In 1959, a very well-respected
scientist named Edward Teller was
invited to speak at the symposium
celebrating a hundred years of the
American oil industry. To all the oil
executives in the room, he said this
about climate change: "carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere causes a greenhouse
effect and burning more fossil fuels
could melt the ice cap and submerge New
York." Until recently no one knew the
truth about what the oil industry knew
and what it did with this information.
Now we know. Benjamin Franta is a
researcher investigating the history of
fossil fuel producers and climate
science at Stanford University. We
decided to combine his research and my
illustrations to share with you the true
story of how the fossil fuel industry
discovered climate change and what they
did about it between the 1950s and today.
Have you heard of the American Petroleum
Institute, also known as API? It is the
biggest US trade association for the oil
and natural gas industry. They represent
hundreds of corporations involved in the
production, refinement and distribution
of petroleum. It was created in 1919. The
American oil industry started way before
that, of course, it became a big thing in
the U.S. in 1859 with the construction
of the Drake well in western
Pennsylvania. In 1959, the American
Petroleum Institute celebrated a hundred
years of the American oil industry. They
organized a symposium and invited a
smart physicist to share ideas for the
future. His name was Edward Teller. Now
he's maybe not as famous as Albert
Einstein but he was very well-respected
scientist. That day in 1959, he warned all
the oil executives in the room about
climate change. There is no report about
what all the smart executives attending
thought that day,
but we have to assume that there were
quite concerned about the world and
about their business, right?! Now here is
another interesting guy you need to meet:
Frank Ikard. He was the vice president
of the American Petroleum Institute from
1962 to 1963 and president from 1963 to
1980. At the annual meeting in 1965, he
warned the oil executives that
scientists had determined that carbon
dioxide was being added to the
atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil
and natural gas, at such a rate that by
the year 2000, global warming could cause
marked changes in climate beyond the
nation's ability to control. Here is what
he said exactly: "the pollution from
internal combustion engines is so
serious and is growing so fast that an
alternative non polluting means of
powering automobiles, buses and trucks is
likely to become a national necessity.
Again, we have to assume that all the
smart executives in the room were quite
concerned about the world and their
business, right?! In 1968, the American
Petroleum Institute hired scientists
from the Stanford Research Institute to
assess the pollution problem facing the
industry, including global warming. Their
conclusions were pretty clear:
significant temperature changes are
almost certain to occur by the year 2000
and these could bring about climatic
changes. There seems to be no doubt that
the potential damage to our environment
could be severe. Past and present studies
of CO2 are detailed, what is lacking
however, is work towards systems in which
CO2 emissions would be brought under
control. And that was one year before
Apollo 11 landed on the moon. With the
1970s came a different turn of events
and more secret research. Let's start
with Exxon which replaced the Esso brand
in the U.S. in 1973. In 1979, Exxon hired
a summer intern, Steve Knisely, to produce
a report on controlling atmospheric CO2.
His report mentioned things like
"dramatic climate changes", "the potential
problem is great and urgent." Hmm, I feel
like we have heard that before, right?!
Maybe in 1959, and 65, and 68, anyway he
also suggested leaving fossil fuel
reserves unexploited. Sorry what?
Unexploited? His report said "only about
20% of a recoverable fossil fuel could
be used before doubling the atmospheric
CO2 content." This is my free
interpretation of how I think Exxon felt
when they read the report based on what
happened a month later. Knisely's 1979
predictions were incredibly accurate by
the way. His report mentioned that
atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations would pass 400 parts per
million around 2010 causing around one
and a half degrees Celcius of global
warming. Nicely done! I mean not bad for
an intern. He told Exxon that to keep
CO2 concentrations at a relatively safe
level for the environment, non-fossil
fuel energy sources would need to start
replacing fossil fuels in the 1990s and
supply half the world's energy by 2010.
Neither coal nor shale oil could become
major energy sources. Well, the only
problem is that Exxon was in the
business of getting fossil fuel out of
the ground.
One month after Knisely's report, an Exxon
scientist called Henry Shaw wrote this
memo: "we should determine how Exxon can
best influence possible legislation on
environmental controls." No! That can't be
right! He didn't really write that, did he?
Really?
But it keeps going: "it behooves us to
start a very aggressive defensive
program in atmospheric science and
climate because there is a good
probability that legislation affecting
our business will be passed." Now, how do I
explain to my four-year-old son that
some of his fellow human beings are more
interested in making money this man-made
thing, than in taking the best possible
care of our atmosphere, the only thing
that protects us from the big black
space around us? During the same year in
1979, the American Petroleum Institute
formed an internal committee called the
"CO2 and climate task force." In 1980, the
task force invited JA Laurman, an expert on
climate, to give a presentation on CO2
and climate. The meeting lasted for seven
hours and included Henry Shaw from Exxon,
as well as representative from API, Exxon,
Texaco, now part of Chevron, and Standard
Oil of Ohio, now part of BP. He said this:
"Current fossil fuel production trends
will produce global warming of 1
degree Celsius by 2005 (barely noticeable),
2.5 degrees Celsius by 2038 (which would
bring major economic consequences and
strong regional dependence), and 5
degrees Celsius by 2067 (which would
bring globally catastrophic effects).
Is it time for action? He suggested that
market penetration time theory says
there is no leeway. How did the oil
companies respond? Instead of warning the
public, they manufactured uncertainty in
public reports about climate change.
In 1982, Exxon's manager of environmental
affairs programs, Marvin Glazer, sent
this brief on global warming to Exxon
personal and management. The company
envisioned a 3 to 4 degree
Celsius temperature rise by the end of
the 21st century and also that global
warming might already be occurring and
that fossil fuels would cause Earth to
depart its natural climate regime around
the year 2000. The brief also mentioned
that, in addition to the effects of
climate on global agriculture, there are
some potentially catastrophic events
that must be considered such as a rapid
disintegration of the Antarctic Ice
Sheet and subsequent flooding of the
U.S. East Coast including Florida and
Washington DC. In 1988, another major oil
company, Shell, produced an internal
report predicting the impact of climate
change. It brought up things like
"disappearance of specific ecosystems or
habitat destruction",  "increase in runoff
destructive floods and inundation of
low-lying farmland", "new sources of fresh
water would be required" and "the changes
may be the greatest in recorded history.
Privately, the industry did not deny that
its products would cause global warming
and that the impact would be severe. But
it kept quiet about it. This was about to
change as the 1990s came around the
corner... This is James Hansen. He was a
climate scientist who testified to
Congress in 1988 that global warming
from fossil fuels had been detected and
thanks to him climate change became
major political topic. Thanks James!
In 1989, the Gameboy landed on planet
Earth.
What else? This is also the year when the
American Petroleum Institute grouped up
with a bunch of other entities to create
the Global Climate Coalition designed to,
you guessed it, deny the link between
fossil fuels and global warming.
But how is that possible? Remember? In
1979 and 1980 Steve Knisely and JA LAurman
told them the opposite! In 1990, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change made their position clear they
said "it is certain that increased carbon
dioxide would cause global warming."
So I guess someone was not telling the
truth. I have an idea but let's see if we
can figure this out together.
A few years later, in 1993, the American
Petroleum Institute and the Global
Climate Coalition used a combination of
climate denial, hired economists and fake
grassroots organizations to defeat a
carbon tax proposed by President Bill
Clinton. In 1994, Nelson Mandela was
elected president of South Africa. I know
this is irrelevant here but I feel like
this story needs some good news too.
In 1996,
Lee Raymond was the chairman of the
American Petroleum Institute and also
the chairman of Exxon corporation. He
said two interesting things during that
same year: to the oil industry, he said
"global warming is the greatest long-term
threat to our industry" and to the public
he said "scientific evidence remains
inconclusive as to whether human
activities affect global climate." What is
this called
again? Saying different things to
different people? Meanwhile, the second
IPCC report concludes that global
warming from fossil fuels is detectable,
stating in the report that the balance
of evidence suggests a discernible human
influence on global climate. Again, I
wonder who was telling the truth.
In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol is signed,
meaning that industrialized countries
agreed to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
Well, that's good news, right?! Except the
Global Climate Coalition when to work
immediately to make sure this was not
adopted by the United States. Here we are
in 1998, France won the FIFA World Cup. I
know this is irrelevant again but
frankly, this is more fun than what the
American Petroleum Institute did that
year. They drafted a three-component
action plan to defeat the Kyoto Protocol
and all climate policies in the future
they created a media relations program
to generate coverage on scientific
uncertainty and "undercut the
conventional wisdom on climate science."
They established an educational
foundation in Washington DC that would
"maximize the impact of scientific
views consistent with ours." They
orchestrated a targeted campaign of
confusion designed to stop the Kyoto
Protocol and other climate treaties for
good.
Here is another quote: "Victory will
be achieved when recognition of
uncertainties becomes part of the
conventional wisdom and when those
promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis
of extant science appear to be out of
touch with reality." Wow! They really put a
lot of efforts into this, didn't they?! And
it worked! In 2001, George W Bush
announced that his administration was
withdrawing the U.S. from the Kyoto
Protocol. Oh and here is an interesting
bit of information, the State Department
privately told the Global Climate
Coalition that "the president
rejected Kyoto in part based on input
from you." In 2017, when Donald Trump
announced that the United States were
leaving the Paris agreement, he was
citing the same economists
the American Petroleum Institute had
been using to block climate policy for
decades.
And here we are today. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change keeps warning the world about the
climate emergency and the fossil fuel
industry continues to promote climate
change denial. But only one is telling
the truth. Who is it? This is for you to
decide.
[Music]
This video was made possible thanks to
the people who support me on Patreon. If
sustainability is important to you,
please subscribe to receive our new
videos and consider becoming a patron to
help us create more. Thank you for
watching and I will see you in the next
one.
