Ranked number one on the 2006 Fortune Global 500, ExxonMobil reported revenues for that year at just under $340 billion, earning the corporation a daily profit of nearly $100 million (Fortune). In 2004 (the latest year with available data), ExxonMobil was responsible for the production of over one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, snagging the corporation another top ten ranking: sixth in emissions behind the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and India (UCS report 4).
On their website, ExxonMobil “…pledge[s] to be a good corporate citizen in all the places we operate worldwide. We will maintain the highest ethical standards, obey all applicable laws and regulations, and respect local and national cultures. Above all other objectives, we are dedicated to running safe and environmentally responsible operations” (ExxonMobil). Yet company affiliated memos tell a different story.
One such internal memo of the Global Science Team (created by ExxonMobil in 1998) states, “Victory will be achieved when average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science… [our] strategies and tactics [are to]…develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science” (UCS report 40).
During the 2004 election cycle, ExxonMobil made $935,000 in political contributions to block climate and emissions legislation. This was on top of the $16 million it spent through 43 advocacy groups and the $61 million paid to lobbyists (between 1998 and 2005) in order to manufacture uncertainty over the science of global warming (USC report 5). A hefty portion of the $16 million alottment was given to the Competitive Enterprise Group (CEI), a “non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government” (CEI). With $2 million of ExxonMobil’s money burning a hole in their pockets, CEI created two television ads to further ExxonMobil’s interests.
The first ad presents carbon dioxide under a false light. Sunny images of children blowing bubbles and the floating seeds of dandelions are accompanied by the voice-over:
“There’s something in these pictures you can’t see. It’s essential to life. We breathe it out, plants breathe it in. It comes from animal life, the oceans, the earth and the fuels we find in it. It’s called carbon dioxide- CO2. The fuels that produce co2 have freed us from a world of back-breaking labor. Lighting up our lives, allowing us to create and move the things we need, the people we love. Now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant. Imagine if they succeed. What would our lives be like then? Carbon dioxide- they call it pollution, we call it life” (CEI 1).
The ad emphasizes the ‘naturalness’ of carbon dioxide, which is presented as a helpful little chemical compound responsible for liberating us from darkness, toil, and isolation. Indeed, carbon dioxide is naturally occurring, as are numerous other elements and chemical compounds that nonetheless become toxic when consumed or produced in excess. Iron, for example, is one of the ten most abundant elements on earth and an essential dietary mineral. However, iron consumption in excess of between 180-300 mg per kg of body weight can result in iron poisoning, leading to shock and eventually death from liver failure (Nieman 2). And what about the chemical compound H20- water? Covering two thirds of the earth and also essential to life on earth, water can also be dangerous in excess, as it is with floods, water intoxication, and drowning. This circular logic does nothing to prove that an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause harm. Additionally, the either/or argument posed in the ad above completely omits the existence of cleaner energy sources that would alternatively “light up our lives…create and move the things we need [and] the people we love.”
The second ad invents uncertainties in the science of global warming expressly through illogic and misrepresentation. Headlines from newspapers flash over the screen as the narration announces:
“You’ve seen those headlines about global warming. The glaciers are melting. We’re doomed. That’s what several studies supposedly found. But other scientific studies found exactly the opposite. Greenland’s glaciers are growing, not melting. The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner. Did you see any big headlines about that? Why are they trying to scare us? Global warming alarmists claim the glaciers are melting because of carbon dioxide from the fuels we use. Let’s force people to cut back, they say. But we depend on those fuels to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives. And as for carbon dioxide it isn’t smog or smoke it’s what we breathe out and what plants breathe in. Carbon dioxide- they call it pollution, we call it life” (CEI 2).
This ad projects an ‘us against them’ stand by using ‘we’ as though scientists and the public are at odds. “We’re doomed,” “why are they trying to scare us,” “the fuels we use,” “cut back, they say,” “we depend on those fuels to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives,” and “what we breathe out.” Aligning the voice of the ad with the audience sets up the ad’s punch line- if ‘they’ call it pollution and ‘we’ call it life, then it follows that ‘we’ (the audience), call it life and not pollution, too. Straw-person attacks assist this strategy with the assertion that “we’re doomed,” asking “why are they trying to scare us?” and alleging the wish to “force people to cut back.” It’s a bit of a stretch to compare researching climate change and reporting your findings to the assertion that we’re all doomed with an underlying desire to scare and force the public into submission.
Continuing with wordplay, the placement of a few choice terms—“supposedly,” “exactly,” and “claim” cunningly slant the certainty away from the science and towards speculation. A bit of semantics are involved as supposedly is defined as “accepted or believed as true, without positive knowledge” and “merely thought to be such; imagined” (Dictionary). As science shies away from declaring absolutes, the former definition indeed applies, yet the connotation of ‘supposedly’ leans toward the latter definition—one of speculation and controversy. Similarly, ‘claim’ is properly used, but implies speculation. On the flip side, ‘exactly’ connotes precision, yet in this context, refers only to the contradictory studies being precisely the opposite of the initial studies.
Ultimately, however, that statement is inconsequential as CEI cherry-picked the information to begin with. When questioned about CEI’s ad, Ola Johannessen, lead author of Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in Interior in Greenland (one of the two articles ambiguously referenced in the ad), “replied, ‘They have misused my paper.’ Essentially, the ice-sheet growth is an indication, not a refutation of global warming” (Dheere 3). And as author George Monbiot points out in his commentary over the ads on BBC’s Newsnight, “70 out of the 81 glaciers measured by the World Glacier Monitoring Service are shrinking” (Monbiot).
As an environmentalist who opts to spend four hours a day on public transit in lieu of driving her car, has written several reports, and has given presentations on climate change, I can’t help but feel more than a little miffed over the egregious content of these ads. In fact, I find them downright insulting. As more time passes and emissions increase exponentially, the severity of consequences also increases. Well-funded disinformation campaigns such as the ones backed by ExxonMobil delay the curbing of global emissions, the implementation of stricter regulations, and modified energy practices. Despite the overwhelming peer-reviewed data available attesting that “… the primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use” (IPCC report 2), the population of our world is at the mercy of a few powerful corporations with large bank accounts. How long will we allow these money-hungry entities to obscure the truth and delay action without repercussion? More importantly, what does it say about our society that we are willing to believe a mass of lies swimming in illogic because it is more convenient, instead of making changes that are necessary for the health and survival of life on our planet?
Works Cited
“Fortune 500.” Fortune 17 Apr 2006. 13 Mar 2007 <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/snapshots/496.html>.
Union of Concerned Scientists, et al. Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change. Union of Concerned Scientists. 12 Feb 2007. 12 Mar 2007 <http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html>.
ExxonMobil Corporation. 12 Mar 2007 <http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate/>.
Competitive Enterprise Institute. Competitive Enterprise Institute: Advancing Liberty, Public Policy Research, CEI. 2007. 12 Mar 2007 <http://www.cei.org/pages/about.cfm>.
“We Call It Life.” Competitive Enterprise Institute: Advancing Liberty, Public Policy Research. CEI. 2007.12 Mar 2007 <http://www.cei.org/pages/co2.cfm>.
Nieman, Judith. “Metals as Toxic Agents.” Metals in Health and Disease. 13 Mar 2007 <http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/studentwebs/session2/group29/irontox.htm>.
“Supposedly.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 13 Mar 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supposedly>.
Dheere, Jessica. “A Convenient Excuse, but the Wrong Kind of Green.” Villager [New York] 21 June 2006. Voted New York State’s Best Community Newspaper. 13 Mar 2007 <http://www.thevillager.com/villager_164/talkingpoint.html>.
Monbiot, George. BBC. Fall 2006. 12 Mar 2007. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at0T7Fi5l_I>.
Rely on the Tiger
21 02 2009By Rhymi Chavid, March 2007
Ranked number one on the 2006 Fortune Global 500, ExxonMobil reported revenues for that year at just under $340 billion, earning the corporation a daily profit of nearly $100 million (Fortune). In 2004 (the latest year with available data), ExxonMobil was responsible for the production of over one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, snagging the corporation another top ten ranking: sixth in emissions behind the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and India (UCS report 4).
On their website, ExxonMobil “…pledge[s] to be a good corporate citizen in all the places we operate worldwide. We will maintain the highest ethical standards, obey all applicable laws and regulations, and respect local and national cultures. Above all other objectives, we are dedicated to running safe and environmentally responsible operations” (ExxonMobil). Yet company affiliated memos tell a different story.
One such internal memo of the Global Science Team (created by ExxonMobil in 1998) states, “Victory will be achieved when average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science… [our] strategies and tactics [are to]…develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science” (UCS report 40).
During the 2004 election cycle, ExxonMobil made $935,000 in political contributions to block climate and emissions legislation. This was on top of the $16 million it spent through 43 advocacy groups and the $61 million paid to lobbyists (between 1998 and 2005) in order to manufacture uncertainty over the science of global warming (USC report 5). A hefty portion of the $16 million alottment was given to the Competitive Enterprise Group (CEI), a “non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government” (CEI). With $2 million of ExxonMobil’s money burning a hole in their pockets, CEI created two television ads to further ExxonMobil’s interests.
The first ad presents carbon dioxide under a false light. Sunny images of children blowing bubbles and the floating seeds of dandelions are accompanied by the voice-over:
“There’s something in these pictures you can’t see. It’s essential to life. We breathe it out, plants breathe it in. It comes from animal life, the oceans, the earth and the fuels we find in it. It’s called carbon dioxide- CO2. The fuels that produce co2 have freed us from a world of back-breaking labor. Lighting up our lives, allowing us to create and move the things we need, the people we love. Now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant. Imagine if they succeed. What would our lives be like then? Carbon dioxide- they call it pollution, we call it life” (CEI 1).
The ad emphasizes the ‘naturalness’ of carbon dioxide, which is presented as a helpful little chemical compound responsible for liberating us from darkness, toil, and isolation. Indeed, carbon dioxide is naturally occurring, as are numerous other elements and chemical compounds that nonetheless become toxic when consumed or produced in excess. Iron, for example, is one of the ten most abundant elements on earth and an essential dietary mineral. However, iron consumption in excess of between 180-300 mg per kg of body weight can result in iron poisoning, leading to shock and eventually death from liver failure (Nieman 2). And what about the chemical compound H20- water? Covering two thirds of the earth and also essential to life on earth, water can also be dangerous in excess, as it is with floods, water intoxication, and drowning. This circular logic does nothing to prove that an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause harm. Additionally, the either/or argument posed in the ad above completely omits the existence of cleaner energy sources that would alternatively “light up our lives…create and move the things we need [and] the people we love.”
The second ad invents uncertainties in the science of global warming expressly through illogic and misrepresentation. Headlines from newspapers flash over the screen as the narration announces:
“You’ve seen those headlines about global warming. The glaciers are melting. We’re doomed. That’s what several studies supposedly found. But other scientific studies found exactly the opposite. Greenland’s glaciers are growing, not melting. The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner. Did you see any big headlines about that? Why are they trying to scare us? Global warming alarmists claim the glaciers are melting because of carbon dioxide from the fuels we use. Let’s force people to cut back, they say. But we depend on those fuels to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives. And as for carbon dioxide it isn’t smog or smoke it’s what we breathe out and what plants breathe in. Carbon dioxide- they call it pollution, we call it life” (CEI 2).
This ad projects an ‘us against them’ stand by using ‘we’ as though scientists and the public are at odds. “We’re doomed,” “why are they trying to scare us,” “the fuels we use,” “cut back, they say,” “we depend on those fuels to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives,” and “what we breathe out.” Aligning the voice of the ad with the audience sets up the ad’s punch line- if ‘they’ call it pollution and ‘we’ call it life, then it follows that ‘we’ (the audience), call it life and not pollution, too. Straw-person attacks assist this strategy with the assertion that “we’re doomed,” asking “why are they trying to scare us?” and alleging the wish to “force people to cut back.” It’s a bit of a stretch to compare researching climate change and reporting your findings to the assertion that we’re all doomed with an underlying desire to scare and force the public into submission.
Continuing with wordplay, the placement of a few choice terms—“supposedly,” “exactly,” and “claim” cunningly slant the certainty away from the science and towards speculation. A bit of semantics are involved as supposedly is defined as “accepted or believed as true, without positive knowledge” and “merely thought to be such; imagined” (Dictionary). As science shies away from declaring absolutes, the former definition indeed applies, yet the connotation of ‘supposedly’ leans toward the latter definition—one of speculation and controversy. Similarly, ‘claim’ is properly used, but implies speculation. On the flip side, ‘exactly’ connotes precision, yet in this context, refers only to the contradictory studies being precisely the opposite of the initial studies.
Ultimately, however, that statement is inconsequential as CEI cherry-picked the information to begin with. When questioned about CEI’s ad, Ola Johannessen, lead author of Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in Interior in Greenland (one of the two articles ambiguously referenced in the ad), “replied, ‘They have misused my paper.’ Essentially, the ice-sheet growth is an indication, not a refutation of global warming” (Dheere 3). And as author George Monbiot points out in his commentary over the ads on BBC’s Newsnight, “70 out of the 81 glaciers measured by the World Glacier Monitoring Service are shrinking” (Monbiot).
As an environmentalist who opts to spend four hours a day on public transit in lieu of driving her car, has written several reports, and has given presentations on climate change, I can’t help but feel more than a little miffed over the egregious content of these ads. In fact, I find them downright insulting. As more time passes and emissions increase exponentially, the severity of consequences also increases. Well-funded disinformation campaigns such as the ones backed by ExxonMobil delay the curbing of global emissions, the implementation of stricter regulations, and modified energy practices. Despite the overwhelming peer-reviewed data available attesting that “… the primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use” (IPCC report 2), the population of our world is at the mercy of a few powerful corporations with large bank accounts. How long will we allow these money-hungry entities to obscure the truth and delay action without repercussion? More importantly, what does it say about our society that we are willing to believe a mass of lies swimming in illogic because it is more convenient, instead of making changes that are necessary for the health and survival of life on our planet?
Works Cited
“Fortune 500.” Fortune 17 Apr 2006. 13 Mar 2007 <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/snapshots/496.html>.
Union of Concerned Scientists, et al. Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change. Union of Concerned Scientists. 12 Feb 2007. 12 Mar 2007 <http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html>.
ExxonMobil Corporation. 12 Mar 2007 <http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate/>.
Competitive Enterprise Institute. Competitive Enterprise Institute: Advancing Liberty, Public Policy Research, CEI. 2007. 12 Mar 2007 <http://www.cei.org/pages/about.cfm>.
“We Call It Life.” Competitive Enterprise Institute: Advancing Liberty, Public Policy Research. CEI. 2007.12 Mar 2007 <http://www.cei.org/pages/co2.cfm>.
Nieman, Judith. “Metals as Toxic Agents.” Metals in Health and Disease. 13 Mar 2007 <http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/studentwebs/session2/group29/irontox.htm>.
“Supposedly.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 13 Mar 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supposedly>.
Dheere, Jessica. “A Convenient Excuse, but the Wrong Kind of Green.” Villager [New York] 21 June 2006. Voted New York State’s Best Community Newspaper. 13 Mar 2007 <http://www.thevillager.com/villager_164/talkingpoint.html>.
Monbiot, George. BBC. Fall 2006. 12 Mar 2007. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at0T7Fi5l_I>.
Contributed by R. Chavid