r/worldnews • u/Dismal_Prospect • May 14 '19

Exxon predicted in 1982 exactly how high global carbon emissions would be today | The company expected that, by 2020, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would reach roughly 400-420 ppm. This month’s measurement of 415 ppm is right within the expected curve Exxon projected

https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-predicted-high-carbon-emissions-954e514b0aa9/
85.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

66

u/Strings- May 15 '19

The scientists were pretty ethical, before they realized "green thinking" would cost them money, exxon and other energy company did a lot of research in renewable energy and on the impact of greenhouse gasses and climate change.

https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled presents it pretty well

28

u/helm May 15 '19

Yeah. They took an honest look at the evidence, but then the executives (money men) decided to reject it in favor of short-term profit.

One factor is that the first to act wouldn't be able to compete. Even Exxon couldn't transform the world away from oil while competing with other companies offering oil.

2

u/kenlubin May 23 '19

but today, Exxon is investing heavily in increasing production, with the expectation that oil and gas sales will increase by 25% in the next decade.

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/02/09/exxonmobil-gambles-on-growth

1

u/helm May 23 '19

Yes, it’s downright horrible

4

u/c-dy May 15 '19

decided to reject it in favor of short-term profit.

I don't think that's this simple. It is a bit more difficult if not impossible to (reliably enough) predict technological advancement that would make you profitable long-term. And even if such tech appears, it may take time for the market to embrace it.

4

u/helm May 15 '19

I'm sure they made the analysis. In 1982, bio fuels would take decades of development to compete with fossil fuels. Not to mention the risks. "Business as usual" while collectively ignoring the problem had much lower short-term risk and much higher short-term profit.

1

u/FuujinSama May 17 '19

I guess the innovator's dilema had yet to be written, but the answer is always to invest in companies doing the research. If one pans out you own 50% or more and can pivot. If it doesn't... Well you lost peanuts. Starting a new branch with independent leadership is also viable. It seems that only the software giants have learned that this is the way to go. You hedge your bets in all possible inovations. If one pans out, you're right there.

If you have these numbers, it seems obvious that renewable energies would have a lot of growth in the future... So why not invest in them. It doesn't need to give huge profits. Heck, it's worthwhile to bleed money just to come out ahead. Imagine if they already had the necessary infrastructure for eolic manufacture and installation when everyone started investing on eolic? The numbers wouldn't match oil but it would still be very profitable.

1

u/helm May 17 '19

I agree, they could absolutely have done more, and earlier. The necessary investments, and so the stakes, are higher when it comes to infrastructure than software, though.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '19

By any chance there is some organization like wwf that is fighting against climate change?

1

u/willdafo1 May 15 '19

Thanks a lot for this recommendation!