Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday March 12 2017, @01:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the playing-both-sides-of-the-fence dept.

Common Dreams reports:

Oil giant Shell also knew of the dangers of climate change decades ago, while it continued to lobby against climate legislation and push for fossil fuel development, a joint investigation by The Guardian[1] and the Dutch newspaper The Correspondent revealed [February 28].

Shell created a confidential report in 1986 which found that the changes brought about by global warming could be "the greatest in recorded history", and warned of an impact "on the human environment, future living standards, and food supplies, [that] could have major social, economic, and political consequences".

The company also made a 28-minute educational film in 1991 titled Climate of Concern that warned oil extraction and use could lead to extreme weather, famines, and mass displacement, and noted that the dangers of climate change were "endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists". The film was developed for public viewing, particularly for schools.

[...] Despite its own warnings, Shell invested billions of dollars into tar sands operations and exploration in the Arctic. It has also devoted millions to lobbying against climate legislation.

The revelations about Shell come after a separate investigation into ExxonMobil revealed that [that] company had also been waging a climate science suppression campaign and burying its own reports on the global warming impacts of fossil fuel use for decades. Exxon, whose former CEO is now U.S. secretary of state, is currently under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and state attorneys general for allegedly lying to investors about the risks of climate change.

In 2016, a group of lawmakers asked the Department of Justice to look into Shell's knowledge of global warming as well.

[1] Bogus link in TFA corrected.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @12:11AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @12:11AM (#478258) Journal

    because no carbon capture technology is even close to sufficient to make a dent in the problem

    Trees being the obvious counterexample.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @01:35AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @01:35AM (#478279)

    No they aren't.
    You could replant the entire amazon and it would barely move the needle.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @07:18AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @07:18AM (#478331) Journal

      You could replant the entire amazon and it would barely move the needle.

      According to this estimate [mongabay.com], the Amazon forest has the carbon content of 11 years of current human CO2 emissions.

      Looking at the Amazon basin specifically, the researchers estimate the total biomass is around 86 petagrams (86 billion metric tons) of carbon–for comparison, 7.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide were emitted in 2005. This means that Amazon locks up at least 11 years of recent carbon dioxide emissions, though clearing the Amazon would have a disproportionate impact due to its role in global weather regulation and other ecosystem services.

      At 1 ppm CO2 there is roughly 2 gtons of carbon and thus, ~40 ppm of CO2 contained in the Amazon forest, which is in turn roughly 10% of current atmospheric CO2.