ExxonMobil climate change controversy

The ExxonMobil climate change controversy describes the controversy around ExxonMobil's activities related to climate change, especially their promotion of climate change denial. Since the 1970s, ExxonMobil engaged in research, lobbying, advertising, and grant making, some of which were conducted with the purpose of delaying widespread acceptance and action on global warming.

From the late 1970s and through the 1980s, Exxon funded internal and university collaborations, broadly in line with the developing public scientific approach. After the 1980s, the company was a leader in climate change denial, opposing regulations to curtail global warming. ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and seeking to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition of businesses opposed to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Early research

From the late 1970s and through the 1980s, Exxon funded internal and university collaborations, broadly in line with the developing public scientific approach, and developed a reputation for expertise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.[1] Between the 1970s and 2015, Exxon and ExxonMobil researchers and academic collaborators published dozens of research papers generally supporting the "emerging consensus that fossil fuel emissions could pose risks for society" and exploring "the extent of the risks."[2] In response to critics ExxonMobil provided a list of over 50 article citations.[3][4]

In 1966, Esso scientist James Black and the National Academies of Science published a report that the rate of build-up of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main contributor to climate change, in the atmosphere corresponded with the rate of production of carbon dioxide by human consumption of fossil fuels.[5][6] In July 1977, Black, then a senior scientist in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, warned company executives of the danger of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases from the burning of fossil fuels.[7][8] Black reported that there was general scientific agreement at that time that the burning of fossil fuels was most likely manner in which mankind was influencing global climate change.[9][10]

Exxon launched a research program into climate change and climate modeling, including a $1 million, three-year research project which outfitted their largest supertanker, the Esso Atlantic, with a laboratory and sensors to measure the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans.[11][12] In 1981, Exxon shifted its research focus to climate modelling.[13] These climate modelling efforts were part of the broad scientific consensus on climate change.[13] In 1982, Exxon's environmental affairs office circulated an internal report to Exxon's management which said that the consequences of climate change could be catastrophic, and that a significant reduction in fossil fuel consumption would be necessary to curtail future climate change. It also said that "there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible."[14][15]

In 1989, Exxon's manager of science and strategy development, made a presentation to the board of directors reiterating the scientific consensus that a buildup of greenhouse gasses would result in significant consequences due to climate change.[16][17]

Based on documents released in 2016, the Center for International Environmental Law, a public interest, not-for-profit environmental law firm, said that from 1957 onward Humble Oil, one of predecessors of ExxonMobil, was aware of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and the prospect that it was likely to cause global warming. An ExxonMobil spokesperson said "To suggest that we had definitive knowledge about human-induced climate change before the world’s scientists is not a credible thesis."[18]

Impact of research on operational planning

ExxonMobil integrated the then-current scientific understanding into its corporate operational planning. For example, in the early 1980s, oil scarcity was a concern, and Exxon promoted unconventional and synthetic fuels, such as coal liquefaction, oil shale, and oil sands as a plausible solution. Internal Exxon documents from 1980 said that "if synthetic fuels are not developed, and fossil fuel needs are met by petroleum, then the atmospheric CO2 doubling time would be delayed by about 5 years to 2065".[19][20] Exxon also studied ways of avoiding CO2 emissions if the East Natuna gas field (Natuna D-Alpha block) off Indonesia was to be developed.[21]

Exxon routinely uses an internal shadow price on CO2 in its business planning.[22][23]

In 1992, the senior ice researcher, leading a Calgary-based research team in Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary Imperial Oil, assessed how global warming could affect Exxon’s Arctic operations, and reported that exploration and development costs in the Beaufort Sea might be lower, while higher sea levels and rougher seas could threaten the company’s coastal and offshore infrastructure.[24][25] Imperial included climate change forecasts into its facility planning in the Mackenzie River Delta in the Northwest Territories.[26]

An ExxonMobil spokesperson said that standard practice in major project planning is to consider a range of factors, and that ExxonMobil's consideration of environmental risks was not inconsistent with their public policy advocacy.[26]

Funding of climate change denial

In the late 1980s, Exxon became a leader in climate change denial.[27][28] Lee Raymond, Exxon and ExxonMobil chief executive officer from 1993 to 2006, was one of the most outspoken executives in the United States against regulation to curtail global warming,[29] and during this period Exxon helped advance climate change denial internationally.[30] Of the major oil corporations, ExxonMobil has been the most active in the debate surrounding climate change.[31] ExxonMobil delayed the world's response to climate change.[32] In 2005, as competing major oil companies diversified into alternative energy and renewable fuels, ExxonMobil re-affirmed its mission as an oil and gas company.[33] According to a 2007 analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the company used many of the same strategies, tactics, organizations, and personnel the tobacco industry used in its denials of the link between lung cancer and smoking.[34] ExxonMobil denied similarity to the tobacco industry.[35] A study published in Nature Climate Change in 2015 found that ExxonMobil "may have played a particularly important role as corporate benefactors" in the production and diffusion of contrarian information.[36]

Between 1990 and 2005, ExxonMobil purchased advertisements in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal that said that the science of climate change was unsettled.[37][38] In 2000, responding to the 2000 US First National Assessment of Climate Change, an ExxonMobil advertisement said "The report’s language and logic appear designed to emphasize selective results to convince people that climate change will adversely impact their lives. The report is written as a political document, not an objective summary of the underlying science."[39] Another 2000 advertisement published in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal entitled "Unsettled Science" said "it is impossible for scientists to attribute the recent small surface temperature increase to human activity."[40][41][42]

ExxonMobil was a significant influence in preventing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States.[43] ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and seeking to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Exxon was a founding member of the board of directors of the Global Climate Coalition, composed of businesses opposed to greenhouse gas emission regulation.[44][45][46] According to Mother Jones magazine, between 2000 and 2003 ExxonMobil channelled at least $8,678,450 to forty organizations that employed disinformation campaigns including "skeptic propaganda masquerading as journalism" to influence the opinion of the public and political leaders about global warming.[47][48] ExxonMobil has funded, among other groups, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the International Policy Network.[49][50][51] Since the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon has given more than $20 million to organizations supporting climate change denial.[52]

Between 1998 and 2004, ExxonMobil granted $16 million to advocacy organizations which disputed the impact of global warming.[53] Of 2005 grantees of ExxonMobil, 54 were found to have statements regarding climate change on their websites, of which 25 were consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change, while 39 "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence," according to a 2006 letter from the Royal Society to ExxonMobil. The Royal Society said ExxonMobil granted $2.9 million to US organizations which "misinformed the public about climate change through their websites."[54] According to Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, ExxonMobil contributed about 4% of the total funding of what Brulle identifies as the "climate change counter-movement."[55] The Drexel research found that much of the funding that direct sourcing from companies like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries was later diverted through third-party foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital to avoid traceability.[56] In 2006, the Brussels-based watchdog organization Corporate Europe Observatory said "ExxonMobil invests significant amounts in letting think-tanks, seemingly respectable sources, sow doubts about the need for [European Union] governments to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Covert funding for climate sceptics is deeply hypocritical because ExxonMobil spends major sums on advertising to present itself as an environmentally responsible company."[57]

In January 2007, ExxonMobil vice president for public affairs Kenneth Cohen said that, as of 2006, ExxonMobil had ceased funding of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and "'five or six' similar groups".[58] While ExxonMobil did not identify the other similar groups, a May 2007 report by Greenpeace listed five groups "at the heart of the climate change denial industry" ExxonMobil had stopped funding, as well as 41 similar groups which were still receiving ExxonMobil funds.[59]

In May 2008, a week before their annual shareholder's meeting, ExxonMobil pledged in its annual corporate citizenship report that it would cut funding to "several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention" from the need to address climate change.[60] In 2008, ExxonMobil funded such organizations[61] and was named one of the most prominent promoters of climate change denial.[62] According to Brulle in a 2012 Frontline interview, ExxonMobil had ceased funding the climate change counter-movement by 2009.[55] According to the environmental advocacy group Greenpeace, ExxonMobil granted $1 million to climate denial groups in 2014.[63][64] Scientific American ExxonMobil granted $10,000 to the Science & Environmental Policy Project founded by climate denial advocate, physicist, and environmental scientist Fred Singer[65][66] and earlier funded the work of solar physicist Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, who said that most global warming is caused by solar variation.[67]

Reception

Paul Krugman, Michael E. Mann and Naomi Oreskes were among several scientists and journalists to comment that Exxon's decisions to protect its profits in spite of the scientific consensus led to global inaction on climate change, stalled progress in developing renewable energy, and made the effort to slow climate change more difficult.[68][69][70] In October, 2015 Bill McKibben wrote in The Nation that Exxon "knew everything there was to know about climate change by the mid-1980s, and then spent the next few decades systematically funding climate denial and lying about the state of the science."[71]

ExxonMobil responded to InsideClimate News, McKibben, and Oreskes saying the allegations were based on cherry-picked statements from ExxonMobil employees and noted the ongoing climate research the company engaged in during the time in question.[4] In November, ExxonMobil denied claims made by InsideClimate News that it had curtailed carbon dioxide research in favor of climate denial. Exxon's statement said the drop in oil prices hurt oil companies in the 1980s and caused research cut backs. The statement also claimed that it was uncertain if increases in greenhouse gas emissions caused significant warming, or if immediate action on climate change was necessary.[72]

Lobbying against emissions regulations

In February 2001, the early days of the administration of US President George W. Bush, ExxonMobil's head lobbyist in Washington wrote to the White House urging that "Clinton/Gore carry-overs with aggressive agendas" be kept out of "any decisional activities" on the US delegation to the working committees of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and recommending their replacement by scientists critical of the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change. The chairman of the IPCC, climate scientist Robert Watson, was replaced by Rajendra K. Pachauri, who was seen as more industry-friendly.[73][74][75][76] A spokesperson for ExxonMobil said the company did not have a position on the chairmanship of the IPCC.[77]

On June 14, 2005 ExxonMobil announced they would hire Philip Cooney, four days after Cooney resigned as chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Bush White House, two days after the non-profit Government Accountability Project release documents which showed that Cooney had edited government scientific reports so as to downplay the certainty of the science behind the greenhouse effect.[78][79][80] Thomas Friedman wrote in The New York Times, "Of all the people the Bush team would let edit its climate reports, we have a guy who first worked for the oil lobby denying climate change, with no science background, then went back to work for Exxon. Does it get any more intellectually corrupt than that?"[81]

In 2006, the Royal Society expressed "concerns about ExxonMobil's funding of lobby groups that seek to misrepresent the scientific evidence relating to climate change."[82] Between 2007 and 2015, ExxonMobil gave $1.87 million to Congressional climate change deniers and $454,000 to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ExxonMobil denied funding climate denial.[83] ExxonMobil is a member of ALEC's "Enterprise Council", its corporate leadership board.[84]

In 2014 ExxonMobil spent at least $8.08 million lobbying on energy and environment, to the European Commission, and made donations to European universities and organisations.[85]

Acknowledgement of climate change

Beginning in 2004, the descendants of John D. Rockefeller, led mainly by his great-grandchildren, through letters, meetings, and shareholder resolutions, attempted to get ExxonMobil to acknowledge climate change, to abandon climate denial, and to shift towards clean energy.[86][87] In 2013, responding to a shareholder resolution calling for emissions reductions, CEO Rex Tillerson asked, "What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?"[88]

In 2007, ExxonMobil for the first time disclosed to stockholders the financial risks to profitability of climate change.[26] In January, ExxonMobil vice president for public affairs Kenneth Cohen said "we know enough now—or, society knows enough now—that the risk is serious and action should be taken".[58] On February 13, ExxonMobil CEO Rex W. Tillerson acknowledged that the planet was warming while carbon dioxide levels were increasing, "but in the same speech gave an unalloyed defense of the oil industry and predicted that hydrocarbons would dominate the world’s transportation as energy demand grows by an expected 40 percent by 2030. [Tillerson] stated that there is no significant alternative to oil in coming decades, and that ExxonMobil would continue to make petroleum and natural gas its primary products."[89][90]

In April 2014, ExxonMobil released a report publicly acknowledging climate change risk for the first time. ExxonMobil predicted that a rising global population, increasing living standards and increasing energy access would result in lower greenhouse gas emissions.[91]

ExxonMobil is dismissive of the fossil fuel divestment movement, writing on ExxonMobil's blog in October, 2014 that fossil fuel divestment was "out of step with reality" and that "to not use fossil fuels is tantamount to not using energy at all."[92][93][94]

In December 2015, following similar earlier announcements, Exxon noted that if carbon regulations became a requirement, the best approach would be a carbon tax.[95]

In November 2016 Exxon Mobil accused the Rockfeller Family, a long-time opponent having track records of research funding on climate change, of masterminding conspiracy against the company.[96]

State and federal investigations

In May, 2015 Sheldon Whitehouse suggested in The Washington Post that the federal prosecution of the tobacco industry might set a precedent for the oil industry.[97] In October, Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey issued a letter to Exxon questioning their donations to Donors Trust, a group which funds climate change denial.[98] On October 14, 2015, Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier wrote to the United States Attorney General (US AG) requesting an investigation into whether ExxonMobil violated any federal laws by "failing to disclose truthful information" about climate change.[99][100] Asked about the letter by The Guardian, an Exxon spokesperson said "This is complete bullshit. We have a 30 year continuous uninterrupted history of researching climate change..."[101]

On October 30, 2015, more than 40 leading US environmental and social justice organizations wrote to the US AG requesting a federal investigation into ExxonMobil deceiving the public about climate change.[102] Former Vice President Al Gore and all three Democratic primary candidates for President of the United States called for a Department of Justice investigation.[103][104] Marjorie Cohn, law professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, California, called for the revocation of ExxonMobil's articles of incorporation.[105][106]

The New York Attorney General is investigating whether ExxonMobil's statements to investors were consistent with the company’s decades of extensive scientific research.[107][108] The Martin Act in New York state law gives the state Attorney General broad powers to investigate financial fraud.[109] On November 4, 2015 the New York Attorney General issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil.[110] The New York Attorney General investigation includes possible violations of consumer protection, fraud, and securities law. ExxonMobil denied withholding climate change research.[111] Following published reports, based on internal Exxon documents, suggesting that during the 1980s and 1990s Exxon used climate research in its business planning but simultaneously argued publicly that the science was unsettled, the California Attorney General is investigating whether ExxonMobil lied to the public or shareholders about the risk to its business from climate change, possible securities fraud, and violations of environmental laws. ExxonMobil denied wrongdoing.[112][113] On March 29, 2016, the attorneys general of Massachusetts and the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) announced investigations. Seventeen attorneys general were cooperating on investigations. Exxon said the investigations were "politically motivated."[114][115][116] As of June 2016, ExxonMobil is suing the Attorneys General of USVI (Claude Walker) and Massachusetts (Maura Healey, who had issued supoenas of their own).[117]

Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) July 2016 subpoenaed a variety of involved parties; with state Attorney Generals Maura Healey and Eric Schneiderman of New York refusing to comply, along with the Union of Concerned Scientists and 350.org of the nine environmental, scientific and philanthropic organizations.[118][119][120][121][122][123] [124] The AG and the organizations have refused to comply with the subpoenas from Smith and have refused to comply with earlier demands for documents from him, claiming that the federal subpoenas are unconstitutional, citing case law going back to the proceedings of the House Un-American Activities Committee and have cited principles of States' rights. The attorneys general of Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas, all Republicans, have previously sided with Smith and Exxon.

As of August 2016, Schneiderman leads queries by at least five attorneys generals, regarding decades-old research on climate change conducted by Exxon while it funded groups promoting doubt about climate science. In response to Lamar Smith arguing free speech, Schneiderman stated "“The First Amendment doesn’t protect you for fraud.”[125]

Smith said he had called a mid-September 2016 hearing to “affirm the legitimacy” of his inquiry. Smith has questioned the overwhelming scientific consensus underlying climate change, and he has received more than $675,000 from the fossil fuel industry since 1998, including more than $24,000 from Exxon Mobil. In early September, Smith and ExxonMobil noted that Mr. Schneiderman has received substantial campaign contributions from people and organizations with an interest in environmental matters. The witnesses called in the hearing included Ronald Rotunda (with ties to Heartland Institute) and Elizabeth Price Foley who are affiliated with conservative causes and organizations. The first witness Jonathan Turley (not affiliated with conservative groups) in his prepared comments he stated that he supported action against climate change, and testified the justification for the state subpoenas are than less clear, expressing the opinion that they violated free speech. Per testimony by Charles Tiefer, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and a former acting general counsel of the House of Representatives, this was the first time a House committee had subpoenaed a state attorney general, that the subpoenas were unenforceable against both the attorneys general and the groups, and that “the science committee cannot and should not try to enforce” them.[118]

Other climate change activities

Beginning in 2002, ExxonMobil has invested up to US$100m over a ten-year period to establish the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University, which "would focus on technologies that could provide energy without adding to a buildup of greenhouse gases".[126][127] According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, "The funding of academic research activity has provided the corporation legitimacy, while it actively funds ideological and advocacy organizations to conduct a disinformation campaign."[128]

Selected ExxonMobil climate research collaborations

See also

References

  1. ↑ Jerving et al. 2015: Since the late 1970s and into the 1980s, Exxon had been at the forefront of climate change research, funding its own internal science as well as research from outside experts at Columbia University and MIT.
  2. ↑ Gillis & Schwartz 2015: From the time the scientific community first began worrying about the climate issue in the 1970s, the company financed research on the topic, with its scientists generally supporting an emerging consensus that fossil fuel emissions could pose risks for society. Company scientists have contributed to dozens of scientific papers that supported this view and explored the extent of the risks.
  3. ↑ Banerjee, Song & Hasemyer 2015b: In an email, Exxon spokesman Richard D. Keil said he would no longer respond to inquiries from InsideClimate News, and added, "ExxonMobil scientists have been involved in climate research and related policy analysis for more than 30 years, yielding more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed publications."
  4. 1 2 Cohen, Ken. "When it Come to Climate Change, Read the Documents". ExxonMobil Perspectives. ExxonMobil. Retrieved Jan 31, 2016.
  5. ↑ National Academies of Science (1966). Weather and Climate Modification Problems and Prospects.
  6. ↑ Banerjee, Song & Hasemyer 2015b: "Black helped draft a National Academy of Sciences report... Published in 1966, it said the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere "agrees quite well with the rate of its production by man's consumption of fossil fuels."
  7. ↑ Banerjee, Song & Hasemyer 2015b: "By 1977... he made a presentation to the company's leading executives warning that carbon dioxide accumulating in the upper atmosphere would warm the planet and if the CO2 concentration continued to rise, it could harm the environment and humankind."
  8. ↑ Black 1978 What is considered the best presently available climate model for treating the Greenhouse Effect predicts that a doubling of the C02 concentration in the atmosphere would produce a mean temperature increase of about 2°C to 3°C over most of the earth. The model also predicts that the temperature increase near the poles may be two to three times this value...A study of past climates suggests that if the earth does become warmer, more rainfall should result. But an increase as large as 2°C would probably also affect the distributional of the rainfall...Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.
  9. ↑ Banerjee, Song & Hasemyer 2015a: "In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee
  10. ↑ Hall 2015: ...the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical."
  11. ↑ Banerjee, Song & Hasemyer 2015a: Exxon budgeted more than $1 million over three years for the tanker project to measure how quickly the oceans were taking in CO2.
  12. ↑ Garvey, Edward; Prahl, Fred; Nazimek, Kenneth; Shaw, Henry (March 1982). "Exxon Global CO2 Measurement System". IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement. 31: 32–36.
  13. 1 2 Song, Lisa; Banerjee, Neela; Hasemyer, David (September 22, 2015). "Exxon Confirmed Global Warming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate Models". InsideClimate News. Retrieved January 25, 2016.
  14. ↑ Banerjee, Song & Hasemyer 2015a: Exxon's research laid the groundwork for a 1982 corporate primer on carbon dioxide and climate change prepared by its environmental affairs office. Marked "not to be distributed externally," it contained information that "has been given wide circulation to Exxon management." In it, the company recognized, despite the many lingering unknowns, that heading off global warming "would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion." Unless that happened, "there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered," the primer said, citing independent experts. "Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible."
  15. ↑ Glaser 1982: ...there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible....Mitigation of the "greenhouse effect" would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion....If the earth is on a warming trend, we are not likely to detect it before 1995...In addition to the effects of climate on global agriculture, there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered. For example, if the Antarctic ice sheet which is anchored on land should melt, then this could cause a 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.
  16. ↑ Levine 1989: The data show a steady increase in CO2...It is established that the recent buildup of CO2 began with the industrial era...In these forecasts CO2 doubling time is a convenient benchmark to measure CO2 buildup...The various cases lead to a doubling between 2030 and 2100...Consensus predictions call for warming between 1.5-4.5 °C for doubling CO2...Projections suggest significant climate change with a variety of regional impacts and sea level rise with generally negative consequences.
  17. ↑ Jennings, Grandoni & Rust 2015: Duane LeVine, Exxon’s manager of science and strategy development, gave a primer to the company’s board of directors in 1989, noting that scientists generally agreed gases released by burning fossil fuels could raise global temperatures significantly by the middle of the 21st century — between 2.7 and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit — causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise, "with generally negative consequences."
  18. ↑ Schwartz, John (April 14, 2016). "Pressure on Exxon Over Climate Change Intensifies With New Documents". The New York Times. Retrieved April 15, 2016. Pressure on Exxon Mobil and the energy industry increased on Wednesday with the release of a new cache of decades-old industry documents about climate change, even as Exxon pushed back against efforts to investigate the company over its climate claims through the years. The new documents were released by an activist research organization, the Center for International Environmental Law, which published the project on its website. The documents, according to the environmental law center’s director, Carroll Muffett, suggest that the industry had the underlying knowledge of climate change even 60 years ago. “From 1957 onward, there is no doubt that Humble Oil, which is now Exxon, was clearly on notice” about rising CO2 in the atmosphere and the prospect that it was likely to cause global warming, he said.
  19. ↑ Cushman Jr., John H. (October 8, 2015). "Highlighting the Allure of Synfuels, Exxon Played Down the Climate Risks". InsideClimate News.
  20. ↑ Shaw & McCall 1980: If synthetic fuels are not developed, and fossil fuel needs are met by petroleum, then the atmospheric C02 doubling time would be delayed by about 5 years
  21. ↑ Banerjee, Neela; Song, Lisa (October 8, 2015). "Exxon's Business Ambition Collided with Climate Change Under a Distant Sea". InsideClimate News. Retrieved January 25, 2016.
  22. ↑ "The Economist explains: Why Exxon Mobil would support a carbon tax". The Economist. November 11, 2015. Retrieved January 30, 2016. Yet since 2007 Exxon Mobil, the world's biggest publicly listed oil company, is proposing a carbon tax, and has already put a shadow price on each tonne of CO2 it emits... a robust carbon price can make it easier to decide where to invest for the future. Like Exxon Mobil, many of the oil companies make investment decisions based on proxy carbon prices.
  23. ↑ "Use of internal carbon price by companies as incentive and strategic planning tool" (PDF). Carbon Disclosure Project. December 2013. Retrieved May 5, 2016. In 2013, 29 companies - based or operating in the US - disclosed that that they use an internal price of carbon in their business planning...For example, ExxonMobil is assuming a cost of $60 per metric ton by 2030.
  24. ↑ Jerving et al. 2015: An extended open water season, Croasdale said in 1992, could potentially reduce exploratory drilling and construction costs by 30% to 50%...he advised the company to consider and incorporate potential "negative outcomes," including a rise in the sea level, which could threaten onshore infrastructure; bigger waves, which could damage offshore drilling structures; and thawing permafrost, which could make the earth buckle and slide under buildings and pipelines.
  25. ↑ Whitman 2015: Croasdale said global warming could lower the costs but increase the length of time it would be possible to explore for oil in the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska and Canada's Yukon Territory. He and his team of researchers had developed models that showed with climate change, drilling in the Beaufort Sea could grow from two months per year to as many as five, with costs cut by as much as half. At the same time, rising sea level due to climate change could hurt infrastructure
  26. 1 2 3 Lieberman, Amy; Rust, Susanne (December 31, 2015). "Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 24, 2016.
  27. ↑ Banerjee, Song & Hasemyer 2015b: "After a decade of frank internal discussions on global warming and conducting unbiased studies on it, Exxon changed direction in 1989 and spent more than 20 years discrediting the research its own scientists had once confirmed."
  28. ↑ Goldenberg 2015
  29. ↑ Herrick, Thaddeus (August 29, 2001). "Exxon CEO Lee Raymond's Stance On Global Warming Causes a Stir". The Wall Street Journal.
  30. ↑ Lever-Tracy, Constance (2010). Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Taylor & Francis. p. 256. ISBN 9780203876213. major figures from the US (such as Exxon Mobil, conservative think-tanks and leading contrarian scientists) have helped spread climate change denial to other nations.
  31. ↑ Van den Hove, Le Menestrel & De Bettignies 2002: Ever since climate change became a subject of public and policy concern, ExxonMobil has been the most active major oil corporation in the debate.
  32. ↑ Van den Hove, Le Menestrel & De Bettignies 2002: In terms of delaying international and national actions on climate change, there is no doubt that ExxonMobil’s strategy succeeded.
  33. ↑ Healey, James R. (October 27, 2005). "Alternate energy not in cards at ExxonMobil". USA TODAY. Retrieved February 5, 2016.
  34. ↑ Union of Concerned Scientists 2007: In its campaign to sow uncertainty about the scientific evidence on global warming, ExxonMobil has followed a corporate strategy pioneered by the tobacco industry. Because ExxonMobil’s strategy, tactics, and even some personnel draw heavily from the tobacco industry’s playbook, it is useful to look briefly at this earlier campaign
  35. ↑ Gillis & Schwartz 2015: Exxon Mobil rejected the comparison to the tobacco industry
  36. ↑ Farrell, Justin (November 30, 2015). "Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement.". Nature Climate Change. Retrieved Feb 6, 2016.
  37. ↑ Jennings, Grandoni & Rust 2015: Over the next 15 years, it took out prominent ads in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, contending climate change science was murky and uncertain.
  38. ↑ "Exxon's Uncertainty Campaign in Black and White". InsideClimate News. October 22, 2016. Retrieved January 31, 2016.
  39. ↑ New York Times 2015.
  40. ↑ "Unsettled Science". ExxonMobil. 2000.
  41. ↑ "Infographic: Climate Science vs. Fossil Fuel Fiction". Union of Concerned Scientists. March 16, 2015. Retrieved January 31, 2016.
  42. ↑ "Climate Science vs. Fossil Fuel Fiction" (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists. March 2015. Retrieved January 31, 2016. ExxonMobil published an ad in 2000 in the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal titled "Unsettled Science."
  43. ↑ Van den Hove, Le Menestrel & De Bettignies 2002: ExxonMobil—together with its partners in US lobby groups—has been instrumental to the hindrance of US ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. I
  44. ↑ Whitman 2015: The company, which in 1999 became Exxon Mobil, helped found the Global Climate Coalition, which from 1989 to 2002 argued the role "of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," the New York Times reported Friday.
  45. ↑ Banerjee, Song & Hasemyer 2015a: "Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world's largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions."
  46. ↑ Van den Hove, Le Menestrel & De Bettignies 2002: Instrumental to the implementation of Exxon’s strategy was its participation in industry and lobby groups. Exxon is a prominent member of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the major US petroleum industry trade association, and was, from the date of its creation in 1989, a board member of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), one of the most influential US lobbying front group on the climate issue.
  47. ↑ Mooney, Chris (May 2005). "Some Like It Hot". Mother Jones. Retrieved April 29, 2007.
  48. ↑ "Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank". Mother Jones. May 2005. Retrieved October 20, 2015.
  49. ↑ Mann 2013, p. 67: "in recent years, the Heartland Institute, a group that has been funded by... fossil fuel (Exxon, Koch, Scaife) interests, has financed a series of one-sided conferences on climate change, featuring a slate of climate change deniers"
  50. ↑ Lee, Jennifer B. (May 28, 2003). "Exxon Backs Groups that Question Global Warming". The New York Times. Retrieved January 29, 2016. the company... has increased donations to... policy groups that, like Exxon itself, question the human role in global warming and argue that proposed government policies to limit carbon dioxide emissions associated with global warming are too heavy handed. Exxon now gives more than $1 million a year to such organizations, which include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research and the American Legislative Exchange Council... Exxon has become the single-largest corporate donor to some of the groups, accounting for more than 10 percent of their annual budgets. While a few of the groups say they also receive some money from other oil companies, it is only a small fraction of what they receive from Exxon Mobil.
  51. ↑ Barnett, Antony; Townsend, Mark (November 28, 2004). "Claims by think-tank outrage eco-groups". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved January 16, 2007.
  52. ↑ Thomas G Farmer; John Cook (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1 - The Physical Climate. Springer Science and Business Media. p. 461. ISBN 9400757573. In the decade after the Kyoto Protocol was introduced in 1997, Exxon-Mobil invested more than $20 million in think tanks that promoted climate change denial. This inspired the Royal Society of London to challenge Exxon-Mobil to stop funding organizations that disseminated climate denial.
  53. ↑ Spencer Weart. "The Public and Climate Change". Retrieved January 2016. Other corporations persisted in denial. The largest of all, ExxonMobil, continued to spend tens of millions of dollars on false-front organizations that amplified any claim denying the scientific consensus. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  54. ↑ Ward, Bob (September 4, 2006). "Letter from Royal Society to ExxoMobil" (PDF). The Guardian. London. Royal Society. Retrieved October 18, 2006.
  55. 1 2 "Robert Brulle: Inside the Climate Change "Countermovement"". Frontline. PBS. October 23, 2012. Retrieved February 21, 2015.
  56. ↑ Fischer, Douglas (2013-12-23). ""Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort". Scientific American. Retrieved February 16, 2016.
  57. ↑ Buncombe, Andrew; Castle, Stephen (December 6, 2006). "Exxon spends millions to cast doubt on warming". The Independent. Retrieved February 1, 2016.
  58. 1 2 "Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics". MSNBC. January 12, 2007. Retrieved May 9, 2007.
  59. ↑ "Exxon still funding Climate Change Deniers" (Press release). Greenpeace. May 18, 2007. Retrieved 30 September 2012.
  60. ↑ Adam, David (May 28, 2008). "Exxon to cut funding to climate change denial groups". The Guardian. London. Retrieved December 23, 2008.
  61. ↑ Adam, David (July 1, 2009). "ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate skeptic groups, records show". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved July 1, 2009.
  62. ↑ Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 21, 2015. Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you...ExxonMobil, the Michael Jordan of climate change denial, was supposed to have quit the game...Yet corporate records released earlier this year show that the world's largest petroleum company hasn't cut off the cash altogether.
  63. ↑ Coleman, Jesse (July 8, 2015). "Exxon Has Been Lying About Climate Change for Much Longer than We Thought". Greenpeace. Retrieved January 26, 2016.
  64. ↑ Shekhtman, Lonnie (September 17, 2015). "Exxon knew about climate change decades ago, spent $30M to discredit it". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 26, 2016.
  65. ↑ Mann 2013, p. 282: "ABC News's Nightline [noted] that Singer had admitted to receiving "funding from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun Oil." In a separate piece... ABC News noted that Singer "admits he once accepted an unsolicited check from Exxon for $10,000.""
  66. ↑ Harris, Dan; Biberica, Felicia; Stuart, Elizabeth; Kongshaug, Nils (March 23, 2008). "Global Warming Denier: Fraud or 'Realist'?". ABC News. Retrieved January 27, 2016.
  67. ↑ Gillis, Justin; Schwartz, John (February 21, 2015). "Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher". New York Times. Retrieved 2015-02-21.
  68. ↑ Krugman, Paul (April 17, 2006). "Enemy of the Planet". The New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2016. whatever small chance there was of action to limit global warming became even smaller because Exxon Mobil chose to protect its profits by trashing good science.
  69. ↑ Mann 2015: "All it would've taken is for one prominent fossil fuel CEO to know this was about more than just shareholder profits, and a question about our legacy. But now because of the cost of inaction—what I call the 'procrastination penalty'—we face a far more uphill battle."
  70. ↑ Oreskes 2015: "More than 30 years ago, Exxon scientists acknowledged in internal company memos that climate change could be catastrophic. Today, scientists who say the exact same thing are ridiculed in the business community and on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. We have lost... decades during which we could have built a smart electricity grid, fostered efficiency and renewables and generated thousands of jobs in a cleaner, greener economy. There is still time to prevent the worst disruptions of human-driven climate change, but the challenge is now much greater than it needed to be, in no small part because of the choices that Exxon Mobil made."
  71. ↑ McKibben, Bill (October 20, 2015). "Exxon Knew Everything There Was to Know About Climate Change by the Mid-1980s—and Denied It". The Nation. Retrieved January 29, 2016.
  72. ↑ Cohen, Ken (November 28, 2015). "A History Lesson for InsideClimate News". ExxonMobil Perspecitves. ExxonMobil. Retrieved Jan 31, 2016.
  73. ↑ Hasemyer, David; Cushman Jr., John H. (October 22, 2015). "Exxon: The Road Not Taken, Exxon Sowed Doubt about Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty". InsideClimate News. Retrieved December 22, 2015.
  74. ↑ Pearce, Fred (April 19, 2002). "Top climate scientist ousted". New Scientist. Retrieved July 24, 2007.
  75. ↑ Borger, Julian (April 20, 2002). "US and Oil Lobby Oust Climate Change Scientist". The Guardian. London. Retrieved January 29, 2016.
  76. ↑ Randol, Arthur G. "Randy" (February 6, 2001). "Regarding: Bush Team for IPCC Negotiations" (PDF). Retrieved January 30, 2016.
  77. ↑ "Climate scientist ousted". BBC News. April 19, 2002. Retrieved January 30, 2016.
  78. ↑ Revkin, Andrew (June 15, 2005). "Former Bush Aide Who Edited Reports Is Hired by Exxon". The New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2016.
  79. ↑ "Ex-Bush Aide Plans to Join Exxon Mobil". the Washington Post. Associated Press. June 15, 2005. Retrieved February 2, 2016.
  80. ↑ "Climate Change Research Distorted and Suppressed". Union of Concerned Scientists. 2005. Retrieved February 3, 2016.
  81. ↑ Friedman, Thomas L. (March 28, 2007). "How Many Scientists?". The New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2016.
  82. ↑ "Royal Society and ExxonMobil". Royal Society. September 4, 2006. Retrieved April 24, 2009.
  83. ↑ Goldenberg, Suzanne (July 15, 2015). "ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge". The Guardian. Retrieved October 15, 2015.
  84. ↑ Frumhoff, Peter C.; Heede, Richard; Oreskes, Naomi (September 2015). "The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers". Climatic Change. 132 (2): 157–171. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1472-5.
  85. ↑ "ExxonMobil Spent At Least £5.6m on European Lobbying and Corporate Donations in 2014". Desmog. 2016.
  86. ↑ Foley, Stephen (October 23, 2011). "Rockefeller's descendants tell Exxon to face the reality of climate change". The Independent. Retrieved October 20, 2015.
  87. ↑ Goldenberg, Suzanne (March 27, 2015). "Rockefeller family tried and failed to get ExxonMobil to accept climate change". The Guardian. London. Retrieved October 19, 2015.
  88. ↑ Koenig, David (May 30, 2013). "Exxon CEO concerned about world's poor? Tillerson says cutting oil use to fight climate change would make poverty reduction harder". National Post Location=Toronto. The Associated Press. Retrieved February 5, 2016.
  89. ↑ Krauss, Clifford; Mouawad, Jad (February 14, 2007). "Exxon Chief Cautions Against Rapid Action to Cut Carbon Emissions". New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2010.
  90. ↑ "Topics shift to the environment as oil executives meet in Texas". Los Angeles Times. February 14, 2007.
  91. ↑ "Exxon Mobil Acknowledges Climate Change Risk - You Read That Correctly". Investing.com. 1 April 2014. Retrieved 2016-01-15.
  92. ↑ Dickinson, Tim. "The Logic of Divestment: Why We Have to Kiss Off Big Carbon Now". Rolling Stone. Retrieved January 27, 2016.
  93. ↑ Cohen, Ken (October 10, 2014). "Some thoughts on divestment". ExxonMobil. Retrieved January 27, 2016.
  94. ↑ Geman, Ben (October 13, 2014). "Exxon Blasts Movement to Divest From Fossil Fuels". National Journal. Retrieved January 27, 2016.
  95. ↑ Hasemyer, David; Simison, Bob (2015-12-31). "Exxon's Support of a Tax on Carbon: Rhetoric or Reality?". InsideClimate News. Retrieved 2016-01-15.
  96. ↑ "Exxon Mobil Accuses the Rockefellers of a Climate Conspiracy". The New York Times.
  97. ↑ Whitehouse, Sheldon (May 29, 2015). "The fossil-fuel industry's campaign to mislead the American people". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 3, 2016.
  98. ↑ Cushman, John Jr (October 29, 2015). "U.S. Senators Press Exxon for Answers on Climate Denial Funding 971 4". InsideClimate News. Retrieved 2016-02-06.
  99. ↑ Phillis, Michael; Rust, Susanne. "Congressmen want probe of Exxon Mobil 'failing to disclose' climate change data". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 22, 2015.
  100. ↑ Goldenberg, Suzanne (October 16, 2015). "Exxon's climate change denial warrants federal inquiry, congressmen say". The Guardian. Retrieved October 22, 2015.
  101. ↑ Goldenberg, Suzanne (October 16, 2015). "Exxon's climate change denial warrants federal inquiry, congressmen say". The Guardian. Retrieved February 3, 2016.
  102. ↑ Gillis & Schwartz 2015: More than 40 of the nation’s leading environmental and social justice groups demanded a federal investigation of Exxon Mobil on Friday, accusing the huge oil and gas company of deceiving the American public about the risks of climate change to protect its profits.
  103. ↑ Picker, Leslie (November 3, 2015). "Gore Calls for Exxon Mobil Inquiry on Climate Change". The New York Times. Retrieved February 5, 2016.
  104. ↑ Cama, Timothy (October 29, 2015). "Hillary joins calls for federal probe of Exxon climate change research". The Hill.
  105. ↑ Cohn, Marjorie (January 12, 2016). "Revoke ExxonMobil's Corporate Charter for Climate Destruction and Cover-Up". Truthout.
  106. ↑ Cohn, Marjorie (January 13, 2016). "Revoke ExxonMobil's Corporate Charter for Climate Destruction and Cover-Up". Huffington Post. Retrieved February 1, 2016.
  107. ↑ Gillis, Justin; Kraussnov, Clifford (November 5, 2015). "Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General". The New York Times. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
  108. ↑ Mooney, Chris (November 5, 2015). "New York is investigating Exxon Mobil for allegedly misleading the public about climate change". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
  109. ↑ Brumfiel, Geoff (November 6, 2015). "Did Exxon Mobil Lie To The Public About The Risks Of Climate Change?". Morning Edition. NPR. Retrieved January 22, 2016.
  110. ↑ Has Exxon Mobil misled the public about its climate change research? on YouTube, November 10, 2015 PBS NewsHour
  111. ↑ Neuhauser, Alan (November 5, 2015). "Exxon Mobil on Hot Seat for Global Warming Denial". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved January 31, 2016.
  112. ↑ Penn, Ivan (January 20, 2016). "California to investigate whether Exxon Mobil lied about climate-change risks". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 28, 2016.
  113. ↑ Schwartz, John (January 20, 2016). "California Said to Target Exxon in Climate Inquiry". The New York Times. Retrieved January 28, 2016.
  114. ↑ Schwartz, John (March 29, 2016). "Exxon Mobil Climate Change Inquiry in New York Gains Allies". The New York Times. Retrieved April 15, 2016.
  115. ↑ Volcovici, Valerie; Lynch, Sarah N. (March 29, 2016). "Probe of Exxon's climate change disclosures expands". Reuters. Retrieved April 15, 2016.
  116. ↑ Dennis, Brady (March 31, 2016). "Investigation broadens into whether Exxon Mobil misled public, investors on climate change". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 15, 2016.
  117. ↑ Hasemyer, David (November 5, 2015). "Exxon Sues a Second Attorney General To Fight Off Climate Fraud Probe". InsideClimate News. Retrieved June 29, 2016.
  118. 1 2 Schwartz, John (September 14, 2016). "Are Subpoenas on Exxon Mobil Inquiries Valid? Experts Say Yes, and No". NYT. Retrieved September 19, 2016.
  119. ↑ #ExxonKnew on Twitter
  120. ↑ Sacha Pfeiffer (July 26, 2016). "Healey won't comply with climate change subpoena". The Boston Globe. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  121. ↑ David Hasemyer (July 27, 2016). "State AGs and Groups Defy Lamar Smith's Subpoena Over Exxon Climate Probes". InsideClimate News. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  122. ↑ Valerie Volcovici (July 26, 2016). "State prosecutors reject U.S. lawmakers' subpoena on Exxon probe". Reuters. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  123. ↑ "2 Attorneys General Refuse Subpoenas on Climate Change Probe". NYT. Associated Press. July 26, 2016. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  124. ↑ Hulac, Benjamin (July 27, 2016). "Attorneys General Refuse to Comply with Climate Subpoena; The battle grows over whether Exxon misled the public about climate change". ScientificAmerican.com. Scientific American. ClimateWire. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  125. ↑ Schwartz, John (August 19, 2016). "Exxon Mobil Fraud Inquiry Said to Focus More on Future Than Past". NYT. Retrieved August 23, 2016.
  126. ↑ Revkin, Andrew C. (November 21, 2002). "Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford". New York Times. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  127. ↑ Stanford GCEP project homepage. Retrieved December 27, 2015.
  128. ↑ Union of Concerned Scientists 2007

Bibliography

Select ExxonMobil documents

Timelines

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/2/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.