ExxonMobil’s Internal Conflict on Climate Change Solutions

In a recent interview, James Adler, a professor at William & Mary Law School, addressed allegations that he is promoting climate denial. “I can only speak to the initiatives we undertook at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI),” Adler stated. He emphasized that their work aimed to align with the organization’s foundational principles, independent of the motivations of oil companies like the American Petroleum Institute (API) or ExxonMobil.

Adler highlighted that it was natural for CEI to seek financial backing from corporations that advocate for reduced government oversight. This year, he submitted a legal brief in support of Boulder in a case before the Supreme Court, asserting that city claims should be adjudicated in state courts rather than being dismissed under federal law. However, he refrained from taking a stance on the claims’ legitimacy.

By 2005, ExxonMobil was under considerable public scrutiny for its financial support of organizations questioning climate science. A company spokesperson claimed to Mother Jones that Exxon found the “scientific evidence on greenhouse gas emissions inconclusive,” insisting further research was necessary. Despite this, Exxon pledged substantial investments, including a planned $100 million for the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University.

The following year, new evidence from the Massachusetts case reveals that a colleague facilitated a meeting between Exxon’s spokesperson and two individuals skeptical of global warming.

By the 2010s, ExxonMobil had shifted its public stance on climate change and was no longer disputing scientific consensus. This change was prompted by compelling scientific revelations and the U.S.’s commitment to the Paris Agreement in 2015. Following recommendations from advisors, Exxon had research scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Amid shareholder concerns regarding its preparedness for climate-related risks, Exxon initiated the development of a “climate risk matrix.” In 2016, one of its scientists who participated in the UN climate panel warned colleagues about the risks of climate tipping points, emphasizing that the likelihood of such events is expected to increase with rising temperatures. The scientist cautioned that failing to cap emissions could lead to severe temperature impacts beyond 2040, with potentially devastating outcomes.

Despite this internal recognition of climate risks, the Massachusetts documents indicate that Exxon continued to advocate for solutions that its own scientists deemed unlikely to achieve commercial viability. Most of the company’s investments remained heavily focused on oil and gas, with plans to escalate production by more than 15% by 2030.

Nicholas Kusnetz is a seasoned journalist with a background in environmental reporting, having previously worked with the Center for Public Integrity and ProPublica. His work has received accolades from various journalism organizations, and he has contributed to numerous renowned publications.

This article was originally published by Inside Climate News.