French oil company Total knew about their effect on climate since 1971, and knowingly lied

French oil company Total knew about their effect on climate since 1971, and knowingly lied


The Exxon chief lobbiest confessed to knowing and currently blocking climate change legislation on camera 3 months ago, and Exxon didn't even feel enough pressure to fire him.


Yeah....but profits.




They should also be sued for 100% of their assets and profit to be redistributed to those who will suffer the consequences of their actions. The kids who’s planet was pillaged and ruined deserve their fair share of its resources.


And jail time for the executives.


How's it going with your wiener?


Yeah but their dividend is awesome....or whatever some people say that look the other way on this.


It’s about total return, which is to say both capital appreciation and dividend payouts. For all my new investors out there, don’t get too hung up on dividends!


I mean, those who still side with companies and politicians on this issue are wilful ignorants. We've known for years already that a) climate change is real b) that it's caused by us and could be stopped c) that companies knew this and were lying on purpose and d) that politicians knew too but didn't want to importunate companies. We honestly have what we deserve. Collectively we decided that we don't give a fuck about any issue as long as it doesn't affect us directly right now.


I think this is a really unfair take. People have been manipulated against their own better interests. Corporations have taken control of nearly every form of communication we have and have sabotaged education along the way. I think it only benefits those same corporations to continue to act like everybody collectively saw better options as attainable and still chose this reality.


On one hand, I 100% agree with this. We are bombarded with propaganda and people follow what they are told to follow – media can just influence your opinion by choosing what and how they tell you. On the other hand, we have some personal responsibility to resist that propaganda. Else, democracy makes no sense, because then you are arguing that people are drones that choose what they are told, and thus a democratic vote is just a reflection of which entity was most effective at manipulating people. We can't have freedom if we assume people are not responsible for finding the truth.


"We"? No, the rich businessmen, politicians and media pundits who have the biggest influence will not get what they deserve for it, the poor who have no say in the choice will


Nobody forced 100+ million of Americans to vote for two parties that don't give a fuck about the environment. We live in a democracy. If people aren't responsible for what the government does, then what's the point of such democracy? Because, if they aren't responsible, then they didn't have a choice, then democracy is a sham.




We should invent immortality, so these bastards can know that they could have lived forever, but they can't because they screwed up and destroyed the world.




**[Scaphism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphism)** >Scaphism (from Greek σκάϕη, meaning "boat"), also known as the boats, is an alleged ancient Persian method of execution. It entailed trapping the victim between two boats, feeding and covering them with milk and honey, and allowing them to fester and be devoured by insects and other vermin over time. The practice is considered to be a purely literary invention of Ancient Greek literature as it has never been attested in Ancient Persia (primarily Achaemenid Empire). The primary source is Plutarch's Life of Artaxerxes, where he attributes the story to Ctesias, a notoriously suspect source. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


I am against the death penalty for one exception. Corruption. Corruption hurts everyone...like actually everyone. It destroys trust in a society and without trust this all falls apart. Corruption radiates out in all sorts of ways that are hard to follow. I agree. This person should be tried for corruption and if found guilty should be put to death.


We’ve known that Exxon knew, also since the 70s, when all of the major oil conglomerates conducted studies and sat on the findings. And on and on it goes.


The shocking part is that they knew, but now they had their top lobbyist saying that they intentionally hid it, and that they are continuing to donate to specific candidates they know will stop a Carbon Tax (Manchin and more). And that this is happening RIGHT NOW. And that is the example he gave to get hired to the Saudi's for what we presume is the same or worse. It's Captain Planet villain levels or ridiculousness. It is dead to rights that they are donating (aka legal bribing) them right now for what we presume is the BBB legislation. And he is saying, to the camera. And he was tricked to make it even more juicy. And NOTHING is happening.


Meanwhile Total is now operating a diesel refinery 100% on renewable biomass in France. Some companies are starting to change, but it appears Exxon is not.


> Total is now operating a diesel refinery So no real change then.


They put on the pink ribbon, what do you want to do Stop pumping our carcinogens?! They have families! /s


No ones bout to have families unless it's for cannibalistic dinner.


Absolutely...if you ommit the part that changed


It’s renewable diesel. Burns cleaner than fossil fuel diesel and is made from vegetable oils.


Sounds like [greenwashing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing). I'm sceptical.


**[Greenwashing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing)** >Greenwashing (a compound word modelled on "whitewash"), also called "green sheen", is a form of marketing spin in which green PR and green marketing are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organization's products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly. Critics of the practice suggest the rise of greenwashing, paired with ineffective regulation, contributes to consumer scepticism of all green claims, and diminishes the power of the consumer to drive companies toward greener manufacturing processes and business operations. Many corporations use greenwashing to improve public perception of their brands. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


Vehicles that need diesel are going to continue to need diesel until battery densities increase. Even with the less efficient energy conversion through combustion, batteries are just so weak in terms of density versus a combustible fuel like petroleum/ethanol/diesel. If diesel is still gonna be around, it should be cleaner burning bi odiesel. There's a reason why there still aren't any long range trucks/boats/planes that are solely ev. The current ev aircraft speed record is worse than that of the fastest ICE road legal car.


All big shipping boats should be nuclear powered by now but noo let's use diesel! Also long distance stupid trucks that america loves should be replaced with trains. Also, hydrogen will be an option.


Jesus man, the logistics with that many nuclear boats is ridiculous. The uk passed on nuclear aircraft carriers becasue of expense. How would the merchant marine handle it? What about countries like New Zealand that don't accept nuclear ships? Security risks of private corps operating nuclear fleets? I'm all for nuclear everything on land, it's stupid its been put behind other techs rn, but I really don't know if it's the best idea for regular ships to all be nuclear. I also support trains. I wish we'd have nationwide high-speed rail in the US already, amtrak is a joke as is. But there will always be a need for trucks. Even many new trains around the world are still electric diesel. Battery densities need to increase. As for hydrogen, the amount of energy required to produce it seems to be an issue now, but I agree. I think we can overcome hydrogen hurdles and it's one of the cleanest burning fuels. But still, with current tech there won't be a hydrogen plane or boat any time soon.


Virginia had the Dominion Project that heightened all of the the train tunnels for preparation for intermodel facilities. The trains can now be double stacked with shipping containers. But the NIMBY people fussed until they cancelled the facilities. The land purchased for at is now a park and ride lot and there are still thousands of trucks on 64/81 and hundreds of fatalities each year due to overcrowding.


I'm over here in CA pissed about the cost overruns and inefficiencies of our high speed rail project that appears to never make any real progress. Meanwhile China built all it's high speed rail in a few years and now the majority of high speed rail in existence is Chinese.


Nope. this is a myth, it does not burn cleaner (this was bullshit invented to make people feel good about choosing biodiesel), and it is not always made from vegetable oils. it's only a second use for vegetable oil that was previously used, otherwise its biomass directly grown for conversion. the latter of converting biomass to diesel is more commercially viable, as they dont have to filter and clean fryolator shit out of the oil (which entails using nasty stuff like lye, which is then dumped after use).


I’m referring to renewable diesel, not biodiesel. Renewable diesel does burn cleaner than petroleum diesel in terms of NOx and particulate matter. They release the same amount of CO2 during combustion, but RD has a much lower lifecycle CO2 footprint than fossil diesel (about a 70% reduction if derived from waste oils or animal fat, and a 30% reduction for purpose-grown crops. Edit: funny how people downvote based on the narrative they want to believe even though everything I said is 100% correct and scientifically proven.




Stay uninformed then.


Same trouble with fine particulate and nitrogen oxides as any other form of diesel.


The tobacco industry knew that was a link between cancer and smoking and also stayed quiet. The sugar industry knew back in 1954 that sugars were directly linked to increases in obesity, cancer, and heart attacks and also stayed quiet. The list of low morals for the sake of profit goes on and on.


So, why isn't this person - who has openly admitted to facilitating mass murder - in jail?


We’re just killing ourselves. There’s no way about it at this point. How can we hope, as humanity, to reduce climate change if stuff like this is happening? Can we not even work together?


But think about it for a second, why should I bother trying to leave an inhabitable planet for future generations if I can just irrationally exploit resources on a large scale in the pursuit of an unreasonable amount of wealth?


>why should I bother trying to leave an inhabitable planet for future generations Yeah, these guys are all making rational choices, really. They are just calculating that they won't live to see the consequences of their actions, and probably doing some rationalization that maybe it won't be *that* bad for their kids. As the people who won't be affected by it die off, change will be easier. Of course by then who knows how many catastrophes we could have averted.


I don't know how safe the assumption is that change will be easier. By the time we start being really, really affected we will be living on a much different and difficult world for all of us to live on and coordinate with each other. Some people will be desperate, some will be comfortable, some will be thirsty, many will be in motion to new areas that cannot accommodate them all. I don't think change will be easier than it is today. Every day it gets just a tiny bit harder and harder.


In their warped minds they think if they make enough money for their kids and grandkids they will be set. No matter the state of the world in the future, money will solve any problems they face. I guess it’s understandable why they think this way (doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held accountable though), since it kinda has been true for past generations that all you need is money and you’re set. But it’s gonna be a rude awakening when they find out Mother Nature doesn’t give a fuck about how much is in your bank account.


The planet needs standing to sue all the carbon companies and fortunes for damages. These damages will bankrupt them. And perhaps we need laws that tax oil/gas/coal profits and inheritances at 100%. No generational oil wealth.


I'm ready to just give up and deatroy the climate really. My death is gonna come anyway, why not make it faster


Oh, but of course! Who cares about longevity and the preservation of the planet when I can just deepen my pockets instead?


>Who cares about longevity and the preservation of the planet Planet doesn't care. There was life before humans, there will be life after humans. So it's only our (human kind) internal problem, doesn't really affect anything else.


People always say this but I think that's what is obviously implied when people say "the planet". I don't think it should be necessary to explain that we need the planet to survive. Of course, some people can't see obvious things so maybe your words are needed sometimes.


That's why one should propagate belief in reincarnation


This is... a great point. I think a majority of society believing in reincarnation, instead of a paradise after death, would have really changed our collective attitude toward climate change (and a lot of things, probably) in a huge way, for the better. It would mean you need to preserve what you have carefully so that the future can also enjoy what you had. Not greedily enjoying all you can have at the expense of others not being able to enjoy what you had.


Well that's why the goal is Mars for the space cowboys...though if we don't change our thinking we will just become an infestation to what I'm sure will be a very lovely planet someday somewhere.


>leave an inhabitable planet To be fair, it will still be inhabitable. Just maybe not as inhabitable in places.


We? As a race, yes. Practically the average Joe is being killed by a few rich dudes.


Whoa whoa, we're not killing ourselves, we're just cogs in a machine. The rich and powerful are killing us. It's a very slow murder, but it's not suicide.


Seize the means of production and communication, full on ecoterrorism, or just don't make kids Oh btw US companies are no better, look it up


Yes, in France we like to make fun of America a lot, and in Europe we like to think we are a lot better in terms of environment, but seeing things like this is so depressing.


America deserves it. The leading parties, the RNC and DNC have the same Energy Platform as provided by the American Petroleum Institute.


What is this both sides nonsense? The platform of the DNC is to literally cut US emissions in half by 2030 and to 0 by 2050. How can you even try to claim the platforms are the same?


claims are not deeds


A platform is both claims of what they will do, and they have already followed through on some of that platform and on their way to passing the largest green bill in world history.


>A platform is both claims of what they will do, and they have already followed through on The ratio between both of these things is 99:1. They have claimed a lot, but nothing is going to fundamentally change under Biden. It will be like the way the Obama administration handled the 2008 financial crisis.


Things have already started to fundamentally change and Dems are about to pass this huge bill. Your pessimistic and nihilistic attitude doesn’t match up with reality.


Doesn't match up with reality? Get your naive head out of your ass.


DNC doesn't do shit - look at how many campaign promises regarding fossil fuels have been broken by this administration. Neither party does shit to help - we're spinning our wheels approaching the cliff


Can you make a campaign promise that’s been broken? Already this admin has been been changing federal regulations fast and is on path to pass the largest climate change bill in world history


I'm french


We're all French on this depressing day.


And this is why we’ll fail… shit ideas like this that will turn everyone against the movement


No it'll only turn away the people who are operating under the delusion that neoliberal capitalism is salvation rather than the heart of planetary destruction


No it’ll turn away literally everyone. What you are saying is that people living longer and more prosperous lives is killing the planet and your solution is to reduce prosperity. You’re not providing an answer that holds prosperity while saving the planet. Capitalist solutions actually are paving the way. You don’t see socialist states making the next generation of advances in electric car technology - you see capitalist states doing that. And pretty sick that you would use propaganda to claim this position is “neoliberal” when that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Regulating capitalism isn’t neoliberal but you would rather own the libs with your propaganda then save the fucking planet


Humans are standing on the brink of extinction, not just because of anthropogenic global warming but also a host of other environmental issues, e.g. topsoil depletion, ocean acidification, and the rampant annihilation of the biosphere. These issues intensified to an unparalleled degree with the emergence of the capitalist world order and the way it configures social relations & the production of our material conditions. This is a radical reality we face today that calls for a revolutionary transformation of human social organization, from a dominant civilization that worships the doctrine of capital accumulation and "profit" to an *ecological civilization* that prioritizes ecological balance. This means humanity in the West needs strategic degrowth, and globally we need to wind down GHG emissions as fast as humanely possible. Capitalist solutions are not, in fact, paving the way. Those advances in electric car technology might be a nice way for the wealthy elite in the metropoles to feel good about driving around in a world on fire, but they don't get to the root of the matter and are the fruits of the super-exploitation of Third World labor (Musk profits handsomely off the blood of Congolese child slaves in cobalt mines run by Anglo-Swiss firm Glencore). In reality, EV infrastructure takes up urban space that could be better used for non-automotive transportation, e.g. efficient bicycle systems, so we aren't locking ourselves into the exploitative & extractivist relations of production the auto industry is embedded in. A better use of the auto industry would be to seize & turn many of their factories towards the production of direct air carbon capture systems to start mitigating at scale the damage climate change is already causing and will continue to cause down the line since we have a lot of warming already baked in. The way forward is clear: a revolutionary environmental movement and world eco-socialism.


This is just your typical privileged virtue signaling. If you want to impoverish the world, see hunger skyrocket and see massive depopulation from non-consenting global populations that start to die off then you’ll absolutely achieve that with the strategy you proposed. But if you want us to actual solve the worlds problems and see prosperity for all humans rise then it’s clear what we need - continued pressure on industry and continued regulations of markets to incentivize decarbonization and the only real way we accomplish that is with competition that allows for advances in technology. This idea that globalized capitalism failed us is patently absurd - likely as you type that out an a computer in an air conditioned home with a fridge full of food. It’s so an absurdist and privileged take that it doesn’t even deserve consideration. What HAS failed us is the lack of a globalized regulatory body. The UN was invented to prevent world wars, it was not created to regulate global markets. What we need are global corporate tax rates (Biden’s already helping to see that happen) and global regulations that have some teeth (also happening by rejoining Paris). The ethical path forward will ALWAYS be collaborative and democratic efforts. Suggestions of ecoterrorism is both lazy and ineffective. It doesn’t fucking work. Just ask Bin Laden about that and his success with getting the US out of the Middle East 😂 terrorism is literally the worst possible thing an environmentalist movement could decide on. It would make the movement radioactive and likely doom earth. Maybe it makes you personally feel good for a moment because you get to take unilateral action in a way that corporatists have for decades but it’s always misguided and wrong. Same is true for socialist movements - they always end in failure and produce worse results for the average person involved. They were great if you’re goal is depopulation, but to try and claim that a plan of mass genocide is “good for the planet” is literally the plot of countless villain origin stories.


>If you want to impoverish the world, see hunger skyrocket and see massive depopulation from non-consenting global populations that start to die off then you’ll absolutely achieve that with the strategy you proposed. The capitalist world order is already seeing massive amounts of hunger and the most horrific immiseration & impoverishment imaginable: *"For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelise in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realised itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the ‘end of ideologies’ and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth."* And this isn't something new, this is the way capitalism works in the real world. The capitalist system under late Victorianism generated Third World holocausts with the rise of terrible El Niño-related famines that *could* be addressed with grain supplies for the affected regions but was not addressed because of so-called "free markets." Anyway, you are jousting at windmills. My proposal is an ecological civilization (built on ideas around e.g. eco-feminism and r/solarpunk) that is not built for the worship of abstract capital accumulation and "profit" but real human well-being in terms of really-existing material conditions -- food, literacy, healthcare, shelter, etc. This is not about impoverishing the world, but about living with the world around us in a more balanced away. If that means people in the First World no longer get their annual iPhone update, then so be it. ​ >The ethical path forward will ALWAYS be collaborative and democratic efforts. That's only true if we're living in a truly democratic system. We aren't, it's just a spectacle. Capital runs the world. So we need resistance *on all fronts* against the system of global capitalism that continues to put us on path for converging environmental crises & risk of extinction -- not to mention keeps the Third World chained to a system of exploitation & oppression. Free markets had their time in the sun, and conjured many great technological feats, but productive forces have now advanced to a stage where a social formation organized to enhance human well-being through ecological balance makes the most sense. ​ >Same is true for socialist movements - they always end in failure and produce worse results for the average person involved. This is a particularly ahistorical take. The Cuban revolution meant significantly improved material conditions for the vast majority of Cubans, e.g. in terms of infant mortality rate, literacy, etc. ​ >Suggestions of ecoterrorism The real eco-terrorists are the oil execs and their partners in capital. The revolution will see them at the eco-tribunals. ​ >to try and claim that a plan of mass genocide is “good for the planet” is literally the plot of countless villain origin stories. Yeah this is a straw-man, not my position at all.


Hunger is at an all time low thanks to capitalism. You are literally making the same argument that Marx did and turned out was dead fucking wrong - that global technology had already advanced so much that a socialist system that deincentivizes technological advancement was on the horizon - cue the 20th century lol. It’s this prophesying that we are at the end of history and there’s no more room for technological advancement that these people always get dead wrong. The fact is that there is so much to still learn and advance technology on and giving that up for systems that failed in the past century is a guarantee path to global doom. And to claim that Cubans are prospering under socialism is completely ludicrous. No shit there were momentary improvements after the revolution - that’s how revolutions work. Hitler did the same thing to keep the population on his side. But over time you see the creeping authoritarianism, loss of rights, decaying infrastructure, decaying economy etc. It’s a travesty. With the resources and population Cuba has it should easily be the most prosperous nation in the Caribbean. Socialism had absolutely created a failed stated that is only propped up by authoritarian rule. This seems to be what you don’t get about socialism - sure it looks great right after the revolution. Everyone who participated gets their checks, bad people get murdered… and power consolidates… and consolidates more… and more… and a decade later you have no voice, the movement has been taken over by people who “aren’t real socialists” and “if only we had a real socialist”… well you don’t because you gave up individual rights and handed power over to the state and there’s no turning back until the inevitable collapse (and oh boy were there many, wonder why capitalist countries aren’t collapsing left and right eh?). Turns out there’s a fatal flaw with socialism - centralizing power only works if you have an ethical leader. And unfortunately because you are centralizing power the most successful leaders are the absolute worst and most ruthless humans (*cough* Stalin) who once in power don’t fucking care about your idealistic views. Damn right Stalin was once a real socialist. And then he discovered power. Rinse and repeat every fucking time. Fuck that. We need to send these ideas to the dustbins of history where they belong. Especially in the modern era - when you already have a democracy REVOLUTIONS DONT FUCKING WORK. If you want to see what an actual revolution looks like then google January 6th. That’s the bullshit you get. It’s not some revolution of a bunch of philosophers. It’s January 6th. Fuck that. Also the irony of you posting r/solarpunk not realizing that can only exist because of technological advances thanks to capitalist markets…


Nothing else seems to be happing to help


A lot is happening, you just don’t hear about it. But the above idea certainly would just make things so much worse.


Really? A lot is happening? Please link a realistic plan to keep us below 1.5 degrees? What about 2.5? Bear in mind 2.5 would already be catastrophic with mass extinctions of species and human suffering. I accept that I might know everything that's going on, but I am confident that we currently have no plan to address climate change in any meaningful way.


Yep a lot is already in place. Market forces already pressuring electric companies to defossilize at 2% a year and Biden’s infrastructure bill would potentially improve that further (original goal was to be 100% green electric grid by 2030 but still being debated). He’s already got the auto industry to commit to a plan for completely electric vehicles by 2030. And we’re already seeing countries around the world create stricter goals at this multinational climate talks. The idea that nothing is being done is a few years old taking point.


Yes, a lot is happening. We are increasing global GHG emissions while Western capitalist societies are still polluting at rates several times higher than developing countries. We are doing way too little way too late and aren't punishing the people responsible. We make some token efforts - driven primarily by public demands and fought against by the 1%. Stop making excuses for a horrible, failed, mass murdering system. Face reality. Face the facts. Acknowledge science. Stop spreading the idea that a sustainable and peaceful future is possible under capitalism.


What's "shit" about this only correct course of action? Green socialism has always been the solution. Everything else has always failed.


> Seize the means of production and communication, full on ecoterrorism And then you woke up


> ~~We’re just~~ *a few rich people* are killing ~~ourselves~~ *everyone else in the pursuit of even more money and power*


The planet will take care of it and us one way or another. I don't worry about the planet. I worry about my the future of my students. The planet will be a hellscape for their adulthood.


Its not even getting reduced at any meaningful way either. Western countries and companies just pretend that they are "green" and then shifting emissions and plastic's to developing countries where they see the next Growth boom. Current Western political situation is not more than a facade to shut us up.


as per usual Government will tell you to use less oil the same government getting money from Total Total still sells oil to other countries EU condemns those countries not using less oil same old same old


No, *I* support the jailing of these mass murderers killing us. *They* are evil, *I* support green socialism. Stop saying "we" if there are people among us that have been fighting against these people every way we can for decades. Stop socializing blame and cost.


[Exxon knew in 1981.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/) [Shell knew in 1988.](https://truthout.org/articles/shell-took-16-years-to-warn-shareholders-of-climate-risks/) And they all lied to us about it.


Every thinking adult in 1970 knew it. That's why Nixon established the EPA, by executive order no less. While we're all responsible, the oil money will fight til the death, theirs or everyones.


Thank you for at least acknowledging what seems to be left by the wayside so often in this conversation here (and elsewhere): humans are responsible for this, not oil companies. Exxon, Total, and others are simply providing a service that everyone wants and needs (the irony of posting anti-oil company posts from your computer should not be lost on anyone given the number of petroleum products needed to get the post from your brain to the server). The science has been clear for a long time, as other posters have stated. The failure here is one of government, not industry. Companies are in it to make money and will change. It's governments, and humans, who have steadfastly refused to do so.


> the irony of posting anti-oil company posts from your computer should not be lost on anyone given the number of petroleum products needed to get the post from your brain to the server It isn't "ironic", though. Living in a society implies contradicting your own ideas pretty often. My opinions about our capitalist model for companies are pretty negative, but I can't really avoid acquiring products made under that model unless I wanna live under a tree in a jungle hunting my own dinner. It'd be perfectly possible to have this computer in my hands in a system that cares about the environment. Sadly, our system doesn't. It's pretty different to, for example, abusing how much you use your car. In that scenario, your use of the car itself is the problem, not the specific way you use it.


Great comment. I've had the same thought so many times and struggled to find a good way to verbalize it. "living in a society implies contradicting your own ideas pretty often" is an excellent way to put it.


Yeah imagine if you sold cupcakes and you found out cupcakes can lead to obesity. Are you going to publicly announce that you shouldn’t buy cupcakes? That cupcakes make you die? Fuck no, you’re not. Oil companies are evil af. But no more-so than any other company. It’s their job to sell oil. It’s our governments job to represent us and protect us. Only one of those is failing their job while both destroy the planet Government needs to be elected out when they do this.


>Every thinking adult in 1970 knew it. No, in the early 70s climate scientists were warning us about a coming global ice age.


https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml >Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. | >An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. **A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.** More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests. | >A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myths basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. The research enterprise that grew in response to the questions articulated by Bryson and others, while considering the forces responsible for cooling, quickly converged on the view that greenhouse warming was likely to dominate on time scales that would be significant to human societies (Charney et al. 1979)


It's been public knowledge since [1912](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1912-article-global-warming/), yet here we are.


I'd argue that there's a difference between when this issue "first" came into the public eye, and when comprehensive studies were done (and concealed) on its effects.


We all knew in the 1980s


from the Shell Report: “if this warming occurs then it could create significant changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather… …Such relatively fast and dramatic changes would impact on the human environment, future living standards and food supplies, and could have major social, economic and political consequences.” * International Monetary Fund (IMF) study shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. * $6.7 TRILLION spent on war on terror going to industrial-war complex (includes the fossil fuel industry which is either private business or to oil-rich countries that nationalized the resource …. but also have some of the WORST human rights abuses in the world & finance terrorists.) ^ “free market” 🙄🙄🙄 * from ‘08 to ‘11 fossil fuel industry spent $1.4 TRILLION on PR & ads to gaslight & misinform the public. It’s been super effective. James Murdoch, just months after resigning from NewsCorp in protest: “I reached the conclusion that you can venerate a contest of ideas, if you will, and we all do and that's important. But it shouldn't be in a way that hides agendas. A contest of ideas shouldn't be used to legitimize disinformation. And I think it's often taken advantage of. And I think at great news organizations, the mission really should be to introduce fact to disperse doubt – not to sow doubt, to obscure fact, if you will.”


They all did. We know this. But worse still we willingly let them lie to us. We turned a blind eye. And some are still doing it. And the changes that society will need to make are politically unpalatable. And even today the great "we" are not willing to make the changes that are necessary.


The only reason it's politically unpalatable is because we have given 0 consequences to the lying and we have politicians who are paid to muddy the waters with them. Open bribes as political donations, or art sales, the ways it is done are many. And millions upon millions will buy cars sold as being more economical friendly because their cities were designed to require a car to live in. Any attempt to fix this is fought tooth and nail with propaganda fed to people that add to it. We managed to overcome a lot to beat the tobacco industries, but this fight is so much bigger I don't think our system can overcome it.


This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/10/20/fossil-fuel-giant-total-has-known-about-climate-threat-since-1971-say-scientists) reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot) ***** > French oil and gas company Total was warned about the climate consequences of burning fossil fuels as early as 1971, claims a study published today. > Researchers at CRNS, Sciences Po and the University of Stanford used the archives of the oil group, now known as TotalEnergies, alongside interviews with former company executives and internal documents. > As COP26 negotiations are rapidly approaching, 350.org and Notre Affaire Tous are demanding that governments and financial actors force TotalEnergies to align itself with the Paris Accords by ceasing the development of new fossil fuel projects. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/qc0bl5/french_oil_company_total_knew_about_their_effect/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~604425 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **company**^#1 **TotalEnergies**^#2 **oil**^#3 **Total**^#4 **climate**^#5


So now, there's enough evidence to sue them in the ICJ. Then make them plant billions of trees.


They'll defer the costs to the consumer and people will cry about even higher petrol costs, blaming the government


Which pushes people away from using hydrocarbons as their main energy source and seek to use green alternatives as a cheap and sustainable alternative. I see no problem here.


It also causes people in the developing world to starve in the street.


Which is kind of funny considering they own the Government. I guess it's useful to have a patsy.


That's not what the ICJ does.


Send them to jail for mass murder, seize all their assets, nationalize all fossil fuel companies.


we knew about climate change since 1812 and every single person on this planet lied about it since then when denying it. simple as that.


why 1812?


i think in 1812 the first paper on the effects of fossil fuels on climate change was released.


Pretty much. And then used it as a convenient excuse not to explore other energy sources, especially for vehicles.


There will be zero consequences for any of the liars.


They actually receive mansions and yachts for their troubles.


Paid by my taxes!




All these companies knew. We need to sue them into oblivion or rise up and destroy them. Those are our options, it seems, coz they're not gonna just start being good suddenly on their own.


And tobacco companies knew about ciggies causing cancer. Companies won't tell the truth - they'll keep up the lies if it means saving their profits for a few more decades.


Our restrictions and penalties lack teeth, better to make billions and pay fines later.


Don't talk shit about Total!


I request elaboration


A quote that was famous in the early days of video streaming on the internet. There was a guy called "Tourettes Guy" who... well, he might not have actually had Tourettes, but he swore a lot and did ridiculous stuff that we found funny in 2004. He was one of the very first viral video stars, along with Francis (Boogie2988), and Angry Grandpa.


They have a giant refinery in my area, and I hate that I know that the joke doesn’t quite work because it’s actually pronounced toh-TAL. Ugh.


This tells u all you need to know about humans.


We truly are just stupid monkeys


No, it tells you all you need to do about capitalism and what happens in a liberal society due to inequality and resulting in information asymmetry. It tells you what happens if you allow a system to persist that is enabling psychopaths instead of suppressing them. It tells you what happens if you confuse "freedom" with "allowing people to exploit their society without facing the consequences".


All the company knew. Everybody now know and government + companies doesn’t work to solve the issue. We are the Titanic looking at the iceberg coming for the last 50 years.


Now do the American ones.


It's been done. Although I'm not really sure if Shell and Exxon are American companies


To be fair, the only reason the lie worked is that we desperately wanted to believe. We didn't need oil companies to tell us about the climate in 1971.


Dunno , was something like -24 years old


Science has been warning about industrial effects on the climate for a lot longer than the 70s. By the 70s, climate protests by the informed public were already nothing new. The reason these oil companies lied wasn't because they expected anyone to believe them. It's because they were asked by the government "*are you doing any damage?*" and they replied "*nope, we're not doing any harm*". And that lets the world ignore the problem for another good long while.




The majority of the shares will be in various EU pension funds. The biggest individual holders will probably be any senior management who have been with the company for a very long time. The largest institutional holder is Blackrock.


It's not share holders, it's the board of directors that are the ones who have known this. While the board hold the majority of shares, it should be the board who are made accountable. There are smaller shares held by pension funds for example. The individuals of those pensions are not to blame here, it's the ones who have knowingly and willingly participate in causing the issue.


The board and all leadership and politicians complicit.




Capitalism is a disease. Meanwhile, find the actual decisionmakers. The people who proposed harmful decisions that killed people and ruined our future.


Dunno, but the apes of r/wallstreetbets and r/superstonk may have info


Greenpeace knew that nuclear energy had zero emissions in 1971 and knowingly destroyed it.


If they knew, they all knew!


You don't fucking say?! Color me surprised because HOLY SHIT I never would've thought they would do such a thing! /s


Companies like this should be sued for the damages they caused


They'll just outspend their adversaries.


this sounds like it should be a surprise but it's not.


Make it news when they actually get punished for killing taxpayers.


Anything for profits… 😒


And this is a surprise to whom?!




Whaaat?! No way


Its ok because its allowed


Total more like Total Bullshit


Publish the list of everyone involved. This is the kind if stuff that drives me to tax the rich. They have no right to destroy the planet and be playing around for generations.


But they have China as the scapegoat for carbon emission








Yeah that's the real answer. I don't think most people care where they get their energy but its got to be plentiful & cheap and oil or nuclear are the only real answers for that


MW/hr cost of new generation by energy type, as per the EIA's 2020 estimates (using the values correcting for subsidies on wind and solar): Wind: $28-$54 Solar: $32-$42 Gas: $44-$68 Coal: $66-$152 Nuclear: $118-$192




Btw i had to go to page 2 of Google to find an article in English




MAYBE HE WAS TELLING PEOPLE TO GO TO PAGE TWO IF THEY DONT WANT A TRANSLATED DOCUMENT? If you want to get hung up on his use of the word just, I could MAYBE understand why you would feel the need to ask this in such a way. Edit: he didn't even use just, so go away anyway


I am not even surprised


It's bad, immoral and to be expected in capitalism. What's worse, even less moral, and should not be expected is that scientists advised our politicians and the broader public for decades as well, and politicians didn't take the required steps. Now we start pointing at Total, to feel better for ourselves being ignorant?


> It's bad, immoral and to be expected in capitalism. Except in this case those companies were government-owned when this happened.


Great post and totally on point.


Does it really make any difference if they knew about it? At the end of the day, it still became apparent to the Governments who grant drilling licenses and have continued to do so after discovering the effect climate change. If the effect of climate change was outed back in 1971 by Total, I'm pretty sure governments would still have tried to encourage drilling for all the industry that was popping up back then.


And those governments undeniably knew in 1989 as did the rest of the world. We're still expanding global oil and gas use.


I don't really understand this line of thinking. People were warning in newspapers 100 years ago about carbon in the atmosphere. No one ever made decisions about whether to fill up their car based on what an oil company said. Trying to make big oil into big tobacco is stupid.


If we want any action on climate change, we're going to have to organize protests that block the entrances to every fossil fuel business. Their profits need to be disrupted if we want to force politicians to act.


This is short sighted, it’s like the classic blocking the bulldozer that is cutting the tree down. If you want to actually make change you need to show big corporations that caring about the environment can be profitable.


Oil refineries are especially good targets. They will also be protected by heavily armed police and army (sent by politicians) if need be. We are winning the war on the ecosystem, why do you want us to lose? \s


lol, good luck with that. If the prices at the gas station rise drastically due to the shortages caused by the blockades, the masses themselves will literally lynch the protesters pronto.


Yes. That’s why I have no kids and no plans for a future except not lingering too long to appreciate “interesting times”.


No! The French lied? Said every person living in the South Pacific islands.


That company is evil


*their* effect As if supply did not match demand. As if some amorphous, fuzzily-defined *they* somehow are at fault, and not **every single person in the entire developed world.**


Lol, "fuzzily defined"... The names in the thread title. They knew. It's not fuzzy. Are you being deliberately disingenuous? They're not the only oil company that knew but I'm guessing they were amongst those that paid billions into muddying the waters and trying to discredit the science. In fact... I'm wondering if you yourself aren't part of this. You jumped in here deliberately and clearly misrepresenting what was said. That's a known tactic is the oil companies over the last 50 years to try and misrepresent the science and muddy the waters.


Oh my God I can’t believe this, I never seen this coming!!


Capitalism only cares about short term profits. Lies are the bare minimum corporations do to increase profit.


Bro EVERYONE knows how badly they're fucking up the planet. No one gives a shit. Fuck all of them.


It is just like the tobacco companies denying smoking causes cancer. Except instead of it affecting only the people who smoke, it affects everyone. Same thing with Facebook and social media. There are so many psychological problems and it is all being covered up. Just look at the recent report where girls are developing tourrette ticks from watching TikToks. In another 5-10-15 years it is going to really bad. Ironically China might be onto something by force limiting of social media.


So the French guys were the bad guys all along en? Tabernacle I knew something was up when they call me a cave!!


Because money.


\*Gasp\* Who would have ever guessed?


Which major oil and gas company didn’t bury the truth under a mountain of paperwork when it came to light that they were knowingly destroying the planet?


I think these guys are the ones that caused the global oil price crash in the first place. The price was low all along, and it only took this amount of time to set them up. These guys are really good at playing the game


So, these people are guilty of mass murder and crimes against humanity and will be severely punished via jail sentences and be held privately liable via asset forfeitures while the companies themselves are going to get nationalized, correct?


Add that to Exxon!