It’s now public knowledge far back as July 1977 Exxon executives knew burning fossil fuels would result in catastrophic climate change. A year later, in 1978 Exxon’s senior scientist James Black updated Exxon executives that “man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical."
Note Exxon’s initial response was not to promote disinformation, but to promote research. In fact, the Inside Climate News investigation documented in 1982 there were people in Exxon management who wanted to use this as an opportunity to show leadership and develop technology that would benefit humanity.
But then something changed. Exxon executives decided not to lead, but to follow the tobacco companies infamous playbook and deliberately sow disinformation.
Former Exxon scientist Ed Garvey has publicly said he believes Exxon blew a real opportunity to be leaders. He said there was no question about the science. He believes at the time he was doing the work, Exxon wanted to act like leaders. He adds if Exxon had taken the high road, we wouldn’t have such an anti-science movement today. Other former Exxon scientists have spoken out.
We can only guess what changed at Exxon. Corporate governance changed in the 1980’s as Michael Jensen’s shareholder primacy model replaced stakeholder models.
The Union of Concerned Scientists published a document "The Climate Deception Dossiers." Note the 1998 American Petroleum Institute’s memo stating “victory will be achieved when average citizens understand uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties become conventional wisdom.” That’s found on page 10.
How would our world be different today if Exxon had decided to act like leaders, tell the public what it knew, partner with governments to transition off fossil fuels, and become a clean energy company? Would other fossil fuel companies have followed Exxon’s lead? Would so many Americans today believe climate change is a hoax? Would climate change have been a bipartisan issue? Would the world face a climate emergency? Would we have millions of climate refugees? Would scientists be talking about humanity entering the sixth mass extinction? Would climate scientists such as Dr. James Hansen be saying former fossil fuel executives should be put on trial for crimes against humanity?
Or would we have solved or be well on our way to solving the problem? Would transitioning to a clean energy economy allowed us to create millions of jobs and solve our economic inequality problem with the same dollars? I continue to favor a Green New Deal.
Sometimes it takes just one person or entity to lead and others will follow setting off a chain reaction.
What would have happened to Exxon if the company had chosen to be leaders rather than self-serving followers? Would Exxon still be around or could Exxon have transitioned to a profitable clean energy company? Was promoting climate change denialism really in Exxon shareholders best interest? In her book, "The Shareholder Value Myth" Lynn Stout talks about how shareholder primacy does not benefit anyone except the almost non-existent platonic shareholder who has no interest in our society except the stock price of one company. Don’t Exxon shareholders also inhabit the planet?? Don’t Exxon shareholders own stocks of other companies? What happens when the impact of climate change increasingly hurts our economy and other businesses are negatively impacted? Shareholder primacy is promoting yourself at the expense of everyone else- including your shareholders who have other stakes in society besides the stock of one company.
What are your thoughts?