| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By Emily Robinson
As concern over global warming has grown, some oil companies such as BP, Occidental Petroleum, and Shell have made public commitments to reducing their heat-trapping emissions and have begun investing in clean energy technologies. ExxonMobil has made no such commitment, instead choosing to confuse the public’s understanding of the problem. Anatomy of a Campaign This strategy comprises the following tactics pioneered by the tobacco industry: Manufacturing uncertainty. The tobacco companies came to the conclusion that they need not prove their products safe as long as they could “maintain doubt” about the health risks. As one famous Brown & Williamson memo put it in the late 1960s, “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public.” Similarly, ExxonMobil has attempted to sow doubt about society’s (and by extension, ExxonMobil’s) contribution to global warming. In 1998, the company helped create a task force called the Global Climate Science Team, members of which included Randy Randol, ExxonMobil’s senior environmental lobbyist at the time; Joe Walker, public relations representative for the American Petroleum Institute; and Stephen Milloy, who had once headed a tobacco front organization called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. A memo from the task force that year stated, “Victory will be achieved when average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science” and when public “recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” “Laundering” information. Between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil funded a network of at least 43 advocacy organizations that disseminate misleading information about global warming. These include high-profile groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (which actively opposes mandatory action to curb global warming) as well as lesser-known organizations such as the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Many of these groups have an overlapping—and sometimes identical—collection of spokespeople serving as staff, board members, or scientific advisors. By giving money to both established and practically unknown groups, ExxonMobil has created a vast “echo chamber” that repeats the same disinformation about global warming but gives the appearance of widespread debate among experts. Confounding the matter further is ExxonMobil’s simultaneous funding of reputable research institutions, which serves as “cover” for its disinformation campaign.
Misusing “sound science.” Like the tobacco industry before it, ExxonMobil uses the positive concept of “sound science” to inappropriately characterize its attempts to delay reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The organizations ExxonMobil underwrites keep the discussion focused on the science rather than the solutions by routinely contending that scientists do not know enough about global warming to justify substantial emission reductions—despite solid evidence to the contrary. In stark contrast to ExxonMobil’s website, which claims that it is difficult to determine the extent to which humans have contributed to global warming, 11 national scientific academies have declared in a joint statement, “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.” Gaining government access. ExxonMobil’s lobbying of the Bush administration and key members of Congress has proven tremendously effective. In addition to participating in Vice President Cheney’s secretive “Energy Task Force,” the company is one of several in the oil and gas industry that has donated thousands of dollars to Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), who authored the 2005 energy bill that provides billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industry while ignoring global warming emissions. The company was also successful in pushing the Bush administration to renege on previous U.S. commitments to the Kyoto Protocol. In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, “POTUS [the president of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.” Stopping the Spin In the wake of our Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air report, as Catalyst went to press, ExxonMobil claimed it stopped funding several of the implicated organizations (including Competitive Enterprise Institute) in 2006, and it took out full page ads in the New York Times seeming to slightly soften its hard line opposing climate action. While this is welcome news, Exxon had not yet identified the other organizations that it stopped funding, nor made its intentions clear regarding its relationship with the remaining groups. Therefore, it is important that consumers, shareholders, and Congress hold ExxonMobil accountable for this cynical campaign and demand action that could take the following forms: 1. Congress should conduct oversight of ExxonMobil’s activities, compelling company executives to testify (just as the tobacco industry did years ago) and surrender internal documents that detail their strategy. Members of Congress should also refuse to take campaign contributions from ExxonMobil or its employees until the company stops manufacturing uncertainty about global warming. 2. ExxonMobil shareholders should support resolutions calling for disclosure of the company’s physical, financial, and competitive risks related to global warming, and for investments in clean energy technologies that would minimize those risks. 3. Consumers should refuse to purchase ExxonMobil’s gasoline and other products until the company is willing to address global warming honestly. Clearly even ExxonMobil is not immune to public pressure. As mandatory emission-reduction bills come before Congress, it is essential that ExxonMobil continue to feel pressured to fully dismantle its disinformation campaign and engage in a productive discussion of global warming solutions. Emily Robinson is a press secretary at UCS.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The full text of Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air is available from our 
