Effects of increased CO2 on the American west, Exxon internal memo, 1979:

[quote]
• The southwest states would be hotter, probably by more than 3 °F, and drier.
• The flow of the Colorado River would diminish and the southwest water shortage would become much more acute.
• Most of the glaciers in the North Cascades and Glacier National Park would be melted. There would be less of a winter snow pack in the Cascades, Sierras, and Rockies, necessitating a major increase in storage reservoirs.
• Marine life would be markedly changed. Maintaining runs of salmon and steelhead and other subarctic species in the Columbia River system would become increasingly difficult.
[endquote]
As these impacts occur before our eyes, remember that Exxon was on notice over forty years ago, then covered it up.

kcra.com/article/offici…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ben Franta

Ben Franta Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BenFranta

30 Apr
Climate litigation is often compared to tobacco litigation (similar patterns of deception & harmful products) & people often ask why it's realistic to expect the fossil industry to contract substantially or completely, given the cigarette industry is still around & profitable 1/n
It's a good question! The first time I heard it, I didn't have a good answer.

But now I think there are a bunch of reasons why Big Carbon is in a WORSE position than Big Tobacco.
The first & probably most important is replacement. The fossil fuel industry is in competition - existential competition - w/ other sources of energy. Those sources of energy are ultimately going to replace the fossil industry, the questions are 1) how completely & 2) how quickly
Read 10 tweets
28 Apr
Something wildly under-appreciated is that climate is a tightly controlled field. A handful of “climate gurus,” often funded by the oil industry itself, dictate the climate education for many future leaders in elite universities. 1/n
This promotes intellectual and ideological homogeneity, often in the fossil fuel industry’s favor.

For instance, at Harvard, where I helped to teach the College’s primary climate change course twice, I (and countless other students) were taught that:
1) Climate change is a “wickedly complex” problem and essentially unsolvable

2) Solar and wind are incapable of replacing fossil fuels in the foreseeable future

3) Carbon pricing is the only policy that makes sense - and is unworkable at anything less than a global scale
Read 7 tweets
7 Jan
I've published a new paper in @Env_Pol reporting what I believe is the earliest known example of climate deception from the fossil fuel industry, from all the way back in 1980.

In this thread, I'll explain this discovery & its significance 🧵
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
The key document is "Two Energy Futures: A National Choice for the 80s," a public policy book published by the American Petroleum Institute.

In it, the API argued to expand fossil production in the US, open federal lands for extraction, use coal-to-liquids technology & so on.
Of course, the policies advocated by the API would lead to a major increase in CO2 pollution, and by 1980 the dangers of global warming were of public concern.

So the API felt a need to reassure the public about CO2 and global warming.
Read 23 tweets
19 Dec 20
I have to give a TWITTER APOLOGY to @JesseJenkins. I recently critiqued some work he was involved in on decarbonization on here, w/out reading the entire report. The more I think about that, the more it bothers me. It wasn't professional, & fwiw Jesse, I'm sorry for being hasty!
It's like critiquing a book you haven't completely read, which is one of my pet peeves in professional history. It's lazy and not very helpful...if going public with criticism, the least one can do is read the whole thing. (Obviously, that makes for a better critique too.)
Despite its informal nature, Twitter is still public, and professional standards apply. I tweeted some thoughts after reviewing the report for a few hours, but that wasn't sufficient - nor fair to the authors of the report.
Read 5 tweets
19 Oct 20
Stanford recently announced its new major research program for climate and energy: the "Strategic Energy Alliance"

Who's the alliance with? It turns out 3/4 of the funders are fossil fuel companies.

(mini thread)
stanford.app.box.com/s/0az1erru3nsq…
It's just another example of the fossil fuel industry's invisible colonization of academia.
theguardian.com/environment/cl…
Don't think it has an effect?

At last spring's faculty discussion of fossil fuel divestment, the dean of the School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences (who's also a former employee of both Exxon and Chevron) encouraged faculty to oppose divestment ...
Read 9 tweets
28 Apr 20
Nice piece by @KateAronoff observing that calls to "believe" or "trust" science miss the target.

Instead of imperious instructions to believe science, a better approach is to expose the disinformation campaigns at their (usually corporate) source.

thread
newrepublic.com/article/157442…
There are at least 3 big problems with the reflexive call to "believe" science:

1) It isn't historically defensible. Sexism, racism, & eugenics were all scientific, as were a range of assuredly safe products & medical practices now known to be harmful. "Science" can be wrong.
Science & its institutions are powerful tools for finding truth. But ultimately we should believe things b/c they are true, not b/c "science said so."

There's a crucial difference between using science as evidence of truth vs. using it as an absolute, abstract authority.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(