One very important detail: From the late 60s, Exxon was a big investor in the nuclear power industry. They saw huge potential in the technology and obviously, pushing the climate change narrative would support it. Unfortunately, by the 80s, after oil crisis had ended, oil was abundant again, while nuclear was becoming less profitable due to overregulation. Finally, Exxon ditched all nuclear investments after the 1986 Chernobyl accident. Source: Why Nuclear Power Has Been A Flop - The Gordian Knot of the 21st Century by Jack Devanney
Thank-you for this insight. If people would just look up France vs Germany they'd see what amazing technology and investment in nuclear can do. It's one of humanity's biggest mistakes, not investing sooner into clean, reliable nuclear.
One fun video we found while doing research was this 1970s Exxon-produced documentary about nuclear energy: archive.org/details/Nuclear_Energy_A_Perspective
@@oldineamiller9007 Ah I see where you're going. Technically they are not doing anything illegal by breaking any laws. And truthfully, I dont know shit about laws, especially US or international laws. But still, Astroturfing, actively hiding the truth from the public / lying to them only to earn more money and lobbying feel veeeery illegal to me or just morally wrong at the very least. Maybe some research/investigation could dig something up?
This is why I hate hearing people say that “the free market will solve climate change.” Companies will always take the actions that allow them to make the most money for the lowest cost regardless of the toll that it has on our society. So we have to push our governments to do things like tax carbon emitting processes, subsidize the transitions to cleaner tech, and reevaluate the goals that our society is built around. Sitting around waiting for companies like Exxon to solve this for us is just a sure-fire way to ensure that climate change gets worse.
Without energy for transportation we cannot build better infrastructures to survive and adapt to extreme weather. EVs are not ready yet and CVs are required to get them ready.
@@theroofer3181 most carbon tax proposals include a dividend for this very reason. All money from the tax is pooled together and then distributed equally to citizens. Since the majority of energy is purchased by the 1%, the result is that the majority of citizens actually net more money in their wallets in the end. All while helping level the playing field from a cost perspective between fossil fuels and cleaner technology.
the assumption that there is a "free" market is the problem here. we still subsidize fossil fuels with trillions every year, giving companies and consumers perverse incentives to continue this collective suicide.
The head of Exxon at the time, Lee Raymond, deserves to have mentioned on the list of the 20th century's greatest killers, up with Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
The irony is that we cannot continue to make the energy transition to renewables and EV transportation without using conventional vehicles that run on fossil fuels. When it comes to transportation there is no realistic alternative. Solar and wind projects don't deliver and install themselves. Nor can EVs at this point. Chastising and punishing the industry that will make this transition quicker and possible is counterproductive, if not delaying the future.
back then it was thought to be due to a hole in the ozone layer. Very different. The response was to ban chlorofluorocarbons found in spray cans. You are trying to rewrite history a bit here
I think you will find that the ozone hole was only discovered in the 1980's, so anything happening in the 70's was entirely unaffected by that. And not too coincidentally, it was also found that increasing ozone holes would lead to extra upper atmospheric warming, because ozone destroying chemicals also tend to be greenhouse gases.
One very important detail: From the late 60s, Exxon was a big investor in the nuclear power industry. They saw huge potential in the technology and obviously, pushing the climate change narrative would support it.
Unfortunately, by the 80s, after oil crisis had ended, oil was abundant again, while nuclear was becoming less profitable due to overregulation. Finally, Exxon ditched all nuclear investments after the 1986 Chernobyl accident.
Source: Why Nuclear Power Has Been A Flop - The Gordian Knot of the 21st Century by Jack Devanney
Thank-you for this insight. If people would just look up France vs Germany they'd see what amazing technology and investment in nuclear can do. It's one of humanity's biggest mistakes, not investing sooner into clean, reliable nuclear.
One fun video we found while doing research was this 1970s Exxon-produced documentary about nuclear energy: archive.org/details/Nuclear_Energy_A_Perspective
@@patusoro4781 what are you talking about? The missing Deep geological repository or the missing cooling water of the french reactors in summer?
This needs to lead to lifetime jail sentences for the people involved, including gigantic penalty payments.
@@oldineamiller9007 Negligent and knowingly destruction and/or endangerment of the environment and fellow human beings, soley based on greed.
@@oldineamiller9007 Ah I see where you're going. Technically they are not doing anything illegal by breaking any laws.
And truthfully, I dont know shit about laws, especially US or international laws. But still, Astroturfing, actively hiding the truth from the public / lying to them only to earn more money and lobbying feel veeeery illegal to me or just morally wrong at the very least. Maybe some research/investigation could dig something up?
@@oldineamiller9007 ecocide.
@@oldineamiller9007 most stupid question
This is why I hate hearing people say that “the free market will solve climate change.”
Companies will always take the actions that allow them to make the most money for the lowest cost regardless of the toll that it has on our society. So we have to push our governments to do things like tax carbon emitting processes, subsidize the transitions to cleaner tech, and reevaluate the goals that our society is built around.
Sitting around waiting for companies like Exxon to solve this for us is just a sure-fire way to ensure that climate change gets worse.
Without energy for transportation we cannot build better infrastructures to survive and adapt to extreme weather. EVs are not ready yet and CVs are required to get them ready.
Carbon taxes aren't the way to get there. Nothing worse than putting people already struggling into energy poverty.
@@theroofer3181 Not only that, but taxes cannot take any CO2 out of the atmosphere. Neither can "urgent" reductions in CO2 emissions.
@@theroofer3181 most carbon tax proposals include a dividend for this very reason. All money from the tax is pooled together and then distributed equally to citizens.
Since the majority of energy is purchased by the 1%, the result is that the majority of citizens actually net more money in their wallets in the end. All while helping level the playing field from a cost perspective between fossil fuels and cleaner technology.
the assumption that there is a "free" market is the problem here. we still subsidize fossil fuels with trillions every year, giving companies and consumers perverse incentives to continue this collective suicide.
The head of Exxon at the time, Lee Raymond, deserves to have mentioned on the list of the 20th century's greatest killers, up with Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
thanks for going in depth! Reading the headlines is scary but doesn't give the full picture
Glad you enjoyed it!
The irony is that we cannot continue to make the energy transition to renewables and EV transportation without using conventional vehicles that run on fossil fuels. When it comes to transportation there is no realistic alternative. Solar and wind projects don't deliver and install themselves. Nor can EVs at this point. Chastising and punishing the industry that will make this transition quicker and possible is counterproductive, if not delaying the future.
Yeah we need better urbanism, for a while we have known that EVs won't cut it. It's just an industry trying desperately to stay alive.
Great content, thank you!
You should properly credit the person in this video by adding his name to the video description above.
back then it was thought to be due to a hole in the ozone layer. Very different. The response was to ban chlorofluorocarbons found in spray cans. You are trying to rewrite history a bit here
I think you will find that the ozone hole was only discovered in the 1980's, so anything happening in the 70's was entirely unaffected by that. And not too coincidentally, it was also found that increasing ozone holes would lead to extra upper atmospheric warming, because ozone destroying chemicals also tend to be greenhouse gases.
How much is are oil company’s pay for what they did to our earth ?
You calling Norfolk southern now.. Brandon seems to be hiding