Comments due by Nov. 13, 2015
The state of New York is investigating whether Exxon Mobil misled the public and investors about the risks of climate change, a move sought by environmentalists that could signal a broader reckoning with the conduct of big energy companies.
A spokesman for Exxon Mobil confirmed Thursday that the company had received a subpoena from the office of the attorney general of New York, Eric Schneiderman, related to the subject of climate change and was “assessing” its response.
The investigation focuses on whether Exxon Mobil intentionally clouded public debate about science and hid from investors the risks that climate change could pose to its business according to a person familiar with the matter.
Schneiderman has broad leeway to take on such a sweeping target under both consumer protection laws and New York’s Martin Act, a securities law that protects investors.
The inquiry seeks a variety of documents and records from the company, according to the person familiar with the probe, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the contents of the subpoena have not been made public.
“We unequivocally reject allegations that Exxon Mobil suppressed climate change research contained in media reports that are inaccurate distortions of Exxon Mobil’s nearly 40-year history of climate research that was conducted publicly in conjunction with the Department of Energy, academics and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” Exxon Mobil spokesman Scott Silvestri said.
Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, is also conducting a similar investigation regarding Peabody Energy, a leading coal company. The person familiar with the matter suggested that other energy companies could also face scrutiny.
Environmental advocates hailed the probes as a major victory. For well over a decade, such organizations have been probing alleged links between Exxon, the world’s largest publicly traded energy company, and the raising of public doubt about climate change. They cited not only direct statements and advertisements by Exxon Mobil, but also its alleged past support for think tanks and advocacy organizations that express climate change skepticism.
“We have watched Exxon sow doubt on climate science and delay action on climate change for nearly a generation,” said Kert Davies, formerly with Greenpeace and now the Climate Investigations Center.
Similarly, in a 2006 letter to the company, the British Royal Society chargedthat a variety of statements in Exxon Mobil’s public documents at the time “are not consistent with the scientific literature that has been published on this issue.”
“The context here is that climate activists have long accused Exxon – along with various other large energy companies – of seeking to influence the climate policy debate to their benefit. The claim that Exxon ‘suppressed’ research is part and parcel of this broader issue. Naturally, the company takes a different view of this issue,” said Pavel Molchanov, an oil industry analyst with Raymond James, in a statement.
Recent news reports have increased calls for action, as the Los Angeles Times and the online publication Inside Climate News both published articles charging that Exxon researchers were concerned about climate change from fossil fuel emissions decades ago, and yet for long periods, the company publicly raised doubts about the science.
The charges have been so prominent that senator and Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders recently called for a Justice Department investigation into Exxon Mobil regarding “what it knew and what it told the public and shareholders about the cause of climate change.”
Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard University who has been a critic of the company, likened the investigation to past investigations of the tobacco industry in a statement Thursday.
“We are not physiologically addicted to oil, but we live inside a highly developed infrastructure that fosters fossil fuel dependency and discourages alternatives. We could have begun to shift the incentives, and encourage alternatives, if we had implemented a carbon tax…at any point over the past 20 years,” Oreskes said. “There are many reasons we did not do that, but a significant one, in my view, is the role of Exxon Mobil and others in fomenting disinformation, undermining public support for such initiatives, and lobbying against policies that would have begun to decrease our fossil fuel dependency.”
In the 1990s, Exxon Mobil took stances that expressed skepticism about climate change. For instance, in 1997 Exxon CEO Lee Raymond stated in Beijing, “Many people, politicians and the public alike, believe global warming is a rock-solid certainty. But it’s not,” according to a contemporary media report.
But matters have changed since then and the company’s current CEO, Rex Tillerson, has called for a carbon tax.
“Exxon Mobil recognizes that climate risks are real and responsible actions are warranted,” said its vice president of public and government affairs, Ken Cohen, on a press call regarding the subpoena. “We have a commitment to helping address this important societal challenge.”
Cohen said on the call that the company began in the late 2000s to inform “shareholders and investors” about climate change and how it could affect the company’s business “through regulatory filings.” In response to the series by Inside Climate News, Cohen said the company has been in “active dialogue” with the publication since the stories came out.
“Our company, beginning in the latter part of the 1970s and continuing to the present day, has been involved in serious scientific research, and we have been supporting since that time scientific understanding of the risk of climate change,” Cohen said.
“Over the last decade, whispering concerns have increased within oil and other fossil fuel companies about a wide range of possible legal vulnerabilities. I think such concerns in fact have driven companies to take public positions acknowledging basic climate science in more recent years, and compelled them to even begin advocating seemingly progressive but politically unlikely policy approaches like carbon pricing,” says Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House aide on climate change who is now an energy and climate consultant in Washington.
Schneiderman, a Democrat, has been attorney general since 2011 and like other prominent New York-based prosecutors has not shied away from tackling big targets. Over his tenure, he has taken on Apple’s foray into E-books, big mortgage banks, and fantasy sports sites. He even filed a $40 million civil lawsuit against Donald Trump, alleging that the mogul’s “Trump University” — which purported to teach real estate investment techniques — in fact offered very little education at a high cost to students. (NYT Nov 6, 2015)
The article talks about The state of New york is investigating whether Exxon Mobil clouded the public debate about the science and hid all of the investors about the risks that climate change could pose to its business. Also, The New York attorney general, Schniderman, also conducts similar investigation of Peabody Energy which is a leading coal company. Due to the Exxon sow doubt on climat science, it causes action on climate change to delay for a almost a generation. The climate activists have accused Exxon and other large energy companies for long of seeking influences of the climate policy debate to their own benefits.
ReplyDeleteThis year is significant in terms of sustainable developments, and environment friendly policies. The climate change debate is becoming omnipresent and big energy companies, such as Exxon, are at the heart of the debate.
ReplyDeleteExxon Mobile is facing legal sanctions because they allegedly "misled the public and investors about the risks of climate change." For over forty years, Exxon supposedly knew about the risk of climate change but allowed doubt and even stated in 1997: “Many people, politicians and the public alike, believe global warming is a rock-solid certainty. But it’s not,”
Environmentalist and politicians are looking to implement a carbon tax and create incentive to look for alternatives. The articles show the different reforms and démarches to shift our economy towards a more environment friendly system, and to keep companies like Exxon from actively "fomenting disinformation, undermining public support for such initiatives, and lobbying against policies that would have begun to decrease our fossil fuel dependency."
These new reforms and legal actions have led to many energy companies to publicly show their support to these new policies and acknowledge climate change in order to improve their public image.
Companies like Exxon mobil get into situations like this all of the time. It seems that something will be done to change their ways but in the end of the day many of these politicians support these big companies because of the money they receive during re election. I believe that oil companies have an effect on the environment but I also believe that in order to prevent the negative effect the government should have tighter regulations. Another point that should be made is even though there is a lot of blame on exxon for negative impacts on the environment they should not receive all of the blame and if it wasn't them doing it there would be another major oil company in its place.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be extremely interesting. The whole article focuses on how Exxon Mobile has supposedly been hiding confirmative information about climate change for a few decades and have lied to their investors. The attorney general of New York is on their case and demands they release documents confirming the accusations. I found the remark that we are not addicted to oil but we have a complex system that requires it particularly interesting. The desire to switch to more renewable sources has been discriminated against. According to Oreskes, a carbon tax would have fixed this whole situation. Unfortunately, big corporations and their lobbyists have fought tooth and nail against it. Instead, we subsidize it. This is how you make capitalism look bad.
ReplyDeleteExxon Mobile has been accused of misleading the public and investors about the risks of climate change. There is an investigation on whether Exxon Mobile was telling the truth about the harmful effects of climate change. There is also another investigation regarding Peabody Energy, a leading coal company. Exxon Mobile has downplayed the risks. Recently Erik recently subpoena Exxon Mobile. There might be documents that might show the company downplayed risks to profits and therefore to investors of stronger regulations on burning fossil fuels. Higher levels of greenhouse gases are causing world temperatures to rise and burning fossil fuels is the reason. Exxon Mobile has been active in overestimating costs of switching to renewable energy. "U.S. carbon tax will transform energy investment, re-shape consumption, and sharply reduce the carbon emissions that are driving global warming". http://www.carbontax.org/
ReplyDeleteThis article focuses on how Exxon Mobile was hiding their facts and knowledge about climate change. For evidence the New York Stae, who is investigating this case, has a variety of documents and records from Exxon mobile that they could hold against them. Reportedly Exxon mobile scientists knew about the danger of climate change decades ago but hid it and “publicly raised doubts about the science” to use it for their advantage. Experts compare that case with the tobacco industry, which did the same. A professor at Harvard said the reason why they didn’t “shit the incentives, and encourage alternatives” was also because of Exxon and their lobbying against policies that would have begun to decrease fossil fuel dependency.
ReplyDeleteIn this article explains the issue of America's dependence on fossil fuels and how that affects the oil industry and how it is regulated, or in this case is not. Although the discussion of climate change has progressively become one of the most talked about issue, it is only just now that politicians and the government are really questioning how big oil industries manipulated the information put out to consumers. Allegedly, Exxon has been fully aware of the detrimental effects of fossil fuels for decades but have continued to produce propaganda based on faulty information to conceal the harmful effects of their product. The NY attorney general has subpoenaed the company in order to asses their response to climate change. In the article the big oil industry is likened to that of bug tobacco in which the US is metaphorically addicted through faulty infrastructure centered around the consumption of fossil fuels. The article mentions a possible solution through carbon tax which would discourage such heavy use of fossil fuels but it is quickly dismissed at politically unlikely. Unfortunately, as the article states, Exxon has managed to delay climate change by not only producing misleading propaganda, but also through lobbying and supporting think tanks geared towards "climate change skepticism". If it wasn't for the large profits that the fossil fuel industry brings in, our dependency could have possibly been reduced.
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about our dependency on fossil fuels and about how
ReplyDeleteExxon has been hiding facts about climate change. New york State, which is conducting an investigation has documents and records apparently proving Exxon withheld information. Exxon’s specialist knew the dangers of climate change, and hid it from the share holders and the public. They even went as far as to publicly raise doubt about the science of climate change. Harvard professor basically stated Exxon purposely kept this information to themselves, because they obviously had a vested interest in people using fossil fuels.
This article talks about how allegedly Exxon Mobile was not being open about climate change and did not inform their investors and shareholders about the matter. Even though the company itself rejects the allegations and underline that they haven't been hiding any climate change information from anyone. Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, is also investigating a similar incident by Pea Body Energy which is a leading coal company. When we need to answer the question "Are Corporations to be trusted on Environmental issues?" I would say; absolutely not. As the article states, "we live inside a highly developed infrastructure that fosters fossil fuel dependency and discourages alternatives.". I believe the big energy companies take full advantage of what is stated and benefit from not sharing the whole information about climate change and how it affects their business. From as early on as 1990, Exxon Mobile has shown their skepticism about climate change and said that it was not a certainty. Even though, they state not to have the same view on the matter now, a broad investigation will help clear the facts. Overall, the article raises good questions on Exxon Mobile and how other big energy companies keep information about climate change from their investors to create a stable business environment for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe above article focuses on the findings of an investigation on Exxon Mobile. The findings of the investigation, which was conducted by the State of New York, showed that the company knew of its contributions to climate change. The question in focus is whether we can trust large corporations, like Exxon and Peabody Energy with being honest with their information by giving the appropriate disclosed information. In many cases, it was found that companies were lying to investors in order to benefit their businesses. Climate change is a major issue and topic within the efforts towards transitioning into a more sustainable ecosystem.
ReplyDeleteCompanies like Exxon mobil find immerse themselves into pestilent situations like this in numerous amounts of time. There is hope that steps will be taken to change their ways but in the end many politicians support and are sponsored by these big corporations because of the money they receive for their campaigns. I believe that oil companies have an effect on the environment but I also believe that in order to prevent the negative effect the government should have stricter regulations. We shouldn't put the blame on 1 corporation specifically. However, we should emphasize on regulating an entire sector, example oil sector, in order to prevent incidences like these from repeating.
ReplyDeleteExxon Mobil is being investigated by New York State about whether or not they lied to the public and investors about their findings on climate change. However Exxon’s spokesman, Scott Silvestri stated that the company rejects any accusations that they possessed the research and hid the findings. Similarly, another investigation is being held with the coal company Peabody Energy. Many organizations have brought up this issue publicly and privately with Exxon Mobil with no avail, so the subpoena that was given to them is a major step for environmental supporters. Moreover, in 2006, the British Royal Society claimed that public documents and statements made by Exxon are inconsistent with scientific findings on climate change. Thus, this company and many like it are trying to withhold information in order to have an advantage with climate policy. Additionally, Exxon’s vice president of public and government affairs stated that the company will help address the issue. Also, Cohen mentioned the company has bene involved in research for understanding climate change since the 1970s which makes me wonder what came out of that research, if it pertained to climate change and what the purpose of hiding such information was. - Maisha Joseph
ReplyDeleteARE CORPORATIONS TO BE TRUSTED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES?
ReplyDeleteFar too often, we see the face of corruption stare back at us—for we have empowered ‘them’ indirectly and directly due to our human nature and consumptive habits. This is the point in time where one must realize the reality: those who come to power will not let those who brought him their of his greatest weaknesses and flaws, for the petro industry this is the environmental deterioration that has come to be know as Global Warming.
“Are Corporations to be Trusted on Environmental Issues?” discusses the many implications of the use and production of petro, more specifically dealing with Mobil Exxon, however most of this story can be seen across the board within all petro companies—whether you ever will find out is the real question...
For years officials at Mobil Exxon has known of the environmental implications their product causes, and have stopped at nothing to ruthlessly bury topic. Governments and those who hold power have greatly benefited from lobbying of big oil, that has suppressed reality and research findings, for personal interest. The people find it ideal for consumption for that is all they know, and this should make you wonder: What is reality?
“We are not physiologically addicted to oil, but we live inside a highly developed infrastructure that fosters fossil fuel dependency and discourages alternatives. We could have begun to shift the incentives, and encourage alternatives, if we had implemented a carbon tax…at any point over the past 20 years,” according to Oreskes. This leads me to question: Why are we in this situation?
I believe a major cause of this is in three parts: the governments who let the product go to market, without proper regulation, to preserve and protect future generations, the companies that produce it, and the people who consume it. The major contributor here who has failed is one who’s duty it is to protect the people: the state. Policy has failed the people for it is directly influenced by big oil lobbyists—putting a band-aide on an industry that has a severed arm—and from this allowing for citizens to live in ignorance of impending environmental impact.
Corporations should never be trusted or charged with the duty to report on environmental issues, for one has proven that they have done nothing but attempt to hide a issues, for they negatively benefited the petro industry.
This article outlines the investigation by New York State on Exxon. It has been speculated that Exxon has lied to the public about their findings on climate change. The investigation has shown that the company knew that it was contributing to climate change, but because they knew it would hurt them financially they failed to report the information. Corporations only care about one thing ; profit. They must be heavily monitored because they will do anything they can to stop their stock price from falling even if it is completely unethical.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteClick here to know more 17 sustainable development goals un