C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW
© ambquinn/Pixabay
16
insider interviewed by a documentary
film crew reportedly suggested that at
least one oil company accounted for sea
level rise in its design of offshore oil rigs
even earlier.
Taken together, the available evidence
demonstrates that by as early as the
1970s, and no later than the 1980s, not
only was the entire petroleum industry on
notice of climate change, but internal
documents from two of the largest oil
companies had confirmed and reaffirmed
the reality of the problem. Moreover, at
least two of the largest oil companies were
actively incorporating expected changes
into their engineering projects.
In the 1990s, Even as it Acknowledged Climate Realities
Internally, the Oil Industry Intensified its Public Campaigns
Against Climate Science
Even as they acknowledged climate
realities internally, major oil companies
continued and intensified their efforts to
increase uncertainty regarding climate science and climate risks among the public
and policymakers.
In 1990, a shareholder petitioned Exxon’s
board of directors to develop a plan to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions from its
operations facilities.129 The board
responded that its “examination of the
“The scientific basis for the
Greenhouse Effect and the potential
impact of human emissions of
greenhouse gases such as CO2 on
climate is well established and
cannot be denied.”
— G L O B A L C L I M AT E C O A L I T I O N , 1 9 9 5
issue supports the conclusions that the
facts today and the projection of future
effects is very unclear.”130 That same year,
Exxon scientist Brian Flannery reportedly
urged the first Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) to emphasize
the uncertainties surrounding climate
models in its first Scientific Assessment
Report.131
Beginning in 1989, Exxon, Mobil,
Chevron, Shell, and BP, were
instrumental in the creation and
operation of the Global Climate
Coalition (GCC).132 Throughout the
1990s, the GCC lobbied aggressively
against action on climate change, not
only within the United States but also at
the international level. In briefings
provided to policymakers and reporters,
the GCC routinely asserted that “[t]he
role of greenhouse gases in climate change
is not well understood.”133 Internally,
however, the GCC members
acknowledged the reality of climate
change, including the role of fossil fuels
in climate impacts.134 A 17-page “primer
on global climate change science”
distributed to GCC members
acknowledged that, “The scientific basis
for the Greenhouse Effect and the
potential impact of human emissions of
greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate
is well established and cannot be
denied.”135
Despite this internal acknowledgement,
the industry fought to undermine the
legitimacy of the Second Assessment of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, specifically its conclusion about
the human contribution to warming.
Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway outline
how Ben Santer, one of the authors of the
IPCC’s Second Assessment, became the
target of a coordinated industry campaign
after leading the IPCC scientific team in
the cautiously worded groundbreaking
conclusion that “[t]he balance of evidence
suggests that there is a discernible human
influence on global climate.”136 While
“Victory Will Be Achieved When …
Average citizens ‘understand’
(recognize) uncertainties in climate
science; recognition of uncertainties
becomes part of the ‘conventional
wisdom.’”
— AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, 1998
noted denialist Fred Singer attacked the
scientific conclusions, lobbyists for API
and others accused Santer of altering the
report itself and suppressing dissent.137