NYTimes finally realized nobody gives a damn about Hilary Clinton’s emails, and maybe the murder of Planet Earth is a bigger story.
The New York attorney general has begun a sweeping investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how those risks might hurt the oil business.
According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.
The focus includes the company’s activities dating to the late 1970s, including a period of at least a decade when Exxon Mobil funded groups that sought to undermine climate science. A major focus of the investigation is whether the company adequately warned investors about potential financial risks stemming from society’s need to limit fossil-fuel use.
Kenneth P. Cohen, vice president for public affairs at Exxon Mobil, said on Thursday that the company had received the subpoena and was still deciding how to respond.
“We unequivocally reject the allegations that Exxon Mobil has suppressed climate-change research,” Mr. Cohen said, adding that the company had funded mainstream climate science since the 1970s, had published dozens of scientific papers on the topic, and had disclosed climate risks to investors.
Below, NPR’s “On the Media” – somewhat testy interview with Exxon spokesman.
Meanwhile, a lot of people have been asking why this story has not, til now, gotten much mainstream media traction. NPR ombudsman asks around, and you probably won’t be surprised by what she found.
In early July, The Guardian reported that Exxon Mobil Corp., “the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.”
Two months later, the online publication InsideClimate News (along with a short film from PBS’s Frontline) followed up its own report on that email with a multi-part series, The Road Not Taken, which was described as an eight-month investigation into the history of:
“Exxon’s engagement with the emerging science of climate change. The story spans four decades, and is based on primary sources including internal company files dating back to the late 1970s, interviews with former company employees, and other evidence, much of which is being published here for the first time.
It describes how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed.”
In October, the Los Angeles Times, teaming with the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, started publishing its own reporting on the topic, the result of a yearlong research project.
NPR did not report on any of these findings, which has made some listeners unhappy.
Andrew Ratzkin, a listener to the New York City member station WNYC, wrote that the only reporting he heard on the issue was in September, by On the Media, which is produced by WNYC (at the time, the show was distributed by NPR, but that business deal ended Oct. 1 and it is no longer NPR-affiliated). That reporting, examining the InsideClimate News reports, included a contentious interview by On the Media co-host Bob Garfield with Richard Keil, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, who disputed the InsideClimate News claims.
“This is not enough,” Ratzkin wrote. “Considering the importance of the issue and the prominence of Exxon’s role, this story deserved, and still deserves, to be headline news on the national broadcast.”
–
I asked newsroom executives for their thinking. Anne Gudenkauf, supervising senior editor for science coverage, told me by email that the story was discussed on the science desk when the InsideClimate News series hit in September, and the decision was that it was interesting but not “terribly surprising. While it might raise some legal issues further down the road, which could also be interesting, we didn’t see an immediate need to hop on the story ourselves. And at the desk we were already ramping up for work on a climate special we are doing for the week before the Paris summit.” She was referring to the UN’s Climate Change summit, which opens in Paris at the end of this month.
(Earlier this year, NPR followed up in twopieces a New York Timesreport on how a prominent climate change skeptic had accepted fossil fuel company funding, including from Exxon Mobil, to support his scientific research.)
At NPR, stories can be suggested by the topic-specific reporting desks. The producers of the newsmagazines can also ask for those desks to file reports on stories they deem interesting. The stories of the day are discussed at an early-morning meeting, where the various shows and digital operations, including the Two-Way blog, express interest in stories. Gudenkauf said no one asked in this case.
Edith Chapin, NPR’s executive editor, told me by email that she believes NPR dropped the ball.
While it was not a major headline story, I think it meets the interesting test and thus NPR should have reported on it in some fashion on at least one of our outlets/platforms. Exxon Mobil is the world’s largest publicly traded multinational oil and gas company and the debate and research decades ago is interesting in light of contemporary knowledge and action on climate change. Daily conversations at our editorial hub typically cross a range of subjects and stories from across the globe. It is unfortunate that this topic didn’t come up there or in any conversation or email that I was a part of. It should have been flagged by someone so we could have discussed it and made an intentional decision to cover or not and if so, how.
My take: The story was on the radar of at least some in the newsroom, but it seems to have fallen through the cracks. Given the latest repercussions—Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is among those calling for a federal investigation—the lapse was unfortunate. But the issue is still a live one, and it’s not too late for NPR to find some way of following up.
UPDATE: The dam bursts – most people reading these will be getting the news for the first time.
This excrutiating lemming-like behavior is one thing about the media that I hate, hate, hate like freaking fire. But occasionally the craven bastards get turned toward something that is actually consequential. Let’s see how this plays out.
Will they be as fascinated with the crime of the geological epoch as they have been in the past with shark attacks, stained blue dresses, and phony non-scandals.
“We have watched Exxon sow doubt on climate science and delay action on climate change for nearly a generation,” said Kert Davies, formerly with Greenpeace and now the Climate Investigations Center.
Similarly, in a 2006 letter to the company, the British Royal Society charged that a variety of statements in ExxonMobil’s public documents at the time “are not consistent with the scientific literature that has been published on this issue.”
“The context here is that climate activists have long accused Exxon – along with various other large energy companies – of seeking to influence the climate policy debate to their benefit. The claim that Exxon ‘suppressed’ research is part and parcel of this broader issue. Naturally, the company takes a different view of this issue,” said Pavel Molchanov, an oil industry analyst with Raymond James, in a statement.
–
“We are not physiologically addicted to oil, but we live inside a highly developed infrastructure that fosters fossil fuel dependency and discourages alternatives. We could have begun to shift the incentives, and encourage alternatives, if we had implemented a carbon tax…at any point over the past 20 years,”(Harvard Professor Naomi) Oreskes said. “There are many reasons we did not do that, but a significant one, in my view, is the role of Exxon Mobil and others in fomenting disinformation, undermining public support for such initiatives, and lobbying against policies that would have begun to decrease our fossil fuel dependency.”
“Exxon has said that it’s inaccurate and yet they have not asked for any corrections,” said Neela Banerjee, one of the authors of the InsideClimate series.
In recent years, Exxon has said the risks of climate change are real and should be addressed.
“We have been engaged in a two-pronged approach: One is working to improve scientific understanding and the other is we’ve been involved in policy discussions,” said Kenneth Cohen, vice president of public and government affairs for Exxon. The subpoena was reported earlier Thursday by the New York Times.
The probe could expand to involve more companies, according to a person familiar with the matter.
In 2006, several major tobacco companies were found guilty of misrepresenting their research and promoting smoking as safe. Could you imagine oil companies going on trial like the tobacco companies did?
It’s actually “Omni-Media”, not “On the Media”. But great to see this hasn’t been buried and forgotten like so many other revelations. Let’s see, what’s the financial value of a Planet? “We’re gonna need a bigger calculator” I believe.
Huh? Did I miss something?
“… like so many other revelations …” Right. Care to name those?
Place all your faith that Inside Climate News and the RICO 20 have got something here, but always remember, it does not matter what you believe, it only matters what you can prove. Y’all claim you reveal a sinister industry plot, but ya never deliver on the hard evidence of money exchanged in recognition of pushing industry-orchestrated & fabricated lies.
Now, I know you fellows don’t read opposition material, but I tell ya, your salvation and emancipation from political ideology is being handed to you on silver platters, enabling you to free yourselves from wasting time tilting at windmills that are about to fall on you, to pursue environmental concerns that are real problems.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/06/document-shows-that-a-climate-activist-shadow-organization-was-behind-the-rico20-allegations/
http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=3291
Ignore Russell’s usual canned BS about “prove it” (27 times). DO look at the WUWT link, but only long enough to pull up the summary document from the conference that Watts is whining about.
As usual, Russell and Anthony shoot off their toes by providing us with something that we might otherwise not have seen. I know I wasn’t aware of this 2012 conference about how to “get” big oil the way we got big tobacco.
The PDF of the conference report is short and loaded with good stuff. Thank you Russell.
PS A quick visit to WUWT will not be very dangerous to your mental health, but DO remember that any time spent on gelbspanfiles CAN result in permanent brain injury.
oops; my bad.
nytimes concludes: ““This is not good news for Exxon Mobil or Exxon Mobil shareholders,” said Fadel Gheit, a senior oil company analyst at Oppenheimer & Company. “It’s a negative, though how much damage there will be to reputation or performance is very hard to say.”
Brian Youngberg, senior energy analyst at Edward Jones, said, “There is headline risk, but the actual financial impact will not affect the company for a long time, if ever. I think there will be a modest overhang.””
I suspect there is no news to report because there is no immediacy. If and when an indictment came, things would look very different. Also the share price movements in the next few days (it went down a little more than one percent when the news came out) will tell if the investors believe in the “modest overhang” or don’t.
Big Oil companies have the peculiarity of holding enough cash to withstand pretty much anything. BP, Gulf of Mexico disaster or not, is still around.
Is there a point to Omno’s maundering here? The story is NOT Exxon’s stock performance, but the fact that they are being investigated for conducting a criminal conspiracy and RICO violations.
Does Omno understand the difference between apples and oranges?
The question wss, why hasn’t this been reported as important news, and sometimes considered no news at all. I gave a plausible reason.
Now it’s in more media outlets as reported by Peter, Will the story gain traction or is it just because the nyt pushed it out to their mobile app’s users (as it happened with me)? Who knows?
But surely if it’s a “bomb” on Exxon their stock price will suffer badly, and if it’s a dud, their stock price will move due to other causes. That’s why it’s important to look at the stock price.
Ps that said, tobacco companies have been going from strength to strength since the dark days of 10y ago so I would not write off Exxon or the oil and gas industry
http://www.bat.com/group/sites/UK__9D9KCY.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO52AJTV
No, Omno apparently does not understand the difference between apples and oranges. If he did, he would not be bringing up the stock price of a tobacco company. (And Omno can’t quite interpret graphs either, or he wouldn’t be talking about “going from strength to strength” based on this data).
The question of why this wasn’t reported as important news is not the point anymore (which point Omno has missed yet again)—-the dam appears to be breaking, and the real question is how big the investigations of Exxon will become and how fast they progress. The media will be caught up in it, and we will see some good and bad behavior from them (as usual) and can complain, but the stock price is of real importance only to the greedy rich.
I know you find it difficult, but in that graph if on the bottom right you click on “10Y” you will see the BAT stock price has gone up and up and up. This, for an industry that was “priced to zero” at the time of the scandal.
“Up and up”? LOL. It barely beat the average return for all stocks over the 10 years (although it did beat Exxon-Mobil). If anyone wanted to make some real money, they should have invested in Apple.
Can we please get back to the topic at hand? The investigation, the media?
But the history of post settlement tobacco companies is relevant. They were supposed to die of their sins, they reach more alive than ever
http://m.citywire.co.uk/money/nick-trains-biggest-regrets-in-15-years-at-finsbury/a856048
In spite of the shame and the scandwl, all they’ve done is promise to pay up the states for health costs, and they’ve made sure smokers are paying for that
What’s going to happen to Exxon and co2 emissions?
Oil spills, even the most devastating, don’t have the reach & impact of natural disasters or global warming.
From one of your other posts:
In spite of the shame and the scandwl, all they’ve done is promise to pay up the states for health costs, and they’ve made sure smokers are paying for that
What’s going to happen to Exxon and co2 emissions?”
What’s going to happen? We don’t yet know but consider that IF these allegations hold up, Exxon and the other oil companies are going to feel the squeeze and every action ever taken that looks like it’s done anything to hinder conservation / fuel economy / emissions regulations could bring further charges.
What’s the outcome? I don’t know. The USA seems to have long lost any appetite of sending rich white guys to jail, well, except for Bernie Madoff, but the potential backlash against the industry would make VW’s “Dieselgate” problems look inconsequential.
I can’t imagine anything having wider or more devastating consequences than cigarettes consumption.
“feel the squeeze” sounds too generic. Companies exist in order to deliver to their owners. Do you have any example of “named-and-shamed” companies or industries that went out of business? Overt fraud aside.
I think that the most important thing here is that now we have the biggest player in the oil industry with potentially two choices to make, both of which are very uncomfortable for them:
1. Keep trying to stay under the radar of the justice department, and risk having their dirty laundry wrested from their hands in court, and reap the unpredictable consequences that would eventually follow or
2. In a sort of plea bargain agreement: Openly come clean in the most public way, and admit with fanfare that AGW is real, that their research has shown this for 40 years, that any efforts to say otherwise are wrong, that it is an urgent issue that demands immediate reductions in Co2, and that they will fully, and unequivocally support the world community to do whatever it takes to avoid the worst consequences of the use of the product that they have promoted for the last 40 years while they knew that it had potentially disastrous effects.
I do suspect that they will find a third way, that having bought enough politicians, they will bury their culpability at least long enough for their executives to retire or die, and their stranded assets to become worthless to the point that they can no longer be made to pay. Millions of people could lose so much money, that it might make the 2007 crisis look like peanuts.
Come on option #2…
I hope this will lead to #ExxonScrewed
It will be intereting to note the spike in CO2 emissions as Exxon Mobil scramble to burn their paper records.
“We unequivocally reject the allegations that Exxon Mobil has suppressed climate-change research,” Mr. Cohen said
Yeah, we already know that. Bad attempt at diverting the real issue, which is that you DID do the research, and then went on to spend as much money as possible to HIDE THE RESULTS.
The New York attorney general has begun a sweeping investigation of __fill_in_the_blank__ to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of __fill_in_the_blank__ or to investors about how those risks might hurt the business.
So if the NYT gets caught lying like they did with their hit piece on Tesla can they be sued as well?
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive
the world-famous errata pages of the NYT would give plenty of ammunitions to anybody who wanted to sue them based on their lies
ZZZZZZzzzzzz…….!!!
Reblogged this on Move for Change and the Brooklyn Culture Jam and commented:
From Climate Denial Crock of the Week. A round-up of the news that has followed the Inside Climate report on Exxon suppressing the science on Global Warming that its own researchers had discovered. There was a real danger that the story (released almost two months ago) would be ignored and would go away. I don’t have great confidence in New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman being able to make an indictable case against the World’s Largest Corporation, and the millions Exxon would need to pay to make this go away are a rounding error on profits. But Schneiderman’s document subpoena keeps the story on the front burner. H/T Peter Sinclair for this. Added bonus—listen to the contentious ‘interview’ Bob Garfield of NPR’s On The Media gave to Exxon’s media guy.
The more I think about this, the more I suspect that it might not be politically possible or even practically feasible to make EXXON fully accountable. The world financial system, including average people’s retirement accounts and savings are tangled up in investments of all sorts of fossil fuel holdings, and many people work for those entities, and states depend on revenue from those that reside there, so it would be a tangled mess that might have unpredictable and unintended consequences. It is a hard thing to sell, even if it is the morally correct and legally correct thing to do.
I think we somehow need to find a path to a softer (but rough nonetheless) landing because yanking the plug without any sort of backup plan would be a disaster probably as big, and more immediate as doing nothing.
That’s likely not a popular view, but it is probably what we are facing. Tough to swallow 🙁
So we’re back to “too big to fail / too big to jail”?
> including average people’s retirement accounts and savings are tangled
> up in investments of all sorts of fossil fuel holdings,
So?
That might get their attention.