Welcome to the Future

Still no jetpack or flying car, but all that dystopian shit, yeah, we got that.

The graph below is the one that specifically caught my eye.

Tom Randall via Twitter:

This @exxonmobile chart from 1982 predicted that in 2019 our atmospheric CO2 level would reach about 415 parts per million, raising the global temperature roughly 0.9 degrees C. 

Update: The world crossed the 415 ppm threshold this week and broke 0.9 degrees C in 2017 1/

Here’s another from @exxonmobile 1982. It showed how global warming would initially be almost indistinguishable from normal climate fluctuations. But by 2020 there could be no doubt—the old “normal” would be entirely left behind. Welcome to the future 2/ insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/…

12 thoughts on “Welcome to the Future”


  1. Jimmy Carter started the process to move away from fossil fuels, and roNaLD rayGUN, stopped it and he and every republican is responsible for the mess we are now in.

    Reply

    1. It’s just too pat an answer.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/american-oil-consumption/482532/

      “The basic problem is that there is no constituency for an energy program,” said James Schlesinger, the country’s first energy secretary.

      https://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/Jimmy-Carter-Energy-policy.html

      “In spite of Carter’s avowed populism, his proposals did not have enough support from the people to overcome opposition from the interests. In fact, most people opposed his energy package. By emphasizing conservation rather than the development of new resources, the program seemed to call upon Americans to change their lifestyle, and most did not want to do that.”

      Americans elect Republicans = Americans responsible (with significant help from extremely wealthy and powerful vested interests).

      Reply

      1. Not really someone has to start the process, he did. Then ronAlD Ray-Gun completely stopped it. Not much discussion. You can argue what WOULD have happened had we gone carters way, but that’s a moot point because we didn’t.

        Reply

        1. I can send the links, but I can’t force you to read them.

          Also, Carter wasn’t concerned with moving away from FF use or ending it. His top concern was energy security. Conservation would slow growth in FF use (especially oil) as one method to provide that security. An added bonus was the environment, but it wasn’t the priority. Solar power was another means. But other methods included vastly increasing coal production.

          His full intent in spelled out in this speech:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbNFKgNoWc0

          Wiki description:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Equivalent_of_War_speech

          “Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.”

          One of his last initiatives was the Carter Doctrine, which laid the groundwork for the Persian Gulf wars.

          His first principle in the ‘Moral Equivalent’ speech is this:
          “the country can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices”

          Obviously, the answer to that was ‘no’. The people didn’t understand the seriousness and weren’t willing to make sacrifices. They elected Reagan with a landslide. Ever since then, few to no politicians on either side of the aisle use the word ‘conservation’. ‘Efficiency’ is catchier, and even that is rarely used. We talk instead about building more things, having more jobs, and economic growth. It’s what the people want, after all.

          You aren’t wrong that Reagan stopped Carter’s plans. But to say it’s all the Republican’s fault is a half-truth. The people elect Republicans. The people don’t want conservation. They want more, more, more – and every Presidential candidate since Carter (including all of the current Democrats) have remained within the bounds of that desire – it’s really one of the lasting legacies of the Carter Presidency.

          Reply

          1. That’s water under the bridge. WE DID NOTHING!! And rOnAlD rayGun threw any hope we had for a change down the toilet and kept on flushing.


  2. I read the Exxon PDF of the full report in the link above. Fascinating stuff. They knew a lot of the picture as far as effects, time needed to respond, rough estimates on climate sensitivity, and so on. For instance, they mention ocean acidification and some areas getting wetter with others getting drier.

    Two other things that stood out to me – they knew they’d be getting heavily into oil shale after 2000. That’s probably liquid oil extracted from crushed shale, rather than shale oil, or the tech we use for fracking (and which has put oil shale on the back burner), but it implies they knew there’d be the need for other reserves at that point. Secondly, they figured the response to carbon emissions would peak fossil fuel use before supply did.

    There’s a mention about other estimates of climate sensitivity being higher than their own.

    Reply

  3. Startlingly accurate science from 1982, and to think I was naively supporting the coal miners strike a couple of years later. We did not have the internet and the associated social media, but had T.V and newspapers, although unfortunately the oil companies guarded their findings, what would have happened if they were publicized ?. We should be well on our way to stopping the out of balance state of affairs.

    So Exxon should be punished for not acting and suppressing this information, I cannot see how courts could not come to the same conclusion.

    Who sold our world for a fistful of petro-dollars and bling?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from This is Not Cool

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading