Showing posts with label anthropomorphic climate change causes & effects. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anthropomorphic climate change causes & effects. Show all posts

Wednesday, 6 March 2024

How one e-conveyancing firm ranks NSW coastal erosion, flooding and bushfire risks from 2023-2043

 

In its own words, InfoTrack is a leading SaaS technology innovator and has been the pioneer of e-conveyancing since 2000....From the moment a title search is performed on a property to be listed for sale through to settlement, InfoTrack’s platform transforms plain text into intelligent data that moves seamlessly between the real estate agent, the lawyer, the mortgagee and the seller.


Since November 2023 InfoTrack has been sending out media releases concerning current and expected climate change impacts most often mentioned in coastal zones - erosion, flooding and bushfires:


# From the Harbour to the Hunter, the Northern Beaches tots on the NSW coastal zone the Northern Rivers, the New South Wales suburbs most impacted by coastal erosion have been revealed, along with the 20 locations to be worst affected in the future;


# Rounding out the top five are Northern New South Wales’ Moree at number two, the Central West’s Forbes at number three, Walgett in the State’s North at number four, and the Riverina’s Moama at five.

Popular tourist locations also feature – the beautiful coastal town of Yamba, a mecca with holidaymakers, is named at number eight, Grafton in the Northern Rivers comes in at number 13, with bustling Port Macquarie, on the mid north coast, at number 15. The Central Western town of Dubbo sneaks in at number 20 on the list.....

The data and models use high-resolution topographical data, detailed land cover information, and advanced weather models to accurately simulate flood depths and extents,” Mr Montagnani said.

This comprehensive evaluation, provided by Royal HaskoningDHV’s division Twinn, encompasses various scenarios, including surface water, river, and tidal flooding, and integrates state-of-the-art climate models to provide flood risk assessments in the context of climate change.”

Interestingly, all the suburbs listed as most at risk now, remain the most at-risk decades from now.

Grafton is slightly more at risk of flooding in the future, going from 13 on the list of suburbs affected by flooding now, to 12 on the list of suburbs most impacted in 30 years, effectively swapping places with Condobolin; and


# Off the back of sweltering temperatures across New South Wales, new data has been released naming the top 20 suburbs most impacted by bushfires now, along with the locations to be most affected in the future.

Blue Mountains National Park comes in at number one currently, with Colo Vale in the Southern Highlands, and Booligal in the Riverina rounding out the top three, according to Groundsure ClimateIndex™ reports, available through InfoTrack.

Also making the Top 20 are popular Blue Mountains suburbs Kurrajong Heights (number 6), Blackheath (number 14), and Bilpin (number 13), and the Hawkesbury’s Lower Portland (number 19).


Northern NSW towns and villages feature in all three tables.

*click on all tables to enlarge*


Erosion


IMAGE: InfoTrack in Nationwide News, 14.11.23





Flooding


IMAGE: InfoTrack





Bushfires


IMAGE: InfoTrack







Prospective homebuyers can search a property address via InfoTrackGO to purchase a Groundsure ClimateIndex™ for that residence.


Wednesday, 25 October 2023

CLIMATE CHANGE STATE OF PLAY 2023: something of more than passing interest you may have missed in a legal judgment this October


 

In the matter of Kathleen O’Donnell versus the Commonwealth Of Australia22 July 2020 to 11 October 2023.


Ms. O’Donnell commenced a class action against the Australian Government during a period when Josh Frydenberg was Treasurer, Simon Birmingham was Minister for Finance, Christian Porter was Attorney-General and Prime Minister Scott Morrison had acquired the first two (Health & Finance) of five secret ministries. It was also a period where the nation was still coming to terms with the largescale impacts of climate change-induced megafires in the August 2019- March 2020 fire season.


This class action which ran for over three years eventually caused the Australian Government to declare a potential for financial risks with regard to certain classes of investors in the face of the systemic risk climate change poses to Australia’s financial and economic position.


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

O’DONNELL V COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA [2023] FCA 1227

ORDERS VID 482 of 2020


Excerpts from the order - all yellow highlighting is my own


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MURPHY J:


INTRODUCTION


1 This is an application for Court approval of the proposed settlement of a representative proceeding brought under Div 9.2 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules). The applicant, Kathleen O’Donnell, brings the proceeding against the respondent, the Commonwealth of Australia, doing so on her own behalf and on behalf of all persons who at any time on or since 7 July 2020 have acquired one or more Exchange-traded Australian Government Bonds units (exchange traded government bonds) in the form of an eTIB with code GSIC50; and/or one or more government bonds in the form of an eTB with code GSBE47, and who continue to hold one or more government bond as at the date of the fourth amended pleading, 20 December 2022 (group members).


2 The proceeding relates to the real, but until more recently, underacknowledged risks that climate change poses to Australia’s financial position. It alleges that the Commonwealth published information to investors and potential investors in exchange traded government bonds via “Information Statements”, “Term Sheets”, “Information Memoranda”, and a relevant website, and that the Commonwealth failed to disclose information about:


(a) the alleged physical risks of climate change, meaning impacts caused directly by a changing climate, and associated costs; and/or


(b) the alleged transition risks of climate change, meaning the impact of global and domestic efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, and associated costs.


3 The proceeding alleges that the existence of those risks mean that there was and is a real, rather than remote, risk that before the maturity dates of the exchange traded government bonds held by the applicant, there will be significantly increased Commonwealth budget deficits (by reason of reduced revenue and increased expenditure) relative to Australia’s annual GDP; and a significant increase in Commonwealth government borrowing, and accordingly a significant increase in government debt (relative to Australia’s annual GDP). In turn, and as a result of those risks, prior to the maturity date of the exchange traded government bonds held by the applicant and group members, it is alleged that there will be or is likely to be:


(a) a material and negative impact on the Commonwealth’s status and reputation as a reliable, safe and relatively risk-free insurer of sovereign debt securities;


(b) a higher risk of the Commonwealth not having the capacity to discharge its interest and principal obligations under the exchange traded government bonds held by the applicant and by the other persons holding exchange traded government bonds at the material times;


(c) a material and negative impact on the Commonwealth’s capacity to maintain its AAA status as an issuer of sovereign debt securities; and


(d) a likelihood of the Commonwealth heaving to pay higher interest rates than would otherwise be the case in respect of any new issue of exchange traded government bonds.


4 It is alleged that by failing to disclose material climate change information (being information that might reasonably be expected to have a material influence on the holders of exchange traded government bonds as to whether to hold or dispose of them and decisions by potential investors as to whether to purchase such bonds) the Commonwealth engaged in and continues to engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive and/or likely to mislead or deceive in breach of s 12DA(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act).


5 The proceeding seeks a declaration that the Commonwealth has engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, but not damages.


6 Under the proposed settlement the Commonwealth has agreed to make a public statement in agreed terms regarding the systemic risk climate change poses to Australia’s financial and economic position, to be published on the website of the Department of Treasury within seven days. In return the applicants have agreed to seek Court approval of the proposed settlement and to seek leave to discontinue the proceeding on the basis that there be no order as to costs. The Commonwealth has agreed to support that application.


7 The agreed public statement includes the following:


4. Climate change is a systemic risk that presents significant risks and opportunities for Australia’s economy, regions, industries and communities. Achieving Australia’s emissions reduction commitments and realising the opportunities that accompany the transition will require significant investment by governments and the private sector. Uncertainty around the magnitude and timing of the physical impacts of climate change and the global transition to net zero emissions translates to uncertainty about the fiscal impacts of climate change. And, as a consequence, there is uncertainty about whether the fiscal impacts of climate change may affect (if at all) the value of Commonwealth Government Securities (also known as Australian Government Bonds or AGBs) and, in turn, eAGBs.


5. The economic and climatic changes brought about by climate change will have fiscal impacts. For example, the new industries and jobs emerging from the net zero transformation will impact the structure of the economy and, in turn, the tax base. Extreme weather events are also expected to occur with increased severity and frequency, which will increase demand for disaster relief payments and infrastructure repairs.

7. The Government is developing a package of sustainable finance reforms, including the establishment of a sovereign green bonds program and regulatory reforms, to increase the transparency and credibility of Australia’s growing sustainable finance market. The Government’s intention is that these reforms will assist investors to align their investment decisions with net zero emissions targets and increase the flow of capital towards new opportunities that support Australia’s net zero pathway.


8. In accordance with the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth), the Commonwealth will continue to publish an Annual Climate Change Statement. Among other things, the Annual Climate Change Statement addresses the risks to Australia from climate change impacts, such as those relating to Australia’s economy. The first Annual Climate Change Statement was tabled in Parliament on 1 December 2022 and may be found at https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/strategies/annual-climate-change-statement.


39 Turning then to the Commonwealth’s second point, it submits that another core difficulty with the applicant’s case is that it takes, in isolation, one possible cause of risks for the Australian economy and seeks to extrapolate from those risks an unpleaded and unprovable effect on exchange traded government bonds. It argues that after at least four attempts to plead her case over three years the applicant has still not been able to articulate:


(a) what risks she alleges the Commonwealth should have disclosed;


(b) what obligations she alleges the Commonwealth would not be able to honour (for example, the annual interest or the redemption of the exchange traded government bonds at maturity) and why, and when;


(c) how it is alleged that the Commonwealth would not be able to perform its obligations with respect to the applicant’s exchange traded government bonds considering that the Commonwealth has never defaulted on sovereign debt even in circumstances of global economic downturn;


(d) why the alleged climate change related risks would give rise to a reasonable expectation that those matters would be disclosed considering that the Commonwealth may have increases in expenditure and decreases in revenue caused by number of domestic and global circumstances and events including natural disasters, wars and pandemics unrelated to climate change; and


(e) how the information the applicant alleges the Commonwealth has not disclosed would have a material effect on the price of the exchange traded government bonds being traded on the market when the information she alleges has not been disclosed by the Commonwealth must be publicly known (if it is true) because it is referred to in the statement of claim in the proceedings.


40 These contentions are not without force, but they overstate the position. I doubt that it will be as difficult as the Commonwealth submits to establish that global warming and climate change gives rise to real, systemic risks to the Commonwealth’s coffers and therefore to the value of the change traded government bonds. For the purposes of the application I take judicial notice of the fact that the consensus position of leading climate scientists around the world is that global warming and climate change brings risks of more frequent and more intense bushfires, storm surges, coastal flooding, inland flooding, cyclones, droughts and other extreme weather events. To my mind, it seems likely that such events will give rise to a huge drain on Commonwealth resources and on the tax base over a very lengthy period, perhaps forever, and therefore also weigh on forecasts in relation to the Commonwealth’s financial and economic position.


41 I note that in Sharma v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560; 391 ALR 1, Professor William Steffen, Emeritus Professor at the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the Australian National University gave unchallenged evidence that “[a]s an overview, the planet’s atmosphere and ocean are heating at an increasing rate, polar ice is melting, extreme weather events are becoming more extreme, sea levels are rising, and ecosystems and species are being lost or degraded” (at [54]). He gave evidence that, if over multiple decades the global average surface temperature could be stabilised at or very close to 2°C above the pre-industrial level (which was the best available outcome, and there are real risks it may not be achieved) the effects for Australia would include a significant increase in the likelihood in any given year of extreme weather events: a 77% likelihood of severe heatwaves, power blackouts and bushfires; and a 74% likelihood of severe droughts, water restrictions and reduced crop yields (at [67]).


42 Based on climate modelling by the CSIRO and the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology he projected the following changes to Australia’s climate over the next few decades (at [67]):


Continued warming, with more extremely hot days and fewer extremely cool days.


A decrease in cool season rainfall across many regions of the south and east, likely leading to more time spent in drought.


A longer fire season for the south and east and an increase in the number of dangerous fire weather days.


More intense short-duration heavy rainfall events throughout the country.


Fewer tropical cyclones, but a greater proportion projected to be of high intensity, with ongoing large variations from year to year.


Fewer east coast lows particularly during the cooler months of the year. For events that do occur, sea level rise will increase the severity of some coastal impacts.


More frequent, extensive, intense and longer-lasting marine heatwaves leading to increased risk of more frequent and severe bleaching events for coral reefs, including the Great Barrier and Ningaloo reefs.


Continued warming and acidification of its surrounding oceans.


Ongoing sea level rise. Recent research on potential ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet suggests that the upper end of projected global mean sea level rise could be higher than previously assessed (as high as 0.61 to 1.10 m global average by the end of the century for a high emissions pathway, although these changes vary by location).


More frequent extreme sea levels. For most of the Australian coast, extreme sea levels that had a probability of occurring once in a hundred years are projected to become an annual event by the end of this century with lower emissions, and by mid-century for higher emissions.


Professor Steffen projected much worse effects if the global average surface temperature could not be stabilised at a 2°C increase, and instead increased by about 3°C or 4°C: at [68] and [69].


43 The respondent in that proceeding was the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment. The Minister made no challenge to the scientific evidence advanced by the applicants, and by and large did not dispute “the nature of the risks and the dangers from global warning, including the possible catastrophe that may engulf the world and humanity”: see Minister for the Environment v Sharma [2022] FCAFC 35; 291 FCR 311 at [2]. There are good reasons to doubt that the Commonwealth would take any different stance in the present case in relation to the risks posed by climate change.


44 To my mind, it does not stretch imagination to think that the applicant may be able to establish that climate change bringing rising sea levels and coastal erosion, storm surges causing sea flooding of low-lying areas, more intense and more regular fires and floods, and droughts caused by increased temperatures and reduced rainfall, carries a real risk that it will have a substantial impact on communities, business, government infrastructure and the environment. In some areas insurance against bushfires and extreme weather events may become unavailable, or prohibitively expensive such that it is effectively unavailable. There may be an exodus of residents and businesses from some areas because of repeated and intense fires, floods, and other extreme weather events or the risk thereof. There must be a risk that the government will be forced to meet the substantial costs that result where individuals and businesses cannot do so, including through home buyback schemes, public housing projects, farm relocation assistance and the like. And it seems likely that there will be substantial costs for the Commonwealth government in protecting government infrastructure from such events, repairing or remediating government infrastructure after such events, and relocating core government services such as schools and hospitals. And if businesses and employment opportunities are degraded the tax base available to fund government expenditure reduces.


45 Of course, in a wealthy country like Australia, which has never defaulted on its sovereign debt obligations, it is likely to be complex and difficult for the applicant to establish that catastrophes of the nature described are likely to be such a drain on the public purse that there is a material risk that the Commonwealth may, in the future, be unable to perform its obligations with respect to exchange traded government bonds. Doing so will require the applicant to call expert witnesses about the relationship between such catastrophes, or the likelihood of them, on Australia’s financial and economic position and the likely effect on the value of exchange traded government bonds, in circumstances where there is no internationally agreed framework for assessing such risks. And it will be necessary for the applicant to prove any underlying assumptions about Australia’s economic and financial position and assessments about that position in the future so that the experts engaged in her case can express their opinions in terms applicable to Australia’s particular circumstances. This will be far from straightforward, and it will involve real complexities and difficulties for the applicant. There must be a real risk that the applicant will be unable to establish this.


46 Ninth, the applicant’s case has always been that the Commonwealth provided no information whatsoever to investors and potential investors about any risks of material adverse impacts on the Commonwealth’s financial position and to the value of the relevant exchange traded government bonds as a result of climate change. The information to be provided by way of the agreed public statement is some information about such risks. Whether, in the event the applicant is successful in the proceeding, the Commonwealth would be required to provide more extensive information than this will depend upon the evidence advanced about the extent of any risk found to exist. Put another way, the agreed public statement arguably falls within the range of reasonable outcomes in the proceeding in terms of the disclosure of the risks posed by climate change to the value of exchange traded government bonds.


47 I have accordingly made orders to approve the proposed settlement and to grant leave to the applicant to discontinue the proceeding with no order as to costs.


I certify that the preceding forty-seven (47) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Murphy.


Associate:


Dated: 13 October 2023


Monday, 5 December 2022

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