I've published a new paper in @Env_Pol reporting what I believe is the earliest known example of climate deception from the fossil fuel industry, from all the way back in 1980.

In this thread, I'll explain this discovery & its significance https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2020.1863703

The key document is "Two Energy Futures: A National Choice for the 80s," a public policy book published by the American Petroleum Institute.

In it, the API argued to expand fossil production in the US, open federal lands for extraction, use coal-to-liquids technology & so on.

Of course, the policies advocated by the API would lead to a major increase in CO2 pollution, and by 1980 the dangers of global warming were of public concern.

So the API felt a need to reassure the public about CO2 and global warming.

To do this, the API used a few methods. First, it claimed that scientists were more or less split about the effect CO2 would have on the climate. This was false.

In particular, the API claimed popular astronomer Carl Sagan saw little danger from CO2. This was also false.

Second, the API used the results of an industry-funded study to claim that expanded coal production (to make synthetic liquid fuel) would be safe for the environment.

This study was called the World Coal Study. It was funded by fossil fuel companies & carried out at MIT.

The World Coal Study was established specifically to advocate for more coal use. It called for a tripling of global coal production by the year 2000 & asserted that this would have no major health or environmental consequences.

Though laughable, it carried the imprimatur of MIT.

The World Coal Study was influential. Its director, an MIT professor, lobbied US President Carter to double coal production by the year 1990 among the G7 countries.

Carter adopted the goal and it became official G7 policy in 1981.

The API pointed to the World Coal Study, portraying it as independent & authoritative, to reassure the public that expanded fossil fuel production would be safe.

This was misleading, because the study was in fact neither independent nor authoritative regarding global warming.

The API also claimed the World Coal Study was consistent with the conclusions of the World Climate Conference held in 1979. This was also false.

In fact, the World Climate Conference had concluded it was "urgently necessary ... to foresee and prevent" dangerous climate change.

In addition to false & misleading statements about climate change, the API also omitted important information it held internally.

For instance, it made no mention of its internal task force on climate, which had been warned earlier that year of "globally catastrophic effects".

The API also made no mention of member company Exxon's internal research, which had shown in 1979 that avoiding severe global warming would require coal never to be used extensively, 80% of recoverable fossil fuels to be left in the ground & fossil energy systems to be replaced.

And of course there was more internal knowledge the API omitted, like the report it commissioned and received from the Stanford Research Institute in 1968, which warned of global warming by the year 2000 and severe environmental damage.

So by 1980 we see the US petroleum industry spreading disinformation about global warming in order to shape national & global energy policy, using:

- Misrepresentations of scientific research
- Industry-funded research portrayed as independent
- Omissions of its own knowledge

This discovery is important for our understanding of climate politics for a number of reasons. For one, it shows that by 1980 the fossil industry was not only paying attention to climate science but also actively intervening to prevent climate from becoming a public policy issue.

Second, it changes our understanding of the dearth of climate policy in the 1980s. Some have suggested that climate discourse was not yet contaminated by disinformation at that time, since major deception groups like the Global Climate Coalition were not active until 1989 or so.

While that interpretation made sense given the information available, this discovery shows that climate discussion, research & policy were not as pristine prior to 1989 as previously thought. By 1980, the petroleum industry had begun deploying spin & disinformation.

Finally this revises our understanding of the strategic history of the fossil industry. One common interpretation today is that the oil co's were initially "good" (did research, didn't spread disinfo) & then in the mid-late 1980s turned "bad" (stopped research & started denying).

This discovery shows that even while the industry had an extensive research program on climate, it used public disinformation in order to keep climate sidelined on the public policy agenda & promote the long-term expansion of fossil fuels.

Far from being a contradiction, research & disinformation worked synergistically. The industry's public research programs gave it credibility, which made disinformation more effective.

Today, we might think that 1980 was a long time ago. But consider the path dependence of energy policy & infrastructure. Decisions have repercussions for decades.

A major buildout of coal infrastructure, for instance, may be prevented, but once done is not so easy to reverse.

This discovery has unsettling implications. It appears that from the inception of public awareness of global warming, the petroleum industry sought to pollute public understanding, manipulate science, and delay policy action.

The consequences, of course, reverberate today.

Yet ultimately this discovery is empowering because it allows us to see what has happened more clearly & better determine how to proceed.

Who should be held accountable?

What safeguards should be put in place to prevent deception?

What are the real obstacles to climate action?

We live in the consequences of hidden histories, and that's especially true for climate change.

There's much more to be discovered...