They knew about it and yet they did everything they could to hide it.
Shell was aware of what they called the “catastrophic effects of climate change.” They chose not to act.
All of the current Republican presidential candidates make a point of denying what scientists and the common folk have come to agree upon in much of the world, and of preserving the status quo in the energy sector. Why are these public figures, with aspirations of world leaders, basing so much of their policy on a fossil fuel-centric agenda that will only come back to bite us? In a revelation that shouldn’t shock anyone who’s even remotely aware of the concept of money, it’s because they’re being paid off.
ZME Science reported earlier that Exxon Mobil might be liable for a RICO case similar to tobacco companies for withholding information about the risks of climate change and actively seeking to manipulate public opinion to favor its business. Now, a NY Times article reports New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman is investigating the oil & gas company on suspicion that the company failed to mention critical information to its investors about the risks of climate change. A subpoena was issued on Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.
As a new investigation showed today, the scientists of the biggest oil company in the world, Exxon Mobil knew about climate change back in the 70s – but they still helped block the Kyoto protocol in the 90s, and invest massive amounts of money into climate skepticism propaganda. Today, 9 out of 10 funded climate change deniers can be linked to Exxon.
An email recently unearthed by one of the their own scientists casts the blame on ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company in the world, as they had data pertaining to climate change as early as 1981 – seven years before it became public issue. They chose to fund deniers of the problem for the next 27 years.
In its “Energy Security and Sustainability Strategy” (ES2 Strategy) report, the US army outlines the steps it should take to increase resilience and adapt to an ever changing world. Energy makes the go world round, and for an army it’s literally a matter of life and death. Not surprisingly, the authors note given the current climate of affairs the “army will prioritize solutions that reduce multiple resources. The Army can use energy more efficiently by purchasing energy efficient products, modernizing buildings and utility systems, purchasing energy efficient vehicles, and using more renewable/alternative energy sources.” Basically, being dependent on a finite resource (oil) is a security vulnerability, which isn’t something new. Military strategists have been aware of this for a long time – maybe the most during WWII when many lives were claimed in battles over oil rigs in North Africa and the Middle East, and oil refineries were being bombed on the clock. What’s changed today is the feasibility of renewable energy sources. Drawing the line, in those situations were oil is a liability (and we can only expect these to become ever numerous in the future), it’ll be scrapped in favor of renewable energy systems, both for generating and storing energy.
By the time the oil stopped flowing, nearly 11 million gallons had leaked out, contaminating 1,300 miles of shoreline and stretching over 470 miles from the crash site. Photo: Bettmann / Corbis Shortly after midnight on March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, a mile off-course in an attempt to avoid icebergs, ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound,