The state of New York is investigating whether Exxon Mobil misled the public and investors about the risks of Climate change.
The investigation “focuses on whether Exxon Mobil intentionally clouded public debate about science and hid from investors the risks that Climate Change could pose to its business according to a person familiar with the matter,” the Washington Post reported
The New York Times reported that the investigation may spur legal inquiries into other oil companies. Prosecutors may decide to investigate companies that chose to fund or join organizations that questioned climate science or policies designed to address the problem, such as the Global Climate Coalition and the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Doesn’t the Global Climate Coalition sound like a green group, which was an effort to fool the unwary? It was funded by the oil and coal industry, a fact known by reporters who covered the organization in Washington, including this reporter, but not widely publicized by the group, for obvious reasons.
I knew the GCC was spinning the story and that the science it cited trying to debunk the reality and risk posed by global warming was cherry-picked to support industry’s position. I also assumed - although I couldn't prove or document it - that some of its own scientists who were looking at the issue may have been closer to the truth than the companies publicly acknowledged.
I also assumed I was lied to occasionally, an occupational hazard when you cover politicians and industry officials and flacks. Anyone who doubts that has not been paying attention to the Republican Pinocchio-fest presidential debates.
I couldn't write that I suspected I was lied to, but I could and did try to balance the self-serving information industry was handing out by reporting on the work of the overwhelming number of climate scientists whose work the industry was trying to undermine.
There is, of course, no legal bar to lying to reporters. But lying to Congress or in judicial proceedings is actionable.
The investigation focuses on whether Exxon Mobil intentionally clouded public debate about science and hid from investors the risks that climate change could pose to its business according to a person familiar with the matter, and if discrepancies exist between the companies’ public and private statements. Deliberately misleading investors about the risks posed by climate change would be a violation of the company's fiduciary responsibility and Security and Exchange Commission regulations.
Exxon Mobil also provided funds for think tanks and advocacy organizations that sponsored conferences, held press conferences and commissioned studies with the intent of undermining and debunking the climate science. I know because I covered many of them. None of that activity was illegal, but if ExxonMobil and other companies knew they were helping to spin a web of deceit, that’s immoral and despicable.
The Global Climate Change was created after the Kyoto Climate Change Conference which produced the Kyoto Protocol, requiring industrial countries to reduce their greenhouse emissions.
The fossil fuel industry in the U.S. jumped on the protocol like hungry leopard on the back of a wildebeest, claiming that if it was enforced it would be catastrophic for the U.S. economy, cost jobs and place the country at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy. Not so much talked about by the GCC was that if the goals of the Protocol were to be met, the country would have to reduce its use of fossil fuels. There’s no interest like self-interest.
“Energy experts said internal documents from member companies about climate change could contradict what the companies said as part of the coalition, which was disbanded in 2002,” the Times reported.
“There was a concerted effort by multiple American oil companies to obscure the emerging climate consensus throughout the 1990s,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former White House aide to President Bill Clinton on climate issues. “This group may be vulnerable to legal challenge.”
As the scientific and anecdotal evidence for climate change increased over the ensuing years, oil companies lost much of their credibility on the science, and now acknowledge, however grudgingly, that climate change is real and must be addressed.
However, for the most part virtually every U.S. oil companies is opposed to a carbon tax, which is considered to be the most effective means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by raising the cost of fossil fuels, presumably reducing demand and encouraging the growth and availability of alternative forms of energy. Of course, that would mean lower revenues for the fossil fuel industry. There’s no interest like self-interest.
Quite apart from any legal issues, if it knew better based on its internal research, the gravest offense committed by the industry was persuading U.S. lawmakers (some of whom didn’t need much persuading), and the public that there was need to enact policies to combat climate change.
“We have watched Exxon sow doubt on climate science and delay action on climate change for nearly a generation,” said Kert Davies, formerly with Greenpeace and now the Climate Investigations Center, the Washington Post reported.
If the U.S. had taken the lead internationally two decades ago and started to impose measures to reduce its greenhouse gases in response to the Kyoto Protocol, perhaps we wouldn’t be facing the crisis we’re facing today when we're on the verge of severe and possibly irreversible climate change.
ExxonMobil’s response: “We unequivocally reject allegations that Exxon Mobil suppressed climate change research contained in media reports that are inaccurate distortions of Exxon Mobil’s nearly 40-year history of climate research that was conducted publicly in conjunction with the Department of Energy, academics and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” Exxon Mobil spokesman Scott Silvestri said.
©
