REP. Carolyn Maloney (D - NY) on COMMITTEE Assignment

From an Article by Matt Egan and Ella Nilsen, Cable News Network, October 28, 2021

(CNN) — House Oversight Chair Carolyn Maloney announced at the end of Thursday’s hearing with top executives from the fossil fuel industry that she plans to subpoena the oil companies and trade groups for key documents related to their conduct around the climate crisis.

Her announcement came after executives from ExxonMobil, BP America, Chevron, Shell Oil, the American Petroleum Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce, testified in front of Congress for the first time about their role in climate disinformation.

Maloney said that while the companies and trade groups did provide many documents that were publicly available, they did not supply “a substantial portion of the key documents the committee requested.”

“We are at code red for climate and I committed to doing everything I can to help rescue this planet and save it for our children,” the New York Democrat said during her closing remarks. “We need to get to the bottom of the oil industry’s disinformation campaign, and with these subpoenas we will.”

Specifically, Maloney said the oil companies have not produced “detailed funding information” the lawmakers requested to understand their “payments to shadow groups,” public relations firms and others. Other documents requested include corporate strategies around climate change and internal documents and communications from senior executives about their companies’ role in the climate crisis.

“I have tried very hard to obtain this information voluntarily, but the oil companies employ the same tactics they used for decades on climate policy: delay and obstruction,” Maloney said.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who chairs the committee’s Subcommittee on the Environment, told CNN later Thursday that he and Maloney had decided during the middle of the fossil fuel hearing to subpoena the companies. “It wasn’t the plan that we were going to do that,” Khanna told CNN. “We’re very cautious to issue a subpoena, and we hadn’t issued any subpoenas up until now.”

Khanna said he and Maloney had huddled and made the decision 20 to 30 minutes before she made the announcement at the end of the hearing, with the congressman calling the decision “very significant.”

Khanna, who said there’s a chance lawmakers will call the CEOs back to testify again, added that the committee’s fossil fuel disinformation investigation could take six months. The committee’s investigation has been ongoing for about three months. Lawmakers particularly want to know more about the companies’ more recent activities, from 2015 to the present, including their presence and ads on social media.

During the hearing, committee members pressed the executives about their knowledge of the climate crisis, the role fossil fuels have played in it and their desire to put profits over a climate solution. An undercover video released this summer appeared to show former ExxonMobil lobbyist Keith McCoy admitting the company “aggressively” fought climate policy and the science behind it. Maloney played the video during the hearing.

“Our witnesses today would like you to think that their actions I have laid out and put in the record are ancient history, but they’re not,” Maloney said.

Khanna urged US oil giants ExxonMobil and Chevron to follow in the footsteps of their European rivals in planning to cut production to address the climate crisis. “Are you embarrassed as an American company that your production is going up while European counterparts are going down?” Khanna asked Chevron CEO Michael Wirth.

The Chevron boss responded by pointing out that demand for energy is going up around the world.
Khanna cited calls from the United Nations and the International Energy Agency to cut oil and gas production to save the planet. When Khanna asked if Chevron would commit to lowering production, Wirth declined to do so. “With all due respect, I’m very proud of our company and what we do,” Wirth said.

Democrats took turns pressing the executives for specific answers about their role in the climate crisis and the disinformation surrounding it. Several of them said the executives should resign.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat, said that the companies “hide” behind front groups that lobby public opinion against clean energy. “When you look at these ads, they don’t say the name ‘Exxon,’ ‘BP,’ ‘Chevron’ anywhere,” Tlaib said. “Y’all hide and you deceive the public.”

Republicans on the committee questioned the legitimacy of the hearing, saying they should instead focus on the Biden administration’s energy policies and the progress that the US has already made to reduce emissions. Republican Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana — whose constituents face some of the highest flooding risk in the country — delivered a fervent defense of oil executives.

“It’s abhorrent my colleagues across the aisle have called a so-called hearing today to demonize American industry whose products make modern life possible,” Higgins said, later adding: “It’s insane what my colleagues across the aisle are putting these good American men and women through and attacking American workers as our country dissolves around us. You push patriots too far; you’ve gone a bridge too far. We won’t take it anymore.”

Higgins represents an area very vulnerable to climate change impacts. Cameron Parish in southwest Louisiana — which is part of Higgins’ district — is the most vulnerable county in the US to flood risk, according to a recent nationwide flooding analysis by nonprofit research and technology group First Street.

Fossil fuel companies used their time to focus on their commitment to solving the climate crisis, to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 and to emphasize the steps they are taking to lower emissions.
“Exxon does not, and never has, spread disinformation regarding climate change,” ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said in his prepared remarks. “Its public statements about climate change are, and have been, truthful, fact-based, transparent and consistent with the views of the broader, mainstream scientific truthful, fact-based, transparent and consistent with the views of the broader, mainstream scientific community at the time.”

Wirth, Chevron’s CEO, said the idea this his company is spreading misinformation about the climate crisis is “simply wrong.” Wirth said Chevron accepts that “climate change is real, and the use of fossil fuels contributes to it.” But when Khanna asked the executives to tell the American Petroleum Institute and other groups to stop lobbying against electric vehicles and methane regulations — two initiatives the oil companies themselves support — he was met with silence.

“You could do something here,” said Khanna. “You can tell them to knock it off for the sake of the planet. You could end that lobbying. Would any of you take that opportunity to look at API and say ‘stop it?’” The committee room fell silent. “Any of you?” he asked. “Could you commit? Any of you?”
No CEO responded to Khanna’s question. community at the time.”

Wirth, Chevron’s CEO, said the idea his company is spreading misinformation about the climate crisis is “simply wrong.” Wirth said Chevron accepts that “climate change is real, and the use of fossil fuels contributes to it.” But when Khanna asked the executives to tell the American Petroleum Institute and other groups to stop lobbying against electric vehicles and methane regulations — two initiatives the oil companies themselves support — he was met with silence.

“You could do something here,” said Khanna. “You can tell them to knock it off for the sake of the planet. You could end that lobbying. Would any of you take that opportunity to look at API and say ‘stop it?’” The committee room fell silent. “Any of you?” he asked. “Could you commit? Any of you?”

No CEO responded to Khanna’s question.

Exxon Gas Well blowout & fire in Ohio River Valley (2/2018)

From an Article by Hiroko Tabuchi, New York Times, December 16, 2019
·
The first satellite designed to continuously monitor the planet for methane leaks made a startling discovery last year: A little known gas-well accident at an Ohio fracking site was in fact one of the largest methane leaks ever recorded in the United States.

The findings by a Dutch-American team of scientists, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, mark a step forward in using space technology to detect leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, from oil and gas sites worldwide.

The scientists said the new findings reinforced the view that methane releases like these, which are difficult to predict, could be far more widespread than previously thought.

“We’re entering a new era. With a single observation, a single overpass, we’re able to see plumes of methane coming from large emission sources,” said Ilse Aben, an expert in satellite remote sensing and one of the authors of the new research. “That’s something totally new that we were previously not able to do from space.”

Scientists also said the new findings reinforced the view that methane emissions from oil installations are far more widespread than previously thought.

The blowout, in February 2018 at a natural gas well run by an Exxon Mobil subsidiary in Belmont County, Ohio, released more methane than the entire oil and gas industries of many nations do in a year, the research team found. The Ohio episode triggered about 100 residents within a one-mile radius to evacuate their homes while workers scrambled to plug the well.

At the time, the Exxon subsidiary, XTO Energy, said it could not immediately determine how much gas had leaked. But the European Space Agency had just launched a satellite with a new monitoring instrument called Tropomi, designed to collect more accurate measurements of methane.

“We said, ‘Can we see it? Let’s look,’” said Steven Hamburg, a New York-based scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, which had been collaborating on the satellite project with researchers at the Netherlands Institute for Space Research in Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Natural gas production has come under increased scrutiny because of the prevalence of leaks of methane — the colorless, odorless main component of natural gas — from the fuel’s supply chain.

When burned for electricity, natural gas is cleaner than coal, producing about half the carbon dioxide that coal does. But if methane escapes into the atmosphere before being burned, it can warm the planet more than 80 times as much as the same amount of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

The satellite’s measurements showed that, in Ohio in the 20 days it took for Exxon to plug the well, about 120 metric tons of methane an hour were released. That amounted to twice the rate of the largest known methane leak in the United States, from an oil and gas storage facility in Aliso Canyon, Calif., in 2015, though that event lasted longer and had higher emissions overall.

The Ohio blowout released more methane than the reported emissions of the oil and gas industries of countries like Norway and France, the researchers estimated. Scientists said the measurements from the Ohio site could mean that other large leaks are going undetected.

“When I started working on methane, now about a decade ago, the standard line was: ‘We’ve got it under control. We’re managing it,’” Dr. Hamburg said. “But in fact, they didn’t have the data. They didn’t have it under control, because they didn’t understand what was actually happening. And you can’t manage what you don’t measure.”

An Exxon spokesman, Casey Norton, said that the company’s own scientists had scrutinized images and taken pressure readings from the well to arrive at a smaller estimate of the emissions from the blowout. Exxon is in touch with the satellite researchers, Mr. Norton said, and has “agreed to sit down and talk further to understand the discrepancy and see if there’s anything that we can learn.”

“This was an anomaly,” he said. “This is not something that happens on any regular basis. And we do our very best to prevent this from ever happening.” An internal investigation found that high pressure had caused the well’s casing, or internal lining, to fail, Mr. Norton said. After working with Ohio regulators on safety improvements, he said, the well is now in service.

Miranda Leppla, head of energy policy at the Ohio Environmental Council, said there had been complaints about health issues — throat irritation, dizziness, breathing problems — among residents closest to the well. “Methane emissions, unfortunately, aren’t a rare occurrence, but a constant threat that exacerbates climate change and can damage the health of Ohioans,” she said.

Scientists said that a critical task was now to be more quickly able to sift through the tens of millions of data points the satellite collects each day to identify methane hot spots. Studies of oil fields in the United States have shown that a small number of sites with high emissions are responsible for the bulk of methane releases.

So far, detecting and measuring methane leaks has involved expensive field studies using aircraft and infrared cameras that make the invisible gas visible. In a visual investigation published last week, The New York Times used airborne measurement equipment and advanced infrared cameras to expose six so-called super emitters in a West Texas oil field.

In a separate paper published in October, researchers detailed the use of two satellites to detect and measure a longer-term leak of methane from a natural gas compressor station in Turkmenistan, in Central Asia. Researchers estimated emissions from the site to be roughly comparable to the overall release from the Aliso Canyon event.
The leak has now stopped, satellite readings show, after the researchers raised the alarm through diplomatic channels.

“That’s the strength of satellites. We can look almost everywhere in the world,” said Dr. Aben, a senior scientist at the Dutch space institute in Utrecht and an author on both papers.

There are limitations to hunting for methane leaks with satellite technology. Satellites cannot see beneath clouds. Scientists must also do complex calculations to account for the background methane that already exists in the earth’s atmosphere.

Still, satellites will increasingly be able to both rapidly detect large releases and shed light on the rise in methane levels in the atmosphere, which has been particularly pronounced since 2007 for reasons that still aren’t fully understood. Fracking natural-gas production, which accelerated just as atmospheric methane levels jumped, has been studied as one possible cause.

“Right now, you have one-off reports, but we have no estimate globally of how frequently these things happen,” Dr. Hamburg of the Environmental Defense Fund said. “Is this a once a year kind of event? Once a week? Once a day? Knowing that will make a big difference in trying to fully understand what the aggregate emissions are from oil and gas.”

Video — The Ohio disaster leaked as much methane as the entire oil and gas industries of some nations release in a year.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also: This So-Called Bridge Fuel ‘Leads to Hell’: Blowout at ExxonMobil Fracking Site Among Nation’s Worst-Ever Methane Leaks, Common Dreams News, Jessica Corbett, December 17, 2019

New data about the 2018 incident sparks fresh warnings about the dangers of natural gas and renewed calls for a rapid transition to renewable energy.

SHELL flaring ethane gas at Mossmorran, Scotland

From an Article by Angie Brown, BBC Scotland, October 2, 2019

Shell has been forced to burn off “significant” volumes of ethane because it cannot sell it to a firm that has temporarily shut down its plant with flaring issues in Fife.

Residents living near the Mossmorran site thought flaring would be reduced after Exxonmobil closed in August. However, flares have continued to burn because Shell’s only ethane customer is Exxonmobil, which shares the site.

Shell said it was “actively exploring alternative ethane outlets”.

Exxonmobil chose to temporarily close its plant to undertake maintenance on its boilers.

Shell’s Fife Natural Gas Liquids plant separates natural gas liquids into ethane, propane, butane and natural gasoline for storage and onward distribution. It sells its ethane to Exxonmobil’s neighbouring Fife Ethylene plant, which turns it into ethylene.

Since the Fife Ethylene Plant was temporarily closed down Shell said it “did not have the storage capacity for the significant quantities of ethane produced from North Sea gas”.

Exxonmobil’s plant at the site will be closed until at least November for work to be carried out to make the plant more “reliable”.

A total of £140m of work will also be spent by Exxonmobil improving the plant. ExxonMobil said it had started recruiting 850 temporary workers to carry out the work over the next 12 months. The operator said the investment was on top of the £20m it spends annually on maintaining its Mossmorran site.

A Shell Fife Natural Gas Liquids spokesman said: “The (ExxonMobil) Fife Ethylene Plant is currently the primary customer for ethane supplied by the Shell Fife Natural Gas Liquids plant, and processes ethane into ethylene.

“Our ground flares are burning excess ethane as the Fife Ethylene plant is currently not available for receiving the ethane to process it into ethylene.

“We have taken measures within the North Sea (SEGAL) supply system to help to manage the situation and are actively exploring alternative ethane outlets during the temporary shutdown.

“However, the volume taken by the Fife Ethylene plant is significant and any solution is likely to be for some volume rather than the full volume of ethane the Fife Natural Gas Liquids plant produces.”

James Glen, chairman of the Mossmorran Action Group, said: “I think it is ironic that Shell is being forced to flare off excess product because of the problems at Exxonmobil.

“Residents had hoped for some respite but they are having to continue to suffer from light and noise impact as a result of Shell’s flaring.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also: Flaring, or Why So Much Gas Is Going Up in Flames – The Washington Post, Ryan Collins and Rachel Adams-Heard | Bloomberg, September 10, 2019

If you take a drive along the well-worn highways of West Texas, orange flames will punctuate your journey. Those are gas flares, and they’re lighting up the skies above West Texas oilfields like never before as drillers produce crude faster than pipes can be laid to haul the attendant natural gas away. Oil drillers say flaring is the most environmentally friendly way to get rid of excess gas they can’t sell. Environmentalists say that in many cases what flaring is friendly to is oil drillers’ profits. They think regulators in states including Texas and North Dakota should be tougher on a practice that harms air quality and contributes to climate change.

Waste plastics accumulation in Nairobi, Kenya

From an Article by Sandra Laville, The Guardian, March 15, 2019

>>> Commitments agreed at UN conference in Kenya do not go far enough, say green groups.

Environmental groups involved in talks at a United Nations conference in Kenya have accused the US of blocking an ambitious global response to plastic pollution.

Representatives of countries at the UN environment conference in Nairobi this week agreed to significantly reduce single-use plastics over the next decade but the voluntary pledges fell far short of what was required, according to green groups.

Norway, Japan and Sri Lanka had put forward proposals for a legally binding agreement for nations to coordinate action against plastic litter in the oceans and microplastics. India also suggested strong action with a resolution to phase out single-use plastic across the world.

But a coalition of environmental groups at the conference condemned the US for blocking the ambitious attempts to tackle plastic pollution at the source as well as downstream.

An initial ministerial statement at the beginning of the event had proposed a commitment to “phase out single-use plastics … by 2025”, a far stronger promise than the compromise nations reached.

On Friday, a series of non-binding proposals were agreed, including the adoption of an action plan by the International Maritime Organization’s marine environment protection committee to reduce plastic litter from ships, and suggestions for better global management of data on plastic pollution. A final statement said countries would “address the damage to our ecosystems caused by the unsustainable use and disposal of plastic products, including by significantly reducing single-use plastic by 2030”.

In response, environmental groups including Break Free From Plastic, IPEN, Plastic Change, No Waste Louisiana and Coare said the proposals did not go far enough.

“Despite sweeping agreement by the majority of countries that urgent, ambitious and global action is needed to address plastic across its lifecycle, from production to use to disposal, a small minority led by the United States blocked ambitious text and delayed negotiations,” they said in a statement.

Countries most affected by plastic pollution including the Philippines, Malaysia and Senegal were against the resolution being watered down.

Large oil firms in the US are investing billions of dollars in petrochemical production over the next decade, particularly shale gas.

The new facilities, which are being built by ExxonMobile Chemical and Shell Chemical, among others, will help fuel a 40% rise in plastic production in the next decade, according to industry experts.

The world already produces more than 300 million tonnes of plastic a year.

“It’s hard to find one solution for all member states,” Siim Kiisler, the president of the UN environment assembly, told Agence France-Presse before the final decision. “The environment is at a turning point. We don’t need verbose documents, we need concrete commitments.”

When asked whether the US had pushed to have the commitments watered down during the week’s negotiations, Kiisler said: “I will not answer that question.”

David Azoulay, from the Center for International Environmental Law, condemned the weakening of the commitment.

He said: “The vast majority of countries came together to develop a vision for the future of global plastic governance. Seeing the US, guided by the interests of the fracking and petrochemical industry, leading efforts to sabotage that vision is disheartening.”

Exponential growth of plastics worldwide

Ann Carlson, Professor of Environmental Law at UCLA

STEVE CURWOOD: From Public Radio International, this is “Living on Earth.”

CURWOOD: I’m Steve Curwood. Fossil fuel companies are increasingly under legal attack for selling a product that damages the climate. The science that connects what the defendants did to what the cities and counties are experiencing is much stronger than it used to be. Scientists can really connect now the emissions that the defendants put into the atmosphere to harms like sea level rise.

CURWOOD: From PRI, and the Jennifer and Ted Stanley Studios at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, this is Living on Earth. I’m Steve Curwood. Major fights over the fallout of climate change are heating up in state and federal courts in California. The odds are long, but a win by the municipalities could prove historic. San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz, and other towns and some counties have filed several actions against Chevron, Shell, Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel companies, claiming the use of their products raises sea level.

The plaintiffs want these companies to pay for some of the infrastructure that is needed to protect against floods. Exxon Mobil and some other defendants allegedly knew for decades about the damaging impacts of carbon fuel on climate stability. To learn more, we called UCLA Law School professor, Ann Carlson. Welcome to Living on Earth Ann!

CURWOOD: So, why now? Why are these cities and counties moving forward with these lawsuits?

CARLSON: Well, there’s several reasons I think the cities and counties are moving forward with suing oil companies for the damages they are beginning to incur from climate change.

First, I think the science that connects what the defendants did to what the cities and counties are experiencing in sea level rise and other harms from climate change is much stronger than it used to be. Scientists can really connect now the emissions that the defendants put into the atmosphere to harms like sea level rise.

Second, there’s really good information that the defendants knew about the harms of climate change long ago, as early as the mid-1960s, planned their own business operations around rising seas and other harms from climate change, and yet engaged in a campaign to try to mislead the public about whether climate change was actually occurring, and that’s really important from a liability perspective.

CURWOOD: Why is that?

CARLSON: That’s because in California where the vast majority of these lawsuits have been filed, the suits are brought under a doctrine known as public nuisance. And the California courts have made clear that when defendants in nuisance litigation are engaged in campaigns to try to mislead consumers about the harms of their products or to try to persuade the government not to regulate those harms, that makes a difference for determining whether the defendants are going to be held responsible for what they did.

CURWOOD: So, there are two lawsuits as I understand it. There’s one in federal court and one in state court there in California and they are really saying pretty much the same thing. Why are they moving ahead in different arenas?

CARLSON: Well, there were a number of suits filed in a number of different California courts by different cities and counties in California, and the defendants in all of those lawsuits brought what’s called a motion to remand to federal court. So, they would rather be in federal court than state court because California law is much more favorable to the plaintiffs in state court. There were two sets of lawyers and therefore two sets of remand motions to different judges. One judge decided that the cases should stay in federal court, and another judge decided that they should go back to state court, even though they’re alleging pretty much the same thing.

CURWOOD: So, what are the likely arguments on each side of this case? I gather by now the oil companies aren’t denying climate change exists, so what exactly is their defense?

CARLSON: The defendants’ principal argument against the plaintiffs is going to be that they pull the oil out of the ground, but they don’t actually burn it. It’s the burning of fossil fuels that creates the emissions that are warming the planet. Instead, they sell their products and then consumers combust the fuel when they drive cars or when they turn on the lights in the house, etcetera, and so I think they’re going to try to argue that they’re not the cause of the harm. They will have a bunch of other ways of trying to get the cases dismissed, but I think that’s going to be their main argument.

You may remember some of the advertisements that ran about how CO2 is actually good for the planet, about how there’s scientific uncertainty about whether humans are causing climate change, all sorts of things funded by the oil industry. They even funded scientists to try to produce studies that cast doubt on whether climate change is occurring.

CURWOOD: All at the same time that they were planning their own construction and development based on things like rising sea levels.

CARLSON: That’s correct. There’s very good evidence that they were, for example, developing new technology so that they could begin to break through ice that was melting in the Arctic, that they were raising their oil platforms in anticipation of the fact that there was going to be sea level rise, knowing full well that the activities they were engaged in were going to be causing problems that then they were claiming weren’t even occurring.

CURWOOD: So, let’s say that the plaintiffs win some kind of a case here. What exactly would they win?

CARLSON: Well, they are seeking to have the defendants pay some of the costs of the damages that are already occurring from climate change and that will continue to occur in the future. So, one example is sea level rise. One of the things that’s interesting about the science that we now have on sea level rise is that there is a pretty much linear correlation between increasing emissions and increasing sea level rise, and the defendants in a number of the cases, the plaintiffs have shown, contributed about 17.5 percent of that sea level rise through their emissions over the course of last 50 years. So, under these theories of how nuisance litigation works, a judge could say to the defendants, “You have to pay for 17.5 percent of the damages that cities are experiencing from the sea level rise that occurs around their city streets, that harms their city infrastructure and so forth”.

CURWOOD: Now, I note that the judge on the federal case, William Alsup, called for a five-hour climate science tutorial. Tell me what happened in that session and how unusual a move that was.

CARLSON: Well, Judge Alsup’s move was really unusual but he’s done this in some other cases, not involving climate change but other subjects, where he uses his courtroom as an opportunity to learn about the problem that is involved in the litigation. And so he asked the plaintiffs and the defendants to come in and educate him about a number of important scientific components of climate change. What was really interesting about the hearing is that the defendant oil companies all admitted that humans caused climate change.

CURWOOD: Now, what effect do you think this will have on the on the case, that he did this tutorial?

CARLSON: Well, one thing that’s interesting about the Judge Alsup case, that’s the one in federal court, is that he made a very controversial decision to keep the case in federal court instead of sending it back to state court, and that’s what the defendants wanted. But when he did that, he also made clear that he thinks that the case can probably go forward against the defendants. I think the defendants were trying to argue it should be in federal court, and the federal court should dismiss the case because the federal government’s already regulating climate change emissions under the Clean Air Act and therefore we don’t have a need for this kind of case. Judge Alsup in his ruling saying he was going to keep the case in federal court said, “No I think that this belongs in federal court and I think that’s probably a claim that can go forward,” and then he held this hearing about climate science and another interesting thing that happened is that Chevron put on the scientific case and none of the other defendants said anything in court, and he wants all of them to also acknowledge that they believe that climate change is occurring.

CURWOOD: And in fact isn’t this rather unusual that he is creating a record even before there is official discovery in this trial?

CARLSON: It’s really interesting that he’s holding this hearing. I don’t know that it would be used as evidence once the case gets to trial, but it is a really important record to get the defendants right now saying up front, “We’re not going to argue about whether climate change is occurring. We agree that it’s occurring and we agree that we are that humans are helping to cause it”. Now, we’re going to move on to the next question, which is what is the defendant’s responsibility for the harm, not whether the harm is actually occurring.

CURWOOD: So, professor, I gather that Judge Alsup also asked for information about the experts that the oil companies put forward, in particularly, asked them to reveal their funding sources. Why did he do that and what did it reveal?

CARLSON: Well, I think Judge Alsup was interested in knowing whether the scientists that were testifying in front of him were credible. So, he wanted to know are there any reasons that they might be giving evidence to me that is skewed because, for example, they’re getting money from the oil companies, they’re getting money from the defendants. The result was that he found out that some of those experts had received funding in the past, but all of them were testifying at present in front of him without getting compensation from the oil companies.

CURWOOD: But some had done fairly well by the companies in the past it sounds like.

CARLSON: Yes, some of the witnesses had received funding from the oil companies in the past.

CURWOOD: Now, how is the emerging knowledge that companies including Exxon Mobil knew about human-caused climate change for years, how important is that in terms of moving these cases forward.

CARLSON: I think the evidence that Exxon and the oil industry more generally knew about climate change, changed their business plans as a result and then engaged in a campaign to dissuade the American public that climate change was happening and to try to persuade regulators not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions is key to the cases. I think it’s really, really important. There’s no way you can look at some of the internal documents that have already been uncovered from Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute and not think that their behavior was really, really problematic, and I think that’s really going to matter in these cases.

CURWOOD: What do you suppose would have happened if instead of Exxon Mobil back in 1960 something or another had started to take action in favor of dealing with – with human-caused climate change? What kind of shape do you think we’d be in today?

CARLSON: If the oil companies had taken responsibility for the harms their products caused starting 50 years ago, we would see significantly fewer emissions in the atmosphere. I think we’d see a shift in how we use fossil fuels, maybe we’d figure out how to sequester the emissions that come from combusting fossil fuels or see a move toward cleaner fuels. If all that happened we would have far fewer emissions in the atmosphere and really importantly it would be cheaper and easier to get on a trajectory of emissions reductions that is going to be necessary to keep us at safe levels over the course of the next, you know, three to ten decades.

CURWOOD: Ann Carlson is the Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law at UCLA. Ann, thanks so much for taking the time with us today.

CURWOOD: When the suits were filed in 2017 Chevron spokeswoman Melissa Richie told the press: “Chevron welcomes serious attempts to address the issue of climate change, but these suits do not do that. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue that requires global engagement and action.”

Related links:
1. – Inside Climate News: “Climate Legal Paradox: Judges Issue Dueling Rulings for Cities Suing Fossil Fuel Companies”

2. – Ann Carlson in San Francisco Chronicle: “Should oil companies pay for climate change? Yes, there is evidence”

3. – Chevron Statement About Climate Change

Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide and methane

From an Article by Lorraine Chow, EcoWatch.com, March 30, 2018

A federal judge on Thursday threw out Exxon Mobil’s lawsuit that sought to derail New York and Massachusetts’ probe into whether the oil giant misled investors and the public about its knowledge of climate change.

Exxon tried to convince U.S. District Court Judge Valerie A. Caproni that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey were infringing on the company’s free speech rights and the AGs were pursuing politically motivated investigations.

But in a searing ruling, Caproni called the company’s claims “implausible” and “a wild stretch of logic.”

“The relief requested by Exxon in this case is extraordinary: Exxon has asked two federal courts—first in Texas, now in New York—to stop state officials from conducting duly-authorized investigations into potential fraud,” she wrote. “It has done so on the basis of extremely thin allegations and speculative inferences.”

Exxon’s allegations rested on statements made at the AGs’ United for Clean Power press conference in March 2016. The company tried to paint Schneiderman and Healey’s participation in the event as a evidence of their political bias against the company.

However, Caproni dismissed that argument, which she considered a result of “cherry-picking snippets from the transcript of the press conference.”

“Some statements made at the press conference were perhaps hyperbolic, but nothing that was said can fairly be read to constitute declaration of a political vendetta against Exxon,” she wrote.

The company’s claims that the AGs “are pursuing bad faith investigations in order to violate Exxon’s constitutional rights are implausible,” the judge continued. She called it a “a wild stretch of logic” for Exxon to contend that the AGs’ comments about public confusion relative to climate change showed any intent to “chill dissenting speech.”

Judge Caproni dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning Exxon cannot file it again.

Schneiderman and Healey celebrated the ruling. “I am pleased with the court’s decision to dismiss Exxon’s frivolous, nonsensical lawsuit that wrongfully attempted to thwart a serious state law enforcement investigation into the company,” Schneiderman said.

“At every turn in our investigation, Exxon has tried to distract and deflect from the facts at hand. But we will not be deterred: our securities fraud investigation into Exxon continues.”

Healey said, “Exxon has run a scorched earth campaign to avoid answering our basic questions about the company’s awareness of climate change. Today, a federal judge has thoroughly rejected the company’s obstructionist and meritless arguments to block our investigation.”

“This is a turning point in our investigation and a victory for the people.”

Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri told Reuters the company is evaluating its legal options. “We believe the risk of climate change is real and we want to be part of the solution,” he added. “We’ve invested about $8 billion on energy efficiency and low-emission technologies such as carbon capture and next generation biofuels.”

XTO Shale Gas Well out of control near Powhatan Pt., Monroe County, Ohio

Reporting by Scott DiSavino and Kim Palmer, Reuters News Service, March 7, 2018

(Reuters) – Exxon Mobil Corp’s XTO Energy unit said on Wednesday it plugged a blown out natural gas well in rural southeast Ohio that had been leaking for nearly three weeks.

The Feb. 15 blowout in Belmont County had spewed millions of cubic feet of gas into the air, triggering evacuations of nearby residences and raising concerns among environmental groups about health and environmental impacts.

Exposure to low levels of natural gas is not harmful to human health, according to the National Institutes of Health, but extremely high levels can cause loss of consciousness or death by displacing oxygen.

“We would like to press for a full accounting of the damage,” said Melanie Houston, director of climate programs for the Ohio Environmental Council, an environmental advocacy group.

XTO spokeswoman Karen Matusic said the company could not immediately say how much gas leaked from the well, which was about to be put into production after being drilled and fracked.

An initial report from the Environmental Protection Agency on Feb. 17 estimated the natural gas flow rate from the well at 100 million cubic feet per day. Earthworks, an environmental group, compared the magnitude of the XTO well blowout with some of the biggest methane releases in the United States.

Matusic said the company has been taking air samples since the blowout and “never picked up anything that would harm humans or animals.”

Following the well blowout, emergency responders evacuated about 30 homes within one mile of the well. Residents of all but four homes located within a half mile of the well were able to return home within a few days, Matusic said.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the lead government agency at the XTO well pad. Officials at the DNR were not immediately available for comment

The U.S. EPA said it responded to a fire at the well on Feb. 15 to provide technical assistance and air monitoring at the site. Because there were no apparent release of oil or hazardous substances, the EPA said it demobilized on Feb. 21.

An unknown quantity of brine and produced water, estimated to be more than 5,000 gallons, was initially discharged to streams that flow into the Ohio River, according to the EPA.

Protected wildlife species located in proximity to or downstream from the well site are the Eastern Hellbender Salamander, Northern longeared bat, and protected fish.

See Video Here: XTO Gas Well Blowout near Powhatan Point, Ohio – YouTube

Fooling the public for the bottom line

From an Article by Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams, August 23, 2017

Researchers from Harvard studied nearly 200 ExxonMobil communications and concluded that the company actively misled the public about climate change, contradicting findings by even their own scientists.

A peer-reviewed study has confirmed  ”a discrepancy between what ExxonMobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change privately and in academic circles, and what it presented to the general public.”

“Even while ExxonMobil scientists were contributing to climate science and writing reports that explained it to their bosses, the company was paying for advertisements that told a very different tale” says Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, Harvard researchers

“ExxonMobil contributed quietly to the science and loudly to raising doubts about it,” wrote Harvard researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes in their study, published in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters.

“Even while ExxonMobil scientists were contributing to climate science and writing reports that explained it to their bosses, the company was paying for advertisements that told a very different tale,” they concluded in a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday.

“Exxon has officially run out of excuses,” said Greenpeace USA climate liability campaigner Naomi Ages. “This peer-reviewed study from Harvard is just the latest piece of evidence indicating that the largest oil company in the world knew about the risks of climate change, but concealed them from the public and shareholders.”

The study confirmed findings from 2015 reports by InsideClimate News and The Los Angeles Times, which claimed the company had long known about the risks of climate change but publicly denied them, and triggered probes by the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In their New York Times op-ed, the researchers note that they were pushed to undertake their study by ExxonMobil’s response to the 2015 reports:

>>> The company responded that the allegations were false and “deliberately cherry-picked,” and that anyone who looked into the matter would see that. “Read the documents,” the company said, “and make up your own mind.” A year ago we took up this challenge. We have read all of the documents, analyzed them according to established social science methods, and made up our minds…. Our findings are clear: Exxon Mobil misled the public about the state of climate science and its implications.

>>> Exxon Challenged Us to “Read All The Documents.” We did.

Supran and Oreskes examined 187 climate change-related communications from ExxonMobil between 1977 and 2014, including peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal communications, as well as paid, editorial-style advertisements, or “advertorials,” published by the New York Times.

They observed that ExxonMobil’s Times advertorials “included several instances of explicit factual misrepresentation,” and “overwhelmingly emphasized only the uncertainties, promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil’s own.”

After Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik wrote about the study, ExxonMobil emailed him comment, calling its findings “inaccurate and preposterous.”

“ExxonMobil acknowledges the risk of climate change is clear and warrants action,” the statement said, asserting that the study “was paid for, written and published by activists leading a five-year campaign against the company.”

Supran and Oreskes note in the study’s acknowledgments their research was paid for by the Harvard University Faculty Development Funds and the Rockefeller Family Fund, and state they “have no other relevant financial ties and declare no conflicts of interest.”

Oreskes further told Mother Jones that ExxonMobil’s messaging adapts as its past positions become discredited, but that the company still sticks to its old habits of sowing doubt among members of the public.

“They are promoting a different kind of doubt,” she said. “It’s a doubt that says, ‘There’s climate change, but we have to still use fossil fuels because there’s no alternative,’” Oreskes explained, stressing that there are alternatives (as outlined in Bill McKibben’s recent In These Times cover story).

Climate activists, politicians, and journalists praised the study online, and called for the company—and its former CEO, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to be held accountable.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

One theme: "Oil & Money"

U.S. Senate panel clears Tillerson’s path to be secretary of state

From an Article by Patricia Zengerle,  Reuters News Service, January 23, 2017

U.S. President Donald Trump’s choice for secretary of state, former Exxon Mobil Corp. Chairman Rex Tillerson, narrowly won approval from a Senate committee on Monday, but is expected to be confirmed by the full Senate.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 11-10 to approve Tillerson, with every Republican backing the former oil executive and every Democrat opposing him.

His approval by the panel, a victory for Trump, had been in doubt until earlier on Monday, when Senator Marco Rubio, a committee member who had been Tillerson’s most vocal Republican critic, said he would back the nominee.

Tillerson’s confirmation by the 100-member Senate, where Republicans hold 52 seats, is not expected before next week. Democrats want more time to debate and the chamber may not be in session all this week.

Rubio’s backing had been in doubt after his tough questioning during Tillerson’s confirmation hearing, focusing on issues including concerns about Tillerson’s support for human rights. Rubio ultimately decided he would approve the nominee in deference to Trump, as well as to fill a critical top job.

Democrats said they voted against Tillerson over fears he might lift sanctions on Russia, where he did business for years, questions about his views on human rights and his refusal to recuse himself from matters related to his former employer during his entire term as the top U.S. diplomat.

Tillerson pledged to recuse himself only for the year required by law.

Amid Democratic anger over allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, Tillerson also raised committee hackles by saying he did not know Exxon Mobil lobbied against sanctions on Russia while he was running the company.

Senator Ben Cardin, the committee’s top Democrat, said Tillerson’s “business orientation” and responses at his hearing “could compromise his ability as secretary of state to forcefully promote the values and ideals that have defined our country and our leading role in the world for more than 200 years.”

The Senate confirmed only two of Trump’s Cabinet nominees on Friday, his Inauguration Day, a relatively low number among recent presidencies.

Democrats have been unable to block any of his choices because they changed Senate rules in 2013 to allow nominees to be confirmed with just a majority, not 60 votes. Instead, they have used Senate rules to slow the confirmation of nominees they say hold extreme views, are unqualified or have not completed ethics disclosures.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Tom Bond being interviewed by WBOY

Exxon’s Culpability is a Subject of Concern across America

Essay by S. Tom Bond, Retired Chemistry Professor and Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV

Everyone knows by this time that by the 70′sand 80′s Exxon became aware at the highest levels of global warming. They even realized ” Through their own studies and their participation in government-sponsored conferences, company researchers had concluded that rising CO₂ levels could create catastrophic impacts within the first half of the 21^st century if the burning of oil, gas and coal wasn’t contained.”

Scientists elsewhere were aware before Exxon that it was happening as far back as the 1930′s. Exxon maintains a staff that became aware of this thinking who convinced the money men to finance research within Exxon. (Incidentally, in that reference a detailed timeline of oil and coal burning is included. It is produced by the American Institute of Physics) Thus Exxon was among the first to do measurements and quantification on which today’s science is built.

Their research was widely disseminated in Exxon, in particular a 46 page memo to 15 executives and managers November 12, 1982, with a cover letter by Marvin B. Glasser that said, “the CO₂ ‘Greenhouse Effect’ which is receiving increased attention in both the scientific and popular press is an emerging environmental issue” and “The material has been given wide circulation to Exxon management and is intended to familiarize Exxon personnel with the subject.” He also warned, “It should be restricted to Exxon personnel and not distributed externally.”

Exxon has never publically agreed with climate warming. There wasn’t much said until NASA scientist James Hansen told a congressional hearing that the planet was already warming in 1988. By this time Exxon gave the world the impression the science was controversial. Those who had studied the matter agreed by the next year to create the Global Climate Coalition to “present the views of the industry on the global warming debate.” In other words, to sow confusion.

How much has Exxon spent to sow confusion? One source shows nearly $31 million from 1998 to 2014.

Exxon’s peers knew, too. The American Petroleum Institute (API) and the nation’s oil companies set up an organization to monitor and share climate research between 1979 and 1982, about the same time Exxon was doing its research. Other companies were Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio as well as Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil. So Exxon was a leader, not out there alone. API at first used the name the Carbon Dioxide and Climate Task Force, but changed its name to Climate and Energy Task Force in 1980. It is clear they were thinking the oil industry would have to bare some of the responsibility, and that it would affect their operations. By 1988 API had started a campaign to convince the American public and lawmakers that climate science was too tenuous for the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol treaty. See the reference article for more details.

Exxon is not alone in funding climate change denial. A study by Justin Farrell, a professor at Yale’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, has published results from an analysis of “all known organizations and individuals promoting contrarian viewpoints, as well as the entirety of all written and verbal texts about climate change from 1993 – 2013 from every organization, three major news outlets [the New York Times, the Washington Times, and USA Today], all US presidents, and every occurrence on the floor of the US Congress.” The Koch brothers were linked in also. This was achieved by machine-reading more than 39 million words.

In “This Changes Everything,” Naomi Klein says, “According to one recent study … what sociologist Robert Brulle the sociologist, calls the ‘climate change counter-movement’ are collectively pulling in more than $900 million per year for their work on a variety of right-wind causes, most of it in the form of dark money funds from conservatives foundations that cannot be fully traced.”

So let’s see where things are today. New York State and California are engaged in legal action to find out what Exxon knew. Previous knowledge has been on the basis of a study by Inside Climate News. New York has filed an injunction seeking documents covering four decades of research and internal communications concerning climate change plus advertising materials. More recently, the Maryland State Attorney General has suggested his office may investigate, too.

Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers reply includes: “We unequivocally reject allegations that ExxonMobil suppressed climate change research contained in media reports that are inaccurate distortions of ExxonMobil’s nearly 40-year history of climate research that was conducted publicly in conjunction with the Department of Energy, academics and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Or, more succinctly, “We never done nothin.’”

In an online petition drive, in public statements and behind the scenes, environmental advocates and their political allies are pressing federal and state authorities to launch investigations, subpoenas or prosecutions to pin down what Exxon knew and when. The oil giant’s critics say Exxon might be held liable either for failing to disclose the risks to shareholders and financial regulators, or for manufacturing doubt to deceive people about the science of climate change.

New York state’s comptroller and four other major ExxonMobil shareholders asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to force the oil producer to include a climate change resolution in its annual shareholder proxy, according to a filing seen by Reuters. Exxon is digging in against the effort and has succeeded with holding stockholders uninformed up to this point. And it is fighting a move by investors holding more than $3.4 trillion who have decided to sell their stock.

Exxon has supported the American Geophysical Union, the largest of its kind. 60,000 members world-wide for years, now the question arises: Why is the AGU allowing its support when Exxon is supporting Climate Denial, too? Over 100 members of AGU have written a letter to drop Exxon as a sponsor of its annual earth science conference.

One of the front line actions now is to get proper education on climate change. In recent years there have been many “academic freedom” bills in state legislatures which permit teaching creationist material as science, although creationism is contrary to the opinion of scientists. Now such bills include climate denial clauses as well. In the face of local opinion, teachers sometimes have a hard time keeping science consistent with expert opinion. Teachers need materials, in-service training, and support from both the education hierarchy and parents.

There is much less problem in universities, but the general public needs links to current events. The succession of increasingly hot years and sea rise which are observed, along with disappearance of glaciers and earlier appearance of migratory species in the spring, and earlier plant development need to be pointed out. Explanations of why there are changes in the rate of temperature rise and the continuing accumulation of ice at the South Pole are difficult to explain to persons without a thorough education in basic science.

Why do sincere people with no interest in the carbon industry accept this special pleading? At least one person, Katharine Hayhoe, has suggested that the real basis of both religious and political opposition to climate change is that a solution implies some sort of cooperative action among people. The American ideology of individualism is contrary to trying to have the community (i. e. government) act to effect a change. Ms. Hayhoe crosses boundaries, she is both an Evangelical and a scientist who accepts climate change.

There is an endless number of analyses. If you doubt this, do a Google search on “climate change denial religion.” In the face of overwhelming physical evidence, why do people still doubt? Catastrophic change is ahead. The answer must lie in deep psychology. As Carl Jung, a great figure in psychology, once said, “people can’t take too much reality.”