(Truthout) How Big Oil Rigs The System To Keep Winning – Auto Republish

Reported by:

Original Source: Source link

Truthout – Naomi Oreskes
Jeff Nesbit

Climate activists demonstrate outside the gates of the Mossmorran
petrochemical refinery near Cowdenbeath, Scotland, to protest
against flaring and pollution at the plant on August 1, 2021.
Jane Barlow / PA Images via Getty Images


  • Naomi Oreskes
    is professor of the history of science and affiliated
    professor of earth and planetary sciences at Harvard
    University. She is co-author, with Erik Conway,
    of Merchants of Doubt. Her latest book is Why Trust Science?
  • Jeff Nesbit is the author of Poison Tea, which
    exposed for the first time the close ties between the
    tobacco industry and Koch donor network front
  • This article
    is published as part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of news outlets strengthening
    coverage of the climate story.

Despite countless
social shaming, and regulations dating back decades, the oil and gas industry remains
formidable. After all, it has made consuming its products seem like a human

It has confused the public about climate science, bought
the eternal gratitude of one of America’s two main political parties, and
repeatedly out-maneuvered regulatory efforts.

And it has done all this in part
by thinking ahead and then acting ruthlessly. While the rest of us were
playing checkers, its executives were playing three-dimensional chess.

Take this brief tour of the industry’s history, and then ask yourself: Is
there any doubt that these companies are now plotting to keep the profits
rolling in, even as mega-hurricanes and roaring wildfires
scream the dangers
of the climate emergency?

The John D. Rockefeller Myth

Ida Tarbell is one of the most celebrated investigative journalists in
American history. Long before Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein exposed the
Watergate scandal, Tarbell’s reporting broke up the Standard Oil monopoly.

In 19 articles that became a widely read book,
History of the Standard Oil Company, published in 1904, she exposed its unsavory practices. In 1911,
federal regulators used Tarbell’s findings to break Standard Oil into 33
much smaller companies.

David had slayed Goliath. The U.S. government had set a monopoly-busting
standard for future generations. John D. Rockefeller, Standard Oil’s owner,
lost. The good guys won—or so it seemed.

In fact, Rockefeller saw what was coming and ended up profiting—massively—from
the breakup of his company. Rockefeller made sure to retain significant stock
holdings in each of Standard Oil’s 33 offspring and position them in different
parts of the U.S. where they wouldn’t compete against one another.

Collectively, the 33 offspring went on to make Rockefeller very, very rich.
Indeed, it was the breakup of Standard Oil that tripled his wealth and
made him the wealthiest man in the world. In 1916, five years after Standard
Oil was broken up, Rockefeller became the world’s first billionaire.

Say It Ain’t So, Dr. Seuss!

One of the offspring of Standard Oil was Esso (S-O, spelled out), which later
launched one of the most successful advertising campaigns in history. It did
so by relying on the talents of a young cartoonist who millions would later
adore under his pen name, Dr. Seuss.

Decades before authoring the
pro-environment parable The Lorax, Theodore Geisel helped Esso market
“Flit,” a household spray gun that killed mosquitoes. What Americans weren’t
told was that the pesticide DDT made up 5% of each blast of Flit.

When Esso put considerable creative resources behind the Flit campaign, they
were looking years ahead to a time when they would also successfully market
oil-based products. The campaign
ran for 17 years
in the 1940s and 1950s, at the time an unheard length of time for an ad

It taught Esso and other Standard Oil companies how to sell
derivative products (like plastic and pesticides) that made the company and
the brand a household name in the minds of the public. In its day, “Quick,
Henry, the Flit!” was as ubiquitous as “Got Milk?” is today.

At the time, the public (and even many scientists) didn’t appreciate the
deadly nature of DDT. That didn’t come until the 1962 publication of Rachel
Carson’s book
Silent Spring. But accepting that DDT was deadly was hard, in part because of the genius
of Geisel, whose wacky characters—strikingly similar to the figures who would
later populate Dr. Seuss books—energetically extolled Flit’s alleged benefits.

Geisel later said the experience “taught me conciseness and how to marry
pictures with words.” The Flit ad campaign was incredibly smart and clever
marketing. It taught the industry how to sell a dangerous and unnecessary
product as if it were something useful and even fun.

Years later, ExxonMobil
would take that cleverness to new heights in its advertorials. They weren’t
about clever characters. But they were awfully clever, containing few, if any,
outright lies, but a whole lot of half-truths and misrepresentations.

It was
clever enough to convince the New York Times to run them without labeling them
as the advertisements that they, in fact, were. Their climate “advertorials”
appeared in the op-ed page of the New York Times and were part of what scholars
have called “the longest, regular (weekly) use of media to influence public
and elite opinion in contemporary America.”

Controlling Climate Science

Big Oil also saw climate change coming. As abundant investigative reporting
and academic studies
have documented, the companies’ own scientists were telling their executives
in the 1970s that burning more oil and other fossil fuels would
overheat the planet. (Other scientists had been saying so since the 1960s.) The companies
responded by lying about the danger of their products, blunting public
awareness, and lobbying against government action. The result is today’s
climate emergency.

Less well-known is how oil and gas companies didn’t just lie about their own
research. They also mounted a stealth campaign to monitor and influence what
the rest of the scientific community learned and said about climate change.

The companies embedded scientists in universities and made sure they were
present at important conferences. They nominated them to be contributors to
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body whose assessments
from 1990 onward defined what the press, public, and policymakers thought was
true about climate science.

While the IPCC reports, which rely on consensus
science, were sound, Big Oil’s scientific participation gave them an insider’s
view of the road ahead. More ominously, they introduced the art of questioning
the consensus science in forums where every word is parsed.

The industry was employing a strategy pioneered by tobacco companies, but with
a twist. Beginning in the 1950s, the tobacco industry cultivated a sotto voce
network of scientists at scores of American universities and medical schools,
whose work it funded.

Some of these scientists were actively engaged in
research to discredit the idea that cigarette smoking was a health risk, but
most of it was more subtle; the industry supported research on causes of
cancer and heart disease other than tobacco, such as radon, asbestos, and
diet. It was a form of misdirection, designed to deflect our attention away
from the harms of tobacco and onto other things.

The scheme worked for a
while, but when it was exposed in the 1990s, in part through lawsuits, the bad
publicity largely killed it. What self-respecting scientist would take tobacco
industry money after that?

The oil and gas industry learned from that mistake and decided that, instead
of working surreptitiously, it would work in the open. And rather than work
primarily with individual scientists whose work might be of use, it would seek
to influence the direction of the scientific community as a whole. The
industry’s internal scientists continued to do research and publish
peer-reviewed articles, but the industry also openly funded university
collaborations and other researchers.

From the late 1970s through the 1980s,
Exxon was known both as a climate research pioneer, and as a generous patron
of university science, supporting student research and fellowships at many
major universities. Its scientists also worked alongside senior colleagues at
NASA, the Department of Energy, and other key institutions, and funded
breakfasts, luncheons, and other activities at scientific meetings. Those
efforts had the net effect of creating goodwill and bonds of loyalty. It’s
been effective.

The industry’s scientists may have been operating in good faith, but their
work helped delay public recognition of the scientific consensus that climate
change was unequivocally man-made, happening now, and very dangerous. The
industry’s extensive presence in the field also gave it early access to
cutting edge research it used to its advantage. Exxon, for example, designed
oil platforms to accommodate more rapid sea level rise, even as the company
publicly denied that climate change was occurring.

Don’t Call It Methane, It’s “Natural” Gas

Methane is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, yet it
has received far less attention. One reason is that the oil and gas industry
has positioned methane— which marketing experts cleverly labeled “natural
gas”—as the future of the energy economy. The industry promotes methane gas as
a “clean” fuel that’s needed to bridge the transition from today’s carbon
economy to tomorrow’s renewable energy era.

Some go further and see gas as a
permanent part of the energy landscape: BP’s plan is renewables plus gas for
the foreseeable future, and the company and other oil majors frequently invoke
“low carbon”
instead of “no carbon.”

Except that methane gas isn’t clean. It’s about 80 times more potent at
trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide is.

As recently as a decade ago, many scientists and environmentalists viewed
“natural gas” as a climate hero. The oil and gas industry’s ad guys encouraged
this view by portraying gas as a coal killer. The American Petroleum Institute
paid millions to
run its first-ever Super Bowl ad
in 2017, portraying gas as an engine of innovation that powers the American
way of life.

Between 2008 and 2019, API spent more than $750 million on public
relations, advertising, and communications (for both oil and gas interests),
an analysis
by the Climate Investigations Center found.

Today, most Americans view gas as
clean, even though science shows
that we can’t meet our climate goals without
quickly transitioning away
from it. The bottom line is that we can’t solve a problem caused by fossil
fuels with more fossil fuels. But the industry has
made a lot of us
think otherwise.

There’s little chance the oil and gas industry can defeat renewable energy in
the long term. Wind, solar, and geothermal, which are clean and
cost-competitive, will eventually dominate energy markets. Researchers at the
University of California, Berkeley, GridLab, and Energy Innovation have found
the U.S. can achieve 90% clean electricity by the year 2035
no new gas
and at no additional cost to consumers. But the oil and gas industry doesn’t
need to win the fight in the long term.

It just needs to win
right now so it can keep developing oil and gas fields that will be in
use for decades to come. To do that, it just has to keep doing what it has
done for the past 25 years: win today, fight again tomorrow.

A Spider’s Web of Pipelines

Here’s a final example of how the oil and gas industry plans for the next war
even as its adversaries are still fighting the last one. Almost no one outside
of a few law firms, trade groups, and congressional staff in Washington, DC,
knows what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is or
does. But the oil and gas industry knows and it moved quickly after Donald
Trump became president to lay the groundwork for decades of future fossil fuel

FERC has long been a rubber stamp for the oil and gas industry. The industry
proposes gas pipelines, and FERC approves them. When FERC approves a pipeline,
that approval grants the pipeline eminent domain, which in effect makes the
pipeline all but impossible to stop.

Eminent domain gives a company the legal right to build a pipeline through
landowners’ properties, and there is nothing they or state or county officials
can do about it. A couple of states have successfully, though temporarily,
blocked pipelines by invoking federal statutes such as the Clean Water Act.
But if those state cases reach the current Supreme Court, the three justices
Trump appointed—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney-Barrett—are
almost certain to rule in the industry’s favor.

Oil and gas industry executives seized upon Trump’s arrival in the White
House. In the opening days of his administration, independent researchers
listened in on public trade gatherings of the executives, who talked about
“flooding the zone” at FERC. The industry planned to submit not just one or
two but nearly a dozen interstate gas pipeline requests. Plotted on a map, the
projected pipelines covered so much of the U.S. that they resembled a spider’s

Once pipelines are in the system, companies can start to build them, and
utility commissioners in every corner of America see this gas “infrastructure”
as a fait accompli. And pipelines are built to last decades. In fact, if
properly maintained, a pipeline can last forever in principle. This strategy
could allow the oil and gas industry to lock in fossil fuel dependency for the
rest of the century.

In hindsight, it’s clear that oil and gas industry leaders used outright
climate denial when it suited their corporate and political interests
throughout the 1990s. But now that outright denial is no longer credible,
they’ve pivoted from denial to delay.

Industry PR and marketing efforts have
shifted massive resources to a central message that, yes, climate change is
real, but that the necessary changes will require more research and decades to
implement, and above all, more fossil fuels.
Climate delay
is the new climate denial.

Nearly every major oil and gas company now claims that they accept the science
and that they support sensible climate policies. But their actions speak
louder than words. It’s clear that the future they want is one that still uses
fossil fuels abundantly—regardless of what the science says. Whether it is
selling deadly pesticides or deadly fossil fuels, they will do what it takes
to keep their products on the market.

Now that we’re in a race to a clean
energy future, it’s time to recognize that they simply can’t be trusted as
partners in that race. We’ve been fooled too many times.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Resident-led action group seeking redress from the long-term social, health and environmental impacts from the Mossmorran facilities in Central Fife operated by ExxonMobil (Fife Ethylene Plant) and Shell (Fife NGL).


Press Inquiries

Scroll to Top