The VHS Tape That Could Have Slowed Climate Change

“Action now is seen as the only safe insurance”

Fifteen years before Al Gore unleashed An Inconvenient Truth upon the world, Shell Oil Company released a dramatic, alarming, and—it turns out—incredibly accurate film about climate change. The 1991 film issues a clear “warning endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists” about the effects of burning fossil fuels, including sea level rise, droughts, food scarcity, and extreme weather; it even foresees the tragic future of climate refugees.

Yet in the quarter century since the oil giant distributed Climate of Concern to schools and universities, Shell has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying against serious climate policy and funding disinformation campaigns of climate science. They have been one of the most aggressive developers of extreme energy resources, such as the tar sands and Arctic oil deposits.

The 28-minute film was uncovered by Dutch journalist Jelmer Mommers of The Correspondent, along with a raft of internal documents and reports by the company’s scientists that show just how thoroughly and precisely Shell understood the the damage caused by its product. Burning fossil fuels, the film warned, was causing climate change “at a rate faster than at any time since the end of the ice age. Change too fast, perhaps, for life to adapt without severe dislocation.”

Professor Tom Wigley—formerly of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia—helped Shell with the film and told The Guardian (which partnered with The Correspondent on the original report), “It’s one of the best little films that I have seen on climate change ever. One could show this today and almost all would still be relevant.”

Not only does the science hold up, the video makes a strong case for international cooperation and action that is still urgent today:

“Whether or not the threat of global warming proves as grave as the scientists predict, is it too much to hope as it might act as the stimulus, the catalyst, to a new era of technical and economic cooperation? Our numbers are many, and infinitely diverse. But the problems and dilemmas of climatic change concern us all.”

Even before this video was unearthed, we’ve known that Shell was aware of the science of the greenhouse effect and global warming’s risks. The first of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or the “uniquely broad consensus” that Shell’s narrator described) scientific assessment reports had come out in 1990, so the whole world had access to those findings. And thanks to great investigative reporting by InsideClimate News, we know that Shell joined the other oil majors in secretly sharing climate research from 19791983. What’s more, the Los Angeles Times revealed that Shell had been factoring sea level rise into its designs for offshore oil rigs as early as 1989.

Yet, the company didn’t heed its own warnings from Climate of Concern, doubling down on efforts to combat climate mitigation efforts and the funding of front groups that peddled doubt of the climate consensus. The Guardian’s video explainer below puts the lessons from Climate of Concern in stark juxtaposition with Shell’s actions.

According to InfluenceMap, Shell annually spends roughly $22 million lobbying against climate policies that would cut fossil fuel-born carbon emissions—with $3 million on advertising and PR efforts and another $4 million in direct lobbying.

Rather than heed its own advice from a quarter century ago, Shell has chosen to extract as much oil as possible and expedite the dire, dangerous future it foretold.

Screenshot via (left) Wikimedia Commons (right)

Greta Thunberg has been dubbed the "Joan of Arc of climate change" for good reason. The 16-year-old activist embodies the courage and conviction of the unlikely underdog heroine, as well as the seemingly innate ability to lead a movement.

Thunberg has dedicated her young life to waking up the world to the climate crisis we face and cutting the crap that gets in the way of fixing it. Her speeches are a unique blend of calm rationality and no-holds-barred bluntness. She speaks truth to power, dispassionately and unflinchingly, and it is glorious.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
Ottawa Humane Society / Flickr

The Trump Administration won't be remembered for being kind to animals.

In 2018, it launched a new effort to reinstate cruel hunting practices in Alaska that had been outlawed under Obama. Hunters will be able to shoot hibernating bear cubs, murder wolf and coyote cubs while in their dens, and use dogs to hunt black bears.

Efforts to end animal cruelty by the USDA have been curtailed as well. In 2016, under the Obama Administration, the USDA issued 4,944 animal welfare citations, in two years the numbers dropped to just 1,716.

Keep Reading Show less

The disappearance of 40-year-old mortgage broker William Earl Moldt remained a mystery for 22 years because the technology used to find him hadn't been developed yet.

Moldt was reported missing on November 8, 1997. He had left a nightclub around 11 p.m. where he had been drinking. He wasn't known as a heavy drinker and witnesses at the bar said he didn't seem intoxicated when he left.

Keep Reading Show less
via Real Time with Bill Maher / YouTube and The Late Late Show with James Corden / YouTube

A controversial editorial on America's obesity epidemic and healthcare by comedian Bill Maher on his HBO show "Real Time" inspired a thoughtful, and funny, response by James Cordon. It also made for a great debate about healthcare that Americans are avoiding.

At the end of the September 6th episode of "Real Time, " Maher turned to the camera for his usual editorial and discussed how obesity is a huge part of the healthcare debate that no one is having.

"At Next Thursday's debate, one of the candidates has to say, 'The problem with our healthcare system is Americans eat shit and too much of it.' All the candidates will mention their health plans but no one will bring up the key factor: the citizens don't lift a finger to help," Maher said sternly.

Keep Reading Show less
via Gage Skidmore

The common stereotypes about liberals and conservatives are that liberals are bleeding hearts and conservatives are cold-hearted.

It makes sense, conservatives want limited government and to cut social programs that help the more vulnerable members of society. Whereas liberals don't mind paying a few more dollars in taxes to help the unfortunate.

A recent study out of Belgium scientifically supports the notion that people who scored lower on emotional ability tests tend to have right-wing and racist views.

Keep Reading Show less