They Knew All Along
What the fossil fuel industry knew before the rest of us
Lawsuits Against Big Oil Get Boost From Damning Oil Company Historical Documents
By Rich Foss
Due to the years-long quest of Carrol Muffet, lawyer and researcher, we now know much more about what oil companies knew about the dangers of burning oil and when they knew it.
The documents Muffet discovered are sure to aid several lawsuits against oil companies from states, cities, etc. have been filed, most notably plaintiffs Milieudefensie/Friends of the Earth Netherlands sued Shell in the Netherlands and won; the court ruled that Shell must reduce emissions by 45% by 2030. In Juliana v. US in a 2015 case, a group of children sued the federal government claiming they:
“…violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources”
Ultimately, the court ruled against the children.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Josephine L. Staton wrote,
“seeking to squash this suit, the government bluntly insists it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the nation.”
Sixteen municipalities in Puerto Rico have filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil Corp, Shell Plc, Chevron Corp and others, claiming they conspired to mislead the public on how their products cause climate change and are thereby financially responsible for the immense damage caused to the island by hurricane Maria and five others that hit the island in 2017 causing 4,600 deaths and 294 million dollars of destruction.
It has long been established that global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels has warmed the oceans, which has created conditions for more intense and deadlier hurricanes. Documents from 50 years ago are helping plaintiffs like the sixteen municipalities with these lawsuits.
These documents show that all the American Oil companies knew about the destructive power of burning gasoline as early as 1968. In 1968, Big Oil’s trade organization, the American Petroleum Institute (API), asked a pair of climate scientists, Elmer Robinson and Bob Robbins, to study the effects of their product on the environment.
In ‘68, in a nearly 100 page report, the scientists concluded that the burning of gasoline was warming the earth’s atmosphere and it would likely cause the climate to change with catastrophic consequences. They continued their studies and in 1969 came back with another report that said it was even worse than they thought. API shared this information with their members, but not with the public. ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips could have taken this opportunity to begin to shift their companies into other products, to make what they’d learned public, and to help the world wean off of oil. Instead, they chose to embark on a decades long deception in order to keep making record profits while the world began to burn.
To take a deeper dive read the article by Beth Gardiner in Yale Environment 360.
Biden Administration Pays for Indigenous Tribes to Move Because of Climate Change
By Rich Foss
Recently, the Biden administration paid $75 million to three indigenous tribes in Washington State and Alaska because of the effects of climate change. The government is set to pay $25 million each to Washington State’s Quinault Indian Nation, Native Village of Napakiak, and Alaska’s Newtok Village. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland said
“As part of the federal government’s treaty and trust responsibility to protect Tribal sovereignty and revitalize tribal communities, we must safeguard Indian Country from the intensifying and unique impacts of climate change.”
Washington state’s Quinault Indian Nation makes their home where the Quinault River meets the Pacific Ocean. Rising sea levels put the nation at risk from storm surges and possible tsunamis. Specifically, these native American tribes have experienced severe erosion that has destroyed critical infrastructure and threatened homes. According to DOI projections, these tribes will lose 25 to 50 feet a year to erosion.
“It gave me goosebumps when I found out we got that money” - Council Member Joseph John Jr., NYT
This program is being paid for by funds from the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act. This move by the administration is a sign of what’s to come. When sea levels rise, drought, and rising temperatures will force untold numbers of Americans to move because of the catastrophic impacts of climate change, many of whom will not have the resources to do so.
American Lab Makes an Important Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion
By Rich Foss
American scientists in an experiment at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's National Ignition Facility have, for the first time, created a net gain in energy in a fusion reaction.
This means that more energy was created than expended to create the reaction. Despite decades of working on this, no country nor scientist has ever been able to achieve this milestone.
Nuclear fusion involves joining two hydrogen ions, but this requires reaching temperatures of millions degrees celsius, rather than splitting the atom like nuclear fission – the nuclear energy that is in use to power homes and create bombs. Unlike nuclear fission, nuclear fusion does not have the same radioactive dangers, in part because it has a much shorter half-life.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
“Fusion on the other hand does not create any long-lived radioactive nuclear waste. A fusion reactor produces helium, which is an inert gas. It also produces and consumes tritium within the plant in a closed circuit. Tritium is radioactive (a beta emitter) but its half life is short. It is only used in low amounts so, unlike long-lived radioactive nuclei, it cannot produce any serious danger.”
The process imitates stars and could be a source of limitless energy in the future. Fusion has been the great dream of humanity for more than 50 years, but this breakthrough might just signal its true viability.
“The pursuit of fusion ignition in the laboratory is one of the most significant scientific challenges ever tackled by humanity, and achieving it is a triumph of science, engineering, and most of all, people,” said LLNL Director Dr. Kim Budil.
Not only do scientists have to get the reaction to create far more energy than in this experiment, but they also have to bring the costs way down so that it is commercially feasible.
“This could take decades.” US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said on CNN today that Biden has set a target of reaching commercial viability for nuclear fusion in just ten years.
Yet, given the challenges, that appears to be highly unlikely. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC for short) has said we need to cut emissions world-wide by 2030, nuclear fusion will not be part of the clean renewable energy that will save us. The world will need to make a full or near full transition to clean energy much sooner than that if we are to stave off the worst of the climate crisis.
As 350 founder, Bill McKibben writes:
“Imagine, if everything goes right, a world where, in a quarter-century’s time, we can take down the solar panels and wind turbines we’re now erecting and replace them with elegant fusion reactors. (Or maybe small-scale fission reactors; there have been new developments in this technology, too.) But, if we don’t make that first transition right now, those elegant reactors will be deployed, if at all, on a badly degraded, even broken, planet. Thanks to the blanket of carbon we’ve thrown up, Sun 1 is steadily more dangerous.”
Activists have also pointed out that advances in nuclear fusion could lead to the creation of even deadlier weapons than traditional nuclear arms. They also note that the massive funding America puts into nuclear fusion could be spent on clean energy solutions. To learn more, click here to see the Department of Energy press conference. What are your thoughts on nuclear fusion? Please share them below.
Sustainable Gift Guide
By Carter Robinson
Tis the season! For those of you doing last minute shopping, we have some great gift ideas that are both sustainable and fun.
For the bookworms, check out your local secondhand book store. Some of our favorites are: Uncharted Books in Andersonville, Myopic Books in Wicker Park and Tangible Books in Bridgeport. Some books we have been reading are The Overstory by Richard Powers, Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer and A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopald.
For the DIY and home repair enthusiast in your life, buy a membership to the Chicago Tool Library. In Garfield Park next to the Green Line, the Chicago Tool Library offers over three thousand tools that members can check out and borrow, ranging from sewing machines to table saws.
For the sustainable chef, look into purchasing a year's membership to a composting service. In Chicago, we have a few services that provide pickup composting services: including Block Bins, Star Farm and WasteNot. Or if they already compost, consider gifting a cute composting bin like the Bamboozle Bin. It has a sleek design and eliminates odors so you can keep it out in the kitchen.
If you need something quick and easy, remember that experiential presents often have a smaller carbon footprint. So consider getting a gift card to your local masseuse, spa or restaurant. Everyone loves to be treated to some pampering. For more ideas, check out Chicago Environmentalists Gift Guide. They have plenty of ideas on how to give festive gifts while staying green. A link to Chicago Environmentalists webpage can be found here.