3 ms·

I don't think companies speak with a single voice, nor that it is the role of companies to educate the public in regards to the general societal impact of their

by Udik 9y ago

I don't think companies speak with a single voice, nor that it is the role of companies to educate the public in regards to the general societal impact of their products- especially when those impacts are as uncertain as climate change has been in the past 40 years. Lobbying in the US is a legal activity, and if politicians allowed themselves to make harmful decisions because of it, it's entirely their fault and of the people who voted for them. On the other hand, climate scientists, some working for Exxon itself, have been publicly warning about the risks of climate change for 40 years. Did you stop buying petrol or petrol based products, and did you stop enjoying the benefits of cheap energy extracted from the oil reserves? No, you didn't. Now you'd want Exxon to pay for the liabilities, while keeping the wealth you enjoyed and accumulated during these years thanks to the very product you blame them for. Are you able to calculate what part of your wealth and security is derived from the availability of the cheap energy Exxon has provided you? Are you willing to give it back to Exxon, as you're asking Exxon to pay for the damages it caused with its product? You aren't. You're trying to offload the risks and responsibility of your choices on someone else, while keeping for yourself the benefits they provided you.

woodandsteel 9y ago
See my answer above. You say "nor that it is the role of companies to educate the public in regards to the general societal impact of their products- especially when those impacts are as uncertain as climate change has been in the past 40 years." I am not talking about whether they should educate the public, I am asking if it is legal for them to lie, and the answer is it is not.
- Udik 9y ago
  I am not really sure of what it means for a company "to lie". And I'm not sure it's illegal even for a person to lie, except under oath or in official investigations. A company can falsify official documents, but that would be fraud, and I think it's limited to financial matters, where there are precise algorithms to follow. Then there is false advertisement, but this as well, needs to say something definitely wrong about intrinsic characteristics of the product. As far as I know (not much, in truth) allegations are that some Exxon scientist informed the management board of the concerns in the scientific community about climate change; the board simply decided that the risks were too far away in time and too uncertain, while the alternatives simply weren't there, for the company to take action upon this information. Which sounds like a perfectly reasonable conclusion in 1982. Also, throughout the years, Exxon seems to have financed and published sound climate science, while at the same time emphasizing the uncertainty of the conclusions in the communication for the general public. And again, this seems to be legitimate, as it is in everybody's right to state the facts as they are, while trying to spin them in the least damaging way for themselves. Again, if the peer reviewed science was so sound, and publicly available, it was the duty of the government and politics to act upon it, not of the very companies that sold the product.

by Udik 9y ago

woodandsteel 9y ago

See my answer above. You say "nor that it is the role of companies to educate the public in regards to the general societal impact of their products- especially when those impacts are as uncertain as climate change has been in the past 40 years." I am not talking about whether they should educate the public, I am asking if it is legal for them to lie, and the answer is it is not.

Udik 9y ago
I am not really sure of what it means for a company "to lie". And I'm not sure it's illegal even for a person to lie, except under oath or in official investigations. A company can falsify official documents, but that would be fraud, and I think it's limited to financial matters, where there are precise algorithms to follow. Then there is false advertisement, but this as well, needs to say something definitely wrong about intrinsic characteristics of the product. As far as I know (not much, in truth) allegations are that some Exxon scientist informed the management board of the concerns in the scientific community about climate change; the board simply decided that the risks were too far away in time and too uncertain, while the alternatives simply weren't there, for the company to take action upon this information. Which sounds like a perfectly reasonable conclusion in 1982. Also, throughout the years, Exxon seems to have financed and published sound climate science, while at the same time emphasizing the uncertainty of the conclusions in the communication for the general public. And again, this seems to be legitimate, as it is in everybody's right to state the facts as they are, while trying to spin them in the least damaging way for themselves. Again, if the peer reviewed science was so sound, and publicly available, it was the duty of the government and politics to act upon it, not of the very companies that sold the product.