Big Oil Companies Argue, Design and Polarize Against Climate Change

Summary: Big oil companies and energy sector researchers disagree why big energy companies polarize problem-solving but protect themselves against climate change.

A symbol of big oil companies ~ Troll A offshore natural gas platform in Troll gas field off Norway’s west coast claims the record as the largest object ever moved by humans relative to the Earth’s surface; the engineering marvel stands on the sea floor 994 feet (303 meters) below the surface of the North Sea; an elevator in one of the platform’s concrete cylindrical legs travels from the above-surface platform to the sea floor in about 9 minutes. View of Troll A platform taken from southeast: Swinsto101, CC BY SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Big oil companies are inconsistent in arguing, but self-protecting, against climate change science, according to papers published in the online journals Nature Climate Change and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Justin Farrell, sociologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and study author, bases his findings upon energy-related, three-decade-long interactions among environmentalists, industrialists, officials and scientists. Twentieth and 21st century scientific consensus communicates informed environmentalist and governmental opinions since the 1980s regarding climate change’s glacial melt, global warning and sea level rises.

James Hansen, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientist, describes “with 99% confidence” acknowledging the real-time occurrence of global warming through temperature rises worldwide.

Carbon dioxide emissions emerge as prime suspects.

Carbon dioxide emission culpability furnishes the impetus for the politico-economic reaction of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, formed in 1988, supporting emission reductions. It generates different politico-economic responses from energy companies through coal companies creating the Global Climate Coalition and securing American Petroleum Institute funding from the 1990s onward. API support heads William O’Keefe, American Petroleum Institute executive vice president, to the Global Climate Coalition as board member in 1993 and as chairman shortly afterward. Conclusions that “something has to be done” against impending climate change regulations inspire the O’Keefe chairmanship’s receiving $1.5 million revenues every year for 10 years.

Coalition videos from the 1990s juxtapose higher emissions and yields with ending hunger.

Environmental activism keeps big oil companies arguing against regulations but redesigning against climate change’s coastal erosion, glacial melt, permafrost thaw, sea level rise and storm intensification.

Chris Graham, Shell offshore engineer, lists waters and waves “really showing” rises and heights prompting Troll’s 1- to 2-meter-uplifted (3.28- to 6.56-feet-uplifted), $3-billion North Sea platform.

Mobil’s 1996-designed Sable, Nova Scotia, gas field project specifications mention “An estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 meters may be assumed.”

Romke Bijker, Dutch engineer co-writing Europipe specifications, notes as “the most important aspects we have to include if we look 50 years ahead” climate change-aggravated storms.

Arguing and designing against climate change offers no contradiction for big oil companies.

Criticisms prompt Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers’ statement: “These risks would naturally include a range of environmental conditions, some of which could be associated with climate change.”

Mobil-paid, New York Times and Washington Post-circulated advertisements question: “Scientists cannot predict with certainty if temperatures will increase, by how much and where changes will occur.”

William O’Keefe, now George C. Marshall Institute chief executive officer, reveals that for energy-related, multi-billion-dollar investments “Companies always take into account a range of possible outcomes.”

Professor Farrell’s studies suggest a “multi-year effort” by energy companies to prevent falling living standards and rising prices and unemployment and protect multibillion-dollar infrastuctures and investments. Their conclusions turn big oil companies into opponents of bipartisan climate change problem-solving.

Yale University sociologist Justin Farrell examines encouragement of public skepticism of climate change via corporate-funded content and language: Yale University @Yale via Twitter Nov. 29, 2015

Acknowledgment

My special thanks to talented artists and photographers/concerned organizations who make their fine images available on the internet.

Image credits:

Troll A platform: Swinsto101, CC BY SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons @ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Troll_A_Platform.jpg

Yale University sociologist Justin Farrell examines encouragement of public skepticism of climate change via corporate-funded content and language: Yale University @Yale via Twitter Nov. 29, 2015, @ https://twitter.com/Yale/status/671026592802463744

For further information:

Briggs, William M. 27 November 2015. “There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism.” The Stream.
Available @ https://stream.org/big-money-in-global-warming-alarmism/

Davis, Josh L. 24 November 2015. “20-Year Study Finds That Corporate Funding Has Affected the Public’s Perception of Climate Change.” IFL Science > Environment.
Available @ http://www.iflscience.com/environment/why-climate-change-such-polarizing-subject-0

DeMelle, Brendan. 23 November 2015. “Research Confirms ExxonMobil, Koch-Funded Climate Denial Echo Chamber Polluted Mainstream Media.” Desmog Blog.
Available @ http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/11/23/research-confirms-exxonmobil-koch-funded-climate-denial-echo-chamber-polluted-mainstream-media

Farrell, Justin. 23 November 2015. “Corporate Funding and Ideological Polarization about Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 113, no. 1 (Jan. 5, 2016): 92-97. Published online before print. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1509433112
Available @ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/18/1509433112.full.pdf

Farrell, Justin. 30 November 2015. “Network Structure and Influence of the Climate Change Counter-Movement.” Nature Climate Change > Advance Online Publication> Abstract.
Available @ http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2875.html

Geiling, Natasha. 25 November 2015. “Who Funds the Climate Misinformation Campaign & How?” Ecological Buddhism > Science > Fossil Fuel Capitalism.
Available @ http://www.ecobuddhism.org/science/coal_oil_nuclear/wfclah

Gertz, Emily J. 30 November 2015. “Funding from Exxon or Koch Brothers Gave Deniers a Megaphone in Climate Change Debate.” Yahoo! News.
Available @ https://www.yahoo.com/news/funding-exxon-koch-brothers-gave-deniers-megaphone-climate-160619367.html?

Lieberman, Amy; and Susanne Rust. 31 December 2015. “Big Oil Braced for Global Warming While It Fought Regulations.” Los Angeles Times > Occasional Articles > Oil Operations > Strategic Decisions.
Available @ http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/

Roston, Eric. 30 November 2015. “Unearthing America’s Deep Network of Climate Change Deniers.” Bloomberg > Business.
Available @ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/unearthing-america-s-deep-network-of-climate-change-deniers

Shelton, Jim. 24 November 2015. “Study Looks at the Role of Corporate Funding in Climate Change Discussion.” Phys.Org > Earth > Environment.
Available @ http://phys.org/news/2015-11-role-corporate-funding-climate-discussion.html

Yale University @Yale. 29 November 2015. "Study looks at the influence of corporate funding in climate change discussion." Twitter.
Available @ https://twitter.com/Yale/status/671026592802463744

Yirka, Bob. 24 November 2015. “Sociologist Suggests Corporate Disinformation at Root of Climate Change Polarization.” Phys.Org > Earth > Environment.
Available @ http://phys.org/news/2015-11-sociologist-corporate-disinformation-root-climate.html