Downside: A potentially uninhabitable Europe
January 31, 2019 11:32 AM Subscribe
Exxon’s rhetoric ran counter to its own internal conclusions about climate change, as the company re-engineered oil platforms and pipelines to account for the rising sea levels it claimed didn’t exist.In 1997, scientists working for Exxon offered visionary solutions for climate change. The only problem? Their plans might destroy the earth in the process.
We could certainly use some non-Earth-destroying plans right about now...
posted by Harald74 at 11:54 AM on January 31, 2019
posted by Harald74 at 11:54 AM on January 31, 2019
The only problem? Their plans might destroy the earth in the process.
I'm gonna stop you right there.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:16 PM on January 31, 2019 [5 favorites]
I'm gonna stop you right there.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:16 PM on January 31, 2019 [5 favorites]
I think in this context "visionary" means "we were extremely high when we thought these up".
posted by Sing Or Swim at 12:18 PM on January 31, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by Sing Or Swim at 12:18 PM on January 31, 2019 [6 favorites]
>geeeeee nobody offered the "stop digging up shit and burning it" solution?<
Apparently they stuck with imaginary, but imaginable options.
posted by twidget at 12:19 PM on January 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
Apparently they stuck with imaginary, but imaginable options.
posted by twidget at 12:19 PM on January 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
geeeeee nobody offered the "stop digging up shit and burning it" solution?
But that's their whole thing! What could you use an extensive network of oil wells and pipelines for, if not to obtain, process and sell the very thing is driving climate change?
Meanwhile, let's do a bit of biofuel research to appease any climate change-wary investors and polish our public image as a *diverse* energy company.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:32 PM on January 31, 2019
But that's their whole thing! What could you use an extensive network of oil wells and pipelines for, if not to obtain, process and sell the very thing is driving climate change?
Meanwhile, let's do a bit of biofuel research to appease any climate change-wary investors and polish our public image as a *diverse* energy company.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:32 PM on January 31, 2019
Lolz exxon.
We're going to do some geoengineering. It might destroy significant parts of the world's ecosystems. Climate change will destroy the entire world's ecosystems, given enough time.
It's clear the massive machine that powers the world - rapacious capitalism - won't be stopped in time short of war or disaster. When it's disaster, it's too late. When it's war....we'll be doing other stuff.
To quote an old friend "For nearly every noxious property you can measure, whether it's the total amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of plastic in the ocean, the number of species that have become extinct, the amount of forest we have lost - all of these bad numbers have a positive first derivative, which means to say that they are increasing, but also a positive second derivative, meaning that their rate is also increasing."
We not only aren't slowing NEARLY fast enough. We're continuing to accelerate!
Getting the entire and resource consumption systems of the world to revert to 1980s level. 1980s! A bare minimum to buy us 50? 100? More years, while we got our shit together.......As a species and in a political sense, this would, ballpark take a minimum of 25% of the worlds real economic effort. 25c in every dollar spent, 25% of planetary person-hours worked, maybe we could reverse it.
Show me how you get there? There is no feasible lever we can press in the world hard enough to slow us down enough.
We are going to do geoengineering, in 20? 40? 80? years. We'd better do it right. Because, as a species, we've already put the planet and our future in terrible jeopardy.
posted by lalochezia at 12:49 PM on January 31, 2019 [9 favorites]
We're going to do some geoengineering. It might destroy significant parts of the world's ecosystems. Climate change will destroy the entire world's ecosystems, given enough time.
It's clear the massive machine that powers the world - rapacious capitalism - won't be stopped in time short of war or disaster. When it's disaster, it's too late. When it's war....we'll be doing other stuff.
To quote an old friend "For nearly every noxious property you can measure, whether it's the total amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of plastic in the ocean, the number of species that have become extinct, the amount of forest we have lost - all of these bad numbers have a positive first derivative, which means to say that they are increasing, but also a positive second derivative, meaning that their rate is also increasing."
We not only aren't slowing NEARLY fast enough. We're continuing to accelerate!
Getting the entire and resource consumption systems of the world to revert to 1980s level. 1980s! A bare minimum to buy us 50? 100? More years, while we got our shit together.......As a species and in a political sense, this would, ballpark take a minimum of 25% of the worlds real economic effort. 25c in every dollar spent, 25% of planetary person-hours worked, maybe we could reverse it.
Show me how you get there? There is no feasible lever we can press in the world hard enough to slow us down enough.
We are going to do geoengineering, in 20? 40? 80? years. We'd better do it right. Because, as a species, we've already put the planet and our future in terrible jeopardy.
posted by lalochezia at 12:49 PM on January 31, 2019 [9 favorites]
I think I understand how The Great Filter comes about now...
posted by SonInLawOfSam at 1:12 PM on January 31, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by SonInLawOfSam at 1:12 PM on January 31, 2019 [5 favorites]
Hold up, I saw that movie!
Hey, so did I!
It always seems to work out really well...
posted by Naberius at 1:40 PM on January 31, 2019 [2 favorites]
Hey, so did I!
It always seems to work out really well...
posted by Naberius at 1:40 PM on January 31, 2019 [2 favorites]
The earth, and life on it will survive and flourish at some point in the distant future. We just won't be a part of it.
posted by Badgermann at 1:54 PM on January 31, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Badgermann at 1:54 PM on January 31, 2019 [2 favorites]
Honestly if I were in charge of things I'd be pumping huge money into geoengineering and carbon sequestration research. Climate change is a big problem that needs big solutions. I'd rather people be researching some farfetched idea to reflect more sunlight than writing another thinkpiece about how we're all gonna be dead in 20 years.
posted by noxperpetua at 3:15 PM on January 31, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by noxperpetua at 3:15 PM on January 31, 2019 [1 favorite]
hey the "Human Volcano" thing doesn't sound so bad. I don't mind missing out on the stars if we can keep up effective satellite navigation for ships, and also prettier sunsets are always a plus.
posted by numaner at 3:27 PM on January 31, 2019
posted by numaner at 3:27 PM on January 31, 2019
Honestly, this is pretty depressing. Apparently I had some hope that engineers had a few ideas that might not be completely infeasible or inadequate.
posted by salvia at 3:36 PM on January 31, 2019
posted by salvia at 3:36 PM on January 31, 2019
The question isn't whether to geoengineer; we are already doing it. Badly.
At some point "we" will embrace the "Human Volcano" solution, because it is the only one that is feasible.
But "we" is complicated. Who exactly, and to what ends? There will always be different interests and people will not agree. Is sacrificing your vital annual monsoon for my balmy climes the right balance? It won't matter because "we" won't ask you.
posted by sjswitzer at 4:02 PM on January 31, 2019 [1 favorite]
At some point "we" will embrace the "Human Volcano" solution, because it is the only one that is feasible.
But "we" is complicated. Who exactly, and to what ends? There will always be different interests and people will not agree. Is sacrificing your vital annual monsoon for my balmy climes the right balance? It won't matter because "we" won't ask you.
posted by sjswitzer at 4:02 PM on January 31, 2019 [1 favorite]
Contrast these with Project Drawdown's list ranked by potential CO2 reduction. The top ten are:
1. Refrigerant Management
2. Wind Turbines (Onshore)
3. Reduced Food Waste
4. Plant-Rich Diet Food
5. Tropical Forests
6. Educating Girls
7. Family Planning
8. Solar Farms
9. Silvopasture
10. Rooftop Solar
There's something about giant mirrors or spreading particles in ocean and air geoengineering that feels more tangible than stuff like refrigerant management and educating girls. It's the search for a silver bullet, an deus ex machina that lets us not change so much. But we're going to need many ordinary grinding, long term solutions to mitigate and adapt.
posted by Mister Cheese at 4:33 PM on January 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
1. Refrigerant Management
2. Wind Turbines (Onshore)
3. Reduced Food Waste
4. Plant-Rich Diet Food
5. Tropical Forests
6. Educating Girls
7. Family Planning
8. Solar Farms
9. Silvopasture
10. Rooftop Solar
There's something about giant mirrors or spreading particles in ocean and air geoengineering that feels more tangible than stuff like refrigerant management and educating girls. It's the search for a silver bullet, an deus ex machina that lets us not change so much. But we're going to need many ordinary grinding, long term solutions to mitigate and adapt.
posted by Mister Cheese at 4:33 PM on January 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
There is a sensible discussion to be had around geongineering, not instead of CO2 reduction but in addition. If sulfate aerosols are considered as a way reduce the rate of heat increase temporarily while emissions are being reduced. If you ramp up to absorbing enough sunlight to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees and start ramping down in 50 years as CO2 levels actually go down, you also have time to monitor for unintended consequences.
It is by no means certain this will work but if you worry about some of the scary feedbacks (like methane release from the melting permafrost) or catastrophic tipping points (like Greeland's ice sliding into the ocean) limiting the peak temperature rise by even a half-degree or degree might be crucial. And while there are some reasons for optimism in technology there is none in policy. The US is at least five years away from starting the sort of national policy the world need, and Brazil has a president who considers the rain forest "non-productive."
I realize in the reality-based community even saying "we need to study these options" is approaching "subscribe to my newsletter" territory. All I can say is I was really anti-geongineering 15 years ago, to the point that I was happy iron fertilization experiments failed, because I thought it was a distraction. I'm now of the all-tools-are-needed persuasion. I don't want anything off the table for consideration. Again, this is in addition to heroic efforts to reduce CO2, not instead.
The disingenuous reasons Exxon or the Freakonomics clowns had for talking up the ideas shouldn't rule them out.
posted by mark k at 12:20 AM on February 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
It is by no means certain this will work but if you worry about some of the scary feedbacks (like methane release from the melting permafrost) or catastrophic tipping points (like Greeland's ice sliding into the ocean) limiting the peak temperature rise by even a half-degree or degree might be crucial. And while there are some reasons for optimism in technology there is none in policy. The US is at least five years away from starting the sort of national policy the world need, and Brazil has a president who considers the rain forest "non-productive."
I realize in the reality-based community even saying "we need to study these options" is approaching "subscribe to my newsletter" territory. All I can say is I was really anti-geongineering 15 years ago, to the point that I was happy iron fertilization experiments failed, because I thought it was a distraction. I'm now of the all-tools-are-needed persuasion. I don't want anything off the table for consideration. Again, this is in addition to heroic efforts to reduce CO2, not instead.
The disingenuous reasons Exxon or the Freakonomics clowns had for talking up the ideas shouldn't rule them out.
posted by mark k at 12:20 AM on February 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
My problem with all these articles about climate change, the 90’s and Exxon/Shell/Lukoil etc is they always dip into, “The corporation spent hundreds of millions on lobbyists to promote skepticism about climate change... the corporation prepared for the thing they said was not going to happen... the corporation -“ the corporation is not some big robot, people, individuals (with names like Rex) made those decisions and frankly, I want to see Heads! On! Pikes!
Also also rarely damn near never mentioned is the population explosion of the last hundred years. If we went back to a billion people we’d be, likely, better off. (Read somewhere that us sperm-generators are all going sterile and so maybe we’ll be back down to a billion again in 50 years.) oh this whole topic makes it hard to get out of bed in the morning and look the kids in the eye.
If I were in charge I’d offer the shift the financial subsidies from oil to ‘green’ sources - and then I’d be sure to get those Heads! On! Pikes!
posted by From Bklyn at 12:59 AM on February 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
Also also rarely damn near never mentioned is the population explosion of the last hundred years. If we went back to a billion people we’d be, likely, better off. (Read somewhere that us sperm-generators are all going sterile and so maybe we’ll be back down to a billion again in 50 years.) oh this whole topic makes it hard to get out of bed in the morning and look the kids in the eye.
If I were in charge I’d offer the shift the financial subsidies from oil to ‘green’ sources - and then I’d be sure to get those Heads! On! Pikes!
posted by From Bklyn at 12:59 AM on February 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
In the article, which is about bringing to public attention an obscure book chapter from 1997, the author does name and (politely) shame Rex Tillerson in the first few paragraphs: "ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson asserted that the company sees climate change as “an engineering problem” with “engineering solutions.” Three years later, in 2015, Tillerson, who would later serve as Secretary of State under President Trump for a little over a year, explained, “Our plan B has always been grounded in our beliefs around the continued evolution of technology and engineered solutions to address and react to whatever the climate system and its outcomes present to us.”
So not heads on pikes, but they do call out the hypocrisy inherent in increasing fossil fuel use and relying on geoengineering.
posted by Rumple at 12:33 PM on February 1, 2019
So not heads on pikes, but they do call out the hypocrisy inherent in increasing fossil fuel use and relying on geoengineering.
posted by Rumple at 12:33 PM on February 1, 2019
Also, the illustrations are kind of fun.
posted by Rumple at 12:34 PM on February 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Rumple at 12:34 PM on February 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
« Older Rivers of Babylon: The Story of a Third Trimester... | Inside an expansive $21+ million NYC Townhouse... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
How it would work
Spraying soot aerosols into the sky, much in the manner of a “nuclear winter,” would create a protective cloud to absorb solar radiation, generating a cooling effect in lower altitudes.
Hold up, I saw that movie!
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:44 AM on January 31, 2019 [3 favorites]