By Marlowe HOOD
Paris (AFP) Aug 23, 2017
US oil giant ExxonMobil knowingly misled the public for decades about the danger climate change poses to a warming world and the company's long-term viability, according to a peer-reviewed study released Wednesday.
An analysis of nearly 200 documents spanning decades found that four-fifths of scientific studies and internal memos acknowledged global warming is real and caused by humans.
At the same time a similar proportion of hundreds of paid editorials in major US newspapers over the same period cast deep doubt on these widely accepted facts.
The study also cites ExxonMobil calculations that capping global warming at under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) -- the goal enshrined in the landmark Paris climate accord -- would impose sharp limits on the amount of fossil fuels that could be burned, and thus potentially affect the firm's growth.
Both findings are relevant to ongoing investigations by state and federal attorneys general, along with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on whether the company deceived investors on how it accounts for climate change risk.
The new study was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
Earlier reporting by InsideClimate News, nominated last year for a Pulitzer, unearthed the internal documents and came to much the same conclusion.
In response, the company -- the largest oil producer in the United States, with revenue of $218 billion dollars (185 billion euros) last year -- denied having led a four-decade disinformation campaign.
"We unequivocally reject allegations that ExxonMobil suppressed climate change research," it said at the time. "We understand that climate risks are real."
- Systemic bias -
The company slammed journalists for having allegedly "cherry-picked" data in a way that unfairly put the company in a bad light.
The new study pushes back on that characterisation.
"We looked at the whole cherry tree," Geoffrey Supran, a researcher at Harvard University and co-author of the study, told AFP.
"Using social science methods, we found a gaping, systematic discrepancy between what Exxon said about climate change in private and academic circles, and what is said to the public."
As early as 1979, when climate change barely registered as an issue for the public, Exxon was sounding internal alarms.
"The most widely held theory is that... the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuel combustion," an internal memo from that year read.
A peer-reviewed study by Exxon scientists 17 years later concluded that "the body of evidence... now points towards a discernable human influence on global climate."
At the same time, however, the company was spending tens of millions of dollars to place editorials in The New York Times and other influential newspapers that delivered a very different message.
"Let's face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil," Exxon opined in 1997, as the Bill Clinton administration faced overwhelming opposition in Congress to US ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
Natasha Lamb, managing partner of investment management firm Arjuna Capital, said the new analysis could bolster the lawsuits accusing ExxonMobil of deliberately downplaying climate change risks.
"The Harvard research shows systemic bias in sowing public doubt, while acknowledging the risks privately," she said after reviewing the study's main findings.
"That is at the heart of the investigations."
- 'Deception and denial' -
Lamb's firm filed the first shareholder proposal in 2013 asking ExxonMobil to assess whether imposing a 2C limit on warming would result in the company not being able to exploit its reserves.
Those efforts were swatted down, but four years later a decisive 62 percent of shareholders called on ExxonMobil, in a non-binding vote last May, to detail how climate change will affect its future.
In three other lawsuits, coastal communities in California are suing 37 oil, gas and coal companies, including ExxonMobil.
Marin and San Mateo counties, along with the city of Imperial Beach, assert that these fossil fuel purveyors knew their product would cause sea level rise and coastal flooding but took no action to inform the public or curtail their carbon emissions.
The new study "confirms some of the central tenets of our cases," said Vic Sher, a senior partner at Sher Edling and a lawyer in the case.
"We will prove that Exxon and the fossil fuel industry knew for decades that greenhouse gas pollution would case warming of the air and oceans, sea level rise, and other consequences," he told AFP.
"The industry engaged in deception and denial while aggressively marketing and making enormous profits."
From 2006 to 2016, ExxonMobil was led by Rex Tillerson, currently Secretary of State under US President Donald Trump.
West Lafayette IN (SPX) Aug 21, 2017
Researchers have discovered a new reaction mechanism that could be used to improve catalyst designs for pollution control systems to further reduce emissions of smog-causing nitrogen oxides in diesel exhaust. The research focuses on a type of catalyst called zeolites, workhorses in petroleum and chemical refineries and in emission-control systems for diesel engines. New catalyst desi ... read more
All About Oil and Gas News at OilGasDaily.com
|The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2017 - Space Media Network. All websites are published in Australia and are solely subject to Australian law and governed by Fair Use principals for news reporting and research purposes. AFP, UPI and IANS news wire stories are copyright Agence France-Presse, United Press International and Indo-Asia News Service. ESA news reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. All articles labeled "by Staff Writers" include reports supplied to Space Media Network by industry news wires, PR agencies, corporate press officers and the like. Such articles are individually curated and edited by Space Media Network staff on the basis of the report's information value to our industry and professional readership. Advertising does not imply endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space Media Network on any Web page published or hosted by Space Media Network. Privacy Statement|