Comments due by Oct. 30 2015
Over the last few years, a growing number of people have been taking a hard look at what is happening to our planet – historic droughts, rising sea levels, massive floods – and acknowledging, finally, that human activity is propelling rapid climate change. But guess what? Exxon (now ExxonMobil) had an inkling of this as early as 1978.
By the early 1980s, Exxon scientists had much more than an inkling. They not only understood the science behind climate change, but also recognized the company’s own outsize role in driving the phenomenon. Recognizing the potential effects as “catastrophic” for a significant portion of the population, they urged Exxon’s top executives to take action. Instead, the executives buried the truth.
There may be a silver lining to this infuriating story: the recent investigation that exposed Exxon’s deceit could end up catalyzing the action needed to address the looming climate crisis. After all, similar revelations about the tobacco industry – what the major cigarette companies knew and when they knew it – transformed the public-health landscape.
In 1996, a series of lawsuits forced tobacco companies to release millions of internal documents, which confirmed what public-health advocates and policymakers had long suspected: as early as the 1950s, the industry knew that nicotine was addictive and that cigarettes caused cancer. But, to protect its own interests, Big Tobacco deliberately misled the public, doing everything possible to cast doubt on scientific findings that it knew to be accurate. Such tactics enabled the industry to delay, for more than 50 years, regulation that could have saved millions of lives annually.
After the revelations, however, it was clear that the tobacco industry was a malevolent force that did not belong in the policymaking process. With Big Tobacco out of the picture, and armed with evidence of the real effects of tobacco consumption, health advocates were finally able to compel their governments to act.
In 2003, world leaders agreed to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organization. Today, the treaty covers 90% of the world’s population and has contributed to a significant decline in sales for global tobacco corporations. Over time, it will save hundreds of millions of lives (and save governments’ health-care budgets huge sums).
Big Oil, it is now clear, has been following Big Tobacco’s playbook. In 1997, almost two decades after it began studying climate change, it quashed its research, claiming that climate science was “far from clear” and thus that it did not “support mandated cuts in energy use.”
Beyond suppressing its own findings, ExxonMobil (and its peers) funded and promoted junk science and attacked scientists who warned of the impending climate disaster. The fossil-fuel companies’ approach was so effective that the media are only now beginning to recognize the leading role the industry played in creating – almost out of whole cloth – the so-called “climate debate.”
But perhaps Big Oil’s biggest success was diminishing the political will to implement appropriate regulation. Even after the international community adopted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, the fossil-fuel industry managed to block meaningful progress – to the point that, if serious action is not taken soon, the entire process could unravel.
In Europe, Royal Dutch Shell’s lobbying so diluted the European Union’s efforts that there are now no binding targets for renewables or energy efficiency for individual countries. The company even sent a letter to the European Commission’s president claiming that “gas is good for Europe.” Shell and other oil companies are now promising to work as “advisers” to national governments on how to deal with climate change.
Just as the tobacco files drove the tobacco industry out of policymaking processes, the Exxon investigation should compel world leaders to eliminate the fossil-fuel industry from efforts to solve the climate crisis. After all, no policy can succeed if those who shape it are betting on its failure.
The turning point for tobacco-related public-health policy came when the industry’s depravity became indisputable. Now, that moment has come for the climate movement. We cannot simply hope that the fossil-fuel industry will change its ways. As an alliance of human-rights groups, environmental activists, and corporate-accountability advocates already is demanding, we must kick the industry out of the policymaking process altogether.
Exxon’s scientists were right: the effects of climate change on many communities are catastrophic. With so many lives at stake – and such clear evidence of the threat – Big Oil, like Big Tobacco before it, should be treated for what it is: Big Trouble. ( Bill McKibben)
During the 1980s, Exxon scientists had an understanding of the science behind climate change. "Instead, the executives buried the truth." Exxon is not telling the truth about climate change. Similarly, tobacco industries would tell not the truth about cigarettes, Big Tobacco initially did not tell the public about the harm of cigarette. FCTC (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) was negotiated and this resulted in a decline of sales of tobacco companies. Exxon promoted junk science and did not want public to know about effects of climate change. Royal Dutch Shell's and other companies are now saying gas is good for the economy. Essentially, not everyone is aware of the negative effective of climate change. We first need to increase awareness to everyone of the effects of climate change. We need to make sure people have basic knowledge surrounding climate change.
ReplyDeleteBill McKibben addresses one of the biggest issues we face in today's capitalistic society; the fight between profit and ethic. This article seems to make very clear that big companies will chose profit over ethic 100% of the times.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1980's, Exxon scientist understood the causes of climate change. Acting on it early and making the right policy changes seemed like the right thing to do, although on the other end, it meant cutting down the revenue. The executives of the company decided to "bury the truth."
Similarly, big tobacco companies discovered the consequences of tobacco- such as cancer- as early as the 1950's, but decided to keep the truth for themselves, and even belied the results of the scientists they knew were true. They allowed millions of people to die in order to prosper.
Today, the policies are stricter on tobacco and on fossil-fuel production. The situation will hopefully improve, but Big Oil and Big Tobacco are still actively fighting against the reforms. The problem that McKibben raises is that there are still many oil and tobacco lobbyists advising the policy makers. With catastrophic consequences and the lives of many humans in stake, policies are much needed. As he points himself, " no policy can succeed if those who shape it are betting on its failure." The only solution is to "kick the industry out of the policymaking process altogether."
Joohi Mhatre
ReplyDeleteBill McKibben in this article writes about companies that have known for years the hazardous effects of their products on human health as well as environment. In-spite of being aware these companies continue to produce and market these harmful products. Moreover; they also suppressed these researches and attacked the scientists who made those claims. In 1980s scientists working for Exxon mobile concluded the reasons for climate change However, the company chose to bury it. The same is true of BIg oil; Big Tobacco and numerous other companies that produce goods or bads for daily consumer consumption.
ReplyDeleteI’ve never made the connection between the oil and tobacco industry but this makes so much sense. This is probably my favorite article so far. The other day, my friend asked me what I thought was one of the governments biggest flaws. I answered by saying that corporations being individuals shouldn’t be allowed to have tax cuts and loop hole as well as the freedom to speak and donate money to political parties and individuals. They should have absolutely no place in any level of law enforcement. This article just proves that this is one of our biggest issues. Companies and even whole industries have completely taken advantage of our legal system and government which we call a democracy. Isn’t a democracy supposed to be for the people? There are hundreds of cases where such corruption is happening from the food industry, to the oil industry. Those are two core needs for people to thrive and they are the most corrupt. I like how the author mentions that the regulation of cigarettes caused a huge decline in sales for tobacco companies. The same can and will happen to the oil industry however, I believe that they have such huge profit margins, it shouldn’t even create a dent. Unlike cigarettes, our global economy relies on oil. To me, this says that regulating the oil industry may cause some possible economic issues however, I do believe there is another possible solution. I’m not saying we let them get away with what they’ve done and continue to do but I’ve also noticed that renewable energy like wind energy is started to become cheaper and more profitable. By pressuring oil companies to fix their huge and extremely detrimental mistakes, we can push them to invest and maybe even completely transform into renewable energy. This seems ideal but it cannot be done without extremely pressure from both our government as well as the consumers and I think it all starts with the push to get corporations out of politics. Everyone knows the truth. We just need the evidence.
Even in the 1980s the climate change problems had already been forecasted by a company and its scientists called Exxon. Their scientists knew about it and had a pretty good understanding, however, they “buried the truth” such as many other companies that wanted to keep making profit. When in 1996 the tobacco industry had many lawsuits they published internal documents, which showed that those companies had an understanding pf it, too. In order to make more and more profit and not show the public how addictive nicotine is, the companies kept their secret. The FCTC, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, will save hundreds of millions people´s lives. Another company that did the same was Big Oil. The author, Bill McKibben thinks that all those stories of companies that didn´t publish their results simply to make more profit should be treated as “Big Trouble”.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, it explained that the Exxon is related to the climate change and they need to take action to solve the problem instead of covering the truth. Similarly, tobacco and cigarette also cause damages to the human’s healths. In the year of 1950s, it was confirmed that cigarettes actually caused cancer. However, in order to protect their’s own interests, The tobacco misled the public and rejected to all of the scientific findings that is accreted. This causes the industry to delay for banding it of more than 50 years. It could benefit and save tons of lives annually if regulation were taken earlier. After the revelations, tobacco was successfully taken out of the pictures and proves that it caused serious effects to human’s healths.
ReplyDelete"No policy can succeed if those who shape it are betting on its failure." The revelation of the way in which industries have approached the issues being combated today, have pushed many to question the role in which big companies play within our planet. In this article, we have a clear example of how willful ignorance has pushed many industries to put a defense against factual evidence of the harm that the industry's product cause to society and the ecosystem. Big Tobacco, with the plethora of entail it had on the addictive good nicotine and the role that tobacco played in the cause of cancer, was sheer ignorance to make a profit. Another example of an industry fighting against the good will of the ecosystem is "Big Oil" Exxon which their Senior officers decided to bury the warnings provided by scientists against the use of fossil-fuel. These two companies went as far as to combat the truth by playing the fence; hiring scientists to eradicate the fear and views of the use of these goods. It is quite shameful that companies could go to this level to create a profit.
ReplyDeleteAllen,
DeleteGreat point Allen, that is correct! Those who shape policy, in most instances shape policy for their benefit, hence why they are putting in the time to be included in such policy because, they would be all out of business if they were not their to defend themselves.
-Nate
This article by Bill McKibben is really something to consider. As we all know, in a capitalistic society, firms will do almost anything to maximise profit, and this of course, to the detriment of the environment and mankind's health. One example of this, is shown by pointing out the fact that as early as in the 1980s, Exxon scientists "understood the science behind climate change, [...] recognizing the potential effects as castastrophic...". However, the executives chose to "bury the truth". Similarly, even though tobacco companies knew that nicotine was addictive and that cigarettes caused cancer as early as in the 1950s, it was only 45 years later, that the same companies were forced to release internal documents proving it. As of today, Big Oil is just doing the same by diminishing the political will to implement appropriate regulations. The solution the author proposes, is that instead of including the fossil-fuel industry in the policymaking process, it would be wiser to just exclude them, as they probably won't change their ways anyway, and would delay the policy process by trying to contradict the climate science. After all, such policies would hurt the industry, and the only thing the industry wants is not a clean planet, but some clear profit. However, the industry is really good at making society think that it wants the former.
ReplyDeleteKenan,
DeleteDo you believe government entities should be responsible for bearing the social cost of these products that they have allowed to be introduced to the market, knowing of their potential danger?
-Nate
This article compares the similarities between two of the world's largest industries: tobacco and oil. In the article McKibben mainly focuses on the fact that these two industries were aware of the harmful effects of their products long before any type of information was disclosed to the public. Before the recent investigation on Exxon, the tobacco industry went through a similar "shake up" which caused multiple internal docs detailing the harmful effects of nicotine. The industry tried everything in their power to spin this information in a way that would protect their image and in turn their revenues. Fortunately, most tobacco executives and policymakers created distance between themselves and the government and health professionals were able to implement new regulations as far as tobacco goes. Exxon is going through a similar situation where previous information that was circulated regarding climate change was either ignored or incorrect. The difference with the oil industry is that in certain places, like Europe, it has managed to diminish the amount of power and influence the government has on regulations. The hope behind this new Exxon investigation is that the corruption responsible for misleading the public will crumble once the wrongs are exposed.
ReplyDeleteThe article discusses the tobacco and oil industries, which have caused great harm to the earth and its people. The article highlights that these large industries are much more focused on maximizing profits than they are on preventing harm to the global ecosystem.
ReplyDeleteThese large companies, such as Exxon, are aware of their impacts. It was discovered that the company Exxon was aware that their company would contribute to climate change; they even went on to describe their impact as “catastrophic”. We also know that tobacco companies knew of the deadly effects of nicotine and still decided to produce these products.
The message behind this article expresses the need of policymakers to eliminate the fossil fuel industries in order to bring awareness to the harm the industries are causing and to prevent further damage.
The article is discussing the oil and tobacco industries and how they have always had a negative affect on the earth and people living in it. The part of the article that I had most interest in was how both of these industries new they were doing something that had a negative impact but it did not stop them because they were making a profit. I think that there should be severe punishment for them since all along they tried to convince the consumer that there products were safe to use.
ReplyDeleteSOCIAL DEMENSIONS AND POLICIES
ReplyDeleteThis article is interesting, in the fact that is follows the saying: “History repeats itself!”....When will we all learn this lesson once and for all—learn all you can from the past and use your knowledge base to attack future issues.
The issue of economics is that is constantly changing and adapting to new battles that each particular market faces. In America, we have a set of economic issues far different from those in Turkey. Each country has its own system of complex economics—with every citizen playing a roll, large dreams become a reality.
While Coase author of the article, “Why Economics Will Change”, states “I don’t only think economics will change, I think it ought to change.”—I must piggy-back on his notion, and state: economics has to change. Our economic systems today have far surpassed the equilibrium, and things are just about to get rolling. What we have failed to do as a globe, is include the very people that will be effected by regulation, voicing their opinion in the discussion, for they are the reason why these agents of power have reached such success.
While most believe when the equilibrium of an economy is reached we have achieved a great good, however that is a rather reactive theory. I believe in the Keynesian paradigm, in the sense that equilibrium can be shaken up and out of order at any time—and that is where people hold their power.
In each purchase we make, whether for a pack of cigarettes or a filling up the tank, we have handed over our economic power to Big Business. Think about it...you may at first believe that only $20 here or there, but it certainly does add up—then multiply it by the number of consumers, and BAM! You have it, Big Business with the collective economic power of the people, looking out for their own general interest.
ReplyDeleteBig Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Lies, by Bill McKibben, talks about the nature of history repeating itself, and consumers, once again fall victim. It seems as if every day you click on the news and you hear a story of a mass recall or another big scheme that has gone on in America, and across the globe. Dating back as early as the 1950’s, Big Tobacco knew of the extreme consequences of the consumption of their sole product, and yet spoke nothing of it, that is until consumer advocates spoke out. From scientists employed by tobacco companies to those in the boardroom, all had their hands on falsified reports in an attempt to debunk what they had already known—which finally ended in 2003 with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
A similar instance occurred with ExxonMobil, a large American petro company, who knew their product was causing harmful affects to the environment, and thereby the people who inhabit it—and buried the evidence. While also having government recognition of their studies, Big Oil played the government just as Big Tobacco, causing irreprehensible environmental damage and in exchange lined their pockets, and many of those sitting on Capital Hill, today.
This is all very interesting to me, mainly because the information, is so readily available at people’s fingertips, but yet they fail to do the easiest part of the work. Not to say the government is wreck less, but come on, those who run this country should have their heads above the water and paying attention!
Yes, we are the consumer so we need to do our part too—above and beyond what those in the petro industry are doing. R.H. Coase, in “The Law of Economics” makes an interesting case, directly applicable to the problem we currently face, and that pertains to the topic of the blog post: “We are dealing with a problem of reciprocal nature. To avoid the harm to B would inflict harm on A. The real question that has to be decided is: should A be allowed to harm B or should B be allowed to harm A? The problem is to avoid more serious harm.
We must work together on the issue of climate change, but to effectively do so we need to do so without outside influence of a bias party. The smart approach is to cut consumption, find an alternative energy, or start being, in general more conscious of the environment that all of us call home.
-Nate
In the 1980s scientists from Exxon knew and understood the effects that company and other factors had on climate change. These scientists also informed Exxon’s top executives, however much of this information and research was hidden which is very similar to the Big Tobacco scandal. The Big Tobacco scandal occurred in 1996 when information was released verifying that tobacco companies were fully aware of the addictive nature of nicotine and that cigarettes is a cause of cancer, since the 1950s, but chose to hide that from the public. It is obvious that the Big Oil scandal adopted the same behaviors of the Big Tobacco issue especially when executives from both industries denied and condemned the scientists and their findings. It is really saddening to see how all of this information was hidden and to imagine what the status of our environment would be today if this information was publicized as early as it was discovered.
ReplyDelete- John D'Onghia
ReplyDeleteThe author address is a big issue that we face in capitalism. The decision between profits and ethics. The article seems to say that big business will always take profits over ethics. The tobacco industry basically took the route that Exxon took in the 80’s. They hid scientific information from the public in order to keep their profits high.
Tobacco companies knew the dangerous of smoking as early as the 50’s but kept the truth hidden. Millions of people died so that big tobacco could make a buck. Years later the laws and restriction are stricter. Even taxes are implemented in order to try and discourage people from purchasing tobacco products. But better policies should be implemented in order to keep these companies from extorting money from people that are now addicted
This article focuses on the negative impacts that Big Oil and Big Tobacco have always had on society. The author outlines this as a decision between whether the businessmen are more concerned with profit or morals and ethics. Exxon was exposed for withholding information from the public, much like the tobacco industry did when they hid the fact that they knew smoking was harmful long before the public did.
ReplyDelete