The Magical Mystery Tour: Corporate Confusion on Climate Change and the Need for a
Good, Old Fashioned Boycott
Michael J. Lynch
Department of Criminology
University of South Florida
In previous posts, I have discussed climate change skepticism, how climate
change skeptics contribute to the lack of a sufficient US climate policy, and the role the
media and politicians have played in the denial of climate change in America. These
denials of climate change have taken various forms, and the forms of denial have
changed as its becomes increasingly apparent that the position of climate skeptics should
be the position that is questioned. To be sure, many climate skeptics have changed their
arguments as the public becomes more knowledgeable about climate change, and as
evidence of the extraordinary scientific consensus on climate change and its
anthropocentric origins contradict the assertions made by climate skeptics. Yes, in light
of these changes in media reporting and public knowledge, the once vocal climate
skeptics now suggest the world is indeed warming and that humans contribute
significantly to that trend. Yes, it seems we may have reached a point where the evidence
from the science of climate change has overwhelmed the skeptics, and in the face of this
rapidly asmassing scientific evidence, skeptics realize that they need a new approach to
climate change, that its time to change the exact nature of their skepticism.
With a larger number of climate skeptics changing their stories (I will post a
discussion of this in the coming weeks) one would think that the climate debate is over
and that the US will finally do something about climate change. But, that would still be
an optimistic outcome because the climate skeptics are still skeptical, they are just
skeptical in a different way. While the skeptics now admit that climate change is
happening, they are still skeptical that we need to do or can do anything about climate
change.
So, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, the skeptics have backed off
of their claims that there is no such thing as global warming. Now, they have changed
their tune to adopt a more scientific approach that, in the strictest sense has some
scientific validity. That new position is really an old position that some scientists -- but
not the media, public relations or corporate skeptics -- have long made the cornerstone of
their arguments. That scientific skepticism has become one of the new cornerstones of
the view taken by non-science skeptics of global warming, who have conveniently
remade scientific skepticism claims into truths. That new skeptical climate position
states that while climate change is happening, climate models themselves are not very
precise, and thus the future path of climate change cannot be accurately predicted from
present data and models. These climate models, the skeptics suggest, contain some
inaccuracies and are sensitive to small changes in the modeling assumptions, and that
when those assumptions are altered, this drastically changes the future prediction of how
much the climate will warm. And, as climate change scientists will tell you themselves,
this criticism has SOME merit. But, what climate scientist will also tell you is that the
skeptics are wrong on this point because the pace of climate change has far exceeded
climate model predictions, a condition that is the opposite of what the skeptics suggest.
Recently, this story of the new approach to climate change skepticism unfolded
in one, concise event that illustrates how all of these points intersect, and how
corporations are now admitting that climate change is happening but at the same time are
skeptical of how bad climate change really is, and whether humans can alter its path.
This story involves one of the most active climate change skeptics sponsors, and a
significant contributor to climate change, ExxonMobil.
The New Climate Change Skepticism and ExxonMobil
In late June, 2012, the new form of climate change skepticism was unveiled in a
speech by Rex Tillerson, Chairmen, President and CEO of ExxonMobil. Tillerman had
something “new” to say about climate change as the head of ExxonMobil, which had,
until this week, official taken the position that climate change was not occurring.
Tilleron publicly stated his position, which one can assume is the official position
of ExxonMobil given Tillerson’s role in the company. In this statement, Tillerson
publicly admitted that fossil fuel use contributes to climate change. You could probably
have knocked over some of those who heard this news with a feather because of the strict
climate skeptic position Exxon Mobil has long taken, and because ExxonMobil has spent
significant sums fueling the climate skeptic position.
But, the admission that fossil fuels help cause climate change was not all that
Tillerson said in his public statement. So as not to disappoint our expectations about
what the new ExxonMobil climate change position would entail, Tilleron qualified his
statement. In qualifying that statement, Tillerson noted that while fossil fuel
consumption promotes climate change, the consequences aren’t as serious as they have
been depicted by scientist, or in the media, and that they are not as sever as the public
might believe. Essentially, what Tillerson said was, first that while he accepts the idea
that fossil fuel consumption promotes climate change, the real climate change story isn’t
that bad. And second, that in his view there is what we might call continued significant
hysteria around scientific findings related to climate change.
Tillerson was more direct in his comments about the hysteria around climate
change, and pointed the finger at some of the responsible parties. He blames the hysteria
on a misunderstanding. In turn, he blamed the misunderstanding of climate change on
two groups: first, “lazy journalists” seeking sensational stories to include in news reports
to garner public attention, and second, the “illiterate” general public who doesn’t
understand the meaning of climate science research. So, climate change is real, but
because of lazy journalist and a stupid public, concern over climate change has
effectively been blown out of proportion. I guess Tillerson hoped the lazy journalists
didn’t report on his position, and the illiterate public didn’t read about it.
Thus, in sum, ExxonMobil’s new interpretation of climate change amounts to the
following: its real and there is scientific evidence of its existence; fossil fuel
consumption is partially responsible; but the consequences of climate change have been
blown out of proportion by the media and the public; as a result, there is little need to do
anything about climate change. Of these five points, Tillerson was correct on two with
respect to the US: that the scientific results are correct, and fossil fuels help drive climate
changes. As for the media and the public in the US, there is still significant doubt.
Among advanced western nations, for example, the US public has the weakest belief in
climate change, while US media has tended to over-represent the climate skeptic position.
Putting Your Foot in Your Mouth
So, ExxonMobil’s official position on climate change appears to have been
significantly modified from its strict skepticism. That would seem to be a positive step,
except that in accepting the science of climate change, ExxonMobil still seems to think
there is no need to take any action.
On a public relations level, one wonders what Tillerson was thinking in making
such a statement. Maybe the “lazy journalists” in the room wouldn’t notice they were
being ridiculed. Maybe the “illiterate public” wouldn’t read or listen to the news
Tillerson was generating. From a public relations standpoint, it appeared that Tillerson
had produced a significant train wreck. But, he would, he thought, remedy that problem
by referring to evidence in support of his contentions.
To support his assertions about climate change‘s future being in doubt, Tillerson
noted that ExxonMobil has had a two decade relationship with climate scientists at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ExxonMobil has learned a great deal from that
two decades of cooperation with these MIT scientists. Tillerson asserted. Specifically,
Tillerson stated that what ExxonMobil learned from these climate scientists was the
following: climate change models are inaccurate and provide poor predictions of the
climate’s future and the effect of fossil fuel consumption on the extent of global
warming. What Tillerson was saying was that scientists at MIT would agree with his
assessment that the future of climate change was questionable, and that media and public
interpretations of climate change and the need for action were misguided according to
what Tillerson had learned from MIT scientists.
Unfortunately for Tillerson, someone forgot to tell the scientists at MIT about the
contents of this speech, and what they were supposed to think. Equally as unfortunate,
some “lazy” news journalist decided to ask some MIT climate researchers what they
thought about Tilleron’s comments. The result: the scientists didn’t play along with
Tillerson’s plan.
When asked about Tillerson’s comments, Ronald Prinn, a professor of
Atmospheric Sciences at MIT has this to say: “The models are certainly good enough to
clearly show the benefits of mitigation policies compared to no policy, in lowering risks.
We cannot wait for perfection in climate forecasts before taking action.” What? You
mean scientists at MIT don’t agree with ExxonMobil’s new official position that its
unnecessary to do anything about climate change? Shocking. Yet, that certainly appears
to be what MIT scientists, Ronald Prinn suggested. In contrast to Tillerson’s view, Prinn
suggested that we know enough to worry about and to do something about climate
change, and that existing scientific models are sufficient to reach those conclusions. You
mean that we know enough to worry? That the “lazy journalists” and “illiterate public”
got it right? Seems that is what the MIT scientist’s comments imply.
In making his claims, Tillerson was quite clear that MIT scientists would support
his views, and that, for instance, it was unnecessary to do anything about climate change
or that we can do anything about climate change. Prinn, a climate scientists at MIT,
contradicted Tillerson on both points. So, MIT climate scientists do disagree with
ExxonMobil and Tillerson. Of course, anyone familiar with the research on climate
change or the research produced on that topic by MIT scientists could have told Tillerson
this is what would have happened if he insisted on stating that MIT scientists supported
ExxonMobil’s new climate position. But, ExxonMobil isn’t as concerned with the reality
of climate change as it is with airing its non-scientific opinion about climate change
publicly. Maybe Tillerson believes that the MIT scientists were part of the illiterate
public too ? That they wouldn’t find out about what he said because the “lazy
journalists” wouldn’t report it, or they would get it wrong? Or maybe he hoped MIT
scientists only listen to FOX news broadcasts where this news would be remade.
In effect, while Tillerson was now publicly willing to admit that fossil fuel
consumption pushes climate change forward, his real message was that we can’t really
worry about climate change because scientific models are imprecise and we can’t change
the outcome anyway. In other words, ExxonMobil’s position is that climate change
happens, fossil fuels helps promote climate change, BUT given ExxonMobil’s
interpretation of science‘s empirical modeling of climate change, and despite the fact that
Tillerson’s interpretation is inconsistencies with what scientists who have worked with
ExxonMobil say, Tillerson and ExxonMobil still think there is little reason to do anything
about climate change.
Oh, and by the Way, Hydraulic-Fracturing is’t bad either . . .
Clearly, this public stance will become a public relations nightmare for
ExxonMobil. After all, Tillerson’s main point was that the real climate change problem,
it seems, is that journalists are lazy, the public is stupid, and that climate science is
inaccurate. Why should anyone besides journalists, the public and climate scientists be
upset?
But, Tillerson wasn’t done creating the ExxonMobil public relations nightmare.
He made the nightmare worse with additional comments related to the practice of
hydraoic-fracturing or hydro-fracking or fracking as it is more commonly designated, and
its consequences. Hydrofracking involves the use of high pressure water drills and the
use of secret chemicals (companies using this process do not need to reveal the mixtures
used in making their hydro-fracking fluids, as these are considered a trade secret) to
create underground pressure to drill for and increase the recovery of natural gas from
shale rock formations. Stories of the negative effects of hydrofracturing methods on the
environment, and communities near hydrofracking facilities have been making headlines
as a result of these negative consequences for quite some time. But like climate change
itself, Tillerson was suggesting we had nothing to worry about in terms of the
consequence of hydrofracturing. Hydrofracking is safe. Well, mostly. Maybe.
What Tillerson said about hydrofracturing according to reports made by the lazy
reporters in the room actually contradicted his safety claim. According to the lazy
reporters, Tillerson made the following statement: "The consequences of a misstep in a
well, while large to the immediate people that live around that well, in the great scheme
of things are pretty small.” Interesting. Hydrofracturing is only harmful to local resident.
So, in other words, ExxonMobil admits that hydrofracking can cause severe
consequences for people who live in proximity to hydrofracturing sites, but that the
health of those people is inconsequential in the larger scope of things. So, essentially, we
shouldn’t worry about hydrofracturing because it only harms some people.
Perhaps it wasn’t clear to Tillerson what he had just admitted in public. He has
now publicly made it known that ExxonMobil understands that hydrofracking may be
detrimental to those who live near such sites, but that ExxonMobil is essentially willing
to sacrifice some people because the overall impact of hydrofracking is, in his and
ExxonMobil’s opinion, “pretty small” overall. Interpreted in a different way, what
Tillerson said was, if you live near a fracking facility, you should worry, and
ExxonMobil acknowledges that you may be harmed, BUT, the good news is that most
people don’t need to worry. I’m sure that makes people who live near hydrofracking
facilities feel much better. But maybe they are part of the illiterate public and won’t
notice what TIllerson said.
Public Boycott
For one, I won’t be surprised if the public reaction to Tillerson’s speech is that
people around the US, especially those who live near fracking sites, call for a boycott of
ExxonMobil products. But, then again, this may be an overly optimistic outcome because
most of the public doesn’t seem willing to invest the necessary energy to carry out such a
plan. Nevertheless, boycotts are a good way for consumers and the general public to
demonstrate their displeasure with a company. While ExxonMobil is a big company, its
not the only company that produces the kinds of products its sell, and people can meet
their needs by buying from other vendors. There’s no law that people must buy from
ExxonMobil, and because our buying behaviors in a free market economic aren’t
restricted, there is no reason that the public can’t boycott ExxonMobil.
Perhaps Tillerson is hoping that the lazy journalists he insulted and the illiterate
public can’t come up with the idea for a boycott on their own. It might surprise Tillerson
to know that there have been some great public boycotts in the past, and a number of
them have been aimed at gas/oil companies. The public, for example, once boycotted
Shell products in response to Shell’s dealings in Nigeria, and many people cut up and
mailed their Shell credit cards to the company as part of that campaign. If the dollar
talks, maybe it should now. Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the US and the face
on the two-dollar bill believed that the public should uses its democratic rights to force
change, including political change, and he openly believed that to keep democracy safe
and to remove undue influence from the democratic process, that the American people
should stage a periodic revolution to maintain their powers and rights as citizens. This
could be that time, and such a protest could become an extension of Occupy Wall Street.
Whether or not people boycott ExxonMobil, the public needs to become more
actively involved in the democratic process in the US and demand that American
politicians protect them from climate change by passing significant climate related
legislation. Such legislation will be good for America. It will, for example, open up
investments in the alternative fuel market and create jobs; it will reduce pollution and
improve air quality and reduce air pollution related illnesses in the US, which are quite
widely distributed. It will make American more self reliant by using its technological
knowledge to create an alternative fuel industry that doesn’t rely on foreign nations for
most of its oil. It will reduce the use of coal, which is highly polluting and noxious, and a
culprit in climate change. Given where scientists say we are headed with respect to
global warming, none of these potential outcomes is bad news. Well, unless you are a
well placed and well paid oil company executive, or a very large oil company stock
holder, and the US government reduced the large amount of taxpayer money they give to
you in subsidies.