Promoting Truth & Justice Around the World
Interview: Fossil Fuel Companies under Investigation for Role in Climate Change Denial
From an Interview by S. Peries, The Real News Network (TRNN), November 11, 2015
Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore.
On Monday, following a two-year investigation, Peabody Energy, the world’s largest publicly traded coal company, reached a settlement with the New York State Attorney General’s Office. In the settlement Peabody Energy agreed that it would end misleading statements issued to its shareholders and disclose risk arising from climate change.
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has also launched a similar investigation into ExxonMobil for misleading information released to the public, not only about climate change science and risk associated with fossil fuels but about the cost of transitioning to renewable energy.
Now joining us to discuss all of this from Stockton, New Jersey is Dan Zegart. Dan is a senior fellow at the Climate Investigation Center, and an investigative journalist, a ten-year TV and newspaper veteran.
PERIES: So Dan, let’s right off the top take a look at the New York State attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, and what he said about the Exxon case here.
ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN: There are numerous statements over the last 20 years or so that question climate change, whether it’s happening, that claim that there is no competent model for climate change. So we’re very interested in seeing what science Exxon has been using for its own purposes, because they are tremendously active in offshore oil drilling in the Arctic, for example, where global warming is happening at a much more rapid rate than in more temperate zones. Were they using the best science and the most competent models for their own purposes, but then telling the public, the regulators and shareholders, that no competent models existed?
PERIES: Dan, Peabody Energy and Exxon have been actively misinforming the public, and the attorney general here has really taken this up. And the real question to you is, does the attorney general go far enough in this settlement?
ZEGART: No, I don’t think so. I mean, I think the settlement was extremely disappointing, particularly when you consider that this investigation actually began under his predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, in 2007. Really all they’re going to do is change what they say in their annual financial statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission where they talk about risk, and what the risks might be from, let’s say, litigation or regulation. It might have to do with coal. We already know that the price of coal has plunged to historic lows. And we also know that Peabody has funded and otherwise encouraged the denial of climate science by, by a number of scientists and also through the funding of front organizations like the American Coalition on Clean Coal Energy, which is an oxymoron if there ever was one, clean coal energy.
ZEGART: As far as Exxon goes, the attorney general’s effort here is a good deal more far-reaching. He’s not only, as you mentioned, the top of the program, he’s not only looking at investor statements about the future impact of climate change, but also the overestimation by Exxon that there would be huge costs for transitioning to renewable energy, which we know is not true. And the documents and so forth that we hope will come out of the ExxonMobil probe could take us to a very different understanding of what the company, and indeed the whole industry, has been doing or not doing about climate change. … We want to see how much money they’ve spent on participating in trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, that are actively promoting climate denial, which is throwing sand into the gears of the entire world’s effort to do something about this life-threatening crisis.
PERIES: … coal production seems to be down, exports in terms of coal are increasing. That’s exports to China and India. … In fact, right here in Baltimore if you go down to the port you see mountains and mountains of coal being shipped out to places like India and China. What do you make of that?
ZEGART: Well, I mean, the overall pattern is of decline. I mean, you know, there are certainly exports of coal abroad, to Asia particularly, which is the only area of the world where demand is growing or, or even stable. But India has announced targets to scale back, and in particular less imported coal. They want to use more of their own coal. But they also are trying very hard to, and have announced targets, to reduce coal consumption. China the same, trying to reduce coal consumption and pledging, in fact, to President Obama just a few months ago to meet some real targets in terms of reductions.
PERIES: And leading up to Paris, now one of the things the United States will have to agree to is containing its fossil fuel consumption. Do you think that the U.S. is in any position to actually make some commitments that will stick?
ZEGART: I do. I do, and I also think that we’re going to see at COP21 a push to get the big energy companies out of the COP process, which they have had a very unfortunate influence on. And to expose some of what Attorney General Schneiderman is trying to expose in terms of what this gigantic energy company, Exxon, the influence it’s had in retarding progress on climate.
# # # # # # # # # # #
Exxon + 49 Other Big Polluters Set to Be Investigated for Causing Extreme Weather Events
From an Article by Kumi Naido, EcoWatch.com, November 11, 2015
A few weeks ago the first ever human rights legal action seeking the accountability of the 50 big polluters was launched. Filed by Filipino typhoon survivors and several environmental organizations, it demands that the Philippines Human Rights Commission (CHR) investigate and acknowledge the complicity of 50 investor-owned fossil fuel companies in causing extreme weather events.
This comes from a consensus that the typhoons and catastrophic storms that annually batter the Philippines and many other small island nations, are exacerbated by climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels by distant and faceless energy companies. People in the Philippines know that they are at the end of a terrible chain reaction that destroys homes, ruins health and takes lives and livelihoods. It violates their basic human rights, so they, like many others, are starting to seek climate justice.
People in the Philippines know that they are at the end of a terrible chain reaction that destroys homes, ruins health and takes lives and livelihoods.
They are part of a growing number of people that will no longer stand for companies—despite knowledge of the harms associated with their products—continuing to engorge themselves on profit at the expense of the climate and human lives. These companies are morally bound to help communities at the frontline of climate change while financing a just transition to a 100 percent renewable energy future.
Cases of negligence, like the May 2014 Soma mine disaster in Turkey, which took the lives of 311 workers and injured 80 others and litigation by communities in Peru and Ecuador against Texaco/Chevron over claims of pollution are examples of people taking a stand against how fossil fuel companies do business. The Philippines’ submission is a reflection of an understanding that fossil fuel companies are acting in violation of human rights in and of itself, no matter how carefully the company undertakes their activity. In short, we and many others are declaring: it’s not the way you do business, it’s the business itself.
This story of many fossil fuel companies is sewn together by incompetence, corruption and greed. It is a history of companies who relentlessly drive forward their business with an irresponsible outlook and lack of empathy for people and the planet. However, in the era of climate impacts and extreme weather events, the story is changing.
The top 50 investor-owned polluters under public scrutiny are taken from a list of 90 entities who, according to a report by Rick Heede, are responsible for 63 percent of the carbon dioxide and methane emitted between 1751 and 2010.
Coalitions of affected communities are developing jurisprudence that recognizes impacts of climate change as a breach of human rights. If successful, this recognition will lay the foundations for what is really required: attribution and action.
The petition was submitted on behalf of Greenpeace Southeast Asia, the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement and other local NGOs, with the support of the International Trade Union Confederation, Amnesty International, NGO legal experts and thousands of individuals.
Climate impacts like extreme weather events hit the most vulnerable first; working people and the poor. With altered seasons and rising sea levels whole communities and nations are already suffering from corporate malfeasance. People are involved in every aspect of meeting this threat, from activists campaigning for action on climate to workers in new industries to workers in fossil fuel production.
While virtually all countries continue to depend on burning fossil fuels to drive economic growth, we know this must change rapidly and dramatically. Companies must commit to leaving at least 80 percent of the fossil fuels in the ground if we want to salvage any hope of maintaining a stable climate that allows humans and all other life to survive. Companies must engage in this transformation in full consultation with workers and communities to ensure the process is just.
We encourage the Commission for Human Rights to commit to investigating the big polluters for their human rights violations as a matter of urgent action. See also:
Climate Change Poised to Push 100 Million Into ‘Extreme Poverty’ by 2030
Point Your RSS Reader to FrackCheckWV.net/feed/
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
From the Interview of Dan Zegart by S. Peries reported above ……..
ZEGART: This is a letter, this is November 9, 1979. This is a letter from the president of Exxon research and engineering, Edward E. David Jr. Mr. David was actually, spent 20 years at [Bell] labs. So he was quite an accomplished scientist by the time he came to Exxon. And he, he talks about how they’ve written–this is the eighth in our series of presidents’ letters, meaning letters from the president of engineering and research, outlining the work we’ve initiated to help evaluate the so-called greenhouse effect, a potential future global warming caused by the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is 1979.
Fast forward to just a, a few years ago and you will see that they were still denying that this science was reliable and that the earth was warming. And then they talk, at the end of this paragraph it says, we focus on past and future growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations rather than on the resulting effect of CO2 on climate. However, our data could well influence Exxon’s view about the long-term attractiveness of coal and synthetics relative to nuclear and solar energy.
Why is that important? That shows they were thinking about what kinds of fuels would be best for the earth. What kinds of fuels would be the most harmful, what kinds of fuels would be the most helpful. They were thinking about what choice they were going to make about energy. This giant company, back in 1979. I think once this comes to the attention of the world community there’s going to be a lot of pressure to get ExxonMobil and the other big energy companies out of the [COP-21] process.
PERIES: Now, that seems to me a very reasonable request on the part of social movements. But there are other social movements that actually see the business community or the corporations as a part of the solution when it comes to climate change because they’re the only ones with the resources and the money and the research and investigative dollars in order to come up with renewable energy mechanisms, methods, equipment, all of that that needs to be built to switch to a green economy. What do you make of that?
ZEGART: Well I mean, I think, I think it’s a false dichotomy. I mean, this is going to happen one way or the other because that’s where the money is going. Where the investments are going, you know. We have this short, we have a window now for natural gas, for natural gas is being exploited more than it’s ever been. But that’s going to change. Natural gas is also a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions. The money is moving towards renewables. You know, we have an electric car now that can drive as far as a conventional car. Storage capacities are being developed. We really don’t need ExxonMobil to do it, it’s being done.
The scale up will happen because these companies will recognize that they have to invest. And anyone who’s waiting for the energy companies to lead the way is, needs to look at the past history, and they will understand that that is not going to happen. And we are going to have to, the people of the world and people with COP are going to have to make it happen. And they’re going to be dragging these companies and forcing them to do it. It is not going to be done voluntarily.
PERIES: And finally, who opened the doors to the corporate sector in the UN process in the first place?
ZEGART: Well, it was actually a part of the DNA of the process going back to the beginning of this. They had a seat at the table going all the way back to the conferences at Rio and then at Kyoto. They–ExxonMobil actually sent one of their top scientists, Brian Flannery, to the COPs in the past. And Flannery was a very good scientist at ExxonMobil who originally was part of this climate team that discovered that climate change back in the late ’70s and ’80s for ExxonMobil was in fact happening and caused by fossil fuels. So they took Brian Flannery and then they pivoted in the late ’80s and began denying climate change. Then they took Mr. Flannery and converted him to a spokesman to speak against the reality of global warming. And they’ve been sending him to the IPCCs, the conferences, the global climate change conferences ever since.
So it is not necessary to have the companies there. A world tobacco treaty was negotiated by the World Health Organization a decade or so ago without the participation of the tobacco companies. There’s no reason for the perpetrators of what is really a crime against the earth to be present at the table.
PERIES: All right. And I thank you so much for joining us, and we’ll be following this all the way to Paris and beyond, and I hope you can join us again. And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.
DeSmog Blog — January 27, 2012
RE: Edward E. David, Jr., formerly head of EXXON R & D, etc.
David is one of 16 scientists who appended their signatures to a Wall Street Journal article titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.”
The article argues that elected officials should avoid implementing climate change policy because it would “divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of ‘incontrovertible’ evidence.”
Other “scientists” whose signatures appear include Claude Allègre, J. Scott Armstrong, Jan Breslow, Roger Cohen, William Happer, William Kininmonth, Richard Lindzen, James McGrath, Rodney Nichols, Burt Rutan, Harrison H. Schmitt, Nir Shaviv, Michael Kelly, Henk Tennekes, and Antonino Zichichi..
Interestingly, 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote their own essay, this on the realities of climate change, which had been rejected by the Wall Street Journal in favor of the sixteen-scientist letter.
Media Matters also reported on the WSJ article, and also found that most of the scientists who signed the Op-Ed “Do Not Actually Publish Peer-Reviewed Climate Research.” They also contacted Yale Economist William Nordhaus who had been cited by the article, and he replied that it was a “Complete Mischaracterization Of My Work.”
Publications
According to a search of Google Scholar, there do not appear to be any publications in peer-reviewed journals by an “Edward E. David Jr.”
The search does list him as the “Panel Chair” for a 1979 policy report at the New York Academy of Sciences. The report discusses alternative energy sources. At the time he was President of Exxon Research and Engineering Company, and Vice-President of Science and Technology of the Exxon Corporation.
The report’s introduction states that “Any hope of utilizing fusion, photovoltaics, the breeder, biomass, solar, or solar thermal energy on a large-scale economically feasible basis in the next two decades is based on a thin thread of optimism, as is the hope for massive reductions in energy demand through end-use conservation.”
Making A Killing: Who Is Paying The Real Costs Of ExxonMobil’s Climate Deception?
By Keely Boom, Common Dreams, November 13, 2015
New York state attorney general Eric T. Schneiderman is investigating ExxonMobil to determine whether the corporation lied to the public about climate change, or to investors about the risks to the oil industry. A subpoena was issued last Wednesday, demanding extensive financial records, emails, and other documents.
Exxon knew about global warming decades ago (and in fact launched its own extensive climate research program), yet spent US$30.9 million to support think tanks running climate denial campaigns from 1998 to 2014.
A common misconception about climate change is that we are all responsible for the problem, and therefore no one is responsible. However, a scientific study revealed that two-thirds of the carbon dioxide emitted the Industrial Revolution can be traced back to just 90 oil, coal, and gas producers, dubbed the “Carbon Majors.” Exxon is the world’s second biggest polluter, according to the study, contributing 3.1% of the carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the atmosphere. If New York finds that Exxon has indeed deceived the public and investors, this investigation will have significantly bolstered Exxon’s liability for the climate crisis.
Holding ExxonMobil responsible
Exxon has also been targeted in a recent climate lawsuit. The communities that suffered the horrific impacts of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines have brought a case alleging that the contribution of the biggest fossil fuel corporations to climate change is a violation of their human rights. The 50 respondents include Exxon, Chevron, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, BHP Billiton, Anglo American, Lafarge, Holcim, and Taiheyo Cement Corporation.
In 2013, Typhoon Haiyan displaced 4 million people, destroyed or damaged 1 million houses, and killed at least 6,300 people. While the Philippines suffered a financial blow of approximately US$10 billion from the storm, Exxon made US$ 32.6 billion in profits. Yet the oil giant has not paid for the climate damage caused by its products. Chevron, the corporation with the most responsibility for carbon emissions, made US$21.4 billion that year. Big Oil is making a killing.
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights state that corporations must respect human rights, in compliance with both national and international legal standards. Yet the fossil fuel industry is fueling climate change, and has failed to prevent the human rights impacts directly linked to its activities.
Kick Big Oil, Coal, and Gas out of climate policy
Politicians have also failed to hold the industry responsible. Instead, these corporations receive obscene subsidies from the same governments that are meant to protect their people and their human rights. The IMF has found that the industry is supported by as much as US$5.3 trillion in subsidies, or $10 million per minute.
Exxon has clearly indicated that it plans to continue producing fossil fuels without limit, stating that serious emissions cuts are “highly unlikely.” And so far, the untold millions spent by Big Oil and Gas to block strong climate policies and other regulations—in 2014, the industry spent US$141 million lobbying in Washington, DC—have indeed been highly effective.
Fossil fuel corporations have long been treated as “stakeholders” at the UN climate negotiations, and they have used this position to push false solutions and ensure that no effective action is taken. A decade ago, the international community established a powerful precedent by removing Big Tobacco from public health policy through a treaty mechanism. It is now time to kick Big Oil, Coal, and Gas out of climate policy.
A new and innovative source of finance
Solutions are urgently needed to address this gross injustice, and particularly the impacts of climate change on the world’s poorest communities. A global levy on the extraction of fossil fuels could raise US$50 billion a year to help fund the international Loss and Damage Mechanism. The 13 largest fossil fuel corporations alone made $132 billion in profits in 2013.
This funding would be used to assist the most vulnerable, those already suffering the worst impacts of climate change. Existing international law supports such a system—especially the polluter pays principle, the “no harm” rule, and the right to compensation—and it needs to be part of a general phase out of fossil fuels.
Exxon’s climate deception comes at the cost of the lives and human rights of people around the world and of future generations to come. To genuinely face this crisis, we must find the strength to kick the fossil fuel giants out of the climate negotiations, and to make the industry pay for its climate damage.
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/11/13/making-killing-who-paying-real-costs-exxonmobils-climate-deception
See also: http://www.FrackCheckWV.net