Exxon knew of climate change in 1981 – but it funded deniers for 27 more years

"ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

"The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

"'Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,' Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. 'This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2,' or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.

"However, Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial."

Read the whole article: Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years.

The Way It Has "Always" Been is Outrageous

When something outrageous has been around for generations, it is difficult to feel an appropriate outrage. We've gotten so accustomed to having no choice with the fuel we put in our cars, almost none of us recognize how ridiculous that is in a free society.

One of the things people from developing countries most remark about when they move to America is how much choice we have in everything. Did you know there are 487 different kinds of breakfast cereal? If you've grown up here, you're used to it. But people who move here from poor countries often wander around supermarkets completely astonished, sometimes walking down the isles with tears running down their faces, overwhelmed at the abundance and choice available to them in a free society.

We're used to it. But we're also used to having no choice in fuel. If all of a sudden there was only one kind of breakfast cereal, you would be outraged. And if every store you went to had the same, single kind of breakfast cereal, you would feel that something must be done about this! You'd be writing to your Members of Congress. You'd be talking to all your friends about it. You'd be writing letters to the editor.

And that's not even a good enough analogy, because of course you can eat other things besides breakfast cereal. What if you walked into a supermarket and the only food available in the supermarket was shredded wheat? What if that was the only food in the whole store? There might be ten different brands of shredded wheat available, but that's all. And all of it outrageously expensive.

That's more like our situation.

People would completely freak out. That's an appropriate response to an artificially-induced limit (and artificially-raised price) on a vital commodity.

As soon as enough people see that the emperor has no clothes — as soon as they recognize the outrageousness of the condition of our fuel market — they are highly motivated to do something about it.

You and I need to do everything we can to get the word out. We need to help people see how ridiculous, but more importantly, how dangerous it is for us to remain in a one-fuel economy. People need to awaken. But when someone is asleep, they can't wake themselves up. They must be awakened by someone who is already awake. That's you. It is your responsibility (and your privilege) to awaken others and — let's be honest — to save the world.

Adam Khan is the co-author with Klassy Evans of Fill Your Tank With Freedom and he podcasts at The Adam Bomb.

Why Civilizations Last No Longer Than a Thousand Years

Why did the Greek, Roman and Mayan civilizations only last 1000 years? Is it a coincidence, or is this the upper time limit of civilizations? If it is, what creates that limit?

In his fascinating book, Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, David Montgomery traces the collapse of every civilization back to its original cause: soil erosion. The reason it's fascinating is that you already know the history of the rise and fall of these civilizations, but the perspective of soil erosion casts it all in a whole new light.

Rome fell because it overextended itself. Yes, but why did it overextend itself? Because it was following the same pattern every other civilization has followed throughout history: First, people settle in a fertile valley. They grow crops and their population starts growing. They need to put more land under cultivation, so after they use all the land in the fertile valley, they begin farming the slopes.

Plowing slopes causes accelerated soil erosion. And down in the valley, the intensive agriculture slowly depletes the topsoil. The land produces less and less food per acre, but the population is still growing. The only alternative to mass starvation is to gain more farmland. That's when conquest begins.

But couldn't they prevent topsoil erosion? The answer is yes, but they didn't. Roman farmers knew how to prevent the soil from being depleted — they knew about crop rotation, adding manure and other organic material to the soil, terracing slopes, etc. — but the demand for food from the growing population was so urgent, few farmers felt they could afford the time and effort it would take to care for the soil, and besides that, soil depletion is slow. It takes generations. The land becomes slowly less productive. But this year, the farmer needs to grow what he can — this is the position most farmers have been in throughout history.

But eventually, soil depletion caught up to every civilization that has ever existed. Either they expanded too far and were depleted by war, and/or food shortages caused rebellion and ultimately the overthrow of the government.

The ultimate source of their collapse can be traced back to the loss of topsoil.

As Montgomery put it, "Soil erosion that outpaced soil formation limited the longevity of civilizations that failed to safeguard the foundation of their prosperity — their soil."

Holistic Management allows vast areas of the world to produce highly nutritious food without creating soil erosion. In fact, it creates soil formation — the soil becomes richer and more fertile over time. And it simultaneously reverses desertification, solves water shortage problems, prevents floods and droughts, and increases biodiversity and wildlife.

Read more: How to Stop Two Thirds of the Earth From Turning Into a Desert.

Reframing Sadness: The Movie

I just watched the movie, Inside Out. It's an animated Disney movie about what goes on inside a young girl's mind. Pixar consulted with two scientists — Paul Ekman and Dacher Keltner — to make sure the brain, emotions, and memory were depicted accurately. It was quite a movie. It was entertaining, and in some ways, illuminating, especially its depiction of how sadness helps us be happy, and how memories can be colored by emotion. I felt enriched by the movie.

Apparently others have been enriched too. In an interview, one of the consulting scientists (Keltner), said, "The emails I'm getting are astounding. I’ve gotten emails from grandfathers who are like, 'I went with my grandkids and I was crying.' Sixty-year-old men are saying this movie is changing their relationship to their wife. I got an email from a mom who took her highly functioning autistic boy to the movie, and seeing the movie was the first time that this young guy had insight into his emotional difficulty. He said: 'Mom, I know I have anger, fear, and disgust, but I really struggle with sadness and joy — I don't know where they are.' And she said it was their breakthrough moment. I was blown away."

If you'd like to read more about the science behind the movie, here are a few articles I recommend:

Things You Can Change in Visual Images

  1. The kind of picture: For example, it could be a painting, a poster, a line drawing, or a full-color photograph.
  2. The image can be panoramic or limited or framed.
  3. It could be black and white or color.
  4. The image could be focused and clear, focused on only one part of the image, or fuzzy or blurred.
  5. The image could be by itself or you could imagine several images at once.
  6. The picture could be close to you or far away or anywhere in between.
  7. The colors of the picture could be vivid or faded or muted.
  8. The image could have a lot of contrast, or not much contrast.
  9. The image itself could have a three-dimensional shape like concave or convex, cubic or triangular, or in two dimensions as a square, oval, panorama, etc.
  10. The image can be bright or dim.
  11. You could change the angle of the image. See the same thing from above or from the side, for example.
  12. The image could be moving or still. It could be moving slowly or quickly.
  13. You could change the location of the image. Is it right in front of you? Up and to the left? Behind you? Inside your head? In your left big toe?
  14. Of course, you can change the size of the picture, or the size of the main object in the picture.
  15. You could see the image from your own eyes, or see it from outside your body (dissociated).

Things You Can Change in Auditory Thoughts

  1. You could change how long a sound lasts.
  2. You could make it rhythmic or not.
  3. If it's a voice, you could change the voice to sound like someone different.
  4. You could add narration.
  5. You could make the sound come from a different place.
  6. You could make the sound come from a stable place or a moving source.
  7. The sound could be happening quickly or slowly.
  8. If it is a single voice, you could make it multiple voices, and visa versa.
  9. The sound could be the only sound or you could change it to a background sound.
  10. Of course you could change the volume of the sound or the voice.
  11. You could make the sound come and go, fade in and out, or repeat itself.
  12. You could make the sound harsh or soft.
  13. The sound could come from one single place, or multiple places (mono versus stereo or quadraphonic).
  14. For a voice that's saying something, you could change what words are emphasized.
  15. You could add pauses.
  16. You could change the frequency of the sound, making it a higher pitch or a lower pitch.

What is it Like to Only Eat Every Other Day?

Here's a man who talks about what happened to him when he ate whatever he wanted every other day, and on the other days, ate nothing at all.