Smoke & Fumes

This is a story about how the world’s most powerful industry used science, communications, and consumer psychology to shape the public debate over climate change. And it begins earlier—decades earlier—than anyone suspected.
Explore our documents and discover what they knew, when they knew it, and how they collaborated to confuse the public, promote scientific theories that contradicted their own best information, and block action on the most important challenge of our time.
Exxon and its allies have dismissed comparisons to Big Tobacco as baseless. Our research in more than 14 million documents of the Tobacco Industry Archives reveals compelling evidence that the relationship between these two industries is neither coincidental nor casual. Beyond a doubt, the oil companies have benefitted from the tobacco playbook in their fight against climate science.
But the question arises, where did the tobacco companies get their playbook in the first place?

The oil industry used the tobacco playbook in its fight against climate science.
But where did tobacco get that playbook ?

>>>  https://www.smokeandfumes.org <<<
The oil industry used science, communications, and consumer psychology to shape the public debate over climate change and block action decades earlier than anyone suspected.

: ABOUT CIEL :
>>> https://www.smokeandfumes.org/about
Founded in 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) uses the power of law to protect the environment, promote human rights, and ensure a just and sustainable society. CIEL seeks a world where the law reflects the interconnection between humans and the environment, respects the limits of the planet, protects the dignity and equality of each person, and encourages all of earth’s inhabitants to live in balance with each other.
CIEL pursues its mission through legal research and advocacy, education and training, with a focus on connecting global challenges to the experiences of communities on the ground. In the process, we build and maintain lasting partnerships with communities and non-profit organizations around the world.
Contact ...
Press inquiries contact: Amanda Kistler – press@ciel.org or +1-202-742-5832
For feedback, suggestions, or to share documents we may have overlooked email: reply@ciel.org
Note of appreciation
More than a decade ago, researchers began to document—and, more importantly, bring to light—oil industry efforts to fund the science and propaganda of climate denial. Over the last year, a growing body of evidence has revealed that, even as they funded climate denial campaigns, Exxon and oil companies had a sophisticated command of climate science by the 1980s, at the latest. Our research and discoveries add to the tremendous work of others including: ExxonSecrets, Merchants of Doubt, UCS Dossiers, Climate Investigation Center, Inside Climate News, and Los Angeles Times.

: TAKE ACTION :
>>> http://act.ciel.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=1560
CIEL (Headquarters)
1101 15th Street NW, 11th Floor
Washington DC, 20005 USA
Phone: (202) 785-8700
Fax: (202) 785-8701
E-mail: info@CIEL.org
CIEL (Geneva Office)
15 Rue Des Savoises, 1205
Geneva, Switzerland
Phone: 41-22-789-0500
E-mail: geneva@CIEL.org
http://facebook.com/ciel.org
https://twitter.com/ciel_tweets
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-center-for-international-environmental-law-ciel-


SMOKE
] SOURCE [ https://www.smokeandfumes.org/smoke ]


Exxon and its allies have dismissed comparisons to Big Tobacco as baseless. Our research in more than 14 million documents of the Tobacco Industry Archives reveals compelling evidence that the relationship between these two industries is neither coincidental nor casual. Beyond a doubt, the oil companies have benefitted from the tobacco playbook in their fight against climate science.
But the question arises, where did the tobacco companies get their playbook in the first place?

Introduction

Oil industry efforts to mislead or confuse the public about climate science are well documented. Over the past year, a new and growing body of evidence has come to light demonstrating that Exxon and other oil companies carried out these misinformation campaigns even as the industry’s own scientists were warning them about climate risks. Amidst mounting revelations, ongoing investigations, and a nascent tide of climate litigation, comparisons to Big Tobacco have become commonplace. Exxon and its allies have dismissed these comparisons as baseless. In their award-winning book, Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway document that many of the scientists and skeptics deployed by the tobacco companies went on to play a key role in the climate denial effort. The Tobacco Archives make clear, however, that tobacco was the middle of the story, not the beginning.
Our research in the more than 14 million documents of the Tobacco Industry Archives reveals compelling evidence that the relationship between these two industries is neither coincidental nor casual. The ties between these industries date back nearly a century and are surprising in their scope, their intimacy, and their specificity. In the 1970s, the Chair of British American Tobacco, one of the world’s largest tobacco companies, also served on the Board of Directors of Exxon. RJ Reynolds, another major tobacco company, actually owned and operated an oil company, American Independent Oil, which engaged in industry-wide projects with the other oil majors. But these examples only scratch the surface of the deep and pervasive ties between oil and tobacco. Beyond a doubt, the oil companies have benefitted from the tobacco playbook in their fight against climate science. The question arises, where did the tobacco companies get their playbook in the first place?
, Heidrick & Struggles...
1979, Richard E. Faggioli...

Extensive Commercial Relationship

That the oil and tobacco industries were each acutely aware of developments in the other should not be surprising. For decades, the oil industry and the tobacco industry have been deeply intertwined at a commercial level. As spelled out in a lengthy 1967 document from American Tobacco Company, these two industries had a robust alignment of interests. Gas stations are the most important retail outlets for cigarettes, with gas stations and convenience stores accounting for more than 60% of all cigarette sales by 2002. At the same time, cigarettes have long been the most important retail product of gas stations after gasoline, making up 28% of merchandise sales. Since at least the 1950s, the oil and tobacco industries have engaged in extensive joint marketing and cross-promotion campaigns, from joint sponsorships of baseball teams to hyper-specific marketing strategies that targeted consumers at the level of individual gas stations and the households nearby. They engaged in joint sponsorships of baseball teams, and when the Federal Trade Commission moved to ban cigarette advertising on television in 1970, oil companies tripled their television advertising to fill the void. As spelled out in a lengthy 1967 document from American Tobacco Company, these two industries had a robust alignment of interests. Long marketing documents from the late 1990s and early 2000s indicate that these relationships survived and adapted even as the scope and scale of tobacco’s cancer deception became clear.

Oil Company Testing of Cigarettes

The commercial relationship between the oil and tobacco industries did not end at cross-promotion. In fact, the oil industry was well positioned to test cigarette smoke for toxins because of its expertise in using mass spectrometry to test smog and air pollution. An internal Philip Morris report from 1957 documents not only how the tobacco companies turned to the oil companies for their expertise in mass spectrometry, but also that Shell and perhaps other companies were actively testing cigarette tars during that period. As discussed more fully below, Shell’s testing program was part of a research project funded by tobacco. Exxon’s Esso Research Labs carried out similar testing until at least 1968.
Beyond merely testing tobacco products, however, the oil industry began developing cigarette filters of their own. Esso provided tobacco companies with sample filter material as early as 1962, and engaged in a joint research agreement on filters with Philip Morris in 1968. The patent for the filter was assigned to Esso in 1971. As late as the 1990s, Exxon held patents to cigarette filters, leading to a failed partnership with RJ Reynolds to develop, test, and commercially deploy them. And Exxon was not alone. Between them, Exxon, Shell, and their subsidiaries filed patents for cigarette filters in at least three countries.

Tobacco Industry Research Committee Origins

In December 1953, executives from the country’s biggest tobacco firms came together to discuss a joint industry strategy to confront the rising tide of science demonstrating the strong links between tobacco and cancer. To help them develop that strategy, the tobacco industry turned to John Hill and Richard Darrow of the public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton. Hill and Knowlton relied on expertise developed to support one of its oldest and longest-standing clients, the oil industry, to develop that strategy for tobacco. In fact, the team to support tobacco was also responsible for Hill and Knowlton’s largest and most important oil company clients. Darrow helped the tobacco companies organize the Tobacco Institute and drew inspiration, in part, from the organization of the American Petroleum Institute. Internal Hill and Knowlton memos explain that the firm did not see themselves primarily as representing individual product lines or companies, but industries (and could therefore avoid conflicts of interest by representing companies alongside industry organizations). In fact, internal tobacco company documents show that the tobacco industry recognized (and envied) the degree of coordination among the oil majors, their highly-developed political acumen, and their robust internal public relations departments.
Kerryn King, a Hill and Knowlton PR man, worked in-house at Texaco and while there was following the tobacco debates and wrote to tobacco industry colleagues requesting documents. In addition, Allan Campbell Johnson was key to the tobacco industry’s European denial strategy. He was introduced to John Hill in 1953 by George Freyermouth of Standard Oil, because Johnson, like Hill, was providing counsel to the oil companies at the time. Again and again, the Tobacco Archives reveal how Hill and Knowlton, the Tobacco Institute and the individual tobacco companies turned to the oil industry for advice, for models, and, ultimately, for people to carry out their campaign of denial and deception.

Research Overlaps

Many of the research institutes used by the tobacco companies are discussed extensively in our Smoke and Fumes oil archive. The Stanford Research Institute (SRI) worked for the tobacco companies on psychographic analysis, carbon monoxide testing, and to develop discrete, portable cigarette testing kits that could be used without attracting attention. SRI was among the institutes funded through secret industry accounts managed by tobacco industry law firms. SRI proposals to the tobacco industry touted its experience doing smog research for the oil companies. And in one telling document, the head of Phillip Morris specifically referenced SRI’s work for Shell as evidence of its qualifications to do tobacco work.
Truesdail Laboratories, which was doing research into atmospheric carbon dioxide for the American Petroleum Institute (API) by the late 1950s, also offered its services to the tobacco companies. In a letter to tobacco executives in 1954, a former executive with Standard Oil (now ExxonMobil) provided a long list of recommended scientists to join the tobacco industry’s scientific advisory board. Several of these scientists were directly employed by Standard Oil, and the great majority of them had done work for the oil companies on issues ranging from lead to smog to cancer research. Many of these scientists would go on to do similar research for the tobacco companies, often serving as the public scientific face of the industry’s cancer denial efforts.

New York University

As the tobacco industry sought external scientists to support and validate its research programs, a former Standard Oil executive recommended a number of scientists for the tobacco companies to consider. Nearly all of these scientists had a history of working for or with the oil industry, and many from the list would go to work for tobacco as well. In particular, the Standard Oil executive recommended a number of researchers from both Standard Oil and New York University who had worked together on a project examining cancer issues facing the oil industry.
In 1953, executives from several tobacco companies met with scientists from New York University. During this meeting, Dr. C.P. Rhoads of NYU proposed using NYU’s research labs to solve an issue for tobacco that it had solved before for the petroleum industry. As Dr. Rhoads explained, the NYU group of scientists had been hired by the petroleum industry to find a carcinogen in oil and identify it so that the industry could neutralize it in the finished product. In that particular case, Standard Oil of New Jersey solved the problem by diluting the carcinogenic component of oil down to no more than 6% of its product. Dr. Rhoads explained that this model could be applied to tobacco as well, which was already under attack for being carcinogenic. Specifically, another scientist at New York University had discovered that a component of cigarette tars caused skin cancer in mice. Dr. Rhoads proposed that his NYU group could identify that component and the tobacco companies could either remove it or filter it out. The representative of the American Tobacco Company asked whether there was any proof that the chemical that caused skin cancer in mice would also cause lung cancer in humans, and Dr. Rhoads explained that there was not. He was sure, however, that identifying this chemical and removing it would be good enough for the medical community and the public at large, and eliminate the cancer issue for the industry.
Industry documents reflect a serious concern with the presence of Dr. George Wynder on the research team because Wynder had undertaken breakthrough animal research showing strong links between cigarette smoke and cancer. According to industry reports of the meetings, other members of the NYU team took care to distance themselves from Wynder and reassure the tobacco executives their results would be beneficial to the industry.
Early in the relationship, tobacco industry funding to the NYU team was directed through the Damon Runyon Memorial Fund (which, in turn, received donations from the tobacco industry). In his presentation to tobacco executives, Dr. Rhoads makes it clear that this arrangement – using the Damon Runyon Memorial Fund to avoid a direct link in the research funding – would be beneficial both for the lab and for the industry to reduce questions that might arise about the validity of industry-sponsored funding.
Following the creation of the Tobacco Industry Research Council (TIRC) in 1954, the tobacco industry continued to fund the NYU team through TIRC, as reflected in a series of renewal applications submitted by Dr. Alvin Kosak in the late 1950s. Kosak’s work for TIRC also provides the earliest direct evidence of oil industry collaboration in the tobacco industry’s research. In 1957, scientists from Philip Morris visited the laboratories of Shell Oil and Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) to discuss the oil companies’ approach to using mass spectrometers—scientific equipment that proved vital in toxicity testing of cigarettes. More importantly, Philip Morris and Shell Oil also discussed the mass spectrometry analysis of cigarette tars that Shell had undertaken as part of Dr. Kosak’s research. As discussed above, this is one of a number of instances documenting recurring oil company testing of cigarettes or tobacco products during the 1950s and 1960s.

Theodor Sterling

By the tobacco industry’s own admission, Theodor Sterling was, for two decades, one of the industry’s most important assets. From the early 1960s into the 1980s, Sterling was among the most cited scientists. Ironically, Theodor Sterling was not even a medical doctor; he was a mathematician. He was an expert at using statistics and epidemiology to delay, confuse, and obfuscate the certainty around the effects of cigarettes, and beyond that, he was an expert of study design and statistical methodology. Before working on the tobacco issue, Sterling did research for Ethyl Corporation, a joint venture between General Motors and Standard Oil. There he used the same techniques to oppose regulation of lead in gasoline.
In 1968, Sterling prepared a report that would prove central to the tobacco industry’s attacks on the emerging scientific consensus around cancer and tobacco. Within the small advisory group he convened to develop that report, one of the most vocal advisors was Robert Eckert, medical director of Esso (now ExxonMobil). Minutes from the advisory group’s meetings reveal how Eckert’s description of the oil industry’s success in shaping the scientific narrative around air pollution provided a model that the tobacco industry would seek to emulate. Sterling’s report and recommendations, drawing heavily on that model, led the tobacco industry to propose a Truth in Statistics Bill in 1969 that it would attempt to resurrect more than a dozen years later in 1981.

A Complicated Relationship

Even as the tobacco industry looked to the oil industry for models, expertise, and people, it saw in the oil industry a critical, better resourced, and better organized opponent in the public debate over cancer. The tobacco industry files are filled with documents on smog, lead, and even on climate change. Both published reports and internal tobacco documents demonstrate that each industry saw in the other a convenient culprit for environmental cancers. Ironically, this mutual finger-pointing not only gave each industry a convenient opportunity to watch and learn from the other’s strategies, it also increased the overall public uncertainty about the causes of cancer and the necessary solutions to the benefit both industries. It can be difficult to discern from the documents whether the earliest tobacco testing being done at Shell Laboratories was in collaboration with or in opposition to the tobacco industry. What is clear is that even as Shell undertook this research, the tobacco companies were pursuing funded research with the same people at the same laboratories and seemingly on the recommendation of the oil companies.
Tobacco industry documents reveal a pervasive sense - bordering on paranoia - that the tobacco companies were constantly being outmaneuvered by the oil companies. Tobacco companies were particularly concerned about oil company influence within the American Cancer Society, not least because Standard Oil president Monroe Rathbone served on the ACS Board of Directors and on its committee on smoking and cancer.
The tobacco industry was a vocal critic of the oil and auto industries’ joint air pollution research program with the Environmental Protection Agency, which it argued was corrupt and industry-influenced science. At the same time, it grudgingly recognized this strategy as an effective model of regulatory capture.
1956, W. Terrell...
1978, Frank Hansford-Miller...
1975, R.D. Stewart...
1977, Fred Panzer...
1973, Tobacco Institute Staff...
1958, American Cancer Society...
1972, Helmut Wakeham...
1955, Unknown...
1964, C.W. Griffin, Jr....
1950, Sidney Katz...


FUMES
] SOURCE [ https://www.smokeandfumes.org/fumes ]

What They Knew and When

When do we hold someone responsible for a harm? What if the harm is climate change?
In determining responsibility for a harm, courts are likely to ask: Did they have the capacity to foresee the harm? And, did they have the opportunity to avoid or reduce it? For example, by warning others.
Growing public evidence demonstrates that Exxon and other oil companies understood climate risks by the 1980s, yet spent millions to sow uncertainty and misinformation about climate science.
The documents that follow—industry histories, scientific articles, oral testimonies, patents—span more than half a century of industry research and industry action. They offer compelling evidence that oil executives were actively debating climate science in the 1950s, and were explicitly warned about climate risks a decade later. Just as importantly, they offer glimpses into why the industry undertook this research, and how it used the results to sow scientific uncertainty and public skepticism.

1946

The Smoke and Fumes Committee

From the very beginning of the American Petroleum Institute (API) in 1919, the oil industry recognized pollution issues, and the regulatory and liability risks they created, as an area of common concern and common interest. By the 1930s, API had focused particular attention to issues of air pollution. These issues came into sharp focus in the 1940s, as a rapidly growing Los Angeles grappled with the debilitating impacts of smog.
In late 1946, as public concern and media scrutiny mounted, executives from the Western Oil and Gas Association met in Los Angeles to consider a response. They emerged with a plan—and a Committee. Comprised of executives from leading oil companies (including Union Oil, Standard Oil of California (both now part of Chevron), Esso (now ExxonMobil), and Shell), the newly-created Smoke and Fumes Committee would fund scientific research into smog and other air pollution issues and, significantly, use that research to inform and shape public opinion about environmental issues. The express goal of their collaboration was to use science and public skepticism to prevent environmental regulations they deemed hasty, costly, and unnecessary.
Recognizing that the air pollution issues in Los Angeles could foreshadow the emergence of similar risks across the country, the Smoke and Fumes Committee was reorganized with a national mandate in 1952 within the American Petroleum Institute. It continued to operate, under a succession of names—but many of the same people—for the ensuing two decades. The Jones report documents that by 1958 at the latest, the Committee was funding research into the role of fossil fuels in rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

1947

Stanford Research Institute

The Smoke and Fumes Committee funded research at a number of institutes, including the Armour Research Foundation, the Franklin Institute, and Truesdail Laboratories. But the Committee’s earliest and most sustained partnership was with the newly-created Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Originally part of Stanford University, SRI maintained close ties to the oil industry from its beginning. It was established in 1946 at the urging of a Standard Oil executive and with the promise of oil industry contracts; oil and refining companies were well represented on the SRI board; and the oil industry accounted for a significant portion of SRI contracts and revenues in its early years.
Much of the Smoke and Fumes Committee’s air pollution research was carried out at SRI. As experience with smog would demonstrate, the resulting scientific reports became an important and recurring tool in the oil industry’s campaign to cast doubt on both the science and the scientists that disagreed with them. And, as recounted by researcher Harold Johnston, hires and fires at SRI could be dictated by the Smoke and Fumes Committee and influenced by researchers’ opinions of the science in question.

An Emerging Science

In 1886, Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius developed an equation for chemical reaction rates that would make his name commonplace in fossil fuel combustion science—and oil companies. Ten years later, in 1896, he would become the first scientist to quantify the impact of carbon dioxide on the temperature of the global atmosphere. His later hypothesis that fossil fuel combustion might increase global temperature featured in both popular and academic texts throughout the early 20th century, including geology texts that would have been required reading for aspiring geologists.
The concept of climate change gained new relevance in the late 1930s, when Guy Callendar documented a decades-long increase in global temperatures and correlated that increase with rising fossil fuel use. Over the ensuing decade, scientific interest in the climate question continued to grow. During much of this period, however, it was widely assumed that the oceans covering 70% of the planet’s surface would absorb the excess CO2 released by human activity, and mute any impact on the atmosphere.
In 1955, Scripps Institute scientist Hans Suess demonstrated that naturally occurring carbon-14 in the atmosphere was being "diluted" by depleted carbon-12 derived from fossil fuels. Suess’ 1955 paper provided the first clear proof that, as hypothesized by Arrhenius and theorized by Callendar, carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels was accumulating in the atmosphere. With this work, the era of intensive of climate science began. During the same period, oil industry scientists—led by Humble Oil’s (now ExxonMobil) H.R. Brannon—were actively engaged in carbon-14 research, and uniquely equipped to understand and shape the climate science revolution that evolved rapidly over the next few years.

1957

Brannon: ExxonMobil on Notice

Even as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose and climate science expanded, during the first half of the 20th century, many researchers assumed that most excess CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean, minimizing impacts on atmospheric temperature. In 1957, a landmark paper by Roger Revelle and Hans Suess of the Scripps Institute upturned that conventional wisdom, demonstrating that far more CO2 would remain in the atmosphere than previously assumed, potentially accelerating the impact of global climate change.
Two months after the Revelle and Suess paper was published, Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) scientists led by H.R. Brannon submitted their own study for publication on the same question. Building on the team’s earlier work on radiocarbon dating, and submitting under the company’s name, the Brannon paper provides the earliest indisputable evidence we have yet found of oil company knowledge of climate science and climate risk. Significantly, the Brannon report acknowledges not only rising levels of atmospheric CO2, but also the evident contribution of fossil fuels to that increase. In acknowledged disagreement with Revelle, however, the Brannon paper suggests that CO2 would be retained in the oceans much longer before returning to the atmosphere, which would delay by decades or centuries the impact of fossil fuel emissions.

1968

"The Robinson Report"

In 1968, scientists with the Stanford Research Institute reported to the American Petroleum Institute about their research on atmospheric pollutants of interest to the industry. Summarizing the available science, the scientists saved their starkest warnings for carbon dioxide (CO2). They cautioned that rising levels of CO2 would likely result in rising global temperatures and warned that, if temperatures increased significantly, the result could be melting ice caps, rising sea levels, warming oceans, and serious environmental damage on a global scale.
They also acknowledged that fossil fuel burning provided the best explanation for rising CO2. They further recognized that existing science was "detailed" and seemed "to adequately explain the present state of CO2 in the atmosphere." And they concluded that the most important research need was technologies and "systems in which CO2 emissions would be brought under control."

Robinson Report, reprise

Robinson and Robbins’ 1968 report represents a turning point, separating a "before" and "after."
Not only does the report acknowledge the link between rising atmospheric CO2, the risk of climate change, and that fossil fuels are the most likely culprit, it affirms that the underlying science is sound, and that the most important research needs were in technologies to reduce CO2 emissions. We know the Robinson report was seen by industry leaders. In 1971, Robinson delivered the major findings of the study to industry experts gathered at the World Petroleum Congress. A 1972 industry report authored by a steering committee of high-level executives was submitted to the Department of Interior on air pollution issues. It relied on Robinson’s report and publicly referred to "their careful study" by "eminent scientists" as an authoritative source on atmospheric pollution. Significantly, both the 1971 speech and the 1972 report placed a far greater emphasis on scientific uncertainties than Robinson himself did, and relied on those uncertainties to support a "wait and see" approach to climate action.
How could the industry explain ignoring the climate findings of its own scientific report even as it embraced that report on other pollution issues? In 1969, API hastily commissioned a "Supplemental" report from Robinson that took a more skeptical, more equivocal approach to climate science. API relied on that Supplemental report in its subsequent questioning of climate science, and industry and climate skeptics continued to cite it for years afterward. We will share that latter report soon.
The oil industry, in its report to the Department of Interior, acknowledged the Robinson report from 1968. In its comments on carbon dioxide, however, the industry relied heavily on a synthesis of the American Academy of Science’s 1965 Air Conservation report. Among the contributors to the report were Jerry McAfee, Vice President of the Gulf Oil Corporation (now Chevron) and Executive Secretary of the Smoke and Fumes Technical Advisory Committee. The four-page section on carbon dioxide—reproduced almost entirely in Environmental Conservation—was considerably more equivocal than Robinson’s 1968 assessment, and failed to mention Revelle’s landmark paper from 1957 and several other leading assessments.

Seeking Alternatives to Action

In addition to the 1957 paper from Brannon et al suggesting that oceans could slow CO2 rise for longer than Revelle and Suess’ findings, the oil industry continued studying carbon dioxide and its behavior in the atmosphere. In the ensuing decades, the industry continued to fund scientific research into other sources of accelerating CO2 emissions, alternative theories to explain rising global temperatures, and potential sinks that could absorb CO2 without the need for reduced emissions—all the while building an unparalleled understanding of climate science and the carbon cycle. Examples include investigations into the ratio of fossil carbon to natural carbon in woods; the ability of marine plankton to absorb CO2; and research into theories of climate change based on sunspots in the 1960s that have remained a go-to argument for climate skeptics. At the same time, ongoing and more commercially oriented research, for example into the use of increased CO2 concentrations to spur plant growth in greenhouses, bear striking similarities to later arguments by industry-funded skeptics that increased greenhouse gas emissions, by spurring plant growth, would actually benefit agriculture and the planet.

Patents

In addition to sponsoring research on the environmental characteristics of carbon dioxide, the oil industry also undertook ongoing research and development into how to manage the waste streams of their products. From the 1940s onward, oil companies developed and refined techniques for removing carbon dioxide from gas streams. While many of the applicable patents were designed to produce "pure" CO2 for commercial purposes, or to produce purified feeds of other gases by removing CO2, the technology to separate from CO2 from other gases was robust, well-established, and constantly diversifying. In the 1960s and 1970s, patent filings for CO2 removal accelerated further. The significance of these technologies is drawn into focus in a 1980 document, revealed by Desmog Blog, in which Exxon subsidiary Imperial Oil not only recognizes climate change, but also acknowledges that existing technologies could cut CO2 emissions by 50% - an opportunity the company dismisses by noting that it would unacceptably increase the cost of burning oil.
Patent filings also reveal the oil companies’ technological capacity in related areas, including the development and continual refinement of fuel cells and other technologies to use fossil fuels more efficiently and decrease CO2 emissions. When Congress proposed new government funding for research into electric vehicles in the 1960s, the oil industry actively opposed the new funding on the grounds that the needed research was always underway. This raises the important question of whether and how oil companies actually worked to develop their patents and bring them to market after the early promise of electric cars had been quashed.

Hurricanes

As demand for oil grew in the twentieth century, oil companies turned to offshore sources of petroleum. By the 1940s, they were building platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, and quickly discovered that hurricanes posed a substantial physical and financial threat to their operations. Almost immediately, individual oil companies alongside the American Petroleum Institute began extensive oceanographic and meteorological research projects. They investigated the causes and impacts of hurricanes, developed techniques to forecast them, and patented new oil rigs designed to withstand them. Because oil platforms are costly, long-term investments, the industry sought not simply to forecast hurricanes better in the short-term, but to understand the maximum wave heights and wind intensities that could impact a site over 100-year time horizons. In a story first reported in the New York Times in 1989, and cast in new light by recent disclosures, Shell Oil raised the height of a North Sea oil platform by six feet to improve its chances of withstanding climate-driven sea level rise over the ensuing decades.
By the 1960s, oil companies were sponsoring research at the forefront of atmospheric science and using high-powered electric computers to develop complex climate models for use in storm forecasting. Because an increase in storm frequency and severity is one of the predicted consequences of climate change, understanding how storms form, and being able to predict them, is fundamental to climate science and understanding climate change.

Weather Modification

Beyond studying hurricanes in their natural state, the oil industry also sponsored research into weather modification techniques. This research took an array of forms – from covering large areas of the earth with asphalt to increase rainfall, to burning fossil fuels to break up fog or smog, to spraying carbon dust into the atmosphere or spreading oil on the ocean surface to weaken or shift hurricanes. Interest in intentional weather modification is as old as climate science itself, and the oil industry was not alone in exploring it. At the same time, the overlaps between the industry’s research – and personnel – on weather modification, pollution control, and climate science are striking.
Research and patents on the use of asphalt to create massive "temperature mountains" to spur rainfall, published by James F. Black of Esso/Exxon’s Production Research Division demonstrate the company’s sophisticated capacity for modeling local and regional impacts of climate changes and its interest in deploying weather modification techniques on a very large scale. As revealed by Inside Climate News, Black would later tell Exxon’s Management Committee that "emerging science showed that carbon dioxide levels were rising, likely driven by fossil fuel use, and such increases would boost global temperatures, leading to widespread damage."
The scale and diversity of the oil industry’s weather modification dreams is reflected in a series of joint publications by William M. Gray and industry-sponsored coauthors Myron Corrin and CA Stokes. Gray and his co-authors focus on a variety of potential weather modification uses for carbon dust, also known as "carbon black" produced by the burning of petroleum products. Even as they acknowledged economic or technical challenges to Black’s proposals and to stratagems to melt snowfields by coating them in carbon black, Gray and his co-authors explored and actively promoted the use of petroleum-based carbon black to modify weather under an array of other circumstances, including altering rainfall patterns, shifting winds, blowing away smog, and potentially shaping the course of hurricanes. Myron Corrin, a respected academic, was not only a consultant to Phillips petroleum, but an inventor (for Phillips) of carbon black production techniques. Well regarded for his work on hurricanes, William Gray would in later years be a noted and vigorous climate skeptic.
Finally, the linkages between weather modification efforts and the oil industry’s decades long focus on reaching and exploiting the (warming) Arctic cannot be ignored. Soon after SRI’s Elmer Robinson published research on "Ice Fog" as an air pollution problem in the Arctic, meteorologist Harry Wexler drew on Robinson’s work to explain how human-made ice clouds (produced by petroleum combustion) could be used to melt the Arctic ocean. Indeed, petroleum products feature repeatedly in scientific discussions on the prospects for permanently melting the Arctic sea ice – over large areas or across the Arctic Ocean as a whole – whether intentionally, by spreading carbon dust from cargo planes, or inadvertently, through the impacts of Arctic oil spills. The oil industry’s own role in these discussions remains uncertain, though its awareness of them is clear.

Arctic

Whether, how, and, on what time scale, oil companies expected the Arctic to melt remains unknown. When interest in the vast, untapped potential of the Arctic oil province first developed in the early 1940s, the Arctic was in the midst of a multi-decade and much-discussed period of warming and sea ice retreat. Arctic sea ice experienced another, and steeper decline in the 1950s, coincident with the onset of serious research and experimentation by both government and corporate researchers into weather modification techniques described above, and amidst growing scientific and corporate awareness of potential climate change.
The oil industry knew of the enormous potential opportunity presented by a melting Arctic. Vast oil reserves lie trapped beneath Arctic ice. Whether by natural melting, climate change, or deliberate intervention, oil companies were (and still are) eagerly looking forward to future Arctic drilling. To prepare they started developing special platforms, which could be deployed to the Arctic. These platforms were powerful and designed to withstand barrages of Arctic sea ice. Some were mobile and able to be nimbly moved from location to location as conditions changed. Others designed with sloped bases that would force the ice upward, and away from the base.
The industry also developed special ships and tankers to move into and through the icy waters. In a widely promoted 1969 expedition, Esso (now Exxon) subsidiary Humble Oil converted a thousand foot oil tanker into a first of its kind ice-breaker designed to crush a channel through the sea ice of the fabled Northwest Passage and demonstrate a viable sea-route to the emerging oil fields of the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic. The voyage of the SS Manhattan, described in detail in Ross Coen’s Breaking Ice for Arctic Oil, was tied to the rapid expansion of the coastal oil resources of Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay; and Esso envisioned a fleet of similar vessels plying Arctic waters. Yet the simultaneous patenting of offshore Arctic technologies by many companies suggests the industry was already looking beyond the shoreline, to potentially massive reserves beneath the Arctic ice.

Paleoclimates & Sea Level Rise

As the major oil companies looked to the oceans for new petroleum reserves, they needed to know where to look. From the early decades of the 20th century, the oil industry recognized the link between shallow seas and oil deposits. The perpetual quest for new oilfields led the industry to pioneering science in the relationship between CO2 levels, global temperatures, and sea level rise. Among the most important of these projects was "American Petroleum Institute Project 51" housed at Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Roger Revelle and Hans Suess, who published their landmark paper on the oceans’ ability to absorb and hold carbon in 1957, were both working for Scripps at the time. Concurrently, Project 51 ran at Scripps from the mid-1950s through the early 1960s.
Among the results of these studies was the explicit mapping of periods of rising sea level onto periods of warming. This gave the industry unique insight into one of the most significant consequences of climate change—sea level rise driven by rising global temperatures.
Perhaps not surprisingly, by the 1980s—even as they continued to publicly question climate science—oil companies were investing millions to construct taller offshore oil rigs to protect their costly, long-lived investments from sea level rise.

Today

More than a decade ago, researchers began to document—and, more importantly, bring to light—oil industry efforts to fund the science and propaganda of climate denial. A growing body of evidence uncovered in the last year has revealed that, even as they funded climate denial campaigns, Exxon and other oil companies had a sophisticated command of climate science by the 1980s, at the latest. More importantly, that evidence suggests that oil companies used climate science to inform and shape their own business decisions even as they promoted scientific uncertainty and climate skepticism among consumers, regulators and the broader public. This emerging evidence has spurred growing calls for investigations and accountability by the public, legislators, and authorities at every level of government.
In the United States alone, four state Attorneys General have already launched investigations, with more expected to follow. At the federal level, requests for investigation into Exxon’s activities have been referred to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the Philippines, the national Commission on Human Rights has taken up a petition by organizations and Typhoon Haiyan survivors demanding accountability from the oil companies that violated their human rights.
If oil companies misrepresented or concealed material facts about their products from the consumers, investors, and the public in the name of profit, they committed fraud. If the oil industry had notice of the risks of its products to the global environment and to this and future generations around the world, they had a duty to warn consumers—and the public—of those risks. If the oil industry not only failed to do so, but also actively worked to conceal the risks for decades, they must be held accountable.

: FURTHER INFORMATION AT CIEL :

: DOCUMENTS :
>>> https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents
https://www.ciel.org/research-publications

xmedia + ciel_documents - mixed

E-cigarettes are harmful to health and not safe
The secret is out: The tobacco industry targets the vulnerable
1:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByR0cONMSf8
For decades, the tobacco industry has deliberately employed strategic, aggressive and well-resourced tactics to attract youth to tobacco and nicotine products. Internal industry documents reveal in-depth research and calculated approaches designed to attract a new generation of tobacco users, from product design to marketing campaigns aimed at replacing the millions of people who die each year from tobacco-attributable diseases with new consumers – youth.
Tobacco is killing us and the planet
1:03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3RemnDHS9o
The harmful impact of the tobacco industry on the environment is vast and growing adding unnecessary pressure to our planet’s already scarce resources and fragile ecosystems.
Tobacco – threat to our environment
4:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs4Aoolq5aI
With an annual greenhouse gas contribution of 84 megatons carbon dioxide equivalent, the tobacco industry contributes to climate change and reduces climate resilience, wasting resources and damaging ecosystems.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Smoke and Fumes: A Hidden History of Oil and Tobacco
5:23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfN6-fVM8OI
D:\00_WORKER_C\0_INCOMING\DATA_MIXED\BOOK_RAUCHEN\SMOKE_FUMES\MEDIA
https://www.youtube.com/@CielOrg/videos
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) is a public interest, not-for-profit environmental law firm founded in 1989 in the USA to strengthen international and comparative environmental law and policy around the world. With offices in Washington, DC and Geneva, Switzerland, CIEL's staff of international attorneys provide legal counsel and advocacy, policy research and capacity building through four program areas: People, Land & Resources; Environmental Health; Climate & Energy; and Human Rights & Environment.
x10
Smoke & Fumes: A deep history of the oil industry and climate change
3:51
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsacawRiEVs
This is a story about how the world’s most powerful industry used science, communications, and consumer psychology to shape the public debate over climate change. And it begins earlier—decades earlier—than anyone suspected.
Read more: www.smokeandfumes.org
Smoke & Fumes Part 2: What they did with what they knew
3:43
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t_Fe_Y-Yys
Once they knew of climate risks, oil companies had a choice: act to reduce CO2 emissions or continue business as usual. How did they respond?
Fossils, Fertilizers, and False Solutions
1:57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES0SFWKt-Jk
The science is crystal clear: fossil fuels are the main driver of the climate emergency and the intersecting crises that flow from it. At every phase of their life cycle, coal, oil, and gas are not only heating the planet but also threatening ecosystems, poisoning the environment and our bodies, and harming health and human rights.
How Fracked Gas, Cheap Oil, and Unburnable Coal are Driving the Plastics Boom
2:01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igYw2F0Mxco
Did you know over 99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels? But not only are they made from the same materials; they're made by the same companies. That means plastic pollution is worse than we thought: It's not just the waste that reaches our oceans. Plastic production is also dirty.
Fueling Plastics: Untested Assumptions and Unanswered Questions in the Plastics Boom
2:16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0EmJ6wsyo4
In the next 5 years, global plastic production could increase by as much as a third. But what's fueling these investments?
Companies are making massive investments in plastic, betting on the availability of low-cost chemicals and continued increase in demand for disposable plastic. But global shifts raise questions about whether these new investments will be profitable in the long term.
Plastic Industry Awareness of the Ocean Plastic Problem
1:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_-mnKs3MgM
By no later than the 1970s, the plastics industry was aware its products were polluting the oceans. Yet they spent decades denying responsibility and fighting regulation.
Plastic is Accelerating the Climate Crisis
3:07
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgSBzfa-eKk
We know that plastic can harm people, animals, and the environment. But did you know that it also accelerates climate change?
Fueling Plastics: The Truth Behind the Plastic Bag
2:24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyevwk1NQhE
How is plastic made, and how does it impact our future? Over 99% of plastic is made from fossil fuels, with deep impacts on our environment and out health.
Learn more with our Fueling Plastics series:
https://www.ciel.org/reports/fuelingplastics
The Human Right to a Toxic-Free Environment.
1:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__527GMbaVI
During the 49th session of the UN Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the Environment and the Special Rapporteur on Toxic presented their new report on the right to a toxic-free environment.
The report shines a light on the dramatic ongoing toxification of people and the planet which is causing environmental injustices and creating “sacrifice zones”.
Read our statement:
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CIEL_-statement-at-the-HRC-on-sacrifices-zones.pdf
Why We March
1:16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48eyemZV5qI
CIEL's President & CEO, Carroll Muffett, with a few words on why #WhyWeMarch to #EndFossilFuels
::
Fueling Plastics: Series examines deep linkages between the fossil fuels and plastics industries, and the products they produce
Launched on September 20th, 2017, Fueling Plastics, an ongoing investigative series, examining the deep linkages between the fossil fuels and plastics industries and the products they produce, and exposing how the US shale gas boom fuels a massive buildout of plastics infrastructure in the United States and beyond. In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, and the release of air pollutants and toxic substances from petrochemical facilities across the Gulf region, these reports shed new light on the harmful impacts of fossil fuels at every stage of their lifecycle.
Fossils, Plastics, and Petrochemical Feedstocks outlines the role of fossil fuels in plastics production, detailing how over 99% of plastics are produced from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels. Because fossil fuel production is highly localized to specific areas, plastics production is also concentrated in specific regions where fossil fuel development is present, especially in the US Gulf Coast. Because plastics production is part of the fossil fuels supply chain, many fossil fuel companies own plastics producers and many plastics companies own fossil fuel operations.
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fueling-Plastics-Fossils-Plastics-Petrochemical-Feedstocks.pdf
How Fracked Gas, Cheap Oil, and Unburnable Coal are Driving the Plastics Boom warns of the enormous influx of investment to expand or construct new petrochemical facilities in the Gulf. The availability of cheap shale gas in the United States is fueling a massive wave of new investments in plastics infrastructure in the US and abroad, with $164 billion planned for 264 new facilities or expansion projects in the US alone, and spurring further investment in Europe and beyond. In as little as five years, these investments could increase global plastics production capacity by a third, driving companies to produce ever greater volumes of plastics for years to come. In so doing, this wave of investment increases pollution risks to frontline communities throughout the plastics supply chain and directly undermines efforts by cities, countries, and the global community to combat the growing plastics crisis.
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fueling-Plastics-How-Fracked-Gas-Cheap-Oil-and-Unburnable-Coal-are-Driving-the-Plastics-Boom.pdf
Plastic Industry Awareness of the Ocean Plastics Problem reveals the evolution of industry’s awareness of the problem of plastic pollution in the ocean. Scientists became aware of the ocean plastics problem in the 1950s, and understanding of the nature and severity of the problem grew over the following decades. By no later than the 1970s, the major chemical and petrochemical companies and industry groups were also aware of the problem. Originally, the plastics industry ignored the issue, claiming that it was merely cosmetic. Now industry acknowledges the problem, though they promote reuse and recycling while fighting local regulation of plastic products.
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fueling-Plastics-Plastic-Industry-Awareness-of-the-Ocean-Plastics-Problem.pdf
Untested Assumptions and Unanswered Questions in the Plastics Boom raises new and significant questions about the economic rationale for the massive wave of new infrastructure investments for plastics and petrochemicals. Companies investing in plastics are counting on plastic infrastructure being profitable for decades to come. But changes in the economy, government regulations, and consumer attitudes worldwide could make these investments much riskier than previously assumed.
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Fueling-Plastics-Untested-Assumptions-and-Unanswered-Questions-in-the-Plastics-Boom.pdf
::
Governments and institutions are slowly but surely beginning to address fossil fuels head-on, but they still fail to look at the bigger picture. The fossil fuel industry sees that its days are numbered as the world’s main source of energy, and to maintain its extractive business model, it is turning its focus to synthetic agricultural chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers. Like other petrochemical products (e.g. plastic), agrochemicals are fossil fuels in another form. Together with oil and gas companies, agrochemical producers are promoting carbon capture and fossil fuel-derived hydrogen and ammonia to secure additional revenue streams for their business-as-usual production and green their image.
The Center for International Environmental Law is releasing a new report, “Fossils, Fertilizers,  and False Solutions How Laundering Fossil Fuels in Agrochemicals Puts the Climate and the Planet at Risk,” exposing this new harmful strategy. It calls on governments to rapidly transition to resilient and regenerative models that enhance food and energy sovereignty and protect human rights.
https://www.ciel.org/reports/fossil-fertilizers
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Fossils-Fertilizers-and-False-Solutions.pdf
Sowing a Plastic Planet: How Microplastics in Agrochemicals Are Affecting Our Soils, Our Food, and Our Future (May 2022)
https://www.ciel.org/reports/microplastics-in-agrochemicals
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Sowing-a-Plastic-Planet_1dec22.pdf
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/SaPP-Factsheet-English_Jan2023.pdf
Pushing Back: A Guide for Frontline Communities Challenging Petrochemical Expansion (May 2022)
https://www.ciel.org/reports/pushing-back-a-guide-for-frontline-communities-challenging-petrochemical-expansion-may-2022
The plastics and petrochemicals industry has big plans to expand its footprint around the world. If this expansion moves forward, the industry will blow through our global carbon budget, exacerbate the plastics crisis, and threaten the health and safety of frontline communities, from the Gulf Coast of the US to Southeast Asia and beyond.
Pushing Back: A Guide for Frontline Communities Challenging Petrochemical Expansion is an informational resource for communities facing the threat of petrochemical production and expansion. Community leaders, organizers, and public interest attorneys can use this site to learn more about: petrochemicals, the risks and impacts of their production and use, and ways to raise concerns about existing or proposed facilities. While this guide is is primarily focused on petrochemical developments in the US, some of the information and tools may apply more broadly.
https://www.pushbackagainstpetrochemicals.org
https://www.pushbackagainstpetrochemicals.org/additional-resources
Plastics: The Last Straw for Big Oil?
https://www.asyousow.org/report-page/plastics-the-last-straw-for-big-oil
IPCC Unsummarized: Unmasking Clear Warnings on Overshoot, Techno-fixes, and the Urgency of Climate Justice
https://www.ciel.org/reports/ipcc-wg3-briefing
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/IPCC-Unsummarized_Unmasking-Clear-Warnings-on-Overshoot-Techno-fixes-and-the-Urgency-of-Climate-Justice.pdf
Beyond the Limits: New IPCC WG II Report Highlights How Gambling on Overshoot is Pushing the Planet Past a Point of No Return (Feb 2022)
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CIEL_HBF_IPCC-WGII-Key-Messages-28Feb2022.pdf
Permian Climate Bomb (Oct 2021)
https://www.ciel.org/reports/permian-climate-bomb
https://permian-climate-bomb.squarespace.com/home
Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in Bodies Established Under UN Climate Agreements: Fact Sheet Series (Oct 2021)
https://www.ciel.org/reports/indigenous-peoples-participation-in-un-climate-bodies
Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Knowledge in the Context of the UNFCCC (Jun 2021)
https://www.ciel.org/reports/indigenous-peoples-and-traditional-knowledge-in-the-context-of-the-un-framework-convention-on-climate-change-2020-update
https://social.desa.un.org/issues/indigenous-peoples/united-nations-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples
https://social.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/migrated/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement
::::::::::::
Smoke and Fumes: The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for Holding Big Oil Accountable for the Climate Crisis (Nov 2017)
Click to read.
Smoke and Fumes: The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for Holding Big Oil Accountable for the Climate Crisis presents a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence on what the oil industry knew about climate science, when they knew it, and what they did with the information. It combines that synthesis with an update on the latest developments in accountability research and science, which have dramatically improved our ability to identify the impacts of climate change on individuals and communities, the corporate actors that contributed to those impacts, and the nature of their contributions. The report presents this evidence in the context of the core elements of legal responsibility in tort and human rights law. It concludes that oil industry actors had early knowledge of climate risks and important opportunities to act on those risks, but repeatedly failed to do so. Those failures give raise to potential legal responsibilities under an array of legal theories.
https://www.ciel.org/reports/smoke-and-fumes
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Smoke-Fumes.pdf
::::::::::::
Delivering on the Paris Promises: Combating Climate Change while Protecting Rights (May 2017)
Click to read full report
Recommendations for the Negotiations of the Paris Rule Book
(Español abajo) (En français ci-dessous)
The adoption and the rapid entry into force of the Paris Agreement constituted a significant step towards a global response to the climate crisis. The Paris Agreement establishes the first international framework that commits states to take steps to keep temperature increase below 1.5ºC, under which all states have agreed to take climate action on the basis of equity.
Significantly, the Paris Agreement also placed climate action in the context of efforts to achieve sustainable development, stressing the relationship between climate action and poverty eradication. It further reaffirms the need for governments to respect and promote human rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples, gender equality and the empowerment of women, the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security, the importance of public participation and access to information, the imperatives of a just transition and creation of decent work, and the importance of securing ecosystems integrity. The international community has long recognized that climate change poses a considerable threat to the realization of human rights, especially the rights of vulnerable people and local communities, and the rights of indigenous peoples.
Read the report.
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Delivering-On-Paris-Web.pdf
Read more: DeliveringOnParis.com
Concretando las Promesas de París: Combatir el Cambio Climático Protegiendo Derechos
Recomendaciones para las Negociaciones del Libro de Reglas de París
Haga click para leer el informe
La adopción y la rápida activación del Acuerdo de París constituyen un significativo avance hacia una respuesta global frente a la crisis climática. El Acuerdo de París establece el primer mecanismo internacional que compromete a los estados a mantener el incremento de la temperatura (global) por debajo de los 1.5 °C. Este mecanismo acuerda que todos los estados tomen acción climática basada en la equidad. De especial relevancia es el hecho que el Acuerdo de París pone en contexto los esfuerzos para lograr el desarrollo sostenible, haciendo hincapié sobre la relación entre la acción climática y la erradicación de la pobreza. Además, reafirma la necesidad que tienen los gobiernos de respetar y promover los derechos humanos, incluyendo por cierto los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, la igualdad de género y el empoderamiento de las mujeres, la prioridad fundamental de salvaguardar la seguridad alimentaria, la importancia de la participación ciudadana y el acceso a la información, los imperativos de una justa transición y creación de trabajo decente y la importancia de asegurar la integridad de los ecosistemas.
Lee el informe.
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Delivering-On-Paris-Spanish-Sep2017.pdf
Aprende más: www.DeliveringOnParis.com
Transformer l’essai de Paris : lutter contre le changement climatique tout en protégeant les droits
Recommandations pour les négociations portant sur les lignes directrices pour la mise en œuvre de l’Accord de Paris
Cliquez ici pour lire le rapport complet.
L’adoption et la rapide entrée en vigueur de l’accord de Paris ont constitué des étapes essentielles pour une réponse mondiale face au changement climatique. L’accord de Paris est le premier cadre international qui engage les Etats à agir concrètement pour contenir la hausse de la température de la planète en dessous des 1,5°C. Dans ce cadre, tous les Etats se sont accordés pour prendre des mesures afin de faire face au changement climatique en tenant compte du principe d’équité. L’accord de Paris a également placé l’action climatique dans le contexte des efforts à entreprendre pour parvenir à un développement durable, en soulignant les liens entre action climatique et éradication de la pauvreté. Il réaffirme aussi la nécessité pour les gouvernements de respecter et promouvoir les droits humains, y compris les droits des peuples autochtones, l’égalité des sexes et l’autonomisation des femmes, la priorité fondamentale de garantir la sécurité alimentaire, l’importance de la participation du public et de l’accès à l’information, les impératifs d’une transition juste et la création d’emplois décents, et l’importance de garantir l’intégrité des écosystèmes.
Lisez le rapport.
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Delivering-On-Paris-French-Nov2017.pdf
En savoir plus : www.DeliveringOnParis.com
https://www.ciel.org/reports/delivering-paris-promises-combating-climate-change-protecting-rights
::::::::::::
https://www.deliveringonparis.com
::::::::::::
About
The negotiations of the Paris Rule Book are critical to ensuring that the promises made in the Paris Agreement will be met – including the commitment of governments to respect, protect and take into consideration existing human rights obligations. To enhance the likelihood that the Paris Agreement is effectively implemented, when developing the Paris Rule Book, parties should fully integrate human rights and the social and environmental principles reaffirmed in the preamble, including the rights of indigenous peoples, public participation, gender equality, safeguarding food security and ending hunger, a just transition, and ecosystem integrity.
Doing so is not only essential for the Paris Agreement implementation, but also for ensuring policy coherence. The parties to the Paris Agreement have numerous obligations under existing human rights agreements and other international agreements and declarations that relate to the Paris Agreement and how they should address climate change. By incorporating these obligations into the Paris Rule Book, parties are not creating additional burdens for themselves, but instead ensuring policy coherence and making it easier for them to meet their international obligations.
Key human rights and environmental and social principles set forth in the preamble of the Paris Agreement, including the linkages to existing international obligations, as well as how these principles should be integrated into four key elements of the Paris Rule Book: Nationally Determined Contributions, Adaptation Communications, the Transparency Framework, and the Global Stocktake (without precluding the relevance of other aspects of the work of the APA or work under other bodies in the UNFCCC).
The Paris Agreement is an important step to addressing climate change. Its effective implementation relies on the creation of a robust and rights-based Paris Rule Book.
This report is available in English | Español | Français
Human Rights
Protecting, Promoting & Respecting Human Rights
Climate change threatens the realization of human rights as can the actions taken to address climate change. Climate impacts already endanger millions of people and their livelihoods and make it difficult for them to realize their rights to life, food, water, and a healthy environment, among others. Effective state action against climate change is necessary to uphold the human rights of millions of people. Further, actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change must also respect human rights and include necessary safeguards to avoid human rights abuses.  The Paris Agreement and parties’ existing human rights obligations necessitate that action must be taken to limit global temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius and those actions must adhere to the existing obligations.
Key International Instruments:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Adopted by the UN General Assembly, the UDHR sets out the fundamental human rights that must be universally protected and acknowledges that these human rights must be realized by all people. This includes the right to life, health, participation, and education, among others.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The ICCPR is one of three treaties that makes up the International Bill of Human Rights along with the UDHR and ICESCR.  The ICCPR has been adopted by 169 parties and lays out numerous rights including freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and freedom of expression among others.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: The ICESCR has 164 parties and is a fundamental human rights treaty.  It includes the right to work, the right to health, and the right to an adequate standard of living including the right to food, water, and housing. It also includes the right to public participation, which includes stakeholder engagement in decision-making,
Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides a comprehensive overview of the rights of the child including related to a healthy environment and education, among others and has been ratified by all UN states except for one. Article 29 guarantees every child the right to an education on matters related to the environment..
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities protects the human rights of people with disabilities and ensure their equality under law, as well as ensuring their right to participate in public affairs. It includes specific rights for people with disabilities including accessibility, inclusion in society, respect for differences and equality of opportunities, among others, as well as reiterating rights in the ICCPR and ICESCR.
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: The CERD condemns discrimination and calls on parties to eliminate racial discrimination in all forms while also promoting tolerance.  Additionally, article 5(c) guarantees all people the right to participate in public life without discrimination.
Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Protecting, Promoting & Respecting the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Indigenous peoples are among the first to face the impacts of climate change. And the plans and strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change also often pose threats to indigenous peoples as they are neither meaningfully consulted nor are their rights taken into account. Both the Paris Agreement and the IPCC AR5 recognized the important contributions of indigenous peoples in ecosystem conservation with their traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices. The Paris Agreement builds upon the recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights in the Cancun Agreement and must be implemented in a way that recognizes and safeguards the rights of indigenous peoples, including collective rights to lands and free, prior, and informed consent, among others, and that includes the participation of indigenous peoples.
Key International Instruments:
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP): The UNDRIP was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007. The text recognises the wide range of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. Among these are the right to unrestricted self-determination, an inalienable collective right to the ownership, use and control of lands, territories and other natural resources, their rights in terms of maintaining and developing their own political, religious, cultural and educational institutions along with the protection of their cultural and intellectual property.
ILO Convention No. 169: The ILO convention No. 169 is, along with the UNDRIP, a cornerstone of the international framework on the rights of indigenous peoples. Convention No. 169 is aimed at ensuring that indigenous peoples enjoy their fundamental human rights equally, exercise control over their own development and participate fully in the national development of the States in which they live, in accordance with their cultural identities.
2014 Outcome document of the World Conference of Indigenous Peoples: The High-Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples adopted an outcome document, in which the highest body of the UN committed to concrete actions with which to implement the UNDRIP with the majority of those actions directed at the national level.
UN System Wide Action Plan: At the 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, the General Assembly requested the development of a system-wide action plan for a coherent approach to achieving the ends of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Adopted in 2016, the American Declaration reaffirms the rights in the UNDRIP and provides specific protection for indigenous peoples in North America, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. This includes provisions, such as protections for those living in voluntary isolation, that address the particular situation of indigenous peoples in the Americas. It also further builds on the UNDRIP by including specific references to gender equality.
Public Participation
Ensuring Public Participation
The public’s right to participate in environmental decision-making is a core principle of international environmental law. The Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals build off of Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration in recognizing that combating climate change and promoting sustainable development require effective engagement of all actors of society. Public participation and access to information at all stages of decision-making better informs the design of policies and actions, reduces risks of disputes, and increases public support.
Key International Instruments:
Rio Declaration Principle 10: In 1992, countries adopted the Rio Declaration at the Earth Summit in Brazil. Principle 10 lays out a core principle of international environmental law, the public’s right to participate in environmental decision-making. It recognizes access to information, access to participation in decision-making, and access to justice as the three key procedural rights for matters related to the environment and development.
Chapters 23-31 of Agenda 21: At the 1992 Earth Summit, the UN also adopted an action plan on sustainable development, Agenda 21.  In Chapters 23-31, it noted that to achieve sustainable development all social groups needed to be engaged with and to participate in decision-making. To do so Chapters 23-31 sought to lay out ways to strengthen the role of key social groups and to guarantee that the voices of major groups could be heard in policy-making related to the environment including women, youth, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, local governments, workers and trade unions, business and industry, the scientific and technological community, and farmers.
Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goal 16:  SDG16 promotes “inclusive societies for sustainable development” as well as access to justice and accountable and inclusive institutions. As such included in its targets is ensuring inclusive and participatory decision-making (16.7). It also calls for the development of “effective, accountable and transparent institutions” (16.6). Like Principle 10 its targets also focus on access to information and access to justice as well.
UNEP Bali Guidelines on Principle 10: In 2010, governments adopted the Guidelines for the Development of National Legislation on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters at the 11th Special Session of UNEP’s Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environmental Forum. These Bali Guidelines are designed to accelerate action in implementing the access rights embodied in Principle 10 in countries around the world.
Regional Frameworks
UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention): Adopted in 1998 and building on the concept of environmental democracy in the Rio Declaration, the European governments signed the Aarhus Convention to promote good environmental governance across the continent. It was signed to not only promote these values, but also make them into enforceable rights with the establishment of an independent review mechanism to evaluate complaints. Since the adoption of the Convention, its parties have adopted by consensus additional guidelines detailing minimum standards for the full and effective implementation of some of its core provisions including:
    The Maastricht Recommendations on Promoting Effective Public Participation in Decision-making in Environmental Matters
    The Almaty Guidelines on the Promotion of the Aarhus Principles in International Forums
Escazu Convention on Access to Information, Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean: In March 2018, ECLAC (or CEPLA) adopted a regional instrument on Principle 10 (access to information, participation, and justice in environmental matters) in the Latin America and Caribbean region. The Regional Agreement will open for signature on September 27, 2018.
Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment
Ensuring Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment
The Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) recognize that women and girls are disproportionately affected by climate change. Oftentimes, restricted access to education, resources, and decision-making spaces deepen and intensify the impacts on women and girls, developing an increased burden on their livelihoods. At the same time, women and girls possess critical knowledge and are already developing innovative gender-just solutions to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Climate policies must recognize both the differentiated impacts and the innovative women-led solutions in order to be gender-responsive. Policies must also be developed in consultation with communities, including women, in order to ensure effective, safe, and sustainable implementation.
Key International Instruments:
Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goal 5:  SDG 5 recognizes that ending all forms of discrimination against women and girls is not only a basic human right but also crucial to accelerating sustainable development. It recognizes that empowering women and girls has a multiplier effect and helps drive up economic growth and development across the board.
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action: The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action was the unprecedented global pledge to attaining equality, development, and peace for women worldwide. The Platform for Action requires immediate action by all to generate a just, humane, and peaceful world based on fundamental freedoms and human rights.
Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): CEDAW defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): UDHR, although not legally binding, has been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, women’s rights, regional human rights instruments, and national constitutions.
Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace & Security: UNSCR 1325 addresses not only the inordinate impact of war on women but also the pivotal role women should and do play in conflict management, conflict resolution, and sustainable peace.
Food Security
Right to Food
Globally, 815 million people – up from 795 million last year – are chronical­ly hungry. The IPCC concluded that climate change will impact all as­pects of food security, not just food production. SDG 2 on food security and nutri­tion cannot be achieved without a principled approach to climate ac­tion grounded in human rights and an end to inequality. The Paris Agreement and existing human rights obligations demand that parties’ actions be ambitious enough to limit global warming to 1.5ºC and to enhance adaptive ca­pacity, strengthen resilience, and re­duce vulnerability. Parties’ actions – and support provided – must adhere to existing human rights obligations and the principles of the Paris Agreement, including to safeguard food security and end hunger.
Key International Instruments:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 25: The UDHR first enshrines the right to food as part of the realization of everyone’s right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 11: The ICESCR builds on the UDHR, enshrining in a legally binding instrument a right to food, again as part of a right to an adequate standard of living.
The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights,  General Comment 12:  It defines the right to food as realized “when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has the physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.
Sustainable Development Goal 2 captures all countries’ commitment to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.
Just Transition
Ensuring a Just Transition
Complying with the goals of the Paris Agreement to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius will require a major transformation in society, including in the world of work and employment. The Paris Agreement reinforces the need to have a just transition for workers, so that there is a strategy in place to protect those whose jobs, incomes, and livelihoods are at risk due to climate policies. At the same time, the ILO similarly has recognized the forthcoming problems, and adopted guidelines for a just transition. To ensure a fairer, prosperous society for everyone, parties must embrace a just transition and consider workers in implementing the Paris Agreement.
Key International Instruments:
International Labour Organization, Guidelines for a Just Transition towards environmentally sustainable economies and societies for all (2015): The ILO Guidelines on Just Transition have been agreed by Governments, Employers and Trade Unions to guide policies in order to accompany the world of work in the transition to an environmentally sound society. They build on previous trade union recommendations.
Declaration of Philadelphia: The Philadelphia Declaration, adopted by the ILO in 1944, is the paramount guidance for employment & social commitments. In it, the ILO highlighted the centrality of human rights to social policy and linked it to employment and economic security.
Rio+20 Outcome Document: The Future We Want: In 2012, governments recommitted to the principles in the Rio Declaration and laid out a vision for achieving sustainable development in the outcome document of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). This includes the need to promote decent work for all and having a just transition for “workers to adjust to changing labour market conditions.”
Relevant Readings:
ITUC Climate Frontlines: This document introduces the rationale for deploying just transition strategies at different levels.
https://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/ituc_frontlines_climate_change_report_en.pdf
cosystem Integrity
Ensuring Ecosystem Integrity
As acknowledged by the Paris Agreement, maintaining and enhancing the integrity and resilience of ecosystems is critical for the long-term effectiveness of climate mitigation and adaptation actions. Climate actions must be designed to address the systemic nature of the challenges climate change presents, including the nexus between people and ecosystems. Climate action that converts or degrades ecosystems reduces their resilience, which in turn increases vulnerability of people to the impacts of climate change and threatens their lives and livelihoods. For example, the IPCC AR5 identifies possible mitigation actions in the land sector such as large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, but stresses the uncertainty and high level of risk associated with such actions. This will impact food security, tenure rights, biodiversity, and livelihoods, particularly for those most vulnerable, such as indigenous peoples and local communities. Instead, mitigation measures that prioritize conservation, as well as the sustainable use and restoration of ecosystems, ensuring a rights-based approach, should be incentivized and developed. Such measures should ensure the enhancement of biodiversity and environmental services, while protecting natural ecosystems (including forests), and respecting customary and sustainable land use systems and security of indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ land tenure. Combating climate change through a holistic approach is in our best interest. Not only will we avoid possible ruinous mitigation consequences, ensuring ecosystem integrity as part of a rights-based approach will also greatly aid our adaptation efforts. The more healthy and biodiverse the ecosystem, the more resilient it will be to the impacts of climate change.
Key International Instruments:
Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 14: SDG 14 includes ambitious targets such as preventing and significantly reducing marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities by 2025; and sustainably managing and protecting marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience by 2020.
Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 15: SDG 15 includes ambitious targets including: ensuring the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands by 2020; and promoting the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halting deforestation, restoring degraded forests, and substantially increasing afforestation and reforestation globally by 2020.
Aichi Biodiversity Targets 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15: Created under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Aichi Targets state ambitious objectives, including:
Target 6 that by 2020 all fish are managed and harvested sustainably, legally, and by applying ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is avoided and recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted species.
Target 8 that by 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity.
Target 10 that by 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized.
Target 11 that by 2020, at least 17 percent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 percent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved.
Target 14 that by 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable.
Target 15 that by 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 percent of degraded ecosystems, thus contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification.
UNFCCC Article 2 states that the ultimate objective of the convention and related legal instruments, such as the Paris Agreement, is to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The convention states that that level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change and to ensure that food production is not threatened. That means that climate actions must be designed to address the systemic nature of the challenges climate change presents, including measures to ensure the protection of natural ecosystems.
Paris Agreement: preamble, articles  7.5 and 9: The Paris Agreement tasks countries with ensuring the integri­ty of all ecosystems, and protecting biodiversity when taking action on climate change. This preambular paragraph finds solid footing in ar­ticle 9 on finance and article 7.5, which states that adaptation action should take communities and eco­systems into consideration.
ransparency Framework
The Transparency Framework is essential for promoting trust and accountability of governments as well as for sharing information and best practices. Additionally, to ensure that it is helping to promote a holistic approach, the transparency framework should not just include accounting for emissions and financial transfers, but also how parties fulfill existing human rights obligations in their climate actions. Further, in preparing reports and communications, parties should be inclusive and offer opportunities for the public to  comment and provide additional information.
Relevant Submissions:
Submission on APA Agenda Item 5 prepared in advance of COP22 and submitted by CARE International, CIEL, Franciscans International, ATD Fourth World, International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), the Rainforest Foundation Norway and WEDO (2016)
ransparency Framework
The Transparency Framework is essential for promoting trust and accountability of governments as well as for sharing information and best practices. Additionally, to ensure that it is helping to promote a holistic approach, the transparency framework should not just include accounting for emissions and financial transfers, but also how parties fulfill existing human rights obligations in their climate actions. Further, in preparing reports and communications, parties should be inclusive and offer opportunities for the public to  comment and provide additional information.
Relevant Submissions:
Submission on APA Agenda Item 5 prepared in advance of COP22 and submitted by CARE International, CIEL, Franciscans International, ATD Fourth World, International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), the Rainforest Foundation Norway and WEDO (2016)
::::::::::::
https://www.ciel.org/reports/right-healthy-environment-convention-rights-child-august-2016/
The Right to a Healthy Environment in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (August 2016)
In a written submission to the Day of General Discussion on Environment at the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee), CIEL urges the Committee to articulate the right of the child to a healthy environment as implied in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Committee’s articulation of the Right of a Child to a Healthy Environment, as implied in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, would clarify State responsibilities to prevent, and protect against, environmental harms that impact children’s rights. An implied recognition of the right to a healthy environment also would: (i) secure greater protection to children; (ii) recognize inter-linkages between protected rights and the environment; and (iii) identify preconditions necessary for fulfillment of all rights guaranteed under the Convention.
This written submission first explores why and how human rights law bodies have articulated implied rights. The submission then provides examples of implied rights in human rights jurisprudence. Next, the submission analyzes the links between a healthy environment and children’s enjoyment of their Convention rights. This body of work shows that the recognition by the Committee of the right of the child to a healthy environment would be a highly significant step in the Committee’s efforts to strengthen the system of protection for children’s rights.
Read full submission.
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CRC-Submission-RtE-23-AUG-2016.pdf
::::::::::::
https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Plastic-Health-German.pdf
::::::::::::
::::::::::::
::::::::::::
::::::::::::
::::::::::::
::::::::::::
::::::::::::
::::::::::::
::::::::::::
::::::::::::
This is a story about how the world’s most powerful industry used science, communications, and consumer psychology to shape the public debate over climate change. And it begins earlier—decades earlier—than anyone suspected.
Explore our documents and discover what they knew, when they knew it, and how they collaborated to confuse the public, promote scientific theories that contradicted their own best information, and block action on the most important challenge of our time.
Exxon and its allies have dismissed comparisons to Big Tobacco as baseless. Our research in more than 14 million documents of the Tobacco Industry Archives reveals compelling evidence that the relationship between these two industries is neither coincidental nor casual. Beyond a doubt, the oil companies have benefitted from the tobacco playbook in their fight against climate science.
But the question arises, where did the tobacco companies get their playbook in the first place?
www.SmokeAndFumes.org
https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents
https://www.smokeandfumes.org/smoke
https://www.smokeandfumes.org/fumes
http://act.ciel.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=1560
https://www.ciel.org/research-publications/
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
CIEL (Headquarters)
1101 15th Street NW, 11th Floor
Washington DC, 20005 USA
Phone: (202) 785-8700
Fax: (202) 785-8701
E-mail: info@CIEL.org
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::