A reminder of just how long the fossil fuel industry has been lying about climate change and why this is so important in 2022......

 

In recent years there have been a number of media and legal journals reporting on individuals, communities and classes of people suing multinational mining, oil, gas and coal corporations with regard to the environmental and climate change consequences of their business policies and actions.

One of the telling points being made before the courts is 'what did the company know and when did it know it'.

Although the facts set out below refer to the fossil fuel industry, it is time rural, regional and outer metropolitan communities on the Australian East Coast began a search in the records of federal, state, local governments and their agencies/agents, for all documents, minutes, memos, emails, as well as Hansard and media articles or comments, which reveal 'what governments knew and when they knew it'. 

It's well past time that the level of private litigation increases — because these three tiers of government will not stop: a) giving permission for urban development on floodplains or geologically unstable land; b) all but ignoring high greenhouse gas emissions by industry & business; c) refusing to act on the high rate of land clearance & destructive logging of native forest which exacerbates land mass temperature rise or d) failing to seriously address the climate risk associated with the millions of vulnerable residential dwellings which will not be able to withstand the erratic rolling unnatural disasters anticipated to hit Australia within the next 8-28 years; unless the courts begin to hand down judgments that cumulatively cost them billions in any election cycle and through budgetary pain force government to act.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In 1959 — years before some reading this post were born —

the American Petroleum Institute (API) along with the great and good of the oil industry celebrated 100 years of drilling for oil in the USA.

At that centennial celebration nuclear weapons physicist Edward Teller addressed the around 300-strong audience.

According to a later account of this address, in part he stated:

Ladies and gentlemen, I am to talk to you about energy in the future. I will start by telling you why I believe that the energy resources of the past must be supplemented. First of all, these energy resources will run short as we use more and more of the fossil fuels. But I would [...] like to mention another reason why we probably have to look for additional fuel supplies. And this, strangely, is the question of contaminating the atmosphere. [....] Whenever you burn conventional fuel, you create carbon dioxide. [....] The carbon dioxide is invisible, it is transparent, you can’t smell it, it is not dangerous to health, so why should one worry about it?

Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [....] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe…..

At present the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 2 per cent over normal. By 1970, it will be perhaps 4 per cent, by 1980, 8 per cent, by 1990, 16 per cent [roughly 360 parts per million], if we keep on with our exponential rise in the use of purely conventional fuels. By that time, there will be a serious additional impediment for the radiation leaving the earth. Our planet will get a little warmer. It is hard to say whether it will be 2 degrees Fahrenheit or only one or 5. [my yellow highlighting]

But when the temperature does rise by a few degrees over the whole globe, there is a possibility that the icecaps will start melting and the level of the oceans will begin to rise. Well, I don’t know whether they will cover the Empire State Building or not, but anyone can calculate it by looking at the map and noting that the icecaps over Greenland and over Antarctica are perhaps five thousand feet thick.

Robert Galbraith Dunlop, Chairman of Sun Oil Co and a director on the API board at the time, was present when Teller informed the oil industry it was contaminating the atmosphere.

In 1965 at an annual API conference its president Frank Ikard gave an address titled “Meeting the Challenges of 1966” which informed his audience of the contents of a recent published report submitted to President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee titled “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment”.

Ikard stated: “One of the most important predictions of the report is that carbon dioxide is being added to the Earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at such a rate that by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts. The report further states, and I quote: “...the pollution from internal combustion engines is so serious, and is growing so fast, that an alternative nonpolluting means of powering automobiles, buses and trucks is likely to become a national necessity.” [my yellow highlighting]

Then again in 1968 an unpublished paper commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute was delivered in final form to API. Again, at this time Robert Dunlop of Sun Oil was still a current director & by now also a former Chair of the American Petroleum Institute (1965 to 1967).

Here are the details of that paper…..

“Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants”, Final Report, Robinson, E. “Elmer” (Author) & Robbins, R. C. “Bob” (Contributor - American Petroleum Institute, Stanford Research Institute). First published in 1968 by Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, Calif. USA, with supplementary information supplied in1969 and 1971, 123 pages with diagram, table & references at:

http://chr.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Exhibit-3H-Sources-Abundance-and-Fate-of-Gaseous-Atmospheric-Pollutants.pdf

Excerpts:

It seems ironic that in our view of air pollution technology we take such a serious concern with small-scale events such as the photochemical reactions of trace concentrations of hydrocarbons, the effect on vegetation of a fraction of a part per million of S0₂, when the abundant pollutants which we generally ignore because they have little local effect, CO₂ and submicron particles, may be the cause of serious world-wide environmental changes….. [my yellow highlighting]

Possible Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

We are concerned with the possible changes in atmospheric CO₂ content because CO₂ plays a significant role in establishing the thermal balance of the earth. This occurs because CO₂ is a strong absorber and back radiator in the infrared portion of the spectrum, especially between 12 and 18. As such CO₂ prevents the loss of considerable heat energy from the earth and radiates it back to the lower atmosphere, the so-called “greenhouse effect. Thus the major changes which are speculated about as possibly resulting from a change in atmospheric CO₂ are related to a change in the earth's temperature….

If the earth's temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur, including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans, and an increase in photosynthesis. The first two items are of course related since the increase in sea level would be mainly due to the added water from the ice cap. [my yellow highlighting]

Estimates of the possible rate at which the Antarctic ice cap might melt have been made….

Changes in ocean temperature would change the distribution of fish and cause a retreat in the polar sea ice. This has happened in recent time on a very limited scale….

Summary of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere

In summary, Revelle makes the point that man is now engaged in a vast geophysical experiment with his environment, the earth. Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climatic changes…..

[my yellow highlighting]

The following year saw this report sent to API, “Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants: Project PR-6755, Supplemental Report” (1969) at:

http://chr.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Exhibit-3I-Sources-Abundance-and-Fate-of-Gaseous-Atmospheric-Pollutants-Supplement.pdf

Yale Environment 360, 30 November 2022:

The Center for International Environmental Law, an advocacy group Muffett now runs, published excerpts in 2016. Now, the paper — along with a follow-up that Robinson and Robbins produced in 1969 — is playing a key role in a wave of lawsuits seeking to hold oil companies accountable for climate change.

Minnesota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Baltimore, and Honolulu are among about two dozen U.S. states and localities suing the industry. Some of the cases seek compensation for the damage wrought by climate-driven disasters like floods, fires, and heat waves, plus the cost of preparing for future impacts. Others allege violations of state or local laws prohibiting fraud and other deceitful business practices, or requiring companies to warn consumers of a product’s potential dangers. The defendants, which vary from case to case, include the American Petroleum Institute as well as major companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips.

The suits’ common thread is the charge that the industry has long understood emissions from oil and gas combustion would drive warming — and create a host of major global risks — but carried out a decades-long misinformation campaign to confuse the public and prevent a shift to cleaner fuels. Most cite Robinson and Robbins’ work. The pair’s reports have been proffered internationally too, most notably in a Dutch case in which a court last year ordered Shell to slash its carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030; the company is appealing. European courts have been more favorable for cases seeking to force such reductions or push governments to strengthen climate policies, while U.S. suits generally aim at extracting financial penalties or compensation from companies….. [my yellow highlighting]

Read the full article here.

Further reading

https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Smoke-Fumes-FINAL.pdf

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/162144/Presentation%20Geoffrey%20Supran.pdf

“Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications”, Geoffrey Supran, PhD, History of Science, Harvard University

O'Farrell Government confirms Carbon Price Modelling correct according to the Member for Page

 

NSW Government confirms the carbon price modelling is correct

Page MP Janelle Saffin has shown Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to be at odds with his State colleagues in NSW about the impact of the carbon price on the cost of living.

“I asked the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation Greg Combet, in Parliament last week about the measures that the Federal Government is putting into place to help families, pensioners and communities with the effect of the carbon price,” said Ms. Saffin.

“The carbon price is designed to bring the level of polluting gasses down over time which will benefit generations for years to come,”

“It’s a complex scheme as it’s about restructuring the economy and I want to see that it has as little impact as possible on people.”

The Minister responded to the question from the Page MP by asserting that Mr Abbott’s claims that the price impact of the carbon price will be “unimaginable” were extremely deceitful.

“I note that in Page, the NSW Government said the carbon price impact on Ballina Shire Council will be $61,799. But what it failed to point out to locals is that this represents an increase of just 0.4 per cent of the council’s total rates income,” said Ms Saffin.

Mr Combet, in answering the question from Ms Saffin, advised that the NSW Local Government Minister recently issued a press release showing council rates will rise 0.4% as a result of the carbon price.

“For the average household, Deputy Speaker,  this is 6 cents a week,”

“The NSW Government, has actually confirmed the Treasury forecasts, .

“To help households, this Labor Government is providing tax cuts, increases in family payments, pensions and other benefits.

“All up, an extra $10.10 per week on average will be delivered through the Government’s Household Assistance Package.” said Mr. Combet.

In Page, more than 33,000 pensioners will receive extra $338 extra per year if they are single and an extra $510 per year for couples; more than 12,700 people will receive increase in family assistance payments and; 43,000 taxpayers will receive a tax cut.

Ms Saffin said the Federal Government’s household assistance package should be welcomed by people living in Page.

“Most families feel the pressure of modern costs of living but Mr Abbott’s negative scare mongering won’t do anything to help households cope with these pressures,”

“In contrast, the government’s payments will put extra cash into household budgets to provide real relief and help with cost of living pressures.” said Ms Saffin.

Wednesday 6 June, 2012   Media contact:  Matt Dunne 0417 287 456

Luke Hartsuyker, MP for Cowper, told to check his facts

Seems Luke Hartsuyker has been tilting at windmills again. A correspondent to the Coffs Coast Advocate has taken the Member for Cowper to task for mouthing off about the carbon tax.

Time to clean-up act

I suggest Mr Hartsuyker check his facts before he says "no other country anywhere in the world is doing this (putting a price on carbon)".

In his radio debate with Matt Thistlethwaite he came out with the same old Coalition scare campaign slogan which is far from the truth. At least 26 other countries have successfully put a price on carbon and, so far, their economies have not come crashing down. The Coalition's policy seems to be to ignore the fact that emissions from the big polluters have to be dealt with. Whether one agrees with the climate change philosophy or not, isn't it time we cleaned up our act? Australia has the opportunity and the ability to become a world leader in clean air solutions if only we can get past political hype.

Christine Tiley

Source: Coffs Coast Advocate, 2/5/12

One of the reasons why Cowper MP Luke Hartsuyker is getting less media cover?

These days one usually finds Federal Nationals MP for Cowper, Luke Hartsuyker, almost exclusively reported in the regional press. Rarely is he appearing in national media, particularly when it comes to his 'carbon tax' utterances.

One has to suspect that most of the mainstream media now see him as a political ranter.

On 30 March 2012 Mr. Hartsuyker told The Northern Star that:

ELECTRICITY costs may rise up to 20 per cent with the introduction of the Federal government's carbon tax..

Three days later on 2 April 2012, he sent out a media release which stated:

Federal Member for Cowper Luke Hartsuyker has welcomed calls by the Energy Users Association of Australia (EUAA) to address the power price hikes which are hurting Australian households and small business….

The report found that over the next three years power prices are forecast to rise by an another 30 per cent and the carbon tax is a primary reason for this increase..

The Coffs Coast Advocate reported his second assertion on 4 April 2012:

Mr Hartsuyker said in a media statement that a report tabled by the Energy Users Association of Australia (EUAA) found that over the next three years power prices are forecast to rise by an another 30 per cent and the carbon tax is a primary reason for this increase.

Now the Energy Users Association of Australia (EUAA), whose membership is primarily business and industry, did produce a March 2012 report titled A report to the Energy Users Association of Australia - Electricity Prices in Australia: An International Comparison.

However, the report makes no direct mention of the carbon tax and although it does foreshadow a 30 per cent increase in retail electricity prices by 2013-14 it also clearly and repeatedly states that it relied on Australian Energy Market Commission (AMEC) calculations for this figure.

In relation to residential electricity supply AMEC itself unequivocally states:

The retail component is expected to increase by 30 per cent with a carbon price factored in (compared with 26 per cent without) in nominal terms at a national level over the projection period.

Which means that pricing carbon is expected to increase the national nominal cost of retail electricity by 4 per cent over the next two years, not the 30 per cent touted by the Member for Cowper.

Both EUAA and AMEC point to the cost of replacing aging infrastructure as a significant contibuting factor in total projected electricity supply price increases to the average householder.

With EUAA pointing out that around three-quarters of all expenditure incurred by Australia’s electricity network service providers is capitalised and AMEC stating distribution costs (sub-stations, transformers, meters, poles and wires) are expected to contribute 33.6 per cent to the total projected national increase in 2013-14 residential electricity supply costs to consumers – with this projected increase rising t o 36.1 per cent  in NSW.

Electricity transmission network pricings are not set by the federal government but are decided by an independent body, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER).

Mr. Hartsuyker is not stupid – he know all this. So why is he issuing such self-serving and misleading media releases?

Ah, yes, of course – he is one of Tony Abbott’s foot soldiers.

Abbott & Co.'s sovereign risk claims don't stand up to scrutiny

“Since 1999, the Behre Dolbear Group Inc. has compiled annual political risk assessments of the key

players in the global mining industry.”

In 2010 the Gillard Government announced it was introducing a national price on carbon, the 18 clean energy bills were passed by federal parliament in 2011. The start date for the provisions of most of this new legislation is mid-2012.

This is Australia’s global mining industry risk assessment ranking as one of the international Behre Dolbear Group’s “key players”:

2010 ranked at 61

2011 ranked at 57

2012 ranked at 57

Err, Tones, Uncle Joe, Poodle – what happened to the “sovereign risk” for mining companies you were all shouting about?

Australia’s risk level has gone down and not up since the PM announced the “toxic tax” you’ve been wailing about.

A local voice on the national stage

 

Yamba resident Paul Stephen contributed this item to the letters section of The Age:

Credit: Letters, The Age, 22/7/11