Cape Times

Oil giant Exxon Mobil ‘misled’ public on climate change

- Ian Johnston

‘Scam’ The name of the advertoria­ls used by ExxonMobil

FOSSIL fuel giant ExxonMobil “misled the public” about the risks posed by climate change, an analysis of its public and private announceme­nts on the subject by two Harvard University academics has concluded.

While the company’s scientists and senior executives largely accepted the scientific consensus that global warming is real and poses significan­t risks, it spent thousands of dollars on regular advertoria­ls in The New York Times (NYT) and other newspapers, in which it sought to cast doubt on the science.

In some cases the firm, led by the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from 2006 to 2016, even contradict­ed itself.

While at the company, Tillerson used an e-mail account with a fake name, “Wayne Tracker”, to discuss climate change and, since becoming a member of the Trump administra­tion, has advised US diplomats to dodge questions about the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The researcher­s pointed out that, as long ago as 1979, an internal ExxonMobil document discussed the “most widely held theory” that burning fossil fuels would cause “a warming of the Earth’s surface” with “dramatic environmen­tal effects before the year 2050”.

As late as 2008, the firm insisted industry guidelines on reducing emissions should not “imply a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and natural gas industry and the phenomenon commonly referred to as climate change”.

If it is proved that ExxonMobil deliberate­ly misled investors about the risks posed to its business by the need to stop using fossil fuels, the company could face prosecutio­n. Attorney generals in 17 US states and territorie­s are looking into whether it and other fossil fuel companies breached consumer protection, investor protection or even anti-racketeeri­ng laws in relation to climate change.

Writing in the peer-reviewed journal Environmen­tal Research Letters, Professor Naomi Oreskes and Dr Geoffrey Supran said: “Available documents show a discrepanc­y between what ExxonMobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change privately and in academic circles and what it presented to the general public. The company’s peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal communicat­ions

consistent­ly tracked evolving climate science: broadly acknowledg­ing that anthropoge­nic global warming (AGW) is real, human-caused, serious, and solvable, while identifyin­g reasonable uncertaint­ies that most climate scientists readily acknowledg­ed.

“In contrast, ExxonMobil’s advertoria­ls in the NYT overwhelmi­ngly emphasised only the uncertaint­ies, promoting a narrative inconsiste­nt with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil’s own. In light of these findings, we judge that ExxonMobil’s AGW communicat­ions were misleading; we are not in a position to judge whether they violated any laws.”

Sow doubt

The risk of “stranded assets” – reserves of oil and gas that will have to stay in the ground if emission targets are to be met – was acknowledg­ed in documents, but not in the advertoria­ls, the researcher­s noted. The advertoria­ls’ attempts to sow doubt in the public’s mind was characteri­stic of a tactic known as the Scientific Certainty Argumenta- tion Method, or “Scam”.

The analysis found 81 percent of the advertoria­ls expressed doubt that climate change was real, with only 12 percent accepting this was true. In contrast, 83 percent of papers in peer-reviewed journals and 80 percent of internal documents acknowledg­ed the scientists were correct.

Astonishin­gly, ExxonMobil took out an advertoria­l in The NYT every Thursday between 1972 and 2001 at a cost of about $31 000 (R403 080) each, reaching a readership in the millions. These articles contained “several instances of explicit factual misreprese­ntation”, the researcher­s said.

The company’s scientists’ academic papers, described as “highly technical and of little interest to the general public or policymake­rs”, were estimated to have had a readership in the hundreds at most. “Internal documents show that by the early 1980s, ExxonMobil was sufficient­ly informed about climate science to identify AGW as a potential threat to its business interests,” Oreskes and Supran wrote.

“We conclude ExxonMobil

contribute­d to advancing climate science – by its scientists’ academic publicatio­ns – but promoted doubt in advertoria­ls. ExxonMobil misled the public.”

#ExxonKnew

A spokespers­on for ExxonMobil referred us to its website, which contains the company’s position on climate change, its “climate science history” and its side of the “#ExxonKnew controvers­y”. The risk of climate change is, according to one of the world’s leading fossil fuel producers, “clear and the risk warrants action”.

“Increasing carbon emissions are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks,” it says. On its track record in relation to the science, ExxonMobil says: “We unequivoca­lly reject allegation­s that ExxonMobil suppressed climate change research contained in media reports that are inaccurate distortion­s of ExxonMobil’s 40-year history of climate research. We understand climate risks are real.”–

 ?? Picture: Bloomberg ?? Customers wait to refuel at an Exxon Mobil petrol station in Houston, Texas.
Picture: Bloomberg Customers wait to refuel at an Exxon Mobil petrol station in Houston, Texas.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa