Thread by @BenFranta

Sometimes a piece appears that is so juicily deceptive, so full of false and misleading information, that it cries out for a response, if only to study its ignorance-spreading mastery. Today's article in the @nytimes is just such a piece. nytimes.com/2020/01/09/opi…

Others like @DoctorVive have already pointed out the logical fallacies and outright falsehoods in this masterclass in shilling for Big Oil, written by the head of its policy trojan horse, the ironically named @TheCLCouncil. So I'll just note a few things.

https://twitter.com/DoctorVive/status/1215259279055343616?s=20

First, understand that the entire point of this deception campaign is to make people believe that Big Oil is indispensable for stopping climate change (that is, we need Big Oil's cooperation to save us from Big Oil). Thus, Big Oil needs to be the one writing climate policy.

Moreover, we must never do anything that might hurt Big Oil, like pointing out the fact that it has for decades orchestrated and poured vast sums of money into climate denial, disinformation, and delay, knowingly deceiving the American people and causing vast worldwide damages.

This @nytimes piece alludes to this as "name-calling." We mustn't do that, we're told. Why? Because it's "polarizing," we're told. And that, apparently, is bad. We mustn't polarize with the truth.

Big Oil wants its feelings to come before both truth and law. Good luck with that.

Anyway, we can pinpoint fairly precisely when Big Oil formed its "part of the solution" strategy. The Kyoto Protocol had just been signed. Big Tobacco was being bloodied by state AG's for its own deceptions. Shania Twain and Savage Garden ruled the billboards. Yeah, it was 1998.

Big Oil's strategy up to then was to publicly cast doubt on GW's existence. This was old school climate denial. "Climate scientists don't say that burning oil, gas and coal is steadily warming the earth." That was @API_News exec William O'Keefe in the @washingtonpost in 1997.

The problem was: it wasn't really working, at least not well enough. Kyoto, after all, was going ahead. Tobacco was getting into its own hot pile of donkey doo-doo for making public statements contradicting its internal documents (which was exactly what Big Fossil was doing)...

And crucially, Big Oil's denialism threatened to cut it out of the policy process. It was smarter for the industry to have a seat at the table and influence climate science & policy from the inside. So in early 1998 it drew up secret plans for doing that. industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/fossilfuel/doc…

The industry's rhetoric turned on a dime. "We are committed to being part of the solution to the climate risk and to active participation in the debate to forge a clear, defensible policy." That was @API_News exec William O'Keefe in late 1998. (What a difference a year makes!)

The industry began funding mainstream enviro think tanks that promoted low expectations for climate policy and a fossil-fuel-heavy future. It began hosting conferences to showcase its voluntary efforts to fight climate change, like energy efficiency and carbon capture research.

And over time, Big Oil would establish climate & energy research centers at prestigious universities, with fossil-friendly research agendas & directors. Thus it made itself truly indispensable to the careers of countless professionals & to the institutions enjoying its largesse.

The new strategy worked. By 2001 the industry had enough credibility to argue it would regulate itself & that it was already taking action to fight climate change. George W. Bush bought it (or pretended to) and pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol. industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/fossilfuel/doc…

Since then, Big Oil has massively expanded fossil fuel production and fought meaningful climate action every step of the way. As Bush might say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice - well you can't get fooled again."

If only that were true, George. If only that were true

So when you see Big Oil's "we're part of the solution" shtick, know the industry's been using it since you were blaring Savage Garden on your Walkman. My answer to Big Fossil's offer? "Thanks, but no thanks." My guess is we want the next 22 years to be different from the last.

If you bear with me, I'd like to touch on one other thing.

This article in the @nytimes portrays Big Oil as a clean energy and climate policy leader, telling us the industry is putting its "money and lobbying muscle" behind a (rather weak) carbon tax.

"Lobbying muscle" is apparently BP and Shell together giving $1 million / year to the aforementioned trojan horse @TheCLCouncil: washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/…

Too bad BP, Shell, Exxon, Chevron, and Total spend about $200 million / year against climate policy: forbes.com/sites/niallmcc…

That's not to mention the ~$65 million / yr spent by their trade association, @API_News, against climate action: influencemap.org/site/data/000/…

So Big Oil is flexing its $1 million muscle for the camera while quietly roid raging against climate policy to the tune of >$250 million / yr.

These are, I don't know, details that you'd think the @nytimes would want to check.

Anyway, we're also supposed to love Big Oil for all the money it's investing in clean energy. You've likely seen Exxon's ads about algae or Shell's sparkly "Make the Future" campaign.

[Shell's PR plan, btw, is crafted to make you think we've got the rest of the century to achieve "net zero" emissions (no rush!); that to do it we need *more* fossil fuels along w/ CCS; and that Shell is a leader on this "sustainable" path. Leaked doc: drive.google.com/file/d/0B_L1nw…]

But how much is Big Oil actually spending on clean energy? Here are the numbers: From 2010-2018, BP spent only about 2.3% of its capital expenditures on low carbon systems. Shell: 1.3%. Exxon and Chevron: 0.2% each. And ConocoPhillips: 0.03%. greenbiz.com/article/oil-co…

Given that Exxon's average capex over that time was about $27 billion / yr, the company spent some $54 million / yr on low carbon projects. finbox.com/NYSE:XOM/explo…

But here comes the real kicker.

According to InfluenceMap, in 2018 Exxon spent $56 million to brand itself as a climate leader (see p. 12): influencemap.org/report/How-Big…

Let that sink in. Exxon may be spending more trying to CONVINCE us of its "clean" activities than actually DOING them. There's a fun fact for you.

Oh, and that C tax Big Oil is fighting for? Last December, a court case between Exxon and the NY AG finished. Exxon won. Its position: It already ensures its fossil projects are viable under a C price, so its shareholders needn't worry. Listen to what Exxon is telling you.

Big Oil's used the @nytimes as a propaganda platform before. Exxon paid so it could publish misleading advertorials about climate in the paper of record from 1989-2004. Millions deceived, action delayed iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...bye kids