Business

"Clearly the attitude of disrespect that many executives have today for accurate reporting is a business disgrace. And auditors, as we have already suggested, have done little on the positive side. Though auditors should regard the investing public as their client, they tend to kowtow instead to the managers who choose them and dole out their pay. (“Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.”)"

"The insurance underwriting cycle has become a touchstone in the debate over medical malpractice reform. On the one hand, trial lawyers and others who seek to preserve existing medical malpractice liability rules commonly report that the high-priced, "hard market" phase of the liability insurance underwriting cycle, and not real developments in malpractice litigation, fueled the medical malpractice insurance crises of the mid-1970s, mid-1980s, and early 2000s. ... On the other hand, medical associations and others who seek further restrictive tort reforms claim that those crises represented the long overdue consequence of escalating tort costs that the competiitve, "soft market" phase of the insurance underwriting cycle had allowed people to wish away."

"... consider a firm wishing to issue securities. When firms issue securities, they hire a bank as an underwriter. The bank underwrites securities by guaranteeing a fixed amount of proceeds that the issuing firm receives when bonds are sold to investors. In addition to assuming the market risk (and potentially the risk of reputation loss as well), the underwriter also assists the issuer with documentation of the prospectus and with marketing and selling of the bond. The issuer pays a fee to the underwriter for its service which is fully paid at the time the issuance."

"It seems to have been about the middle of the last century when some enterprising individuals, whose names have not been handed down to posterity, realizing the disadvantages of personal suretyship, conceived the idea of forming a corporation for the purpose of going into the business of becoming surety on bonds and charging a fee for the service; for in the year 1865 the Legislature of the State of New York, by Chapter 328 of the Acts of that year, authorized the formation of corporations to guarantee the fidelity of persons holding places of public or private trust. No doubt some people were at that time desirous of forming a corporation for that purpose; and it may be that such a company was actually formed. But the first American company that ever actually transacted the business of suretyship in this country was the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, which was incorporated in 1876 and began business in 1879."

"I don't see any reason why there should be some huge influx of people, immediately subsequent to the offering, that didn't hear about it in the offering period. ... I think most of the demand will be retail, not so much institutional. Most new offerings are done in a manner, where the idea is to have far more demand than supply and therefore cause people to maybe order stock they didn't even want — just on the idea that this restricted supply will cause a big jump the first day ... if you've seen Yahoo or a number of other offerings. Personally, I don't like that sort of distribution arrangement, because you'll find that 30 to 40 percent of the issue will perhaps trade the first day ... and perhaps at a lot higher price. I think there's something a little wrong with that kind of an offering. ... favored customers get the chance to flip the stock and really are getting paid an exorbitant underwriting fee themselves — even though they are called purchasers — because they sell it the first day."

"Analysis of survey data collected from 6,520 students at a large Midwestern University affirmed that financial knowledge is a significant factor in the credit card decisions of college students but not entirely in expected ways. Results of a double hurdle analysis indicated that students with relatively higher levels of financial knowledge were not significantly different from students with relatively lower levels in terms of the probability of having a credit card balance. Contrary to expectations, those with higher levels of financial knowledge had significantly higher credit card balances. Overall, the present findings highlight the complex nature of the relationship between personal financial knowledge and credit card behavior."

"Credit card defaults have become an increasingly conspicuous feature on the bankruptcy landscape. In 1996, bank credit card delinquencies exceeded 3.5 percent—the highest delinquency rate since 1973, when statistics were first collected. ... Bank credit card chargeoffs also veered upward to 4.5 percent per year, exceeding all but the levels recorded during the years 1991-1992. ... At the same time, personal bankruptcy filings reached a record high 290,111 in the quarter ending September 30, 1996—up thirty-one percent from the corresponding period one year earlier—and surpassed one million for the first year ever in 1996. ... Both credit card defaults and bankruptcies soared amid a generally healthy economy with relatively low unemployment4 and reasonable growth in gross domestic product."

"Some individuals borrow extensively on their credit cards. This paper tests whether present-biased time preferences correlate with credit card borrowing. In a field study, we elicit individual time preferences with incentivized choice experiments, and match resulting time preference measures to individual credit reports and annual tax returns. The results indicate that present-biased individuals are more likely to have credit card debt, and to have significantly higher amounts of credit card debt, controlling for disposable income, other socio-demographics, and credit constraints."

"With the help of a commercial bank in China, we studied consumer credit card debt behavior ... in correlation with demographics, attitude, personality, and credit card features factors. The study was conducted by using mail-in questionnaires, which were sent to credit card holders who was using or had used either revolving credit or petty installment plans. According to regression functions, we found that demographic variables and credit card features had limited explanatory power compared to attitude variables and personality variables. Specifically, we found that revolving credit use and petty installment use were closely related to attitudes about credit cards, money and debt. Risk attitude efficiently predicted petty installment use; however, it did not correlate with revolving credit use. Personality factors of self-control, self-esteem, self-efficacy, deferring gratification, internal locus of control and impulsiveness were significantly correlated with revolving credit use; on the other hand, sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and deferring gratification were correlated with petty installment use. We also found that some credit card features easily led to an “illusion of income” that facilitated consumer credit card debt behavior."

"Credit card frauds are committed in the following ways: • An act of criminal deception (mislead with intent) by use of unauthorized account and/or personal information • Illegal or unauthorized use of account for personal gain • Misrepresentation of account information to obtain goods and/or services. Contrary to popular belief, merchants are far more at risk from credit card fraud than the cardholders. While consumers may face trouble trying to get a fraudulent charge reversed, merchants lose the cost of the product sold, pay chargeback fees, and fear from the risk of having their merchant account closed."

"... More than a decade ago Churaman (1988) reported on college students' use of consumer credit. It was during this period that the banking industry began permeating the student credit card market in the late 1980's (Manning, 2000). Churaman reported that in 1985-86 over half of all college students had bank credit cards. This figure has been on the rise as some 70% of all undergraduates at four-year colleges have at least one credit card today. The increased number and type of credit cards on university campuses has seen an explosive level of growth in the past decade, with most credit card companies targeting college students. What remains still unanswered is what effect credit card circulation among college students has had on the financial attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes of young Americans."

"Communities of people have shared the use of assets for thousands of years, but the advent of the Internet — and its use of big data — has made it easier for asset owners and those seeking to use those assets to find each other. This sort of dynamic can also be referred to as the shareconomy, collaborative consumption, collaborative economy, or peer economy. Sharing economies allow individuals and groups to make money from underused assets. In a sharing economy, idle assets such as parked cars and spare bedrooms can be rented out when not in use. In this way, physical assets are shared as services."

"Whether you use a taxi or a rideshare app like Uber, you’re still going to get a driver who will take you to your destination. But consumers view an employee of a taxi company differently from an independent driver picking up riders via an app, a new Ohio State University study suggests. Consumers see themselves as helping independent providers like those on rideshare apps. When they use traditional firms, like a taxi company, they don’t view themselves as helping the employees – they’re just purchasing a service. The peer-to-peer business model of firms like Uber or Airbnb is changing how consumers view some service providers, said John Costello, lead author of the study and a doctoral candidate in marketing at Ohio State’s Fisher College of Business. “Previous work has shown that consumers view employees as being an extension of the company they work for,” Costello said. “But we found that consumers see providers for these peer-to-peer companies as separate from the company – as people just like themselves.”"

"Today’s urban environments present extraordinary opportunities for how we can share and collaborate... The approach of a sharing (and collaborative) economy marks a significant turn from our traditional methods of consumption. Choosing transport based on safety record, loaning household tools rather than buying them and getting home-cooked food from a neighbour rather than a restaurant are just some of the ways in which sharing practices are evolving in cities. While sharing may often decrease the cost of access, it also has the potential to address long-term societal challenges such as making cities more inclusive and building social connections between groups that might otherwise never have interacted. In experimenting with sharing practices, however, cities will also have to be agile in addressing externalities and disruption to their planning processes, policy formulation and regulatory structures."

"The sharing economy is an economic model defined as a peer-to-peer (P2P) based activity of acquiring, providing, or sharing access to goods and services that is often facilitated by a community-based online platform... involves short-term peer-to-peer transactions to share use of idle assets and services or to facilitate collaboration...[It] often involves some type of online platform that connects buyers and seller..."

"Taxi and Uber drivers are independent contractors, not employees. As such, they are not guaranteed a minimum wage or other labor protections, nor can they unionize."

"It’s no wonder, then, that Uber drivers in LA, San Francisco, Seattle, New York, and elsewhere have protested... upset about their industry being disrupted (a term the tech world loves) by a company offering low wages, stripping away worker protections, and bypassing regulations – all while stuffing the wallets of Silicon Valley executives.... As sharing activist Mira Luna puts it, “If greed was a major characteristic of the dying economy, sharing is a key element of the blueprint or DNA for the new economy.”...people should be able to use a service like AirBnB or Uber. But they should also own them cooperatively. A cooperative is a business or organization that is democratically owned and governed by its membership. This membership can be comprised of workers, consumers, producers, and a combination thereof... Cooperatives exist all around world, as well as in almost every sector. In the bad times, members of cooperatives collectively share the burden. In the good times, members of cooperatives collectively share the benefits. They also democratically govern the organization – one member, one share, one vote. In short, cooperatives are means to voluntarily redistribute the wealth amongst the laborers and the producers... Already, cooperatives are breaking into the domain of the sharing economy – in theory and in practice – and many of the people leading the charge are those dissatisfied with what both the traditional economy and the sharing economy had to offer them."

"There isn’t just one, inevitable future of work. Let us apply the power of our technological imagination to practice forms of cooperation and collaboration. Worker–owned cooperatives could design their own apps-based platforms, fostering truly peer-to-peer ways of providing services and things, and speak truth to the new platform capitalists.. Companies like Uber and airbnb are enjoying their Andy Warhol moment, their $15 billion of fame, in the absence of any physical infrastructure of their own. They didn’t build that— they are running on your car, apartment, labor, and importantly, time. Think Outside the Boss. Instead of counting down to next month’s apocalypse, let’s make the idea of worker-owned cooperatives using ride ordering apps more plausible... Is real social change only thinkable if you have Big Money on your side? ...The inability to imagine a different life is capital’s ultimate triumph. Teachout recently proposed that one of the pathologies of the current system is that it trains people to be followers. I might add that it trains people to think of themselves as workers instead of collective owners..."

"The premise is seductive in its simplicity: people have skills, and customers want services. Silicon Valley plays matchmaker, churning out apps that pair workers with work. Now, anyone can rent out an apartment with AirBnB, become a cabbie through Uber, or clean houses using Homejoy. But under the guise of innovation and progress, companies are stripping away worker protections, pushing down wages, and flouting government regulations. At its core, the sharing economy is a scheme to shift risk from companies to workers, discourage labor organizing, and ensure that capitalists can reap huge profits with low fixed costs. There’s nothing innovative or new about this business model. Uber is just capitalism, in its most naked form."

"Are we now on the edge of a world where people are able to meet their needs without the exploitation of labor that leads to the enrichment of a few? There is much talk in the present period of an emerging “sharing economy” where people share what they have with each other, and need to buy less, and hopefully therefore work less, and use fewer natural resources. That idea holds much promise, but it has been hijacked by the titans of the Silicon Valley, whose bold new ideas all fit within the tired old paradigm of profit maximization... there is only one game they play... the game called “the one who dies with the most toys wins.” It is as if they studied engineering in college but never took a social sciences or humanities class... Imagine a real sharing economy, where something like Uber is set up to facilitate the matching of drivers and riders where the drivers got the profits. Imagine something like Air B and B, where a platform was developed that took into account the needs of communities to not have housing taken out of the rental market and put into commercial use, but instead limited its use to people sharing their homes when they didn’t need them. What if platforms developed that respected labor and environmental laws, because its developers saw themselves as providing a service rather than as trying to win the game of the one who dies with the most toys wins?"

"While sharing platforms have taken some steps towards implementing mechanisms that establish trust and protect users, this does not remove the need for regulation. Governments first have to understand the intricacies of the specific operating model and its implications – whether economic (taxes, monopolies), legal (redefining labour laws that cater to freelancers) or social (protecting the rights of participants)... Cities have to address two goals when designing regulations for sharing platforms: encouraging innovation and competition, and protecting the interests of citizens."

"The “sharing economy” sure has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? As the saying goes, “sharing is caring.” Through Uber, the sharing economy’s poster-child, thousands of drivers have turned their personal cars into money-making vehicles. Homeowners internationally have earned extra cash by using another popular sharing service, AirBnB. These companies’ ads are filled with smiling people, caring about each other and just wanting to do good... It’s unfortunate then that these companies and the misnamed “sharing economy” are really just fronts for millionaires and billionaires to opportunistically ride off the backs of everyday people, while also exacerbating many economic inequalities.,, The premise is seductive in its simplicity: people have skills, and customers want services. Silicon Valley plays matchmaker, churning out apps that pair workers with work. Now, anyone can rent out an apartment with AirBnB, become a cabbie through Uber, or clean houses using Homejoy. But under the guise of innovation and progress, companies are stripping away worker protections, pushing down wages, and flouting government regulations. At its core, the sharing economy is a scheme to shift risk from companies to workers, discourage labor organizing, and ensure that capitalists can reap huge profits with low fixed costs. There’s nothing innovative or new about this business model. Uber is just capitalism, in its most naked form. It’s Anything but Sharing Since when has paying for something ever been the definition of sharing?"

"An app with the basic functionality of UberX can be duplicated and improved upon by independent developers who are working in tandem with cooperatives... Why bother handing over the revenue to Uber, the middleman? Lyft and Uber have serious issues with attrition; the pay rates for drivers can (and have been) lowered from one moment to the next, workplace surveillance is constant, and drivers can be “de– activated” (fired) at any time for digressions as small as criticizing the Uber mothership on Twitter...Worker-owned cooperatives can offer an alternative model of social organization to address financial instability. They will need to be: -collectively owned, -democratically controlled businesses, -with a mission to anchor jobs, -offer health insurance and pension funds and, -a degree of dignity."

"A major theme in the early years of the sharing economy was that these new services were more environmentally beneficial than existing businesses, in part because they were using ‘idle resources’; Airbnb claimed it would reduce new hotel construction. Ride-sharing apps like Uber and Lyft were expected by many to reduce car ownership, increase the number of passengers per ride, and reduce carbon emissions. However, it has been difficult to assess these claims because the companies will not provide their data to independent researchers. But there are strong reasons to believe that platforms are increasing, rather than reducing environmental impacts, and especially climate emissions. The evidence is hiding in plain sight: lower prices lead to more demand. In the lodging sector, cheap accommodation increases miles travelled and trips taken. Furthermore, Airbnb enables hosts to rent out their homes when they travel, so that lodging is essentially free. (We also find some hosts travel specifically to rent, to take advantage of price arbitrage – they can rent out their homes at a higher rate than the places they stay at.) Similarly, in the US ride-hailing apps appear to be taking people away from lower-carbon modes of transport. A recent study based on survey data finds that had there been no transportation app, 49–61% of ride-hailing trips would have either not been made at all, or been taken via walking, biking or transit (Clewlow and Mishra 2017). Furthermore, this study finds that there is no reduction in car ownership as a result of ride-hailing."

"While the concept of sharing is as old as humanity, the full possibilities opened up by the digital tools of the sharing economy are often still not fully appreciated. Cities need to move beyond the regulatory mindset in this evolving landscape... They may also have a role in integrating/implementing solutions for sharing of (or collaborating on) public assets and services and/or collaborating with other cities, enterprises (for-profit or not-for-profit) and other stakeholders to make the most of a city’s assets. Harnessing these business models, cities can channel partnerships to influence and shape “sharing and collaborative” culture across all industry sectors – as they have with the mobility and hospitality sectors.,, Getting to grips with the pitfalls and potential of the sharing economy is critical. If managed well, the sharing economy promises to have a transformative impact on cities. It can boost the economy, nurture a sense of community by bringing people into contact with one another and facilitating neighbourliness and improve the environment by making the most efficient use of resources."

"As we face the current crisis, let’s think about all the ways to share and support each other. This includes doing everything we can to act in solidarity with workers at companies like Amazon and DoorDash as they counteract the influence of the executives. It also includes seeking out local and ethical aternatives where we can. A true sharing economy could emerge at the other end of the crisis if we collectively shift profits from Amazon, Uber and other digital behemoths to ethical alternatives that cater to all of us while uplifting their workers. This kind of sharing economy will enable the majority of us to be safer, healthier and more prosperous."

"Low unemployment is not what it seems. 94% of jobs created between 2005-2015 were temp or contractor jobs without benefits; people working gigs to make ends meet is increasingly the norm. Real wages have been flat or even declining."

"Beyond economic reasons, several social and environmental motivators are driving communities to behave collaboratively in sharing access to municipal spaces and other civic assets. City governments are also sharing municipal equipment and collaborating to provide municipal services, examples of which we have covered in this paper. The benefits of sharing go beyond enhancing the use of assets. Sharing encourages community interaction and can lead to greater social inclusion. The rise in the number of digital sharing platforms encourages micro-entrepreneurship, provides employment opportunities and improves digital literacy. However, the fallout of sharing, if not properly regulated and monitored, can be safety incidents, social inequality and concerns from traditional markets. Regulatory and tax structures need to be revisited to address these concerns as sharing platforms begin to scale across different sectors of the economy. At the same time, developing a culture of sharing within cities to improve services with accountability and transparency would go a long way in shaping the “sharing cities” of the future."

"The concept of sharing is as old as human civilization. It has existed for centuries but has recently attracted a lot of attention focused on the ways in which digital technologies have opened avenues for sharing and collaboration. In cities, new digital technologies are revolutionizing the ways in which we use transport, housing, goods and other services – whether driven by economic or social reasons. Sharing has also changed the way we work. The sharing economy has virtually disrupted all sectors, creating a multitude of platform-based marketplaces that connect individuals, enterprises and communities at a peer-to-peer level. The sharing economy is making cities redefine land-use strategies, minimize their costs, optimize public assets and collaborate with other actors (for-profits, nonprofits, social enterprises, communities and other cities) in developing policies and frameworks that encourage continued innovation in this area."

"You must report income earned from the gig economy’on a tax return, even if the income is:"

"is urging the federal government to provide wage subsidies to workers, equivalent in value to Newstart to all businesses experiencing a sharp downturn. It is also asking the government to provide concessional loans of up to half a million dollars, with 80 percent of the debt guaranteed by government, as well as wage subsidies to cover sick leave entitlements. Nothing but corporate welfare of a kind that they have long decried when applied to workers themselves. In the short term, working class households will get some benefits from this cash splash. In Australia welfare beneficiaries will be getting $750 in their bank accounts. in In the United States it is likely that Americans will receiving close to $1,000. But this is just short term relief to get the economy moving. The long term benefits will go to the capitalist class in the form of and other financial concessions. The current crisis demonstrates not only that all the ideological nonsense about the virtues of the free market is quickly thrown overboard when capitalist interests are threatened, but also that the idea that governments are essentially powerless in the face of the markets is rubbish. Governments are not helpless victims who cannot do anything in the face of “economic reality”. In the normal course of events, when we demand things like better welfare, health care or education, governments tell us that it isn’t possible."

"It’s not that governments have suddenly discovered a big pot of gold in the basement of the . They say that they are taking these measures to both protect and to save the economy. But it’s obvious which takes priority. The new measures constitute the largest bailout bonanza in world history, carried out through state-administered transfers of public wealth and current and future debt to billionaires and big business: socialisation of losses, privatisation of profits. The outcome will be to further transfer, consolidate and concentrate wealth, just as has occurred since the GFC. While there is discussion about small handouts, nothing serious is being proposed to halt the mass layoffs now gathering steam."

"The Pentagon will get an extra $165 billion over the next two years—that’s even more than Donald Trump asked for...The figures contained in the recent budget deal that kept Congress open, as well as in President Trump’s budget proposal for 2019, are a case in point: $700 billion for the Pentagon and related programs in 2018 and $716 billion the following year. Remarkably, such numbers far exceeded even the Pentagon’s own expansive expectations.... The majority of Republican fiscal conservatives were thrilled to sign off on a Pentagon increase that, combined with the Trump tax cut for the rich, funds ballooning deficits as far as the eye can see—a total of $7.7 trillion worth of them over the next decade."

"The desperate policies of panic-driven governments involve throwing huge amounts of money at the economies collapsed in response to the coronavirus threat. s create money and lend it at extremely low s to the major corporations and especially big banks "to get them through the crisis." Government treasuries borrow vast sums to get the collapsed economy back into what they imagine is "the normal, pre-virus economy." Capitalism's leaders are rushing into policy failures because of their ideological blinders."

"Capitalists preach “the market” for the working class – stand on your own two feet, don’t rely on the government – but themselves sponge off the public big time. Just look at the billions in subsidies and tax concessions the fossil fuel companies, huge enterprises for the most part, extract from state and federal governments in Australia. The vehicle manufacturers raked in hundreds of millions a year from the for decades until deciding it wasn’t enough and went overseas. This is why big companies and industry groups hire armies of former politicians to lobby on their behalf in the offices of premiers and prime ministers – there’s money in government coffers and they want it. And while the capitalists talk about “the market” setting wages for workers, in reality, they don’t really allow the market to do the job. They use the whole apparatus of state repression, the industrial tribunals, the police, the courts to suppress workers’ rights to organise to pursue their demands. But when a crisis hits all the bullshit about the market is thrown to the winds. And that is just what we are seeing now. Faced with the collapse of the capitalist economy, for the second time in a dozen years, with massive bankruptcies on the table and the stock market plunging by more than 30 percent and more to come, fervent advocates of the free market are now embracing government intervention to save their skins."

"One of the most prevalent ideological mantras of Western capitalism is that the market should rule. But as the latest health and economic crises demonstrate, capitalists soon forget their worship of the market when times get tough. They scream for government money, and plenty of it. It turns out that “the market” is fine when it comes to whipping workers to accept lower wages, but when it comes to lower profits, the market can go hang."

"The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global health, social and economic crisis. Historical comparisons are few, particularly in recent decades. This tragedy constitutes nothing less than a trial for all humanity. [...] The pandemic, in other words, is now testing the capacity of our political and economic systems to cope with a global problem situated at the level of our individual interdependence, which is to say at the very foundation of our social life. [...] We equally depend on the state to help businesses of all sizes endure this trial by providing them with the financial assistance and guaranteed loans they require in order to avoid bankruptcy and retain as much of their as possible. States no longer have any qualms about spending without limits in order to save the economy ⁠— "whatever it takes!" ⁠— while just weeks ago states opposed any request to increase hospital staff, hospital beds, or emergency services, out of its obsessive concern for budgetary constraint and limiting the public debt. States have since rediscovered the virtues of interventionism, at least when it comes to funding and shoring up the ."

"Capitalists preach "the market" for the working class – stand on your own two feet, don't rely on the government – but themselves sponge off the public big time. Just look at the billions in subsidies and tax concessions the fossil fuel companies, huge enterprises for the most part, extract from state and federal governments in Australia. The vehicle manufacturers raked in hundreds of millions a year from the for decades until deciding it wasn't enough and went overseas. This is why big companies and industry groups hire armies of former politicians to lobby on their behalf in the offices of premiers and prime ministers – there's money in government coffers and they want it. And while the capitalists talk about "the market" setting wages for workers, in reality, they don't really allow the market to do the job. They use the whole apparatus of state repression, the industrial tribunals, the police, the courts to suppress workers' rights to organise to pursue their demands. But when a crisis hits all the bullshit about the market is thrown to the winds. And that is just what we are seeing now. Faced with the collapse of the capitalist economy, for the second time in a dozen years, with massive bankruptcies on the table and the stock market plunging by more than 30 percent and more to come, fervent advocates of the free market are now embracing government intervention to save their skins."

"The food industry’s playbook is familiar from the strategies of tobacco and climate-change denial over the past four decades. Yet it is poorly understood, and ignored by some media and academic journals in the field. It relies [...] on repeated use of the same set of techniques. Cast doubt on unhelpful science; fund more favourable, skewed science; offer gifts and consultancies; sponsor professional bodies; and use front groups posing as independent institutes. Finally, promote personal responsibility and self regulation rather than government intervention; capture advisory committees; and challenge regulation in court."

"...faith in technologies, markets, and correcting feedback mechanisms is less than satisfying for a situation such as the one you are studying at this year's Ewing Symposium... Few people doubt that the world has entered an energy transition away from dependence on fossil fuels and toward some mix of renewable resources that will not pose problems of CO2 accumulation. ...I'm generally upbeat about the chances of coming through this most adventurous of all human experiments with the ecosystem.... Beyond our normal twenty-year outlook period, we recently attempted a forecast of the CO2 [carbon dioxide] build-up. We assumed different growth rates at different times, but with an average growth rate in fossil fuel use of about one percent per year starting today, our estimate is that the doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels might occur sometime late in the 21st century. That includes the impact of a synfuels industry. Assuming the greenhouse effect occurs, rising CO2 concentrations may begin to induce climactic changes around the middle of the 21st century.... Clearly, there is vast opportunity for conflict. For example, it is more than a little disconcerting the few maps showing the likely effects of global warming seem to reveal the two superpowers losing much of the rainfall, with the rest of the world seemingly benefitting."

"Exxon position: Emphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced Greenhouse effect."

"At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity. ...toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research. In the decades that followed, Exxon worked instead at the forefront of climate denial. It put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed. It lobbied to block federal and international action to control greenhouse gas emissions. It helped to erect a vast edifice of misinformation that stands to this day."

"Attached for your information and guidance is briefing material on the CO2 'Greenhouse' Effect which is receiving increased attention in both the scientific and popular press as an emerging environmental issue....The material has been given wide circulation to Exxon management and is intended to familiarize Exxon personnel with the subject. It may be used as a basis for discussing the issue with outsiders as may be appropriate. However, it should be restricted to Exxon personnel and not distributed externally.... Predictions of the climatological impact of a carbon dioxide induced "greenhouse effect" draw upon various mathematical models to gauge the temperature increase. The scientific community generally discussed the impact in terms of doubling of the current carbon dioxide content in order to get beyond the noise level of the data. We estimate doubling could occur around the year 2090 based upon fossil fuel requirements projected in Exxon's long range energy outlook. The question of which predictions and which models best simulate a carbon dioxide-induced climate change is still being debated by the scientific community. Our best estimate is that doubling of the current concentration could increase average global temperature by about 1.3 to 3.1 degrees Centigrade. The increase would not be uniform over the earth's surface with the polar caps likely to see temperature increases on the order of 10 degrees Centigrade and the equator little, if any, increase.... The state-of-the-art in climate modelling allows only gross global zoning while some of the expected results from temperature increases of the magnitude indicated are quite dramatic. For example, areas that were deserts 4,000 to 8,000 years ago in the Altithermal period (when the global average temperature was some 2 degrees Centigrade higher than present), may in due time return to deserts. Conversely, some areas which are deserts now were formerly agricultural regions. It is postulated that part of the Sahara Desert in Africa was quite - wet 2,000 to 8,000 years ago. The American Midwest, on the other band, was much drier, and it is projected that the Midwest would again become drier should there be a temperature increase of the magnitude postulated for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. In addition to the effects of climate on global agriculture, there are some potentially catastrophe events that must be considered. For example, if the Antarctic ice sheet which is anchored on land should melt, then this could cause e rise in sea level on the order of 5 meters. Such a rise would cause flooding on much of the U.S. East Coast, including the state of Florida and Washington, D.C.... The greenhouse effect ls not likely to cause substantial climactic changes until the average global temperature rises at least 1 degree Centigrade above today's levels. This could occur in the second to third quarter of the next century. However, there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible and little could be done to correct the situation in the short term. Therefore, a number of environmental groups are calling for action now to prevent an undesirable future situation from developing. Mitigation of the "greenhouse effect" would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion."

"I would like to summarize the findings of our research in climate modeling and place our results in the context of the existing body of knowledge of the CO2 greenhouse effect. Although the increase of atmospheric CO2 is well documented it has not yet resulted in a measurable change in the earth's climate. The concerns surrounding the possible effects of increased CO, have been based on the predictions of models which simulate the earth's climate. These models vary widely in the level of detail in which climate processes are treated and in the approximations used to describe the complexities of these processes. Consequently the quantitative predictions derived from the various models show considerable variation. However, over the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged regarding the expected climatic effects of increased atmospheric CO2. The consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO, from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in average global temperature rise of (3.0 +/- 1.5) degrees Centigrade. The uncertainty in this figure is a result of the inability of even the most elaborate models to simulate climate in a totally realistic manner. The temperature rise is predicted to be distributed non-uniformly over the earth, with above-average temperature elevations in the polar regions and relatively small increases near the equator. There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth's climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere. The time required for doubling of atmospheric CO, depends on future world consumption of fossil fuels. current projections indicate that doubling will occur sometime in the latter half of the 21st century. The models predict that CO2-induced climate changes should be observable well before doubling. It is generally believed that the first unambiguous CO2-induced temperature increase will not be observable until around the year 2000.... In summary, the results of our research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on climate.... Furthermore our ethical responsibility is to permit the publication of our research in the scientific literature. Indeed, to do otherwise would be a breach of Exxon's public position and ethical credo on honesty and integrity."

"These CO2 projections are used in current climate models to predict important changes over the next 100 years. This set of results is taken from the National Research Council (NRC) report "Changing Climate". Consensus predictions call for warming 1.5-4.5 [degrees Celsius] for doubled CO2 with greater warming at the poles. Note that these numbers reflect the range produced by available models. No one knows how to evaluate the absolute uncertainty in the numbers. The extent and thickness of glaciers are predicted to decrease, leading to sea level rise. The NRC report chose a most likely value of 70 cm sea level rise. Other predictions suggest a broader range from 30-200 cm. The rise occurs both from a larger amount of water in the oceans, and from thermal expansion. Finally, climate change and higher levels of atmospheric CO2 affect agriculture and ecosystems.... Data confirm that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels contribute most of the CO2.... Projections suggest significant climate change with a variety of regional impacts. Sea level rise with generally negative consequences.... Arguments that we can’t tolerate delay and must act now can lead to irreversible and costly Draconian steps.... To be a responsible participant and part of the solution to [potential enhanced greenhouse], Exxon's position should recognize and support 2 basic societal needs. First ... to improve understanding of the problem ... not just the science ... but the costs and economics tempered by the sociopolitical realities. That's going to take years (probably decades). But there are measures already underway that will improve our environment in various ways ... and in addition reduce the growth in greenhouse gases. That's the second need including things like energy conservation, restriction of CFC emissions, and efforts to increase the global ratio of re/de forestation. Of course, we'll need to develop other response options...implementing measures when they are cost effective in the near term and pursuing new technologies for the future."

"[A]s early as 1977, Exxon (now ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies) knew that its main product would heat up the planet disastrously. This did not prevent the company from then spending decades helping to organize the campaigns of disinformation and denial that have slowed—perhaps fatally—the planet’s response to global warming....Exxon responded, instead, by helping to set up or fund extreme climate-denial campaigns....The company worked with veterans of the tobacco industry to try and infuse the climate debate with doubt."

"Present climactic models predict that the present trend of fossil fuel use will lead to dramatic climatic changes within the next 75 years. However, it is not obvious whether these changes would be all bad or all good. The major conclusion from this report is that, should it be deemed necessary to maintain atmospheric CO2 levels to prevent significant climatic changes, dramatic changes in patterns of energy use would be required."

"Atmospheric Science will be of critical importance to Exxon in the next decade.... It behooves us to start a very aggressive defensive program in the indicated areas of atmospheric science and climate because there is a good probability that legislation affecting our business will be passed. Clearly, it is in our interest for such legislation to be based on hard scientific data."

"Much is still unknown about the sources and sinks for atmospheric CO2, as well as about the climatic effect of increasing CO2 levels in the air, so that prognostications remain highly speculative. The models that appear most credible (to us) do predict measurable changes in temperature, rainfall patterns, and sea-level by the year 2030 for the postulated fossil fuel combustion rates, but changes of a magnitude well short of catastrophic and probably below the magnitude that need trigger otherwise non-economic responses to the problem of energy supply."

"In addition to the effects of climate on the globe, there are some particularly dramatic questions that might cause serious global problems. For example, if the Antarctic ice sheet which is anchored on land, should melt, then this could cause a rise in the sea level on the order of 5 meters. Such a rise would cause flooding in much of the US East Coast including the state of Florida and Washington D.C."