The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is
basically a group of politically liberal scientists that acts to promote and
describe what they perceive as threats. I have often been critical of so-called
attribution science and of campaigns to file lawsuits against fossil fuel
companies regarding climate change. We have not been in a position in the past,
and are not in a position now, to abandon or even significantly reduce fossil
fuel production and consumption. The alternatives are not equivalent and would
cost societies too much to implement and maintain. The knowledge of the details
of global warming and climate change was much less certain in the past, which
makes these arguments that fossil fuel companies knew exactly what their
products were doing to the climate ridiculous. And yet, those same arguments
are often made. Fossil fuels, after decades and trillions of dollars in green
energy investments, still power 80% of the primary energy of the world. Those
green energy investments still require significant subsidization to be
profitable. They write:
“In these time frames {1959 to now}, fossil fuel
companies already had clear scientific evidence that their products were
contributing to climate change.”
They point to several presentations and reports in the
1980s that showed fossil fuel companies knew of the possible climate
implications of using their products. Should we have required solar panels and
wind turbines then? The state of solar and wind technology in the 1980s was not
even close to what it is today. It would never have even made a dent. Even
today, wind and solar are not quite meeting energy demand growth, let alone
replacing fossil fuels.
The authors claim that the
fossil fuel industry, like the tobacco industry, led a campaign to deceive the
public about climate change. The tobacco industry was fined in the hundreds of
billions for the damage from their products, and so too, they argue that the
fossil fuel industry should have been vilified and punished with fines. People
don’t need cigarettes, but they do need energy. Available and affordable energy
alleviates poverty. The comparison amounts to a bad analogy that is useless. It
is another tired old argument dug up in this damning report. Scientists should
be doing science, not politics.
Did fossil fuel companies and
advocacy groups like the American Petroleum Institute (API) seek to exploit
uncertainty about climate change to enhance their “license to operate?” Of
course, they did. Why would they not do that, since there was considerable
uncertainty? There is less uncertainty now as climate science has advanced and
years of data have accumulated. Due to this, very few fossil fuel companies
reject climate science now. They do understand, however, that demand for their
products, which enable abundant and affordable energy, remains high, and they
are supplying that demand. They are also pouring billions into alternatives:
solar, wind, batteries, electric-powered processes, geothermal, CCS, RNG, and
much more. In fact, over the years, Big Oil companies developed and perfected
many of these technologies.
Did these companies and
advocacy groups also deceive the public with campaigns to downplay the dangers
of climate issues? It’s true, they did. However, in most cases, they did so to
counter campaigns to vilify the industry.
They mention the 2009 launch
of Energy in Depth, by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, as an
advocacy arm for the industry to counter the vilification. I have read many
articles by Energy in Depth, and while it is obviously biased in favor of the
industry, I have found it to be generally informative and correct in many of
its articles. I do not believe such groups were convened to deceive the public,
but rather to educate the public, a public that was being bombarded by
anti-fossil fuel propaganda. This and other groups are simply a means to
counter that propaganda with their own views, biased in favor, of
course.
“UCS is calling for elected officials, investors,
financiers, experts, and the public to increase pressure on these companies to
do the following:
1) Cease
disinformation and greenwashing on climate science, public policy, and
corporate actions.
2) Stop
obstructing science-informed public policy and its implementation.
3) Pay an
equitable share of the costs for climate damages; climate adaptation; and the
environmental, social, and systemic impacts of fossil fuel products and
production.
4) Fully
disclose, and regularly and publicly report on, risks and impacts to the
climate, communities, and the economy.
5) Accelerate
actions, investment, and business planning for a fair and fast phaseout of
fossil fuels worldwide.
6) Stop
violating civil rights, human rights, and the rights of Indigenous peoples.
Basically, it seems to me
they simply want to punish and humiliate the industry while making it less
profitable. But we all share in that profit with lower energy costs. The
authors lament that the public has to pay for things like climate adaptation.
They think companies should pay more in light of better attribution science,
indicating that fossil fuels play a large role in global warming. While that
may seem like a reasonable approach, their advocacy for legal action against
fossil fuel companies serves only to damage those companies that supply our
energy. It does nothing to make the alternatives more competitive.
The report calls for
accountability and justice. They go on to point out NOAA reports that show
increasing frequency of climate-related events and impacts, including high-cost
disasters. Of course, there are several other reasons for those events and
impacts, aside from climate change. If more people build and develop in areas
vulnerable to extreme weather, the costs to rebuild will be higher.
The report goes on to give a
short history of climate science and to document the development of attribution
science over the years. They note that more satellite and sensor data and
better climate modeling have advanced the science and its assertions. They
desire to attribute emissions and impacts to a group of specific large fossil
fuel companies. Below, they show that 122 fossil fuel and cement companies are
responsible for 94% of carbon emissions. So, what? I do not think that such
studies linking specific companies to emissions and impacts really benefit
society. It may make for a good way to distribute punishment, but you and I
would pay for that punishment along with the companies. Attribution science is, in one sense, a science of blame. Destroying large companies that supply
in-demand energy and help to advance our economies is not in our best
interests.
I do not buy the assertion
that fossil fuel companies knew about the threat of climate change in the
1950s. They knew a little in the 1980s, but in the 1970s, the overriding
concern was about a potential ice age.
The report notes:
“…three-quarters of all industrial CO2 emissions driving
climate change have occurred since 1981.”
While this may be true, it does not change anything. The
argument that they make, that fossil fuel companies knew about the details of
climate change in the 1950s, is not plausible to me. They may have known,
following Keeling’s work in 1957, that atmospheric CO2 was increasing steadily
and that fossil fuels were likely a major source, but no one had any idea of
the possible impacts. Their forays into the past, while interesting, are not
convincing to me. No one knew anything for sure, especially about potential
impacts. They knew about increasing CO2 and the greenhouse effect, but the
details were speculative.
The authors assert that:
“Fossil fuel companies projected climate impacts with a
high degree of specificity and accuracy.”
While some companies did some climate research, any
accurate predictions were not based solely on science, since the science was
not sufficiently advanced, and years of data were not available then. They did
accurately predict some effects, such that the effects of climate change would
be more extreme in the polar regions, particularly in the Arctic, but with the
data at hand, they did not know for sure. The authors argue that they knew
about potential impacts but did not adequately warn the public about them.
Would it be wise for a company to warn about the potential impacts of their
products far into the future without having detailed quantitative proof? I
would say no. Many climate predictions from non-industry science in the 1980s
turned out to be wrong, including those by James Hansen. He later corrected his
predictions, as scientists do. We should be glad that the fossil fuel companies
were aware of the problem in some detail and were developing and following the
science around it. There was no need to advocate for stopping
the production and consumption of fossil fuels, as that would result
in the downfall of society.
The report details several of
these internal fossil fuel company documents of Exxon, Shell, BP, and others
that indicate there was some cause for concern, and they point out that the
companies were aware that at some point, the issue could affect their
profitability. They were also aware that they could be vilified like the
tobacco industry. They were also concerned with the potential of public
opposition to fossil fuels. Were they deceiving the public as UCS contends?
Maybe, but they had to be pragmatic, not overly alarm the public, keep energy
affordable, and yes, protect their bottom line. UCS contends that they should
have:
“…alerted the public, government, and its shareholders
about what its scientists had found and actively worked to alter its business
plans, promote renewable sources of energy, and reduce carbon emissions.”
That would not have been useful, I would say. There were
fewer means of affordably reducing emissions in the past. Renewables were
extremely uneconomic in the past compared to today. Causing a public outcry
against their own products was certainly not in their own interests.
The authors go on to
scrutinize a 1998 “roadmap” provided by API with help from the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, with some funding from Exxon. They
charge that there was a goal to “increase uncertainty among the public and
policymakers about the realities of climate science.” That is likely true,
and they can be blamed for that, but part of the effort was to counter vitriol
against their industry leveled by environmental activists. Apparently, UCS has
been putting out reports like this for many years, vilifying fossil fuel
companies. There is still uncertainty about climate change, even though the
uncertainty is much less than it was in the past. I think it was reasonable for
the companies to favor promoting the uncertainty, even though it may look bad
for them now. The authors charge them with a disinformation campaign. I would
say that could be true in some sense, but it was not an unreasonable one, since
the level of uncertainty at the time was enough to lead to doubts about the
magnitudes and timeframes of potential impacts.
Those same “front groups”
countered a media campaign by Al Gore and friends beginning in 2004 to promote
his book, An Inconvenient Truth. They ramped up their own
propaganda to counter Gore’s propaganda.
Of course, they accuse fossil
fuels of “greenwashing,” and no doubt there is some of that. But they also
developed and fostered many solar applications, battery research, and other
green technologies, advancing them. Today, fossil fuel companies are among the
biggest investors in green tech, but the lack of profitability of these
ventures and the reliance on subsidization keep them from investing too
heavily. The authors charge that Exxon spent too much on advertising its fuels
from algae and not enough on the science. These projects have
largely fizzled out due to a lack of profitability. These companies have
investors who want them to decarbonize, but they also have investors who want
them to ensure profitability. As an example of greenwashing, they note that
Exxon’s:
“…spending on algae biofuels amounted to less than 1
percent of its total investments in infrastructure, equipment, and
technology—the vast majority of which still go to expanding oil and gas
production.”
It’s a fair charge, but it doesn’t change the fact that
algae biofuels remain unprofitable.
The report decries fossil
fuel-funded advocacy campaigns but does not mention the much higher funding of
the anti-fossil fuel campaigns of environmental and climate advocacy groups.
When every fossil fuel infrastructure project is sued, delayed, and vilified,
at additional costs in many billions for these companies, it is no wonder that
they seek to counter the advocacy against them.
They mention a more recent
issue, that of climate-related financial risk and the required disclosure of
that risk. In the early 2020s, the ESG movement was in full swing, and many oil
& gas companies accepted it as the cost of doing business and the license
to operate. However, as conservatives gained in U.S. politics, the focus on ESG
was deemed a form of “woke-ism” that has been countered with legislation in
many states. Unfortunately, this was likely necessary to counter the trend
towards fossil fuel divestment among investors. It was another “stick” approach
to fossil fuels. I am an advocate of “carrot” approaches to decarbonization.
They work, but stick approaches generally do not work. As for ESG,
it was another case where advocates went too far, so that backlash became the
new approach to what was perceived as ESG overreach. I do believe that fossil
fuel companies should quantify their greenhouse gas emissions and know their
climate risks. Climate risk disclosure can probably be navigated by these
companies, and they seemed during Biden’s tenure to be generally OK with the
requirements. However, some of the bigger companies and advocates like Exxon,
Chevron, and the API did file lawsuits against the proposed rules. Climate risk
disclosure, along with some other potential actions against these companies,
went away with the advent of the 2nd Trump
administration.
The report recounts the
computer hacking of the emails of 128 individuals between 2015 and 2018 by an
Israeli private detective, who apparently was known about or otherwise endorsed
by fossil fuel companies, according to the authors. That may or may not be
true. The hacker was convicted in 2023 and had an accomplice who was indicted.
The accomplice had a history of doing lobbying work for fossil fuel advocacy
for Exxon and others. Exxon has said it was not involved and unaware of the
hacking. UCS, 350.org, the Climate Investigations Center, Greenpeace, and the
Rockefeller Family Fund were targeted in the hack. UCS attempts to link Exxon
with the hack.
The report’s conclusion mentions
that the number of climate lawsuits is growing. I think this is bad news
because it is not necessary or fair to sue these companies for this. They
already face many lawsuits from an organized opposition (some have called it a
litigation factory) against fossil fuel infrastructure. The authors seem to
suggest that fossil fuel companies are somehow sinister by opposing these
lawsuits. I think there is a very good argument that they are frivolous, unfair,
or irrelevant, unfair, or irrelevant. The authors accuse them of avoiding
accountability, but the reality is that they are fighting back against being
vilified by ideological activists, or that is at least how they see it. They
note the details of the opposition to the opposition:
“A fossil fuel industry advocacy group has launched a
public campaign opposing climate accountability lawsuits, and CEOs of major oil
and gas corporations including Chevron and ExxonMobil reportedly met with
President Trump to ask for his help fighting and climate litigation and climate
superfund legislation (Morenne and Eaton 2025; Clark 2025; Joselow and Phillips
2025). In March 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order attacking
states’ rights, including laws and lawsuits related to environmental justice,
pollution standards, and fossil fuel industry-driven climate damages (Office of
the US President 2025a).”
The next section of the conclusion
emphasizes the climate as a crisis or an emergency, as activists insist on
doing. They suggest that the climate crisis has intensified in the past decade,
but I do not think that is the position of the IPCC. Next, the
authors are calling for a harder stance, a call to action to put pressure on
the industry. Such campaigns call for companies to have an organized opposition
to the opposition, so it is reasonable to fight back. Pushy activism will draw
backlash and a response. They list six “demands” for fossil fuel companies:
1) Cease
disinformation and greenwashing on climate science, public policy, and
corporate actions.
2) Stop
obstructing science-informed public policy and its implementation.
3) Pay an
equitable share of the costs of climate damages; climate adaptation;
and the environmental, social, and systemic impacts of
fossil fuel products and
production.
4) Fully
disclose, and regularly and publicly report on, risks and impacts to the
climate, communities, and the economy.
5) Accelerate
actions, investment, and business planning for a fair and fast
phaseout of fossil fuels worldwide.
6) Stop
violating civil rights, human rights, and the rights of Indigenous peoples.
Aside from climate risk
disclosure and making general efforts, most of these demands are unreasonable.
accusatory, and not really feasible. Phasing out their businesses when demand
is strong and the alternatives are inadequate is neither feasible nor sensible.
I don’t believe the dig about human rights is accurate or constructive. They
mention that Trump has stated he will step in to stop lawsuits against fossil
fuels, so that is a possibility as well on the industry side. One thing is for
sure: the Union of Concerned Scientists is a radical activist group of
scientists with views that I believe are outside the norm and outside the
majority. We should not put much stock in their reports.
References:
Decades
of Deceit: The Case Against Major Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Fraud and
Damages. Union of Concerned Scientists. L. Delta Merner, Kathy Mulvey. Laura
Peterson, and Seth Shulman. May 2025. Decades-of-Deceit-report-f.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment