Yesterday we talked about the context section of the Mass v ExxonMobil complaint, which describes how the oil industry misled Americans on climate change and kept the public from embracing climate action by preventing us from making fully informed decisions.
Today we’re going to keep looking at the complaint--there’s more to talk about!
A key plank of the complaint deals with ExxonMobil’s “false and misleading misrepresentations” regarding their products, specifically in claiming that “use of ExxonMobil’s Synergy™ fuels and ‘green’ Mobil 1™ motor oil products will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Compared to how complicated the issue involving investors being misled by the company’s two sets of proxy carbon costs, the advertising section is pretty straightforward.
The suit alleges that ExxonMobil’s ads are misleading because “the development, refining, and consumer use of ExxonMobil fossil fuel products emit large volumes of greenhouse gases.” Trying to make people think otherwise is greenwashing, which the complaint defines as “advertising and promotional materials designed to convey a false impression that a company is more environmentally responsible than it really is, and so to induce consumers to purchase its products.”
ExxonMobil’s ads seek to give consumers the impression that the use of its products “reduces greenhouse gas emissions, at most a half-truth...since ExxonMobil also fails to disclose the fact that the production and consumer use of fossil fuel products like Synergy™ and ‘green’ Mobil 1™ are a leading cause of climate change that endangers public health and consumer welfare.” And while “even if it is technically true” that these products improve engine performance or fuel efficiency compared to other products, they still don’t reduce emissions like the ads suggest.
Seeking to convince the public that their products are “beneficial to the climate… is reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s effort to promote ‘low-tar’ and ‘light’ cigarettes as an alternative to quitting smoking, after the public became aware of the life-threatening health harms associated with smoking,” an apt metaphor that further solidifies the similarities between the tobacco industry’s misinformation campaign and ExxonMobil’s.
And the implications here are huge--ExxonMobil is hardly the only oil company that’s trying to convince consumers that it’s taking climate change seriously. API is running ads about fracked gas being a climate solution, while also lobbying to support a bill that would kill a tax credit for Electric Vehicles, per new reporting from E&E.
Shell has its years-long celeb and social influencer campaigns and decades of knowledge about the threat of its products, while BP began the year with its “lipstick on a pig” ad campaign and continues claiming gas is a climate solution in ads that regularly appear in Axios.
If this case is successful, then, and sets the precedent that the fossil fuel industry can’t lie about its products causing, instead of solving, climate change, what might the new advertisements look like?
“The climate is changing, but our business isn’t. So what if the world’s on fire, you have a meeting to get to!”
“Who needs a stable climate, when your car has climate control? Buy our gas to keep your car cool, and the planet hot.”
“The climate’s hot, but our hearts are ice cold.”
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: