so this a heart release has between 60 and 200000000 tons of mineral dust every year. and that is your news update f as our and all for me for now. thank you so much for watching. the big companies play a role in the destruction of the rain forest. the letter for luxury cost often comes from illegal capital funds in the m, as in yet the supply chains does matter to the view industry. the illegal of the stats may said on dw, the

feel like there's always a connection with my ancestors here. i know that every piece in the bar care, every strip of it, every layer that's inside every ring of the tree. there's a part of their dna is a part of their energy here because they were here with this cherry stood with grass as being for around 10 has stead of now, where it's holding on to looks like it's a just a few years ago, a maritime forest stood here in the us state of south carolina. salt water has killed the trees. queen quit, she's known as the elected leader of the cruise. i get the people, an african american community in the coastal south east. they lived on this land for centuries. the you need only get to the shore line anywhere here to see how climate impacts on. we have seen the sea levels rising. we

have experienced more intense hurricanes, and we've ever experienced that my entire life. and so all for years we were saying to people, to politicians, come look at what's happening, there is something wrong and rapidly rising sea levels are one of the most visible consequences of global warming. the gas and oil companies have known for more than 40 years that fossil fuels are linked to climate change, the but they didn't change course quite the opposite. in fact, the big low, shocking thing we've learned in the last 5 or 6 years is that these companies,

the oil companies. but the biggest companies in the world had their own science programs inside the company. they had a very deep understanding of the climate crisis before the rest of us didn't really this is from the early 19 ninety's on october this p r film from the oil joining show show scientists taking gases from the atmosphere and measuring ocean temperatures to research climate change the, the multinational was researching which product affected the atmosphere. it's business rival is we're doing the same. total b, p, chevron, and above all the oil joined excellence. the we're on our way to florida to meet a former member of excellence research department. it's an unusually rainy day in

the sunshine state, which is a magnet for retirees. the martin hartford now spends his time making model aircraft as a professor of physics at new york university. he studied changes in the earth's atmosphere in the late 19 seventy's. he was one of the 1st scientists to predict rising temperatures. i, i didn't, that's the evidence that i thought the greenhouse effect would begin to warm the atmosphere sometime in the late 19 eighties in the 19 ninety's. we would start to see the effect based on our calculation. the 1st line on the graph shows the increasing amounts of atmospheric c o 2 in parts per 1000000 or pm for short. the 2nd shows the expected rise and global temperatures in degrees celsius.

the graph is part of an internal research report from 1982 that was revealed by the us press in 2018. the trove of documents show that exxon already knew of the risk of burning fossil fuels. at the time. we're on our way to switzerland to meet climate researchers. sonya sending it out to me. she will show us the current concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. she's one of the world's leading climate. scientists give hop on to say that i've seen the graphs from 1980 to predicts the concentration was $420.00 parts per 1000000 for the year 2020 . that's all that to fit in. that was almost exactly the concentration that was actually reached in 2020 and i see. and i thought, and also $419.00 parts per 1000000 issue of that, which i mean, there's usually the publication of the documents triggered

a political earthquake in the united states democratic congressional lawmakers called for a hearing and the house of representatives about the oil industries efforts to suppress the truth about climate change. that was in 2019 the do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. so help you. god, doctor, who for your 1st a chief witness was professor martha hoffer with his calculations from the year 1982 on doctor have worked with exxon was focused on the card in cycle and climate modeling. i have a slide up here and so 1982 was 7 years before i was even born. exxon accurately predicted that by this year, 2019 the earth would hit a carbon dioxide concentration of $415.00 parts per 1000000 and a temperature increase of one degree celsius. dr. hoffer it, is that correct?

we were excellent scientist. yes, you are. yes you are. so they knew they knew and i, i presume they knew what some of the consequences of that one degree celsius change would be. some of them, not all. absolutely. i would like to have an opportunity to discuss that if someone asks me, miss hoford's said that his findings had been passed on to top excellent executives . he quit in 1987, 6 years after starting his consultancy work for exxon. because he realized that his research was not prompting any change and companies strategy. i was there because i thought that i could, i mean this was very naive of me. i thought that i could influence them to change their business plan. but you must understand the exxon was producing quarterly earnings of tens of billions of dollars, and the stockholders were making

a lot of money. so if you put yourself in that position, i have a company where i'm a very profitable my stockholders and making a lot of money. however, we're destroying the planet. the people say, well, i won't be here in 20, you have 30 years. i will have a nice a golden parachute where they give me a lot of stock and i'll be doing fine. we can only speculate why the managers of exxon and other oil multi nationals did not listen to the scientist. research by cra, davies from the climate investigation center in washington has shown that the companies even launched a massive counter campaign to call the science into question. dozens of documents revealed their strategy to foster down to about climate change and its causes. it was a war against science. exactly. they, they were fighting the trends that people were starting to look at the health

impacts of climate change. they were very upset that people were talking about whether extremes connecting it to climate change, anything that anything that raised the public awareness or raised political energy around this issue. i tried to kill it. the 1st seeds of doubt were shown in 1988. the in this internal exxon memo to accompany spokesperson recommended down plane climate science findings. the emphasize the uncertainty and scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced greenhouse effect, the petroleum industry. for many years the oil industry has pursued precisely this strategy is the venture of ex, on the world's biggest oil companies. you can put it this way in his speech to oil industry representatives. in 1996, proponents of the global warming,

they say that higher levels of greenhouse gases, especially c o 2 are causing world temperatures. the rise in the burning fossil fuels is the re but scientific evidence remains inconclusive. as to whether human activities affect the global time. so there is simply no reason to take drastic action now. in december 1997, the oil julians found himself under increased pressure and kyoto, $192.00 states, including the us, signed a historic agreement which they called for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. that's the just the situation. the serious climate change could be catastrophic. for our children and grandchildren, cheese on the computer protocol represented a threat to business for the us. oil companies,

lower emissions would mean less demand for their products and ultimately endangered their business model that prompted them to renew efforts to call climate change. and the question that was the goal of this communication plan issued by the american petroleum institute, the leading industry trade association in 1998. it's chief a. the manipulation of public and media opinion victory will be achieved when average citizens understand or recognize on substances in climate science. recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the conventional wisdom media understands or recognizes uncertainties in climate science. within this campaign, they target politicians of course, but they're also targeting of every everyone, all of us are targeting the media media outlets trying to influence the way the

issue is covered. and in some of these documents, or even targeting school teachers, they put out their own lesson plans to try to get the balance in the school systems . so they know that the concern about climate change starts very young and they want to manipulate children. they want teachers thinking about it, they want people debating whether this is a problem or not. hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on lobbying and advertising. climate activist richard wiles, has seen just how well this strategy has worked over the past decades. that they succeeded with money, right? they mean the number of ads that they run is just mind blowing. they started in the late eighty's early ninety's and have continued for the past 30 years, bombarding the public with either the notion that climate change is on certain that it may not happen now. it won't be that bad. we can't survive without oil and gas.

if we don't have oil, a gas, you won't be able to drive a car. you won't be able to heat your home, both of which are patently untrue, obviously. but, but you know, with enough money and enough advertising, you can convince people just about anything. and that's what they've done. why did they do that? this thing probably the worst thing is that they were deliberately manipulating facts to protect their profits. and they did not want to be blame, they did not want to be regulated. they did not want to be controlled. we asked the american petroleum institute, the a p. i to respond to these allegations in an interview. dozens of our e mails went unanswered. then we received this statement. the rank one of the past 2 decades demonstrates that the industry has achieved its goal of providing affordable, reliable american energy to us consumers, while substantially reducing emissions and our environmental footprint. any

suggestion to the country is false. the oil industry paid thousands of lobbyists to obstruct or delay any kind of climate, action, and environmental regulation that is common knowledge. but few lobbyists have been caught bragging about their methods. the in may 2021. under cover investigators working for the environmental n g a green piece field, exxon mobiles top lobbyist. keith mccoy. the exxon is sufficient. ready it's like, you know, it's a fishing, right? you know, you have a real cause or they need,

you need it was a revelation for a lot of people that, you know, they, they know what they're doing. they know how they're manipulating the, the political system here in the united states. did we aggressively bikes again? um, uh, some of the science. uh yes. to be joining some of these shadow groups to work against some of the really efforts. yes, that's true. but there is nothing, there's nothing legal about that. uh, you know, we were looking out for our investments. we were looking out for our in our shareholders. democratic representative ro, canada from california was particularly upset by the video. kinda is a member of the house committee on oversight and accountability which organize to hearing to probe the companies about this information campaign. that was the

catalyst. i mean, the keeps mccoy, basically was on a tape bragging about his role in killing climate legislation. bragging that he gave the rhetoric the company gives the rhetoric about caring about climate, but behind the scenes or killing legislation to tackle the climate. and i said, we've got to get them in to explain this and people say you can't get the ceo's, they will never come in. so i said, well subpoena that the company executives had no choice, but to take part as it was october 28th, 2021, a running the oversight committee chair, opened the session the committee will come to order. this is a historic hearing for the 1st time top fossil fuel executives are testified together before congress under of about the industries role in causing climate

change and their efforts to cover it up. you can either come clean and make your misrepresentations and ongoing inconsistencies and stop supporting climate this information. org. you can sit there in front of the american public and lie under oath. the top executives stuck to their strategy in their online appearances at the hearing which took place during the cobit pandemic. they stressed their concerns about the environment and their efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels. thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the urgent need for action on climate change and shells efforts to advance societies transition to a lower carbon future. excellent. mobile provides essential and the central composer. ready of march society affordable, reliable, and abundant energy. exxon mobil as long recognize that climate change will impose

a serious risk. while our views on climate change have developed over time. any suggestion, whichever it is engaged in an effort to spread this information and mislead the public on these complex issues is simply wrong. in closing, a p, i supports climate action governments. industries and consumers must accelerate policy and technology solutions together. they promise, now they say the hearing that they lasted for several hours with little to show for it and a probably none of the executives was prepared to be truly pinned down urban and miss. or any of you today prepared to make any statement saying we're going to take accountability on something so important and stop funding groups that are actively engaged in any form of climate this information. okay, i take that, you don't want to take the pledge. all right? that the investigation was continued up,

the more hearings followed wherever nearly to ro kinda wanted to replicate the success of the 1994 tobacco industry hearing back then, the chairs of the 7 biggest tobacco companies lied to the same committee. yes or no. do you believe me? i believe nicotine is not addictive? yes, mr. john. i believe the nicotine is not the big tobacco hearings captured, the american imagination. people said it is wrong that these tobacco executives know that cigarettes are addictive, and yet they're denying that. and that led to a lot of change in this country. i don't know when i was growing up. if you went to a, a bar, a sporting event, you would come back filled smelling of smoke. that's no longer the case. there was a cultural change in america. we need a similar cultural change when it comes to the embrace of alternative energy when

it comes to the embrace of renewables when it comes to the embrace of electric vehicles. and the hope is that these hearings can be a galvanizing moment and break through in the cultural conversation in this country . besides were denied for 40 years 40 last years in which more decisive action could have been taken to curb climate change. nowadays, the impact of global warming is evidence worldwide. back on the south, east coast of the us. it is coastal regions like this one that are feeling the impact of climate change. first, all around the world. katie, luciano is a geologist in the south carolina department of natural resources. so here this is one of our erosion transaction. i'm measuring from the forest to the sea and getting a better idea of how the shoreline is transitioning, as it moves in

a rows backwards. we've had a episodes of hurricane a lot of a very high tides and the rows and rate has, has basically doubled from it's a source erosion rate of 7 and a half meters per year. in the past few years, 13 to 16 meters of beach had been lost more than ever before. you can look back here and you can see we're right in the forest here. so you can see all of the vegetation and the bases actively eroding onto this island. the entire east coast of the united states is at risk from rising sea levels. charleston in south carolina is one of the hardest hit cities. it's a popular tourist destination. the historic district is situated on a peninsula only barely above sea level. climate change is

a major challenge for the city. just tell us 1st the how has climate change affected charleston? um let me think of a word dramatically. we are on the front line of climate change from sea level rise and from the increase impacts of extreme weather. we have seen the direct impacts year after the year for a decade now. every year, flooding tied like when i was a boy, maybe 5 times a year. now it's 90 times a year that impact our streets. the city is regularly hit by hurricanes. in 2017 or my cost widespread damage taking protective measures has become

a priority since then. second, in the last 6 years, several $1000000.00 had been invested to raise the prominent by a meter. ok. okay, so now you're providing protection for all of these houses in this area from high tides. but charleston also faces. okay, um surge events. if you have a major hurricane, firmer was not a major hurricane. if you get a major hurricane and it comes in, it could push a wall of water 101214 feet high. and if you would get that, that would over top this, this would all be flooded. then mayor of charleston filed a lawsuit against the people who he blames for the extreme weather events, reeking destruction in the city. he wants the city to be repaid

for a winter to spend on repairing the damage and on climate adaptation measures. the city of charleston is suing $24.00 big oil companies over damages to the city and their contributions to climate change. the lawsuit announced today by charles the mayor, john tac lindberg. i feel it's not fair to the citizens in charleston. they have to bear the burden, the total cost of these improvements that are needed because of sea level wrong. the city of charleston is directly suing oil companies, such as exxon mobil, shell, chevron, and v p. in particular, because of their misinformation campaign, instead of warning is a known consequences following from the use of the products and working to minimize the damage. the defendants concealed the dangerous promoted false and misleading information, and sold to undermine public support for greenhouse gas regulation. it was

a misinformation campaign, it's very similar to what the tobacco companies did with the cigarette smoking and the impacts of cigarettes. right. is very similar story. very similar story to what we've seen here recently from the pharmaceutical companies in the o. p. orridge, they've, they've pushed the product out, they push the product out. oh, everything fine, you know, and they know that there were problems, but they kept bringing the product for charleston is not alone. some 30 other cities and us states are also suing the oil companies, including baltimore, new york city, washington, dc, massachusetts, and minnesota. the plaintiffs are getting support from richard whiles and his environmental action group. the,

these cases are very winnable and that's why the oil industry is terrified of these cases right. there tear far more fearful of these cases and they are of anything the congress might do or anything that any state legislature might do. because, you know, they've got a lot of power in the congress, they've pretty much own the republican party, right? they money in politics is a huge problem in this country. but they are afraid of these cases because they have the potential to stick them with the damages that they have caused. the companies want to avoid at all costs being forced to open their archives, in case more compromising records are on earth. if those documents come out, the reputation of damage to these companies will be enormous, right? these are the things they fear, that is a recipe for disaster for these companies, and they'll do anything they can to avoid it.

when we have been hoping for fundamental change, 40 years have been lost. this information campaign has influenced everyone's thinking. scientists are still fighting to be heard. and it's not easy to face up to the reality. the speed of transition to renewable energy is sluggish. and we will all pay the price go home to the company, because if the oil companies that listen to their own scientists 40 years ago and gone down a different path for some, how would the world look today to suggest we would be in a completely different situation, the help of climate change wouldn't really be a big problem in the world because a large amount of the greenhouse gas emissions have been produced since the 19 ninety's. so after the i p c's 1st report, that is a shocking thing. by then everyone could clearly tell that we would run into problems if we carried on as before. and that's what i meant pleasure to. is there

words to qualify this? does information company, diesel? i mean it's just pure evil. i don't know what to say other than that at this point . i mean, the science is so clear, and yet these companies continue to mislead and deceive the public about it. and everybody's life on the planet is at stake. these companies are just despicable, the if the big slide 40 years ago. what would the world be like if very small companies had live 40 years ago. we probably wouldn't be standing so close to this water right now. we'd probably be waived back there in the distance amongst all the trees that are standing up here in the birds chirping, seeing the sea gulls come begging us for the last don't make 40 more years.

sell the code names project, cassandra re determined through our investigations that has pull out was operating like a global drug court. not somebody normally seizure, sorry. the objective to financially drain has gone up and bring them down. the team agents from the american drug enforcement agency. i mean, as well as another whole left. they wanted to go after their money. they had from lies themselves. we needed them to reveal that so world and to their own people. why did the us government suddenly shut down project cassandra in 2016?

03 pod documentary series. i'm asking has paula stats may 4th on d. w. do you live in the countryside or in a city? more than half the world's population now lives in cities, and that number is only growing city. life often means a crowded spaces and less traffic jams and bad infrastructure. and when people move to new cities, loneliness, it can be a huge problem. it could also be an issue for older people. luckily, there are quite a few solutions floating around. and that's what we'll take a look at today on whether it's contrast that tokyo or deca mega city populations are exploding according to a you and report indian capital daily will hit 43000000 in the next 10 years. and that's just one example. once.