I said, we'll summon them. Company executives had no choice but to participate. It was October 28, 2021. The chairman of the supervisory committee opened the session. Committee come to order This is a historic hearing for the first time EX's top fossil fuel executives are testifying together before Congress under oath about the industry's role in causing climate change and its efforts to cover it up.

You can confess, admit your continued misrepresentations and inconsistencies. and stop supporting climate misinformation or you can sit in front of the American public and lie under oath the top executives stuck to their strategy in their online appearances at the hearing that took place during the covid pandemic they emphasized their concern for the environment and their efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the urgent need to act on climate change and Shell's effort to advance society's transition to a low carbon future exom mobile provides An essential component of modern society Affordable, reliable and abundant energy Exom Mobile has long recognized that climate change is real and poses serious risks, while our views on climate change have developed over time.

Any suggestion that Chevron is involved in an effort to spread disinformation and mislead the public aboutthese complex issues is simply wrong. In closing, API supports climate action governments. Industries and consumers must accelerate policies and technological solutions together, they promise. Now, the hearing that day lasted several hours with little to show for it. None of the executives were prepared to actually be caught. One of you? today I am prepared to make any statement saying that we are going to take responsibility for something so important and stop funding groups that actively participate in any form of climate disinformation.

Okay, I guess you don't want to make the commitment. Well, the investigation. continued I hope more hearings followed almost rnah wanted to replicate the success of the 1994 tobacco industry hearing back then the presidents of the seven largest tobacco companies lied to the same committee yes or no do you think nicotine is not addictive? I believe that nicotine is not addictive, yes, Mr. Johnson, I believe that nicotine is not addictive. I think nicotine is not addictive. Well, the big tobacco hearings captured the American imagination and people said it's wrong that these tobacco executives know that cigarettes are addictive and yet they deny it.

And that led to many changes in this country. I know when I was a kid, if you went to a bar or a sporting event, you would come back full smelling like smoke that's no longer the case there was a cultural change in America uh we need a similar cultural change when it comes to adoption alternative energies when it comes to the adoption of renewable energy when it comes to the adoption of electric vehicles and the hope is that these hearings can be a galvanizing moment and a breakthrough in the cultural conversation in this country. The facts were denied for 40 years. 40 lost years in which more decisive measures could have been taken to stop climate change today.

The impact of global warming is evident around the world on the southeast coast of the US, it is coastal regions like this that are feeling the impact of climate change first around the world. Katie Luchano is a geologist with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. here, this is one of our erosion transactions and I'm measuring from the forest to the sea and getting a better idea of ​​how the coastline is transitioning as it moves and erodes back. We have had hurricane episodes, many High tides and the erosion rate has basically doubled from its historical erosion rate of 7.5 m per year in recent years. 13 to 16 M of beach have been lost more than ever.

You can look back here and you can Look, we're right in the forest here, so you can see all the vegetation and the beach is actively eroding on this island. The entire East Coast of the United States is at risk from rising sea levels. Charleston in South Carolina is one of the hardest hit cities. A popular tourist destination, the historic district is situated on a peninsula just above sea level. Climate change is a big challenge for the city and we are distant, so if you don't mind, I will first tell you how climate change has affected Charleston. um let me think of one word, um dramatically, uh, we are on the front lines of climate change due to rising sea levels and increasing impacts of extreme weather.

We have seen the direct impacts year after year for a decade and each year the floods are linked like when I was a child maybe five tides a year now it is 90 tides a year that impact our streets the city is regularly hit by hurricanes in 2017 Irma caused widespread damage taking protective measures has become a priority since then in the last 6 years several million dollars have been invested to raise the boardwalk by one meter, it doesn't look very good, it's not right, so now you're providing protection to all of these homes in this area from high tides, but Charleston also faces surge events if you have a major Hurricane Irma.

It's not a major hurricane, if a major hurricane comes and comes in, it could push a wall of water 10, 12, 14 feet high and if it did that, that would exceed this, everything would flood, the then mayor of Charleston filed a demand. Against the people he blames for the extreme weather events causing destruction in the city, he wants the city to be paid what it has spent on repairing the damage and on climate adaptation measures. The city of Charleston is suing 24 major oil companies for damages to the city and their contributions to climate change, the lawsuit announced today by Charleston Mayor John Tanberg.

I feel it is not fair to the citizens of Charleston to have to bear the burden of the full cost of these improvements that are needed due to sea level rise in the city. of Charleston is directly suing oil companies such as Exxon Mobile, Chevron and BP in particular because of their misinformation campaign, instead of warning of the known consequences that result from the use of their products and working to minimize the damages, the defendants ​They hid the dangers promoted by false and misleading information and sought to undermine public support for greenhouse gas regulation. It was a misinformation campaign.

It is very similar to what tobacco companies did with smoking and the impacts of cigarettes. truth is a very similar story very similar story to what we have seen here recently from the pharmaceutical company Ianes and the opioids, they released the product, they released the product, oh, everything is fine, you know, and they know that there were problems, but they continued presenting the product. Charleston is not alone, 30 other US cities and states are also suing oil companies, including Baltimore, New York, Washington DC, Massachusetts and Minnesota. The plaintiffs are receiving support from Richard Ws and his Environmental Action Group.

These cases are very easy to win and that is why the oil industry is terrified of these cases. They're much more afraid of these cases than they are of anything Congress can do, or anything any state legislature can do, because you know they have a lot of power in Congress, they practically own the Republican Party. Right of the party, money in politics is a big problem in this country, but they are afraid of these cases because they have the potential to haunt them with the damage they have caused. Companies want to avoid being forced to open their doors at all costs. files in case more compromising records are discovered, if those documents come to light, the damage to the reputation of these companies will be enormous, right?

These are the things they fear, it's a recipe for disaster for these companies and they will do everything they can to avoid it. while we were waiting for a fundamental change, 40 years have been lost, the misinformation campaign has influenced everyone's thinking, scientists are still fighting to be heard and it is not easy to face reality, the speed of the transition to renewable energy is slow and we will all make him pay the price if the oil companies had listened to their own scientists 40 years ago and taken a different path what would the world be like today? we would be in a completely different situation climate change wouldn't really be a big problem in the world because a lot of greenhouse gas emissions have occurred since the 1990s, so after the first IPCC report, that was Shockingly, by then everyone could clearly say that we would be in trouble if we continued as before.

Is there a word to describe this? Evil disinformation campaign, I mean, it's pure evil. I don't know what to say other than that at this point. I mean, the science is very clear and yet these companies continue to mislead and mislead the public about it. The life of everyone on the planet. is at stake uh these companies are just despicable if big oil hadn't lied 40 years ago what would the world be like today if big oil companies hadn't lied 40 years ago we probably wouldn't be standing so close to this water. Right now we would probably be back there in the distance between all the trees standing listening to the birds singing watching the seagull come asking us for a snack so let's not make 40 more years of mistakes, let's tell the truth now.