zaterdag 21 mei 2016

Oil company records from 1960s reveal patents to reduce CO2 emissions in cars

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo the guardian


Oil company records from 1960s reveal patents to reduce CO2 emissions in cars

ExxonMobil and others pursued research into technologies, yet blocked government efforts to fight climate change for more than 50 years, findings show
Exxon Mobil
 The patent records were among a new trove of documents published by the Center for International Environmental Law, and deepen the public relations challenge for Exxon. Photograph: Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters
The forerunners of ExxonMobil patented technologies for electric cars and low emissions vehicles as early as 1963 – even as the oil industry lobby tried to squash government funding for such research, according to a trove of newly discovered records.
Patent records reveal oil companies actively pursued research into technologies to cut carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change from the 1960s – including early versions of the batteries now deployed to power electric cars such as the Tesla.
Scientists for the companies patented technologies to strip carbon dioxide out of exhaust pipes, and improve engine efficiency, as well as fuel cells. They also conducted research into countering the rise in carbon dioxide emissions – including manipulating the weather.
Esso, one of the precursors of ExxonMobil, obtained at least three fuel cell patents in the 1960s and another for a low-polluting vehicle in 1970, according to the records. Other oil companies such as Phillips and Shell also patented technologies for more efficient uses of fuel.
However, the American Petroleum Institute, the main oil lobby, opposed government funding of research into electric cars and low emissions vehicles, telling Congress in 1967: “We take exception to the basic assumption that clean air can be achieved only by finding an alternative to the internal combustion engine.”
This 1970 patent, assigned to Esso (now ExxonMobil), is a design for a low-polluting engine system.
 This 1970 patent, assigned to Esso (now ExxonMobil), is a design for a low-polluting engine system. Photograph: Handout
And ExxonMobil funded a disinformation campaigned aimed at discrediting scientists and blocking government efforts to fight climate change for more than 50 years, before publicly disavowing climate denial in 2008.
The patent records were among a new trove of documents published on Thursday by the Center for International Environmental Law, and deepen the legal and public relations challenge for Exxon.
“What we saw was an array of patent technologies that demonstrated that these companies had the technologies they needed and could have commercialised to help address the problem of C02 pollution,” said Carroll Muffett, president of the Ciel. “They then turned to Congress and said you don’t need to invest in electrical vehicle research because the research is ongoing and it’s robust.”
The findings echo those in the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, which explored the deliberate destruction of GM’s first electric vehicles.
Alan Jeffers, an Exxon spokesman, insisted he could not comment directly on the documents as he was unable to access the Center for International Environmental law website on which they were published on Thursday morning.
In an emailed statement, Jeffers said: “The Guardian gave us only a few hours to comment on documents from four decades ago.”
Jeffers went on: “This further illustrates the Guardian’s well-established bias on climate change issues which has been demonstrated previously through its keep it in the ground campaign.”
He said the company believed the risks of climate change were real, was researching lower emission technologies, and engaged in “constructive dialogue” with policy makers about energy and climate change.
Researchers discovered more than 20 such patents filed by oil companies from as early as the 1940s for technologies that could help in the development of electric cars.
However, Ron Dunlop, president of Sun Oil and API chairman, told a joint hearing of the commerce committee in 1967 that government funding of research into electric cars would be misplaced – because the oil companies were so advanced in their research of cleaner cars. “We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a practical electric car can be mass produced and marketed, it will not enjoy any meaningful advantage from an air pollution standpoint,” he told Congress. “Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have long since been controlled.”
Muffett said the findings were the result of three years of research and were not exhaustive.
“The question is what did they do to try to commercialise these technologies, knowing what they did about climate change,” he went on.
The revelations, the second set of documents released by Muffett’s organisation, reinforce charges by campaigners that Exxon was well aware that the burning of fossil fuels was a main driver of climate change – despite its public posture of doubt.
In addition to the technologies with potential for electric cars, Exxon and other oil companies were actively researching methods to cut emissions of carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas. 
In another historic document that surfaced last month, a Canadian subsidiary of Exxon admitted the company had the technology to cut carbon emissions in half. However, the corporate memo dating from 1977 said it would be prohibitively expensive – doubling the cost of electricity generation, according to the documents obtained by Desmog blog.
New York and 17 other attorneys general, including DC and the US Virgin Islands, are investigating whether the oil company lied to investors and the public about the threat of climate change.
Campaigners plan to further turn up the heat on the company next week when Exxon holds its annual shareholder meeting in Dallas.
Campaigners have argued for more than a decade that Exxon bankrolled a network of front groups and conservative think tanks aimed at discrediting well-established science – confusing the public and delaying governments efforts to cut the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for warming.
Those efforts to put Exxon on the spot gathered pace after Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times reported that the company’s own scientists knew as early as the 1970s that greenhouse gases caused climate change.
The attorney general of the US Virgin Islands has subpoenaed Exxon to turn over email, documents and statements over the last decades.
Exxon has dismissed the investigations as politically motivated.
However, the company has reversed its opposition to fuel cell technology. Earlier this month, the company announced it had been conducting a joint research effort on fuel cell power plants with FuelCell.
The initiative, which got underway in 2011, aims to route the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning power plants into fuel cells, producing low emissions electricity. The company has estimated it can cut 90% of carbon dioxide emissions.
“At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action,” Rex Tillerson, Exxon’s chief executive, told the USEnergy Association after receiving its annual award.

donderdag 19 mei 2016

Israeli PM asks Avigdor Lieberman to be defence minister in shock move


Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo the guardian

Israeli PM asks Avigdor Lieberman to be defence minister in shock move

Binyamin Netanyahu makes U-turn to offer hard-right politician key cabinet job after first pursuing deal with centrists
Avigdor Lieberman has expressed scepticism over pursuing peace with the Palestinians.
 Avigdor Lieberman has expressed scepticism over pursuing peace with the Palestinians. Photograph: Ivan Sekretarev/AP
One of Israel’s most outspokenly hawkish and divisive political figures, the ultranationalist politician Avigdor Lieberman, has been offered the post of defence minister.
Lieberman, a former nightclub bouncer from Moldova with little military experience, has advocated for policies including the bombing of Egypt’s Aswan dam, the toppling of the Palestinian Authority, the introduction of the death penalty for terrorism as well as the transfer of Israeli Arabs into the Palestinian territories.
While the appointment is subject to coalition negotiations – and could theoretically fall through – by Thursday morning an agreement seemed increasingly likely, and it could come as early as Thursday evening.
The prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, is attempting to enlarge his precarious coalition, which has a majority of one. Initially he offered a deal to the centrist Zionist Union, headed by Isaac Herzog, then he reversed course with his offer to Lieberman and his hard-right Yisrael Beiteinu party.
Some Israeli reports suggested Tony Blair had been among figures trying to intercede in a deal to bring Herzog into the coalition. For his part, Herzog said Netanyahu was faced with “a historic choice” to “either embark on a journey of war and funerals” with Lieberman or choose a path of “hope for all [Israeli] citizens”.
With Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts in a deep freeze, Lieberman’s addition to the government would push any hopes of reviving talks further into the distance. Netanyahu is already facing criticism from his closest allies, the US and key European countries for not doing more to revive talks.
The appointment would be all the more bizarre given that only a month ago Netanyahu described Lieberman as a lazy amateur and “a petty prattler” who was not fit to be a military analyst.
As news of the deal with Lieberman emerged, Israeli politicians from across the spectrum expressed surprise – although the move was welcomed by national religious figures who celebrated the prospect of Israel’s most rightwing cabinet.
The offer of the defence ministry to Lieberman follows recent tension between Netanyahu and other rightwingers and the Israeli military’s general staff, in which the incumbent defence minister, Moshe Ya’alon, sided with senior military officers. It is unclear what Ya’alon’s role would be if Lieberman were made defence minister.
Although he did not address the issue directly, Ya’alon directed scathing remarks about the direction Israel was heading in under Netanyahu’s leadership. Speaking at a youth seminar in Tel Aviv, he said he had been surprised of late at a “loss of moral compass on basic questions” in Israeli society, adding: “We need to steer the country in accordance with one’s conscious and not whichever way the wind is blowing.”
Ya’alon and Netanyahu have clashed in recent days over the role of the military in public discourse. A senior general infuriated Netanyahu this month when hecompared the atmosphere in Israel to Nazi-era Germany, while Ya’alon backed the general’s right to express his views.
In March, military leaders criticised a soldier who was caught on video fatally shooting a wounded Palestinian attacker in the head. The soldier is now on trial for manslaughter. While Ya’alon has backed the military, hardliners including Lieberman have backed the soldier. Netanyahu, for his part, called the soldier’s family to express sympathy.
Leading the charge against the Lieberman appointment on Thursday morning was Benny Begin, an MP from Netanyahu’s party and son of the former rightwing prime minister Menachim Begin. Speaking on Israeli radio he denounced the move as “irresponsible”, having earlier describing it as “delusional”.
The move by Netanyahu has surprised many political commentators, both because the prime minister would be bringing into his cabinet a fierce political rival who split with him after the 2014 Gaza war – when Lieberman was foreign minister – and because it would break with the longstanding tradition of having a former senior military figure in the role.
The choice also attracted criticism in headlines across the mainstream Israeli media. The leftwing newspaper Haaretz’s main leader opined: “It’s hard to imagine Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu making a more reckless and irresponsible decision than appointing Avigdor Lieberman defence minister.
“For the second time since the last election, Netanyahu had to choose between the Zionist Union and the extreme right, and once again he chose to veer right and establish an ideological, racist coalition that aims to entrench the occupation, expand the settlements in the territories, oppress the Arab minority and undermine Israeli democracy.”
Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, Nahum Barnea was equally damning. “Instead of presenting to the world, in advance of the serious diplomatic challenges that lie ahead of us in the autumn, a more moderate government, Netanyahu is presenting to the world the most extreme government ever to have served here. That is what the members of the government itself say about it, not just its adversaries.”
An instant poll published by the news site Walla found that many Israelis shared similar doubts about Lieberman’s suitability, with 50% saying Yaalon should remain as defence minister, and only 29% saying Lieberman was a suitable replacement.
Lieberman, 57, rose to prominence as the engineer of Netanyahu’s successful run for prime minister in 1996, and he later became Netanyahu’s chief of staff. He is a powerful behind-the-scenes mover who lives in a West Bank settlement.
In the past, Lieberman has pushed for legislative proposals that critics said were discriminatory against Israel’s Arab minority, including a failed attempt to require that Israelis sign a loyalty oath or have their citizenship revoked. He has expressed scepticism over pursuing peace with the Palestinians, and is now pushing a proposal to impose the death penalty against Arabs convicted of acts of terrorism.
Lieberman’s tough stances have long stoked controversy. As a cabinet minister last decade he called for the bombing of Palestinian gas stations, banks and commercial centres. He said the former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak could “go to hell”.
He also led a recent parliamentary drive to exclude Arab parties from running for election, a move that was overturned by Israel’s supreme court.

woensdag 18 mei 2016

Israel action threatens to close down rights group and 'chill' free speech



Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo the guardian

Israel action threatens to close down rights group and 'chill' free speech

Case is being brought against Breaking the Silence, which publishes anonymous testimonies of Israeli soldiers
An Israeli armoured personnel carrier in southern Israel near the border with Gaza, during Operation Protective Edge in 2014
 An Israeli armoured personnel carrier in southern Israel near the border with Gaza, during Operation Protective Edge in 2014. Photograph: Xinhua /Landov/Barcroft Media
A high-profile Israeli human rights group that publishes the anonymous testimonies of soldiers in the Palestinian territories is facing a court hearing that threatens to shut down its work in what is being viewed as a crucial test case for civil society.
The case, which will be heard in court next week, is being brought by the Israeli government, which is demanding that Breaking the Silence identify anonymous serving military personnel who have given it testimony relating to alleged crimes in the 2014 Gaza war. The group says this is likely to deter future potential testifiers coming forward.
The move follows months of attacks on the group by leading politicians as well as rightwing activists – including attempted infiltrations by figures posing as sympathisers and a public accusation of “treason” by the country’s defence minister.
Breaking the Silence staff and its legal team say the legal moves not only pose a threat to the group but also threaten to “chill” both free speech and human rights activism in Israel.
Lawyer Michael Sfard said: “It is a judgment day for Breaking the Silence, and its continued ability to work. But I think it is also pivotal moment for Israeli civil society.”
Founded 11 years ago, Breaking the Silence, which is staffed by former military veterans, has long collected and published Israeli soldiers’ stories, many of them exposing alleged human rights abuses.
Its high profile has, however, attracted many enemies on the right, who have increasingly criticised the group’s work, and it is one of the main targets of a proposed new law that would hit the foreign funding of leftwing NGOs.
The Guardian understands that the latest moves against it began after the NGO published a hard-hitting report last year into the conduct of the 2014 conflict in Gaza, which contained a number of serious allegations of Israeli military misconduct in the prosecution of the war.
The case brought against it, with the support of military investigators and the new Israeli attorney general, Avichai Mandelblit, seeks to compel the group to identify soldiers who gave testimony over relatively minor incidents including the theft of sunglasses and a tank damaging a civilian car.
Breaking the Silence’s work, however, has been based on a guarantee of anonymity for testifiers – claiming their reporting as covered by journalistic privilege. They argue that being compelled to identify witnesses would effectively shut them down.
One of the group’s founders, Yehuda Shaul, a former soldier himself, defended how it operated.
“In the past we have provided more information on alleged crimes and abuses to military investigators than we have published on the cases. But the crucial Chinese wall is about defending the identity of our sources. It is not about preventing the possibility of investigation.”
The court case is the latest chapter in what appears to be an increasingly vigorous campaignto limit the activities of, or silence, Breaking the Silence and other groups including B’Tselem.
That began in earnest in December when Israel’s defence minister, Moshe Ya’alon, said Breaking the Silence would be banned from activities on Israeli military bases– although it does little work on them. A few days later, the far-right education minister, Naftali Bennett, made a similar statement regarding banning the group in the education system.
More sinister, claims the group, have been attempts to infiltrate it and provide false testimonies to discredit it, while it says there have been multiple efforts to hack into its database.
A bill that opponents say targets Israeli human rights groups critical of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians has also won initial approval in parliament with the support of rightwing parties.
Called a “transparency bill” by its sponsor, the far-right justice minister, Ayelet Shaked, the legislation would require NGOs – including Breaking the Silence – to give details of overseas donations in all their official publications if more than half their funding comes from foreign governments or bodies such as the European Union.
The group was informed in January it should comply with a court order – made in its absence – to provide the identities of testifiers from its Gaza war report. It appealed against the initial order but it is now facing a new hearing next week in a court in Petah Tikvah.
Despite the criticism, Israeli government officials defended the legal moves to attempt to compel the group to give up sources.
The state prosecutor said: “The state of Israel believes there is public interest of the highest degree to investigate the suspicions against the suspect and against others involved.”
An Israeli military spokesperson added: “In order to advance the investigation [into suspected crimes] there was a need to receive the unabridged material that Breaking the Silence documented.”
Defending the group’s position, Sfard, who represents Breaking the Silence and other Israeli human rights groups, told the Guardian: “Society has different institutions with different roles. It has law enforcement agencies whose role is to investigate and bring justice.
“There are other institutions like the media and human rights groups and their role is different. Breaking the Silence was created to provide Israeli society and to a degree the international community, information on what Israeli soldiers are doing in service of the occupation.
“There needs to be firewall between the information it collects and law enforcement agencies.”
The group’s executive director, Yuli Novak, went even further, accusing the Israeli state prosecutor of “taking an unprecedented and worrying step that endangers the organisation and its work by trying to force us to reveal witnesses’ identities.
“It is even more puzzling and bothersome that the attorney’s demand is part of an investigation of junior soldiers for offences that are not severe, in the very least, that were described in testimonies or took place in Protective Edge [Israel’s 2014 military operation in Gaza], and as far as we know have nothing to do with killing or causing injury.”