Jump to content

User:X1\/Exx3c

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See User:X1\/Springee&HughD too.

wp:Help desk/Archives/2018 February 13#not keep change during BRD

Funding of climate change denial[edit]

04:06, 14 February 2018 deletion/replacement

In the fall of 2015, InsideClimate News published a series of reports on an eight month investigation based on decades of internal Exxon Mobil files and interviews with former Exxon employees, which stated "Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed."[1] On its website, Exxon Mobil urged "Read all of these documents and make up your own mind."[2]

Exxon responded to the article by saying the allegations were based on cherry-picked statements from ExxonMobil employees and noting the ongoing climate research the company engaged in during the time in question.[2]

The company also 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.[3]

In August 2017, Environmental Research Letters published a content analysis by Harvard University researchers of Exxon Mobil’s internal reports, peer-reviewed research papers, and advertising, including advertorials Exxon placed in the op-ed section of The New York Times between 1972 and 2001. The authors found that "83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents [from Exxon] acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt" and concluded: "Exxon Mobil contributed to advancing climate science -- by way of its scientists’ academic publications -- but promoted doubt about it in advertorials,” and concluded that Exxon Mobil systematically “misled non-scientific audiences about climate science.”[4][5][6] Exxon called the report "inaccurate and preposterous".[7] The report was covered by a range of media.[8][9][10][11][12]

Exxon called the report "inaccurate and preposterous".[13] The Independent Petroleum Association of America also published a refutation of the Harvard study particularly noting that Exxon and Mobil were separate companies during much of the period in question. The climate research was primarily conducted by Exxon while the advertiorials were primarily from Mobil.[14]

State and federal investigations[edit]

14:32, 14 February 2018 deletion

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.[15][16][17][18][19][20] [21] 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.”[22]

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 ExxonMobil. 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.[15]

Reception[edit]

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.[23][24][25] 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."[26]

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.[2] 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.[3]

In November 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed alleging it misled its investors and the public by failing to disclose the risks posed to its business by climate change.[27]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference icn20151022 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Cohen, Ken. "When it Come to Climate Change, Read the Documents". ExxonMobil Perspectives. ExxonMobil. Retrieved Jan 31, 2016.
  3. ^ a b Cohen, Ken (November 28, 2015). "A History Lesson for InsideClimate News". ExxonMobil Perspecitves. ExxonMobil. Retrieved Jan 31, 2016.
  4. ^ Supran, Geoffrey; Oreskes, Naomi (23 August 2017). "Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014)". Environmental Research Letters. 12 (8). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f.
  5. ^ Schwartz, John (23 August 2017). "Exxon Misled the Public on Climate Change, Study Says". The New York Times.
  6. ^ Academic study concludes Exxon Mobil misled on climate change on YouTube August 23, 2017 PBS NewsHour
  7. ^ Tom DiChristopher (23 August 2017). "Exxon Mobil misled the public on climate change, Harvard study finds". CNBC. Retrieved 24 January 2018.
  8. ^ Shankleman, Jess (23 August 2017). "Exxon Duped Public Over Climate Concerns, Harvard Research Says". Bloomberg.
  9. ^ Leber, Rebecca (22 August 2017). "Exxon Dared Critics to Prove It Misled the Public. These Researchers Just Called the Company's Bluff". Mother Jones.
  10. ^ David Roberts (23 August 2017). "Exxon researched climate science. Understood it. And misled the public". Vox.com. Retrieved 24 January 2018.
  11. ^ Ray Downs (24 August 2017). "ExxonMobil had proof climate change was real but misled public, study finds". Upi.com. Retrieved 24 January 2018.
  12. ^ John H. Cushman Jr. (August 22, 2017). "Harvard Study Finds Exxon Misled Public about Climate Change". InsideClimate News. Retrieved 11 February 2018.
  13. ^ "ExxonMobil statement on inaccurate, activist-funded climate communications study". ExxonMobile Corp. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
  14. ^ WALRATH, SPENCER (September 6, 2017). "EXPOSED: HARVARD STUDY OMITTED EVIDENCE TO ALLEGE EXXONMOBIL 'MISLED' PUBLIC ON CLIMATE". Energy In Depth. Energy in Depth & IPAA. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
  15. ^ a b Schwartz, John (September 14, 2016). "Are Subpoenas on Exxon Mobil Inquiries Valid? Experts Say Yes, and No". NYT. Retrieved September 19, 2016.
  16. ^ [https://x.com/hashtag/exxonknew
    1. ExxonKnew] on X
  17. ^ Sacha Pfeiffer (July 26, 2016). "Healey won't comply with climate change subpoena". The Boston Globe. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  18. ^ David Hasemyer (July 27, 2016). "State AGs and Groups Defy Lamar Smith's Subpoena Over Exxon Climate Probes". InsideClimate News. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  19. ^ Valerie Volcovici (July 26, 2016). "State prosecutors reject U.S. lawmakers' subpoena on Exxon probe". Reuters. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  20. ^ "2 Attorneys General Refuse Subpoenas on Climate Change Probe". NYT. Associated Press. July 26, 2016. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
  21. ^ 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.
  22. ^ Schwartz, John (August 19, 2016). "Exxon Mobil Fraud Inquiry Said to Focus More on Future Than Past". NYT. Retrieved August 23, 2016.
  23. ^ 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 ExxonMobil chose to protect its profits by trashing good science.
  24. ^ 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."
  25. ^ 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 ExxonMobil made."
  26. ^ 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.
  27. ^ Hasemyer, David. "ExxonMobil's Climate Change Woes, Investors allege Exxon should have adjusted its accounting of oil reserves based on what it knows about climate change and coming climate action". Insideclimatenews.org. Retrieved 6 December 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:X1%5C/Exx3c&oldid=925394354"