Like Exxon, Shell Knew What Was Coming More Than 40 Years Ago, But Just Kept On Lying, Greenwashing

[hatrack]

Narrated in the upper-crust accent favoured by British documentary-makers of the era, Shell’s 1981 film Time for Energy assesses the scope for solar, wind, nuclear, and other sources of power to end the world’s dependence on finite reserves of oil. By the closing credits, the viewer is left in little doubt that there is only one fuel plentiful and versatile enough to carry the world “safely” into the 21st century: coal.

The 30-minute film makes no mention of the coal assets the Anglo-Dutch oil major had acquired in an effort to diversify in the wake of the 1973 oil shock. Nor does it refer to a topic that was of unequivocal scientific concern at the time: The “greenhouse effect,” or what is now known as climate change. Time for Energy is part of a collection of 201 company documents, official correspondence, reports, academic studies, and other materials that cast new light on what Shell knew about climate change — and what it chose to tell the public.

Compiled by Dutch climate activist Vatan Hüzeir, and reviewed by DeSmog and Dutch investigative journalism platform Follow The Money, the documents show how Shell was actively supporting research that clearly underscored the dangers posed by burning its fossil fuel products from the mid-1970s — years earlier than previously thought. Even as the company’s awareness of the potentially devastating consequences of climate change grew, the documents show how Shell shaped a series of influential industry-backed publications that downplayed or omitted key risks; emphasized scientific uncertainties; and pushed for more fossil fuels, particularly coal.

“This impressive history shows for just how long climate issues were known by Shell personnel,” said Ben Franta, senior research fellow in climate litigation at the University of Oxford. “Despite internal awareness, the company systematically downplayed the problem to the public, instead promoting more and more fossil fuel use despite the dangers. Now, five decades later, Shell continues to dawdle and delay.”

EDIT

https://www.desmog.com/2023/03/31/lost-decade-how-shell-downplayed-early-warnings-over-climate-change/

[DoBW]

1. Lubed up liars

time to mothball engines of destruction and dishonesty

[modrepub]

3. Can Confirm

All of the oil companies back in the 80s were quite aware of the impact of burning fossil fuels. I was a geosciences grad student in the early 1990s. My thesis advisor was a paleoclimatologist who was basically running atmospheric global circulation models. These models were used as oil exploration tools because they could identify areas where carbon sequestration was likely during certain periods of the geological past. It was far cheaper to pay profs and grad students to run these models then send exploration teams to the areas the models identified than it was to willy-nilly deploy exploration teams.

The academic community quickly figured out that the models often under predicted temperatures in the fossil record. They only plausible explanation was the amount of greenhouse gases varied over geological time. Your model says there are widespread ice sheets in the Cretaceous (a known warm era) adjust the CO2 in you model until you get no ice. Not coincidentally the model CO2 levels were surprisingly close to the air samples drawn from air bubbles trapped in amber from the Cretaceous.

We've long known the relationship between CO2 and earth temperatures. We've just allowed the media to bumble the big take away from the science and folks who have monetary interests in preventing change to hijack the discussion with their loud-mouth ways.