Climate of Concern - Royal Dutch Shell (1991)

[@davidhawk5416]

Good question. I recall in 2009 that when I was giving a lecture to a conference at Oxford in 2009 titled: "Climate Change Consequences vs. Business as Usual" a Shell executive got quite upset. He got up from the audience to express his displeasure with my discourse on their operations (especially in Africa) relative to my 1975-77 project on climate change companies. He came up on the stage while I was speaking and took a swing at me (he missed, ha.ha.). He thus made me well known at Oxford (and never to be invited back due to their Shell funding). My final words were "...we'll catch up with all of you later." Poor humans....including us, ha..ha.

[@takvera]

Shell got it pretty right in 1991, then dropped the ball. Imagine if they had of used their business clout as an energy company to start the energy transition 2 decades earlier. Thanks Will for posting.

[@plfodder]

Didn't drop the ball, more had to stay within the law. A director of a company is bound to try and make the most money they can for their shareholders! It's the law that needs changing.

[@KatsuBae]

right.

[@KatsuBae]

@@plfodder agree.

[@johnstonclark5412]

They are in the energy business. If there were viable alternatives to fossil fuels available now, Shell, Exxon-Mobil and others would be all over them. But they aren't. What does that tell you?

[@QT5656]

​@@johnstonclark5412 There certainly are cheaper alternatives but those alternatives are harder to monopolise and control.

[@jfairliecuninghame]

How can this excellent film be shown to all our Politicians, business leaders and parent and citizen organisations, on all TV outlets so that nobody can miss it or say 'I didn't know !!

[@xjarheadjohnson]

I remember this topic in my 6th-grade science textbook, in the mid-80’s. It takes YEARS of vetting and undeniable amounts of confirmation for a scientific idea to be put in a middle-school textbook as an important fact. I struggle (have struggled for years) to understand where the disconnect is, with this topic, in the U.S. This topic has been 6th-grade science for over 30 years.

[@KatsuBae]

It also depends on an individual's purpose of living. After all, everyone needs to produce a profit.

[@xjarheadjohnson]

@@KatsuBae Point taken.

[@haveaseatplease]

In 1991, the technology was available to start (and ramp up fast) the energy revolution. So at that time, only the vote of the people in the EU and North America democracies for those political parties that support(ed) the energy revolution was needed to start the energy revolution.

[@Hubcappp]

They knew. Then they denied.

[@bovellois]

In a rare moment of clarity, they laid the facts. Now it looks like we are witnessing a race against time by oil companies on behalf of their shareholders. They see th writing on the wall. Some oil companies have started to invest quitely in renewable energies, but if their people are trained in exploration, refining and distribution of fossil fuels, could they forego that knowledge in favor of the new skills required? Some will, others will resist.

[@haveaseatplease]

They new with 100% certainty since 1977. See the report published by ExxonMobil

[@SingingXavier]

I would like nominate this film for an Oscar. Wouldn't that be wonderful, to credit the original, prophetic filmmakers and to embarrass those that put it outof sight?

[@PermacultureSenegal]

The irony is that the companies owing the money, the brains and the resources, sit and watch the deterioration. Short term visions prevail over long term.

[@haveaseatplease]

I disagree, in 1991, the technology was available to start (and ramp up fast) the energy revolution. So at that time, only the vote of the people in the EU and North America democracies for those political parties that support(ed) the energy revolution was needed to start the energy revolution. Archer and Jacobson (*) estimated that 20% of the global total wind power potential could account for as much as 123 petawatt-hours (PWh) of electricity annually [corresponding to annually averaged power production of 14 terawatts (TW)] equal to around 7 times the total current global consumption of electricity (comparable to present global use of energy in all forms). Their study was based on an analysis of data for the year 2000 from 7,753 surface meteorological stations complemented by data from 446 stations for which vertical soundings were available. They restricted their attention to power that could be generated by using a network of 1.5-megawatt (MW) turbines tapping wind resources from regions with annually averaged wind speeds in excess of 6.9 m/s (wind class 3 or better) at an elevation of 80 m. * CL Archer, MZ Jacobson, Evaluation of global wind power. J Geophys Res 110, D12110 (2005).

[@BinaryBlueBull]

For anyone interested in this, which we should all be: watch the three-part Frontline documenary titled "The power of big oil" with part 1 "denial", part 2 "doubt" and part 3 "delay". It is really eye-opening and quite sickening. Why these people aren't in jail with all company assets liquidated and put towards battling this disaster is beyond me. It is a crime against humanity. Well, it's actually not beyond me, the simple answer is "money". I hope that if the worst comes to pass, those responsible will get to see the mass of pitchforks and torches on the horizon some day Apart from all that, I can really recommend Frontline. Real, deep-digging investigative journalism which is becoming increasingly rare these days. I love their content

[@haveaseatplease]

In 1991, the technology was available to start (and ramp up fast) the energy revolution. So at that time, only the vote of the people in the EU and North America democracies for those political parties that support(ed) the energy revolution was needed to start the energy revolution.

[@BinaryBlueBull]

​@@haveaseatplease Indeed, of course you are right. The population is definitely not without fault here, which is not what I was trying to imply. However, given that a significant portion of the population is quite easily swayed when inundated with carefully crafted propaganda, the fact that they have poured billions of dollars into targeted disinformation campaigns meant to steer the population away from voting to phase out fossil fuels and to impress upon them the made-up message that fossil fuels don't have any significant influence on the climate and that the companies were not to blame, I think in my opinion drastically lowered the chances of the population voting to, as you say, "start the energy revolution". And that makes those campaigns a crime against humanity as a whole. These companies (especially Exxon) knew what was going to happen, since they had done very extensive, thorough, well-structured and well-funded research themselves decades ago which told them as much, yet they decided to do anything in their power to minimize and cover that up, alongside shifting away as much of the blame as possible and persuade the population to not vote in their own self-interest So, I agree with what you're saying, however it could be that you're underestimating just how much influence these dis- and misinformation campaigns had on the voting process, which these documentaries fully explain. What they have done is pure, money-hungry evil. Could be that you already know this of course and again, you're right in what you're saying

[@garysmith2953]

Thanks for posting this, Will. I'll be showing it to high school students soon. They deserve to know.

[@bevofrancis8030]

...totally unnecessary; the high school students have all been properly indoctrinated (read: brainwashed). Show them this, sure, but then will you show them Dr. Donald Easterbrook's presentation to a state Senate committee considering a carbon tax? Just enter his name above in the "search" box.

[@elidoluisbd]

Thank you for posting Will, a truly audiovisual treasure!

[@bluepov]

I hope this doesn't get taken down.

[@roid465]

Why would it get taken down? Petro companies benefit greatly from global warming and this "scientific" dogma that has gripped the western world. The whole establishment is behind this narrative now so who exactly would want this taken down?

[@QT5656]

Back when some people working for the oil industry had a sense of responsibility to everyone no just billionaire shareholders.

[@mattw9764]

This 1991 video remains a pretty good overview of the science and consequences of human-caused climate change. That is, apart from the predicament now looking much much grimmer after 25 years of continued reckless emissions and warming. Considering our future of a massively degraded natural environment, human misery and death on an unprecedented scale, rapid and far-reaching changes to the biosphere (irreversible on any human timescale), and mass extinction of species, can Shell now expect to escape responsibly? We should not allow corporations that have knowingly profited from recklessly destroying the environment on a massive scale to escape without using their every last resource to put their damage right.

[@QT5656]

Thanks for uploading.

[@thalamus82]

No problem, I completely forgot that I’d uploaded this.

[@aaron___6014]

a timely upload.

[@penter_gruel]

THIS NEEDS TO BE SHARED

[@anton-scottgoustin5425]

Action now is the only safe insurance!" -- Royal Dutch Shell

[@haveaseatplease]

In 1991, the technology was available to start (and ramp up fast) the energy revolution. So at that time, only the vote of the people in the EU and North America democracies for those political parties that support(ed) the energy revolution was needed to start the energy revolution.

[@MrBodydriver]

I'm glad this is still here. Not much has changed in 7 years unfortunately 😕

[@KatsuBae]

Thanks for this video.

[@TheMrSirCharles]

Also => What Shell knew about climate change in 1991 - video explainer www.theguardian.com/global/video/2017/feb/28/what-shell-knew-about-climate-change-in-1991-video-explainer

[@Jolafunk]

Ignoring the problem does not make the problem go away.. But the forrests absorb co2. Lets make love to nature THAT way

[@Azzataky]

I'll never understand why companies who dont tell people something big they knew before are allowed to continue theirs business.

[@deborahdanowski]

Amazing.

[@StopFundingIsrael]

I'ts all very well to look retrospectively, however as a concerned citizen I want to know why they have not yet been arrested for environmental terrorism and resource theft of our collective earth.

[@haveaseatplease]

In 1991, the technology was available to start (and ramp up fast) the energy revolution. So at that time, only the vote of the people in the EU and North America democracies for those political parties that support(ed) the energy revolution was needed to start the energy revolution.

[@rayraytub1000]

Same issues today! Efficiency has been improved, as suggested, but growth has outstripped those gains. We are seeing the weather predicted, next we will start seeing human migrations... Probably need to reduce consumption and stop expelling CO2 ASAP... like back in 1980 already...

[@leolayne135]

Perhaps I am way too late in finding this video, when did it surface into the public domain? Anyone know?

[@leolayne135]

I often do read the bloody descriptions, mate; however, I must have been distracted when I posted my question. You seem to be a great, friendly advocate & educator for the cause. If you are in the know, then you can verify that this video was never before released into the public domain until February 28, 2017...five days ago, the same day Will Tisdale posted it.

[@leolayne135]

My questions were borne out of sincere curiosity given court cases involving Shell. You offered up constructive criticism (thecorrespondent.com/6285/shell-made-a-film-about-climate-change-in-1991-then-neglected-to-heed-its-own-warning/692663565-875331f6) which I took to learn more. I was initially annoyed with the way you directed me to the answer. I offered you some constructive criticism in the way one might educate people with questions so as not to push allies away. Let's start over and rail against the real enemy, i.e. Shell.

[@leolayne135]

LOL!

[@RobbertMulder]

Leo, it was shown in schools back in the day, for education purposes. Most probably, greed and stupidity made is 'disappear' from the educational system. But with the current status of 'social media' it would be very easy to share the video with all your contacts, and ask them to share with their contacts and so on.... maybe, just maybe..... a video like this should have 1 billion views

[@timomakinen1093]

At least we have LEDs now vs incandescents, and a lot more wind and solar than in 1991. Slow progress, but still some. Let's hope we can continue to accelerate things.

[@francoismarot]

We must change society and behaviours, not rely on any more hypothetical miraculous technologies.

[@haveaseatplease]

In 1991, the technology was available to start (and ramp up fast) the energy revolution. So at that time, only the vote of the people in the EU and North America democracies for those political parties that support(ed) the energy revolution was needed to start the energy revolution.

[@ikkejick]

Shell probably goes where the money goes. So they are partly to blame, but not entirely. Governments are equal to blame (but more focused on short term political results) and consumers choose for the cheapest options. Egoism and money rule, and that's IMHO the root of the problem.

[@86bushi]

Shell buys the government, that is the problem. Universities are being bought too, so the government gets more and more dependent on private or information from lobbyist.

[@QT5656]

Ultimately the problem is too much wealth concentrated in too few people. It allows them to effectively operate above the law, corrupt governments, dominate media narratives, and erode democracy.

[@QT5656]

Ultimately the problem is too much wealth concentrated in too few people. It allows them to lawyer up, effectively operate above the law, corrupt governments, control media narratives, and erode democracy.

[@mrsslim9029]

Very good movie. Minus the dogma currently so prevalent. Did this kick it all off? Bizarre. I very much like the note that correlation is not causation at the beginning. This was a very naive theory that admits gross limitations. Where is that honesty today?

[@tintersdepot4136]

thanks for posting this.

[@yvonnesep4238]

What are you doing with this knowledge Shell?

[@cs292]

Exhibit A in New York lawsuit

[@phiksit]

and Rhode Island lawsuit

[@amyramk7823]

Would this be classified as a documentary film?

[@QT5656]

...or a confession.

[@nedspeak]

Elon Musk carbon video is also one to watch.

[@SixthMassExtinction]

Thanks Will. Much appreciated!

[@mxd6]

Our planet is in deep trouble and Trump don't give a damn.

[@haveaseatplease]

No, it are the eligible voting public who doesn't give a damn, otherwise, the eligible voters would vote for someone that supports the energy revolution.

[@JohnLelandWhiting]

If you watch it, you'll see that it ends up advocating, not alternative energy but marginally more efficient use of carbon-based sources. Nothing revolutionary were.

[@bluecollarnobody4217]

Climate change ain't nothing but somebody's bulshit Financial political agenda somebody is going to profit off of this that's all it's about as money

[@QT5656]

Nope, it's physics.

[@bluecollarnobody4217]

@@QT5656 here let me take you about those experts claiming physics. There are also the same experts that are saying, men can be women and women can be men.