Introduction
Today’s column addresses the second and third focus areas of my present critique of ExxonMobil. These are: 1) its deceitful actions [being adjudicated in the Courts of Law]; and 2) disinformation and framed narratives on global warming climate change, and denial of energy transition [before the Court of Public Opinion].
But as indicated last week, I start today’s column with two wrap up comments; one briefly illustrating ExxonMobil’s recent significant oil spills, and the other expanding also briefly on my reference to moral hazard and insurance in the concluding paragraph of last week’s column. The latter is a topic of intense current public discourse.
Wikipedia’s presentation on ExxonMobil offers a concise brief on the company’s oil spills. This brief is summarized below:
Recent ExxonMobil Oil Spills
1. The Exxon Valdez oil spill is ranked number 1, in terms of environmental damage; which it is estimated will take decades if not centuries to rectify. Eleven plus million US gallons were spilled onto 1300 miles of Alaska coastline
2. Brooklyn oil spills over the period mid-19th century to mid-20th century, totaling 12 to 30 million US gallons
3. Baton Rouge refinery pipeline spill 2012; 80,000 US gallons
4. Baton Rouge Benzene spill, 2012; multiple chemicals including benzene
5. Yellowstone River oil spill 2011; 1,500 barrels
6. Mayflower River oil spill 2013; 3,190 barrels
7. Sakhalin 1 oil spill Russia Far East
8. New Jersey oil spill
Source: Wikipedia
By moral hazard I refer to the well-known insurance risk management principle, which states that economic agents who seek protection from risk by way of insurance coverage may well choose to pursue a riskier pattern of behavior after they are insured! As Investopedia states, the paradox is “when a party to a contract does not have to suffer the potential consequences of a risk the likelihood of a moral hazard increases” Let’s hope the noise and nonsense brigade brings no harm to Guyana by their ill thought out pleadings/pressure for insurance, as ExxonMobil’s behaviour in cutting corners is certainly not comforting.
Deceiving Investors
In the Court of Public Opinion, ExxonMobil has been faring quite poorly in regard to allegations that it has acted with calculation designed to deceive the general public on its stance, as well as company practice in promoting environment friendly actions to prevent global warming and climate change, as well as promote global energy transition.
In the Courts of Law, the corporation has fared better. Lawsuits against the corporation have been going slowly and in one high profile case [New York Attorney General vs ExxonMobil] in its favour. Personally, I believe this difference reflects the conceptual and analytical gap between information and analysis as used in politics and social analysis, and legal proof, based on the principles of the balance of probabilities and/or beyond a reasonable doubt.
Alleged deceit has so far taken several forms, including the following: 1) The practice of using different data calculations for internal company use and those given to investors, shareholders, regulators and the general public; 2) public denial but internal acknowledgement of knowledge of particular types of harm to the environment; 3) organizing disinformation in order to advance and manage rebuttals of activists and academics.
A concrete example might help. It has been alleged that a decade before ExxonMobil admitted publicly to the harmful CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, it had already become fully aware of this as a fact. However, by feigning ignorance, it is argued that surveys reveal this stance has encouraged roughly a half of surveyed Americans to deny climate change and global warming.
Exxon Mobil has provided a spirited response to what I have advanced here. The following statement on its Website in regard to the activist group ExxonKnew speaks for itself.
Exxon Mobil Statement
“ExxonKnew is an orchestrated campaign that seeks to delegitimize ExxonMobil by misrepresenting our position on climate change and related research to the public. For the past several years, activist organizations have sought to bring investigations, shareholder action, legal action and protests against ExxonMobil despite the fact that ExxonMobil is committed and actively working to reduce the risks posed by climate change.”
Source: ExxonMobil website
Framing the Climate Change narrative
The focus of my critique on this topic is a representation of a science and society research article published in One Earth. It is entitled Rhetoric and Frame Analysis of ExxonMobil Climate Change Communications. It was written by G. Supran and N. Orespes and published in Vol 4 Issue 5 May 2021
The research investigates ExxonMobil use of “rhetoric and framing” to steer public climate change and global warming debates. They offer what they claim is ‘an algorithmic corpus comparison and machine-learning topic model of 180 ExxonMobil climate change communications [including research/academic- publications, internal documents, and advertorials in The New York Times’ The advertorials are investigated using inductive frame analysis.
For our purpose, the main finding is that the company has selectively overstated terms and topics while avoiding others. Notably, they have used the rhetoric of climate “risk” and consumer energy “demand” to construct a “Fossil Fuel Savior” frame, which 1) downplays the gravity of climate change; 2) normalizes fossil fuel lock-in; and 3) individualizes responsibility. This framing mimics the tobacco industry experience of shifting responsibility away from corporations—knowingly selling a deadly product while denying its harms—to consumers. This historical parallel foreshadows the fossil fuel industry’s use of demand-as-blame arguments to oppose litigation, regulation, and activism.
Conclusion
Next week’s column addresses the fourth and final area of focus for my critique of ExxonMobil. That is, “walking the talk”.
