CONNECT
As Exxon CEO Calls Global Warming’s Impacts ‘Manageable’, Colorado Wildfires Shutter Climate Lab
Climate Progress / News Report
Published: Thursday 28 June 2012
A 2011 study found that “9 out of 10 top climate change deniers [were] linked with Exxon Mobil.” So it’s no surprise that Exxon’s CEO would spread misinformation on global warming.
Fueled by a warming climate, Colorado is experiencing its worst fire season in its history.
As researchers at Boulder’s National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) joined 32,000 other Coloradans in fleeing the fires, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations about the “manageable” risks of climate change:
Rex Tillerson said at a meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that climate change was a “great challenge,” but it could be solved by adapting to risks such as higher sea levels and changing conditions for agriculture.
“As a species that’s why we’re all still here: we have spent our entire existence adapting. So we will adapt to this,” he said. “It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions.”
Tillerson’s flippant remarks about “adapting” to the “manageable” consequences of climate change come at a time that Exxon is making record profits. In 2011, the company made $41.1 billion in profits, and Tillerson pulled in $34.9 million total compensation — a 20 percent raise from 2010.
A 2011 study found that “9 out of 10 top climate change deniers [were] linked with Exxon Mobil.” So it’s no surprise that Exxon’s CEO would spread misinformation on global warming.
Climate Progress is unaware of any serious climate scientists who think that global warming is “manageable” simply through adaptation if we listen to the do-nothing Exxon crowd and stay anywhere near our current emissions path. We know a great many who have written that the reverse is true (see below).
It’s also worth nothing that by mid-century, wildfires in the West our projected to be far, far worse. Here’s the grim projection from a presentation made by the President’s science adviser Dr. John Holdren in Oslo in 2010:
We can barely manage the wildfires we have today. How exactly would much of the West “manage” a 4-fold to 6-fold increase in wildfires? And that’s just from a 1°C increase in temperatures. We could see 5 times that this century.
Tillerson pushed standard denialist obfuscation talking points:
He added: “In the IPCC reports … when you predict things like sea-level rise, you get numbers all over the map. If you take what I would call a reasonable scientific approach to that, we believe those consequences are manageable. They do require us to begin to spend more policy effort on adaptation.”
While it’s true that the IPCC and other analyses have reported a range of sea level rise and other impacts, much of that is due to the fact that they consider some very low emissions scenarios that would require aggressive action of a kind that Exxon has spent millions to stop. And the IPCC report was based on science and observations that is 6 years old — it ignored virtually any contribution to sea level rise this century from the disintegration of the great ice sheets. Now there is a widespread convergence of scientific analysis that says on the do-nothing path, sea level rise by 2100 is likely to be 3 feet and could be double that.
The key point is that the Exxon strategy – taking no serious action to reduce emissions — eliminates most of the uncertainty concerning future emissions and makes catastrophic impacts all but a sure thing.
We are headed to 9° to 11°F warming this century — 12+°F warming over much of the U.S. — if we listen to Exxon and the climate science deniers it funds, according to M.I.T and the International Energy Agency.
The first 7+°F global warming is “incompatible with organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems & has a high probability of not being stable (i.e. 4°C [7F] would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level),” according to Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change in Britain (see here).
Still, the planet would almost certainly keep warming past 2100 if we were on the high emission scenario:
Science stunner — On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter: Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 “may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models”
Steve Easterbrook’s post “A first glimpse at model results for the next IPCC assessment” shows that for the scenario where there is (5°C) 9°F warming by 2100 (from preindustrial levels), you get another 7°F warming by 2300. Of course, if Exxon isn’t motivated to avoid the civilization-destroying 9°F by 2100, it clearly won’t be moved by whatever happens after that.
Lonnie Thompson explained why climatologists are speaking out: “Virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.” As for adaptation, scientists have found the “net present value of climate change impacts” of $1240 TRILLION on current emissions path, whereas aggressive emissions reductions to avoid the worst impacts is our vastly superior.
Perhaps multimillionaires like Tillerson think they will be able to manage those impacts. The 99% won’t be so lucky.
Top Stories
By Richard (RJ) Eskow
8 comments on "As Exxon CEO Calls Global Warming’s Impacts ‘Manageable’, Colorado Wildfires Shutter Climate Lab"
WA
June 28, 2012 7:47pm
Do we dispute that 9 out of 10 scientists subscribe to AGW? Do I find logging trucks on the road every day? Were the WalMarts in this area built on Nature's land? At 61 years old, I've watched the destruction of Nature in MY AREA, and have gathered from reliable reports that Nature has been demolished everywhere else, too. Most of the destruction has happened in MY LIFETIME, and now my little Grandchildren will have to pay the price, as the oceans become too acid (yes, less alkyline) in MY AREA to support oyster growth, and if we continue to plug our ears and hum, will die soon. If I'm part of some "warmist brigade" then so be it, I'll hoist my independent bucket with glee, but my theories are based on FACTS, slowly accumulated over the years. Let me be clear on the TV issue, most people DO take television to be gospel, but I tell them different. So, when TV mentions any environmental catastrophe (like the conservative estimate of ocean level rise) I listen (not watch) with great interest, as I know it will move public opinion and determine government policy. Doubting scientists bear a special responsiblity for making the craziness of the TEA Party Republicans look respectable. Doubt is certainly admirable, but the situation is quickly deteriorating into disaster, time to stop mulling it over and ACT.
June 28, 2012 3:41pm
And by the way, if you read up about the survey referred to in the article claiming 9 out of 10 sceptics worked for oil companies, it is the most unscientific survey imaginable, based on biased websites. If you look more closely, the survey does seem to say that around 770 papers (82%) out of the 900 were written by scientists with no connection to the oil industry.
As another commenter pointed out, it would appear that AGW believers are also natural climate change deniers.
Given that the world's climate has ALWAYS changed since its creation, that in the past it has warmed to significantly hotter temperatures than any forecast by the IPCC & Co., and the last ice age was only 10,000 years ago, how can anyone disprove that our planet is not experiencing one of its ongoing cycles?
June 28, 2012 3:29pm
"Hey, Henny Penny Whitey"
What is it with so many of the members of the warmist brigade that they have to resort to name-calling in lieu of hard evidence. Jackwenayscott quotes ( in all seriousness) predictions heard on TV, as if that were the source of all wisdom and truth!
As another (clearly despised) scientist, and one who would actually applaud if Exxon et al went out of business, I agree totally with Jeltez42's well-explained comment but fear that no amount of facts will sway those who have already made up their minds, largely on the basis of their emotions rather than a desire for truth.
WA
June 28, 2012 2:54pm
Hey, Henny Penny Whitey, the sky IS fulling, full of CO2! Now the current masters of the white race are doing just what those of European descent have done for 1000 years, destroying Nature! Only this time it's basic Earth chemistry and it's all our necks on the block. Above Exxon of course is television, and Mom's TV reported a couple of days ago that sea water will rise 1.5 feet by 2030! Yes, now even television is admitting it! So, we can imagine they have the most conservative estimate (being amongst the most conservative people), meaning double it or more, 3 to 6 feet by 2030. Trillions of dollars of expensive ocean-front real estate gone under water. By now we're starting to lose value in the dimishing value of ocean-front real estate, some math whiz can calculate it easily, surely we've lost billions already in reduced land value.
June 28, 2012 12:36pm
OMG, there has never been major fires in Colorado before this year and it is all due to global warming. This article borders on one of the worst I have read in all my 47 years.
First off, there have been many documented MAJOR fires in Colorado dating to the 1800's. If nobody lived in this area, there would be minimal media coverage. Secondly, it is irresponsible of the author to say that global warming is causing the fires. WE DON'T KNOW THAT. This is almost as bad as saying that my Kingsford charcoal will catch on fire in my grill on the 4th becuase of global warming. My charcoal has caught on fire in -6C weather when I was pregnant and craving a grilled steak. It wasn't easy but it did cook the steak so yes warm weather does help the fuel get to the combustion temperature quicker but it is not the cause. My butane lighter will light my charcoal, not the 33C predicted temps. Dry fuel is also a must have if you are to get a fire.
Humans have adapted to several mile thick ice sheets covering almost half of the planet, we have adapted to climate changes in the past such as Egypt seeing large amounts of rain. What the alarmists don't want us to do is find real solutions to our current pressing problems and that is how will we adapt to the change that is coming. They have their own financial agenda to make a tonne of money off from climate engineering and the power of people hanging on their every word. Earth never had a thermostat and it is deadly for every living thing to want to have the climate at a set value. Everything flows in cycles and a set value climate will disrupt those cycles.
I have nothing to do with Exxon for the record and want to keep it that way, and I don't deny that we have a dynamic climate that will get hotter and colder with or without humans on the planet. The science that anthropogenic global warming sits on is not agreed upon. I am an Atmospheric Scientist who also happens to be a chemist and there are many scientists that do not agree with what is published in the media. Even the IPCC reports do not agree with much of what is reported. Research is coming out now that is questioning the Oxygen isotope ratio methodology used to assign temperatures to paleoclimates. Seems as if there are some other parameters that need to go into those calculations but were deemed insignificant thus left out. Remember when tree rings were all the rage for temperature calculations. We found out that all they were an indication of was a good, average, or bad growing seasons where the tree had plenty, just enough, or little nutrients and water.
The message is that everything is connected on this planet. We cannot continue to use resouces like they are unlimited and we cannot continue to pollute our environment. We must have responsible reporting, and not these types of Henny Penny/Sky is falling stories. Oh and by the way, we do need to plan for much of FL and the SE coast to be under water AGAIN. Just as those living in Canada and the Northern Plains will have to move south to stay ahead of the miles thick ice sheets. This is part of the cycle. To interveen will further harmfully impact the climate that the alarmists are trying to hard to control.
La Nina years led to the drought and dry conditions in Colorado causing prime fire conditions not global warming. Nature uses fires to remove the dead wood, renew the soils, control insects and other pests, and to adapt to the changing environment.
June 30, 2012 10:05am
The concern is the speed of the cycle of climate change. It is unprecedented. The consequences are not specific weather at the moment, but a new norm...an increase in these extreme patterns. Exxon's CEO comments marked a change in discussion. He acknowledges climate change and hints that increases in carbon levels might have a catalyst affect on these changes. But the real shift in discussion is his discussion on adapting to it. Climate cycles like most of nature are naturally slow...allowing for better adaptation. Since the industrial revolution, mankind has been putting into the air (what took millions of years to capture) an overload of a multitude of chemicals. Permafrost is melting in the Arctic regions so pipes are now above ground. Examples of climate change engineering and moving to higher ground just occurred on the north slope of Alaska. A good deal of the human population exists near sea level - New York City and Miami come to mind in the US and most of the Baltic major cities as well. At least the discussion seems to be moving from complete denial of climate change from the old guard to one involving the word - adaptation.
June 30, 2012 10:05am
The concern is the speed of the cycle of climate change. It is unprecedented. The consequences are not specific weather at the moment, but a new norm...an increase in these extreme patterns. Exxon's CEO comments marked a change in discussion. He acknowledges climate change and hints that increases in carbon levels might have a catalyst affect on these changes. But the real shift in discussion is his discussion on adapting to it. Climate cycles like most of nature are naturally slow...allowing for better adaptation. Since the industrial revolution, mankind has been putting into the air (what took millions of years to capture) an overload of a multitude of chemicals. Permafrost is melting in the Arctic regions so pipes are now above ground. Examples of climate change engineering and moving to higher ground just occurred on the north slope of Alaska. A good deal of the human population exists near sea level - New York City and Miami come to mind in the US and most of the Baltic major cities as well. At least the discussion seems to be moving from complete denial of climate change from the old guard to one involving the word - adaptation.
June 30, 2012 10:05am
The concern is the speed of the cycle of climate change. It is unprecedented. The consequences are not specific weather at the moment, but a new norm...an increase in these extreme patterns. Exxon's CEO comments marked a change in discussion. He acknowledges climate change and hints that increases in carbon levels might have a catalyst affect on these changes. But the real shift in discussion is his discussion on adapting to it. Climate cycles like most of nature are naturally slow...allowing for better adaptation. Since the industrial revolution, mankind has been putting into the air (what took millions of years to capture) an overload of a multitude of chemicals. Permafrost is melting in the Arctic regions so pipes are now above ground. Examples of climate change engineering and moving to higher ground just occurred on the north slope of Alaska. A good deal of the human population exists near sea level - New York City and Miami come to mind in the US and most of the Baltic major cities as well. At least the discussion seems to be moving from complete denial of climate change from the old guard to one involving the word - adaptation.