webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

EXXON KNEW 3 bak

SEE MAINAND EXXON 4

capt 118, prev capt too

SEE PEABODY COAL 1966

some bad code , invisible after ad container oren cass, but aLL IN GGL DOC? SAME AS MAIN

this ends w/ oren cass, not DCI see bak

aka exxon 3

capt 118

5/16

post bust. see rico gw, team red and blue, corp person

---

2x see 4 exxonkewS

y mail 12 23

no lnx see exxon 4

exxon crashes COP28 to “fight for its life”

ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods is on a mission to defend fossil fuels and deny science during his debut at the UN climate conference.

EXXONKNEWS

DEC 6

Emily Sanders is the Center for Climate Integrity’s editorial lead.

:{:{Will COP28 be a climate denial superspreader event, or the death knell for Big Oil? The fossil fuel industry is doing all it can to ensure the former and prevent the latter. At least 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists were granted access to the conference — nearly four times more than any previous year.}:

COP President and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) CEO Sultan Al Jaber proclaimed that there is “no science” to back up the need to phase out fossil fuels in order to keep warming within the 1.5 degree threshold, accused his interviewer (Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland) of lying about ADNOC’s increasing investments in oil, and insisted that ending fossil fuels would “take the world back into caves.” He then launched yet another “net zero” emissions commitment, joined by about 50 major oil companies, which the UN secretary-general swiftly condemned as greenwashing.}:

https://twitter.com/PriceofOil/status/1731025554789318713

All in all, it’s shaping up to be the worst takeover of COP by fossil fuel interests yet, with oil and gas representatives boring like hungry termites into policy discussions concerning their companies’ profits — just the kind of thing ExxonMobil wouldn’t miss for the world.

A debut of desperation

This year is Exxon’s CEO Darren Woods’ first at COP, and he has been on quite the press tour. Woods’ mission is like those of other major oil company representatives at the conference: to defend the continued expansion of fossil fuel production against the irrefutable scientific consensus calling for its end.

“This is a desperate attempt to prolong his company’s destructive, fossil fuel-dependent business model,” said Kathy Mulvey, accountability campaign director for the Climate & Energy Team at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“The unprecedented nature of an Exxon CEO’s appearance at a U.N. climate talk seems consistent with the unprecedented nature of this year’s talks themselves,” said Geoffrey Supran, a Professor of Environmental Science & Policy at University of Miami and researcher of Exxon’s disinformation campaigns.

This particular COP is a “potential watershed moment, where Big Oil’s products finally become the target of international climate policy. That’s got to have oil executives up at night,” he said.

In conversations with multiple major media outlets, the oil executive said that policymakers were focusing too much on reducing fossil fuels and not enough on their emissions.

The talks in Dubai have “put way too much emphasis on getting rid of fossil fuels, oil and gas, and not . . . on dealing with the emissions associated with them,” Woods told the Financial Times in one interview.

“I actually think that part of the thing that has slowed us down is this focus on making a step change and getting out of our existing energy system and starting something brand new,” he told CNBC in another. “I think what society ought to focus on is the true problem here, which is emissions.”

Woods’ approach “appears to be an attempt to delay the urgent phase out of fossil fuels,” said William J. Ripple, a Distinguished Professor of Ecology at the University of Oregon and Director of the Alliance of World Scientists. Ripple was lead author on a report signed by more than 15,000 scientists last month that concluded that “the significance of immediately curbing fossil fuel use and preventing every further 0.1°C increase in future global heating cannot be overstated.”

International scientific bodies agree. “The uncomfortable truth that the industry needs to come to terms with is that successful clean energy transitions require much lower demand for oil and gas, which means scaling back oil and gas operations over time – not expanding them,” International Energy Agency executive director Fatih Birol wrote in the foreword to a report the agency published just before COP.

As has been its pattern for decades, Exxon is well aware of the science demanding the phase-out of its products — it’s just doing everything in its power to stop that science from leading to action, critics say.

“This is what they do: confuse and corrupt, deny and delay,” said Supran.

Confuse and corrupt, deny and delay

https://twitter.com/ClimateUCS/status/1731723555207876633

“The idea of taking advice on climate action from an oil boss is like inviting an unrepentant con artist to lead a fraud protection bureau,” said Mulvey, of UCS.

Woods, who just sealed a $60 billion deal to acquire Pioneer Natural Resources and produce more oil — a merger that is now being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission — has no plans to transition away from fossil fuels. Exxon was one of the 50 oil companies to sign on to Sultan Al Jaber’s voluntary emissions reduction pledge, called the “Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter,” which critics say rehashes old commitments and would do nothing to curb fossil fuel production. A letter from more than 300 advocacy groups called the pledge a “smokescreen to hide the reality that we need to phase out oil, gas and coal.”

“Oil and gas companies are under pressure, desperately trying to preserve their social license through recycled pledges,” said David Tong, Global Industry Campaign Manager at Oil Change International, which last year published a report finding that Exxon’s climate commitments are “grossly insufficient” to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Woods and his fellow oil company representatives are also using COP to push for unproven technologies that will prolong the lifespan of climate-wrecking fossil fuels. In an interview with Bloomberg at COP, Woods said the energy transition would require an assortment of “solutions” — including hydrogen and carbon capture — and “we need big companies to help with that.”

Woods rejected the IEA’s recent assessment of carbon capture as an “illusion,” telling Reuters that “you could say that about electric vehicles, about wind, about solar.” But according to the IEA, “The key actions required to bend the emissions curve sharply downwards by 2030 are well understood, most often cost effective and are taking place at an accelerating rate. The scaling up of clean energy is the main factor behind a decline of fossil fuel demand of over 25% this decade.”

Yet unlike the billions it invests in carbon capture, Exxon is spending almost nothing on renewable sources of energy, while lobbying against the transition away from its core products.

“It’s no surprise that Exxon is pushing for the continued use of fossil fuels,” said Jessica Green, Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto. “Exxon is in a fight for its life. Real progress on climate change isn’t about more carbon markets or net zero pledges, it’s about putting the oil and gas industry out of business.”

A larger strategy

Woods’ deflections at COP are part of a larger strategy of “corporate issues management,” said Supran, which “the fossil fuel industry has been pioneering for decades.”

“It means having your fingers in all the pies, anticipating future threats to your business and neutralizing them through decades of 360-degree public affairs strategies,” he said.

Exxon has been working to shift the narrative outside of COP, too. “On November 30, the first day of COP 28, The New York Times included a full-page greenwashing ad from ExxonMobil,” Brad Johnson documented in Hill Heat on Monday. “Reuters coverage of Al Gore’s criticism of ExxonMobil’s presence at COP 28 was smothered by greenwashing ads from ExxonMobil. The Punchbowl News political newsletter today is Presented by ExxonMobil.” Yesterday’s Power Switch newsletter from Politico was Presented by ExxonMobil, too.

While the oil giant’s greenwashing may have ramped up around COP, it’s also a years-long affair — aided in large part by many of the same media outlets interviewing Woods at the conference. A major analysis of Big Oil’s advertising between October 2020 and October 2023 found that “many of the world’s most trusted English-language news publications help fossil fuel companies mislead readers about topics like the promise of carbon capture, the potential of ‘renewable biogas,’ and how much the industry contributes to the energy transition,” according to Amy Westervelt and Matthew Green.

The analysis, published by Drilled and DeSmog this week, found that Bloomberg Media Studios last year created a video for Exxon promoting carbon capture and hydrogen; Politico organized 37 e-mail campaigns for Exxon; and Exxon sponsored more than 100 editions of Washington Post newsletters in 2022 alone, as just a few examples.:}:

Ultimately, it’s up to the media, policymakers, and other major institutions to determine whether the oil companies still responsible for fueling climate catastrophe are allowed to have a platform to stand on — or whether, like Big Tobacco, their time to influence the debate about their products’ harm is finally up.

ICYMI: If you want to learn more about the language being used by oil companies at COP this year, here’s a helpful guide from NPR.

---

wiki denlal 3 26

U.S. fossil fuel companies have known about global warming since at least the 1960s.[152] In 1966, a coal industry research organization, Bituminous Coal Research Inc., published its finding that if then prevailing trends of coal consumption continued, "the temperature of the earth's atmosphere will increase" and "vast changes in the climates of the earth will result. [...] Such changes in temperature will cause melting of the polar icecaps, which, in turn, would result in the inundation of many coastal cities, including New York and London."[153] In a discussion following this paper in the same publication, a combustion engineer for Peabody Coal, now Peabody Energy, the world's largest coal supplier, added that the coal industry was merely "buying time" before additional government air pollution regulations would be promulgated to clean the air. Nevertheless, the coal industry publicly advocated for decades thereafter the position that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial for the planet.[153]

---}:

OMFG 2 26

In Boston speech, Exxon Mobil CEO says he’s still betting big on oil - The Boston Globe

no lnx

In Boston speech, Exxon Mobil CEO says he’s still betting big on oil

Darren Woods says the oil giant will double down on fracking technology, but brings little to the table on renewables

By Jon Chesto Globe Staff,Updated November 1, 2023, 4:52 p.m.

Exxon Mobil chairman and CEO Darren W. Woods spoke Wednesday at the Boston College Chief Executives Club, which met at the Boston Harbor Hotel.

Exxon Mobil Corp. chief executive Darren Woods knows his company’s pending purchase of rival Pioneer Natural Resources is a $60 billion bet on the future of oil. On Wednesday, Woods defended that bet during a Boston business leaders luncheon. Oil, he said, needs to be a big part of the energy mix for a long time to come.

Woods held forth with former State Street chief executive Jay Hooley — a member of Exxon’s board — at Wednesday’s meeting of the Boston College Chief Executives Club. The Pioneer deal, announced on Oct. 11, was top of mind. The acquisition will more than double Exxon’s acreage in the Permian Basin, an oil-rich region that stretches across the Texas-New Mexico border. Exxon is also about to complete another important acquisition, the nearly $5 billion purchase of pipeline operator Denbury; that deal is expected to close on Thursday.

One thing you won’t see Woods buying: a major wind or solar company. He made it clear to the Boston crowd that he doesn’t believe electricity generation fits with Exxon’s core business strengths. The Texas-based company will remain focused on molecules and not electrons. Translation: He’s sticking with fuels, and steering clear of electricity.

Woods talked about how Exxon was late to the game to invest in fracking — the process of blasting through rock to extract more oil and gas from the ground — and tried to catch up with the purchase of XTO Energy in 2010. More recently, Exxon has harnessed its immense research and development operations to build on that acquisition by improving its fracking technology, considered crucial to unlocking the full potential of the Permian’s oil reserves. (The acreage that Exxon and Pioneer control there essentially equal an estimated 15 to 20 years worth of oil inventory.)

“Over the course of the last five years, we have come up with unique approaches and technologies for more effectively recovering the resource out of this rock that looks like granite,” Woods said. “We’re getting more recovery at less cost. That’s magic in this business.”

Related

Exxon works hard to keep America addicted to fossil fuels

Chevron buys Hess for $53 billion, second megadeal in the oil patch this month as energy prices soar

Exxon Mobil buys Pioneer Natural in $59.5 billion deal with energy prices surging

Woods didn’t directly address the calls on Wednesday from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Senate Democrats to scrutinize the antitrust implications of the Exxon Mobil-Pioneer merger. (The Democrats also want another recent oil megamerger, Chevron’s $53 billion deal to buy Hess, to get similar scrutiny.) But Woods did pledge that the Pioneer deal will help lower oil costs — a potential tripping point in any antitrust scrutiny by the Biden administration.

“We’re going to recover more oil at a lower cost, which is good for the US economy,” Woods said. “It’s good for US energy security.”

Signage for Exxon Mobil at the company's booth during the Gastech Exhibition & Conference in Singapore on Sept. 5.

Signage for Exxon Mobil at the company's booth during the Gastech Exhibition & Conference in Singapore on Sept. 5.Nicky Loh/Bloomberg

Hooley noted that oil companies have been pilloried for not doing more to help with the clean energy transition away from fossil fuels.

Woods’s response? Those critics of oil and gas will be proven wrong.

“That’s a very superficial way of thinking about it,” Woods said. “We definitely think wind and solar will be an important part [of the country’s energy portfolio]. But they’re not sufficient in and of themselves. ... There is a somewhat superficial view that [if] you’re an energy company, you should go into wind and solar.”

That won’t be happening at Exxon, at least not under Woods’s watch. “My view is, we don’t bring a lot to that space,” Woods said. “We’re not an electron company. We’re a molecule company.”

“Molecules,” as Woods put it, can help with the clean energy transition. He mentioned carbon capture — Denbury, for example, specializes in pipelines used for transferring and storing carbon dioxide underground — as well as hydrogen and biofuels.

“We need as many solutions out there as possible,” Woods added. “We got very focused as a society on a narrow narrative that said, you’ve got to get rid of oil and gas.”

Policy makers, Woods said, should be more focused on managing the costs of this transition. Many low- and zero-carbon solutions, he said, aren’t economically practical at a large scale, particularly at the global level. While the federal government is providing subsidies for carbon capture and similar technologies, Woods said subsidies should not go on forever.

“I think of it as a catalyst,” Woods added. “Without market forces, we’re not going to get the best answers.”

Jon Chesto can be reached at jon.chesto@globe.com. Follow him @jonchesto.

Boston Globe Today

emily Sanders is the Center for Climate Integrity’s editorial lead. Catch up with her on Twitter here.

---

A page on ExxonMobil’s website that sought to refute calls for the oil giant to be held accountable for its climate deception appears to have been taken off the internet after seven years.

:{The web page, an official corporate rebuttal to the #ExxonKnew movement, accused Exxon’s critics of plotting together to “delegitimize ExxonMobil by misrepresenting our position on climate change and related research to the public.” Starting in 2018, just after the first climate accountability lawsuits were filed, a montage-style video flooded Twitter feeds to promote the “real story behind #ExxonKnew” and drive traffic to the now-defunct web page.

According to Exxon, it was activists and community leaders, not the fossil fuel industry, who were telling lies.}:

The “Understanding the #ExxonKnew controversy” page on Exxon’s website became home to an all-out strategic communications blitz against activists, lawyers, and others fighting to hold Exxon accountable. The page intended to cast doubt on the growing evidence that Exxon knew for decades that its products caused climate change but then led a massive campaign of deception to protect its profits. Its allegations — that advocates, elected officials, and plaintiffs in climate lawsuits had engaged in a so-called “coordinated campaign” against the oil giant — have been repeated in courtrooms across the country by Exxon’s lawyers.

One of the critics Exxon named on the web page was Naomi Oreskes, a Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University and scholar of climate disinformation. Oreskes has published prolific research exposing Exxon’s early knowledge and subsequent campaigns to create public uncertainty about climate science.

“ExxonMobil has long tried to distract attention from their long, well-documented history of denying or minimizing the risks of climate disruption caused by the intended use of their products,” Oreskes told ExxonKnews in an email. “When people — academics, journalists, even their own former employees — discuss what they have done, they attack the messenger. As we’ve said before, they misrepresent their own history of misrepresentation. We have shown this to be the case. The tiger has not changed its stripes.”

A screenshot from ExxonMobil’s former web page. Exxon has been sued for engaging with trade associations and other oil companies in a “coordinated campaign” of climate deception.

In April, seemingly out of nowhere, the page disappeared.

So why did Exxon take down its rebuttal after all this time?

Exxon faces a clear and rising threat of “massive monetary liability” and is deep in the throes of a damaging public reckoning. Last month, the Wall Street Journal published more documentation of the oil giant’s attempts to undermine climate science well into the 2010s. The attorney general of California sued the company in a landmark case that opens the floodgates for more states to take legal action.

Most recently, Exxon suffered its seventh painful defeat in a federal appeals court. A judge who ruled in Exxon’s favor in an earlier New York case — a ruling the company’s lawyers are still citing as evidence that Exxon shouldn’t face trial in state courts — agreed, along with two of his colleagues, that Connecticut’s climate fraud lawsuit against Exxon should indeed proceed in state court. Across the country, climate accountability lawsuits against Exxon are now advancing toward trial, where the company will be up against a mountain of proof that it knowingly endangered the planet.}:

In erasing the web page, Exxon could simply be dropping its public defense or signaling a change in strategy — but some notable markers at the start and end of this website’s tenure raise more questions.

Here’s a brief timeline of events:

IFrame Content

The Journal’s article specifically highlights one particular focus of the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office investigation: a spear-phishing campaign targeting the recipients of a private email about a meeting in January 2016 where a communications plan to expose Exxon’s deception was discussed. A copy of that private communication was somehow obtained by the Wall Street Journal and Washington Free Beacon, and published in the Washington Free Beacon in April 2016.

As mentioned in the Journal’s reporting, that hacked email was cited in the timeline on Exxon’s #ExxonKnew rebuttal website, as well as in court briefings and statements by Exxon’s lawyers, who used it to argue that advocates were plotting to push prosecutors into unfairly investigating the company as part of a “vilification agenda.”

A screenshot from the timeline on Exxon’s web page describing the email. Disclaimer: The Rockefeller Family Fund is a funder of the Center for Climate Integrity, of which ExxonKnews is a project.*

We’ve asked Exxon why the web page was taken down, and if the publication of the Wall Street Journal story in March was a factor. We will update this story if we get a response.

---

:{Thanks for reading ExxonKnews!

ICYMI News Roundup

---

NEW 3 PT SERIES

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2016/03/08/exxonmobil-and-climate-change-a-story-of-denial-delay-and-delusion-told-in-forms-10-k-1993-2000/

Climate Science & Policy Watch is keenly interested in recent developments regarding various investigations into ExxonMobil Corporation, spurred by a growing concern that the company has chronically and grossly misrepresented to its investors and the public the risks it faces as a result of impacts and other factors associated with global climate disruption.

As part of an ongoing investigation of our own, we have reviewed all of the 10-K forms ExxonMobil has submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from 1993 (the furthest back these forms are available online) to the present, in an effort to better understand how this oil giant has addressed the climate change threat — a threat Exxon itself has been shown to fully grasp going back four decades, despite its rhetoric to the contrary. No doubt, the Attorneys General in New York and California investigating ExxonMobil have tasked their staffs with a similar exercise. These comprehensive, mind-numbingly detailed reports must not only address the financial health of the company and all of its operations, but must also address the full set of risks it faces in the marketplace and in the geographic areas in which it operates. From what we see in the 10-Ks, each over a hundred pages long and requiring, on average, 2,000 hours to complete, Exxon has lied by both omission and commission: omitting mere mention for many years, and then grossly understating, the vast array of direct and indirect risks it faces as a result of climate change. Even worse, Exxon has intentionally, overtly, and flagrantly overstated possible financial and economic risks associated with regulating carbon and other GHGs, both here in the US and in nations around the world.

ExxonMobil has a simple but admittedly very difficult Darwinian choice to make: Will the oil giant continue with the defiant, rosy-scenario, thumbs-up, “bidness”-as-usual approach going forward, or will it continue to feel the heat — politically, socially, economically and quite literally on our warming planet — and eventually, burn.

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, catch an Exxon Tiger by the toe.

:{

This is the first of a three-part series that analyzes the 10-K reports submitted to the SEC by the Exxon Corporation (which became ExxonMobil in 1998) from 1993-2015, this first covering 1993-2000. It is the latest installment in a series of CSPW posts focusing not only on Exxon, but on Big Oil as well, and the oil and gas industry’s stubborn recalcitrance in the face of indisputable scientific findings on climate change. Overwhelming scientific evidence now shows that the GHG burden in the atmosphere (now at an unprecedented 404 ppm and climbing) as a result of fossil fuel combustion is profoundly altering and disrupting planetary climatic conditions, thus posing significant risks to all populations and all economic activity worldwide. From one narrow perspective, the head-in-the-sand ostrich approach to the climate change problem has worked fairly well for ExxonMobil and its predecessor companies, if profit margin is the sole metric. However, even Exxon’s bottom line is at risk now and ExxonMobil, like all fossil-based commercial entities, will ultimately need to either adapt to a low-carbon economy to survive, or go out of business (i.e., go extinct) altogether: even giants like Exxon are part of the fabric of society and not exempt from the Darwinian laws of nature. Constraints on carbon emissions are inevitable; it is not in our collective best interest to further delay action.}:

Our review of Exxon Corporation’s 10-K forms, in light of key developments in climate science and policy in the years we reviewed, provided a troubling but insightful timeline. The stark contrast between what Exxon was sharing with its investors and what the rest of the scientific community was reporting to the rest of the world was remarkable, and incriminating of Exxon.

1993 is the earliest year for which we could find an online 10-K for Exxon Corp; we closely reviewed the 10-Ks for 1993-2015 — 23 years worth. Of course to glean an even more comprehensive understanding of what Exxon was saying about climate change and when it was saying it, It will also be important to review Forms 10-K (and perhaps other financial and risk analysis reporting) for the time period beginning in the early 1970s (when Exxon began gearing up to conduct extensive in-house research on carbon dioxide in our oceans) through 1992 as well, to complete the timeline. In the meanwhile, we can set the scene with an initial abbreviated timeline leading up to 1993.

Contrary to popular notions, the story really begins about 150 years ago, much earlier than the 1970s.

INITIAL TIMELINEThe following are some key developments regarding Exxon and climate change, going back to the origins of both Exxon and our awareness of the prospect of global warming. Interestingly, they happened at approximately the same time in human history.

1870: Standard Oil Company (Exxon’s predecessor) was formally established by John D. Rockefeller and incorporated in Ohio.

1890: Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, preventing monopolies like the one Standard Oil had become.

1896: Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, first published his findings after developing the first model for studying the heat-trapping properties and effects on our atmosphere and climate of industrial carbon dioxide. He was one of several scientists of the time to study and call attention to Earth’s changing climate and the role rising CO2 could play.

1911: In enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act, the US Justice Department forced Standard Oil to break up into 34 individual companies.

1920s-1950s: Scientific papers addressing the prospect of global warming and its effect on the Arctic and our glaciers are appearing in scientific literature throughout the developed world.

1957: The National Academy of Sciences submitted its First General Report on Climatology to the Chief of the Weather Bureau through a Committee on Climatology chaired by Dr. Thomas F. Malone. (AIP, NCBI)

1958: Charles David Keeling began taking atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements at Mauna Loa Laboratory in Hawaii, initiating what has become the most reliable and longest continuous record of tropospheric CO2 concentrations in the world. These essential measurements continue to this day.

1962: Exxon Corporation takes an ad out in the February issue of LIFE Magazine, against a backdrop photograph of Alaska’s Taku Glacier, boasting that Humble Oil and Refining (an Exxon predecessor) supplies enough energy “to melt 7 tons of glacier.”

1965: President Lyndon Johnson warned about the potential dangers of a changing climate in a special message to Congress: “Air pollution is no longer confined to isolated places. This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”

1972: Gas stations bearing the names Esso and Enco were newly named “Exxon” and the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey changed its name to the Exxon Corporation.

1977: In July, Exxon senior scientist James F. Black warned top Exxon management of the dangers associated with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from fossil fuel combustion. “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,” Black admonishes in an internal briefing paper for Exxon leadership. (Hat tip to InsideClimate News for it’s stellar investigative reporting on this topic.)

1977 and beyond: As early as 1977, representatives of all the major oil companies including Exxon attended and testified at dozens of Congressional hearings addressing the relationship between CO2 emissions, the greenhouse effect, and global warming. Climate scientists such as former GAP client Dr. James Hansen, Charles Keeling, Richard Kerr, and others were busy publishing papers warning of the hazards of global warming as a result of fossil fuel combustion. (UCS report)

1978: Congress passed into law the National Climate Program Act for federal climate science research, a law spearheaded by Rep. George E. Brown of California.

1979: Exxon scientist Henry Shaw led company teams who began to study the absorption rate of CO2 in the oceans. “Exxon must develop a credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject and be able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation,” Shaw wrote in a letter to Exxon research executives. (InsideClimate News)

1980s: Scientific papers addressing the growing evidence of the global warming and global climate change threat became even more frequent and compelling.

1987: The National Academy of Sciences issued its first major report on the prospect of rising oceans: Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering Implications.

1988: Dr. James Hansen delivered famous testimony before Congress, declaring that climate change was real, it had arrived, and was already causing impacts. His testimony caused a major splash in the media and news of his conclusions rippled through organizations concerned about our global environment. Exxon had also taken notice: an internal memo from August 1988 lays out the beginnings of what would later become the “global warming denial machine,” a term of art coined and well documented by CSPW founder Rick Piltz. (UCS report)

1989: The United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

1989: The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) — a well-known front-group for fossil fuel interests — was created in 1989, shortly after the IPCC’s first meeting, operating out of the offices of the National Association of Manufacturers. Exxon Corp. was one of its earliest members, along with Chevron, Ford, General Motors, Shell, Texaco, and of course, the American Petroleum Institute. Throughout the 1990s until it disbands in 1997, the GCC grooms and dispatches well-known climate “skeptics” Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, Fred Singer, and others (all partly funded by Exxon) as “climate science experts.” (UCS report)

1989: Exxon hired Harvard-educated astrophysicist Brian Flannery to examine the mathematical models being used to better understand global warming and project future scenarios. Through Exxon, Flannery granted funding to universities, starting with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, funding with strings. Flannery was clear in providing direction to MIT researchers: “Embrace the uncertainty in all of this.”

1989: On March 24, the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, causing one of the most massive and destructive oil spills in world history.

1990: Exxon faces its first climate-related shareholder resolution, proposed by Brion Blackwelder of Friends of the Earth. With 250,000 Exxon shares, Blackwelder asked Exxon’s Board of Directors to develop a company-wide plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the company’s energy production plants and facilities worldwide.” Exxon pushed its typical “scientific uncertainty” message in its opposition statement: “Exxon’s own examination supports the idea that the facts today and the projection of future effects are very unclear.” The proposal was defeated, winning only six percent of the vote. But, it was a start. (ICN: Exxon’s 25 Years of ‘No’)

1990: Exxon scientist Brian Flannery inserts himself into the IPCC process, submitting papers, attending meetings, and, as the first IPCC summary document on climate change was being prepared by scientists, Flannery boldly asked the drafters how they could justify large cuts in CO2 emissions, given all the uncertainties?

1990: The US Global Change Research Act — a much-improved version of the National Climate Program Act — was signed into law; the GCRA codified (i.e. mandated by law) the interagency US Global Change Research Program, where CSW founder Rick Piltz later held senior positions from 1995-2005.

1991: The National Academy of Sciences issued another seminal report: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming.

1992: While still a US Senator from Tennessee, soon to be named Vice President, Al Gore wrote his first book addressing the climate problem: Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit.

Without the 10-K reports for these years, especially for the 1970s when the company was conducting its own research on carbon dioxide in the oceans, it is difficult to know what Exxon was revealing to the SEC and its shareholders regarding its understanding of the relationship between fossil fuel combustion and global warming. Even so, we can learn much from the 23 years of 10-Ks from 1993-2015: CSPW’s summary and analysis, with important points of context, begins below for the period 1993-2000.

Part Two of this series will cover the period 2001-2008. Part Three will cover 2009-2015.  Each of these reports was prepared by Exxon’s accounting firm, Price Waterhouse LLP, which merged with Coopers & Lybrand in 1998 to become PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, now known simply as PwC, the 6th largest privately owned organization in the US.

1993: In January 1993, Lee Raymond had officially taken the helm as Exxon’s Chair of the Board and CEO, held previously by Lawrence Rawl. For calendar (and fiscal) year 1993 — again, the earliest year we could find Exxon’s SEC filings online — Exxon Corporation’s Form 10-K makes no mention of climate change at all. A global word search yields zero results for each of the following search terms: “climate,” “weather,” “global warming,” “carbon dioxide,” “CO2,” or “greenhouse gases.” In addressing overall risks, Exxon had this to say to the SEC and its shareholders:

“The operations and earnings of the corporation and its affiliates throughout the world have been, and may in the future be, affected from time to time in varying degree by political developments and laws and regulations, such as forced divestiture of assets; restrictions on production, imports and exports; price controls; tax increases and retroactive tax claims; expropriation of property; cancellation of contract rights and environmental regulations(emphasis added). Both the likelihood of such occurrences and their overall effect upon the corporation vary greatly from country to country and are not predictable (emphasis added).”

This theme — that the Exxon leadership views future potential environmental regulations as (potentially adversely) affecting “operations and earnings” and are unpredictable — and language similar to it, carries through all of the 10-K statements we reviewed.

As the SEC requires reporting on company litigation matters, the 1993 10-K includes a paragraph regarding the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spillin Prince William Sound, Alaska:

“A number of lawsuits, including class actions, have been brought in various courts against Exxon Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries relating to the release of crude oil from the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989. Most of these lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages; several lawsuits seek damages in varying specified amounts. Certain of the lawsuits seek injunctive relief. The claims of many individuals have been dismissed or settled. Most of the remaining actions are scheduled for trial in federal court commencing May 2, 1994. Other actions will likely be tried in state court later in 1994. The cost to the corporation from these lawsuits is not possible to predict; however, it is believed that the final outcome will not have a materially adverse effect upon the corporation’s operations or financial condition.”

Exxon never did pay for long-term environmental damages to Prince William Sound and its vast shoreline.

1994: With the exception of changes in the financial details, the 10-K for FY 1994 is essentially the same as that for FY 1993. No mention is made of climate, global warming, carbon dioxide, CO2, or greenhouse gases. There is one mention of “weather” — Exxon notes that “despite unseasonably warm temperatures in both the US and Europe during the fourth quarter of 1994, worldwide natural gas production” still rose from 1993 levels. So, shareholders: no worries, thumbs up.

1995: The Form 10-K for FY 1995 also makes no mention at all of climate, weather, global warming, carbon dioxide, CO2, or greenhouse gases. However, Exxon reassured investors that, although a federal judge had imposed punitive damage verdicts against the company for the “accidental release” (their words) of oil in Alaska, the verdict was “unjustified” and Exxon vowed to appeal. The underlying message was that Exxon simply could not, would not, allow Valdez liabilities to cut too deeply into the lucrative profit margin.

Meanwhile, the oil industry’s own scientists had been warning of climate change dangers, and we have evidence to prove it. For example, a leaked internal draft document prepared in 1995 by a team of scientists at Mobil Corporation (which had not yet merged with Exxon), intended for fossil industry executives but not the general public, unequivocally states:

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”

While there are plenty of other sources to cite, CSPW would like to recommend an informative, well-documented dissertation addressing the full extent of Big Oil’s role in over-emphasizing scientific uncertainties regarding anthropogenic climate change: a 2015 report produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists, The Climate Deception Dossiers.

Tropospheric CO2 concentrations were rising fast: at the famous Mauna Loa laboratory, Charles Keeling was continuing (as he always had since 1958) to measure and report atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. In 1995 he published a scientific paper in Nature, “Interannual Extremes in the Rate of Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide since 1980.” By 1995, the climate problem was well known and knowable; one would have to have been an ostrich with its head in the sand not to understand that we were conducting an enormous experiment with Earth’s atmosphere with potentially dire consequences.

1996: Our reading experience of Form 10-K for FY 1996, in the words of Yogi Berra, was “Déjà vu all over again.” Mention of climate or anything related: zip. The weather, however, is mentioned in a positive note for investors: in 1996 natural gas production rose to the highest level in 15 years, up nine percent from the year before, “due to colder weather in Europe and the US.” The relationship between weather conditions and product sales does not escape Exxon.

Meanwhile, the IPCC released two major reports in 1996: The Science of Climate Change, and Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analysesby Robert T. Watson, IPCC’s Chair in 1996. (Note: Exxon would later play a major role in ousting Watson from this position, in full character in its role as global bully).

1997: Our review of Form 10-K for FY 1997 revealed more of the same, with some variations and, of course, updated financials for fiscal year 1997. Exxon was doing well, holding its superior position in the global marketplace. The fact that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was imposing penalties of up to $25,000 per day for Clean Air Act violations at Exxon’s Baytown, Texas oil refinery was reported almost as a minor nuisance. Again, Exxon’s 10-K was completely devoid of any mention of climate, weather, global warming, carbon dioxide (CO2), or greenhouse gases.

What was the climate change backdrop in 1997?

The most reliable data set for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations being gathered at Mauna Loa Observatory was about to turn 40 years old; Dr. Charles Keeling received a special achievement award from then Vice President Gore at a July 1997 White House ceremony.

The buzz regarding the fossil industry’s wholesale denial of climate change gained some new energy. Journalist Ross Gelbspan published his first book about climate change denial: The Heat is On: The High Stakes Battle over Earth’s Threatened Climate.

Exxon’s leaders were worried and anxious in anticipation of the upcoming climate negotiations among world leaders in December when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was to take place in Kyoto, Japan. Exxon’s Chairman and CEO Lee Raymond delivered a major speech in October 1997 to the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing. He opened by bragging that Exxon had been selling odorless kerosene oil to the Chinese people since 1910 and giving away kerosene lamps, gaining Exxon the nickname “Keepers of Light” among the Chinese people. He noted that the area of the world open for energy development had increased by one third, and emphasized the dominant role of fossil fuels in meeting energy needs. A good part of his speech was devoted to dismissing climate change as a real problem and warning how “tragic” it would be if the region was “deprived of the opportunity for continued prosperity by misguided restrictions and regulations” addressing carbon emissions.

Exxon Corp. was essentially petrified of any sort of global consensus on driving down global greenhouse gas emissions as the result of the upcoming Kyoto climate negotiations. Exxon was not alone: all of the majors in the oil and gas industry, well-represented by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and its so-called Global Climate Science Communications Team, were doing their best to derail an agreement on placing limits on carbon emissions and thus constraining fossil fuel use, as there is no way to “scrub” CO2 out of emissions like we can for the pollutants causing acid rain. Raymond argued:

“Proponents of the [Kyoto Protocol] agreements say they are necessary because burning fossil fuels causes global warming. Many people – politicians and the public alike – believe that global warming is a rock-solid certainty. But it’s not… the case for so called global warming is far from airtight. You would think that all the uncertainty would give political leaders pause. Unfortunately, it hasn’t, and officials continue to insist that agreement is needed in Kyoto.”

Uncertainty (and thus, doubt) is precisely the product Exxon was selling (a notion well-documented in the book authored by Naomi Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt), and its CEO was doing all he could to ensure the message stuck. The brand of doubt and scientific uncertainty being sold was indeed a form of denial, being strategically employed as a tool to help ensure delay of public policy regulating CO2 emissions.

“We need to understand the issue better, and fortunately, we have time,” Raymond assured his audience, “It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are enacted now or 20 years from now.” Exxon’s own scientists knew better, as we have since learned through investigations by InsideClimate and others. (And, of course, consensus of the Parties to the UNFCCC was reached anyway, resulting in the Kyoto Protocol.)

1998: The warmest year (on average) on Earth, in the warmest decade, in the warmest century, for at least a thousand years, as noted in a climate change timeline prepared by the World Wildlife Fund.

And yet, Exxon’s Form 10-K for FY 1998, once again, failed to make any mention of climate, global warming, carbon dioxide (CO2), or greenhouse gases. Again, a full paragraph is devoted to ongoing litigation surrounding the Exxon Valdez oil spill, nearly a decade after the disaster, and Exxon reasserts its belief that punitive damages being sought by federal courts are “unwarranted.” Exxon’s big news for 1998 was that it had successfully merged with Mobil Corporation to become ExxonMobil, a deal that was formally sealed on November 30, 1998.

It’s not like Exxon wasn’t prodded again that year to consider the climate change problem. At its annual shareholders meeting in May 1998, a resolution was proposed asking the company to consider and report on the impact climate change would have on its operations and business, liabilities it might face for contributing to the problem, and how it could cut carbon emissions. After a failed attempt to get the SEC to block the proposal, claiming it “implies a scientific certainty on climate change which, in fact, does not exist,” the resolution was put to a vote and handily defeated, with less than 5% of the shareholders voting yea. (This resolution and others are well-chronicled in the InsideClimate report, Exxon’s 25 Years of ‘No’)

While the public was kept in the dark at the time, we now know that Exxon Corporation’s Washington, DC lobbyist, Randy Randol, contributed substantially to an API internal strategy memo dated April 3, 1998 laying out the scope of a Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan designed to convince “average citizens” and the media of “uncertainties” in scientific findings regarding climate change, despite nearly unanimous agreement in the global scientific community and an abundance of evidence of anthropogenic global warming. The action plan was taken right out of the Big Tobacco playbook for deceiving the public on the health hazards of cigarette smoking, noting that “victory” would be achieved once the notion of scientific uncertainty regarding climate change had been embraced by the general public and policymakers. This diabolical plan was crafted by the Global Climate Science Communications Team whose members, in addition to Exxon’s Randol, included representatives of The Marshall Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, The Southern Company, Chevron Corporation, and the American Petroleum Institute (See the UCS 2015 report The Climate Deception Dossiers).

Attorneys General in California, New York, and other states that may decide to investigate ExxonMobil and other oil companies, to determine whether they misrepresented to shareholders the known risks of climate change and a host of accompanying impacts, should take a hard look at the April 1998 oil industry communications action plan memo in light of what Exxon was telling — and failing to tell — its own investors about the way it perceived the climate change threat.

So, what else was happening in 1998 on the climate change science and policy front?

The newly crafted Kyoto Protocol now required ratification by a requisite number of participating nations, so the question became one of whether the US Senate would take up the matter and ratify the agreement. As we well know, it did not, and hasn’t since.

1998 represented the 40-year mark for continuous measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere taken at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, overseen by Charles Keeling. Levels had risen from 316 parts per million (by volume) in 1958 to 369 ppm in 1998. The upward trend was unmistakable and tracked closely with global fossil fuel use.

The following are citations for some of the scientific papers that were published in 1998; note the publication authored by known climate denier Fred Singer, attempting to plant more seeds of scientific uncertainty:

Keeling, Charles D. (1998). “Rewards and Penalties of Monitoring the Earth.” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 23: 25-82.

Kerr, Richard A. (1998). “Among Global Thermometers, Warming Wins Out.” Science 281: 1948-49.

Mann, Michael E., et al. (1998). “Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing over the Past Six Centuries.” Nature 392: 779-87

Oppenheimer, Michael (1998). “Global Warming and the Stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.” Nature 393: 325-32.

Rosenzweig, Cynthia, and Daniel Hillel (1998). Climate Change and the Global Harvest: Potential Effects of the Greenhouse Effect on Agriculture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Singer, S. Fred (1998). Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate. Oakland, CA: Independent Institute.

1999: The seventh 10-K we reviewed, Form 10-K for FY 1999, followed in the tradition of failing to mention any prospect of climate change or global warming, carbon dioxide, or greenhouse gases. The report does contain, however, extensive discussions of the extraction of Alberta tar sands as part of a joint venture called Syncrude, something Mobil Corp brought to the table in the merger. And, with “Y2K” fast approaching, much discussion was devoted to compliance with requirements for ensuring a smooth transition into the year 2000.

In November 1999, Kenneth P. Cohen was named Vice President, Public & Government Affairs — a position he kept until his forced retirement at age 65 in January 2016. Cohen did his part, and then some, to carry forward the elements of the communications action plan designed to cast in stone a public perception of the inherent uncertainty of climate science. The plan was oft referred to as diabolical in climate change policy circles, and, it worked. Public opinion was swayed, a conclusion that has been verified and well documented in the study by Justin Farrell published by the National Academy of Sciences (see abstract).

Also in 1999, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences published a report, Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade(online here) addressing areas of scientific research needing attention. (See later discussion under 2001).

Some of the more notable scientific papers published in 1999 included:

Immerwahr, John (1999). “Waiting for a Signal: Public Attitudes toward Global Warming, the Environment and Geophysical Research.” New York: Public Agenda

Krabill, William, et al. (1999). “Rapid Thinning of Parts of the Southern Greenland Ice Sheet.” Science 283: 1522-24.

Mann, Michael E., et al. (1999). “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations.” Geophysical Research Letters 26: 759-62.

Jeremy Leggett authored an insightful book,The Carbon War: Dispatches from the End of the Oil Century, relating a first-hand account of climate negotiations throughout the 1990s. And, again, we see a publication by Fred Singer sowing more doubt and uncertainty:

Singer, S. Fred (1999). “Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable.” Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 80(16): 183-87.

2000: With apologies for painful repetition, Form 10-K for FY 2000 also avoided mentioning climate change, global warming, carbon dioxide, or greenhouse gases. The merger with Mobil had not only introduced Synfuels to the Exxon portfolio, it had also brought additional problems for the company with the EPA: several refineries and oil production facilities that had been owned and operated by Mobil were penalized and fined for violating federal clean air and water laws.

For the US, it was a historic presidential election year. President Bill Clinton was serving the last year of a two-term presidency. The November election results were too close to call, resulting in a December 12, 2000 landmark decision by the Supreme Court to name George W. Bush as the 43rd President of the United States.

Meanwhile, the US Global Change Research Program had finally met one of its more important legal mandates: to produce a scientific assessment report to Congress, due at least once every four years, that:

  1. Integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program and discusses the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings;
  1. Analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity;
  1. Analyzes current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years.For the first time since the GCRA had been passed into law, the USGCRP National Assessment Synthesis Team published and distributed its report to Congress and the public: Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.

By 2000, even scientific papers reflected the dichotomy of public opinion versus known scientific findings that had high degree of confidence. A certain amount of national cognitive dissonance was well underway, and little imagination is needed to visualize Exxon’s high-fives.

Hansen, James E., et al. (2000). “Climate Modeling in the Global Warming Debate.” In General Circulation Model Development, edited by David A. Randall, pp. 127-64. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hansen, James E., et al. (2000). “Global Warming in the Twenty-First Century: An Alternative Scenario.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97: 9875-80.

Krosnick, Jon A., et al. (2000). “The Impact of the Fall 1997 Debate About Global Warming on American Public Opinion.” Public Understanding of Science 9: 239-60.

Lovelock, James E. (2000). Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap (2000). “Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s Counter-Claims.” Social Problems 47: 499-522.

Newell, P. (2000). Climate for Change: Non-State Actors and the Global Politics of the Greenhouse. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger Pielke, Jr. (2000). “Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock.” Atlantic Monthly, July, pp. 55-64.

Preview to Our Next Post: :{ExxonMobil’s 10-Ks for 2001-2008

}:On January 20, 2001 President George W. Bush took office. This would mark the beginning of an unprecedented level of access to the White House for many major oil, gas, and coal companies, including of course, ExxonMobil. One would think that, by now, with all of the compelling evidence from the previous decades, increased world attention to the problem at the level of the United Nations, and the growing sense in the US that we must act decisively to avoid the many problematic impacts carefully outlined in the USGCRP National Assessment report, ExxonMobil might begin to talk about the climate change threat in its Form 10-K for FY 2001.

One would be wrong…

Senior CSPW Contributor Anne Polansky has 30 years of experience in public policies relating to energy and the environment, with a strong focus on climate change and renewable energy.

This entry was posted in Climate Science Watch. Bookmark the permalink.

https://whistleblower.org/general/climate-science-watch/exxonmobil-and-climate-change-a-story-of-denial-delay-and-delusion-told-in-forms-10-k-2001-2008/

pt 2

To commemorate ExxonMobil’s 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders set to be held today, we are releasingPart Two of our ongoing series reporting on the company’s treatment of the climate change issue in its 10-K filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from 2001 through 2008, coinciding with the Bush-Cheney administration (read Part One).

Calls for a U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) investigation — by presidential candidates, Members of Congress, and former DOJ attorney Sharon Eubanks — similar to the one conducted against Big Tobacco for lying about the connection of cigarette smoking and lung cancer, to determine whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should face federal charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act for knowingly misrepresenting scientific knowledge regarding global climate change and its impacts, have received significant play in the media over the last several months. Unsurprisingly, these appeals have been met with push-back by the oil company — and more recently in aLas Vegas Review-Journaleditorial and a Wall Street Journal editorial, both summarily slammed for multiple gross distortions by the journalistic watchdog group Media Matters. The more imminent and potentially more problematic legal threat for ExxonMobil (also referred to simply as Exxon) than a future DOJ probe is the ongoing criminal investigation of the oil giant by the state of New York.

:{

Uniquely armed with broad investigative and prosecutorial powers under the Martin Act, a 1921 “Blue Sky” New York state law (amended in 1982) intended to prevent financial fraud, state Attorney General (AG) Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed ExxonMobil on November 4, 2015 to determine whether the oil giant has been knowingly deceiving its investors and the public (over a span of decades!) as to potential risks to its operations posed by human-induced global warming and associated impacts. California AG Kamala Harris may be conducting a similar investigation, and Maryland AG Brian Frosh has indicated he may do so as well.}:

Whether ExxonMobil, or any of its competitors in the oil industry for that matter, will ultimately face state or federal criminal charges is anyone’s guess. Much clearer and demonstrable at this point is the distinct disparity between what Exxon has been saying and disclosing to its investors and shareholders (primarily via its 10-K filings with the SEC, the main focus of this series) and what Exxon has been saying and doing both publicly and privately behind closed doors as part of an apparently organized and carefully crafted communications strategy. One of the more damning pieces of evidence of their seeming intent to deceive is the leaked 1998 Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan — a collaborative effort of Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute (API), and other key fossil energy interests. The body of evidence is vast and complex and, in some instances, nuanced and requires context. Nevertheless, in our view, ExxonMobil’s chronic duplicity is unmistakable.

Irrespective of the ultimate outcome of any state or federal probe into ExxonMobil, a solid narrative has formed that appears to be growing into a grassroots movement to hold the fossil fuel industries in general (and ExxonMobil in particular) accountable for their respective roles in helping to engineer what CSPW has referred to since its inception in 2005 as the “global warming denial machine.” (Note to our readers, this phrase is an established CSPW website category going back to 2006, populated with several hundred posts, many of which focus on Exxon).

Now popularized in social media under the Twitter hashtag *#ExxonKnew*, the moniker and its implicit message strike to the heart of what tends to stick in people’s craw: namely, the apparent, abrupt pivot

Exxon executives took at some point in the mid-1980s, when some sort of sea change evidently took place at corporate headquarters. Thanks to stellar investigative journalism at InsideClimate News (ICN), the Los Angeles Times, and elsewhere, we have learned (or were reminded) that, back when Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter occupied the White House, when sideburns and wide ties were in fashion, Exxon was spending millions of its own dollars to conduct basic, in-house, curiosity-driven research on carbon dioxide levels in our oceans — and its leaders were understandably and legitimately worried about what that might portend. We also were reminded that Exxon subsequently did everything in its power to convince the public to stop worrying, despite what the science was saying — to carry on, businesses-as-usual.

In other words, Exxon’s message to the world: It’s OK to wait for more definitive answers before we go inconveniently altering our carefree, consumptive lifestyles.

Or, is it?

Younger generations are waking up to the harsh reality of a compromised and potentially very dangerous global climate system in the only world in which they have to live, grow, and raise families. Naturally, they are looking for obvious culprits, and ExxonMobil is squarely on the radar. They are demanding explanations, and deserve to know the truth; we all do. Why and how did a corporate culture characterized by open-minded curiosity and concern regarding rising carbon dioxide levels in Earth’s atmosphere as a direct result of fossil fuel combustion suddenly morph into a closed-minded culture known for its stubborn insistence that, despite what the body of evidence was showing at any given time, climate science was (and still is) too dicey, too uncertain (so goes the mantra) to warrant legislation aimed at cutting carbon emissions. The answer is painfully obvious: at Exxon, cutting carbon equals cutting corporate profit, a cardinal sin. And so, Deny. Delay. Delude. Repeat.

Notably, Exxon has exhibited a harsher, more stubborn recalcitrance on the climate change question, compared with other oil majors, such as BP Amoco. One 2000 study found “striking” differences between these two corporations with regard to their attitudes and actions on global climate change and BP Amoco was found to be significantly “more willing [than Exxon] to contemplate a world that uses less oil.” Less oil, you say? Exxon apparently would not have it. Perhaps this is why Exxon is being singled out for scrutiny: sheer hubris. And now, if only in the court of public opinion, this hubris is coming around to haunt Exxon.

Now, we resume our timeline initiated in Part One covering years 1993 through 2000, with another well-documented offense that rightly belongs in the proverbial evidence locker. Almost exactly sixteen years ago, on March 23, 2000, The New York Times ran an advertisement paid for by ExxonMobil featuring a line graph of temperature data for the Sargasso Sea from a scientific study authored by Lloyd Keigwin, a senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Falsely implying the graph was representative of overall surface temperatures, the ad stated that “poorly understood natural variability” makes it “impossible for scientists to attribute the recent small surface temperature increase to human causes.” The ad extolled possible virtues of higher carbon dioxide concentrations (e.g., promotion of crop and forest growth), talked about both positive and negative consequences of climate change, and characterized as “empty rhetoric” calls for near-term public policy responses by “some [who] argue that the science debate is settled.”

While the ad didn’t cite the US National Research Council report in which the Sargasso Sea data was presented, Keigwin later recognized his own work, expressed dismay, and complained publicly:

“I believe ExxonMobil has been misleading in its use of the Sargasso Sea data… There’s really no way these results bear on the question of human-induced climate warming… I think the sad thing is that a company with the resources of ExxonMobil is exploiting the data for political purposes.”

A sad story indeed, one that grew even sadder when, a couple of months later, ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond blatantly misrepresented the Sargasso Sea data asglobal temperature data in a statement used as corporate ammunition to shoot down a climate-related shareholder resolution offered at its May 2000 annual shareholders meeting. Will this particular example of deception eventually make its way into a prosecutorial argument presented before a judge?

Raymond must have either missed or disagreed with the admonishment in a November 2000 article published in Harvard Business Review, targeted to industry executives, warning that “companies that effectively calculate the risks and opportunities of climate change will be able to survive the coming storms.” Referring to the Global Climate Coalition, the piece pushes on:

“The coalition and its supporters appear to be betting against the weight of scientific opinion, but their approach to the problem may be subtler than it appears. If they can stall regulation of carbon-dioxide emissions, they might be able to protect the short-term values of their assets. They may hope they’ll be able to convince the public that government regulation is a greater evil than climate change. In doing so, they run the risk of missing out on the opportunity to help tip the balance toward more sensible forms of intervention.”

Fast forward to 2016: ExxonMobil is still making regulation out to be the bogeyman.

Recall from Part One, no mention is made of climate change in ExxonMobil’s 10-K report for FY 2000, despite the following realities at the time:

2001: Some content of ExxonMobil’s Form 10-K for FY 2001 did deviate from the boilerplate language that appears in the 10-Ks from 1993 to 2000. For example, new language appeared, under the category Industry and Economic Factors affecting ExxonMobil’s business operations. The relevant paragraph with the new wording (in bold) calls attention to the well-established knowledge that harsh weather is not always predictable and can cause problems, even for oil giants. It’s tiny, but it’s a start.

Industry and Economic Factors: The operations and earnings of the corporation and its affiliates throughout the world are affected by local, regional and global events or conditions that affect supply and demand for oil, natural gas, petroleum products, petrochemicals and other ExxonMobil products. These events or conditions are generally not predictable (emphasis added) and include, among other things, general economic growth rates and the occurrence of economic recessions; the development of new supply sources; adherence by countries to OPEC quotas; supply disruptions; weather, including seasonal patterns that affect energy demand and severe weather events that can disrupt operations (emphasis added); technological advances, including advances in exploration, production, refining, and petrochemical manufacturing technology and advances in technology relating to energy usage; changes in demographics, including population growth rates and consumer preferences; and the competitiveness of alternative energy sources or product substitutes.

This seemingly obvious, innocuous comment about the weather raises for us some important questions:

Question 1: At this point — which would be early 2002 when the 10-K was being prepared for the previous fiscal year — did the company draw any connection between “severe weather events” acknowledged in the 10-K and “extreme weather” predicted by multiple IPCC Assessment Reports to date and the USGCRP 2000 National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts?

Question 2: Was CEO Lee Raymond cognizant of ExxonMobil’s own carbon footprint, of the massive carbon dioxide emissions resulting from consumer use of its products as intended?

Question 3: Was there any perception that its own operations could be disrupted by extreme weather brought about by human-caused global climate disruption?

If so, there was no evidence of it in its reports for shareholders, and Exxon’s 10-K for 2001, again, omits any discussion of climate change or national and international efforts to address it.

The backdrop for 2001: ExxonMobil as climate bully

:{

}:In early 2001, just as deliberately and forcefully as ExxonMobil was turning its back on formally acknowledging any notion of problems with Earth’s climate, the company was excitedly embracing sudden changes in our national political climate. Regime change had come, and the sound of champagne corks popping in the new Bush-Cheney White House were nearly audible as far away as Irving, Texas, headquarters for ExxonMobil, which now had a prominent seat at the table at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. ExxonMobil’s Washington, D.C. office was strategically located just a few blocks away from the Oval, at 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest. Arthur G. Randol III, Ph.D., known simply as Randy Randol, served at the time as Exxon’s “Senior Environmental Advisor,” but in practice he was a full-time lobbyist evidently tasked with fending off any and all Congressional attempts to introduce and pass legislation curtailing carbon emissions or even addressing climate change in any meaningful way.

His actions reveal his mission. We can report one prime example,in exclusive coverage of information obtained by GAP and released today by The Guardian:

On the morning of January 29, 2001, just one week into the new Republican administration, Randol placed a phone call to the USGCRP Coordinating Office, asking to speak with its Communications Director, Nicky Sundt.  Sundt took the call and made written notes of the conversation as it took place; he has shared his phone log of the exchange with CSPW:

29 January 2001. Sundt receives a phone call from Randy Randol of Exxon-Mobil. Arthur G. Randol, III is senior environmental adviser for Exxon Mobil Corp. He says [someone] forwarded him a copy of some survey questions that Sundt sent to Congressional staffers. The survey related to the possibility of sponsoring climate science seminars on Capitol Hill. Randol called Sundt and wanted to know a little about where USGCRP was headed with the seminars. Randol suggested that previous USGCRP seminars were “agenda-driven” and indicated that with the new administration and Congress — “IF the seminars continue” — he hoped to see a different balance with other viewpoints. He suggested a “different process” for picking topics and speakers. He said USGCRP needed to look at the structure of seminar series and suggested USGCRP put more emphasis on putting things in context. He specifically mentioned the NRC’s “Global Change: Pathways for the Next Decade” report as providing a useful framework.

According to Sundt, he did more listening than responding, and was alarmed enough by the direct attempt of an oil company lobbyist to blatantly influence legitimate communications to Congress regarding taxpayer-funded programs that he immediately reported the call to USGCRP Director Richard Moss. While not stated explicitly, Randol’s motive was clear to Sundt: ExxonMobil was interested in limiting the scope of communications between the USGCRP Coordinating Office and Congressional staff to the basic physical science of climate change, and to stay away from talking about climate change impacts and our collective vulnerability to them. After all, it was not in the oil company’s interest to have a bunch of Congressmen and Senators asking probing questions about the troubling findings in the USGCRP *National Assessment* report that had recently been distributed to every office in the House and Senate, warning of harmful climate impacts in a dozen regions of the United States. Instead, Randol redirected Sundt to a report focused narrowly on basic climate research, Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade, a 1999 National Research Council publication identifying specific areas of basic climate science research needing more attention, devoid of content addressing the array of impacts affecting real people (i.e., consumers), in real places (i.e., markets). Meanwhile, the Bush White House went to work deep-sixing the National Assessmentreport, suppressing it, quietly getting the message across to political appointees and civil servants alike that they’d best avoid mention of the report or its findings, or else. CSPW founder Rick Piltz would later identify this mass suppression as “the central climate science scandal of the Bush Administration.”

Prime example number two of Randy Randol’s (and ExxonMobil’s) agenda to derail both domestic and international efforts to reach agreement on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can be found in a memo he sent over to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), dated February 6, 2001, just one weekafter the call to the USGCRP. The memo is addressed to John Howard, CEQ’s Senior Associate Director at the time. The IPCC was on track to produce a Third Assessment Report (TAR) later that year, and ExxonMobil was, we now know, determined to do all it could to have greater control over the content of these international assessments representing the collective research results of nearly 3,000 highly credible scientists worldwide. From the White House CEQ director, Randol wanted answers to some fairly pointed questions.

First, Randol asked: “Could [IPCC Chair Robert] Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.?”

Sir Robert Tony Watson (knighted by the Queen of England in 2012) had chaired the IPCC since 1997; ExxonMobil was overtly clear it wanted him ousted and to have him replaced by Rajendra Pachauri, whom the company viewed as more industry-friendly. ExxonMobil ultimately got its way: Watson gave up his position as Chair in May 2002 and was replaced by Pachauri.

Randol doesn’t stop there. In the memo he also asks if Dr. Rosina Bierbaum, Associate Director for Environment on the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Dr. Michael MacCracken, Executive Director of the US Global Change Research Program, have been “removed from their positions of influence.” Randol attacks the 2000 National Assessment of Climate Change Impactsas “roundly criticized for its political and scientific bias” and “driven by a political schedule to help the Gore campaign,” allegations that have never been credibly corroborated.

The second week of the Bush-Cheney administration also brought the top-secret formation of the National Energy Policy Development Group(NEPDG),later known simply as the Energy Task Force, chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney. Dozens of task force meetings were held with outside groups, energy and environmental organizations, private companies and individuals; meetings so deeply shrouded that it took six full years for even partial knowledge of their inner workings and meeting attendees to be revealed: the Washington Post broke the story in July 2007.

To this day, we still do not have the full picture of what happened behind the closed-door meetings of the *Energy Task Force*, despite multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and several lawsuits, though a fairly good timeline has been constructed. On May 16, 2001, the NEPDG released its final report which was taken to be the new “national energy policy” to serve as a template for altering the regulatory landscape.

Testifying at a Senate hearing, from left, Lee R. Raymond of Exxon Mobil, David J. O’Reilly of Chevron, James J. Mulva of ConocoPhillips, Ross Pillari of BP America and John Hofmeister of Shell Oil. (By Chip Somodevilla — Getty Images)

While it is beyond the scope of this series to provide detail, suffice it to say the oil and gas industry was treated well during the George W. Bush presidency. Moreover, while we now have evidence to the contrary, ExxonMobil vice president James J. Rouse and CEO Lee Raymond attended task force meetings, provided substantive input to the White House regarding energy policy, and vehemently denied doing so when questioned directly by the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), as witnesses testified in a 2005 Congressional hearing (see, for example, coverage by CBS News). While they could not be accused of perjury as they were not officially under oath, their outright dishonesty was exposed as such in a scathing headline in the November 16, 2005 Washington Postwhich broke the story: Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force. The accompanying photograph — the picture that says a thousand words — shows ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond at the far left, joining in one of the oil industry’s most famous group lies.

Mainstream press coverage was abundant; this November 17, 2005 CBS News report is a good example of what the public was finally able to learn after years of speculation and suspected secrecy.

2001 was a year chock-full of bad news for those hoping for a positive public policy response to the looming climate change threat. The U.S. Senate with a narrow Republican majority did not have the votes needed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and, 15 years ago, on March 28, 2001, Christine Todd Whitman, Bush’s choice to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced that the United States had “no interest” in implementing the painstakingly crafted terms of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Bush kills global warming treaty, proclaimed The Guardian on March 29. Kyoto was officially dead, it seemed. (Ultimately, the treaty entered into force in 2005 when the requisite 55 nations ratified its terms; the U.S. never became a signatory.)

A few weeks later, The Guardian published an article blasting ExxonMobil for its role in stymieing progress on slowing global warming. How the high priests of capitalism run roughshod over fears for planet quotes Kenneth P. Cohen, the company’s head of government relations and public affairs (i.e., the new Randy Randol):

“We know we have a giant target painted on our chests.”

The target, one could argue, was painted on Planet Earth and the weapon pointed at it was in the hands of ExxonMobil and the rest of Big Oil. Greenpeace International successfully launched a harsh negative ad campaign targeting ExxonMobil (known as Esso in Europe). Meanwhile, Charles Keeling’s Mauna Loa carbon dioxide curve (see Part One for more detail) continued to climb, and the spirits of many intent on some sort of rational response to the climate problem continued to take a nosedive.

On September 11, 2001, two large passenger airliners crashed directly into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center in New York City; a third plane crashed into the Pentagon, and a fourth was downed before it could reach Washington, D.C. “9-11” changed everything, it seemed. Domestic policymaking necessarily took a back seat to the nation’s need to recover from shock, bury its dead, and seek to understand what had happened and who was behind the attack. Within short order, plans were in the works to invade Iraq. Climate change dropped way down on the list of public policy priorities.

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its Third Assessment Report (TAR); five years had passed since the Second Assessment Report (SAR) had been released in 1996, and climate science had significantly evolved. Each of three working groups issued its own voluminous report: I) The Scientific Basis, II) Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, and III) Mitigation (active measures to bring down atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases). The three working group reports were then condensed into a Synthesis Report. In the TAR, newer and stronger evidence emerged that the bulk of Earth’s warming that occurred over the previous 50 years was attributable to human activities (primarily the combustion of oil, gas, and coal), and the level of scientific certainty attached to each major conclusion regarding global average temperature increases and associated impacts rose to levels on which any major decision could arguably be based.

By the close of 2001, one wonders if ExxonMobil executives had bothered to familiarize themselves with the conclusions drawn from the IPCC Third Assessment Report.  Was anyone at corporate headquarters concerned with how the multinational corporation would deal with and respond to mounting challenges in a climate-disrupted world? And, if not, why not? What CEO of a major corporation chooses to remain in the dark regarding a serious threat to its own business interests?

It’s a serious question.

2002: By the time the 2002 10-K report was submitted to the SEC, in late March 2003, CEO Lee Raymond had turned 64 years of age and was closing in on forced retirement, which occurs at 65. Senior Vice President Rex Tillerson, then 51, was being groomed for the position and was reportedly already actively involved with Raymond in top-level decision-making. Tillerson’s attitudes toward climate change, we soon learn, are all but indistinguishable from those of his predecessor.

The new language ExxonMobil had introduced in its 2001 10-K filing was carried through to its Form 10-K for 2002; the report again includes under Risks: Industry and Economic Factors: “weather, including seasonal patterns that affect energy demand and severe weather events that can disrupt operations” among other factors (such as “supply disruptions”). In this, the tenth 10-K report CSPW reviewed, we continued to find radio silence on likely and potential risks to its global operations associated with climate disruption. It’s a silence that speaks volumes given all else the corporation was doing and saying that year.

Take, for example, the 10-page letter ExxonMobil staff scientist Brian Flannery wrote to presidential science advisor John Marburger in March 2002. Noting ExxonMobil’s 20-plus year involvement in climate science research and the many scientific papers it had produced and submitted to the IPCC, Flannery urged Marburger to pressure the USGCRP to set its focus on reducing scientific uncertainties; the clear, implicit message was to stay away from talking about climate change impacts. Even though the USGCRP had a clear mandate from Congress to study and report on climate change impacts and to draw connections between mounting carbon emissions and heat waves, sea level rise, extreme weather, more intense flooding, prolonged droughts, and so on, ExxonMobil had a vested interest in those connections not being drawn.

Or, did it? In a provocative paper published in 2002, “Risking Shareholder Value? ExxonMobil and Climate Change—An Investigation of Unnecessary Risks and Missed Opportunities,” author Mark Mansley warns:

“For investors…the key point is that ExxonMobil’s current strategy on global warming endangers (emphasis added) shareholder value.” The notion that crude oil will eventually become a “stranded asset” for corporations such as ExxonMobil, and thus could jeopardize its stock value, is a growing concern.

At the 2002 annual shareholders meeting on May 29, a remarkable thing happened. A repeat shareholder resolution asking the company to adopt a policy to promote renewable energy as part of its energy portfolio (as BP and Royal Dutch Shell had recently done) was submitted, approved by the SEC over ExxonMobil’s objections), and put to a vote. The proposal amassed an unprecedented 20.3 percent of the shareholder vote, representing about $60 billion in shares — a level of support four or five times higher than for most other “dissident” resolutions (see archived ENS News report). The same resolution received 9 percent of the vote in 2001. In his book *Boiling Point*,Ross Gelbspan notes that the unusually high approval rate “sent shock waves” through corporate headquarters and caused the company to change its tune, “soften its stance” toward global warming, and tone down the rhetoric in its frequent advertisements in The New York Times.

While the Bush-Cheney White House was still holding top-secret Energy Task Force meetings with a variety of corporate energy interests, what must have been an awkward moment for President George W. Bush occurred. On June 13, in a rose garden ceremony, Bush presented fifteen scientists, including Mauna Loa’s Dr. Charles Keeling of tropospheric carbon dioxide measurement fame, with the National Medal of Science: the highest U.S. award for scientific research lifetime achievement.

In late September 2002, ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond, and each member of ExxonMobil’s board of directors, received a lengthy, personal letter from Dr. Michael MacCracken, who was soon to leave his post as director of the USGCRP. Acknowledging attempts by ExxonMobil to have him ousted, MacCracken took the oil company to task for egregiously misleading messages in a whole series of paid advertisements in The New York Times,defending his positions using scientific citations. Rick Piltz posted the full letter on the Climate Science Watch website in 2006; it is well worth the read. Below are some excerpts, containing messages ExxonMobil leadership stillneeds to hear.

“While my departure may be satisfying to ExxonMobil, I can assure you that this will not make the scientific challenge of climate change and its impacts go away. That 150 countries unanimously agree about the science of this issue is not because of some “green” conspiracy, but because of the solid scientific underpinning for this issue. Certainly, there are uncertainties, but decisions are made under uncertainty all the time—that is what executives are well paid to do.

…

I offer this advice to you in remembrance of my great grandfather, Samuel Calvin Tate Dodd, who a century ago was legal counsel to John D. Rockefeller (notably, he took no stock to ensure his opinions would not be tainted by the economic implications of his advice). What I rather imagine he would say is that you are on the wrong side of history, and you need to find a way to change your position…”

Some of ExxonMobil’s public rhetoric did soften in the latter part of 2002, but it was evidently just talk. ExxonMobil took zero action to address the looming climate threat.

The US Congress was not sitting idly by while the George W. Bush administration turned its back on the climate change issue. To the contrary, by the time the 107th Congress adjourned in late 2002, more than 80 proposals (bills, resolutions, and amendments) had been put forth, and about half of them had been acted upon in some way; for example, through committee hearings and markups. (C2ES provides a good summary.) A good example is the comprehensive bill introduced by Sen. James Jeffords (I-Vermont) titled The Clean Power Act,which required reductions in carbon dioxide (and other pollutant) emissions from electric power plants. Considered and passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, then chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the bill was not acted upon by the House or Senate. No bill regulating the fossil fuel industry’s emissions would survive a certain veto by President Bush. Other similar bills were introduced and considered, but failed to make it through the many gauntlets required to pass into law. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon levels continued to climb.

In late 2002, the eighth Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), or simply COP 8, took place in New Delhi. The Kyoto Protocol still lacked the requisite number of ratifications it needed to enter into force. Leaders of less developed nations rightfully complained that they were being hardest hit by climate change impacts, yet bore little of the responsibility for the emissions causing global warming. “Technology transfer” was the buzz phrase used to describe the obligation of the wealthier nations out of basic fairness to supply advanced technologies for economic growth, as well as funding.

In advance of the climate negotiations in New Delhi, Greenpeace International issued *Exxon’s Weapons of Mass Deception*, a report that included a forward by Bianca Jagger, wife of Rolling Stone rock star Mick Jagger. “As citizens of this planet,” she wrote, “we are each reliant on our governments’ representatives at the climate talks. But in amongst these delegates are powerful agents with vested interests who continue to wage a cynical, self-interested war to derail this vital process. The worst of these are the men from ExxonMobil.”

This type of high-profile negative publicity had to be ruffling feathers inside ExxonMobil’s headquarters, and had to sting a little bit; especially after the beating the corporation took at its annual shareholders meeting when one-fifth of the shareholders told the company it was heading the wrong way by failing to embrace cleaner, safer, energy sources. Given all that had taken place in 2001 and 2002, the failure to mention climate change as a potential risk to its bottom line in the 10-K report for fiscal year 2002 is a glaring — and highly questionable — omission.

2003: More new language appears in ExxonMobil’s Form 10-K for FY 2003 that appears to have been drafted by corporate attorneys interested in creative hedging. Two entirely new sentences appear under the same heading we’ve been discussing, category: Risks,subcategory:Industry and Economic Factors:

Throughout ExxonMobil’s businesses, new and ongoing measures are taken to prevent and minimize the impact of our operations on the air, water and ground. This includes a significant investment in refining technology to manufacture low-sulfur motor fuels and projects to reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide emissions.

The first sentence is too vague and all-encompassing to mean anything at all. The second sentence is a bit of a mystery; it is not clear what is behind the mention of two specific pollutants, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, but not others typical of ExxonMobil’s oil extraction and refining operations. The reference to “severe weather events” introduced in 2001, carried over in the 2002 10-K report, appears again, verbatim,in the 2003 filing:   “weather, including seasonal patterns that affect energy demand and severe weather events that can disrupt operations.”

What else was happening at ExxonMobil and in the world in 2003?

Arthur G. Randol, III, whom everyone knew as Randy Randol, retired and left his post as Senior Environmental Advisor, a position he held since the 1980s.

On the climate change question, ExxonMobil was now isolated and alone among the four “super-major” oil companies at the time; the other three — Shell, BP, and ChevronTexaco — were taking positive steps to face this difficult challenge. According to a study (full report, pdf) conducted by London-based Claros Consulting, strategies being explored by ExxonMobil’s three largest competitors included “incorporating ‘carbon pricing’ into future planning scenarios and decisions, setting emissions reductions targets, developing emissions trading experience, and investing in renewable energy.” Ceres, a coalition of investor and public interest groups working with major companies to increase corporate environmental responsibility worldwide, issued a May 2003 Press Release applauding the Claros report, issued shortly before the May 2003 annual shareholders meeting.

Claros was recommending shareholder support for several proxy resolutions seeking greater disclosure of ExxonMobil strategies to address the climate risk and respond to shareholder pressures to embrace renewable energy. The report’s author and head of Claros Consulting, Mark Mansley, observed ExxonMobil’s growing isolation, noting how much it was “out of step” in continuing to deny the climate change threat. The company was “relying on a ‘hope for the best’ strategy,” he said, that would be logical only if one expected the climate threat to suddenly “evaporate.” Ceres Executive Director Mindy Lubber said it best: “It doesn’t matter if you ‘believe in climate change’ if policies are emerging around the world that affect your industry. ExxonMobil’s continued denial of this reality demonstrates an impressive lack of sophistication in basic risk management.” Impressive, indeed.

January 2003 saw the opening of the 108th Congress. The U.S. Senate maintained a narrow Republican majority, and the November elections of 2002 had widened the Republican majority in the House. While tax credits were extended for a variety of alternative energy sources, no major climate legislation was adopted in the first session.

Meanwhile, scientists continued to churn out peer-reviewed publications in academic journals and to contribute to the scientific knowledge base on which we depend to gauge the threat. For example, well-known climate scientist Michael Mann continued the important work of studying and reporting global surface temperature trends. And, by 2003, more academics were interested in analyzing the negative influence of politics on our collective ability to adopt sensible public policy commensurate with what the science was telling us.

2004: Two new sentences appearing in ExxonMobil’s 2003 10-K filing, one which mentions measures it was taking to “minimize the impact” of its operations “on the air, water and ground” and the second which reports efforts to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, were carried forward to its Form 10-K for FY 2004. And, for the fourth time in a row, the risk factor mentioning “severe weather events” is included.

2004 was a presidential election year, and naturally, the Bush-Cheney team was determined to stay in office. Shortly before Election Day, in mid-October 2004, former Vice President Al Gore delivered a speech (full text) at Georgetown University castigating the Bush administration for epic failures on global warming. He attacked the administration for its duplicitousness regarding the alleged role national greed for Middle East oil played in our decision to invade Iraq in early 2003. Gore noted that among “documents obtained in discovery proceedings against the Cheney [Energy] Task Force by the odd combination of Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club” was found “a detailed map of Iraq showing…in great detail the location of every single oil deposit known to exist in the country.”

However, not everyone at the Pentagon was on board with Dick Cheney’s fixation on oil fields in the Middle East region. In early 2004, the Defense Department secretly commissioned a report assessing the climate risk from a national security standpoint. Authored by CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Peter Schwartz, the report warned that, in a matter of two decades, climate change could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters, as reported by *The Guardian*. Concluding that the climate threat to global stability vastly eclipsed that of global terrorism, and that climate change should move beyond scientific debate to a national security concern, the report became a potential embarrassment for President Bush, who was still publicly denying the mere existence of climate change. Robert (Bob) Watson, who had moved on to become chief scientist for the World Bank after being pushed out of the IPCC, asked the key question: “Can Bush ignore the Pentagon?” Noting how difficult it would be for Bush and Cheney to dismiss the Pentagon’s findings, Watson continued: “After all, Bush’s single highest priority is national defense…If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act.”

“There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,” Watson noted. So, was the Bush administration listening more closely to the oil lobby, or the Pentagon?

The other big climate-related news for 2004 was the May release of the 20th Century Fox film, *The Day After Tomorrow*, starring Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal. Ridiculed for its apocalyptic message and ridiculous notion that the Earth could suddenly careen into a full-blown ice age in a matter of a few weeks, the film did have the benefit of raising public awareness of potentially abrupt changes in our climate system.

There were some notable climate-related publications in 2004:

The climate change threat was now being widely covered, and one would have had to work really hard to remain ignorant of the looming prospect of a world significantly disrupted by human-caused alterations in Earth’s climate system.

2005: Given the rich variety of attention paid to climate change over the previous decade, and positive actions to deal with climate change by other companies in the oil and gas industry, it is almost shocking to see that ExxonMobil’s official report to shareholders in its Form 10-K for FY 2005 continues to make no mention of climate change, global warming, or carbon dioxide emissions. As was seemingly the general rule, language from the previous year’s report was carried forward, so, under Risks: Industry and Economic Factors,we see the same two sentences: “Throughout ExxonMobil’s businesses, new and ongoing measures are taken to prevent and minimize the impact of our operations on the air, water and ground. This includes a significant investment in refining technology to manufacture low-sulfur motor fuels and projects to reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide emissions.” And, for now the fifth year in a row, we see the same risk factor about the weather: “weather, including seasonal patterns that affect energy demand and severe weather events that can disrupt operations.”

:{The Beginnings of Climate Science Watch

}:In June 2005, Climate Science Watch was founded as a program of the Government Accountability Project,by federal climate science whistleblower and former GAP client Rick Piltz.

Piltz had abruptly left his 10-year stint at the USGCRP Coordinating Office in March, resigning his post after witnessing multiple instances of politically-motivated tampering of official White House documents addressing the current state of our scientific understanding of global climate change and potential impacts.

“I believe the overarching problem is that the [George W. Bush] Administration…does not want and has acted to impede forthright communication of the state of climate science and its implication for society,” he wrote in his formal letter of resignation.

Piltz also penned a lengthy critique for the interagency leadership of the nation’s climate research programs codified by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, the US Global Change Research Program, which had been renamed the Climate Change Science Program under Bush.

Piltz took issue with multiple, blatant attempts by Phil Cooney, who had been recruited to the White House Council on Environmental Quality from his post as a corporate attorney and chief lobbyist (not a scientist) at the American Petroleum Institute, to water down scientific conclusions in official government reports. With strategic and tactical foresight, Piltz had collected a significant body of hard evidence in the way of a paper trail demonstrating the White House’s not-so-hidden agenda to exaggerate the scientific uncertainty of climate change — the same disingenuous game ExxonMobil had been engaged in for the previous two decades. Piltz submitted copies of documents clearly showing Cooney’s hand-scribbled edits to reporter Andrew Revkin, then at The New York Times. The June 8 news story made page one (archived here), and was chronicled in one of Piltz’s first few posts on the new Climate Science Watch website. Two or three days later, we learned that Cooney had jumped ship as CEQ’s chief of staff and took a plush position at Exxon Mobil Corp.  Was this jump evidence of a pre-arranged safety net the oil company had put in place for Cooney?  It sure did have that appearance.

Piltz used his new platform at Climate Science Watch to offer a detailed explanation of the factors leading to his decision to leave the comfort and security of a federal government job in order to blow the whistle; he had decided to formally identify as a whistleblower and thus be afforded specific protections under whistleblower laws on the books at the time.

In *Censorship and Secrecy: Politicizing the Climate Change Science Program*, Piltz blasted the Bush-Cheney White House, and posted it on the same day The New York Times story was published:

“This administration has acted to impede honest communication of the state of climate science and the implications for society of global climate change. Politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program in its relationship to the research community, to program managers, to policymakers, and to the public interest.”

June 8, 2005 was a productive day for Piltz: he also chronicled the immediate White House response and various media reports (Piltz went on to direct Climate Science Watch for nearly ten years and to serve as an effective watchdog over the scientific integrity of climate science and policy before sadly passing away on October 18, 2014).

The 109th Congress was sworn in during January 2005. The Republican majority in both the House and Senate was strengthened following the election. Legislative proposals addressing various aspects of climate change were still being developed and introduced by a number of Members of Congress, but nothing passed into law. Notably, the Energy Policy Act was significantly amended in 2005 but did not contain any provisions relating to climate.

It was November 2005 when five oil executives, including outgoing ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond, lied to a Congressional committee about their participation in the super-secret Energy Task Force chaired by VP Dick Cheney (see discussion above under section for 2001 and accompanying photograph). Sen. Frank Lautenberg had asked each witness the same question: “Did your company or any representatives in your companies participate in Vice President Cheney’s energy task force in 2001?”One by one, each responded in the negative. Eight U.S. Senators later submitted a formal request (as reported by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)) to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for a Justice Department investigation.

The letter noted the public disclosure by The Washington Postof a leaked Secret Service document raising questions about the veracity of their claims and subsequent statements and letters issued by the CEOs attempting to “clarify” their answers, with some admitting participation after all. The Senators wanted to know if testimony provided at the November 9 hearing had violated the Federal “False Statements” statute, or any other applicable statutes. “If witnesses believe that the laws requiring truthful testimony before our committees will not be enforced, our hearings will lose their usefulness and the Senate’s ability to effectively legislate will be hampered,” the letter continued, concluding with: “You and your Department have a unique Constitutional duty to enforce laws that help protect the integrity of proceedings before the United States Senate. We strongly urge you to exercise this critical duty.” The five oil company executives never had to face legal consequences for what would have been outright perjury in a court of law. Now, most Congressional hearings require witnesses to “take the oath” to tell the truth, and nothing but, with more serious consequences for lying than existed back in 2005.

The other big climate and weather-related development of 2005, of course, was the landfall of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, slamming the Gulf Coast region with devastating force, taking lives and property, leaving a trail of death and destruction from which the region has still not completely recovered from. Were these powerful hurricanes, as the late Steve Schneider would put it, souped-up on “climate change steroids?” It is generally accepted now that warmer average global temperatures often cause hurricanes to pack a bigger punch.

Also of note, on June 20, 2005, Charles David Keeling passed away; his son, Ralph Keeling, had picked up the torch at Mauna Loa and has continued gathering measurements of tropospheric carbon dioxide concentrations ever since. Remarkably, this essential data record is continuous from 1958 to the present.

On the publications front, Rick Piltz had an article published in the academic journal Eos: “Toward a Second U.S. Climate Change Assessment.”(Over the years, Climate Science Watch has paid quite a bit of attention to the requirement for these periodic assessments of climate change impacts, and how well or how poorly this requirement has been satisfied). Known climate-deniers John Christy and Roy Spencer published a paper in Sciencetitled: “Correcting Temperature Data Sets” (a likely attempt to dispute or discredit an upwards warming trend); meanwhile, former GAP client and renowned climate scientist Dr. James Hansen published an editorial in the academic journal Climatic Change with the provocative title, “A Slippery Slope: How Much Global Warming Constitutes ‘Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference’?”Chris Mooney (now a journalist with The Washington Post) published a book, The Republican War on Science.

2006: On January 1, 2006, Rex Tillerson took the reins of the Exxon Mobil Corporation, as CEO and Chairman of its Board of Directors; Lee Raymond had been forced to retire when he reached age 65.

Along with the change in leadership came many new changes in the 10-K filed for 2006. For the very first time since 1993, the year our review began, the words “risks of global climate change” appear. However, rather than admitting climate change and associated impacts could pose a risk to ExxonMobil’s operations, the matter is turned on its head. A brand new risk factor is added in a section titled “Political and Legal Factors” under “Risks” in the Form 10-K for FY 2006, and reads as follows: “laws and regulations related to environmental or energy security matters, including those addressing alternative energy sources and the risks of global climate change.” Notably, this “risk factor” appears among a half dozen other risk factors including “war or other international conflicts” and “civil unrest.”

In other words, it is not the array of impacts associated with climate change that ExxonMobil sees as a problem; rather, it is the threat of potential “laws and regulations” addressing climate and alternative (renewable) energy sources that ExxonMobil feels a fiduciary responsibility to warn its shareholders about. So, after being called out for being “out of step” with the rest of the industry, for being alone and isolated in its recalcitrance regarding the climate change issue, ExxonMobil decides to dig in even further.

The company also made some editorial changes to the risk factor regarding weather patterns; the new phrase now reads (additions in bold): “weather, including seasonal patterns that affect regional energy demand (such as the demand for heating oil or gas in winter) as well as severe weather events (such as hurricanes) that can disrupt supplies or interrupt the operation of ExxonMobil facilities.” It makes sense that ExxonMobil would specifically mention the winter months (and not the summer months) in discussing energy demand, as most air conditioners draw electrical power generated by coal, not oil or gas. It also makes sense that ExxonMobil would mention hurricanes, after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, which disrupted energy supplies including those provided by ExxonMobil. However, the likely climate change component to the vast devastation wasn’t acknowledged in the slightest.

In 2006, Al Gore’s famous book, An Inconvenient Truth, was made into a movie of the same name. Directed by Davis Guggenheim, the film was intended to alert average citizens of the “planetary emergency” of global warming, “before it’s too late.”

Dr. James Hansen, from his post at NASA, was still cranking out research papers. In 2006, he published “Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate: A GISS Model Study.”It was about at this time that Hansen began to use the word “dangerous” to describe human-caused perturbation of Earth’s climate system.

Another trend that began taking a stronger hold was the growing alliance between the “faith” community and the climate science and policy communities. Journalist Eli Kintisch wrote about this in“Evangelicals, Scientists Reach Common Ground on Climate Change”published in Science magazine.

And, academics were beginning to take a good, hard look at the troubled legacy of the George W. Bush Administration pertaining to the climate threat. For example, Seth Shulman published a 2006 book, Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration.

2007: The company’s Form 10-K for FY 2007 carries forward the brand new language introduced in 2006 under “Political and Legal Factors” in disclosing risk factors to its investors: “laws and regulations related to environmental or energy security matters, including those addressing alternative energy sources and the risks of global climate change.” Nowhere in the report is it acknowledged that the company’s operations could be adversely affected by climate change impacts. The slightly amended risk factor addressing “severe weather events” is repeated verbatim from the 2006 report: “weather, including seasonal patterns that affect regional energy demand (such as the demand for heating oil or gas in winter) as well as severe weather events (such as hurricanes) that can disrupt supplies or interrupt the operation of ExxonMobil facilities.” More frequent and intense hurricanes as the result of rising global surface temperatures and warmer oceans were some of the more frequently discussed climate change impacts in the media. One might argue that ExxonMobil’s specific mention of hurricanes as a risk factor could be interpreted as its own inadvertent admission that it was just as vulnerable to climate change impacts as the rest of us. But, that argument is a stretch, and ExxonMobil was still actively in the deny-delay-delude business.

Early 2007 saw the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), summarizing our current scientific understanding of changes already taking place in our climate system as a result of rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The three working groups issued their voluminous reports: I) The Physical Science Basis, II) Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, and III) Mitigation of Climate Change — as well as the AR4 Synthesis Report.

The new IPCC findings were heavily covered by the worldwide media with predictions for global temperature increases, sea level rise, prolonged droughts, increased flooding, melting glaciers, and so on. The most important, newsworthy finding in the AR4 was that the panel had now concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases, rather than natural variations, were warming the planet’s surface. The BBC and others quoted co-lead author Dr Susan Soloman: “We can be very confident that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming,” addressing the delegates in Paris. The unequivocal nature of this conclusion made waves everywhere.

IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri, brought in to replace Robert Watson, expressed satisfaction with the results: “It is extremely encouraging in that the science has moved on from what was possible in the Third Assessment Report.” Pachauri also had a warning for the world: “If you see the extent to which human activities are influencing the climate system, the options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions appear in a different light, because you can see what the costs of inaction are.” The New York Times characterized the new climate assessment report as “bleak and powerful.” John Holdren, later to become the White House science advisor for President Barack Obama, noted that the report “powerfully underscores the need for a massive effort to slow the pace of global climatic disruptions before intolerable consequences become inevitable.” Intolerable. Holdren is well known for quipping that there are only three solutions to climate change: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. In recent years, we certainly have observed “suffering” with myriad record floods in the Southeast and elsewhere, record droughts and wildfires in the West, severe snow storms, and other impacts long-predicted by the scientific community.

2008: It is evident from the 2008 10-K report submitted by ExxonMobil to the SEC that upper management had not read the IPCC AR4 reports or the vast amount of news coverage the new IPCC findings generated. The Form 10-K for FY 2008 simply repeats the language from 2007, including the two sentences about minimizing impacts on air, water, and the ground, and reducing emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides. The “severe weather” risk factor is also repeated, as is the backward-thinking inclusion of potential regulations intended to avert catastrophic, “intolerable” climate impacts as a risk to its operations, not the dangerous impacts themselves.

Meanwhile, academic papers addressing the very real nature of the climate change threat continued to flourish, Charles Keeling’s son Ralph published a paper in Science titled “Recording Earth’s Vital Signs,” and the media, for the most part, continued to cover climate change, with varying levels of competence and neutrality. Yet, the executives at ExxonMobil, the second largest corporation in the world at the time, holding the number two spot on the Fortune 500, with $460 trillion in revenue for 2008 and $45 trillion in profit, continued to bury their heads in the (increasingly hot) sand.

Part Three of our series will cover the years 2009 through 2015, and an assessment of tomorrow’s annual shareholders meeting.

CSPW Senior Climate Policy Analyst Anne Polansky has 30 years of experience in public policies relating to energy and the environment, with a strong focus on climate change and renewable energy.

May 25th, 2016|Activism, Assessments of Climate Impacts and Adaptation, Attacks on Climate Science and Scientists, Climate Change Education and Communication, Climate Change Mitigation, Climate Change Preparedness, Climate Litigation, Climate Science & Policy Watch, Climate Science Censorship, Climate Science Watch Update, Congress: Legislation and Oversight, Energy, General, Global Climate Disruption and Impacts, Global Warming Denial Machine, International Climate Policy, National Security, Obama Administration, Obama Climate Plan, Science Communication, Science-Policy Interaction, Scientific Integrity, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Whistleblowers

pt iii

https://whistleblower.org/general/climate-science-watch/exxonmobil-and-climate-change-a-story-of-denial-delay-and-delusion-told-in-forms-10-k-part-three-e-2013/

Covering the year 2013, this is our latest installment in a timeline series addressing how the Exxon Mobil Corporation has characterized risks to its business operations associated with climate change (in its annual 10-K reports to shareholders), in light of what corporate leadership knew, or reasonably could have known, regarding anthropogenic global warming and associated climate change impacts. For previous segments, seePart One (1993-2000);Part Two (2000-2008);Part Three(A) (2009),Part Three(B) (2010),Part Three(C) (2011), and:{*Part Three(D) (2012)*:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:.

In 2013, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time in millions of years, marking a milestone that, while symbolic, called greater attention to escalating greenhouse gas levels and a steady global warming trend. Scientists had already been warning that a runaway greenhouse effect could disrupt Earth’s climate system to a point of no return. Climate change impacts continued to worsen in regions across the globe, and few communities were sufficiently prepared for these impacts. Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil was investing its massive $45 billion in earnings in maximizing extraction and processing of oil and gas, including the controversial use of hydrofracturing (fracking) to extract fuel from tar sands and the expansion of offshore oil drilling. Despite pressure from shareholders to address climate change meaningfully, CEO Rex Tillerson stood his ground in suggesting that bringing fossil fuels to those who lack ready access (such as the 1.2 billion people without electricity) was the “humanitarian” thing to do, rather than leading the transition away from an increasingly risky high-carbon energy future. By 2013, nine of the ten hottest years on record had occurred since the turn of the century, and growing instances of harmful climate impacts across the US and the world were impossible to ignore. Yet, these risks were readily discounted by corporate leadership at ExxonMobil.

:{

:{The Rising Stakes of Escalating Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2013

}:In the spring of 2013, the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii reported that the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere had exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time in human history; indeed, for the first time in millions of years. The last time levels were this high, Earth was in the middle of the Miocene period and there was almost no ice on the planet. A feature article in National Geographic puts things in perspective:}:

“The last time the concentration of Earth’s main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic. Seas were at least 30 feet higher—at a level that today would inundate major cities around the world. The planet was about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer. But the Earth then was in the final stage of a prolonged greenhouse epoch, and CO2 concentrations were on their way down.”

According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, “2013 tied with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880.” The year 2013 also marked “the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the annual temperature was above the long-term average.” As of 2013, nine of the ten warmest years on record had occurred during the 21st century; only one year, 1998, was warmer than 2013. Global average temperatures were climbing steadily, at rate of about a third of a degree Fahrenheit since 1970. The previous year, 2012, was the hottest year on record in the lower 48 states. It is virtually impossible to believe that this corporation, with all of its scientific prowess, did not know this.

In January 2013, the US Global Change Research Program released a draft of the third National Climate Assessment, a comprehensive report of climate impacts being experienced in the United States — an assessment required by law to be conducted and published at least once every four years. As reported by Chris Mooney at Mother Jones at the time (now a journalist at the Washington Post), the draft report warned unequivocally that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions would cause the global warming trend to “accelerate significantly,” bringing more heat waves and weather extremes, severe storms, rising seas, devastating floods, prolonged droughts, and more. The key takeaway quote was made by Ed Maibach, director of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication and a member of the federal advisory committee that released the assessment: “Data is accumulating to show that Americans want their politicians to take action.” Still, despite a host of climate change bills introduced in both the House and the Senate in the 113th Congress, the passage of meaningful climate legislation was not yet in the cards, and is even less of a possibility today given the current political climate.

:{The Underwhelming Response by Rex Tillerson and the Exxon Mobil Corporation

}:Meanwhile, the ExxonMobil Corporation had taken in a whopping $45 billion in earnings in 2012. It expanded extraction using hydrofracturing in tar sands to increase activity in offshore oil drilling all over the world, thereby maximizing its rate of fossil fuel extraction and processing. Addressing shareholders at the company’s annual meeting on May 29, 2013, CEO Rex Tillerson bragged that 2012 earnings were the second highest in the history of the oil giant, and was crystal clear about corporate priorities:

“In 2012 we invested $39.8 billion in capital expenditures and total shareholder distributions were $30.1 billion. For the 19th consecutive year, we added more oil and natural gas reserves than we produced and our crude reserve replacement rate exceeded 100%. All of the above results reflect the hard work, diligence and dedication of the almost 77,000 men and women who work on ExxonMobil’s behalf the world over.”

Tillerson was aware of pressure from shareholders to address the climate threat more meaningfully than it had been doing. Pressure was even coming from heirs to the oil fortune, descendants of the company’s original founders. Jane Dale Owen, granddaughter of one of the founders of Humble Oil, the parent company of ExxonMobil, made a strong appeal to shareholders to put more pressure on corporate leadership to divert its resources to cleaner more renewable forms of energy. She wrote:

“As I cast my votes this year, I hope that more shareholders will get involved to move ExxonMobil toward a life-sustaining future. ExxonMobil’s $44.9 billion in earnings for 2012 came close to a world’s record. Instead of wildcatting in costly, unproven non-conventional fossil fuel technologies such as fracking and tar sands that add greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, the company could show foresight and leadership by investing in clean, renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal.”

But the shareholder resolution asking the company to set greenhouse gas and emissions reductions goals was defeated: even though it got a respectable share of the vote – 26.8% of voting shares supported the resolution – 73.2% voted against. Still, this sent a strong message to corporate leadership. Normally, when more than a quarter of shareholders demand an outcome, most corporate leaders make strong efforts to meet that outcome; Rex Tillerson was not among them. Instead, despite the growing certainty of climate science that was readily available and widely communicated to the public – most recently in the draft Fourth National Climate Assessment – he had this to say:

“If you examine the temperature record of the last decade, it really hadn’t changed. I know you will like to hear that as it don’t [sic] comport to some of the views of others, but last 10 years’ temperatures had been relatively flat.”

This statement is false and misleading, and is a classic example of one of the favorite tactics of climate change deniers: the use of short time periods to draw false conclusions about longer-term trends. As stated above, nine of the hottest ten years on record had occurred since 2000, and one of those ten occurred in 1998.

Moreover, instead of acknowledging the urgency of the problem and the growing certainty of the science, Tillerson brought out the tired claim that the science justifying action was not there yet: “[O]ur ability to understand all of the relationships between emissions and the environment and the feedback loops continues to be one of the science community’s grand challenges,” he said. Exaggerating scientific uncertainty around the climate change threat was one of the planned tactics of the oil industry’s Global Climate Coalition formed in the 1980s to push back against the Kyoto Protocol, and continued to be a recurrent theme at Exxon headquarters.

At the shareholders meeting, Tillerson pointed out that fossil energy raises the standard of living for people and asked, “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers in the process?” The irony of his statement was lost on him: those who were already suffering – and dying – ­from climate impacts (such as more extreme weather, intense flooding, prolonged droughts, and so on) evidently were not considered in Tillerson’s equation.

In a speech delivered just days later, in June 2013, to the Asia Society, Tillerson reiterated the corporate “feel good” philosophy – the story company leaders apparently told themselves to justify the drill-baby-drill mentality:

“Approximately 1.3 billion people on our planet still do not have access to electricity for basic needs like clean water, cooking, sanitation, light, or for the safe storage of food and medicine. Therefore, whether we are leaders in business, policymakers in government, or decision makers in philanthropic organizations, the need to expand energy supplies has a humanitarian dimension that should inform and should guide our energy policy dialogue.”

So, following this logic, it’s humanitarian to continue, even to expand, our dangerous addiction to fossil fuels worldwide. But is it humanitarian to bury one’s head in the sand when it comes to the negative side effects of continuing this reliance?

Contrast Exxon’s and Tillerson’s message, which implies that it’s the right thing to do to lock us into a high-carbon energy future, with that made by the newly reelected President Barack Obama in his January 2013 Inaugural Address. President Obama declared:

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it.”

Evidently ExxonMobil had no intention of leading this transition; rather, the corporate attitude was spelled out clearly in its 2013 10-K reportto the SEC and shareholders. Public policies that protect against environmental harms are listed as a business risk,i.e.a threat to their basic business model. Under the category “Regulatory and litigation risks” the 10-K says specifically that “changes in environmental regulations or other laws that increase our cost of compliance or reduce or delay available business opportunities (including changes in laws related to offshore drilling operations, water use, or hydraulic fracturing)” are a risk to the company’s health and wellbeing. Also listed under “risks” to the bottom line are policies or regulations that promote “alternative fuels” or “uncompetitive fuel components” – as these further “expose” the company and “could adversely affect results.”

It is apparent to us that Tillerson was seeing climate change in a different light: the global warming trend was having the effect of making it possible to drill for oil in areas that had heretofore been too covered in thick ice to make drilling feasible. In February, ExxonMobil and Rosneft (Russia’s state-run oil company) agreed to expand the deal they made in 2011 to drill for oil in the Russian Arctic. The 10-K report mentions the new joint venture with Rosneft and talks about this massive Russia oil deal this way:

“ExxonMobil’s net acreage holdings in Sakhalin at year-end 2013 were 85 thousand acres, all offshore. A total of 0.9 net development wells were completed. Development activities continued on the Arkutun-Dagi project during 2013. At year-end 2013, ExxonMobil’s net acreage in the Rosneft joint venture agreements for the Kara and Black Seas was 11.3 million acres, all offshore.”

This Russia oil deal has raised much controversy, has now made ExxonMobil subject to penalties and fines for violating US sanctions against the country, and is a focal point of concerns surrounding the appointment of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. This will be covered extensively in future posts.

:{How was ExxonMobil Talking about Addressing the Global Threat of Climate Change?

}:The 2013 10-K report address climate change and carbon dioxide emissions this way:

“Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions. Due to concern over the risk of climate change, a number of countries have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These include adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, restrictive permitting, increased efficiency standards, and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. These requirements could make our products more expensive, lengthen project implementation times, and reduce demand for hydrocarbons, as well as shift hydrocarbon demand toward relatively lower-carbon sources such as natural gas. Current and pending greenhouse gas regulations may also increase our compliance costs, such as for monitoring or sequestering emissions.”

It is a well-known fact that cadres of highly paid lobbyists representing ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute fought hard against the so-called Waxman-Markey bill, a comprehensive legislative proposal before the Congress in 2009 that passed the House but was not brought up in the Senate. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, if passed, would have established a broad cap-and-trade scheme and required cuts in carbon dioxide emissions across the board. Oil, gas, and coal companies were vehemently opposed to this, and used vast resources to defeat the proposal — the only major climate bill to have real legs.

ExxonMobil’s formal position supporting a carbon tax grew out of its opposition to a cap-and-trade scheme. While many have praised the oil giant for adopting a more enlightened policy position, it is probably more accurate to say that the company’s leadership is hedging its bets and using its support for a carbon tax to help fend off stricter public policy solutions. It is also quite likely that corporate accountants have found a way to make this a win-win, monetarily, for ExxonMobil. Consider this statement regarding the company’s stated concern about regressive taxation:

“If policymakers do move to impose a cost on carbon, we believe that a carbon tax would be a more effective policy option to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions than alternatives such as cap-and-trade. And to ensure revenues raised from such a tax are indeed directed to investment, and to assist those on lower incomes who spend a higher proportion of their income on energy, a carbon tax should be offset by tax reductions in other areas to become revenue neutral for government. It is rare that a business lends its support to new taxes. But in this case, given the risk-management challenges we face and the policy alternatives under consideration, it is our judgment that a carbon tax is a preferred course of public policy action versus cap and trade approaches.”

In other words, ExxonMobil is looking for a zero-sum game in which a carbon tax would be offset by tax benefits, and the cost to the company would essentially be nil.

:{How was ExxonMobil Talking about Low-Carbon Renewable Energy Options

}:The company’s 2013 10-K report says this about renewable energy, referring to it as “alternative energy” that has more negative connotations in the energy business world than does the word “renewable”:

“Government sponsorship of alternative energy. Many governments are providing tax advantages and other subsidies to support alternative energy sources or are mandating the use of specific fuels or technologies. Governments are also promoting research into new technologies to reduce the cost and increase the scalability of alternative energy sources. We are conducting our own research efforts into alternative energy, such as through sponsorship of the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University and research into liquid products from algae and biomass that can be further converted to transportation fuels. Our future results may depend in part on the success of our research efforts and on our ability to adapt and apply the strengths of our current business model to providing the energy products of the future in a cost-competitive manner.”

ExxonMobil’s attempted venture into the use of algal biofuels would allow the company — if successful — to continue to use much of its existing infrastructure. But in March 2013, the company announced it was pulling out of a $600 million project to make motor fuels from algae, a joint venture with Synthetic Genomics Inc., less than six years after the project began in July 2007. In a March 7 interview with Charlie Rose, Tillerson revealed that it would be about another 25 years before they could develop a strain of algae that could produce enough oil to supply a refinery.

Notably, it was during this same interview with Charlie Rose that Tillerson famously said:

“My philosophy is to make money. If I can drill and make money, then that’s what I want to do.”

:{In 2013, What Did We Know About Carbon-Emitters?

}:In November 2013, an industrious climate researcher and author named Richard Heede, head of the Climate Accountability Institute, published a watershed scientific paper in Climatic Change. The study presents a quantitative analysis of historic records for major carbon dioxide emitters worldwide, over a period starting in the 1850s – at the dawn of the industrial revolution – through 2010. The vast amount of data Heede meticulously excavated and organized revealed a stark reality about carbon majors that surprised many: a mere 90 companies were responsible for two-thirds of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. This watershed, painstaking analysis traces emissions totaling 914 gigatons of carbon dioxide-equivalent — which amounts to 63% of the cumulative worldwide emissions of industrial CO2 and methane between 1751 and 2010 — to 90 so-called “carbon major” entities worldwide. Astonishingly, half of these emissions had occurred since 1986!

The Guardianwas the first out of the gate with full coverage of the study, and included several of the whizbang downloadable graphics and images Heede provided as part of the project. Note the relative size of the Exxon Mobil circle on the graph below; Heede found that the company and its predecessor entities were responsible for 3.22% of cumulative global emissions from 1854 through 2010. The only other investor-owned oil company emitting more carbon is Chevron Corporation, which was responsible for 3.52%.

Heede also published these findings in a report, :{*Carbon Majors: Accounting for carbon and methane emissions 1854-2010 Methods & Results Report*:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, commissioned by two major international organizations, the Climate Justice Programme based in Sydney, Australia, and Greenpeace International based in Amsterdam.

Is it likely the corporate leadership at ExxonMobil was completely unaware of this major study, implicating it in a share of the climate change burden on the world? Doubtful.

:{What Did the Climate Denial Force Look Like in 2013?

}:The groups that set out to obfuscate the scientific findings around the climate change problem back in the 1980s had largely succeeded in creating a constellation of organizations that would become a permanent presence in the climate change landscape. In 2013, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a document listing these groups which it refers to as “skeptic” organizations; a term CSPW takes issue with, as healthy skepticism is a lynchpin in the scientific process — without it, peer review would be a fruitless exercise. The UCS web page, “Global Warming Skeptic Organizations,” lists all the groups that take oil industry money to spread propaganda about the climate change threat and the underpinning science. The American Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and a few others are profiled. The “global warming denial machine” was alive and well in 2013, and continued to have an impact on public opinion regarding the seriousness of the problem.

Moreover, some truly ridiculous statements were being made about climate change by people who had a voice in American discourse and a responsibility not to say such things. The June 2013 issue of Rolling Stonepublished some of these utterings, several made by prominent elected officials, in its funny article, “The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming,” just as likely to draw tears as it is to invoke laughter. Yet, this was part and parcel to the groupthink at the time, and in many ways, still is: sad, but true.

:{High Marks to the Obama Administration for Taking on Climate Change Impact Preparedness

}:In 2008, Climate Science Watch called for the US federal government to take on a National Climate Change Preparedness Initiative. On November 1, 2013, President Obama signed an Executive Order doing just that. As CSW founder Rick Piltz noted at the time, the order, “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change,” was long overdue. Piltz stated:

“It has taken 25 years – since the global warming problem was first recognized as a major public issue — to get to this stage, with climate change preparedness planning and action being framed as a U.S. presidential order to the Executive Branch.”

One can only imagine the extent of lives saved, habitat spared from destruction, property damage avoided, if such an initiative had taken hold decades earlier. The failure to prepare adequately for climate conditions has imposed a heavy cost, one that only goes up over time.

While this Preparedness Initiative only went so far, and never truly took a strong hold on local, state, or federal public policymaking, it is an idea that should be supported and expanded, not abandoned as the Trump Administration has clearly done.

In sum, the Exxon Mobil Corporation has not been taking the climate change threat seriously enough to do justice to its investors and shareholders. Old-school mentality dominates the corporate culture, and has been articulated clearly year after year in its 10-K reports to shareholders. The truth about climate change is now coming back to bite this oil giant.

CSPW Senior Climate Policy Analyst Anne Polansky has 30 years of experience in public policies relating to energy and the environment, with a strong focus on climate change and renewable energy. She is a former Professional Staff Member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology

August 21st, 2017|Assessments of Climate Impacts and Adaptation, Attacks on Climate Science and Scientists, ClimateChange Education and Communication, Climate Change Preparedness, Climate Science & Policy Watch, Climate Science Censorship, Energy, General, Global Climate Disruption and Impacts, Global Warming Denial Machine, Obama Administration, Science-Policy Interaction, Scientific Integrity

see polansky on hurricanes

ExxonMobil moved to squash a well-established congressional lecture series on climate science just nine days after the presidential inauguration of George W Bush, a former oil executive, the Guardian has learned.

Exxon’s intervention on the briefings, revealed here for the first time, adds to evidence the oil company was acutely aware of the state of climate science and its implications for government policy and the energy industry – despite Exxon’s public protestations for decades about the uncertainties of global warming science.

Indeed, the company moved swiftly during the earliest days of the Bush administration to block public debate on global warming and delay domestic and international regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to former officials of the US Global Change Research Program, or USGCRP.

The Bush White House is now notorious for censoring climate scientists and blocking international action on climate change by pulling the US out of the Kyoto agreement.

The oil company is under investigation by 17 attorney generals for misleading the public about climate change, and is facing a shareholder revolt at its annual general meeting on Wednesday by investors pressing Exxon for greater disclosure about the effect of climate change on its profits.

In early 2001, however, after Al Gore lost the White House to George Bush, Exxon officials apparently saw a chance to influence the incoming administration, according to former officials of the research program.

The government agency was set up in 1990 and charged with producing definitive reports to Congress every four years on the effects of climate change on the US. In the mid-1990s, as part of its legal mandate, USGCRP began organizing monthly seminars on climate science for elected officials and staffers in Congress.

On 29 January 2001, nine days after Bush’s inauguration, Arthur Randol, a former senior environmental advisor at Exxon, telephoned Nicky Sundt, then communications director for the research program, to inquire about the future of the lecture series.

A few days earlier, Sundt had emailed a survey to congressional staffers seeking suggestions for the next lecture series. Exxon had not been on his distribution list, and Sundt said he was surprised to receive a call from Randol.

“I thought it was very unusual, if not inappropriate, for a fossil fuel lobbyist to be calling me directly days after the administration was sworn in only directly to instruct me on how we would be communication to the Congress on climate change,” Sundt told the Guardian. “This is ExxonMobil reaching into the federal government science apparatus and seeking to influence the communication of science.”

Sundt, who now directs the WWF-US climate science programme (although he said he was not speaking on behalf of the organisation), said he made notes of the phone call.

The briefings had then been running for a number of years and were well regarded by Republican as well as Democratic staffers, according to Bryan Hannegan, a Senate staffer and scientist who went on to work for the Bush administration and is now at the National Renewable Energy Lab.

But the Exxon lobbyist saw it differently. “I very specifically remember him suggesting that the seminars were what he called ‘agenda-driven’, and he indicated that with the new administration and the Congress that – if the seminars continue – he hoped to see a different balance of viewpoints,” Sundt said.

That was Sundt’s only encounter with Randol. He told his USGCRP colleagues about the telephone call but did not speak out publicly until now.

In retrospect, Sundt said the telephone call was the first sign of the energy industry’s efforts to squash the agency’s reporting about climate change, and the broader debate about global warming, during the George W Bush era.

Bush went on to pull the US out of the Kyoto climate change agreement, and White House officials were later found to have played down scientists’ warnings about the dangers of climate change.

Randol, who left Exxon in 2003 after 25 years with the oil company, was known to have played a key role in such efforts – even before Sundt came foward.

On 6 February 2001, not long after his phone call to Sundt, Randol wrote a memourging the Bush administration demand seek the removal of Bob Watson, a well-regarded climate scientist, as head of the UN’s climate science panel, the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

Randol describes Watson as “hand-picked by Al Gore”. “Restructure the US attendance at upcoming IPCC meetings to assure that none of the Clinton/Gore proponents are involved in any decisional activities,” the memo reads.

In the same memo, Randol also recommended sacking three US climate officials.

The Exxon lobbyist was extraordinarily successful. At the IPCC, Watson was replaced by Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian engineer who stepped down from the science panel last year after being accused of sexual harassment.

Following Randol’s recommendations, a number of climate sceptics were appointed to the administration, including Harlan Watson, a then Republican congressional staffer, who went on to lead the US climate negotiating team.

Meanwhile, Randol sought to put Exxon’s stamp on the blockbuster US climate reports. On 22 March 2002, Randol forwarded a company memo to the White House council of environmental quality suggesting an overhaul of the USGRCP’s national climate assessments.

The memo, which extolled Exxon’s qualifications in climate science, recommended the agency focus more on “gaps and uncertainties” in climate science.

Exxon and Russol did not respond to requests for comment.

However, Mike MacCracken, a former chief scientist at the USGRCP, said Sundt’s account of the phone call fits in with his recollections of Exxon’s efforts to influence government climate science research. “I don’t recall the call directly but they were objecting to all sorts of things as the new administration came in,” he said. “I guess the Republicans were sort of pushing from Congress. They were taking over and they had their views.”

Author:

Suzanne Goldenberg

May 25th, 2016|In The News

https://whistleblower.org/general/climate-science-watch/exxon-mobil-has-been-silent-about-climate-change-risks-to-its-operations-will-hurricane-harvey-change-that/

anne p

detailed in the most recent installment of our ongoing investigation into how the Exxon Mobil Corporation has characterized risks to its business operations associated with climate change in its annual 10-K reports to shareholders, year after year, the company has alleged that one of the risks to its operations is the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions as a public policy to mitigate global climate change, but has failed to list climate change itself as a risk when communicating with its shareholders (See previous segments of our investigation here: Part One (1993-2000);Part Two (2000-2008);Part Three(A) (2009),Part Three(B) (2010),Part Three(C) (2011), and*Part Three(D) (2012)*). On this matter – the subject of a criminal investigation by at least two state Attorneys General for this failure – the largest publicly traded oil and gas company in the world has been silent. It has been tight-lipped even about the risks for its massive oil refinery facilities in coastal areas subject to storm surges and flooding and associated with sea-level rise and the projected increased intensity and rainfall rates of North Atlantic hurricanes.

Hurricane Harvey inflicted a large amount of damage on ExxonMobil oil refining and chemical processing facilities in Baytown and Beaumont, Texas, though the full extent of the damage has not yet been fully assessed. The floating roof on an oil storage tank collected so much rainwater that the sheer weight caused it to partially collapse, resulting in a large volume of toxic air emissions. Countless other repairs are being conducted in the weeks following the unprecedented rains accompanying the hurricane and its aftermath. There is no question that climate change added extra energy and moisture to Hurricane Harvey, exacerbating its devastating effect. Will ExxonMobil change its tune and start reporting climate change impacts as potential risks to its operations, or will it continue to bury its head in the sand?

Hurricane Harvey, which made landfall on August 25 near Rockport Texas with maximum sustained winds at 130 miles per hour, was the most powerful storm to hit Texas in half a century. The first of a slew of devastating, catastrophic hurricanes to haunt Atlantic waters this season, Harvey dumped a massive amount of precipitation on Southeastern Texas. The unusually slow-moving, Category 4 hurricane was the wettest ever recorded: “all-time continental US tropical cyclone rain records were broken” between August 25 and 30, according to The Weather Channel (see “Historic Hurricane Harvey’s Recap,” Sept. 2). Unprecedented rainfall – more than 50 inches in some areas – flooded entire regions in and around Houston and the Texas Gulf Coast.

Floodwaters rose so swiftly and powerfully that they gave new meaning to the term “flash floods.” The storm came on so fiercely that it inflicted a sense of shock-and-awe, even among Texans who had lived to see plenty of hurricanes. Many overestimated the time they had to grab their loved ones and valued possessions to escape to higher ground or a nearby emergency shelter. Virtually everyone was taken by surprise. Some drowned. As of September 14, there were 82 confirmed fatalities in Texas as a result of Hurricane Harvey, according to the *Washington Post*, (Sept. 14).

:{Exxon Mobil and the Oil Industry Took a Big Hit

}:In addition to displacing over a million people and inflicting catastrophic damage and destruction to all economic sectors in the region, Hurricane Harvey had a crippling effect on the US oil industry that continues today. Harvey caused about one-fifth of the nation’s total refining capacity to shut down and temporarily ceased about one-fourth of oil production from the Gulf of Mexico (*Fortune*, August 28).

The Exxon Mobil Corporation owns and operates two massive oil refineries in the area; one in Beaumont with a capacity of about 400,000 barrels per day, the other in Baytown, the second-largest US refinery with a capacity of about 560,000 barrels per day. Along with about a dozen other large oil refineries in the area, both were completely closed down on August 27.

As referred to above, the heavy rains added so much weight to the floating roof of an oil storage tank at ExxonMobil’s Baytown facility that the roof partially sank, and caused the more volatile petroleum-based components – including known and suspected carcinogens and otherwise toxic substances – to evaporate and release harmful air emissions in sufficient quantities to require reports to be submitted to state environmental regulators. The required regulatory filings to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (here and here) listed all the air pollutants emitted and their amounts.

The Exxon Mobil Corporation has stayed true to its reputation (for example, see Steve Coll’s book, “Private Empire”) for being secretive and tight-mouthed about disruptions to its operations. Through spokespersons, the corporation issued reassurance after reassurance but little detailed information, and continually downplayed the harm Harvey caused at its facilities. For example, the *Houston Chronicle*reported on August 29 that ExxonMobil said the partially collapsed tank was not a threat, and described the sunken roof as “stable” and “not creating any containment issues.” The article quoted a company spokesperson:

“This is an unprecedented storm, and we have taken every effort to minimize emissions and safely shut down equipment.”

According to a news report by *CNN Money*, ExxonMobil was taking action to “minimize emissions” (though neither the nature of the damage nor the details of these actions were disclosed to the reporter), claimed the emissions caused by the damage done on Monday, August 28 would stop by the following Friday, and pledged to assess the damage “once it safe to do so.” However, there is no confirmation that air pollutant emissions did indeed cease September 1 as promised. Moreover, it is common knowledge in the oil refining business that both any intentional, rapid shutdown of an entire facility, and its restart, will result in a temporary surge of hydrocarbon emissions. Oil and gas facilities also typically wait until the last possible moment to shut down plants before major storms or other extreme weather events, in order to maximize revenue. Rushed shutdowns tend to result in greater air emissions than do slower, more orderly shutdowns.

ExxonMobil is not alone. Residents living near refineries dotting the Texas landscape reported terrible smells surrounding these facilities. Some environmental groups have estimated that, overall, more than a million pounds of air pollution were released as a result of Harvey and its aftermath. Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas, estimated that two million pounds of air pollutants were emitted during Harvey, compared to more than five million pounds emitted in all of 2016 (*New York Times*, Sept. 8). According to several news reports (for example, by the *Times Picayune*, Sept. 9), the Associated Press collected raw data from state regulatory agencies and other sources and performed an analysis which revealed that more than 30 fuel and chemical storage tanks at facilities in the region collapsed or otherwise failed during Hurricane Harvey, releasing more than 600,000 gallons of crude oil, gasoline, and other fuels and chemicals. One report (Newsworks, Sept. 14) indicated that less than 20 percent of the volume spilled was recoverable; the remaining evaporated (i.e., polluted the air) or soaked into the ground (i.e., polluted the land.)

Given the sheer amount of hazardous and toxic substances released to air, water, and land over such a large area along the Texas coast, it is reasonable to expect that ExxonMobil, along with other oil and gas companies affected by Harvey, will be named as defendants in a class-action suit for failing to take proper precautions to prevent these releases. It is also possible that ExxonMobil will be sued for failing to take adequate precautions to prevent its storage tank from collapsing, and to prevent other spills and air emissions from occurring in the harsh flood conditions Harvey brought. This is a problem that ExxonMobil leadership could have planned and prepared for, but did not.

:{Poor Preparedness for Climate Change Impacts Is Much to Blame for Exxon’s Hurricane Troubles

}:Climate scientists and scientific reports have long predicted that a warmer planet will lead to serious and harmful impacts such as sea level rise, more intense storm surges, more frequent and devastating flooding, and more extreme weather such as more powerful hurricanes.

This topic has been addressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and in multiple iterations of the National Climate Assessment, a comprehensive report of national and regional climate change impacts produced periodically by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). For example, a summary of the 2014 assessment states:

“The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.”

Exxon’s Beaumont and Baytown facilities are in low-lying areas that are already prone to flooding, but will be much more so with sea level rise and more extreme storm events. Mapping of areas prone to flooding is readily available. As indicated earlier, CSPW has written extensively about ExxonMobil’s sustained silence on vulnerabilities such as this in our investigative series on the corporation’s required 10-K reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (for example, here), and in this July 2016 piece about ExxonMobil vulnerabilities to climate change impacts such as out-of-control wildfires and extreme flooding.

Oil and chemical storage tanks located in the path of hurricanes and in areas prone to flooding are just one example of the many ways the US remains in a state of abysmally poor preparedness for a climate-changed world. Excellent coverage of this particular problem appears in the Washington Post (Sept. 9), “Tank failures in Harvey reveal vulnerabilities in storm.” Although we do have federal regulations that require oil and gas companies to be prepared for and to respond effectively to accidental spills, we do not have any public policies in place that address the vulnerabilities associated with storage tanks prone to breach during major floods. A strong national preparedness initiative for dealing with climate impacts could require oil, fuel, and chemical storage tanks to be built differently to be able to withstand the heavy downpours that accompanied Harvey. It is quite likely that the engineers who designed and built these tanks assumed the weather conditions of the past were a reliable guide to the future weather conditions under which their facilities would operate. That approach is no longer valid. It’s time to go back to the drawing board.

Meteorologist Eric Holthaus writes in *Politico* (August 28, 2017, emphasis our own):

“In all of US history, there’s never been a storm like Hurricane Harvey. That fact is increasingly clear, even though the rains are still falling and the water levels in Houston are still rising. But there’s an uncomfortable point that, so far, everyone is skating around: We knew this would happen, decades ago. We knew this would happen, and we didn’t care. Now is the time to say it as loudly as possible: Harvey is what climate change looks like. More specifically, Harvey is what climate change looks like in a world that has decided, over and over, that it doesn’t want to take climate change seriously.”

The fact of the matter is that many Americans do take climate change seriously, and are serious about wanting to do something meaningful about it – including people who own Exxon stock. Over the past decade, ExxonMobil shareholders have offered resolution after resolution calling for the oil and gas company to take positive steps toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions and to be more open and transparent regarding the effect its products have on our global climate system. Just about all of these resolutions have been summarily rejected by ExxonMobil corporate leadership, and voted down.

:{Recovery Will Be Slow and Expensive, But Will ExxonMobil Change Its Tune on Climate Impacts?

}:Several weeks after Harvey hit, on September 14, ExxonMobil announced it was developing plans for restarting the Beaumont refinery and chemical plant, according to the *Beaumont Enterprise*, but gave no timeline for the restarts. (As of this writing, neither facility has resumed normal operations.) The same article in the local newspaper quoted ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods praising employees who “pored over technical blueprints” of the facilities “while floodwaters poured through their kitchens” at home, and noted that while many workers did all they could to provide expert help from their homes, many others had been stranded at work and forced to set up temporary living quarters.

“It’s very difficult to predict exactly when all those units will be back up and we’ll be back on our full load,” Woods told CNBC.

It is not known yet precisely how much damage Hurricane Harvey and the associated flooding inflicted on the Exxon Mobil Corporation’s Baytown and Beaumont facilities; a full damage assessment has yet to take place. We therefore don’t yet know what this will cost the corporation or how it will affect the company’s bottom line. CEO Darren Woods has assured investors that the capital spending plans of ExxonMobil will not be affected.

But, then again, Darren Woods, like Rex Tillerson and so many of his predecessors at ExxonMobil, say a lot of things that turn out not to be true, especially where environmental impacts are concerned. But the problem here is that Darren Woods is failing to say certain things that are true, things like, “climate change and related impacts present a significant risk to our operations.”

Whether a statement like this appears in future 10-K and other reports to shareholders is yet to be seen.

CSPW Senior Climate Policy Analyst Anne Polansky has 30 years of experience in public policies relating to energy and the environment, with a strong focus on climate change and renewable energy. She is a former Professional Staff Member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

September 25th, 2017|Assessments of Climate Impacts and Adaptation, Climate Change Education and Communication, Climate Change Mitigation, Climate Change Preparedness, Climate Science & Policy Watch, Energy, General, Global Climate Disruption and Impacts, Global Warming Denial Machine, Science Communication, Science-Policy Interaction

ref guk electric car

no lnx few

Oil company records from 1960s reveal patents to reduce CO2 emissions in cars

ExxonMobil and others pursued research into technologies, yet blocked government efforts to fight climate change for more than 50 years, findings show

Exxon Mobil

The patent records were among a new trove of documents published by the Center for International Environmental Law, and deepen the public relations challenge for Exxon.

Suzanne Goldenberg

@suzyji

Fri 20May 2016

The forerunners of ExxonMobil patented technologies for electric cars and low emissions vehicles as early as 1963 – even as the oil industry lobby tried to squash government funding for such research, according to a trove of newly discovered records.

Patent records reveal oil companies actively pursued research into technologies to cut carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change from the 1960s – including early versions of the batteries now deployed to power electric cars such as the Tesla.

Scientists for the companies patented technologies to strip carbon dioxide out of exhaust pipes, and improve engine efficiency, as well as fuel cells. They also conducted research into countering the rise in carbon dioxide emissions – including manipulating the weather.

Esso, one of the precursors of ExxonMobil, obtained at least three fuel cell patents in the 1960s and another for a low-polluting vehicle in 1970, according to the records. Other oil companies such as Phillips and Shell also patented technologies for more efficient uses of fuel.

However, the American Petroleum Institute, the main oil lobby, opposed government funding of research into electric cars and low emissions vehicles, telling Congress in 1967: “We take exception to the basic assumption that clean air can be achieved only by finding an alternative to the internal combustion engine.”

This 1970 patent, assigned to Esso (now ExxonMobil), is a design for a low-polluting engine system.]

And ExxonMobil funded a disinformation campaigned aimed at discrediting scientists and blocking government efforts to fight climate change for more than 50 years, before

The patent records were among a new trove of documents published on Thursday by the Center for International Environmental Law, and deepen the legal and public relations challenge for Exxon.

“What we saw was an array of patent technologies that demonstrated that these companies had the technologies they needed and could have commercialised to help address the problem of C02 pollution,” said Carroll Muffett, president of the Ciel. “They then turned to Congress and said you don’t need to invest in electrical vehicle research because the research is ongoing and it’s robust.”

The findings echo those in the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, which explored the deliberate destruction of GM’s first electric vehicles.

Alan Jeffers, an Exxon spokesman, insisted he could not comment directly on the documents as he was unable to access the Center for International Environmental law website on which they were published on Thursday morning.

In an emailed statement, Jeffers said: “The Guardian gave us only a few hours to comment on documents from four decades ago.”

Jeffers went on: “This further illustrates the Guardian’s well-established bias on climate change issues which has been demonstrated previously through its keep it in the ground campaign.”

He said the company believed the risks of climate change were real, was researching lower emission technologies, and engaged in “constructive dialogue” with policy makers about energy and climate change.

Researchers discovered more than 20 such patents filed by oil companies from as early as the 1940s for technologies that could help in the development of electric cars.

However, Ron Dunlop, president of Sun Oil and API chairman, told a joint hearing of the commerce committee in 1967 that government funding of research into electric cars would be misplaced– because the oil companies were so advanced in their research of cleaner cars. “We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a practical electric car can be mass produced and marketed, it will not enjoy any meaningful advantage from an air pollution standpoint,” he told Congress. “Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have long since been controlled.”

Muffett said the findings were the result of three years of research and were not exhaustive.[npi]

“The question is what did they do to try to commercialise these technologies, knowing what they did about climate change,” he went on.

The revelations, the second set of documents released by Muffett’s organisation, reinforce charges by campaigners that Exxon was well aware that the burning of fossil fuels was a main driver of climate change – despite its public posture of doubt.

In addition to the technologies with potential for electric cars, Exxon and other oil companies were actively researching methods to cut emissions of carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas.

In another historic document that surfaced last month, a Canadian subsidiary of Exxon admitted the company had the technology to cut carbon emissions in half. However, the corporate memo dating from 1977 said it would be prohibitively expensive – doubling the cost of electricity generation, according to the documents obtained by Desmog blog.

New York and 17 other attorneys general, including DC and the US Virgin Islands, are investigating whether the oil company lied to investors and the public about the threat of climate change.

Campaigners plan to further turn up the heat on the company next week when Exxon holds itsannual shareholder meeting in Dallas.

Campaigners have argued for more than a decade that Exxon bankrolled a network of front groups and conservative think tanks aimed at discrediting well-established science – confusing the public and delaying governments efforts to cut the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for warming.

Those efforts to put Exxon on the spot gathered pace after Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times reported that the company’s own scientists knew as early as the 1970s that greenhouse gases caused climate change.

Tell the truth, ExxonMobil: a low-carbon future is affordable – and necessary

Read more]

The attorney general of the US Virgin Islands has subpoenaed Exxon to turn over email, documents and statements over the last decades.

Exxon has dismissed the investigations as politically motivated.

However, the company has reversed its opposition to fuel cell technology. Earlier this month, the company announced it had been conducting a joint research effort on fuel cell power plants with FuelCell.[results?]

The initiative, which got underway in 2011, aims to route the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning power plants into fuel cells, producing low emissions electricity. The company has estimated it can cut 90% of carbon dioxide emissions.

“At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action,” Rex Tillerson, Exxon’s chief executive, told the US Energy Association after receiving its annual award.

https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/fossil-fuel-new-evidence-sb-1161

New Evidence of Fossil Fuel Industry Climate Science Deception Underscores Need for SB 1161 (Allen), “California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act”

Statement by Adrienne Alvord, California and Western States Director, Union of Concerned Scientists

Published Apr 13, 2016

OAKLAND, Calif. (April 13, 2016)— A trove of documents released today by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) reveals that the oil industry was well aware of the potential climate risks of fossil fuels decades earlier than was widely believed. The uncovered industry communications, scientific papers and oral histories demonstrate that the petroleum industry was conducting climate research as early as 1957 and knew about the potential for catastrophic climate risks by 1968 at the latest.

The documents include a 1957 study, “Radiocarbon Evidence on the Dilution of Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon by Carbon from Fossil Fuels,” published by scientists working for Humble Oil, a precursor of ExxonMobil. The study looked at how carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion accumulates in the atmosphere and oceans and indicates that scientists affiliated with the fossil fuel industry were not just aware of what happens to the climate when we burn fossil fuels, but were at the leading edge of our understanding of it.

Below is a statement by Adrienne Alvord, California and Western States Director, Union of Concerned Scientists:

“It is shocking and disheartening to see that the fossil fuel industry apparently had knowledge of climate risks from the burning of fossil fuels even earlier than previously believed. Their subsequent public deception campaign in the interest of profit has led to confusion and uncertainty about the consequences of burning oil, gas and coal.

Meanwhile, concentrations of greenhouse gases have doubled over the past three decades, exacerbating the costly, damaging effects of climate change that California already is experiencing. The California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act would help ensure that California can hold fossil fuel companies fully accountable for their decades of deception and the damages they have caused to public health, property and the environment in California. We need to ensure that fossil fuel companies won’t be let off the hook for their decades-long campaign of intentional deception about the harmful effects of their products.”

==

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/ending-the-climate-crisis/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-change/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-:{timeline/:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:

exxon made the news in September and October of 2015 when research produced by InsideClimate News, the Los Angeles Times, and the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism revealed that Exxon had known since the 70s about the causes of climate change and the dangers climate disruption poses. The articles spurred a wave of actions against Exxon.

:{

}:

In November 2015, the New York state attorney general announced an investigation into Exxon for disclosure violations. Presidential candidatesHillary Clinton and Bernie Sanderscalled for a federal investigation into the company. And more than 350,000 Americans joined that call, petitioning the Department of Justice to investigate.

The news has changed the game on fossil fuel companies and their role in climate denial. But Exxon’s track record on climate science denial and climate double talk has been growing for some time. Check the timeline below for a rundown. Along the way, note how global atmospheric carbon levels continue to rise past 350 parts per million (ppm), the level scientists say is safe for human civilization as we know it, while Exxon’s profits (in nominal dollars) continue to rise.

*****

1957

Scientists working at Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) publish a paper on the dilution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean. The paper notes: “Although appreciable amounts of carbon dioxide have undoubtedly been added from soils by tilling of land, apparently a much greater amount has resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels”–indicating company scientists understood the link between fossil fuel use and rising CO2. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)

1968 (Global CO2 level: 323 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $1.2 billion)

In a report produced for theAmerican Petroleum Institute, scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins note that, among the possible sources of rising CO2  in the atmosphere, “none seems to fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel emanation theory.” The paper warns that significant rises in CO2 could melt icecaps, increase sea levels, change fish distributions and increase plant photosynthesis. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)

1970s

1978 (Global CO2 level: 335 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $2.4 billion)

James Black, working under Exxon’s Products Research Division, writes an internal briefing paper called “The Greenhouse Effect” following from a 1977 presentation to Exxon’s management committee. The paper warns that human-caused emissions could raise global temperatures and result in serious consequences. “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,” Black writes in his summary of the presentation. (Source:InsideClimate News)

1979

At the urging of an Exxon scientist, Henry Shaw, Exxon begins analyzing the absorption rate of carbon dioxide in the oceans, considered one of the key questions of climate science at the time. “Exxon must develop a credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject and be able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation,”Shaw wrote in a letter to Exxon research executives. (Source: InsideClimate News)

1979-1983

Major fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil (two companies that became Chevron) meet regularly as part of a task force to discuss the science and implications of climate change. The meetings are organized with the help of the American Petroleum Institute. A minutes document from one of the meetings suggests that oil companies knew that climate change was occurring, and that they would bear some responsibility for managing it. (Source: InsideClimate News)

1980s

9/1981  Prius delivered prototype to Japan;

1982  (Global CO2 level: 341 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $4.2 billion)

Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Programs manager M.B. Glaser sends Exxon management a primer on climate change. The primer is “restricted to Exxon personnel and not distributed externally.” It describes “potentially catastrophic events” if fossil fuel use is not reduced. (Source: InsideClimate News)

1982

:{

}:

cancelled the tanker project in 1982

:{

}:

Roger Cohen, director of the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory at Exxon, writes a memo summarizing Exxon’s climate modeling research. The memo states: “The consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [equal to 5.4 ± 1.7°F]…There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.” Cohen would later become a :{lead climate science denier:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: at an :{Exxon-funded front group:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:.

1983  (Global CO2 level: 343 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $5 billion)

Exxon cuts funding for climate research from $900,000 per year to $150,000. Exxon’s total research budget at the time was more than $600 million.[Federal  grant money dried up in the early 80's (RR), cancelled the tanker project in 1982 $900K to 150K);

Research published 1983-4.

1984

An Exxon report on the Natuna gas field in Indonesia warns that the project would be “the world’s largest point source emitter of CO2and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem.”

1988

The :{United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: is formed.

1989  1989 Exxon Valdez spill,

Shell announces that it will redesign one of its natural gas platforms, raising it a meter or two to account for sea level rises resulting from climate change.

1989  (Global CO2 level: 353 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $3.5 billion)

Exxon and other fossil fuel companies create the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). The GCC is created to oppose mandatory reductions in carbon emissions by obscuring the scientific understanding of fossil fuels’ impact on the climate. The GCC created a scientific “backgrounder” for lawmakers and journalists that claimed “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood.”

1990s

1990

Dr. Brian Flannery, “representing the International Petroleum Industries’ Environmental Conservation Association, but on the payroll of Exxon,” argues strongly against wording in the IPCC’s first report, which states that global carbon emissions must be reduced 60 to 80 percent. Flannery argues that too much “scientific uncertainty” exists to recommend such reductions. IPCC scientists agree that enough certainty exists to justify the reductions, and the report moves forward. (*:{The Carbon War:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:*:{ by Jeremy Leggett:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, cited in 2002 Greenpeace report, “Denial and Deception”).

1992  (Global CO2 level: 356 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $4.8 billion)

By 1992 Exxon has become a member of American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which actively undermines action on climate change at the federal and state levels. (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists)

1993  :{Lee Raymond:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: becomes CEO of Exxon. Raymond on AEI board, pal of Dick and Liz Cheney [API chairman from 1996 to 1997 "He was the chairman and C.E.O. of the oil giant Exxon from 1993 to 1999 and of Exxon Mobil from 1999 to 2005, years when it helped pioneer corporate efforts to create doubt about climate change."
1995 (Global CO2 level: 361 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $6.5 billion)

The Global Climate Coalition distributes an internal memo, organized by Mobil chemical engineer and climate expert Leonard Bernstein, warning that the “greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.” Members of the coalition included BP, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil and Shell. (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists)

1996

In a speech to the Economic Club of Detroit, Lee Raymond denies the scientific consensus on climate change. Raymond claims that “Currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate.”

1996

Mobil engineers, as a part of a project jointly owned by Mobil, Shell and a subsidiary of Exxon, note that “An estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 meters may be assumed” in their planning for exploration and production facilities along the coast of Nova Scotia.

October 1997 (Global CO2 level: 364 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $8.5 billion)

Exxon CEO Lee Raymond tells the 15th World Petroleum Congress in Beijing that the world’s climate isn’t changing, and that even if it was, fossil fuels would play no part.

:{

}:

Dec 1997 Kyoto Protocol adopted: Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that (part one) global warming is occurring and (part two) that human-made CO~2 emissions are driving it. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. There are currently 192 parties (Canada withdrew from the protocol, effective December 2012)[4] to the Protocol. Saved by Gore?

April 1998 [smoking gun memo]

The New York Times, with documents leaked to the National Environmental Trust, reveals that the **American Petroleum Institute** is organizing a $5-million plan to challenge the science of climate change. Representatives of Exxon and Chevron are listed as participating in the plan. One line item of the plan is to “Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who are already vocal” (p. 6 of Greenpeace report appendix).

1998

ExxonMobil-funded think tank, the George C. Marshall Institute, co-publishes the “Oregon petition,” a petition challenging the consensus around climate change. The petition comes with a “research paper” made in the style of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confusing some legitimate scientists into signing the petition. Other petition signatories, suspiciously, include fictional characters from the TV show M.A.S.H. and Spice Girl “Dr.” Geri Halliwell.

1998

In its proxy statementto shareholders, Exxon reports that shareholders have requested the creation of an outside directors committee to independently review and publish “a full report about the impact on climate change on our company’s present policies and practices…[including] anticipated liabilities our company may incur from its possible contribution to the problem…” Exxon’s board recommends against the proposal, citing, among other things, that the science around climate change remains uncertain.

1999

Exxon and Mobil merge.

2000s

2000 (Global CO2 level: 370 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $17.7 billion)

ExxonMobil publishes an ad, titled “Unsettled science,”highlighting a study showing a historical decrease in temperatures in the Sargasso Sea. CEO Lee Raymond presents the study at that year’s shareholder meeting as evidence that fossil fuels may not be causing global warming. The author of the study, Lloyd Keigwin, later complains that Exxon misused the data: “I believe ExxonMobil has been misleading in its use of the Sargasso Sea data. There’s really no way these results bear on the question of human-induced climate warming…I think the sad thing is that a company with the resources of ExxonMobil is exploiting the data for political purposes…”

[Aug 2000 (9/2002?) Michael MacCracken wrote (open?) letter directly to Raymond, responding point by point  to his critiques of US National Assessment; API later tried to hire him.  API monitored climate science so well aware [plus SRI study]]

January 2001

George W. Bush inaugurated as US president, with $100,000 in inaugural funding from ExxonMobil. Just days before Bush’s inauguration, Exxon’s publishes an advertisement titled “An energy policy for the new administration.” The ad argues that “the unrealistic and economically damaging Kyotoprocess needs to be rethought.”

February 2001

The Bush White House receives a letter from Exxon asking if the administration can oust climate scientist Robert Watson from his position as chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Under Watson’s chairmanship, the IPCC had released a number of reports linking climate change to human activity.

March 2001

Bush administration announces withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.

May 2001

The UK Stop Esso campaign is launched. The campaign is aimed at Exxon’s subsidy Esso, and is a coalition effort that includes Greenpeace UK, People and Planet, and Friends of the Earth.

2002 (Global CO2 level: 373 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $11.5 billion)

The GCC announces it is disbanding, explaining that the group “has served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming. The Bush administration will soon announce a climate policy that is expected to rely on the development of new technologies [such as? never happened] to reduce greenhouse emissions, a concept strongly supported by the GCC.” [busted/ defectors?]

May 2002

Greenpeace USA launches the Stop ExxonMobil campaign. Over the following months, activist actions against Exxon stations spread around the globe.

May 2003

The Greenpeace Global Warming Crimes Unitconverges on ExxonMobil’s compound in Irving, Texas, to charge the oil giant with crimes against the climate.

January 2004 (Global CO2 level: 377 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $25.3 billion)

ExxonMobil puts out a new ad titled, “Directions for climate research.” The ad argues for “uncertainties that limit our current ability to know the extent to which humans are affecting climate and to predict future changes caused by both human and natural forces.” The same month, Exxon’s “Weather and climate” ad takes a similar tack, arguing that “scientific uncertainties continue to limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change…”

June 2004

Greenpeace USA develops www.exxonsecrets.org, a website showing the links between Exxon money and some of the loudest climate deniers being quoted in the media. The website includes dossiers and fact sheets for each organization and person with a description, history, staff bios, quotes, deeds and hidden affiliations.

July 2005

Environmental and public interest groups launch the “Exxpose Exxon” campaign.

2006

Rex Tillerson becomes Chief Executive Officer of Exxon.

September 2006

The Royal Society, Britain’s preeminent scientific organization, writes a letter to Exxon, inquiring into the company’s promotion of uncertainty around climate change science. The letter comes after the Royal Society meets with Exxon to discuss its funding of climate-denying groups. Exxon promised at a previous meeting with the Royal Society to stop the funding, but had not followed up after the meeting to explain how it would fulfill the pledge. Later that month,it is reported that Exxon has stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has actively undermined action on climate change.

2008 (Global CO2 level: 386 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $45.2 billion)

Exxon’s 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report announces that the company will “discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.” In other words, it will stop funding climate-denying groups. Funding is cut to some climate-denying groups.Funding to others continues.

2008

Greenpeace USA and other citizen groups launch the :{“Strike Out Exxon” campaign:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:400"):}:, aimed at stopping the company’s advertisements at Nationals Stadium in Washington.

2010s

June 2012

In response to questions following a speech delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson suggests that while climate change is real, the solution would be to “adapt”:   “[A]s a species, that’s why we’re all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around — we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions.”

January 2013 (Global CO2 level: 396 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $32.6 billion)

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) pushes the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” in Oklahoma, Colorado and Arizona. The model bill mandates teaching the “weaknesses” of the “global warming… theory.” ALEC received consistent funding from Exxon :{since 1998:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, and continues to :{give to ALEC:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:.

2014

Analysis of ExxonMobil Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments reports and ExxonMobil Foundation 990 tax forms reveals that Exxon continues to fund climate denier groups. Between 1998-2014, Exxon gave over $30 million to such groups (Source: :{Greenpeace:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: and Union of Concerned Scientists). Since 2007, ExxonMobil has also donated$1.87 million to Republicans in Congress who deny climate change.

September 2014

Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt [Inhofe $?] announces that the company would not renew its membership to the American Legislative Exchange Council because ALEC is “literally lying” about the fact of climate change. As far as is known, Exxon remains a member of ALEC,serving on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Council as of August 2015.

February 2015

Research by Greenpeace exposes **Willie Soon** as having failed to disclose that Exxon and other fossil fuel interests funded his research. Soon had served as one of the few climate deniers with a science background referenced by climate-denying politicians. The news further debunks Exxon’s claim that the company had stopped funding climate deniers in 2007, as Exxon provided more than $300,000 in funding to Soon between 2005 and 2010.

September 16, 2015 (Global CO2 level: 401 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $16.2 billion)

InsideClimate News publishes the first exposé on Exxon’s knowledge of climate change risks and how it responded. The article describes how management at Exxon learned about the potential risk of climate change as early as 1977 and invested in climate change research.

October 9, 2015

The Los Angeles Times and Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism publish a story about Exxon’s knowledge of climate threats to the Arctic,including models to anticipate impacts on Arctic operations that Exxon executives such as Lee Raymond would publicly dismiss.

October 14, 2015

U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier request that the U.S. Department of Justice launch an investigation into whether Exxon violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as well as laws on consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, and shareholder protection.

November 4, 2015

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman opens an investigation into Exxon over whether the company has lied about what it knew about climate change. The AG issues a subpoena to Exxon demanding in-house documents.

November 20, 2015

Exxon Vice President for Public and Government Affairs Kenneth P. Cohen sends a letter to Columbia University, accusing members of the Graduate School of Journalism  of violating the school’s ethics policies  regarding the recent articles regarding Exxon’s  climate change-related research going back to  the 1970s. The Dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism,Steve Coll,  issues a responsedefending the articles.

November 23 and 30, 2015

A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that organizations that received funding from corporations like Exxon were more likely to argue against climate change science than organizations that did not receive such funding. Another study inNature Climate Change finds that climate-denying organizations funded by Exxon and the Koch brothers are the most successful at inserting climate denialism into media stories.

January 2016

The U.S. Department of Justice refers the case of Exxon’s advocacy around climate change to the FBI.

January 20, 2016

The Los Angeles Times reports that California’s Attorney General [harris?] is investigating Exxon over whether the company committed securities fraud or violated environmental laws by lying about what it knew about climate change.

March 29, 2016

A coalition of 17 Attorneys General and AG officials announcestheir support for President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. As part of the event, the AGs of Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands announce that they are investigating Exxon’s actions regarding climate change. Top officials from Vermont, Maryland, Virginia and Connecticut say fossil fuel companies would be held accountable for illegal activities around climate change, although they do not announce investigations.

May 18, 2016

13 Representatives sitting on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee send letters to :{17 state Attorneys General:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: and :{8 non-governmental organizations:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, including :{Greenpeace:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:. The letters accuse the agencies and organizations of tampering with companies’, organizations’ and individuals’ :{rights to free speech:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:. Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard responds that “America’s least-respected politicians have now courageously stepped up to defend one of America’s most-hated corporations from scrutiny.” Data from Oil Change International shows that the 13 Representatives who sent the letter have received $2,848,418 in campaign contributions from coal, oil and gas companies since 1999.

May 25, 2016

Exxon holds its annual shareholders meeting in Dallas. The board confronts 14 proposed resolutions from shareholders, 10 of which are climate-related. All climate change resolutions are voted down. However, a resolution requiring Exxon to report on the impacts to its business from climate policy receives a substantial 38% vote of support, and a separate resolution passes allowing shareholders to vote in a portion of Exxon’s board of directors. This presents the possibility of getting a climate expert on Exxon’s board.

June 1

Greenpeace USA, other NGOs and the Maryland Attorney General reject the authority of Congressional representatives’ inquiry.Greenpeace notes the “‘irony’ that [the] committee, in the name of protecting ExxonMobil’s free speech, would ‘examine’ the free speech of environmental groups.”

June 9

Nineteen members of California’s Congressional delegation send a letter of support to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, encouraging her investigation into Exxon despite pressure from the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee to stop.

June 29

The Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands agrees to withdraw his subpoena of Exxon, after Exxon sues the U.S. territory for what the company claims are violations of First and Fourth Amendment rights. The agreement does not prevent the U.S. Virgin Islands from subpoenaing Exxon in the future. Exxon had also sued the Massachusetts Attorney General’s [Healey] office based on similar arguments, but Massachusetts continues to fight the lawsuit.

July 6

Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), implies he will :{subpoena:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: the 17 Attorneys General and 8 NGOs if they do not reply to the Committee’s earlier request for their communication records. Greenpeace and 350.org respond by demanding that Congressman Smith and the involved Committee members reveal their connections to the fossil fuel industry, which has given Smith and the other members $2,848,418 in campaign contributions since 1999.

July 11

19 Senate democrats use the chamber floor to highlight the fossil fuel industry’s–including ExxonMobil’s–“web of denial” around climate change. The same day Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) introduce a resolution arguing that fossil fuel companies created a “misinformation campaign to mislead the public and cast doubt in order to protect their financial interest.”

July 13

Congressman Smith subpoenas the offices of the New York and Massachusetts AGs and 8 NGOs, including Greenpeace, with a deadline to respond by July 27.

July 27

Attorneys General Schneiderman and Healey, as well as Greenpeace and other NGOs, refuse to respond to the subpoena. “The American people know this Congressional subpoena is Rep. Smith’s signature move to turn attention away from the real issue at stake, which is the investigations into Exxon’s climate denial,” says Greenpeace Executive director Annie Leonard.

August 20

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says in an interview with the New York Times that his office’s investigation into Exxon is focused less on what the company knew about climate change years ago, and more on whether the company in recent years failed to report the potential impact of climate change regulations on its future business. In other words, the AG’s office is conducting “a straightforward fraud investigation.”

September 20 [2016?]

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating whether Exxon failed to publicly report the potential impact of climate regulations on its future business–the type of investigation also being conducted by the New York Attorney General. The Wall Street Journal reports that the SEC is also investigating whether Exxon failed to “de-book” some of its oil and gas reserves in the face of low oil prices–in other words, that Exxon has been claiming valuable assets that it does not actually have, given the poor state of the oil and gas industry.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180309105424/https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/196.1_Proposed_Amici_Curiae_Brief.pdf

AG united amicus by RAGA

m batasch daily caller

...

Respectfully submitted this the 19th day of April, 2017,

JEFF LANDRY

Attorney General of Louisiana

ALAN WILSON

Attorney General of South Carolina

STEVE MARSHALL

Attorney General of Alabama

BILL SCHUETTE

Attorney General of Michigan

MARK BRNOVICH

Attorney General of Arizona

BRAD SCHIMEL

Attorney General of Wisconsin

DOUG PETERSON

Attorney General of Nebraska

MIKE HUNTER

Attorney General ofOklahoma

SEAN REYES

Attorney General of Utah

LESLIE RUTLEDGE

Attorney General of Arkansas

KEN PAXTON

Attorney General of Texas

JEFFREY C. MATEER

First Assistant Attorney General

BRANTLEY D. STARR

Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

MICHAEL C. TOTH

Special Counsel to the First Assistant

Attorney General

AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS**

Associate Deputy Attorney General

/s/ Andrew D. Leonie

ANDREW D. LEONIE*

Associate Deputy Attorney General

Texas Bar No. 12216500

andrew.leonie@oag.texas.gov

DAVID J. HACKER**

Senior Counsel

JOEL STONEDALE

Counsel

Office of Special Litigation

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

P.O. Box 12548, Mail Code 009

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Tel: 512-936-1414

Fax: 512-936-0545

cites idso, matt ridley...

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/

Does Exxon Mobil have a constitutional right to sow doubt about climate science? That’s the subject of a high-stakes legal battle playing out between dozens of state attorneys general, members of Congress, corporate executives, and activists.

Last fall, investigations by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that the oil giant has decades of internal documents showing that its own scientists and executives knew fossil fuels contributed to climate change. Publicly, the company argued that the threats posed by global warming were far from certain, presumably as part of an effort to fight off regulation[doc]

...:{March 2000 Exxon Mobil ad about climate science. (Click here for a larger image.) :(style="box-sizing:inherit;font-weight:400"):}:Greenpeace

The revelations have sparked a barrage of legal actions. The attorney generals of Massachusetts, California, and New York launched investigations of Exxon, while Democratic AGs from other states have expressed their support. Some have drawn parallels to the tobacco industry’s deception on the dangers of smoking. Exxon has countered that the investigations are unconstitutional and has filed motions asking courts to block the subpoenas. “This…is about freedom of political speech,” the company recently argued in the Massachusetts case.

In March, US Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker served the company with a subpoena seeking records that he claimed might prove that Exxon had defrauded consumers and the government by “misrepresenting its knowledge” that its fossil fuels contribute to climate change. Walker specifically pointed to a state racketeering statute that prohibits obtaining money by false pretenses. He demanded any documents detailing Exxon’s knowledge of climate change and its strategies to address it, including research studies, publications, statements, and communications with outside groups. Exxon responded by filing a lawsuit against Walker to block the subpoena. Exxon prevailed on Wednesday, when Walker agreed to withdraw the subpoena.

Exxon received some unusual assistance in its victory in the Virgin Islands case. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a tea-party-aligned Republican, went so far as to formally intervene—that is, he asked the court to allow the state of Texas to become a party to the case. Exxon, he wrote, had a First Amendment right to withhold the documents Walker was seeking. The brief was also signed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange (R). (Paxton and Strange also objected to Walker’s use of a private law firm to help conduct the investigation.)

In a press conference in May, Paxton had called Walker’s investigation “a fishing expedition of the worst kind” and said it represented “an effort to punish Exxon for daring to hold opinions on climate change that differ from theirs.”

“This is about the criminalization of speech and the criminalization of thought,” he said.

Two days later, Republican members of the House Science Committee sent letters to Walker and 16 Democratic attorneys general requesting documents related to the various Exxon investigations. They followed up with additional letters in June.

no lnx grfx

https://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

Global Warming and Big Oil

Exxon's Sudden Shift

Strategic Decisions

About This Series

What Exxon knew aboutthe Earth's melting Arctic

By SARA JERVING, KATIE JENNINGS, MASAKO MELISSA HIRSCH AND SUSANNE RUST

OCT. 9, 2015

:{

}:

Back in 1990, as the debate over climate change was heating up, a dissident shareholder petitioned the board of Exxon, one of the world’s largest oil companies, imploring it to develop a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from its production plants and facilities.

:{

}:

The board’s response: Exxon had studied the science of global warming and concluded it was too murky to warrant action. The company’s “examination of the issue supports the conclusions that the facts today and the projection of future effects are very unclear.”

Yet in the far northern regions of Canada’s Arctic frontier, researchers and engineers at Exxon and Imperial Oil were quietly incorporating climate change projections into the company’s planning and closely studying how to adapt the company’s Arctic operations to a warming planet.

Ken Croasdale, senior ice researcher for Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary, was leading a Calgary-based team of researchers and engineers that was trying to determine how global warming could affect Exxon’s Arctic operations and its bottom line.

[Top, the loss of sea ice due to climate change has taken a toll on wildlife. (Mike Lockhart / U.S. Geological Survey, Associated Press) Bottom, rapidly thawing permafrost is changing the landscape in Canada’s Northwest Territories. (Scott Zolkos / The Canadian Press)]

“Certainly any major development with a life span of say 30-40 years will need to assess the impacts of potential global warming,” Croasdale told an engineering conference in 1991. “This is particularly true of Arctic and offshore projects in Canada, where warming will clearly affect sea ice, icebergs, permafrost and sea levels.”

Between 1986 and 1992, Croasdale’s team looked at both the positive and negative effects that a warming Arctic would have on oil operations, reporting its findings to Exxon headquarters in Houston and New Jersey.

The good news for Exxon, he told an audience of academics and government researchers in 1992, was that “potential global warming can only help lower exploration and development costs” in the Beaufort Sea.

But, he added, it also posed hazards, including higher sea levels and bigger waves, which could damage the company’s existing and future coastal and offshore infrastructure, including drilling platforms, artificial islands, processing plants and pump stations. And a thawing earth could be troublesome for those facilities as well as pipelines.

As Croasdale’s team was closely studying the impact of climate change on the company’s operations, Exxon and its worldwide affiliates were crafting a public policy position that sought to downplay the certainty of global warming.

The gulf between Exxon’s internal and external approach to climate change from the 1980s through the early 2000s was evident in a review of hundreds of internal documents, decades of peer-reviewed published material and dozens of interviews conducted by Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental Reporting Project and the Los Angeles Times.

Documents were obtained from the Imperial Oil collection at Calgary’s Glenbow Museum and the Exxon Mobil Historical Collection at the University of Texas at Austin’s Briscoe Center for American History.

“We considered climate change in a number of operational and planning issues,” said Brian Flannery, who was Exxon’s in-house climate science advisor from 1980 to 2011. In a recent interview, he described the company’s internal effort to study the effects of global warming as a competitive necessity: “If you don’t do it, and your competitors do, you’re at a loss.”

[Imperial Oil’s Dartmouth refinery in Halifax, Canada. Exxon Mobil owns about 70% of the company. (Andrew Vaughan / The Canadian Press, Associated Press)]

:{

}:

The Arctic holds about one-third of the world’s untapped natural gas and roughly 13% of the planet’s undiscovered oil, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. More than three-quarters of Arctic deposits are offshore.

Imperial Oil, about 70% of which is owned by Exxon Mobil, began drilling in the frigid Arctic waters of the Canadian Beaufort Sea in the early 1970s. By the early 1990s, it had drilled two dozen exploratory wells.

The exploration was expensive, due to bitter temperatures, wicked winds and thick sea ice. And when a worldwide oil slump drove petroleum prices down in the late 1980s, the company began scaling back those efforts.

[Changes in Arctic sea ice from 1984 to 2013

Before: Arctic ice coverage in 1984. After: Receding coverage in 2013.]

But with mounting evidence the planet was warming, company scientists, including Croasdale, wondered whether climate change might alter the economic equation. Could it make Arctic oil exploration and production easier and cheaper?

“The issue of CO2 emissions was certainly well-known at that time in the late 1980s,” Croasdale said in an interview.

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.

With company support, Croasdale spearheaded the company’s efforts to understand climate change’s effects on its Arctic operations. A company such as Exxon, he said, “should be a little bit ahead of the game trying to figure out what it was all about.”  [for compet purposes]

Exxon Mobil describes its efforts in those years as standard operating procedure. “Our researchers considered a wide range of potential scenarios, of which potential climate change impacts such as rising sea levels was just one,” said Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil.

The Arctic seemed an obvious region to study, Croasdale and other experts said, because it was likely to be most affected by global warming.

That reasoning was backed by models built by Exxon scientists,including Flannery, as well as Marty Hoffert, a New York University physicist. Their work, published in 1984, showed that global warming would be most pronounced near the poles.

Between 1986, when Croasdale took the reins of Imperial’s frontier research team, until 1992, when he left the company, his team of engineers and scientists used the global circulation models developed by the Canadian Climate Centre and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies to anticipate how climate change could affect a variety of operations in the Arctic.

These were the same models that — for the next two decades — Exxon’s executives publicly dismissed as unreliable and based on uncertain science. As Chief Executive Lee Raymond explained at an annual meeting in 1999, future climate “projections are based on completely unproven climate models, or, more often, on sheer speculation.”

One of the first areas the company looked at was how the Beaufort Sea could respond to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which the models predicted would happen by 2050.

Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” Croasdale told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact,” he said, nor did anyone doubt those levels would double by the middle of the 21st century.

:{

}:

Using the models and data from a climate change report issued by Environment Canada, Canada’s environmental agency, the team concluded that the Beaufort Sea’s open water season — when drilling and exploration occurred — would lengthen from two months to three and possibly five months.

They were spot on.

[Seismic lines are used to detect natural gas and other underground deposits on the frozen Beaufort Sea. (Tom Cohen / Associated Press)]

In the years following Croasdale’s conclusions, the Beaufort Sea has experienced some of the largest losses in sea ice in the Arctic and its open water season has increased significantly,according to Mark Serreze, a senior researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.

For instance, in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, west of the Beaufort, the season has been extended by 79 days since 1979, Serreze said.

An extended open water season, Croasdale said in 1992, could potentially reduce exploratory drilling and construction costs by 30% to 50%.

[Members of the environmental group Greenpeace work to hang a banner protesting oil drilling at the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.’s Valdez, Alaska terminal, on August 5, 1991. (Carey Anderson / Associated Press)]

He did not recommend making investment decisions based on those scenarios, because he believed the science was still uncertain. However, he advised the company to consider and incorporatepotential “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.

::

The most pressing concerns for the company centered on a 540-mile pipeline that crossed the Northwest Territories into Alberta, its riverside processing facilities in the remote town of Norman Wells, and a proposed natural gas facility and pipeline in the Mackenzie River Delta, on the shores of the Beaufort Sea.

The company hired Stephen Lonergan, a Canadian geographer from McMaster University, to study the effect of climate change there.

Lonergan used several climate models in his analysis, including the NASA model. They all concluded that things would get warmer and wetter and that those effects “cannot be ignored,” he said in his report.

As a result, the company should expect “maintenance and repair costs to roads, pipelines and other engineering structures” to be sizable in the future, he wrote.

A warmer Arctic would threaten the stability of permafrost, he noted, potentially damaging the buildings, processing plants and pipelines that were built on the solid, frozen ground.

In addition, the company should expect more flooding along its riverside facilities, an earlier spring breakup of the ice pack, and more-severe summer storms.

But it was the increased variability and unpredictability of the weather that was going to be the company’s biggest challenge, he said.

Record-breaking droughts, floods and extreme heat — the worst-case scenarios — were now events that not only were likely to happen, but could occur at any time, making planning for such scenarios difficult, Lonergan warned the company in his report. Extreme temperatures and precipitation “should be of greatest concern,” he wrote, “both in terms of future design and … expected impacts.”

The fact that temperatures could rise above freezing on almost any day of the year got his superiors’ attention. That “was probably one of the biggest results of the study and that shocked a lot of people,” he said in a recent interview.

Lonergan recalled that his report came as somewhat of a disappointment to Imperial’s management, which wanted specific advice on what action it should take to protect its operations. After presenting his findings, he remembered, one engineer said: “Look, all I want to know is: Tell me what impact this is going to have on permafrost in Norman Wells and our pipelines.”

As it happened, J.F. “Derick” Nixon, a geotechnical engineer on Croasdale’s team, was studying that question.

He looked at historical temperature data and concluded Norman Wells could grow about 0.2 degrees warmer every year. How would that, he wondered, affect the frozen ground underneath buildings and pipelines?

“Although future structures may incorporate some consideration of climatic warming in their design,” he wrote in a technical paper delivered at a conference in Canada in 1991, “northern structures completed in the recent past do not have any allowance for climatic warming.” The result, he said, could be significant settling.

Nixon said the work was done in his spare time and not commissioned by the company. However, Imperial “was certainly aware of my work and the potential effects on their buildings.”

::

Exxon Mobil declined to respond to requests for comment on what steps it took as a result of its scientists’ warnings. According to Flannery, the company’s in-house climate expert, much of the work of shoring up support for the infrastructure was done as routine maintenance.

“You build it into your ongoing system and it becomes a part of what you do,” he said.

Today, as Exxon’s scientists predicted 25 years ago, Canada’s Northwest Territories has experienced some of the most dramatic effects of global warming. While the rest of the planet has seen an average increase of roughly 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years, the northern reaches of the province have warmed by 5.4 degrees and temperatures in central regions have increased by 3.6 degrees.

Since 2012, Exxon Mobil and Imperial have held the rights to more than 1 million acres in the Beaufort Sea, for which they bid $1.7 billion in a joint venture with BP. Although the companies have not begun drilling, they requested a lease extension until 2028 from the Canadian government a few months ago. Exxon Mobil declined to comment on its plans there.

Croasdale said the company could be “taking a gamble” the ice will break up soon, finally bringing about the day he predicted so long ago — when the costs would become low enough to make Arctic exploration economical.

Amy Lieberman and Elah Feder contributed to this report.

About this story: Over the last year, the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, with the Los Angeles Times, has been researching the gap between Exxon Mobil’s public position and its internal planning on the issue of climate change. As part of that effort, reporters reviewed hundreds of documents housed in archives in Calgary’s Glenbow Museum and at the University of Texas. They also reviewed scientific journals and interviewed dozens of experts, including former Exxon Mobil employees. This is the first in a series of occasional articles.

The Energy and Environmental Reporting Project is supported by the Energy Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Fund, Lorana Sullivan Foundation and the Tellus Mater Foundation. The funders have no involvement in or influence over the articles produced by project fellows in collaboration with The Times.

Get more details on the project, including its funding >>

2x?

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08072015/email-shows-exxon-was-studying-its-climate-impact-80s

Exxon scientists studied the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on global warming as far back as 1981, an indication that the company was probing the industry's potential contribution to climate change much earlier than previously reported.

Exxon's early research into climate change was revealed in a 2014 email from a former company scientist that was uncovered by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). It was shared as part of a broader project,The Climate Deception Dossiers, published Wednesday, that traces campaigns by fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, to discredit the impact of industry on the planet's warming. The company's early awareness of climate change and willingness to factor it into business decisions starkly contrasts with the path it took a decade later, when it led efforts to cloud public understanding of climate science and delay action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.

Exxon's research in 1981 was initiated to help corporate planning, according to the email by Leonard S. Bernstein, the former employee. The research apparently was instrumental in Exxon's decision not to develop a major natural gas field in Asia. The field, called Natuna, contains a vast natural gas reservoir but it also contains a sizable amount of carbon dioxide, according to Bernstein.

"If Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions," wrote Bernstein in an email to his son, Neil, a classics professor at Ohio University.

"In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna [the gas field] and other potential projects," Bernstein wrote. "They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness." Neil Bernstein shared his father's email with a colleague who then posted it to the website of the university's Institute for Applied & Professional Ethics.

In the email Bernstein wrote that whatever the public stance of natural resource companies, "internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations." He added that: "Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question––legitimately, in my opinion––the validity of some of the science."

Usually energy companies vent the carbon dioxide released in drilling fields like Natuna into the air, Bernstein wrote. The email indicates that early research by Exxon into CO2's contribution to climate change apparently was one reason the company put off exploring Natuna. The difficulty and expense of disposing of the carbon dioxide has kept the Natuna project dormant since then, said Gautam Sudhakar, director of global gas at IHS, an industry consultancy.

Ten years after Exxon began its assessment of the Natuna field's potential impact on the atmosphere, the company became a driving force in industry organizations committed to derailing American participation in the 1997 Kyoto protocol, a landmark international treaty that called for developed countries such as the United States to combat global warming by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. At the time those organizations argued that climate science was too uncertain to underpin sweeping efforts to cut emissions. Exxon also became a generous funder of conservative think tanks and scientists, such as Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon, that sowed public doubt about global warming.

A scientist at Exxon for 20 years until his departure in 1989, Bernstein went to Mobil where he wrote a 1996 primer on climate science for the Global Climate Coalition, an advocacy group for the fossil fuel industry. In it he urged members to focus on scientific uncertainty rather than use arguments popular among climate deniers, such as the effect of solar activity on the climate. Exxon lobbyist and environmental adviser Arthur G. "Randy" Randol III was a key member of the 1998American Petroleum Institute-led "Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan," which determined that"victory will be achieved when those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality."

In an email, Bernstein declined to comment.

Richard Keil, a spokesman for ExxonMobil, said that Exxon's involvement in groups that sought to slow or halt action on climate change was not a reversal of course from the company's early interest in the issue. Rather, it was an acknowledgement of the uncertainty around much of the science, he said.

"A full reading of Bernstein's email reveals an important point––his assertion that, in the 1980s, we never denied the possible role of human activity as a cause for climate change, and he further makes clear that, at that point in time, there was a great deal of uncertainty and lack of understanding of climate change, even among leading scientists and experts," said Keil, adding that today, Exxon "believes the risk of climate change is clear, and warrants action."

Yet ExxonMobilhas consistently fought off shareholder resolutions to do more on climate change, most recently a proposal to set company-wide standards to cut greenhouse gas emissions.  In May, Exxon Chief Executive Rex Tillersoncriticized climate models and said humans will adapt to the strains of global warming.

Nancy Cole, UCS's campaign director for climate and energy, said companies such as Exxon need to take a more constructive course. "The deception simply must stop," she said. "It's time for major carbon companies to become part of the solution."

==

heritage circled the wagons when AG Mass and NY went after Exxon knew,  CEI, claimed 1st amend (also pac leg)

==

best on exxon legal at least:  https://insideclimatenews.org/tags/exxon-climate-change-investigation

==

https://www.commondreams.org/news/:{2017/08/23:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:/harvard-study-confirms-exxonknew-and-misled-public-about-climate-threat-decades#

...

peer-reviewed study published on Wednesday confirmed "a discrepancy between what ExxonMobil's scientists and executives discussed about climate change privately and in academic circles, and what it presented to the general public."

"Even while ExxonMobil scientists were contributing to climate science and writing reports that explained it to their bosses, the company was paying for advertisements that told a very different tale."

—Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, Harvard researchers

"ExxonMobil contributed quietly to the science and loudly to raising doubts about it," wrote Harvard researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes in their study, published in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters.

"Even while ExxonMobil scientists were contributing to climate science and writing reports that explained it to their bosses, the company was paying for advertisements that told a very different tale," they concluded in a New York Times op-edon Tuesday.

"Exxon has officially run out of excuses," said Greenpeace USA climate liability campaigner Naomi Ages. "This peer-reviewed study from Harvard is just the latest piece of evidence indicating that the largest oil company in the world knew about the risks of climate change, but concealed them from the public and shareholders."

The study confirmed findings from 2015 reports by *InsideClimate News* and The Los Angeles Times, which claimed the company had long known about the risks of climate change but publicly denied them, and triggered probes by the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In their New YorkTimes op-ed, the researchers note that they were pushed to undertake their study by ExxonMobil's response to the 2015 reports:

The company responded that the allegations were false and "deliberately cherry-picked," and that anyone who looked into the matter would see that. "Read the documents," the company said, "and make up your own mind." A year ago we took up this challenge. We have read all of the documents, analyzed them according to established social science methods, and made up our minds.... Our findings are clear: Exxon Mobil misled the public about the state of climate science and its implications.

Supran and Oreskes examined 187 climate change-related communications from ExxonMobil between 1977 and 2014, including peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal communications, as well as paid, editorial-style advertisements, or "advertorials," published by the New York Times.

They observed that ExxonMobil's Timesadvertorials "included several instances of explicit factual misrepresentation," and "overwhelmingly emphasized only the uncertainties, promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil's own."

AfterLos Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik wrote about the study, ExxonMobil emailed him comment, calling its findings "inaccurate and preposterous."

"ExxonMobil acknowledges the risk of climate change is clear and warrants action," the statement said, asserting that the study "was paid for, written and published by activists leading a five-year campaign against the company."

Supran and Oreskes note in the study's acknowledgments their research was paid for by the Harvard University Faculty Development Funds and the Rockefeller Family Fund, and state they "have no other relevant financial ties and declare no conflicts of interest."

Oreskes further told Mother Jones that ExxonMobil's messaging adapts as its past positions become discredited, but that the company still sticks to its old habits of sowing doubt among members of the public.

"They are promoting a different kind of doubt," she said. "It's a doubt that says, 'There's climate change, but we have to still use fossil fuels because there's no alternative,'" Oreskes explained, stressing that there are alternatives (as outlined in Bill McKibben's recentIn These Times cover story).

Climate activists, politicians, and journalists praised the study online, and called for the company—and its former CEO, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson—to be held accountable:

...

==

ref

Environmental Research Letters

LETTER • THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS OPEN ACCESS • THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS FEATURED ARTICLE

Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014)

Geoffrey Supran1 and Naomi Oreskes

Published 23 August 2017 • © 2017 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd

Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 8

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f/pdf

Abstract This paper assesses whether ExxonMobil Corporation has in the past misled the general public about climate change. We present an empirical document-by-document textual content analysis and comparison of 187 climate change communications from ExxonMobil, including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications, internal company documents, and paid, editorial-style advertisements (‘advertorials’) in The New York Times. We examine whether these communications sent consistent messages about the state of climate science and its implications—specifically, we compare their positions on climate change as real, human-caused, serious, and solvable. In all four cases, we find that as documents become more publicly accessible, they increasingly communicate doubt. This discrepancy is most pronounced between advertorials and all other documents. For example, accounting for expressions of reasonable doubt, 83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt. We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science—by way of its scientists’ academic publications—but promoted doubt about it in advertorials. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public. Our content analysis also examines ExxonMobil’s discussion of the risks of stranded fossil fuel assets. We find the topic discussed and sometimes quantified in 24 documents of various types, but absent from advertorials. Finally, based on the available documents, we outline ExxonMobil’s strategic approach to climate change research and communication, which helps to contextualize our findings.

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122017/exxon-investor-fraud-2017-year-review-climate-change-investigation-tillerson-new-york-attorney-general

stalemate? change?

Like schoolyard fisticuffs at recess, the fight between ExxonMobil and the attorney general of New York has been playing out contentiously in courtrooms, legal briefs and public statements for more than a year.

Exxon lawyer Ted Wells once described New York prosecutor Eric Schneiderman's investigation into whether the oil giant mislead investors about climate risks as a politically inspired "witch hunt." After Exxon went to federal court to block Schneiderman's investigation, the attorney general's spokesman, Eric Soufer, retorted that Exxon's motion was "stunt litigation."

That tense rhetoric typified the simmering contempt between the adversaries ever since Schneiderman opened his investigation of the oil giant in 2015, shortly after InsideClimate News published an account of Exxon's knowledge of climate risks since the late 1970's. If anything, it grew more intense in 2017 as it became known that former Exxon Chief Executive Rex Tillerson, now the U.S. secretary of state, had sent emails under the alias "Wayne Tracker" and some of those emails were missing.

But even as the investigation expanded to include documents of Exxon's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, the clamor surrounding the climate fraud investigation waned in recent months.

The name-calling has ceased, the derision has tempered and the indignation has chilled—at least in the public arena.

As the year drew toward a close, Exxon suddenly promised to improve its reporting of climate risks to shareholders. Formally, this was a concession to the managers of New York State's pension funds, a big shareholder. But it can also be seen as a concession to Schneiderman—maybe even a prelude to a settlement.

Facing Uncertainty and Rising Costs 

What does this signal? A truce? A reevaluation of the investigation? Settlement talks?

Exxon and Schneiderman may have gone to their neutral corners to evaluate the status of the investigation and the path and pitfalls of moving forward, said David Shapiro, an assistant professor of public management at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

"It may just be that both sides are taking a time-out to see if there is a way out," he said. "They may be looking for a way to claim victory to their respective sides; so that when you pick up the newspaper you see both the Exxon and the AGs respectively saying they won the fight."It's that uncertainty that may have both sides assessing how to bring the investigation to a conclusion without investing millions in the fight, slogging through the courts for years and facing the disconcerting potential of losing in the end, said Shapiro, a forensic accountant and former FBI agent who specialized in financial crimes.

It's not unusual for cases like this to end up in a settlement, as happened with another big fossil fuel company, Peabody, at about the same time the Exxon probe was made public. The settlement negotiated by Schneiderman's office two years ago demanded the coal giant make more detailed disclosures to investors about the financial risks the company faces from climate matters, a keystone issue of the Exxon investigation.

Against a Backdrop of Legal Setbacks

Until recently, as the Exxon case wended its way forward, there were few signs of compromise.

"This is not a normal investigation," Wells, the attorney for Exxon, told Justice Barry R. Ostrager in a New York courtroom in June. "It is a political witch hunt. That's what it is. They cannot clear Exxon. The Attorney General cannot be in a position of clearing the largest fossil fuel oil company in the world. They know it. I know it."

The new silence comes against the backdrop of a string of legal setbacks for Exxon:

In the Hands of a Federal Judge

Exxon and Schneiderman may simply be biting their tongues out of practicality, said Michael Gerrard, a law professor and director of Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

The fate of Schneiderman's and Healey's investigations is in the hands of a federal judge in New York, who has been weighing Exxon's arguments for shutting down the probes since April and appears set to rule early in 2018.

"It seems to be plausible that while the judge is actively considering the future of the investigation neither side wants to make a misstep that would adversely affect them in the federal case," Gerrard said.

There may be other reasons for Exxon not wanting to create waves that extend beyond the courtroom, said Joel Schwartz, a former federal prosecutor who worked on the prosecution of the tobacco industry.

The company may be thinking that a low profile is the best tactic to preserve its credibility so it can maintain its legitimacy to influence domestic policy and regulatory matters, as well as keeping its place near the head of the table mapping the international energy pathway.

"If they are exposed as hiding the ball on climate change, they risk losing their voice on the energy agenda going forward," he said.

==

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122017/exxon-climate-change-disclosure-state-investor-fraud-investigations-court-documents

ExxonMobil's recent announcement that it will strengthen its climate risk disclosure is now playing into the oil giant's prolonged federal court battle over state investigations into whether it misled shareholders.

In a new court filing late Thursday, Attorney General Maura Healey of Massachusetts, one of two states investigating the company, argued that Exxon's announcement amounted to an admission that the company had previously failed to sufficiently disclose the impact climate change was having on its operations.

Healey's 24-page filing urged U.S. District Court Judge Valerie E. Caproni to dismiss Exxon's 18-month legal campaign to block investigations by her office and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's.

Exxonagreed last week to disclose in more detail its climate risks after facing pressure from investors. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, it wrote that those enhanced disclosures will include "energy demand sensitivities, implications of 2 degree Celsius scenarios, and positioning for a lower-carbon future."

Healey and her staff of attorneys seized on that SEC filing to suggest it added weight to the state's investigation of Exxon.

"This filing makes clear that, at a minimum, Exxon's prior disclosures to investors, including Massachusetts investors, may not have adequately accounted for the effect of climate change on its business and assets," Healey's filing states.

This is the latest round of legal maneuvering that erupted last year in the wake of subpoenas to Exxon by the two attorneys general. They want to know how much of what Exxon knew about climate change was disclosed to shareholders and potential investors.

Coming at a point thatthe once fiery rhetoric between Exxon and the attorneys general appears to be cooling, it nonetheless keeps pressure on the oil giant.

Exxon has until Jan. 12 to file replies with the court.

In the documents filed Thursday, Healey and Schneiderman argue that Exxon's attempt to derail their climate fraud investigations is a "baseless federal counter attack" and should be stopped in its tracks.

"Exxon has thus attempted to shift the focus away from its own conduct—whether Exxon, over the course of nearly 40 years, misled Massachusetts investors and consumers about the role of Exxon products in causing climate change, and the impacts of climate change on Exxon's business—to its chimerical theory that Attorney General Healey issued the CID (civil investigative demand) to silence and intimidate Exxon," the Massachusetts filing states.

Exxon maintains the investigations are an abuse of prosecutorial authority and encroach on Exxon's right to express its own opinion in the climate change debate.

Schneiderman scoffs at Exxon's protests, noting in his 25-page filing that Exxon has freely acknowledged since 2006 there are significant risks associated with rising greenhouse gas emissions.

"These public statements demonstrate that, far from being muzzled, Exxon regularly engages in corporate advocacy concerning climate change," Schneiderman's filing states.

The additional written arguments had been requested by Caproni and signal that the judge may be nearing a ruling.

PUBLISHED UNDER:

BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

OIL/TAR SANDS

EXXON CLIMATE

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12122017/exxon-climate-risk-disclosure-sec-shareholder-investigation-pressure

==

copied from shareholder revolt:

seems odd to cave?

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12122017/exxon-climate-risk-disclosure-sec-shareholder-investigation-pressure

Under pressure from investors, prosecutors and global regulators, ExxonMobil Corp. agreed on Monday to strengthen its analysis and disclosure of the risks its core oil business faces from climate change and from government efforts to rein in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.

That will require Exxon to face squarely the implications of reduced oil demand if the world makes good on the pledges of the Paris climate agreement to cut carbon emissions practically to zero fast enough to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

In a one-paragraph filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the oil giant said it would stop resisting motions filed by dissident shareholders seeking this kind of risk disclosure. Over the past few years, more shareholders have sided with the dissidents, who have included descendants of the founding Rockefeller family, faith and social progress groups and important financial institutions. Earlier this year, 62 percent of shareholders voted for Exxon to annually report climate risk.

Specifically, Exxon dropped its opposition to a shareholder proposal filed Nov. 28 by New York's state pension fund. The proposal asks Exxon to analyze how the Paris goal of keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels will affect its business and to assess the financial risks associated with that 2-degree scenario.

"Exxon's decision demonstrates that investors have the power to hold corporations accountable and to compel them to address our very real climate-related concerns," said New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, who oversees the nation's third-largest public pension plan, with $192 billion in assets.

"We will continue to monitor Exxon's response to climate change as we urge the company, and others in the energy sector, to find ways that they can adapt to the growing lower carbon economy," DiNapoli said.

Exxon told the SEC that it "will seek to issue these disclosures in the near future. These enhancements will include energy demand sensitivities, implications of two degree Celsius scenarios, and positioning for a lower-carbon future."

Shareholders Want More Details

Tim Smith, senior vice president of Boston-based Walden Asset Management, praised Exxon's decision to drop its public opposition to the shareholder request but noted that its SEC statement was short, "unusual" and thin on details about how Exxon would follow through.

...

The day before President Trump made his decision to pull the U.S. out of the landmark Paris climate accord, ExxonMobil reluctantly crossed a climate threshold.

A majority of shareholders, over 62 percent, voted in favor of America’s biggest oil company releasing detailed analyses of the risks that climate change poses to its business.

Having previously argued that sufficient information is already being provided, CEO Darren Woods relented far enough to say that Exxon would “take the vote seriously [and] will respond to that feedback and look for opportunities” to communicate. Woods did not, however, agree to produce a requested report.

...

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/06/08/window-dressing-exxon-reluctantly-crosses-climate-threshold

==

1/17 exxon

Avery has served on the United Nations Secretary General's scientific advisory board, which provides advice on science, technology and innovation for sustainable development. She also had been associated with the National Research Council Global Change Research Program Advisory Committee, and advisory committees with NASA, NOAA, and the National Science Foundation.

Over the last two years, Exxon has opposed shareholder resolutions calling for a board member with a scientific and climate change background.  The company had urged shareholders to reject the proposals under the leadership of Tillerson, who is poised to be confirmed as secretary of state as soon as next week....

==

https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-refinery-catches-fire-2505402070.html

Exxon Refinery Catches Fire Day After Government Settles Over Pollution From Other Gulf Plants

By Julie Dermansky

Early morning skies Wednesday in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, were alight from a fire that started around 2:30 a.m. at an ExxonMobil refinery. The blaze, though contained before the sun came up, is a reminder to the surrounding community of yet another danger of living next to refineries and chemical plants.

Exxon's refinery is located along the stretch of Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans known as "Cancer Alley" due to the high number of chemical plants and refineries—and illnesses possibly connected to emissions—along the river's banks.

Exxon issued a statement to CBS affiliate WAFB while the fire smoldered, saying the community was not impacted by emissions from the refinery fire and that air quality readings were "below detectable limits."

Mary Lee Orr, executive director of The Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), questions the possibility of making such a determination so fast. Her group has been working with Cancer Alley communities, helping to reduce their exposure to pollution from the area's oil and petrochemical industry.

Exxon's Baton Rouge refinery is adjacent to one of the company's eight facilities named in a settlement reached with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and announced Oct. 31.

Last year LEAN filed a lawsuit against an Exxon chemical facility in Baton Rouge, next to the refinery that caught on fire Wednesday. That suit alleges the facility has been violating the Clean Air Act by failing to report pollution releases correctly. Lisa Jordan, director of Tulane University's Environmental Legal Clinic and representing LEAN in this case, said it is too early to say how the recent agreement between the federal government and Exxon will impact their own case. Jordan said LEAN's case encompasses a broader range of issues than those in the one recently settled.

According to the DOJ, the settlement "resolves allegations that ExxonMobil violated the Clean Air Act by failing to properly operate and monitor industrial flares at their petrochemical facilities, which resulted in excess emissions of harmful air pollution."

It requires Exxon to install and operate air pollution control and monitoring technology to reduce air pollution from 26 industrial flares at five facilities in Texas and three in Louisiana, at a cost of about $300 million. In addition, the company must pay a civil penalty of $2.5 million.

Some environmental groups have described the fines as a slap on the wrist, but LEAN'S technical adviser Wilma Subra believes the settlement is substantial. "The amount of money to be spent on air pollution improvements is a positive step in the right direction," she told me.

However, Subra is concerned that the air pollution monitoring devices in the agreement will only monitor benzene, which is known to cause cancer. In her view, Exxon should be required to monitor a whole host of other potentially harmful chemicals it is emitting.

The instances of pollution cited in the recently settled suit do not include emissions from any of Exxon's Texas facilities affected by Hurricane Harvey. Subra pointed out that the pollution incidents at Texas refineries and chemical facilities following the hurricane show that industry has no method for controlling pollution when hurricanes hit, something she hopes industry will change soon.

Exxon's Baytown, Texas, operation was among the eight industrial facilities included in the recent settlement. It was also one of the plants that reported pollution releases due to Hurricane Harvey. In this case, the refinery's roof sank due to the storm's heavy rains, which resulted in the release of hazardous gases—including volatile organic compounds and benzene above permitted levels, according to the New York Times.

Or also sees the agreement between Exxon and the Trump administration as a positive step toward protecting Cancer Alley communities. But "sadly, in the short term, the agreement won't help the community," she told me. "It will take time to implement the new pollution reduction devices."

And though EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated that "this agreement shows, EPA is dedicated to partnering with states to address critical environmental issues and improving compliance in the regulated community to prevent future violations of the law," the agency under Trump has been racing to undo its previous work. Recently Pruitt announced a measure to repeal former President Barack Obama's EPA policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, a plan Trump's EPA has concluded would have substantial health benefits.

:{

}:

Furthermore, a list of potential names for the agency's Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee includes a sizable increase in industry representatives and consultants, as reported by the Intercept. On that list are two scientists who have worked for Exxon, indicating the oil and gas giant could have greater influence over EPA science and policies in the future.

==

omg why?

https://www.ecowatch.com/disappointing-backwards-step-critics-blast-u-s-exit-from-global-oil-gas-anti-corruption-effort-2505846330.html

...Bloomberg reported that the withdrawal comes after the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. lobbied against a similar regulation compelling U.S. energy and mining companies to disclose those payments, which President Donald Trump rolled back earlier this year.

"It's pretty disgraceful for the United States," Jana Morgan, director of Publish What You Pay, a coalition that urges financial transparency in the extractive industry, told Bloomberg. "Chinese state-owned oil companies and Russian state-owned oil companies" are disclosing payments.

"So you literally have American companies that are less transparent than Russian and Chinese state-owned enterprises," she said.

Democrats also criticized the decision. The Hill reported that the U.S. joined the agreement in 2011 after a joint effort from Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and former Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)....

==

ICN portal

https://insideclimatenews.org/content/choke-hold

This yearlong investigation explores the ways the fossil fuel industry has fought to protect its central role in providing America's energy. Each Choke Hold article examines one particular front in the industry's battle to block stronger environmental regulation and action on climate change—its litigation fights, campaign contributions, public relations, control over science and more. Together these articles tell the story of the fossil fuel industry's inordinate influence across society.

eg 10/17

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05062017/exxon-climate-change-fraud-investigation-eric-schneiderman-rex-tillerson-exxonmobil

Ted Wells, one of the nation's most prominent litigators for big corporations, was about to win again as he sat with his team in a Dallas courtroom last fall, representing ExxonMobil. U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade looked their way and joked, "Y'all have 300 lawyers on your side."

Wells, 66, had come before Kinkeade to thwart fraud investigations launched by the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts, who are looking into whether the mammoth oil company has misled investors and the public for years about the dangers of climate change.

Kinkeade, with his folksy joshing and pointed comments, made little secret of his sympathies. He kidded that his horse was tied up outside and he might need an interpreter to pierce the Boston accent of the Massachusetts counsel. He wondered aloud if those Northern officials would be as worried about the climate if their states had as much oil as his native Texas. "I'm just saying, think about it."

A little more than three weeks later, he handed Exxon a major victory, ruling that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey may have acted in "bad faith." Some legal scholars said the order could give Wells unprecedented license to try to prove that Healey was part of a conspiracy to silence Exxon in the debate over climate policy.

The investigators had suddenly become the investigated, a striking example of a legal strategy of massive resistance to any effort to hold Exxon accountable for global warming or harm to the environment. The message from Exxon, delivered by Wells and his army of lawyers: Mess with us at your peril.

"It's a decision they make based on hard numbers," she said in an interview.Exxon is not alone. Its defiant stance is typical of the fossil fuel industry's fight against stronger government oversight and efforts to protect public health. Fossil fuel corporations doggedly battle lawsuits, regulations and investigations, because it allows them to continue pumping oil, mining coal and fracturing for natural gas—and banking the profits—even if sometime later there will be a reckoning, said Christine Todd Whitman, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush.

Wells pursued a similar course years ago, when he represented Philip Morris against government charges that it hid the health dangers of smoking. The tobacco industry eventually lost and paid dearly, but its long war of attrition bought time.

The Exxon case took an unexpected detour in late March, when Kinkeade, perhaps recognizing that he was on thin ice because the alleged conspiracy hadn't taken place within his jurisdiction, transferred the case to federal court in New York. The company starts over with a new judge, Valerie Caproni, who signaled she is less sympathetic to its arguments than Kinkeade was.

Still, there will be more filings and motions and more costly delay for Healey and a coalition of state attorneys general who announced more than a year ago their intention to take on the fossil fuel industry over its role in climate change.

Wells and Exxon declined to comment for this article.

A review of their fight against the attorneys general shows how tenacious—some opponents say ruthless—Exxon can be:

This article is the first of a series examining the formidable power the fossil fuel industry deploys across society to protect its interests. It fights adversaries as small as a family in Louisiana suing over a natural gas pipeline that polluted their property and as large as the federal government, with its rules aimed at reducing carbon emissions nationwide. The industry sowed doubt for decades about climate science, spending $2.9 billion on advocacy advertising alone in a 10-year period ending in 2015. It spent $1.3 billion more lobbying to shape public policy on energy issues during the same period and has pumped out $827.9 million in campaign contributions since 2000 to elect sympathetic officials at the local, state and federal levels.

In an ironic twist, industry backers, who typically declare devotion to free markets, have sought to weaken or even ban competition from other sources of energy. A bill authored by coal supporters in Wyoming would have forbidden electricity from wind power in the state. Solar power is a frequent target of efforts to add surcharges to make it less affordable.

The industry is exercising its influence at a particularly delicate moment. Climate change is accelerating and global momentum has grown to deal with the crisis, culminating in last year's landmark Paris Agreement. But the U.S. elected a new president, Donald Trump, who has signaled solidarity with the industry and yanked the United States out of the Paris accord. The president has branded climate change a hoax and installed officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and other key departments dedicated to expanding fossil fuel production and undoing Obama-era efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

And the man at the center of the investigation by the attorneys general, Exxon's Tillerson, is now Secretary of State, a post giving him authority over climate diplomacy.

From Fanfare to Rounds of Legal Warfare

With great fanfare, New York's Schneiderman announced the formation of AGs United for Clean Power in March 2016. The coalition was formed after investigative articles first by InsideClimate News and later the Los Angeles Times disclosed that Exxon learned from its own scientists about the consequences of climate change as early as 1977, but chose to curtail its research and eventually worked to deny the findings....

no link rest img

...The attorneys general, Schneiderman said at a news conference, were "dedicated to coming up with creative ways to enforce laws being flouted by the fossil fuel industry and their allies in their short-sighted efforts to put profits above the interests of the American people and the integrity of our financial markets."

Healey said, "Fossil fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change should be, must be held accountable." Exxon would later charge that those comments indicated Healey had prejudged the outcome of her investigation.

At their side were five other attorneys general and staff representing 10 more, from California to Rhode Island. Former Vice President Al Gore added star power to the assembly.

Despite the showy news conference, the attorneys general were unprepared for what was to come, and they made tactical errors at the start that gave Exxon ammunition for its counter-attack. David Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor and former director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, said the group had too little understanding of each member's commitment. And they allowed the tiny Virgin Islands a prominent role that turned out to be a mistake, he said.

The morning of their news conference, the attorneys general met privately with climate activists, handing Justin Anderson, one of Exxon's lawyers, an opening to argue to Kinkeade that the coalition, all Democrats, was abusing the law enforcement system to seek a political goal. Kinkeade later seized on that argument, asking why the attorneys general wouldn't want to assure the public that their actions "lacked political motivation and were in fact about the pursuit of justice."

Eric Soufer, a spokesman for Schneiderman, said engaging a variety of sources is part of the investigative process. "Like all prosecutors' offices, we speak with a diverse array of stakeholders on a range of matters, all the time," he said. "It's part of our job."

[Bio: Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey]

Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said he briefed the attorneys general at the meeting on Exxon's "deception and the impact of climate change that might have been averted if they had taken action."

At the press conference, Attorney General Claude Walker of the Virgin Islands stood defiantly at the lectern and announced the fight was on with Exxon.

"It could be David and Goliath, the Virgin Islands against a huge corporation, but we will not stop until we get to the bottom of this," Walker said. He soon issued sweeping subpoenas to Exxon and the Competitive Enterprise Institute,a libertarian think tank aligned with and heavily financed by the industry.

Exxon and CEI almost immediately started filing a series of motions to have the subpoenas dismissed. They didn't play defense for long. Within weeks they filed lawsuits of their own against Walker, alleging he was violating their First Amendment right to disagree with the prevailing scientific consensus that climate change is overwhelmingly driven by burning fossil fuels.

Faced with a legal battle that might go on for years and the concern that losing an early round could undermine the larger investigations by New York and Massachusetts, Walker withdrew his subpoena of CEI and suspended his investigation of Exxon.

Sam Kazman, the general counsel for CEI,said Trump's election and his installation of Scott Pruitt, a climate change denier, as head of the EPA show that Schneiderman and the other members of what Kazman called "AGs United for More Power," badly misinterpreted the national attitude on the issue. "It's hard for Schneiderman to conclude that we were deceived when that skepticism is shared by the EPA under the new administration," he said.

Neither Walker nor lawyers representing the Virgin Islands would discuss the case or its dismissal. Donna Christensen, a St. Croix resident who served 18 years as the islands' non-voting representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, said the territory relies on Congress for much of its budget.

"We are in a very fragile financial situation," she said. "We don't need to make any enemies."

In retrospect, said Michael Gerrard, who teaches climate law at Columbia Law School, the coalition had started a fight that was far greater than some were prepared to wage.

Graphic: AG's United for Clean Power

Exxon initially cooperated with New York, surrendering more than two million pages of records. But the company balked at a documents request from Healey and took its argument to Kinkeade, who allowed Exxon to question attorneys general and climate activists in its search for evidence of a conspiracy.

When Kinkeade, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, sent the case to New York, he laid out Exxon's allegations in detail, presumably a road map for his successor to follow.  But Caproni, appointed by President Barack Obama, said at a hearing, "I have a different view of this case than Judge Kinkeade." When one of Exxon's lawyers sought a discovery order like the one Kinkeade granted to allow the company to try to prove that the attorneys general were improperly colluding, Caproni shut him down. "Gimme a break," she said.

Carroll Muffett, president and chief executive of the nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law, was one of those subpoenaed by Exxon.

"I knew from the very beginning that Exxon would eventually come after us hard and it would be a dirty fight," Muffett said. "They are fabricating conspiracy theories to deflect attention from the truth."

Bio: U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund, philanthropic organizations that promote environmental causes among their numerous programs, also were the targets of Exxon subpoenas. Both organizations are among donors that support ICN.

To defend itself, Exxon argued in the subpoena that it needed to know whether Muffett's and other non-governmental organizations influenced the attorneys general's decisions to open investigations.

That legal strategy prompted Sarah Labowitz, a New York University scholar who served nearly three years on Exxon's External Citizenship Advisory Panel, to resign.

Labowitz, who until recently was co-director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at the NYU Stern School of Business, said she had enough when the company went after Muffett and others unrelated to the two state investigations.

"I am disappointed that instead of examining its own record and seeking to restore a respected place for itself in the public debate, Exxon has chosen to turn up the temperature on civil society groups," Labowitz wrote in her resignation letter.

Watching the New York and Massachusetts investigations being sucked into a legal quagmire are the other attorneys general who were part of the coalition.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said, "I'm sure anybody who is considering moving ahead with an investigation or action would take into consideration the ferocity of what they've seen so far of Exxon's defense," he said. In addition to the federal case, the company has filed suits in state courts in New York and Massachusetts, seeking to quash the probes.

Exxon's Tactic of Delay

Exxon battles not only so it might profit while cases inch through the courts, but also to buy time until a more favorable political environment comes along. For more than a decade, the company fought a lawsuit filed by the state of New Jersey to recover $8.9 billion, alleged damages from more than a century of pollution caused by Exxon refineries.

Bio: Exxon lawyer Ted Wells

Brad Campbell was New Jersey's environmental commissioner when he authorized the lawsuit in 2004. He said in an interview that litigation became the last resort after Exxon refused to negotiate a settlement with the state as other companies, such as Chevron, had done.

Exxon lost a number of key battles that established its liability but nevertheless continued to fight, year after year, through the administrations of four governors.

"Exxon really stands in a class by itself in terms of a scorched earth approach to environmental claims of any sort," said Campbell, who is now president of the Conservation Law Foundation, a New England-based environmental organization that also has sued the company.

"They litigate more aggressively and often devote resources to fighting claims that aren't rational given the cost of resolving them in a constructive way."

But Exxon delayed long enough to get a favorable outcome. In 2015, at the direction of Gov. Chris Christie, who was campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, New Jersey accepted a settlement of $250 million, or about 3 cents on the dollar.

Similarly, Exxon has been resisting for years a proposed federal pipeline safety fine of $2.7 million for a spill that dumped 210,000 gallons of heavy Canadian crude oil into the streets of Mayflower, Arkansas, in March of 2013. The fine for the spill, which sickened residents, forced evacuations and rendered some homes uninhabitable, would represent a tiny fraction of the company's 2013 revenues of more than $420 billion.

An Ally in the White House, but Much Explaining to Do

Exxon has enjoyed the consistent support of many Republican attorneys general and Republicans in Congress. That includes Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Science Committeeand a climate change denier, whose largest campaign contributions last year came from the oil and gas industry.

The Texas Republican subpoenaed the attorneys general investigating Exxon, threatened subpoenas for the other coalition members and subpoenaed non-governmental environmental organizations that had supported the coalition.  Smith said during a news conference that, "The attorneys general have appointed themselves to decide what is valid and invalid regarding climate change. Attorneys general are pursuing a political agenda at the expense of scientists' rights to free speech."

Smith remains in a standoff with the environmental organizations and two attorneys general, who are refusing to comply with the subpoenas.

Unlike Smith, Exxon's legal team doesn't deny climate science. In fact, Exxon now acknowledges the risk of burning fossil fuels and has expressed support for a carbon tax. Echoing an argument he made to defend Philip Morris more than a decade ago, Wells says the company should be judged by its current behavior, not what it might have done in the past.

As New York investigators were digging recently through the mountain of documents Exxon turned over at the start of the investigation, they uncovered Tillerson's Wayne Tracker alias.

Now Exxon has a lot of explaining to do, said Wendy Jacobs, a professor of environmental law and director of the Harvard Law School Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic.

The emails are a "scandal" that put "Exxon and its credibility and forthrightness in a bad light," said Jacobs, who served in U.S. Department of Justice's Environment Division.

"What will really derail Exxon is if there is a smoking gun buried in the Wayne Tracker emails. That remains to be seen," she said.

Vladeck, the Georgetown University law professor, said he thinks that the attorneys general lost time and resources with their initial missteps. But, he added, "The investigators have recovered, and the investigations are getting back on track."

Bay Area is First Major U.S. City to Sue Fossil Fuel Industry Over Costs of Climate Change 9/17.

San Francisco Becomes First Major U.S. City to Sue Fossil Fuel Industry Over Costs of Climate Change

:{

San Francisco and Oakland are suing Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell—the five biggest investor-owned fossil fuel producers in the world—over the costs of climate change.

The two Californian cities join the counties of Marin, San Mateo andSan Diego and the city of Imperial Beach that have taken similar legal action in recent months, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera and Oakland city attorney Barbara J. Parkerfiled separate lawsuits on Tuesday in the superior courts of San Francisco and Alameda County on behalf of their respective cities.

They seek to hold the companies responsible "for the costs of sea walls and other infrastructure necessary to protect San Francisco and Oakland from ongoing and future consequences of climate change and sea level rise caused by the companies' production of massive amounts of fossil fuels," according to a joint announcementfrom the attorneys.

They claim that the oil and gas giants have known about the link between fossil fuels and climate change for decades but continue to sell their products anyway, thus creating "an ongoing public nuisance that is causing harm now, and in the future risks catastrophic harm to human life and property, including billions of dollars of public and private property in Oakland and San Francisco."

Herrera accused the fossil fuel companies of copying a page from the Big Tobacco playbook by launching a "multi-million dollar disinformation campaign to deny and discredit what was clear even to their own scientists: global warming is real, and their product is a huge part of the problem."

"Now, the bill has come due," Herrera said. "It's time for these companies to take responsibility for the harms they have caused and are continuing to cause.

Oil industry representatives called the lawsuits unproductive.

"Chevron welcomes serious attempts to address the issue of climate change, but these suits do not do that," company spokeswoman Melissa Ritchie told the San Francisco Chronicle in an email. "Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue that requires global engagement and action."

Eric Wohlschlegel, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute trade group, added to the publication that the industry has already made climate change a priority and will "play a leading role in driving down U.S. greenhouse gas and other emissions."

But the California city attorneys they want the courts to "hold the defendants jointly and severally liable for creating, contributing to and/or maintaining a public nuisance and to create an abatement fund for each city to be paid for by defendants to fund infrastructure projects necessary for San Francisco and Oakland to adapt to global warming and sea level rise."

"The total amount needed for the abatement funds is not known at this time but is expected to be in the billions of dollars," they said....

}:

==

A breakthrough study from Harvard unearths the extent Exxon has gone to in order to destroy the public's trust in climate change science.

Last week, Harvard University researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes (of Merchants of Doubt fame) published the first peer-reviewed study comparing ExxonMobil’s internal and external communications on climate change.

The abstract of the Supran and Oreskes study shows that ExxonMobil’s own scientists and executives had a much sharper understanding of climate science than the company told the public (emphasis added):

“Accounting for expressions of reasonable doubt, 83 percent of peer-reviewed papers and 80 percent of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12 percent of advertorials do so, with 81 percent instead expressing doubt. We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science — by way of its scientists’ academic publications — but promoted doubt about it in advertorials. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public.”

As the Harvard authors credit, the advertorials came from a study published on PolluterWatch by our former colleague at Greenpeace, Cindy Baxter.

Cindy republished many of ExxonMobil’s New York Times advertorials back in 2015. This was right as investigative reporters at InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed the extent of knowledge among Exxon’s own scientists that burning fossil fuels caused unnatural global warming.

With these revelations in mind, Cindy recalled a peer-reviewed study in the journal Public Relations Review on “advertorials” or “op-ads” that Mobil Oil paid to have published in the New York Times. The authors of that study, Clyde Brown and Herbert Waltzer, reviewed 819 New York Times advertorials that Mobil placed “every Thursday” from 1985 to 2000.

Using a subscription database called ProQuest, Greenpeace found that Exxon and Mobil’s op-ads went back at least as far as 1974, and continued until at least 2004. This was years after Exxon and Mobil merged to form the world’s largest non-government oil corporation in 1999. Combined with evidence published by reporters showing the degree to which Exxon and Mobil’s own scientists understood the global warming phenomenon and its root in human fossil fuel combustion, the advertorials take on new meaning.

These oil companies were not as naive or uncertain as they long pretended to be, up until the point that denying the science was no longer possible. It turns out, they knew the entire time, and they appear to have intentionally deceived the public.

Here are some of the ExxonMobil advertorials that Greenpeace published in 2015:

:{TOMORROW'S ENERGY NEEDS (FIRST EXXONMOBIL ADVERTORIAL AFTER CORPORATE MERGER):(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700;text-transform:uppercase"):}: :{(p. 1):(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:

This was the first New York Times advertorial placed by ExxonMobil the week after Exxon and Mobil merged to form one corporation.

View the entire document with :{DocumentCloud:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700"):}:

“Unsettled Science” – From 2000, this advertorial clearly downplays ExxonMobil’s internal understanding of climate change science:

:{UNSETTLED SCIENCE - EXXONMOBIL AD - 2000:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700;text-transform:uppercase"):}: :{(p. 1):(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:

View the entire document with :{DocumentCloud:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700"):}:

“**Directions for Climate Research**” – From 2004, Exxon used the classic “we need more research” delay tactic. This was eight years after thousands of scientists in the scientifically-conservative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released findings from its Second Assessment Report in 1995, which warned policymakers that humans pushed the climate beyond so far beyond its natural boundaries that we may not be able to reverse the trend. As the IPCC reports became more dire, Exxon engaged front groups, lobbyists, and politicians to attack the science itself.

:{DIRECTIONS FOR CLIMATE RESEARCH - EXXONMOBIL AD - 2004:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700;text-transform:uppercase"):}: :{(p. 1):(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:

View the entire document with :{DocumentCloud:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700"):}:

More examples are available in our archive of ExxonMobil advertorialson PolluterWatch.

==

https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-climate-science-2476585995.html

A new study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters by Dr. Geoffrey Supran and Dr. Naomi Oreskes of Harvard University marks an important advance in the examination of fossil fuel companies' responsibility for climate change. What makes this paper noteworthy is that it's the first peer-reviewed content analysis of ExxonMobil's climate change communications—and it concludes that the company misled the public. "In short, Exxon Mobil contributed quietly to climate science and loudly to raising doubts about it," the authors wrote in a New York Times op-ed.

ExxonMobil has already dismissed the study's conclusions and questioned the authors' motives. Under the leadership of CEO Darren Woods, the company is attempting to cover the sun with one finger. By insisting that it does not cover up climate science, ExxonMobil misrepresents the real issue: its failure to act on scientific knowledge of the devastating climate impacts of its product.

...

The Supran-Oreskes study builds on a wealth of research into ExxonMobil's climate change communications. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) documented the company's deceptive tactics in our 2007 report *Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science*, followed by our 2015 exposé The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformationand last year's The Climate Accountability Scorecard: Ranking Major Fossil Fuel Companies on Climate Deception, Disclosure, and Action.

Many others have contributed to this research:

ExxonMobil challenged the public to "Read all of these documents and make up your own mind." The study's authors took up that challenge.

Turning Over a New Leaf?

The Supran-Oreskes study covers the period 1977-2014—prior to the tenure of current CEO Woods. Woods, who took over from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in January, has expressed support for the Paris climate agreement and for a carbon tax. The company's current stated position is that "the risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action."

As Supran and Oreskes highlight, ExxonMobil has several webpages dedicated to backing up its rebuttal of "allegations that ExxonMobil suppressed climate change research," including a "10-page document listing the over 50 peer-reviewed articles on climate research and related policy analysis from ExxonMobil scientists from 1983 to the present." The company claims that the list "undercuts the allegation…that ExxonMobil sought to hide our research."

ExxonMobil's present-day denial that it suppresses climate science is itself a misrepresentation and a diversion.

The Risk of Stranded Assets

In its internal deliberations ExxonMobil has, evidently, long recognized the reality of a global "carbon budget" that cannot be exceeded if global average temperature increases are to be kept to safe levels. However, the company pretends to its own shareholders that business-as-usual levels of fossil fuel production will continue.

Supran and Oreskes (2017:12) find that in its less public-facing communications ExxonMobil addressed "carbon budgets" consistent with stabilization of emissions of heat-trapping gases, but ignored the risks of stranded fossil fuel assets in its New York Times advertorials.

[Five] ExxonMobil studies—one internal, three peer-reviewed, and one non-peer reviewed—include data…that indicate 2015-2100 CO2 budgets consistent with limiting warming to 2 °C and/or stabilizing CO2concentrations below 550 ppm in the range of 251–716 GtC [81, 83, 127–129]. These budgets are within a factor of two of contemporary estimates of roughly 442–651 GtC [130].

ExxonMobil's 2016 Energy and Carbon Summary, published in 2017, states firmly that "We expect all hydrocarbons in our proved reserves to ultimately be produced and not be 'stranded.'" And as my colleague Peter Frumhoff has written, ExxonMobil maintains a business model that aggressively invests in developing future reserves and assumes a heavy long-term reliance on fossil fuels.

In line with this expectation, ExxonMobil fought a 2017 shareholder proposal calling for the company to report annually on how it will ensure that its business remains resilient in the face of climate change policies and technological advances designed to limit global temperature increase to well below 2°C. Recommending a vote against the proposal, ExxonMobil's board wrote:

Many third party scenarios that represent a 2-degree Celsius pathway, including IEA's 450 Scenario, show natural gas demand continuing to grow and oil playing a prominent role in meeting the world's energy demand through 2040. Even under the 450 and the New Policies scenarios, substantial upstream oil and gas investment of $11 to $18 trillion will be needed through 2040 to meet global demand, largely due to natural field decline. While ExxonMobil currently contributes less than 3 percent of global production, we are well positioned to support additional development required to meet demand as a result of our diverse resource base, superior project execution capabilities and industry-leading returns on capital employed.

In a stunning and decisive rebuke to ExxonMobil's leadership, 62 percent of shareholders voted in favor of the proposal at the company's annual meeting in May. The ball is now in Darren Woods's court to address growing shareholder concern about climate risk.

And the onus is also on CEO Woods to provide convincing evidence that ExxonMobil will put a stop to the contradictory and deceptive communications practices documented by Supran and Oreskes in this study.

With rising questions about ExxonMobil's responsibility for climate change—investigations by the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general, lawsuits by California communities affected by sea level rise, shareholder pressure—the company is on the defensive. This analysis is an important contribution to efforts by investors, public prosecutors, and others seeking to hold ExxonMobil accountable for its climate deception and inaction.

Kathy Mulvey is the accountability campaign manager and advocate for the climate and energy team at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

ref

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html#.WaCcXLKGOM8

==

https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-harvard-study-2476138068.html

Groundbreaking Harvard Study Confirms #ExxonKnew

ExxonMobil misled the public on what it knew about climate change and its link to fossil fuels, according to a groundbreaking new analysis of the company's internal and external communications.

In a study published Tuesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, Harvard postdoctoral fellow Geoffrey Supran and professor Naomi Oreskes reviewed nearly 200 communications on climate change from the oil giant, including scientific research, internal company memos and paid editorial features in the New York Times.

The analysis showed a "quantifiable discrepancy" between internal and external communications, with 81 percent of external advertisements casting doubt on the link between human activity and climate change despite 80 percent of internal communications acknowledging climate science.

"Even while Exxon Mobil scientists were contributing to climate science and writing reports that explained it to their bosses, the company was paying for advertisements that told a very different tale," Supran and Oreskes wrote in a New York Times op-ed on the study.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times:

"The study may be especially timely now, because a coalition of state attorneys general and the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating whether the company lied to the public and investors about what it knew about the dangers of climate change ...

The study also involves research and public statements issued by the company while Rex Tillerson, the current secretary of state, was a senior executive. Tillerson isn't mentioned in the paper, but he became a production general manager in 1999, president and a director in 2004, and chairman and chief executive in 2006."

Greenpeace USA climate liability campaigner Naomi Ages said that "Exxon has officially run out of excuses."

She explained how "this peer-reviewed study from Harvard is just the latest piece of evidence indicating that the largest oil company in the world knew about the risks of climate change, but concealed them from the public and shareholders."

"State attorneys general dedicated to protecting people and the environment from recent assaults should act now to hold polluters accountable for the biggest crisis facing humanity," Ages continued.

"The pressure on the parties most responsible for climate change will continue, from investors who recognize the economic risks, to attorneys general in Massachusetts and New York, to the majority of the people in this country who know we need action on climate change."

For a deeper dive:

InsideClimate News, Mother Jones, Climate Liability News. Commentary: New York Times, Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes op-ed, LA Times, Michael Hiltzik column

==

2x?

https://www.alternet.org/environment/exxon-using-tobaccos-failed-free-speech-defense-decades-deception-climate-change

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/06/04/court-papers-claim-rex-tillerson-approved-misleading-carbon-accounting-scheme-while-exxonmobil-boss

==

==

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/8/18/headlines/exxonmobil_escapes_responsibility_for_role_in_massive_tar_sands_oil_pipeline_spill

ExxonMobil has won a major court case over its role in a 2013 pipeline spill in Arkansas when more than 200,000 gallons of tar sands oil flowed through a residential neighborhood of Mayflower, Arkansas, and nearby waterways. U.S. pipeline regulators had fined Exxon $2.6 million and ordered the company to revise its pipeline safety procedures. But now a federal appeals court has sided with Exxon, overturning much of the regulator’s decision.

==

Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change?

That’s the subject of a massive legal battle.

NATALIE SCHREYERJUN. 30, 2016 3:28 PM

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/

Update: 3/17 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/maine-climate-change-denier-discrimination-bill_us_58d2e718e4b0b22b0d199944

https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-russia-sanctions-2464619894.html

Exxon Sues Feds Over $2 Million Fine

ExxonMobil filed suit against the federal government last week, claiming that a $2 million fine levied against the company by the Treasury Department is "unlawful" and "capricious."

The Treasury Department fined Exxon Thursday morning, alleging that the oil giant displayed "reckless disregard" of U.S.-Russian sanctions in its dealings with Russian company Rosneft in 2014 under CEO Rex Tillerson.

The Treasury Department's suit highlights particularly problematic deals with Rosneft in 2014, when Exxon was under now-Sec. of State Tillerson's guidance. The suit comes as the House prepares to pass new sanctions legislation targeting Russia, Iran and North Korea. The compromise bill gives energy companies some wiggle room to participate in energy projects with Russian stakeholders.

As reported by the New York Times:

"The rationale for the lawsuit appears to go beyond the financial impact of the fine. Exxon feels that its reputation is at stake and that the threat of more sanctions, potentially costlier, is looming.

Treasury and Exxon have been sparring for years over the company's ability to do business with Russia. The Trump administration has recently been trying to show its mettle with a flurry of sanctions announcements amid concerns that Mr. Trump may soften those already enacted. At the same time, a Republican-controlled Congress is threatening to increase Russia sanctions, which could cost the energy industry billions of dollars."

"It's a fascinating dynamic playing itself out," Peter Kucik, a former official in Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, told the Times. "It would be difficult to script this."

For a deeper dive:

Exxon suit: New York Times, The Hill, NPR, CNBC, AP. Sanctions & energy companies: Politico Morning Energy

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05122016/exxon-agu-conference-climate-change-denial

==

no link pix

ENVIRONMENT

http://www.alternet.org/environment/why-exxon-investigation-more-urgent-and-more-justified-ever

Why the Exxon Investigation Is More Urgent and More Justified Than Ever

"Exxon may still be in the midst of perpetrating an ongoing fraudulent scheme on investors and the public."

By Carroll Muffett / AlterNet July 19, 2017, 11:30 PM GMT

Over the last two years, reporting by theLos Angeles Times, theCenter for International Environmental Law and others has exposed that Exxon and other oil companies have known about climate change and its potentially catastrophic impacts for at least sixty years.

Instead of sounding the alarm and reducing those risks in their products and practices, oil companies spent decades sowing doubt and denial about climate science—deploying the same tools and tactics that saw Big Tobacco indicted on federal racketeering charges. There is now mounting evidence that Exxon misled not only consumers but also its own investors about the risk of climate change—through advertisements, studies, op-eds, conferences and corporate disclosures.

Follow

CIEL @ciel_tweets

#Fossilfuel companies funded #climate skepticism DECADES earlier than previously thought https://vimeo.com/user50953561/smokeandfumes … #SmokeAndFumes #ExxonKnew

9:15 AM - 13 Apr 2016

Photo published for Smoke And Fumes: An Introduction to the Deep History of Oil and Climate Change

Smoke And Fumes: An Introduction to the Deep History of Oil and Climate Change

This is a story about how the world’s most powerful industry used science, communications, and consumer psychology to shape the public debate over climate…

vimeo.com

As part of his ongoing investigation into Exxon’s climate deception, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman recently warned of the "urgent" need for further disclosures due to evidence that "Exxon may still be in the midst of perpetrating an ongoing fraudulent scheme on investors and the public." Evidence from more than two million pages of internalExxon documents indicates that Exxon intentionally underestimated the costs of climate change regulations for years, even as it assured investors it was carefully accounting for climate risks. By publicly proclaiming a higher cost of carbon while actually using a much lower one—or in some instances none at all—the company released valuations and profit projections that made it more attractive to investors than its own calculations justified.

In one noteworthy example cited by the New York AG, Exxon executives pressured staff to apply a far lower cost of carbon to the company's Canadian tar sands assets than it publicly reported. Internal documents acknowledged that Exxon's tar sands investments would not be profitable if the higher cost were applied. This misstatement takes on even greater significance in light of Exxon's multibillion dollar write-down of those same assets in February.

Exxon has a long history of putting profits first and using concealment, deception and intimidation to get away with it. The true breakthrough of recent revelations lies in evidence that this pattern of misleading investors was recognized and approved at the highest levels of the company—all the way up to the then-CEO, our Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

This isn't smoke. This is a smoking gun.

More attorneys general are taking notice. The new California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said last week at a town hall in Pasadena that he is "very aware" of the "concern that Exxon along with other petroleum companies have been misrepresenting how much they've known about climate change for quite some time." He went on to say that when companies like Exxon "present one face to the public and one face to their investors," then "they may be committing certain crimes."

Follow

#ExxonKnew @Exxon_Knew

NEW VIDEO: @AGBecerra answered a town hall question last night about a possible #ExxonKnew investigation in California. It's...intriguing!

9:58 AM - 14 Jul 2017

It is increasingly clear why Exxon and its allies have gone to unprecedented lengths to stop the investigations by state attorneys general. New York AG Schneiderman's investigations shed even more light when it revealted that Exxon’s attorneys knew about Tillerson's so called "Wayne Tracker" email alias more than a year ago but intentionally hid this information from investigators.

In an interview filed with the court on June 2, Exxon information technology security and consulting manager Connie Feinstein testified about the company practices that resulted in the destruction of seven months of emails sent under then-CEO Rex Tillerson's secret email alias "Wayne Tracker." The 301-page transcript of her testimony offers a glimpse of the gravity of this situation for Exxon.

By design, Tillerson's Wayne Tracker account and similar accounts set up for other members of ExxonMobil's Management Committee were completely de-linked from the executives themselves, creating an almost untraceable communications network within the company's top management. Within that network Exxon's leadership discussed not only the company's climate policies but other highly sensitive matters.

This goes beyond creating a simple email alias for an account. For at least nine years, Rex Tillerson had an email account that was effectively invisible to all but a select handful of Exxon executives and support staff and which was not directly associated with his name even within Exxon's internal servers. According to Feinstein, Tillerson's Wayne Tracker alias was registered to Ramona Helble, a senior IT manager at Exxon. Helble was the account holder but had no password; Tillerson had the password, but no other visible link to the account.

Report Advertisement

The legal discovery consequences are immense. It means that no ordinary discovery request referencing Tillerson (or any other member of Exxon's Management Committee) would turn up these emails unless the person implementing the search was aware of the Wayne Tracker identity. To give a sense for how small that group seems to have been, Feinstein, who described herself as responsible for monitoring audit compliance and electronic discovery for the company, was not aware of the Wayne Tracker emails until 2017, more than a year into the NY AG’s discovery process and after having participated in many other discovery efforts over the years.

As a result of this invisibility, the Wayne Tracker account wasn't frozen and protected by the company's electronic discovery software after the AG's original subpoena should have triggered a litigation hold on messages to and from Tillerson and other senior executives to keep probative evidence from being deleted. Because they were not protected from Exxon's automated deletion system, several years' worth of evidence from Tillerson and other key executives have reportedly been destroyed.

(image: ExxonKnew)

If this were just an example of gross corporate incompetence and reckless mismanagement of vital records, it would rightly cause serious concern for shareholders and investors.

But there are at least two compelling pieces of evidence that the concealment and destruction of the Wayne Tracker emails was more than simple oversight:

Feinstein acknowleged that several Exxon executives responsible for answering the subpoena were aware of the Wayne Tracker account, and indicated that at least one of those executives, Bob Lauck, was directly involved in producing the documents subpoenaed from Tillerson and other senior managers. Despite this, the Wayne Tracker emails were not released to the NY AG until the AG discovered the account name on its own.

Even more disturbingly, Exxon outside counsel Michele Hirshman testified that she was aware of the Wayne Tracker email account in early 2016—more than a year ago—but intentionally refused to disclose its existence to the AGs office. Her rationale was that it "would be an interesting test of whether the Attorney General's office is reading the documents." If Feinstein’s testimony is accurate, Exxon’s "test" led to the irreversible destruction of highly relevant evidence.

Exxon's intentional refusal to disclose the existence of this account and its ultimate destruction of relevant records from Tillerson and other executives hints at the significance of this investigation even beyond the climate context. Those accounts have been in place for many years—in Tillerson’s case, since 2007. During that time, Exxon has faced litigation, investigations, and inquiries on a number of fronts. Yet Exxon's witness could not answer whether the Wayne Tracker or similar emails had ever been acknowledged or produced in prior litigation.

The AG's interview of Feinstein hints at the implications of this: were the Wayne Tracker emails produced in the Kivalina case or in Comer v. Murphy? Were they produced to the SEC? Or in any suit against Exxon in the last seven years? The obvious answer to that question is the most likely: The world is just learning about Wayne Tracker because he's been completely hidden before now.

What began as an investigation about climate change is starting to raise fundamental and far reaching questions about the company and its practices. Exxon has fought furiously and using unprecedented legal tactics and political pressure to stop this and similar investigations from going forward. With each new discovery revealing whole new categories of secrets, it begs the obvious question: just how much more is this company hiding?

Such conduct should outrage not just climate advocates, but everyone. If you’re a consumer or concerned citizen, you should be outraged by proof of Exxon and Tillerson deceiving the public about the climate risks of their products

If you’re an investor—in fossil fuels or in clean energy—you should be outraged that a company that misleads investors about the material risks it faces or the value of its assets. Exxon’s climate denial and misdirection are already troubling to the overwhelming majority of ExxonMobil shareholders who voted in May that the company must come clean about its role and response to climate change.

And if you are a state attorney general charged with protecting the public from fraud, then this revelation should convince you that it is time to join the investigation into Exxon, its practices and its secrets.

For nearly two years, the Attorneys General of New York and Massachusetts have stood up to Exxon’s legal roadblocks, vast war chest and political allies to ensure that their laws are enforced and their citizens protected—from climate change and from common fraud. Despite Exxon’s challenges, these AGs are winning in court—and proving that both the facts and the law support further investigations.

I am encouraged by signs and statements in California that more states are considering launching their own investigations to protect their constituents and be watchdogs. Standing up to companies like Exxon is daunting, however ,and these attorneys general now need shows of public support from citizens in their home states and from enforcement officials elsewhere.

Like Big Tobacco before them, Exxon has misled the public for too long. Six decades of deception is six decades too many. It is time to hold the oil industry accountable before they cause even more damage.

Carroll Muffett is the President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law

==

https://www.ecowatch.com/california-sue-big-oil-2461364159.html

California Counties Sue Big Oil for Sea Level Rise Damages

Three California municipalities filed lawsuits Monday against 37 of the world's biggest fossil fuel companies, includingChevron, Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell.The legal challenges, brought by Marin and San Mateo counties and the city of Imperial Beach, allege that the companies knew about the harm of burning fossil fuels and therefore should pay for current and future damages to the municipalities due to climate change.

The suit also alleges the fossil fuel companies launched a "coordinated, multi-front effort" to discredit climate science and spread doubt.

"Sea level rise is here and we're experiencing it first hand in Marin, as roadways continually flood with king tides and storms," Marin County Supervisor Kate Sears said in a statement.

As reported by the Marin Independent Journal, Sears was asked if the lawsuits were inspired by litigation against the tobacco industry that state attorneys general initiated in the 1990s:

"You could certainly think of it that way, because a lot of what these fossil fuel companies did was modeled after what the tobacco companies did."

"Instead of taking steps to actually do something about the impact of their product," Sears said, "they launched this multimillion dollar lobbying campaign to discredit scientific evidence about climate change."

For a deeper dive:

AP, Marin Independent Journal, SF Gate, CBS SF, SF Weekly, San Diego Union Tribune. Commentary: Sabin Center, Michael Burger analysis

==

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/

right to lie?

==

http://www.alternet.org/environment/exxonmobil-talks-good-game-its-still-funding-climate-science-deniers

xxonMobil executives repeatedly claim their company supports a federal carbon tax and the Paris climate agreement. The company’s checkbook ledger, however, tells a far different story.

Yesterday, the company released its annual list of its “public information and policy research” grantees, which shows that it spent $1.65 million in 2016 on a dozen think tanks, advocacy groups and associations that contest climate science and oppose both the Paris accord and a carbon tax—the very policies the company professes to endorse. Last year’s outlay boosted the total of the company’s expenditures on climate disinformation over the last two decades to $34.6 million.

Chamber of horrors

Most of ExxonMobil’s spending on denier groups last year—87 percent—went to four organizations: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute and American Legislative Exchange Council.

ExxonMobil gave more than half of last year’s kitty, a cool $1 million, to the Chamber, which provided President Trump with a key, but fraudulent, rationale for pulling out of the Paris agreement. Parroting a recent report funded by the Chamber and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF)―which received $1.78 million from ExxonMobil between 2000 and 2015―Trump claimed that over the next several decades the accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion and, by 2040, eliminate 6.5 million industrial sector jobs.

The Associated Press, Politifact and the Washington Postfact-checked the speech and arrived at similar conclusions: The Chamber and ACCF cooked the books.

“The study makes worst-case assumptions that may inflate the cost of meeting U.S. targets under the Paris accord while largely ignoring the economic benefits to U.S. businesses from building and operating renewable energy projects,” AP reporters Michael Biescker and Paul Wiseman pointed out. “Academic studies have found that increased environmental regulation doesn’t actually have much impact on employment. Jobs lost at polluting companies tend to be offset by new jobs in green technology.”

The Chamber, which has a long history of denying climate science, made similar dire warnings about job losses in a 2014 report analyzing the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. That report used flawed assumptions to magnify the carbon rule’s cost and exaggerate job losses and, like its recent report on the Paris agreement, didn’t factor in the carbon rule’s considerable benefits.

The market will take care of it

The next biggest ExxonMobil grant last year, $235,000, went to the American Enterprise Institute, which had already received $4.1 million from the company between 1998 and 2015. AEI economist Benjamin Zycher addresses climate issues more than anyone else these days at the free-market think tank, and his views are diametrically opposed to ExxonMobil’s professed positions. He disputes the conclusions of mainstream climate science, insists a carbon tax would be “ineffective,” and calls the Paris agreement an “absurdity.”

Zycher’s colleague Mark Thiessen, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, is also no fan of the international accord. In a June 2 essay, he cited numbers from the Chamber’s discredited report and maintained that “our emissions will arguably decline faster because of Trump’s withdrawal—because our free market economy will be stronger and more innovative without it.”

Wind energy blows

The Manhattan Institute, which received $705,000 from ExxonMobil between 2006 and 2015, pulled in another $135,000 from the company last year. Staffers there aren’t too keen on the carbon tax or the Paris agreement, either. Senior Fellow Oren Cass, who previously worked at Mitt Romney’s old firm Bain & Company, calls the accord a “fraud” and argues that a carbon tax would be “bad for the country” and “bad for the economy.”

Another senior fellow at the libertarian think tank, Robert Bryce, previously worked as a newspaper reporter and for the Institute for Energy Research, a former ExxonMobil grantee that is largely underwritten by the Koch brothers. A self-styled agnostic about climate change, Bryce regularly attacks renewable energy. He especially loves to bash wind, carping about the industry’s temporary federal tax breaks over the last 20 years and its threat to birds. Never mind that the oil and gas industry received an average of $4.86 billion a year (in 2010 dollars) in permanent federal subsidies between 1918 and 2009 (that continue to today), or that oil and gas industry fluid waste pits kill roughly three times more birds a year than wind turbines. Bryce never mentions either of those salient facts.

Not-so-smart ALEC

Between 2006 and 2015, ExxonMobil gave $600,000 to the American Legislative Council, a secretive lobby group that drafts sample corporate-friendly legislation for state lawmakers. Last year, the oil company gave ALEC another $76,500.

Does ALEC also oppose a carbon tax and the Paris accord? You bet.

In 2013, ALEC drafted a sample resolution for state legislators to reject “all federal and state efforts to establish a carbon tax on fuels for electricity and transportation.” More recently, the director of ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force slammed the Paris agreement as a “bad deal” for America. “The Paris agreement is little more than an effort by the previous president to lend some international legitimacy to his destructive regulatory campaign against affordable domestic energy,” Kenneth Stein, a former legislative aide to Sen. Ted Cruz, wrote in May 25 essay on ALEC’s website. “As has been seen in any number of U.S. industries, regulation and rulemaking stifle progress and innovation—much more so when the regulations become part of an international treaty regime.”

Why bother with a carbon tax or an international carbon-reduction agreement if, as ALEC erroneously maintains, scientists haven’t determined the role human activity plays in global warming? “Climate change is a historical phenomenon,” its website states, “and the debate will continue on the significance of natural and anthropogenic contributions.”

More than 100 corporations have quit ALEC for a number of reasons, notably its scientifically indefensible position on climate change. Those companies include a number of energy sector heavyweights, including American Electric Power, BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell. But not ExxonMobil.

Meet the new boss...

The fact that ExxonMobil’s grantees contradict the company’s avowed positions on climate science and policy should come as no surprise. Its funding pattern in Congress is analogous. Over the years, the company has consistently rewarded legislators who reject mainstream climate science and vote against carbon tax resolutions by funding their reelection campaigns. Half of the nearly $1.45 million it spent on candidates in the 2016 election cycle, for example, went to 81 climate science deniers in the House and 24 in the Senate. And 18 of the 22 senators who sent a letter to President Trump urging him to abandon the Paris agreement collectively received $371,000 in campaign contributions from ExxonMobil between 2011 and 2016.

Rex Tillerson began playing this game soon after he became the company’s CEO in 2006. In January 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a report documenting that between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil had spent at least $16 million on a network of more than 40 anti-regulation groups to manufacture doubt about climate science. A week after its release, Tillerson acknowledged that his company had a PR problem. “We recognize that we need to soften our public image,” he said, according to a January 10 story in Greenwire, a trade publication. “It is something we are working on.”

Ten years later, ExxonMobil’s PR offensive continues. Publicly, company officials repeatedly assure the news media and the general public they have seen the light. Climate change is indeed real and we need to address it. At the same time, however, ExxonMobil is still bankrolling climate disinformation groups and deniers in Congress to stymie government action.

In January, Darren Woods, who has been working for ExxonMobil since 1992, replaced Tillerson as CEO. So far, he’s the same as the old boss. His inaugural blog post, which champions natural gas as “powerful tool” to reduce carbon emissions and stresses the challenge of “managing the risks of climate change” while meeting growing worldwide energy demand, could have easily been written by Tillerson. And, like his predecessor, Woods dutifully reiterated ExxonMobil’s nominal support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax and the Paris agreement. But until the company stops funding climate science denier groups and the members of Congress standing in the way, it will remain a major obstacle to saving the planet from the worst consequences of climate change.

Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

==

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/06/08/window-dressing-exxon-reluctantly-crosses-climate-threshold

The day before President Trump made his decision to pull the U.S. out of the landmark Paris climate accord, ExxonMobil reluctantly crossed a climate threshold.

A majority of shareholders, over 62 percent, voted in favor of America’s biggest oil company releasing detailed analyses of the risks that climate change poses to its business.

Having previously argued that sufficient information is already being provided, CEO Darren Woods relented far enough to say that Exxon would “take the vote seriously [and] will respond to that feedback and look for opportunities” to communicate. Woods did not, however, agree to produce a requested report.

==

STILL FUNDING DENIAL 2015:

https://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/sites/default/files/resources/insidejobcai.pdf

downloaded

...

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents 3 million American businesses, making it the largest business organization in the world.48 The Chamber is funded by major corporate polluters and is currently receiving millions of dollars from Exxon Mobil. Even when directly asked, its executives have not admitted that human activity is the cause of climate change. The Chamber has criticized both the targets set out in the Paris Agreement as well as the measures proposed to meet them, and yet it is still granted a seat at the table at the UNFCCC. Further, it does nothing to promote the cutting of emissions and has aggressively sought to stop domestic climate policies in their tracks.

Links to the fossil fuel industry

In 2015 Exxon Mobil gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation US$1,000,000 for “public information and policy research,” pledging a total of US$5,000,000 between 2014-2018.49 It has also received funding from other big polluters, like Chevron 50 and Peabody Energy.51-52 Executives from Peabody Energy, ConocoPhillips, and Sempra Energyalso sit on its board of directors.53 What it says about climate change and its causes The Chamber publicly claims it “strongly supports continued environmental improvements, including sensible approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”54 In March 2014, for example,Karen Alderman Harbert, president and CEO of the Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, insisted that the Chamber has “been a proponent on research and development, on advanced technologies, [and] the biggest supporter on energy efficiency legislation.”55

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23052017/exxon-climate-fraud-investigation-new-york-attorney-general-pwc-auditor-appeal

ExxonMobil lost its appeal on Tuesday to keep records held by its auditors away from the New York attorney general's climate fraud probe.

The documents could afford a candid—and perhaps damaging—glimpse into Exxon's private calculations of the business risks posed byclimate change. They could contain anything from a smoking gun email to plodding, yet revealing, discussions related to Exxon's posture on global warming, including whether the company was adequately calculating climate change risks for investors. Exxon still has another opportunity to appeal.

Investigators for state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed PricewaterhouseCoopersrecords pertaining to Exxon's assessment of climate change as part of an investigation into Exxon that was opened in 2015.

Exxon fought to have the subpoena voided, arguing the records were privileged communications with its auditor and should be kept from the eyes of investigators. The oil giant, headquartered in Dallas, based its argument on a Texas law that grants a privilege to auditors and clients much like that between a lawyer and client.

A state court judge agreed with Schneiderman's office that there was no such protection afforded Exxon under New York law and ordered the documents handed over last year. Exxon appealed that decision.

The appeals court, which had been considering the case since a hearing in March, rejected Exxon's argument.

"In light of our conclusion that New York law applies, we need not decide how this issue would be decided under Texas law," the two-page decision said.

Exxon did not respond to a request for comment.

Caroline Nolan, a spokeswoman for PwC, said the company had no comment.

The accounting firm, which has expertise in climate-related risks faced by fossil fuel companies, has remained neutral in the legal fight but has honored Exxon's request not to turn over documents pending the outcome of the litigation.

Exxon has been fighting investigations by Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey both in federal court and state courts.

Schneidermanopened his financial fraud investigation of Exxon in November 2015 by subpoenaing decades of records related to Exxon's history of research into and knowledge of climate change. The investigation revolves around whether the company misled shareholders and the public about the risks of climate change.

The attorney generalfollowed up with a subpoena to PwC nine months later seeking documents related to the auditors' work for the oil giant. Records sought under thesubpoena include documents about accounting and reporting of oil and gas reserves, evaluation of assets for potential impairment charges or write-downs, energy price projections and projected cost estimates of complying with carbon regulations.

Attorneys for Exxon argued that the judge's ruling in October to force PwC to surrender documents "eviscerates" the accountant-client privilege afforded by the laws of Texas, where Exxon is headquartered.

New York investigators disagreed and argued that PwC should feel a moral obligation to cooperate. "As a certified public accountant, PwC 'owes ultimate allegiance to [a] corporation's creditors and stockholders, as well as to the investing public,'" the attorney general's office responded.

Exxon could file additional appeals up to the New York Supreme Court or allow PwC to comply with the subpoena.

While it is unclear what Exxon's next move may be related to the PwC documents, the company is also asking a judge to seal five subpoenas issued by Schneiderman's office in connection with its investigation, which has grown to include missing emails from former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, now U.S. secretary of state.

The attorney general's officedisclosed last week that it has expanded its probe to determine whether Exxon may have destroyed emails from Tillerson's "Wayne Tracker" email alias. Investigators are trying to determine why several weeks of emails from that account are now missing. As part of that widening investigation, the attorney general's office revealed that it has subpoenaed a number of Exxon officials.

Exxon offered few cluesin its request to the New York judge overseeing the case as to why the documents and the arguments by company lawyers justifying the sealing must remain secret.

PUBLISHED UNDER:

OIL/TAR SANDS

EXXON CLIMATE

CLIMATE CHANGE

ecowatch

Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey: What's Exxon Got to Do With It?

By Andy Rowell

Washington, DC is still reeling Wednesday with the news that Donald Trump sacked FBI director James Comey.

Ostensibly, the White House is saying that Comey's firing is all about his botched investigation into Clinton's emails. But everyone knows that is not the truth.

As Politico reported, behind the sacking is an "an enraged Trump, fuming about Russia." Two Trump advisors told Politico that Trump was angry about the ongoing investigation by the FBI into links between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

The Trump line that the FBI Russian investigation has nothing to do with it is being ridiculed in the papers this morning.

As David Leonhardt stated bluntly in the New York Times, "The president of the United States is lying again … First, it's important to remember just how often Trump lies. Virtually whenever he finds it more convenient to tell a falsehood than to tell a truth, he chooses the falsehood."

So why fire Comey? A blistering editorial in the paper argued, "The president of the United States, who is no more above the law than any other citizen, has now decisively crippled the FBI's ability to carry out an investigation of him and his associates."

The paper added, "By firing the FBI director, James Comey, late Tuesday afternoon, President Trump has cast grave doubt on the viability of any further investigation into what could be one of the biggest political scandals in the country's history."

The investigation could have had "potentially ruinous consequences for the administration." So Trump fired the man who could have been about to impeach him.

The timing is certainly interesting. As the Hill pointed out too, many people are questioning the timing of Comey's dismissal.

There may be other factors at play worth mentioning. Who is Trump meeting today in the White House? The president only has one publicly scheduled item later today and that is a meeting with Sergey Lavrov, the foreign minister of Russia.

As the British Independent newspaper noted, "It will be impossible to separate the meeting from the unfolding political drama in Washington."

Before Lavrov meets Trump, he will hold a meeting with ex-Exxon boss and now Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson.

On the agenda are Ukraine, Syria and "bilateral issues," according to the State Department. It is the highest level meeting between Trump and the Russians since he took office.

Also co-incidentally or not, tomorrow Lavrov and Tillerson will travel to Alaska to attend the 10th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Fairbanks.

The Arctic Council is an international forum that promotes cooperation among Arctic states and includes Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the U.S. Under President Obama's administration, the U.S. position focussed on climate change.

Working together on the Arctic is ideal to help thaw U.S.-Russian relations, according to some.

Indeed, according to the Council, the meeting "will convene to review and approve work completed under the two-year U.S. Chairmanship to improve sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic."

But those two years have passed. Obama may have championed environmental protection, but Trump does not. Obama wanted to preserve the Arctic. Trump does not. As the U.S. hands over the baton of responsibility at the Council to Finland, the old order is no more.

Trump wants better ties with Russia. In turn, Russia wants Exxon to help explore for oil. There is no doubt Exxon wants Russian oil. Exxon's old boss is now central to the Trump Administration. And by removing Comey at such a crucial time, Tillerson and Lavrov can work on some smoke-filled backroom deals, without the threat of the FBI looking at U.S.-Russian relations.

Of course, much of this is speculation and analysis of an unfolding political situation. The Arctic meeting may not have been on Trump's mind, but Russia certainly was. And we all need to keep a watching brief on this fast-moving story, because no one knows where it will end.

==

==

http://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-clean-air-act-baytown-2383090378.html

ExxonMobil must pay $20 million for violating the Clean Air Act more than 16,000 times at a Texas plant, a district judge ruled this week.

The ruling against Exxon in a suit brought by Environment Texas and the Sierra Club found that the oil giant failed to update emissions-reductions technology at its Baytown, Texas refining and chemical plant.

In their suit, the groups alleged the plant illegally released more than 10 million pounds of pollutants between 2005 and 2013, while Exxon gained more than $14 million in economic benefits.

...

==

KOS 4/17

his is the one of:{ two actions Schneiderman has taken:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: this week to protect our planet. The other was dismissing Exxon/Mobil’s attempt to block a climate change fraud case. It’s no surprise big oil companies also love Trump’s executive order rolling back environmental protections and taking advantage in every way they can.

Schnedierman’s move is what some might call “judiciary resistance”—and we can’t get enough of it. Thank you, all the individuals and organizations that have joined in on this and other legal actions against a despicable man and his government ilk (which includes every Republican that supports him).

Related:

NY Judge dismisses Exxon/Mobil’s attempt to block climate change fraud case

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/04/04/1650072/-New-York-judge-dismisses-ExxonMobil-s-attempt-to-block-climate-change-fraud-case

ExxonMobil has just received more bad news concerning its ongoing climate change fraud cause with attorney generals from New York, Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands. A couple of days ago, the oil giant’s attempts to get the trial moved to their considerably more friendly home territory of Texas was denied, and before that ExxonMobil’s ace-in-the-hole former CEO Rex Tillerson’s “shadow” emails were ordered released by a New York Judge. Today, even more good news.

A lawsuit by ExxonMobil seeking to block climate change fraud investigations by the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York has been dismissed—at least for now. The ruling came from the New York federal judge who took over the case last week after a judge in Texas transferred it to her jurisdiction.

Although the order by U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Caproni puts an end to the lawsuit filed by Exxon in Texas last year, the case may be refiled in as little as a month.

The ongoing case concerns what ExxonMobil knew about climate change and fossil fuel’s part in global warming—and for how long. New York and Massachusetts Attorney Generals Eric Schneiderman and Maura Healey  have been investigating ExxonMobil for fraud in their history of climate change denials to the public. In turn, ExxonMobil has been suing these attorney generals saying that their attacks are politically motivated. Unsurprisingly, ExxonMobil has used the full weight of Republican fossil-fuel shills, like Texas Rep. Lamar Smith and our Republican White House, to drum up support.

==

http://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-climate-lawsuit-new-york-2336366166.html

Exxon Dealt Big Blow as Texas Judge Kicks Climate Lawsuit to New York Court

In a decision released Wednesday, ExxonMobil lost its bid to have their complaint against Attorneys General Eric Schneiderman and Maura Healey heard by a sympathetic Texas judge.

"The decision is a major blow to Exxon's efforts to distract from the valid investigations into whether the company lied to the public and its investors about the dangers of global warming," Jamie Henn, 350.org strategic communications director, said.

"Instead of coming up with more bogus legal maneuvers, Exxon should comply with the Attorneys General requests, including handing over Tillerson's secret 'Wayne Tracker' emails."

In an effort to distract from the Attorneys General investigation into if the company lied to its shareholders and the public about its knowledge of global warming, ExxonMobil had filed a complaint asserting that the investigation against it was a politically motivated conspiracy designed to "silence" it.

Despite his obvious sympathy to the oil giant, U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade was forced to admit in a decision this afternoon that Exxon's complaints against the Attorneys General should be transferred out of Texas to the Southern District of New York because "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" in New York City.

As part of its complaint, ExxonMobil had issued a subpoena to 350.org in December in an attempt to gain access to the organization's emails. 350.org promptly filed a motion to quash the subpoena and issued a statement asserting our First Amendment rights to speak out and advocate for the public interest. That motion is currently pending in the Southern District.

Wednesday's decision is a blow for Exxon, who had obviously hoped to fight the Attorneys General on their home turf in Texas rather than comply with the investigation. The announcement comes just days after the embarrassing revelation that while CEO of the company Rex Tillerson used a secret email alias "Wayne Tracker" to discuss climate change and other sensitive issues.

[img]

"The public deserves the truth about what Exxon Knew," Henn said. "The company is arguing we want to silence them, but it's just the opposite: We want them to speak clearly and honestly about their track record of climate denial so we can get to work solving the problem. Instead of continuing to follow the Big Tobacco playbook of deceit and deception, Exxon should come clean and own up to the damage it's caused."

350.org will keep up pressure on ExxonMobil to comply with the existing investigations, as well as advocate for more Attorneys General to launch their own inquiries into what Exxon knew.

"With Rex Tillerson now guiding our international climate policy as Secretary of State, this case is more important than ever," Henn continued. "If Tillerson used a secret email to discuss Exxon's climate coverup, that would turn out to be an absolute bombshell. We could be on the verge of seeing an acting Secretary of State getting pulled into a fraud investigation. And this isn't just any old fraud: Exxon's crimes are on a planetary scale."

==

Scott Pruitt got in trouble in 2014 when the New York Times revealed that he had passed off a letter from an energy company and financial backer as his own work. Apparently, Pruitt is quickly rubbing off on the rest of the Trump administration.

On Monday, the White House issued a press release congratulating Exxon for making investments in American jobs. Not only did the statement cite investments announced long, long before Trump became president, but the White House press release copied an entire paragraph from Exxon's own statement without acknowledgement. Yes, folks, the White House has now outsourced its communications work to Exxon. Could they at least pretend to be separate entities?

==

http://www.ecowatch.com/white-house-plagiarizes-exxon-2304764485.html

As if the ties between the Trump administration and oil and gas behemoth ExxonMobil weren't apparent enough, the White House on Monday issued a press release that lifted text wholesale from an Exxon press release published earlier that same day.

The Exxon release touted plans for expanded fossil fuel projects in the Gulf of Mexico, which the company itself described as "11 major chemical, refining, lubricant and liquefied natural gas projects at proposed new and existing facilities along the Texas and Louisiana coasts." (Despite repeated accidents and spills in the Gulf of Mexico—including the catastrophic BP oil spill in 2010—fossil fuel companies have continued to exploit the Gulf).

In fact, Exxon's new investments began in 2013, but that didn't stop the White House from giving credit to President Trump for what Trump himself described as "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" on Twitter. In doing so, the White House simply copied most of the Exxon release verbatim.

Below are nearly identical excerpts from the two releases:

The Exxon press release was published Monday at 3:10 p.m. EST.

And the White House press release was published Monday at 3:43 p.m. EST.

Further demonstrating the cozy relationship between the White House and Exxon, former Exxon CEO and current Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with Trump mere hours before the White House bragged about the oil company's investments, as Mother Jones' Rebecca Leber reported.

[img]"Exxon has a lot to be pleased with so far in Trump's term," Leber noted. "In addition to seeing Tillerson become the nation's top diplomat, the company scored an important victory when Trump signed a bill overturning an Obama-era rule requiring it to disclose payments to foreign governments. And last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency withdrew a rule that would require oil and gas companies to report their methane emissions."

===

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22022017/exxon-mobil-tar-sands-alberta-canada-climate-change-oil-prices

Exxon Relents, Wipes Oil Sands Reserves From Its Books

Low prices force the oil giant to stop counting 3.5 billion barrels as an asset, a major turnaround in its accounting

==

broke margin, see bak?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zNAn_OTrncoFaDZRXvL8nAsp_V1sttFl4hN5E6KPiT4/edit?usp=sharing

Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change ...

www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important"):}:

1.

:{Jun 30, 2016 - Does :{Exxon:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Mobil have a :{constitutional right:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: to sow doubt about climate science? ...:{Exxon:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, he wrote, had a First :{Amendment right:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: to withhold the ... when the government must act to:{protect:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: the integrity of the market, even if it ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Corporations like Exxon are using spurious free speech claims to fend ...

www.vox.com/the.../exxon-first-amendment-free-speech-citizens-global-warming

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important"):}:

1.

:{3 days ago - ... of the First :{Amendment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: — and other :{constitutional rights:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: — :{Exxon:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Mobil, ... of American history with virtually no First :{Amendment protections:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Exxon-Mobil is abusing the first amendment - The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../**exxonmobil**s.../2df8b29c-38c4-11e6-9ccd-d6005be...

Jun 24, 2016 - The oil giant is brazenly invoking the First Amendment to block a subpoena by state attorneys ... If ExxonMobil has committed fraud, its speech would not merit First Amendment protection. ... Lando unequivocally held that the Constitution does not preclude ordinary discovery of .... Play right from this page ...

Exxon Mimics Big Tobacco's First Amendment Plea

www.climateinvestigations.org/exxon_mimics_big_tobacco_s_first_amendment_plea

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important"):}:

1.

:{Apr 19, 2016 - :{ExxonMobil:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: raised the First :{Amendment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: defense when it sued in Tarrant ... as a violation of :{ExxonMobil's constitutional right:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: to participate "in ongoing public ... It held that no First :{Amendment protection:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: applies to Nike's false ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Exxon Fights Subpoena in Widening Climate Probe, Citing Violation of ...

https://insideclimatenews.org/.../**exxon**-virgin-islands-subpoena-climate-change-invest...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important"):}:

1.

:{Apr 14, 2016 - :{ExxonMobil:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Corp. sued to block a subpoena issued last month by the ... and that it violates the company's :{constitutional rights:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and "constitutes an abuse of ... strikes at :{protected:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: speech at the core of the First :{Amendment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:.".:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Exxon and Its Allies Invoke First Amendment to Fight Climate Fraud ...

https://insideclimatenews.org/.../**exxon**-competitive-enterprise-institute-cei-climate-cha...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important"):}:

1.

:{Apr 22, 2016 - :{Exxon:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and Its Allies Invoke First :{Amendment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: to Fight Climate Fraud Probes ... the First:{Amendment rights:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of those who question climate science. ... at :{protected:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: speech at the core of the First:{Amendment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:." .... :{Exxon:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Fights Subpoena in Widening Climate Probe, Citing Violation of Its:{Constitutional Rights:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

3 Reasons We Oppose a Congressional Move to Protect Exxon ...

www.ecowatch.com/we-oppose-a-congressional-move-to-protect-exxon-1946424984...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important"):}:

1.

:{Jul 27, 2016 - :{Constitutional Rights:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Violations ... colleagues bombastically claim that their crusade is to:{protect ExxonMobil's:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: First :{Amendment rights:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, as well ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Exxon Corporation v. Eagerton | Oyez

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1020

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important"):}:

2.

:{Feb 22, 1983 - :{Exxon:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Corporation (:{Exxon:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:), along with other gas and oil producers in Alabama, ... Equal:{Protection:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Clause of the 14th :{amendment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and the Contract Clause. ... :{rights:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: under the Equal :{Protection:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:Clause of the U.S. :{Constitution:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:?:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Exxon Tries To Bury Climate Documents By Claiming First ...

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d6...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important"):}:

1.

:{Apr 19, 2016 - :{Exxon's:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: invocation of the First :{Amendment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: is fairly unusual for a ... But others have tried to defend the oil company's free speech :{rights:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: on this ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

First Amendment Freedoms Must Be Protected | The Daily Caller

dailycaller.com/.../texas-is-fighting-back-against-the-activist-ags-dangerous-climate-su...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important"):}:

1.

:{Jun 2, 2016 - A view of the :{Exxon:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Mobil refinery in Baytown, Texas, in this ... Texas AG's Decision To Fight In Favor Of :{ExxonMobile's Constitutional Rights:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:?:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

===

icn

:{Exxon's Nod to Climate Change: A Board Member Who's an Expert on It:(style="-webkit-padding-start:0px"):}:

BY: DAVID HASEMYER

Naming atmospheric scientist Susan Avery to its board of directors may signal the oil giant will begin to take climate risks seriously.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26012017/exxons-nod-climate-change-board-member-who-studied-it

ExxonMobil has elected to its board of directors a prominent expert in atmospheric science, a move that some see as a sign the company is beginning to increase climate change considerations in its business plan.

The company's announcement of the election of Susan K. Avery on Wednesday came against the backdrop of mounting shareholder pressure to seat a board member with a scientific background, as well as the recent departure of Rex Tillerson as Exxon's chief executive. It may also be an indication of how criticism of Exxon's stance on climate science is affecting the company.

But Exxon's harshest critics dismissed the move as an empty PR gesture.

Avery served as president and director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution from 2008 to 2015, and was the first woman and the first atmospheric scientist to hold the position.

"Avery's leadership experience in multiple academic and scientific organizations, coupled with her breadth of scientific and research expertise, reinforce the corporation's long-standing technical and scientific foundation," according to an Exxon news release.

Avery has served on the United Nations Secretary General's scientific advisory board, which provides advice on science, technology and innovation for sustainable development. She also had been associated with the National Research Council Global Change Research Program Advisory Committee, and advisory committees with NASA, NOAA, and the National Science Foundation.

Over the last two years, Exxon has opposed shareholder resolutions calling for a board member with a scientific and climate change background.  The company had urged shareholders to reject the proposals under the leadership of Tillerson, who is poised to be confirmed as secretary of state as soon as next week.

The company argued that its directors should have a "breadth of experience" and not be limited in their scope of expertise.

Although the resolutions received support of just 21 percent of investors in 2105 and 2016, a number of large shareholder organizations have thrown their weight behind them, includingCalPERS, which manages California's public employees retirement fund, and State Street Global Advisors, a worldwide investment management company. A similar resolution is up for consideration at the company's annual meeting later this year.

Rev. Mike Crosby and the Province of St. Joseph of the Capuchin Order of friars had championed the resolutions. Crosby said Avery's selection is a sign the company may be more willing to begin accepting the mainstream understanding that climate change is not only happening but will impact the world's consumption of fossil fuels.

"It looks like they (Exxon) are changing their position," he said.  "This is a step in what we see as a gradual evolution by Exxon."

Crosby said the company initially refused to even talk when the friars first raised the issue several years ago.

"We weren't getting anywhere with them," he said. "But they have been evolving. The last time we brought it up with them, they seemed more willing to talk."

The election of Avery doesn't necessarily signal a wholesale embrace of climate change science, said Tim Smith, senior vice president of Boston-based Walden Asset Management, which promotes corporate responsibility on behalf of shareholders.

"This is terribly important symbolically; terribly significant for company governance," he said.  "We don't know that this is a big shift."

It increases the company's competence in addressing the climate issue, he said.

"This should enrich the climate discussion by the company and hopefully make the company more accountable for the impact of climate."

But the move is being viewed with cynicism by some environmental organizations.

"This is a little late in the game considering Exxon has known about climate change since the 1970s," said Jamie Henn, spokesman for 350.org.

"It's hard to believe this is little more than a PR stunt meant to pave over the decades the company spent deceiving the public about the crisis."

PUBLISHED UNDER:

BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

EXXON CLIMATE

CLIMATE CHANGE

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11012017/exxon-shareholders-climate-change-rex-tillerson

Once again this year, dissident ExxonMobil stockholders have filed several resolutions with the company asking it to be more forthright in addressing the climate crisis.

Submitted months before Exxon's annual meeting in May, by a twist of fate it also helps set the stage for Wednesday, when  Rex Tillerson, Exxon's former chief executive and Donald Trump's pick to become secretary of state, appears at a Senate confirmation hearing.

At the hearing, Tillerson's critics are likely to connect the dots between his stance on climate change as the head of the oil giant and how he would approach the problem as the nation's top diplomat, in light of the global climate treaty that Trump has opposed.

And that may mean Tillerson finds himself facing questions about the treaty's goals that shareholders have pressed him about before.

Most of the seven shareholder resolutions filed under Exxon's deadline in recent days resemble those the company vehemently opposed in recent years under Tillerson's leadership.

They ask Exxon to add a board member with environmental expertise; disclose funding of lobbyists and organizations dedicated to influencing climate policy; and to explain in detail how the company might align its business with a low-carbon economy.

Exxon is expected to oppose those resolutions, as it has consistently for more than two decades.

Dismissing one resolution last year, Tillerson told shareholders that confronting climate change had to be balanced against other objectives, like providing energy to the world's poor.It's an argument he has made repeatedly, and can be expected to be repeated in a new setting this week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"It is a judgment of balance between future climatic events which could prove to be catastrophic but are unknown ... and the more immediate needs of humanity today," Tillerson told shareholders last year.

Over the years, the dissident shareholders have carefully built a troika of recommendations that are meant to box in the company and make it acknowledge the conflicts between business-as-usual and the Paris agreement's goals.

One resolution, offered last year and refiled in essentially the same form by New York State's pension fund managers, calls for Exxon to prepare a stress test of how the company would perform if emissions were limited to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius, a key Paris goal.

A second resolution, filed by Arjuna Capital, a company focused on sustainable investments on behalf of it clients, asks for a report summarizing how the company will adjust. "A transition toward a low carbon economy is occurring and trends to reduce global demand for carbon-based energy are accelerating," it asserts. "A failure to plan for this transition may place investor capital at substantial risk."

A third, also from Arjuna, asks the company to return capital to shareholders instead of investing in development of high-cost oil reserves that may never be exploited because of reduced demand for fossil fuels.

"In a perfect world we would see a scenario where the company admits the problem, communicates its options and then implement those options in transitioning its business models,"  said Natasha Lamb, Arjuna's director of equity research and shareholder engagement.

At the shareholder meeting last year in Dallas, the open floor debate was dominated by arguments over the climate resolutions. Tillerson took the lead in urging votes against the resolutions.

Exxon's opposition to the shareholder resolutions has put it in a position of dancing around the Paris treaty's goal of keeping global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and striving to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. Any warmer, scientists say, and the risks are intolerable.

However challenging the targets, there is a clear scientific consensus that achieving them means reducing net emissions of greenhouse gases to zero over the coming decades. But Exxon shies away from that conclusion.

"Even among members of the global scientific community, including leading climate change researchers and nonpartisan think tanks, there exists significant disagreement over how to define or reach a 2 degree target," said a letter from an Exxon attorney to the Securities and Exchange Commission spelling out the company's opposition to one resolution.

That attitude, some climate advocates worry, colors the worldview of the man nominated to represent the country's climate policy.

"The key difference between his role as Exxon CEO and role of Secretary of State needs to be focused on what is the best interest of the United States and its people not just on the economic interests of a global energy company," argued Shanna Cleveland, a senior manager at Ceres, a nonprofit that promotes sustainable investing.

Under Tillerson, Exxon continued to be one of the most obstructionist oil companies worldwide when considering climate change mitigation, said Richard Ferlauto, a member of the governing board of 50/50 Climate Project, a nonprofit focused on increasing the climate awareness of publicly traded corporations.

Opposition to shareholder climate resolutions exemplifies that resistance, said Ferlauto, who served four years as deputy director for the SEC's office of Investor Education and Advocacy....

==

http://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-climate-research-2190240911.html

nolink img

Exxon Ordered to Fork Over 40 Years of Climate Research

Lorraine Chow

ExxonMobil was dealt a major blow on Wednesday after a Massachusetts judge ordered the company to hand in more than 40 years of climate research.

On Wednesday, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Heidi E. Brieger denied the oil giant a protective order that would have blocked Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's subpoenas for Exxon's internal research on climate change.

"This affirms our authority to investigate fraud," Healey tweeted after the decision. "ExxonMobil must come clean about what it knew about climate change."

Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers told Reuters the company was "reviewing the decision to determine next steps."

In June, the company filed a lawsuit at a federal court in Texas to block Healey's investigation. However, a Texas judge later ruled that the court had no jurisdiction over an investigation in Massachusetts.

Exxon is cooperating with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's own subpoena and has already turned over thousands of pages of documents.

Healey and Schneiderman are among 20 state attorneys general who have launched an unprecedented investigation into whether "Exxon knew" about man-made climate change for several decades but disseminated false information to shareholders and the public in order to boost profits.

:{

}:

In April, DeSmog uncovered Exxon corporate documents from the late 1970sstating unequivocally "there is no doubt" that CO2 from the burning of of fossil fuels was a growing "problem" well understood within the company. Despite having this information, multiple reports have surfaced over the company's efforts to lobby the government against emissions regulations and funding of climate change denial.

The ruling is not just a huge win for Healy, it also raises significant questions over the country's next presumptive secretary of state. On the same day of the court's decision, former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson faced off with the U.S. Senate over his nomination as Donald Trump's top foreign affairs adviser.

At one point during the rocky all-day hearing, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia asked Tillerson, "Are these conclusions about ExxonMobil's history of promoting and funding climate science denial, despite its internal awareness of the reality of climate change during your tenure with the company, true or false?"

Tillerson, despite working for half of his 42 years at Exxon as an executive, said he could not answer the question since he no longer worked for the company.

Kaine, however, pressed on. "I'm not asking you on behalf of ExxonMobil. You have resigned from ExxonMobil. I'm asking you whether those allegations about ExxonMobil's knowledge of climate science and decision to fund and promote a view contrary to its awareness of its science, whether the allegations are true or false."

Tillerson again did not answer.

"Do you lack the knowledge to answer my question, or are you refusing to do so?" Kaine asked.

Tillerson finally responded, "A little of both."

Oil Change International campaigns director David Turnbull told EcoWatch that "the prospect of a sitting secretary of state becoming entangled in a lawsuit for his role in misleading the public about climate change is as real as it is alarming."

"Tillerson should stop the evasiveness and make all of the documents it provided to New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman public, so we have a full account of his role in Exxon's disinformation campaign," Turnbull added. "Anything short of that will leave questions looming that evidence suggests may only be later answered in court."

350.org co-founder Bill McKibben issued a similar statement.

"Rex Tillerson may be trying to make his getaway, but it's good to see that the courts may yet hold Exxon responsible for the damage it's done to this planet and to our democracy," McKibben said. "It was astonishing to watch Tillerson dodge and weave, almost as if he hadn't spent his entire career at ExxonMobil. Apparently, alongside the climate damage it causes, longterm exposure to Big Oil impairs your memory."

Lorraine Chow

==

http://www.ecowatch.com/big-oil-exxon-big-trouble-2072533181.html

For years people have been warning that Big Oil's business model was fundamentally flawed and was not only putting the climate at risk, but millions of dollars of shareholders' money.

For years the industry's critics warned the industry was ignoring the risks of climate change and was just caring on drilling regardless.

But the oilmen did what the oilmen do: find oil and gas, no matter the consequences.

And the worst oil company has been Exxon which for decades has denied climate change and the impact that climate change will have on its business.

For decades it could have invested wisely in renewables but it carried on looking for oil and gas—including unconventional oil which is even more carbon intensive than conventional oil. Its critics warned this was pure folly: but the oilmen carried on drilling anyway.

Big Oil is used to doing things its own way.

The warnings have kept coming, but the boys from Exxon didn't listen. Oil Change International, 350.org, Carbon Tracker and many others in the #keepintheground movement have been saying for years that large swathes of oil reserves must stay in the ground.

They warned that fossil fuel reserves will become "stranded assets."

Exxon often dismissed its critics as irrelevant lentil-eating, sandal wearing hippies, who wanted to take humanity back to the stone age.

And it carried on drilling. And it dismissed the fact that any of its assets could become stranded.

But then came the Paris agreement on climate change last December. "With the Paris agreement on climate ratified in December 2015 … no company has more to lose than Exxon," noted the Chicago Tribune in a great article written last Friday entitled, Exxon enters no man's land.

The Chicago Tribune continued:

"Big oil companies have been solid investments for years, with a deceptively simple business model: Find at least as much new oil as you sell, book those barrels as future sales and reinvest in the hunt for new reserves. That made sense as long as oil prices went up, but it locked companies into a vicious cycle of replenishment, leading them to search for ever more extreme, and expensive, sources of crude oil in the Arctic and beneath the oceans."

And it added:

"Cheap oil has stopped that business cold and the threat of climate action raises fundamental questions about whether it'll ever be viable again."

The issue of long term viability has been raised by numerous organizations over the last eighteen months too. Last year the energy watch-dog, the International Energy Agency, argued that two thirds of known reserves would have to stay unburnt, if we are to keep climate change to the limits agreed in Paris.

But Exxon carried on drilling.

Last year Citigroup issued a report warning policies to limit climate change could render vast swaths of oil companies' reserves worthless, leading to trillions in losses.

But Exxon ignored the warnings.

In May this year, the London-based Chatham House warned in a report, entitled The Death of the Old Business Model, that the world's largest oil companies "Faced with the choice of managing a gentle decline by downsizing or risking a rapid collapse by trying to carry on business as usual."

Importantly, most of Exxon's de-booked reserves, about 3.6bn barrels, will be at the company's dirty Kearl oil sands project in Canada. The reduction would account for over three quarters of the reserves. Not only are tar sands very energy intensive, but they are expensive to produce.

In a low oil price, carbon-constrained world, they are stranded assets.

"For the oil sands, this is a tipping point," argued Andrew Logan, director of the oil and gas program at the ethical investment organization, Ceres. "Why would any company invest billions of dollars in a new oil-sands project now, given the near certainty that the world will be transitioning away from fossil fuels during the decades it will take for that project to pay back?"

Indeed, two days before Friday's announcement an article on CNN Money noted just how much trouble the oil giant was in: "Exxon's stock is down 17% from its 2014 peak amid the crash in oil prices. The oil giant's profits have plunged to 17-year lows and its once-perfect AAA credit rating has evaporated."

It quoted Tom Sanzillo, former deputy comptroller of New York State and now head of finance at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis saying the company was in the middle of an "irreversible decline."

Friday's announcement is further evidence that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the oil age.

And the great carbon dinosaur Exxon is slowly dying before our eyes.

Reposted with permission from our media associate Oil Change International.

===

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29092016/exxon-mobil-change-change-investigation-oil-sands-tar-sands-alberta-canada-sec

State and federal investigators are zeroing in on ExxonMobil's accounting practices as part of two independent probes, asking whether the energy giant might have misled investors about the value of its assets.

Increasingly, those assets are made up of Canadian tar sands oil, among the world's most expensive and dirtiest forms of crude oil.

An InsideClimate News analysis of the company's financial disclosures shows that Exxon's oil sands reserves grew dramatically over the past decade. Doing so has deepened the company's dependence on an oil source that some economists say should be one of the first to be abandoned if governments decide to leave much of the world's fossil fuels in the ground to stave off global warming.

Since 2007, Exxon's tar sands reserves grew to 5.1 billion barrels from 1.4 billion barrels, nearly quadrupling. As a percentage of the company's total liquid reserves, these holdings more than doubled to 35 percent from 17 percent....

==

http://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-lawsuit-mystic-river-2024418598.html

ExxonMobil is facing a first-of-its-kind lawsuit for failing to account for the risks from climate change to its fuel storage terminal outside Boston. The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) claims that sea level rise and accompanying storm surges could damage the facility and lead to further pollution of the Mystic River.

....

==

http://www.ecowatch.com/sec-exxon-climate-change-2011247494.html

...

The SEC requested information and documents from Exxon and the company's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, in August, as well as documents from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's similar investigation of the company. Exxon has been under increasing government scrutiny since multiple reports revealed the oil giant may have misled the public about the dangers of climate change.

"This is a remarkably important development—the federal government is joining the courageous state attorneys general, and they're all following the trail of clues that began with powerful investigative journalism," Bill McKibben, 350.org co-founder, said. "Before they're done we'll understand considerably more about how the world overheated—but in the meantime, every institution that invests in Exxon should take real note of who you're keeping company with."

img

"This investigation is a welcome opportunity for transparency from the fossil fuel industry,"Greenpeace Executive Director Annie Leonard said. "We know Exxon has published projections showing that demand for oil and natural gas will continue growing for decades to come—projections which are flatly incompatible with limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, as called for by the Paris climate accords. What we don't know is how Exxon's balance sheet would change if the world meets the climate challenge."

==

**In 2015**, ExxonMobil funneled millions to groups peddling climate denial.  According to its publicly available 2015 Worldwide Global Giving report, **over $1.6 million (20%) of ExxonMobil’s Public Information and Policy Research contributions went to the following organizations discussed during the web of denial floor statements.**

ALEC’s climate obstructionism is particularly notorious, earning an entire website-- ALECclimatechangedenial.org—to debunk its work.  When an ExxonMobil official serves on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Council, and your company is a top sponsor of ALEC’s recent annual meeting in Indianapolis, we find Ms. Fariello’s assurances less than assuring....

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-schatz-call-out-exxonmobil-for-continuing-to-fund-effort-to-block-climate-action

==

olympic greenwash

https://act.climatetruth.org/sign/EnergyLiesHere_fshare?t=2&akid=4183.100725.NjIIBl

==

http://www.alternet.org/environment/new-evidence-suggests-big-oil-didnt-borrow-big-tobaccos-playbook-lie-public-about

Recent analysis of more than 100 industry documents conducted by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has revealed that the oil industry knew of the risks its business posed to the global climate decades before originally suspected.

It has also long been assumed that, in its efforts to deceive investors and the public about the negative impact its business has on the environment, Big Oil borrowed Big Tobacco’s so-called tactical “playbook.” But these documents indicate that infamous playbook appears to have actually originated within the oil industry itself.

If that is true, it would be highly significant—and damning for Big Oil—because the tactics used by the tobacco industry to downplay the connection between smoking and cancer were eventually deemed to have violated federal racketeering laws by a federal court. The ruling dashed efforts by Big Tobacco to find legal cover under the First Amendment, which just happens to be the same strategy that ExxonMobil and its GOP allies are currently using to defend the company against allegations of fraud. If the playbook was in fact created by the oil and gas industry and then later used by ExxonMobil, it ruins the company’s argument of plausible deniability, making it highly likely that the company violated federal law.

This latest development is a major blow to Big Oil, which has been trying to rebuff comparisons to the tobacco industry. It also comes as a group of state attorneys general are pursuing an investigation into possible fraud committed by ExxonMobil. The probe, which could ultimately extend to include other oil and gas companies, was launched in November by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who has since been joined by 16 other state AGs in a historic national coalition seeking to find out if America’s largest oil company intentionally hid critical climate-related information about their future business from investors and the public.

Environmentalists and corporate accountability advocates have cheered the investigation, contending that ExxonMobil has engaged in a decades-long campaign of climate denial and deception, ultimately delaying action on climate change and putting the planet at risk.

“We began with three simple, related questions,” says Carroll Muffett, president of CIEL, about the recently analyzed documents, which are housed at the tobacco industry document archive at the University of California, San Francisco medical center. “What did they know? When did they know it? And what did they do about it? What we found is that they knew a great deal, and they knew it much earlier and with greater certainty than anyone has recognized or that the industry has admitted.”

Sowing seeds of doubt about climate science

“Big Oil created the organized apparatus of doubt,” Muffett said. “It used the same playbook of misinformation, obfuscation and research laundered through front groups to attack science and sow uncertainty on lead, on smog, and in the early debates on climate change. Big Tobacco used and refined that playbook for decades in its fight to keep us smoking—just as Big Oil is using it now, again, to keep us burning fossil fuels.” To wit: Exxon’s own Corporate Citizenship Report from last year revealed that the company is still funding climate denial groups.

The documents suggest that the tactics in question were developed by the Smoke and Fumes Committee, a group launched 70 years ago by the American Petroleum Institute, the national trade association that represents the U.S. fossil fuel industry, to study oil industry pollution and present its own spin to the public. If that is the case, it appears those same tactics were likely co-opted by the tobacco industry, which was later found guilty of committing fraud following a racketeering lawsuit filed in 1999 by the Department of Justice. The documents reveals that the deceptive actions taken by the oil industry so many decades ago prevented the possibility of early action on climate change—action that may have prevented potentially millions of climate-related deaths across the globe.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States alone. The World Health Organization estimates that around 6 million peopleworldwide die from tobacco-related illnesses. Between 2030 and 2050, WHO estimates that climate change will cause approximately 250,000 deaths per year, from heat stress, malnutrition, malaria and diarrhea. That number does not include the deaths caused by climate-related natural disasters, which have more than tripled since the 1960s, resulting in over 60,000 deaths each year, mainly in developing countries.

Neva Rockefeller Goodwin, co-director of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University is also the great-granddaughter of John D. Rockefeller Sr., founder of the American oil giant Standard Oil Company, out of which ExxonMobil was born. Earlier this year, Goodwin decided to divest her shares of ExxonMobil stock and use the proceeds to fight climate change and climate denial. In an interview with AlterNet, she contrasted the impact of tobacco and fossil fuel:

In the large picture ... tobacco and fossil fuel emissions are quite different. Tobacco kills people one by one. Climate change will increasingly cause events like hurricanes that will destroy large swathes of property, kill numbers of people, make many homeless. While it can be argued that smoking tobacco is a matter of individual choice, the production and use of fossil fuels is more obviously a social issue. In the long run, producers of fossil fuels will have to lose. The only question is how much the people and ecologies of the world will lose before our economies cease to make the situation worse.

U.N.: Climate change is "irreversible"

While the climate situation can certainly become worse, the actions of ExxonMobil and Big Oil have helped to put the planet on what many scientists are now saying is an unstoppable path. In 2014, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change offered a grim assessment: “Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts.” That has left environmentalists not only angry at the oil industry, but also wondering how the narrative might have been different had the industry been honest and open about its early findings.

“It’s increasingly clear that the fossil fuel industry knew a lot more about the causes of climate change—and its effects—much earlier than anyone else," said Annie Leonard, the executive director of Greenpeace USA, about CIEL’s findings. "It pains me to think how much better shape the planet and vulnerable communities could be in if the fossil fuel industry had taken positive action based on this knowledge instead of trying to profit from it."

Climate activist Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, has been a long-time critic of the oil and gas industry. “The ongoing revelations about the depth of oil industry research into—and obfuscation of—the greatest crisis humans have ever faced are hard to read; thanks to them, we wasted vital time,” he said in a press statement.

In a CIEL video, Muffett explains how “the world's most powerful industry used science, communications and consumer psychology to shape the public debate over climate change,” noting “it begins earlier, decades earlier than anyone recognized.” He points out that in 1968, API commissioned a report titled "Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants,” which revealed rising levels of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas produced by the combustion of fossil fuel, in the atmosphere. The report’s authors, Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins of the Stanford Research Institute, warned of significant climate risks posed by the continued use of fossil fuel. "If the earth's temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans, and an increase in photosynthesis," they wrote, adding, “there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe."

Notably, Muffett said, is the fact that the report's authors "recognized that the most important remaining uncertainties were technological: How would we respond and how would we modify our technology to reduce emissions?" Now, nearly half a century later, the question becomes: Why did the oil industry hide this information from the public? Of course, we know the answer to that question: Profits. Instead of responding responsibly to the dire warnings that came with this information by moving the nation’s energy portfolio and infrastructure to a low-carbon future, the oil industry kept on drilling, kept businesses and consumers burning their primary retail products, which continued to pollute the environment and damage the Earth’s climate.

Seventy years of denial and deception

The question for Schneiderman and his fellow state attorneys general is, did ExxonMobil, and possibly other oil companies, intentionally mislead investors, consumer and the public, hiding the damning scientific evidence that their own industry paid to discover? With CIEL’s analysis of industry documents, it appears that Big Oil may be even guiltier than originally suspected, as the group traced the origins of the 1968 API report to a meeting of oil and gas industry executives in Los Angeles more than two decades earlier, in 1946.

That was the year API established the Smoke and Fumes Committee. "Faced with growing public concern about air pollution,” Muffett said, “the industry embarked on what would become a well-funded, carefully coordinated, multi-decade enterprise of funding scientific research and using that research to promote public skepticism of environmental regulations the industry considered hasty, costly and potentially unnecessary.”

One of the tactics used by the oil industry was to delay any climate action that might harm its business by sowing seeds of doubt. “The worst thing that can happen, in many instances, is the hasty passage of a law or laws for the control of a given air pollution situation,” wrote Vance Jenkins, executive secretary of the Smoke and Fumes Committee, in a 1954 trade journal article about smog pollution.

The ties between the oil and tobacco industries run deep. In the 1950s, Monroe J. Rathbone, the president and director of Standard Oil, sat on American Cancer Society's committee on smoking and public policy. In 1968, Esso Research and Engineering Co., an affiliate of Standard Oil, filed a patent claim for a new type of cigarette filter, made out of polypropylene, a thermoplastic polymer that was first synthesized by Phillips Petroleum, an American Oil Company. In 1979, R.G Baker, the chair of British American Tobacco, the second largest tobacco company in the world, also sat on the board of Exxon, the world's biggest publicly traded oil company. In the 1970s, R.J. Reynolds, America's second-largest tobacco company, diversified into the energy business, acquiring American Independent Oil Company, Burmah Oil and Gas Company and Burmah Oil Development, Inc.

In a CIEL video, Muffett explains the key events that reveal the oil industry didn’t just borrow the tobacco industry’s playbook, but was actually behind behind it all along:

As evidence mounts of the oil industry's decades-long campaign of climate deception and denial, Exxon and its allies assure us that oil is not the new tobacco. The 14 million documents at the Tobacco Archives prove Exxon right: Oil is not the new tobacco. But six decades ago, tobacco was the new oil. In December 1953, tobacco executives met in a New York hotel room to hatch a plan to confront the rising tide of science linking smoking with cancer. To help craft that plan, tobacco turned to PR firm Hill and Knowlton. Hill and Knowlton, in turn, drew on its long expertise supporting the oil industry. Richard Darrow, the principal architect of tobacco's strategy, also represented Hill and Knowlton's biggest oil company clients.

In the years that followed, the tobacco conspirators looked repeatedly to oil industry campaigns on smog, lead and other air pollutants for models, for resources and for people. They turned to Stanford Research Institute, a key player in the oil industry's “Smoke and Fumes” effort to develop a suitcase-sized testing kit that would sample smoke without attracting attention. They turned to Truesdail Laboratories, which in 1958 was doing the earliest documented climate research for the American Petroleum Institute, and to a former Standard Oil executive who recommended an array of scientists for the tobacco industry's scientific advisory board, nearly all with proven links to the oil industry and many of whom would go on to work for tobacco.

Suffice it to say, CIEL’s analysis has uncovered the deep and complex relationship between the oil and tobacco industries that goes back many decades, and continues to this day. From advertising campaigns and marketing tactics to PR firms and scientists, the two industries have shared a wealth of information, strategies and human resources. The relationship was formed on mutual dependence, which consistently placed profits above public and environmental health. As Muffett points out, "For Big Tobacco, gas stations were vital retail outlets. For Big Oil, cigarettes were their biggest retail product after gasoline."

“These documents are the tip of an evidentiary iceberg that demands further investigation,” said Muffett. “Oil companies had an early opportunity to acknowledge climate science and climate risks, and to enable consumers to make informed choices. They chose a different path. The public deserves to know why.”

The investigation continues

ExxonMobil and its allies on Capitol Hill—a coterie of GOP legislators who have received political contributions from the oil industry—have attempted to stop the AGs' fraud probe by claiming the investigation is a violation of the company's First Amendment rights.

In June, ExxonMobil filed a complaint in federal district court in Fort Worth, Texas, against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who had subpoenaed the company under consumer and securities fraud statutes, in an effort to secure company records going back 40 years. In its lawsuit, which is seeking an injunction to stop Healey's probe, ExxonMobil said Healey's investigation is "nothing more than a weak pretext for an unlawful exercise of government power to further political objectives," adding that the attorney general is "abusing the power of government [and] … has deprived and will continue to deprive ExxonMobil of its rights under the United States Constitution.”

Unfortunately for ExxonMobil, the First Amendment claim has already been discredited. In United States vs Philip Morris Inc., a federal appeals court found that the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent statements. Likewise, Healey’s office has dismissed ExxonMobil’s claims.

"For many months, ExxonMobil has engaged in an unprecedented effort to limit the ability of state attorneys general to investigate fraud and unfair business practices," said Cyndi Roy Gonzalez, Healey's communications director.

"Our investigation is based not on speculation but on inconsistencies about climate change in Exxon documents which have been made public," Gonzalez said, and echoing the tobacco lawsuit, added that "the First Amendment does not protect false and misleading statements in the marketplace. Exxon's assertion that we cannot investigate it because the company has not engaged in business here in Massachusetts is completely preposterous."

However, a similar battle between ExxonMobil and U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker ended in a ceasefire, as Walker agreed to withdraw a similar subpoena in exchange for ExxonMobil’s withdrawal of its lawsuit against him. Walker’s withdrawal hasn’t been viewed as a setback for the ongoing probe, as legal experts contend that the primary battlefields will be Massachusetts and New York. So far, Exxon is cooperating with New York's investigation and has already relinquished more than 700,000 pages of documents to Schneiderman's office.

But 100 or so recently analyzed documents may reveal the true origin of Big Tobacco's infamous playbook.

Watch CIEL’s “Smoke and Fumes” videos to learn more about its analysis of those documents

==

negin ucs

8/16

carbon tax support BS

Recent press accounts report that ExxonMobil is now actively promoting acarbon tax.If true, that’s big news. It would mean that, after nearly 20 years of blocking action on climate change, the world’s biggest energy company has finally come to its senses.

But wait a minute. If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. So one might well ask: Is this anything more than a PR ploy?

Let’s take a closer look.

As I reported earlier this year, ExxonMobil has paid lip service to the idea of a carbon tax since 2009 but, all the while, has continued to fund federal lawmakers who resolutely oppose it. In March 2015, for example, the Senate voted 58 to 42 to pass a budget amendment prohibiting a carbon tax. Thirty of the 40 senators who had received ExxonMobil campaign contributions since 2010 voted in favor of the prohibition. Meanwhile, in March 2013, 156Housemembers cosponsored a nonbinding resolution stating that “a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses and is not in the best interest of the United States.” Ninety-three percent of the cosponsors were funded by — you guessed it — ExxonMobil.

OK, but that was then, and things can change, right? After all, last December, Ken Cohen, the company’s outgoing vice president of public and government affairs,blogged about ExxonMobil’s strong support for a carbon tax, noting that the company has been holding “countless private briefings with members of Congress on carbon tax policy options.”

So how have the company’s friends on Capitol Hill responded?

In June, the House passed a resolution stating “a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy” on a 237 to 163 vote. Eighty-five percent of the House members who voted for the resolution received ExxonMobil political donations since 2013; 82 of them are documented climate science deniers.By contrast, only 26 of the representatives who voted against the resolution — a measly 16 percent — received ExxonMobil money.

The numbers are unambiguous: When it comes to a carbon tax, there’s no escaping the fact that ExxonMobil still funds legislators who don’t favor it and, by the same token, doesn’t support many who do.

Disingenuous Origins

In his December blog post, Cohen traced ExxonMobil’s support for a carbon tax back to January 2009, when company CEO Rex Tillerson endorsed it in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. Cohen, however, neglected to explain the context for this pronounced break with ExxonMobil’s long-held position against any policy that would curb carbon emissions:Tillerson was trying to derail momentum on Capitol Hill for a different approach.

Back then, Congress was seriously considering instituting a cap-and-trade system, modeled after the George H. W. Bush administration’s successful plan to reduce acid rain, which would have set a cap on overall carbon emissions and established a regulated marketplace where polluters could buy and sell emissions allowances. The less carbon they emitted, the less they would pay.

The European Union had instituted such a system in 2005 and, although there were disagreements over the details, the idea of a U.S. cap-and-trade system had the support of a number of environmental organizations, including the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council, and more than two dozen companies, including oil giants BP America, ConocoPhillips and Shell. Perhaps most important, the plan had the backing of President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, who then controlled both houses of Congress.

Tillerson was having none of it. “A carbon tax strikes us as a more direct, transparent and effective approach” than a cap-and-trade system, he said in that January 2009 speech. “It is the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions, from investments made by companies to fuel and product choices made by consumers.” Any carbon tax, he added, should be revenue-neutral, meaning it should be offset by reductions in income and corporate taxes.

But there was a major obstacle in the way of Tillerson’s preferred solution: It had no political support. When California Rep. Pete Stark proposed a carbon tax just the year before, it attracted only three cosponsors.

Tillerson, who surely knew Congress wasn’t about to pass a carbon tax, publicly conceded it faced long odds. “Right now, any talk of imposing new taxes would rattle the markets and individuals,” he told E&E News, a trade publication, the same day he spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center. “...But probably later this year, I think they’re going to get around to want to further investigate what their alternatives are.”

As it turned out, the House narrowly passed a cap-and-trade bill on a 219 to 212 vote in June 2009. In the Senate,however, it was a different story. The legislation never made it out of committee for a number of complicated reasons, but the fact that fossil fuel interests had plenty of friends in the upper chamber — many of them longtime recipients of ExxonMobil political donations — no doubt played a significant role. The bottom line? ExxonMobil ultimately got what it wanted by plugging a carbon tax: gridlock.

Beyond the Rhetoric

There has been some speculation about what motivated ExxonMobil to recently ramp up its pro-carbon tax rhetoric. First, with multiple investigations underway by state attorneys general of the company for misleading its shareholders and the general public about climate risks, it likely feels the need to polish its tarnished image. Second, the company knows that last December’s historic U.N. climate meeting in Paris, where 195 countries committed to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, means that it will be harder to maintain the status quo. Third, if and when Congress does seriously consider a carbon tax, ExxonMobil wants to position itself to influence the debate. And finally, ExxonMobil would likely benefit more than its competitors from a carbon tax, because such a tax would favor the cleaner-burning natural gas over coal and ExxonMobil has the largest natural gas reserves of any U.S. company.

These are all plausible reasons, except for one thing: The evidence suggests that the company is still doing what it can to obstruct policies to combat climate change.

Last fall, for example, California Rep. Ted Lieu — who has not received any ExxonMobil campaign contributions — met with the company’s lobbyists in what was presumably one of the “countless private briefings” Cohen cited in his December blog. Lieu asked the lobbyists what they would do if he drafted carbon tax legislation. They replied that “they would take a look at it,” Lieu told InsideClimate News. “They didn’t say they wouldn’t support it and they didn’t say they would,” he added. “It’s clear that they are not going around championing their position. If they actually believe this internally, then they ought to do so in a much louder way than just quietly sticking it on a website.”

In the Senate, meanwhile, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Brian Schatz of Hawaii have introduced a carbon tax bill, the “American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act.” Has ExxonMobil endorsed it or lobbied on its behalf? According to Whitehouse and Schatz, no.

“Regarding ExxonMobil’s alleged seven years of support for a carbon fee, we’ve seen no meaningful evidence of that,” the senators said in a letter they sent to the company Tuesday. “None of the top executives that make up ExxonMobil’s management team has expressed interest in meeting with any of us to discuss the Whitehouse-Schatz proposal or any carbon fee legislation.”

Conversely, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, a climate science denier, explained to Fox News host Steve Doocy in December 2012 that he told ExxonMobil lobbyists a carbon tax was a “bad idea.” “I sat down with the Exxon folks a couple of months ago,” Uptonsaid, “and let it be known that this is not a proposal that ... is going to be coming through in the House.”Nevertheless, ExxonMobil donated more to Upton during the current election cycle than it did in either the 2012 or 2014 cycles.

Besides its political donations and lobbying, the company is still spending millions of dollars a year on think tanks, advocacy groups and trade associations that dispute climate science and disparage climate policies, including a carbon tax. Just last month, ExxonMobil was a lead sponsor of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) annual conference, which featured Oren Cass, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a self-described free-market think tank ExxonMobil has been funding since 1998. According to one conference participant, Cass “absolutely eviscerated the case for conservatives adopting a carbon tax.” Conference organizers also provided ALEC state legislator members with a sample resolution against the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to curb power plant carbon emissions.

ExxonMobil doesn’t just rely on paid surrogates, however, to spread disinformation and block government action. Company executives may sing the praises of a carbon tax, but they still find time to misrepresent climate science and question the necessity of taking any action at all.

Climate Science Denial Starts at the Top

In March 2013 — the same month 146 ExxonMobil-funded House members cosponsored a resolution against a carbon tax — Tillerson appeared on on PBS’sCharlie Rose, ostensibly to promote one. The CEO told Rose he preferred a carbon tax to a cap-and-trade system, but then he doubted whether scientists knew enough to warrant one. “The facts remain there are uncertainties around climate change, why it’s changing, [and] what the principal drivers of climate change are,” Tillerson claimed, repudiating the consensus among climate scientists worldwide. He also falsely claimed there is no scientific evidence of a link between global warming and extreme weather events.

Two years later, at ExxonMobil’s 2015 annual shareholder meeting, Tillerson again argued that climate models are not accurate enough to justify a dramatic shift away from fossil fuels. “What if everything we do,” he asked, “it turns out our models are lousy and we don’t get the effects we predict?” He recommended continuing to burn fossil fuels and adapting to whatever happens, be it sea level rise or crop failures. “Mankind has this enormous capacity to deal with adversity,” he said, “and those solutions will present themselves as the realities become clear.”

Contrary to Tillerson’s assertions, climate models have proven to be extremely accurate. A March 2013 peer-reviewed paper in the journal Nature Geoscience, for example, found that the models accurately predicted the rise in global temperatures over the previous 15 years to within a few hundredths of a degree. No matter. When given the chance to set the record straight at this year’s shareholder meeting in late May, Tillerson would not back down. “My view on the competencies of the models,” he said, “has really not changed.”

Perhaps the most revealing statement demonstrating the depth of ExxonMobil’s support for a carbon tax, however, came the day before the House resolution vote in June — the one where nearly 90 percent of the ExxonMobil-funded House members casting a ballot voted yes, a carbon tax would hurt the U.S. economy. AHuffington Post reporter contacted ExxonMobil Media Relations Manager Alan Jeffers to find out what the company had to say. Given the company’s supposedly heightened interest in persuading Congress to pass a carbon tax, one would have expected Jeffers to register the company’s opposition. Certainly he would explain why the resolution was misguided and tell House members to vote no. It was what some would call a teachable moment.

So how did Jeffers respond?

“We’re not commenting on the resolution.”

http://www.alternet.org/environment/exxonmobils-latest-campaign-stonewall-federal-climate-action

==

http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-denier-groups-exxon-is-funding-1919648161.html

ExxonMobil officials may hem and haw when reporters ask them if the company still funds climate science denier organizations, but the numbers don't lie.

The company says it acknowledges the reality of global warming and claims it supports acarbon tax, but its recently disclosed list of 2015 "public information and policy research" grantees shows it spent nearly $2 million last year on more than a dozen think tanks, advocacy groups and associations that dispute climate science and disparage renewable energy.

That's significant from both a legal and political perspective.

There are legal implications because ExxonMobil is currently under investigation for allegedly misleading investors and the general public about climate risks. Its scientists, who were conducting cutting-edge climate research as far back as the 1970s, cautioned top management that continuing to burn vast quantities of fossil fuels could be catastrophic. Instead of heeding those warnings, the company stressed scientific uncertainty to protect its long-term profitability and bankrolled denier groups to spread disinformation.

Likewise, it is politically significant because, by sowing doubt about climate science and the potential of carbon-free energy sources, denier groups provide cover for elected officials to stand in the way of progress.

Two Decades of Duplicity

Shortly after the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol international climate treaty, Exxon went on a spending spree to block federal efforts to address global warming. The company, which was outed by a 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), spent $18.62 million from 1998—a year before it merged with Mobil—through 2005 on a network of more than 40 groups. From 2006 through last year, it spent another $14.35 million, for a total of $33 million.

That's just what can be gleaned from the company's tax filings and statements, however. Corporations are not required to disclose all of their political spending and there is reason to suspect ExxonMobil has spent quite a bit more on its climate disinformation campaign. A former ExxonMobil executive who wishes to remain anonymous told UCS that the company secretly allocated as much as $10 million annually for what insiders called climate "black ops" from 1998 through 2005.

In any case, according to its own figures posted last week, ExxonMobil spent $1.96 million on 16 denier and obstructionist groups last year. Ten of them, including the American Enterprise Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council, Federalist Society and Hoover Institution, were among those listed in the 2007 UCS report.

So what is ExxonMobil getting for its money? Let's take a look at a handful of last year's grantees to find out.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

Half of ExxonMobil's 2015 denier donations—$1 million—went to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the same amount it gave the Chamber in 2014.

The chamber acknowledges that climate change is happening, but discounts the prevailing scientific consensus that it is largely due to human activity, mainly burning fossil fuels. When pressed about the Chamber's position during a March 2014 Senate hearing, Karen Harbert, head of the Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy, replied that there is a "robust debate" over what is causing climate change. "It is caused by a lot of things," she insisted.[tobacco scam]

Harbert's scientifically indefensible comment was not surprising. The Chamber has a long history of disputing climate science and that has alienated some of its members. In 2009, Apple, Exelon, Nike, PNM Resources and PG&E, for example, cancelled their memberships after Chamber Vice President William Kovacs demanded that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convene a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" on climate science with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge ruling on the reality of global warming. "It would be evolution versus creationism," Kovacs explained. "It will be climate change science on trial."

Those high-profile defections apparently had little impact on the Chamber's position. In May 2014, just days before the EPA announced its draft Clean Power Plan to reduce power plant carbon pollution, the Chamber released a grossly misleading report attacking the proposed rule. The report, which was also sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, was denounced not only by the EPA, but also by PolitiFact.com and the Washington Post. Among its many faults, the report wildly inflated the cost of the rule and failed to consider the benefits of cutting carbon emissions.

Last October, the Chamber and 14 other business associations filed a lawsuit against the EPA, arguing that the Clean Power Plan exceeds the agency's authority to regulate the energy sector and the Chamber's priorities for 2016 include opposing EPA efforts to curb carbon emissions as well as the agency's science-based finding that global warming endangers public health and the environment.

Manhattan Institute:

ExxonMobil gave the Manhattan Institute $200,000 in 2015, boosting the company's total donations to the self-described free-market think tank to $1 million since 1998. In turn, the institute has been cranking out papers and articles denouncing efforts to cut carbon and maligning renewable energy technologies.

Last summer, for example, Manhattan Institute Senior FellowOren Cass dismissed the idea of a carbon tax—ExxonMobil's supposed preferred policy—as a "shell game" in an article he wrote for National Affairs. He followed up that essay in October with a white paper calling the impending UN climate negotiations in Paris a "farce." What did Cass propose as a better solution? He urged policymakers to "abandon fruitless negotiations and focus instead on the realistic option of promoting innovation and preparing for any future adaptation that may be necessary."

The institute's longtime point man on energy,Robert Bryce—who previously worked for the ExxonMobil-funded Institute for Energy Research—says he's "agnostic" about climate change.Over the years he has written numerous columns for the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other publications praising oil, natural gas and coal and disparaging wind and solar. A recent Bryce column in the National Review, for instance, denounced tax breaks and subsidies for the wind industry but ignored the fact that, since 1918,federal oil and gas industry subsidies have averaged $4.85 billion a year in today's dollars.

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC):

ALEC, a secretive lobby group that drafts sample corporate-friendly legislation for state lawmakers, has received $1.79 million from ExxonMobil since 1998 and that investment is still paying dividends. At ALEC's annual meeting last July, for example, corporate and legislator members collaborated on bills and resolutions that would inhibit state implementation of the Clean Power Plan, hamper the solar industry from selling electricity directly to homes and businesses and undermine state renewable energy standards by restricting investment in wind and solar.

One of the keynote speakers at that meeting, Stephen Moore—founder of the Club for Growth and a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation—declared at a plenary session that the "biggest scam of the last 100 years is global warming." ALEC's official position on climate change is only slightly more nuanced, leaving open the question of the role human activity plays. "Climate change is a historical phenomenon," its website states "and the debate will continue on the significance of natural and anthropogenic contributions."

With that scientifically challenged position, it's no wonderALEC invites speakers for its conferences from such notorious climate science denier groups as the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the Heartland Institute and, of course, the Heritage Foundation—all former ExxonMobil grantees.

While ExxonMobil and other major carbon producers Chevron and Peabody Energy remain steadfast ALEC members, more than 100 corporations have severed ties with the organization for a variety of reasons, including its stance on climate change. Those companies include a number of heavy hitters in the energy sector, including American Electric Power, BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell.

National Black Chamber of Commerce:

From 2002 through last year, the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) received $1.1 million from ExxonMobil and the organization's president, Harry C. Alford, is unapologetic about taking fossil fuel industry money. "Of course we do and it is only natural," Alford states on the NBCC website. "The legacy of Blacks in this nation has been tied to the miraculous history of fossil fuel ... [F]ossil fuels have been our economic friend."

Last summer, NBCC published a report that falsely claimed the Clean Power Plan would pose "economic hardship" on poor and minority Americans. A UCS analysis found that the report was based on fraudulent claims from previously published studies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's anti-Clean Power Plan report from 2014. In fact, unchecked climate change would likely hurt poor and minority communities most.

More recently, Alford wrote an opinion piece attacking the Clean Power Plan for The Hill, a Washington political trade publication. Like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's bogus 2014 report, Alford's June 29 column vastly exaggerated the cost of the proposed rule and did not factor in the billions of dollars in health and economic benefits that would result from cutting carbon pollution.

ExxonMobil's Pretzel Logic

Last fall, UCS and reporters at InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that Exxon's own scientists had warned the company decades ago about the potential for climate catastrophe. The new revelations also showed that the company responded to that bad news by downplaying climate risks and helping establish the climate science denial network.

A number of journalists did follow-up stories, pressing ExxonMobil officials about the company's longtime support for denier groups. They didn't always get the same answer.

During an interview last September with Richard Keil, ExxonMobil's senior media relations advisor, WNYC's On the Media host Bob Garfield pushed Keil for an explanation. "Please clarify this for me: Are not funding or did not fund them?" Garfield asked. Keil's response was unequivocal. "We are not funding," he said.

When asked the same question by the New York Times in early November, then-Vice President of Public and Government Affairs Kenneth Cohen likewise said no. "We stopped funding them in the middle part of the last decade because a handful of them were making the uncertainty of the science their focal point," he said. "Frankly, we made the call that we needed to back away from supporting the groups that were undercutting the actual risk" of global warming.

Cohen's response wasn't a surprise. He made the same disingenuous claim back in February 2007, a few weeks after UCS disclosed that ExxonMobil had been spending millions of dollars on climate science denier groups. Greenwire, a trade news organization, reported that Cohen said the company "has stopped funding them."

The surprise came on November 9, three days after the New York Times story ran, when PBS NewsHour host Judy Woodruff asked Cohen if ExxonMobil has been funding denier groups. This time he took a different tack.

"Well, the answer is yes," replied Cohen, who retired from the company in January. "And I will let those organizations respond for themselves."

But before anyone declares a victory for corporate transparency, it turns out that Cohen's moment of candor was, well, momentary.

On December 1, a Washington Post story quoted yet another ExxonMobil spokesperson who qualified Cohen's remark. Alan Jeffers, a media relations manager, said the company "rejects the premise" that it has been funding climate science denial.

"We were engaged with funding public policy groups on policy issues, not on science," Jeffers explained. "We made our position known on some climate policies that made us unpopular with environmental activists and they tried to position that as us funding climate denial. And that's just not accurate."

Not accurate? As Jeffers, Keil and their former boss, Cohen, surely know, the think tanks, advocacy groups and associations ExxonMobil has been sponsoring all these years lie about the science to strengthen the argument against doing anything to address climate change. After all, if people believe climate science is a fraud—or at least "far from settled"—they will see no reason to support a carbon tax, cap-and-trade system or any other climate policy. And that line of reasoning, which protects the status quo, seems to suit ExxonMobil just fine.

Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS staff members Dave Anderson and Jayne Piepenburg provided research for this article.

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19072016/exxon-climate-investigation-subpoenas-lamar-smith-maura-healey-eric-schneiderman

how subpoena war could play out

==

7/16 cf whitehouse bill:

EXXONMOBIL'S $33 MILLION CAMPAIGN TO SOW DOUBT AND DENIAL ABOUTGLOBAL WARMING

Revelations in media reports by The Guardian in July 2015, Inside Climate News' series, and Los Angeles Times partnership investigation with Columbia Graduate School of Journalism graduates led by Steve Coll (author of Private Empire) document what #ExxonKnew about the impact of fossil fuel pollution on climate and when the company knew it.

Despite its advanced knowledge of the climate disruption fueled in large part by oil, gas and coal pollution, ExxonMobil turned its back on crafting responsible solutions and instead funded a sophisticated campaign to sow doubt and delay action to curb carbon emissions — honing the tobacco industry's playbook with even more advanced public relations, advertising and lobbying muscle.

As Bill McKibben summed it up best,

“ExxonMobil, the world’s largest and most powerful oil company, 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.”

But nobody has spent more time and energy researching and exposing Exxon's climate denial campaign than Kert Davies, the creator of ExxonSecrets while he served as research director of Greenpeace USA. Davies, who now runs the Climate Investigations Center and continues to expose climate denial and attacks on solutions to global warming, worked with many researchers over the years (including DeSmog's Brendan DeMelle and Kevin Grandia) to assemble a clear record of Exxon's extensive funding of organizations and think tanks responsible for spreading doubt and denial about climate science.

Since the late 1990s, Greenpeace researchers have collected information on organizations and individuals blocking solutions to climate change and vending misinformation. In 2004, Greenpeace launched ExxonSecrets.org, which houses a relational database of Exxon funding to these people, think tanks and front groups. The database allows researchers, policy makers and advocates to see relationships and funding linkages.

In total, the ExxonSecrets database has found over $33M going to over 60 different organizations since 1998, the year after the Kyoto Protocol was launched. The data is drawn from Exxon's published “Giving” reports and IRS Form 990s for ExxonMobil Foundation.

We know this $33M figure is an underestimate of the total spending by Exxon to fund opposition work on climate policy. For example, the Chamber of Commerce appears for the first time on Exxon's Worldwide Giving report in 2014 at $1 Million. We assume this is not the first (or the last) contribution Exxon has made to the US Chamber of Commerce.

On this page, you'll find the total amount of funding from ExxonMobil and its foundations to dozens of organizations that worked to spread climate denial. Hyperlinks will take you to further detail about each organization's funding specifics and activities.

OrganizationExxonMobil Funding  1997-2015
AEI American Enterprise Institute$4,199,000
CEI Competitive Enterprise Institute$2,100,000
US Chamber of Commerce Foundation$2,000,000
ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council$1,804,200
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research$1,779,523
Frontiers of Freedom$1,272,000
Annapolis Center$1,198,500
**National Black Chamber of Commerce**$1,100,000
Atlas Economic Research Foundation$1,082,500
Manhattan Institute$1,065,000
George C. Marshall Institute$865,000
Heritage Foundation$870,000
National Taxpayers Union Foundation$775,000
Heartland Institute$686,500
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy$680,000
National Center for Policy Analysis$645,900
CFACT Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow$587,000
Communications Institute$515,000
Washington Legal Foundation$495,000
Center for American and International Law (formerly called the Southwestern Legal Foundation)$491,650
George Mason Univ. Law and Economics Center$475,000
FREE Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment$450,000
National Center for Public Policy Research$445,000
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory$417,212
Mercatus Center, George Mason University$405,000
International Policy Network - North America$390,000
Citizens for a Sound Economy (FreedomWorks)$405,250
Acton Institute$365,000
Media Research Center (Cybercast News Service formerly Conservative News)$362,500
Institute for Energy Research$337,000
Congress of Racial Equality$325,000
Reason Foundation / Reason Public Policy Institute$356,000
Hoover Institution$370,000
Pacific Legal Foundation$300,000
Capital Research Center (Greenwatch)$265,000
Federalist Society$240,000
Center for Defense of Free Enterprise$230,000
National Association of Neighborhoods$225,000
National Legal Center for the Public Interest$216,500
Center for a New Europe-USA$170,000
American Council on Science and Health$165,000
Chemical Education Foundation$155,000
PERC Property and Environment Research Center (formerly Political Economy Research Center)$162,500
Weidenbaum Center (formerly Center for the Study of American Business)$190,000
Cato Institute$140,000
Federal Focus$125,000
Fraser Institute, Canada$120,000
Media Institute$140,000
American Spectator Foundation$115,000
International Republican Institute$115,000
Center for the Study of CO2 and Global Change$100,000
Environmental Literacy Council$100,000
Tech Central Science Foundation$95,000
American Conservative Union Foundation$90,000
**Landmark Legal Foundation**$90,000
Independent Institute$85,000
Free Enterprise Education Institute$80,000
Texas Public Policy Foundation$80,000
Institute for Study of Earth and Man$76,500
Independent Women's Forum$75,000
Consumer Alert$80,000
Mountain States Legal Foundation$75,000
Advancement of Sound Science Center$50,000
American Friends of the Institute of Economic Affairs$50,000
Free Enterprise Action Institute$50,000
Regulatory Checkbook$50,000
Arizona State University Office of Climatology$49,500
Lindenwood University, St. Charles, Missouri$40,000
Africa Fighting Malaria ddt rentatom$30,000
Institute for Senior Studies$30,000
Science and Environmental Policy Project$20,000
Lexington Institute$10,000
Institute for Policy Innovaton$5,000
GRAND TOTAL$33,799,735

Recommended Reading on Exxon's Funding of Climate Deniers

“Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years,” by Suzanne Goldenberg, TheGuardian, July 8, 2015.

“Exxon: The Road Not Taken” series by Inside Climate News. See in particular “Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty,” by David Hasemyer and John H. Cushman Jr., Inside Climate News, October 22, 2015.

“What Exxon Knew About the Earth's Melting Arctic,” by Sara Jerving, Katie Jennings, Masako Melissa Hirsch and Susanne Rust, Los Angeles Times, October 9, 2015.

“Exxon Knew Everything There Was to Know About Climate Change by the Mid-1980s—and Denied It,” by Bill McKibben, The Nation, October 20, 2015.

“Exxon's climate lie: 'No corporation has ever done anything this big or bad,'” by Bill McKibben, The Guardian, October 14, 2015.

“ExxonMobil Targets Journalists and Activists After Climate Change Investigation,” by Melissa Cronin, Vice, October 24, 2015.

“Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago,” by Shannon Hall, Scientific American, October 26, 2015.

“ExxonMobil pioneered climate-change research since the 1970s, and now it’s attacking media reporting on that,” by Steve LeVine, Quartz, October 26, 2015.

“Should Exxon Be Prosecuted for Suppressing Climate Science?” by Joseph Davis, Climate Science and Policy Watch, October 27, 2015.

==

http://www.alternet.org/environment/exxon-fraud-probe-biggest-bipartisan-climate-battle-ever

On June 24, the DNC platform committee unanimously agreed to call on the Department of Justice to launch a fraud investigation into ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies, which would add to the ongoing Exxon fraud probe by several state attorneys general, first launched by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in November.

The DNC request follows a forum titled Oil Is the New Tobacco, convened June 22 by members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. The forum highlighted the worrisome inconsistency between ExxonMobil's internal process and business decisions regarding its early knowledge of the impact of fossil fuel combustion on the climate and its public campaign to promote doubt, deception and denial of climate science.

These recent moves by Democrats come on the heels of a second round of letters sent on June 17 by 17 Republican members of Congress on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to several nonprofit organizations, including 350.org and Greenpeace USA, demanding documents and information related to their work advocating for climate action and holding Exxon accountable for fraud. The Committee also made similar requests to the state attorneys general working on the Exxon probe.

This most recent House request was not initially made public; however, 350.org and Greenpeace USA responded by the June 24 deadline, reiterating yet again in a letter that they have no intention of complying with the request. All nonprofit groups had rejected the Committee’s first request, which was made on May 18.

In their letter, the GOP legislators again repeated the claim that ExxonMobil’s alleged fraud is protected by the First Amendment:

The Committee intends to continue its vigorous oversight of the coordinated attempt to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, and scientists of their First Amendment rights and ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution.

However, that claim has already been refuted. In United States vs Philip Morris Inc, the federal government explicitly told the tobacco industry: “False, misleading, or deceptive speech in furtherance of a scheme to defraud receives no First Amendment protection.”

In a June 24 Washington Post op-ed, Robert Post, the dean of Yale Law School, argued that ExxonMobil was abusing the First Amendment:

Despite the efforts of tobacco companies to invoke First Amendment protections for their contributions to public debate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found: “Of course it is well settled that the First Amendment does not protect fraud.” The point is a simple one. If large corporations were free to mislead deliberately the consuming public, we would live in a jungle rather than in an orderly and stable market.

ExxonMobil and its supporters are now eliding the essential difference between fraud and public debate. Raising the revered flag of the First Amendment, they loudly object to investigations recently announced by attorneys general of several states into whether ExxonMobil has publicly misrepresented what it knew about global warming.

Republicans funded by Big Oil

All 13 GOP Congress members who signed the first letter have collectively received more than $70,000 in contributions from ExxonMobil in the last decade alone. In particular, Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), has a long history of attacking climate scientists and maintains strong financial ties with ExxonMobil and other oil and gas companies. Since 1998, Smith has taken more than $22,000 in campaign contributions from Exxon, according to Oil Change International's Dirty Energy Money database.

Steve Horn, research fellow at DeSmogBlog, reported that “$19,500 of the Exxon money has flowed to Smith's campaign since 2008 alone,” based on data from OpenSecrets.org.

“This latest bid by Exxon and their bought-and-paid-for allies in Congress proves that the House Committee on Science is more committed to sowing misinformation and deception about climate change than to actually acting on science,” said May Boeve, 350 Action executive director, in a statement to press. She addded:

At least half a century ago, Exxon’s executives were warned about the very devastation communities around the world are experiencing today, yet chose to pour resources into sowing doubt and funding an extensive climate denial machine. We know that this is an industry-wide problem, and we will keep spreading the word about all Exxon knew, and keep working to see these climate miscreants held accountable for their role in wrecking our planet and robbing us of a generation’s worth of climate action.

Schneiderman probe

In November 2015, New York Attorney General Schneiderman issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil, demanding a wide range of documents in order to determine if the world's largest publicly traded international oil and gas company lied to the public or investors about the risks of climate change to its future business, based on the firm’s own internal studies. The case is building that the oil giant has been pushing climate denial since the 1980s, when it joined with other energy firms to form the Global Climate Coalition, intended to lobby support from Congress and lawmakers while also working to cover up early evidence that global warming is caused by human activity; specifically, the combustion of fossil fuels.

By March of this year, Schneiderman's probe grew to a historic coalition of state attorneys general who have joined forces to investigate Exxon and defend President Obama’s Clean Power Plan against attacks from Big Oil. ExxonMobil has strenuously challenged investigations of the state AGs of Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands. But while Texas U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade rejected the company’s attempt to block the USVI investigation, it was announced Wednesday that USVI Attorney General Claude Earl Walker agreed to withdraw his subpoena requesting four decades of Exxon's internal documents in exchange for the oil giant dropping a retaliatory suit.

There have been major international governmental and public actions to tackle climate change, such as last year’s Paris climate agreement, the EPA's Clean Power Plan and the growing global divestment movement (which recently included a divestment of ExxonMobile shares by the Rockefeller Family Fund, which called the oil giant “morally reprehensible”). Yet the company appears dead set on ignoring calls to address the climate threat: ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson and Exxon’s board recommended the rejection of every single climate resolution brought to the company’s annual shareholder meeting in May.

Activists, environmentalists and corporate accountability advocates had used that meeting, held in Dallas on May 25, as an arena to call on ExxonMobil to reject climate disinformation, adapt its business to the realities of climate change and take regulation seriously. A similar effort was taken up at Chevron’s shareholders meeting, held in San Ramon, Calif., on the same day. While ExxonMobil is the primary focus of official investigations, the entire oil and gas industry has come under greater scrutiny.

poster iceberg

“These multibillion dollar global organizations have potentially bilked the American people out of financial stability, national security, and the health and safety of our future generations by creating a false debate designed to protect their profits,” said Annie Leonard, Greenpeace USA executive director.

Party politics

While the state attorneys general maintain their ongoing fraud investigation into ExxonMobil, pressure is mounting across the nation for elected officials and candidates to support these and similar investigations. More than half a million people have signed the #ExxonKnew coalition's petition supporting the fraud investigation, which has been expanding in scope—the Department of Justice recently referred the case to the criminal branch of the FBI. The case is also shaping up to be a pitched partisan conflict on Capitol Hill and beyond.

The National Review accused the attorneys general of “trampling the First Amendment.” Characterizing the Exxon probe as an example of the “authoritarianism” he argues is ingrained in progressivism, Post columnist George F. Will called Schneidermann and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)—who supports using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to criminalize Big Oil's climate denial apparatus—"garden-variety authoritarians ... eager to regulate us into conformity.”

However, the investigations are receiving strong support from leading environmental groups and Democrats.

“These attorneys general are doing their jobs to investigate whether or not this massive fraud has occurred, and we stand with them,” said Greenpeace’s Leonard, in a statement to press. “If Exxon, its allies, enablers, and congressional yes-men are afraid of an open inquiry into allegations of fraud, then the American people should be even more suspicious of what they’ve been up to in the decades they’ve been peddling climate denial. It was fraud when Big Tobacco did it; it’s time to find out if this Exxon scheme was fraud, too.”

Evidence that Exxon knew

The evidence suggests that, for many years, Exxon attempted to cast doubt on the scientific findings regarding climate change in the public mindset by purchasing newspaper advertisements questioning the science and funding climate deniers through an intricate network of conservative think-tanks, including the American Legislative Exchange Council. The allegations of fraud also stem from a massive trove of internal corporate documents revealing Exxon was fully aware of the dangers to climate posed by the extraction and use of its primary product: fossil fuel.

One damning piece of evidence is an email—written as a response to an inquiry regarding business ethics from the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University—unearthed last year from Lenny Bernstein, a climate expert working for Exxon. He wrote, “Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia. ... This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2." According to Bernstein, that awareness was seven years ahead of not just other oil companies, but the general public.

“What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; that it accepted the reality, instead of denying the reality as they have done publicly, and to such an extent that it took it into account in their decision making, in making their economic calculation,” the director of the institute, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), told the Guardian.

But Exxon’s knowledge of the impact its business had on the global climate dates much earlier, to a report two pollution experts prepared for the American Petroleum Institute in 1968. The authors, Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins of the Stanford Research Institute, contended that carbon dioxide emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels was as critical an issue as the soot and smog that was the primary pollution concern at the time.

"If the earth's temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans, and an increase in photosynthesis," they wrote.

They regarded the focus on local-based pollution concerns as a case of missing the forest for the trees:

It seems ironic that in our view of air pollution technology we take such a serious concern with small-scale events such as the photochemical reactions of trace concentrations of hydrocarbons, the effect on vegetation of a fraction of a part per million of sulfur dioxide, when the abundant pollutants which we generally ignore because they have little local effect, carbon dioxide, and submicron particles, may be the cause of serious worldwide environmental changes.

Robinson and Robbins also noted the view of Roger Revelle, one of the first scientists to warn that the growing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide created by fossil fuel combustion may cause global warming over time. “In summary,” they wrote, “Revelle makes the point that man is now engaged in a vast geophysical experiment with his environment, the earth. Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climactic changes.”

Adapt or die

Kathy Mulvey, who manages the climate accountability campaigns at the Union of Concerned Scientists, was one of the many environmentalists, activists and scientists who attended the ExxonMobil shareholders meeting in May. Part of the grassroots activist effort is to get the fossil fuel industry to recognize the choice it now faces: Adapt or die.

"Major fossil fuel companies must also begin to align their business models with a carbon-constrained world, acknowledging the political reality and moral imperative of the agreement made by world leaders in Paris last December,” she said.

The writing is on the wall about the downfall of dirty energy. Nafeez Ahmed recently wrote on AlterNet that signs indicate we are in the midst of the death of the fossil fuel industry:

Although the world remains heavily dependent on oil, coal and natural gas—which today supply around 80 percent of our primary energy needs—the industry is rapidly crumbling. This is not merely a temporary blip, but a symptom of a deeper, long-term process related to global capitalism’s escalating overconsumption of planetary resources and raw materials. ... In February, the financial services firm Deloitte predicted that over 35 percent of independent oil companies worldwide are likely to declare bankruptcy, potentially followed by a further 30 percent next year—a total of 65 percent of oil firms around the world. Since early last year, already 50 North American oil and gas producers have filed bankruptcy.

And in April, Bloomberg’s Joe Carroll and Asjylyn Loder reported on ExxonMobil's historic credit downgrade:

The worst oil crash in a generation has cost Exxon Mobil Corp. the gold-plated credit rating it had held since the Great Depression. … The downgrade will not only raise Exxon’s cost to borrow money but may also erode its status among oil-rich governments as a premier partner with which to do business. As Exxon Vice President of Investor Relations Jeffrey Woodbury said in February, the company’s AAA rating was a key selling point when competing for drilling licenses.

When ExxonMobil had advance knowledge of global warming, it attempted to hide the details from the public and its shareholders to protect its future business. Since then, it has made hundreds of billions of dollars year after year. It appears now there is strong evidence that the company has committed fraud, and even as its profit outlook is grim, it is still trying to dodge reality.

"Half a century ago, Exxon discovered climate change and quickly learned all there was to know well before the rest of us,” said 350.org’s Boeve. “Instead of urging action and becoming a part of the solution, the company's executives poured their resources into sowing doubt and disinformation among the public. The last twelve months have set record-busting temperatures, yet Exxon is still attempting to distract us from the fight for climate justice.”

Big Oil: Worse than Big Tobacco?

The unfolding drama has been compared to the Department of Justice's successful lawsuit, almost two decades ago, against Big Tobacco over fraud regarding the health risks of smoking and marketing its harmful products to the public. In 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a racketeering lawsuitagainst several major tobacco companies for "fraudulent and unlawful conduct and reimbursement of tobacco-related medical expenses."

Federal district court Judge Gladys Kessler found the tobacco companies liable for violating RICO by intentionally committing fraud through an elaborate coverup of the health risks associated with smoking, writing in her opinion that the defendants “crafted and implemented a broad strategy to undermine and distort the evidence indicting passive smoke as a health hazard. … [and] attempted to deceive the public, distort the scientific record [and] avoid adverse findings by government agencies."

ExxonMobil is accused of using the same tactics Judge Kessler deemed fraudulent in the tobacco industry coverup. If the Exxon probe is as similar to the DoJ's tobacco suit as it appears to be, then Exxon and its Big Oil peers should be prepared to be found guilty. However, the impact of Big Tobacco's fraud is quite different from that of Big Oil. Neva Rockefeller Goodwin, the great-granddaughter of John D. Rockefeller Sr., founder of the American oil giant Standard Oil Company, from which ExxonMobil was born, recently announced she was divesting her shares in the company. She told AlterNet:

In the large picture, however, tobacco and fossil fuel emissions are quite different. Tobacco kills people one by one. Climate change will increasingly cause events like hurricanes that will destroy large swathes of property, kill numbers of people, make many homeless.

While it can be argued that smoking tobacco is a matter of individual choice, the production and use of fossil fuels is more obviously a social issue. In the long run, producers of fossil fuels will have to lose. The only question is how much the people and ecologies of the world will lose before our economies cease to make the situation worse.

“One thing that occurs to me," said Bernstein of the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics, "is the behavior of the tobacco companies denying the connection between smoking and lung cancer for the sake of profits, but this is an order of magnitude greater moral offense, in my opinion, because what is at stake is the fate of the planet, humanity and the future of civilization.”

Reynard Loki is AlterNet's environment and food editor.

6/16 fuel fix bs

A campaign by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to end the investigation into ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies over false statements on climate change is gaining support among other state law enforcement officials.

Attorneys general from 13 states signed an open letter Wednesday, arguing that climate change is a public policy debate, not a criminal matter, and urging law enforcement officials in other states to “stop policing viewpoints.”

“We all understand the need for a healthy environment, but we represent a wide range of viewpoints regarding the extent to which man contributes to climate change and the costs and benefits of any proposed fix,” the letter reads. “Nevertheless, we agree on at least one thing—this is not a question for the courts.”

Attorneys general from Alabama, Michigan, Texas, Alaska, Nebraska, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and South Carolina signed the letter.

Paxton made headlines last month when he and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange filed a motion seeking to block a subpoena by the U.S. Virgin Islands for ExxonMobil’s internal documents related to climate change. Paxton called the the probe a “a fishing expedition of the worst kind.”

AG Coalition Resp Letter 2016-06-15

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/06/16/climate-:{inquisition-:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:exxonmobil-sues-massachusetts-ag-civil-rights-violations/

Irving-based ExxonMobil Corporation (NYSE: XOM) launched a counteroffensive against the ongoing effort to target American energy companies for presumed politically incorrect viewpoints by left wing attorneys general. The Texas energy giant accused Massachusetts AG Maura Tracy Healey of violating its civil rights in federal court Wednesday.

In a strongly-worded, 33-page complaint brought by the Texas energy company, ExxonMobil accused General Healey of violating several civil rights protections and unlawful interstate commerce intervention while colluding with other attorneys general and private third parties. Without a permanent injunction and other granted forms of financial relief from the federal courts, the company expects to only be further harmed, according to documents obtained by Breitbart Texas.

A critical moment in ExxonMobil’s case civil against General Healey centers on a meeting in March 2015, when she and 19 other attorneys general comprising the “Green 20” declared their collective intent to target the company and others like it with subpoenas and related political actions. The complaint alleges that Healey’s promise of an investigation into the company was prejudiced by her expectation that it would “reveal ‘a troubling disconnect between what Exxon knew’ and what it ‘chose to share with investors and with the American public’.” The pleading repeatedly makes note of Healey and her associates’ political biases as the primary driver for their legal pursuits.

The State of Massachusetts’ effort to probe whether ExxonMobil “committed consumer or securities fraud by misrepresenting its knowledge of climate change” was summarily deemed “a weak pretext for an unlawful exercise of government power to further political objectives,” according to the document. The company claims that it has “for more than a decade” recognized the “risk of climate change and its potential impacts”.

On April 19, ExxonMobil was served a subpoena to further study energy and securities sales potentially occurring within the Commonwealth. The company claims that it neither sold fossil fuel products nor owned and operated a single retail location there in at least five years. Further, it sold no equity to the public there during the same time period. The complaint argues that the demands for documents related to activities outside of the Commonwealth were out of bounds.

General Healey’s “effort to silence, intimidate, and deter those possessing a particular viewpoint” rises to the level of a claimed First Amendment violation, according to the court filing. ExxonMobil argues that Massachusetts’ 40-year timeline for document demands “constitutes an abusive fishing expedition” in violation of its Fourth Amendment protections while Healey’s public commentary about the company presents an addition due process concern – leaving ExxonMobil doubting it is on the receiving end of a “disinterested prosecution”. The company raises additional issues of interstate commerce regulation and procedural violations as well.

The lawsuit hopes to halt the enforcement of Massachusetts’ subpoena and be granted other forms of relief the court feels ExxonMobil is entitled to, including the costs of litigation.

The Irving company’s docket is not limited to Massachusetts, however. Breitbart Texas previously reported on how Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton moved to intervene in a then-state court battle brought by the U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker in May. Texas decried the Virgin Islands’ similar “abusing the power of the subpoena” and warned that if left unchecked, “anyone can be criminally investigated” for viewpoints not acceptable to incumbent political powers. In response, the Virgin Islands relocated its case to a federal district court, where the parties continue to disagree on jurisdiction and venue for the matter, according to the complaint.

Outside of the courtroom, ExxonMobil has been fending off attempts from activist investors to force internal climate policy reforms. A May 2016 shareholders meeting ended when investors voted in large margins against the hiring of new climate experts and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) disclosures, according to a separate Breitbart Texas report.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a U.S. Senate candidate and member of the Green 20, recently brought criminal charges against Houston-based Plains All-American Pipeline L.P. (NYSE: PAA) after a leak was discovered downstream from ExxonMobil plants near Refugio State Beach.

ExxonMobil’s lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. A copy of the complaint has been provided below.

Logan Churchwell is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. You can follow him on

==

==

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/06/17/wsjs-kimberley-strassel-pushes-illogical-conspiracy-theory-about-exxon-climate-investigations/211024

The Wall Street Journal’seditorial board has tried every trick in the book to wrongly defend ExxonMobil against allegations that the company intentionally misled shareholders and the public about the science of climate change. Now one member of the editorial board is pushing yet another defense of Exxon so riddled with errors that it completely falls apart upon a basic review of the facts.

In a June 16 column, the Journal’s Kimberley Strasselalleged that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s recent subpoena of ExxonMobil shows that the attorneys general investigating Exxon aren’t really concerned with whether the company’s climate science denial constitutes fraud. Rather, Strassel declared, “The real target is a broad array of conservative activist groups that are highly effective at mobilizing the grass-roots and countering liberal talking points.”

As supposed proof, Strassel pointed to Healey’s request for Exxon’s communications with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Strassel asserted that Healey targeted ALEC because it is “one of the most powerful forces in the country for free-market legislation,” an argument she based on the false premise that “ALEC doesn’t now, and hasn’t ever, taken a position on the climate.”

The truth is that ALEC has crafted model legislation that misrepresents the science of climate change and hosted prominent climate science deniers at its conferences, and ALEC officials – including CEO Lisa Nelson – have refused to acknowledge or outright denied the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels and other human activities are causing climate change. ALEC, a corporate front group that connects fossil fuel industry executives with legislators to serve industry interests, has also pushed model bills that would mandate teaching climate science denial in public schools. So it’s not hard to understand why Healey would want to know whether Exxon and ALEC have teamed up to undermine climate science.

Strassel similarly claimed that Healey targeted the oil billionaire Koch brothers’ front group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) because “its 2.3 million activists nationwide are highly effective in elections.” This must be true, Strassel argued, because “AFP confirms it has never received a dime from Exxon.”

However, as Climate Hawks explained in response to a Daily Caller article that made the same claim, “Americans for Prosperity's predecessor Citizens for A Sound Economy got hundreds of thousands from ExxonMobil,” meaning that “the group in question simply went by another name when it was funded by ExxonMobil.”

Moreover, it remains an open question whether Exxon is continuing to funnel money to AFP via DonorsTrust and the Donors Capital Fund, dark money groups largely backed by the Koch brothers. In October, InsideClimate News reported that a group of Democratic senators wrote a letter to Exxon “questioning Exxon's contributions to Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, which provide a conduit between well-heeled contributors and various conservative public policy organizations, including many at the forefront of climate science denial.” InsideClimate News further noted that the senators cited research from Robert Brulle of Drexel University, who provided evidence that Exxon may have engaged in an effort to “simply reroute its support” of climate denial organizations:

Brulle is a leading sociologist who has been published extensively in the peer-reviewed literature on the climate denial movement.

In material supplementing one of his studies, Brulle documented Exxon donations directly to climate denial groups such as the Heartland Institute, up until about 2008. At about the time Exxon scaled back its giving to those groups, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund stepped up their donations to them.

Americans for Prosperity “frequently provides a platform for climate contrarian statements,” as the Union of Concerned Scientists has noted. The Americans for Prosperity Foundation has received approximately $23 million in combined contributions from Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund since 2008.

==

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/26/1531184/-New-ExxonKnew-Document-Database

exxonMobil’s shareholder meeting is bringing even more attention to the company, with the Guardian alone running four separate stories on it: attempted censorshipof scientists back in 2001 under in the Bush administration; (failed) shareholder proposals to recognize climate’s impacton Exxon's future; an op-ed from someone whose “father warned Exxon about climate change in the 1970s"; and the fact that Exxon denied the Guardian accessto its annual meeting. (Apparently its First Amendment fealty does not extend to freedom of the press.) 

:{

}:

With all this new information swirling around, it can be tricky to remember the basics of what the #ExxonKnew campaign is about. With investigations coming out of different institutions and primary source documents housed in various places, it’s a lot harder to source claims than it is to tweet the hashtag.

But for those seeking out the truth, a new website has emerged as a clearinghouse of new and old Exxon and fossil fuel industry documents: ClimateFiles.com. Announced with a post at the Climate Investigations Center highlighting the Top Ten #ExxonKnew Documents, the new site is a great source for anyone curious about what, exactly, Exxon and others have said and done. From the early ‘80s warning of climate change, to the industry-wide misinformation efforts of the '90s to the “op-ad” series, lobbying and public relations regulatory fights of the ‘00s, the documents make a compelling case for further investigation.

http://www.climateinvestigations.org/top-ten-documents-every-reporter-covering-exxon-should-know

:{

}:

three basic phases to this story. 

What Exxon knew and when they knew it- The crux of what was revealed in the fall and winter of 2015 by the Inside Climate Newsinvestigation and the Columbia University/ Los Angeles Times collaboration is extensive new evidence that Exxon and the rest of the oil industry had a more thorough understanding of climate science in the 1970s and 1980s than had previously been realized.  And that they also understood the policy and economic implications of the climate threat. Further revelations by DeSmog in April 2016 confirmed Exxon's unequivocal knowledge in the late 1970s that "there is no doubt that increases in fossil fuel usage" were problematic for climate, and that these facts were known across Exxon's global operations. This serves as a new backdrop for what happened next.

What Exxon did to block rising concern about climate change- This phase starts in the late 1980s, heats up in the mid 1990s and extends into the late 2000s, changing shape and tone with increased governmental attention to the climate threat. Here there are key documents showing Exxon's (and Mobil's and later ExxonMobil's) ringleader role in driving the corporate campaign against advancing national and international policies to avert dangerous climate change.

What Exxon would like hide from investigators now - Exxon executed a turn about a decade ago with clever PR tactics, declaring that they had always known about climate change but had been "misunderstood".  This is detailed extensively in Steve Coll's increasingly important book Private Empire (see chapter 15 "On my honor").  Between 2006 and 2008, the company began to mark its words on climate change more carefully and abruptly stopped funding multiple non-profit organizations and front groups it had been coordinating to apply pressure in the public policy arena by attacking climate science, climate scientists and elected officials who took up the charge.  This campaign ramped up after the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and escalated during the first 5 years of the Bush Administration.

KEY DOCUMENTS:

1. 1998 American Petroleum Institute Global Climate Science Communications Plan

This leaked plan was launched the year after the Kyoto Protocol was signed. It was developed by representatives from the API, Exxon, Southern Company, Chevron and a team of people free market organizations along with communications professionals.  The plan includes a multimillion dollar, multi-year budget to install “uncertainty” in the public policy arena.  Target audiences are detailed including media, policy makers and science teachers and the plan includes an objectives list titled “Victory will be achieved…” itemizing the measurable goals of the plan. Multiple groups Exxon would subsequently fund are named in the plan.

2. 1980 Imperial Oil’s Review of Environmental Protection Activities for 1978-1979

A 1980 report, “Review of Environmental Protection Activities for 1978-1979,” produced by Imperial Oil, Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary, again suggests that Exxon knew that CO2 was a harmful pollutant in the atmosphere in the 1970s. The distribution list for the Imperial Oil report indicates that it was disseminated to managers across Exxon’s international corporate offices, including in Europe.

3. 1981 Letter from Esso scientist on impact of Natuna Gas Project CO2 emissions

February 3, 1981 letter from Gilbert Gervasi, scientist at Esso Eastern to G.A. Northington, Exxon Research and Engineering regarding CO2 calculations for the Natuna Gas Project finding “the total release of CO2 from producing Natuna gas and burning of LNG manufactured from the gas would be almost twice that emitted by burning the equivalent amount of coal.”

There are multiple other key documents on Natuna in the ClimateFiles archive.  The majority of these were illuminated by the Inside Climate News team.

4. 1995 Global Climate Coalition draft primer Predicting Future Climate Change a Primer

This document contains a "final draft" of a to-be-published document by the Global Climate Coalition responding to the IPCC Second Assessment.  It has been edited by Lenny Bernstein a Mobil Oil scientist (page 2).  The document contains a back section with extensive rebuttals of major counter-arguments used by climate deniers. This part was never published.

5. 1996 Exxon publication "Global Warming - Who's Right?"

Exxon Corporation’s Spring 1996 Publication, “Global warming: who’s right? Facts about a debate that’s turned up more questions than answers,” includes a statement by then Exxon CEO Lee Raymond trumping up uncertainty in the science behind global warming as well as the cost of a carbon-restricted market. The publication cites to Exxon funded climate change deniers.

6. 1997 :{Lee Raymond:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: speech at China World Petroleum Congress

In this speech, delivered in October 1997, weeks before the Kyoto Protocol final negotiations commenced, Raymond launches attacks on climate science and policy proposals.  He exclaims that proposed international climate change policies will adversely affect Asian countries desiring economic growth.

7. 1998 ExxonMobil Pamphlet: Global Climate Change - everyone’s debate

This pamphlet, circulated to both U.S. and international policy-makers questions whether climate change is man-made and if so, the extent of contribution of fossil fuels to the problem. Although statements in this pamphlet are partially true in that Exxon “carefully studied” the science behind climate change, it contradicts its own internal early climate change research and findings and instead emphasizes unknowns in the “honest debate.”

8. :{2000 ExxonMobil publishes collection of New York Times Op-ad :(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:series on climate change

In April 2000, Exxon published a collection of Op Eds it had submitted across the country in order to influence public understanding of the risks of climate change and proposed solutions. The series here includes articles entitled “Do No Harm,” “Unsettled Science,” “The Promise of Technology,” and “The Path Forward on Climate Change.” Each of these propaganda pieces highlights uncertainty regarding impacts and paints Exxon as a key to the solution for global climate change rather than the problem. Readers can review highlighted excerpts and the rhetoric used in 2000 with Exxon political activity at the time.

9. 2001 FOIA-ed memo from Exxon Mobil’s Randy Randol to Bush Administration

This fax and memorandum datedFebruary 6, 2001 from Exxon lobbyist Randy Randol to John Howard at the White House Center for Environmental Quality makes recommendations for changing the U.S. team working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment and Synthesis Report and delaying IPCC proceedings.

Another 2002 memo from Randy Randol to the Bush Whitehouse outlined what would eventually become the Bush ClimateScience.gov program

10. 2006 :{ExxonMobil Heartland Institute DCI Group:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: meeting targeting Clean Air Act

This meeting invitation and agenda illustrate the ongoing ringleader role ExxonMobil played in organizing asymmetrical attacks on the Clean Air Act and other environmental protections laws.  The meeting was hosted by Heartland Institute which received a $115,000 grant from ExxonMobil that year.  The meeting was held at the offices of DCI Group, a public relations firm contracted by ExxonMobil.

==