Talk:ExxonMobil

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change
— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Harvard study from May 2021
Any thoughts on which section would be suitable for a summarized addition of context (below)?
 * "For decades, ExxonMobil has deployed Big Tobacco-like propaganda to downplay the gravity of the climate crisis, shift blame onto consumers and protect its own interests, according to a Harvard University study published Thursday. The peer-reviewed study found that Exxon (XOM) publicly equates demand for energy to an indefinite need for fossil fuels, casting the company as merely a passive supplier working to meet that demand. CNN & One Earth Journal
 * A new study suggests that ExxonMobil has used language to shift the blame for fossil fuel use from producers to consumers over the past four decades. CBC
 * The world isn’t on track to meet its climate goals — and it’s the public’s fault, a leading oil company CEO told journalists. Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods told editors from Fortune that the world has “waited too long” to begin investing in a broader suite of technologies to slow planetary heating. The Hill
 * Exxon Mobil Corp. has used language to systematically shift blame for climate change from fossil fuel companies onto consumers, according to a new paper by Harvard University researchers. The paper, published yesterday in the journal One Earth, could bolster efforts to hold the oil giant accountable in court for its alleged deception about global warming. Scientific American

Cheers. DN (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm always baffled why people can't accept that consumers are indeed largely to blame; so no these suggestions are not good William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What is "not good" about them? They seem to be reliably sourced. Whether or not we agree with Exxon's rhetoric seems immaterial. DN (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * RS doesn't *oblige* you to insert junk, just because someone in the meeja has said it William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you capable of offering any more productive suggestions/input other than just exclusion, due to your personal opinions that the source material, produced by academic experts, is "junk" and "not good"? DN (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few more sources. The study seems to have a sizable amount of coverage.


 * ExxonMobil is one of the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas companies—and it wants you to take responsibility for climate change. A new analysis from researchers at Harvard University released Thursday found that the company’s public-facing messaging on climate change since the mid-2000s consistently emphasizes “consumers,” “energy demand” and individual “needs” as the cause of climate change, as well as the avenue for potentially addressing it. Outwardly focusing on consumers’ personal responsibility is one part of the company’s nuanced messaging to deflect the blame for climate change without denying the science behind it, the researchers say. Time
 * By endorsing the environmentalist image and removing themselves as the source of the problem, oil giants limit people’s ability to think about other forms of environmental action beyond consumption, and thus, economic growth. It confines the individual and his or her responsibility towards climate change within the logic of the market, reducing the possibilities for systemic transformation. ExxonMobil and Total also engage in the same strategies. They emphasize greenhouse gas emissions as a problem of demand, not supply, creating an imaginary concept around the individual as a consumer and the sole stakeholder responsible for mitigating climate change. This communication strategy legitimizes the continued production of fossil fuels and serves to protect the industry from restrictive environmental regulations by pointing the finger at growing demand. The Conversation
 * There are many examples in ExxonMobil’s advertising materials and other documents right up to 2019, all doing the same thing: Deflecting attention away from the oil company’s role in fueling climate change by supplying fossil fuels and turning attention toward consumer demand for, and dependency on, its products. We now have a comprehensive view of this strategy, thanks to a new peer-reviewed study by Harvard research associate Geoffrey Supran and Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes in the journal One Earth. In a painstaking analysis, they show how hard the oil giant has worked to keep the conversation about climate solutions focused on the consumer, effectively individualizing responsibility for the problem. Vox

Cheers. DN (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have posted this discussion to WP:3O here, since there is no one else to discuss this with and you've stopped responding. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Note there is also an open thread at WP:NPOVN. Bon courage (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

(saw at the noticeboard) Zillions of things lead up to any one happening, it's subjective to call any one of them a "cause". (Normally the major departures from the norm are considered to be the cause(es))  The biggest ones here are that people use fossil fuels and energy companies provide those fuels. Even more so calling it "responsibility" or "blame" which implies wrongdoing. Such value-laden words are not informative. Also, if ExonMobil is speaking about consumer demand being a cause (but did not use the value-laden "blame") I'd avoid quoting those who mis-quote claims of "cause" as being claims of "blame". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * While I do appreciate the advice on how to be careful with adding academic research into the article, there was a recent interview on February 27, 2024 with Fortune magazine, by the CEO, Darren Woods, where he said...
 * “People who are generating the emissions need to be aware of [it] and pay the price,” Fortune
 * Whether that statement is referring to economic or moral responsibility is not something I was trying to speculate on. My first instinct was to keep it short and more concise, but if others find that to be informative and there is consensus to add an actual quote, I'm open to it.
 * However the peer-reviewed research from 2021 is obviously indicative of that rhetoric and seems to have more WP:WEIGHT. DN (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I just came to make a few comments which I though might be useful. I don't need to be in on any decision but anyone please ping me if they would like anything more from me on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Controversies
It would seem the best placement for it would be between the third and fourth paragraphs in the Controversies section, where it mentions Greenwashing. Perhaps something along these lines?


 * ExxonMobil has used its own website to attack Exxon Knew, claiming that it is a coordinated effort to defame the company.


 * >A 2021 peer reviewed study by researchers at Harvard University showed that for the past few decades ExxonMobil and other oil companies have been shifting the narrative of responsibility for climate change towards consumers rather oil companies.


 * In December 2022, U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney and U.S. House Oversight Environment Subcommittee Chair Ro Khanna sent a memorandum to all House Oversight and Reform Committee members summarizing additional findings from the committee's investigation into the fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign to obscure the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.

I'm open to tweaks and other suggestions. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I declined the request at 3O since I see four participants so far, but I'll make my voice #5. I don't think "peer reviewed" is necessary and the verb should be something like "said" or "stated", not "showed". I'm unconvinced though that due weight has been established given that the secondary sources are pretty news-of-the-day for an article about the company. I suggest a RFC to get broader input since several editors have already expressed editorial reservations about mentioning this at all. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I would note that one of the reasons this article failed it's last GA review was because #4 "The section on controversy needs expansion as we've discussed at Talk:Criticism of ExxonMobil". Whether or not this helps address that issue may be debatable, but I disagree with your take on the quality and quantity of coverage this aspect is getting. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

, here is the suggestion I received from NPOVN... Would you be open to it, or do you have any versions to suggest that might help us achieve consensus? Cheers. DN (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Science historians Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes have analyzed documents originating from Exxon and write that during the 2000s the company's public position shifted away from outright denial of climate change, but that they used rhetoric which minimized its impact and portrayed the responsibility as being due to consumers, not corporations. In Supran and Oreskes' view this shift mirrors tactics used by the tobacco industry when seeking to disassociate itself from the harms of smoking.


 * I still think you're one-sided; you're effectively channelling GS+NO by your "portrayed" language, and so on. And anyway, all this discussion is in the wrong place: it should be at ExxonMobil climate change denial, of which the bits here should be but a summary William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a textbook bad faith assumption, but honest at the very least. Considering this article failed it's last GA review, what other improvements would you be open to? DN (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)