Now the oil giant is facing lawsuits from a team of state attorneys general after investigations by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times showed the company's own scientists were aware of the risks of burning fossil fuels in the 1980s.
ExxonMobil and the climate science denial machinery that it has helped to build over the years are now under more scrutiny than ever before.
At its most recent AGM, the oil and gas giant faced a barrage of questions and resolutions over its position on climate change. Then there is the not insignificant matter of investigations by a group of attorneys general that allege the company lied about its knowledge of the risks of burning fossil fuels. ExxonMobil is retaliating.
The company has pleaded innocence, with CEO Rex Tillerson telling the company’s shareholders that his views on climate science were perfectly in line with the United Nations.
But the latest disclosures on donations by ExxonMobil, reported publicly here for the first time, show it continues to support organisations that claim greenhouse gases are not causing climate change, or that cuts to emissions are a waste of time and money.
Organisations including the American Enterprise Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the National Black Chamber of Commerce — all organisations with a record of misinformation on climate science — all received grants in 2015 from ExxonMobil. The 2015 tally brings the total amount of known Exxon funding to denial groups north of $33 million since 1998.
Since 1997, ExxonMobil has been releasing reports annually listing donations to public policy groups — several of which were engaged in a public misinformation campaign on climate change science.
In 2007, after years of criticism, ExxonMobil claimed to have turned a corner on the science.
In a corporate responsibility report, the company said: “In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”
ExxonMobil still funding denial
But many climate change campaigners and scientists have illustrated how the company continued to support organisations spreading climate science denial.
Now the oil giant is facing lawsuits from a team of state attorneys general after investigations by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times showed the company’s own scientists were aware of the risks of burning fossil fuels in the 1980s.
A DeSmog investigation found evidence that Exxon’s knowledge went even further back – to the late 1970s.
In May, the world’s biggest earth sciences organization, the American Geophysical Union, was forced to reopen talks over its financial ties to ExxonMobil after a stinging letter from two members of congress.
More than 200 scientists had signed a letter asking AGU to cut sponsorship ties to ExxonMobil over its decades-long funding of organizations pushing doubt about the causes and implications of climate change.
American Enterprise Institute's ExxonMobil cash
In the latest disclosures, one of the larger single donations — $325,000 — went to the American Enterprise Institute, an organisation that has long fought regulations to cut greenhouse gases while also criticising renewable energy.
As United Nations climate talks opened in Paris in December 2015, the AEI’s energy and environment “expert” Benjamin Zycher provided his analysis of the science of climate change.
Zycher cherry-picked his way through various issues — from sea level rise to global temperatures — each time dismissing, or heavily questioning, the role of increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
“In short”, Zycher wrote, “it appears to be the case that temperatures have been increasing in fits and starts since the end of the little ice age, and the central issue — whether the dominant cause is natural or anthropogenic — is unresolved.”
Zycher’s view goes against science academies across the world and, according to several studies, the findings of more than 90 per cent of climate scientists.
On polar ice, Zycher claimed: “The recent data do not support the assertion that the polar ice is collapsing as a result of increasing atmospheric concentrations of GHG.”
But Zycher ignored the numerous studies pointing to rapid and accelerating melting of ice sheets — the grounded ice that is an issue of major concern to sea level rise experts, not to mention the world’s major coastal cities.
From wildfires to extreme weather, Zycher dismisses them all. Elsewhere, Zycher has explained away the recent run of record hot years as being more to do with dodgy data collection.
The earth has been warming in fits and starts since the end of the little ice age around 1850, and so a warming trend is neither surprising nor informative. The real question is: How much of it has been caused by greenhouse gas emissions? The answer is “more than zero,” but beyond that no one knows, and anyone who claims to know is talking out of a hat.
In June 2015, AEI scholar Michael Rubin produced a series of loaded questions for the next president, where he suggested climate change might be good for societies and that models had “repeatedly delivered inaccurate predictions.”
ALEC and Exxon
Another recipient of ExxonMobil cash in 2015 was the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative think tank that produces boilerplate legislation that suits the needs of its corporate backers.
ALEC was given $25,000 to support its annual conference and further $35,5000 for “general support”.
In September 2014, Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google (now renamed Alphabet) said ALEC was “literally lying” about the science of climate change. Google had supported ALEC — but no more.
The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is another big recipient of ExxonMobil cash, with $100,000 in 2014 and $200,000 in 2015.
Institute fellows have repeatedly attacked Obama’s Clean Energy Plan, called the UN Paris climate agreement “useless” and dismissed the link between climate change and health impacts.
In one article, MI fellow Oren Cass argued there was no link between rising temperatures and asthma, even though there have been several studies finding just this. Other studies have also linked extreme heatwaves to deaths.
National Black Chamber of Commerce gets Exxon cash
The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) has long been a grateful recipient of ExxonMobil cash — with another $75,000 handed over in 2015.
In November 2015, Harry C. Alford, the NBCC president, described warnings over dangerous climate change as a “farce” and a “ghost” and claimed global warming was in a 20-year pause — not mentioning that 14 of the 16 hottest years on record have all happened since 2000. NBCC has also been accused of spreading “misinformation” on the impacts President Obama’s clean energy plans.
Federalist Society - funded by Exxon and Google
During the ongoing turmoil of attorneys general lawsuits, one of ExxonMobil’s most vocal defenders has been the influential conservative group the Federalist Society.
The Federalist Society has published numerous essays and articles claiming the lawsuits against ExxonMobil and related requests for records from denialist groups are a threat to free speech, a “chilling campaign to establish ‘consensus’ through intimidation”, a “witch hunt” and a “fishing expedition”.
Not disclosed in the stories, is that the Federalist Society is also a recipient of ExxonMobil cash — $15,000 in 2015.
The Federalist Society does, however, declare the ExxonMobil funding on its annual report, which shows that the oil billionaire Koch brothers, Google and Microsoft are far more generous donors.
NBCC and ALEC were also amongst the array of anti-climate action organisations that had been funded by recently bankrupt coal giant Peabody Energy.
The ExxonMobil disclosures do not list other ways in which the company helps to block action on greenhouse gas emissions, such as its membership of trade groups.
In the letter to AGU, reported on DeSmog, congressmen Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Ted Lieu, both Democrats, told the science group:
We can attest that Exxon’s purported support for a carbon tax is not real. It is impossible to reconcile EM’s stated support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax with the lobbying activities of EM and the trade associations that claim to represent EM on the Hill. What we see in Congress is that their lobbying efforts are 100 percent opposed to any action on climate.
According to researchers who have monitored ExxonMobil over the years, the company took longer this year to publish its disclosures than ever before.
Perhaps the reason for the delay is now apparent.
ExxonMobil and the climate science denial machinery that it has helped to build over the years are now under more scrutiny than ever before.
At its most recent AGM, the oil and gas giant faced a barrage of questions and resolutions over its position on climate change. Then there is the not insignificant matter of investigations by a group of attorneys general that allege the company lied about its knowledge of the risks of burning fossil fuels. ExxonMobil is retaliating.
The company has pleaded innocence, with CEO Rex Tillerson telling the company’s shareholders that his views on climate science were perfectly in line with the United Nations.
But the latest disclosures on donations by ExxonMobil, reported publicly here for the first time, show it continues to support organisations that claim greenhouse gases are not causing climate change, or that cuts to emissions are a waste of time and money.
Organisations including the American Enterprise Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the National Black Chamber of Commerce — all organisations with a record of misinformation on climate science — all received grants in 2015 from ExxonMobil. The 2015 tally brings the total amount of known Exxon funding to denial groups north of $33 million since 1998.
Since 1997, ExxonMobil has been releasing reports annually listing donations to public policy groups — several of which were engaged in a public misinformation campaign on climate change science.
In 2007, after years of criticism, ExxonMobil claimed to have turned a corner on the science.
In a corporate responsibility report, the company said: “In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”
ExxonMobil still funding denial
But many climate change campaigners and scientists have illustrated how the company continued to support organisations spreading climate science denial.
Now the oil giant is facing lawsuits from a team of state attorneys general after investigations by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times showed the company’s own scientists were aware of the risks of burning fossil fuels in the 1980s.
A DeSmog investigation found evidence that Exxon’s knowledge went even further back – to the late 1970s.
In May, the world’s biggest earth sciences organization, the American Geophysical Union, was forced to reopen talks over its financial ties to ExxonMobil after a stinging letter from two members of congress.
More than 200 scientists had signed a letter asking AGU to cut sponsorship ties to ExxonMobil over its decades-long funding of organizations pushing doubt about the causes and implications of climate change.
American Enterprise Institute's ExxonMobil cash
In the latest disclosures, one of the larger single donations — $325,000 — went to the American Enterprise Institute, an organisation that has long fought regulations to cut greenhouse gases while also criticising renewable energy.
As United Nations climate talks opened in Paris in December 2015, the AEI’s energy and environment “expert” Benjamin Zycher provided his analysis of the science of climate change.
Zycher cherry-picked his way through various issues — from sea level rise to global temperatures — each time dismissing, or heavily questioning, the role of increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
“In short”, Zycher wrote, “it appears to be the case that temperatures have been increasing in fits and starts since the end of the little ice age, and the central issue — whether the dominant cause is natural or anthropogenic — is unresolved.”
Zycher’s view goes against science academies across the world and, according to several studies, the findings of more than 90 per cent of climate scientists.
On polar ice, Zycher claimed: “The recent data do not support the assertion that the polar ice is collapsing as a result of increasing atmospheric concentrations of GHG.”
But Zycher ignored the numerous studies pointing to rapid and accelerating melting of ice sheets — the grounded ice that is an issue of major concern to sea level rise experts, not to mention the world’s major coastal cities.
From wildfires to extreme weather, Zycher dismisses them all. Elsewhere, Zycher has explained away the recent run of record hot years as being more to do with dodgy data collection.
The earth has been warming in fits and starts since the end of the little ice age around 1850, and so a warming trend is neither surprising nor informative. The real question is: How much of it has been caused by greenhouse gas emissions? The answer is “more than zero,” but beyond that no one knows, and anyone who claims to know is talking out of a hat.
In June 2015, AEI scholar Michael Rubin produced a series of loaded questions for the next president, where he suggested climate change might be good for societies and that models had “repeatedly delivered inaccurate predictions.”
ALEC and Exxon
Another recipient of ExxonMobil cash in 2015 was the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative think tank that produces boilerplate legislation that suits the needs of its corporate backers.
ALEC was given $25,000 to support its annual conference and further $35,5000 for “general support”.
In September 2014, Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google (now renamed Alphabet) said ALEC was “literally lying” about the science of climate change. Google had supported ALEC — but no more.
The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is another big recipient of ExxonMobil cash, with $100,000 in 2014 and $200,000 in 2015.
Institute fellows have repeatedly attacked Obama’s Clean Energy Plan, called the UN Paris climate agreement “useless” and dismissed the link between climate change and health impacts.
In one article, MI fellow Oren Cass argued there was no link between rising temperatures and asthma, even though there have been several studies finding just this. Other studies have also linked extreme heatwaves to deaths.
National Black Chamber of Commerce gets Exxon cash
The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) has long been a grateful recipient of ExxonMobil cash — with another $75,000 handed over in 2015.
In November 2015, Harry C. Alford, the NBCC president, described warnings over dangerous climate change as a “farce” and a “ghost” and claimed global warming was in a 20-year pause — not mentioning that 14 of the 16 hottest years on record have all happened since 2000. NBCC has also been accused of spreading “misinformation” on the impacts President Obama’s clean energy plans.
Federalist Society - funded by Exxon and Google
During the ongoing turmoil of attorneys general lawsuits, one of ExxonMobil’s most vocal defenders has been the influential conservative group the Federalist Society.
The Federalist Society has published numerous essays and articles claiming the lawsuits against ExxonMobil and related requests for records from denialist groups are a threat to free speech, a “chilling campaign to establish ‘consensus’ through intimidation”, a “witch hunt” and a “fishing expedition”.
Not disclosed in the stories, is that the Federalist Society is also a recipient of ExxonMobil cash — $15,000 in 2015.
The Federalist Society does, however, declare the ExxonMobil funding on its annual report, which shows that the oil billionaire Koch brothers, Google and Microsoft are far more generous donors.
NBCC and ALEC were also amongst the array of anti-climate action organisations that had been funded by recently bankrupt coal giant Peabody Energy.
The ExxonMobil disclosures do not list other ways in which the company helps to block action on greenhouse gas emissions, such as its membership of trade groups.
In the letter to AGU, reported on DeSmog, congressmen Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Ted Lieu, both Democrats, told the science group:
We can attest that Exxon’s purported support for a carbon tax is not real. It is impossible to reconcile EM’s stated support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax with the lobbying activities of EM and the trade associations that claim to represent EM on the Hill. What we see in Congress is that their lobbying efforts are 100 percent opposed to any action on climate.
According to researchers who have monitored ExxonMobil over the years, the company took longer this year to publish its disclosures than ever before.
Perhaps the reason for the delay is now apparent.
Organization ExxonMobil Funding 1997-2015
AEI American Enterprise Institute $4,199,000
CEI Competitive Enterprise Institute $2,100,000
US Chamber of Commerce Foundation $2,000,000
ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council $1,804,200
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research $1,779,523
Frontiers of Freedom $1,272,000
Annapolis Center $1,198,500
National Black Chamber of Commerce $1,100,000
Atlas Economic Research Foundation $1,082,500
Manhattan Institute $1,065,000
George C. Marshall Institute $865,000
Heritage Foundation $870,000
National Taxpayers Union Foundation $775,000
Heartland Institute $686,500
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy $680,000
National Center for Policy Analysis $645,900
CFACT Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow $587,000
Communications Institute $515,000
Washington Legal Foundation $495,000
Center for American and International Law (formerly called the Southwestern Legal Foundation) $491,650
George Mason Univ. Law and Economics Center $475,000
FREE Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment $450,000
National Center for Public Policy Research $445,000
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory $417,212
Mercatus Center, George Mason University $405,000
International Policy Network - North America $390,000
Citizens for a Sound Economy (FreedomWorks) $405,250
Acton Institute $365,000
Media Research Center (Cybercast News Service formerly Conservative News) $362,500
Institute for Energy Research $337,000
Congress of Racial Equality $325,000
Reason Foundation / Reason Public Policy Institute $356,000
Hoover Institution $370,000
Pacific Legal Foundation $300,000
Capital Research Center (Greenwatch) $265,000
Federalist Society $240,000
Center for Defense of Free Enterprise $230,000
National Association of Neighborhoods $225,000
National Legal Center for the Public Interest $216,500
Center for a New Europe-USA $170,000
American Council on Science and Health $165,000
Chemical Education Foundation $155,000
PERC Property and Environment Research Center (formerly Political Economy Research Center) $162,500
Weidenbaum Center (formerly Center for the Study of American Business) $190,000
Cato Institute $140,000
Federal Focus $125,000
Fraser Institute, Canada $120,000
Media Institute $140,000
American Spectator Foundation $115,000
International Republican Institute $115,000
Center for the Study of CO2 and Global Change $100,000
Environmental Literacy Council $100,000
Tech Central Science Foundation $95,000
American Conservative Union Foundation $90,000
Landmark Legal Foundation $90,000
Independent Institute $85,000
Free Enterprise Education Institute $80,000
Texas Public Policy Foundation $80,000
Institute for Study of Earth and Man $76,500
Independent Women's Forum $75,000
Consumer Alert $80,000
Mountain States Legal Foundation $75,000
Advancement of Sound Science Center $50,000
American Friends of the Institute of Economic Affairs $50,000
Free Enterprise Action Institute $50,000
Regulatory Checkbook $50,000
Arizona State University Office of Climatology $49,500
Lindenwood University, St. Charles, Missouri $40,000
Africa Fighting Malaria $30,000
Institute for Senior Studies $30,000
Science and Environmental Policy Project $20,000
Lexington Institute $10,000
Institute for Policy Innovaton $5,000
GRAND TOTAL $33,799,735