I Was an Exxon-Funded Climate Scientist

authordefault
on

By Katharine Hayhoe,ย Texas Techย University

ExxonMobilโ€™s deliberate attempts toย sow doubtย on the reality and urgency of climate change and theirย donations to front groupsย to disseminate false information about climate change have been public knowledge for a long time,ย now.

Investigativeย reportsย in 2015 revealed that Exxon had its own scientists doing its own climate modeling as far back as the 1970s: science and modeling that was not only accurate, but that was being used to plan for the companyโ€™sย future.

Now, aย peer-reviewed studyย published August 23 has confirmed that what Exxon was saying internally about climate change was quantitatively very different from their public statements. Specifically, researchersย Geoffrey Supranย andย Naomi Oreskesย found that at least 80 percent of the internal documents and peer-reviewed publications they studied from between 1977 and 2014 were consistent with the state of the science โ€” acknowledging that climate change is real and caused by humans, and identifying โ€œreasonable uncertaintiesโ€ that any climate scientist would agree with at the time. Yet over 80 percent of Exxonโ€™s editorial-style paid advertisements over the same period specifically focused on uncertainty and doubt, the studyย found.

The stark contrast between internally discussing cutting-edge climate research while externally conducting a climate disinformation campaign is enough to blow many minds. What was going on atย Exxon?

I have a unique perspective โ€” because I wasย there.

From 1995 to 1997, Exxon provided partial financial support for my masterโ€™s thesis, which focused on methane chemistry and emissions. I spent several weeks in 1996 as an intern at their Annandale research lab in New Jersey and years working on the collaborative research that resulted in three of theย published studiesย referenced in Supran and Oreskesโ€™ newย analysis.

Climate research atย Exxon

A scientist is a scientist no matter where we work, and my Exxon colleagues were no exception. Thoughtful, cautious and in full agreement with the scientific consensus on climate โ€” these are characteristics any scientist would be proud toย own.

Did Exxon have an agenda for our research? Of course โ€” itโ€™s not a charity. Their research and development was targeted, and in my case, it was targeted at something that would raise no red flags in climate policy circles: quantifying the benefits of methaneย reduction.

Methane is a waste product released by coal mining and natural gas leaks; wastewater treatment plants; farting and belching cows, sheep, goats and anything else that chews its cud; decaying organic trash in garbage dumps; giant termite mounds in Africa; and even, in vanishingly small amounts, our own lactose-intolerant familyย members.

On a mass basis, methane absorbs about 35 times more of the Earthโ€™s heat than carbon dioxide. Methane has a much shorter lifetime than carbon dioxide gas, and we produce a lot less of it, so thereโ€™s no escaping the fact that carbon has to go. But if our concern is how fast the Earth is warming, we can get a big bang for our buck by cutting methane emissions as soon as possible, while continuing to wean ourselves off carbon-based fuelsย long-term.

For the gas and oil industry, reducing methane emissions means saving energy. So itโ€™s no surprise that, during my research, I didnโ€™t experience any heavy-handed guidance or interference with my results. No one asked to review my code or suggested ways to โ€œadjustโ€ my findings. The only requirement was that a journal article with an Exxon co-author pass an internal review before it could be submitted for peer review, a policy similar to that of many federalย agencies.

Did I know what else they were up to at the time? I couldnโ€™t even imagineย it.

Fresh out of Canada, I was unaware that there were people who didnโ€™t accept climate science โ€” so unaware, in fact, that it was nearly half a year before I realized Iโ€™dย marriedย one โ€” let alone that Exxon was funding a disinformation campaign at the very same time it was supporting my research on the most expedient ways to reduce the impact of humans onย climate.

Yet Exxonโ€™s choices have contributed directly to the situation we are in today, a situation that in many ways seems unreal: one where many elected representatives oppose climate action, while China leads the U.S. inย wind energy,ย solar power,ย economic investment in clean energyย and even the existence of a nationalย cap and trade policyย similar to the ill-fated Waxman-Markey bill ofย 2009.

Personalย decisions

This latest study underscores why many are calling on Exxon to beย held responsibleย for knowingly misleading the public on such a critical issue. For scientists and academics, though, it may fuel another, different, yet similarly moralย debate.

Are we willing to accept financial support that is offered as a sop to the publicย conscience?

The concept of tendering literal payment for sin is nothing new. From the indulgences of the Middle Ages to the criticisms some have leveled at carbon offsets today, we humans have always sought to stave off the consequences of our actions and ease our conscience with good deeds, particularly of the financial kind. Today, many industry groups follow this familiar path: supporting science denial with the left hand, while giving to cutting-edge research and science with theย right.

Theย Global Climate and Energy Projectย at Stanford University conducts fundamental research on efficient and clean energy technologies โ€” with Exxon as a founding sponsor. Philanthropist and political donor David Koch gave an unprecedented US$35 million to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in 2015, after which three dozen scientists called on the museum toย cut ties with himย for funding lobbying groups that โ€œmisrepresentโ€ climate science. Shell underwrote the London Science Museumโ€™s โ€œAtmosphereโ€ program and then used its leverage toย muddy the watersย on what scientists know aboutย climate.

It may be easy to point a finger at others, but when it happens to us, the choice might not seem so clear. Which is most important โ€” the benefit of the research and education, or the rejection of taintedย funds?

The appropriate response to morally tainted offerings is an ancient question. In the book ofย Corinthians, the apostle Paul responds to a query on what to do with food that has been sacrificed to idols โ€” eat orย reject?

His response illustrates the complexity of this issue. Food is food, he says โ€” and by the same token, we might say money is money today. Both food and money, though, can imply alliance or acceptance. And if it affects others, a more discerning response may beย needed.

What are we as academics to do? In this open and transparent new publishing world of ours, declaration of financial supporters is both important and necessary. Some would argue that a funder, however loose and distant the ties, casts a shadow over the resulting research. Others would respond that the funds can be used for good. Which carries the greatestย weight?

After two decades in the trenches of climate science, Iโ€™m no longer the ingenue I was. Iโ€™m all too aware, now, of those who dismiss climate science as a โ€œliberal hoax.โ€ Every day, they attack me onย Facebook, vilify me onย Twitterย and even send the occasional hand-typed letter โ€” which begs appreciation of the artistry, if not the contents. So now, if Exxon came calling, what would Iย do?

Thereโ€™s no one right answer to this question. Speaking for myself, I might ask them to give those funds to politicians who endorse sensible climate policy โ€” and cut their funding to those who donโ€™t. Or I admire one colleagueโ€™s practical response: to use a Koch-funded honorarium to purchase a lifetime membership in the Sierraย Club.

Despite the fact that thereโ€™s no easy answer, itโ€™s a question thatโ€™s being posed to more and more of us every day, and we cannot straddle the fence any longer. As academics and scientists, we have some tough choices to make; and only by recognizing the broader implications of these choices are we able to make these decisions with our eyes wide open, rather than halfย shut.

Byย Katharine Hayhoe, Professor and Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Techย University

This article was originally published onย The Conversation. Read theย original article.The Conversation

Image credit:ย Exxon funded climate scientists while the bulk of its public-facing advertorials argued the science and cause of climate change was uncertain.ย AP Photo/Markย Humphrey

authordefault

Related Posts

on

One candidate has sworn off taking money from regulated companies

One candidate has sworn off taking money from regulated companies
on

The worldโ€™s largest advertising and public relations firms continue to get the majority of their work from major polluters, a new report has found. Known as the โ€œBig Six,โ€ WPP, Omnicom, Interpu...
on

Unique collaboration convenes leaders from the global climate and trauma healing movements to explore the neglected inner dimensions of the crisis.

Unique collaboration convenes leaders from the global climate and trauma healing movements to explore the neglected inner dimensions of the crisis.
Analysis
on

The new Labour government is pledging billions to support projects based on climate-heating natural gas.

The new Labour government is pledging billions to support projects based on climate-heating natural gas.