https://time.com/6048162/exxonmobil-climate-change/ * Sign In My Account Manage Account Digital Magazines Help Center Sign Out * Subscribe for $19.99 Subscribe * Alejandro Mayorkas' Vision for the DHS * Video * [newsletter]Newsletter [ ] My Account * Manage Account * Digital Magazines * Help Center * Sign Out Sign In Sections * Home * U.S. * Politics * World * Health * Personal Finance by NextAdvisor * Business * Tech * Entertainment * Ideas * Science * History * Newsfeed * Sports * Magazine * TIME 2030 * Video * TIME100 Talks * The TIME Vault * TIME for Kids * TIME Edge * Branded Content Join Us * Newsletters * Subscribe * Give a Gift * Shop the TIME Store Customer Care * US & Canada * Global Help Center Reach Out * Careers * Press Room * Contact the Editors * Reprints and Permissions More * Privacy Policy * Your California Privacy Rights * Terms of Use * Site Map Connect with Us * Science * climate change * ExxonMobil Wants You to Take Responsibility for Climate Change, Study Says ExxonMobil Wants You to Take Responsibility for Climate Change, Study Says An Exxon gas station sign shows current gas prices last year in Clark, New Jersey. An Exxon gas station sign shows current gas prices last year in Clark, New Jersey. Michael Loccisano/Getty Images By Justin Worland Updated: May 13, 2021 4:23 PM EDT | Originally published: May 13, 2021 11:01 AM EDT ExxonMobil is one of the world's largest publicly traded oil and gas companies--and it wants you to take responsibility for climate change. A new analysis from researchers at Harvard University released Thursday found that the company's public-facing messaging on climate change since the mid-2000s consistently emphasizes "consumers," "energy demand" and individual "needs" as the cause of climate change, as well as the avenue for potentially addressing it. Outwardly focusing on consumers' personal responsibility is one part of the company's nuanced messaging to deflect the blame for climate change without denying the science behind it, the researchers say. At the same time, in internal documents, the company pays personal responsibility little credence, focusing instead on the roots of the issue: "fossil fuel use," "fossil fuel combustion" and the "source" of emissions. "Fossil fuel industry discourse has encouraged this dangerous acceleration in individualization of responsibility," says Geoffrey Supran, a researcher at the department of the history of science at Harvard University. "It grooms us to see ourselves as consumers first and citizens second." For decades, Exxon devised strategies to question the science of climate change and in turn slow progress on policy initiatives that sought to reduce carbon emissions and threatened to reduce demand for their core products. A series of in-depth journalistic investigations have documented how in the 1980s and 1990s Exxon, which had not yet merged with Mobil, conducted groundbreaking research on climate change but continued in public to question the scientific basis of the phenomenon. In the mid-2000s, the researchers' new analysis shows, the company shifted tactics, moving away "from explicit doubt to implicit acknowledgment." At the same time, Supran and his co-author Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes found that the company has used several rhetorical strategies to deflect blame from the industry in recent years. The results, published in the journal One Earth, come from an evaluation of more than 200 internal and external ExxonMobil documents that researchers used in a statistical analysis to determine which words and phrases were overrepresented externally and which were overrepresented internally. In a statement, ExxonMobil said it "is working to reduce company emissions and helping customers reduce their emissions while working on new lower-emission technologies and advocating for effective policies." In addition to shifting the responsibility individuals, one of the firm's recent key strategies has been to emphasize what researchers call "climate risk" framing. Instead of using the term "climate change" in public communications, the company often refers to "climate risk," along with related phrases like "potential risks" and "long-term risk." The risk phrasing suggests there is uncertainty about if and how climate change will play out, without explicitly questioning the science. Researchers found this framing prevalent externally but not internally. "By shifting the conversation from the semantics of reality to the semantics of risk," the researchers say in the study, the company injects "uncertainty into the climate narrative, even while superficially appearing not to." All of these language choices may seem small, but they can have significant implications for how the public understands the causes of climate change and the potential solutions. Scientists say that tackling emissions and limiting temperature rise will require systemic changes from government and big economic players--including oil companies and other major corporations. Yet the notion that the burden of tackling climate change rests with individuals has become a pervasive belief in the U.S., as some corporations have worked to deflect responsibility for climate change and other social ills. "The word that I would probably use--in addition to subtle--is insidious," says Supran. "That's how I would characterize this shifting form of propaganda." The new research comes as ExxonMobil and other oil giants are under increased scrutiny for both their emissions and their climate messaging. Activists have taken to the street in protest while cities and states have sued the industry's largest players with a range of allegations. Just a few weeks ago, New York City sued ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, alleging that the companies "systematically and intentionally misled consumers" into thinking their product is cleaner than it is. ExxonMobil is far from the only major energy company rethinking the way it talks about climate change. As the science of climate change has become impossible to deny--both in courtrooms and in the court of public opinion--oil giants have cautiously indicated that they accept the science. From there, practices have diverged. Many of the European oil majors, such as Shell and BP, have promised to be part of the solution by spending billions to shift their portfolios toward clean energy. And while analysts agree that the European firms are leagues ahead of their American counterparts in grappling with the realities of climate change, much rides on if and how they follow through on those commitments. In the U.S., many oil giants, including ExxonMobil and Chevron, have told investors they plan to stay the course with oil and gas even as they nuance their messaging around it. Critics see these U.S. firms' public embrace of climate science and flexible measures like the Paris Agreement as a strategic shift to avoid stringent regulation, rather than anything that will lead to a significant reduction in emissions. "We have the same story," says Dylan Tanner, the executive director of InfluenceMap, a think tank that tracks how businesses are engaging on climate. "Just replace substantive climate denial with climate delay." [TIM210524_] Subscribe to TIME [red-arrow] Get our climate newsletter. Learn how the week's major news story connects back to the climate crisis. [Paper-plan] [ ] Please enter a valid email address. * The request timed out and you did not successfully sign up. Please attempt to sign up again. Sign Up Now An unexpected error has occurred with your sign up. Please try again later. [ ] Check the box if you do not wish to receive promotional offers via email from TIME. You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. [loading-ci] Thank you! For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder. Write to Justin Worland at justin.worland@time.com. SHARE THIS STORY Read More From TIME Related Stories Read Next [india-air-] Fossil Fuels, Climate Change and India's COVID-19 Crisis Next Up: Editor's Pick [future-of-] How We Can Learn to Live with COVID-19 After Vaccinations EDIT POST You have reached your limit of 4 free articles. Get unlimited access to TIME.com. Subscribe for just $19.99 Subscribe Now Already a print subscriber? Go here to link your subscription. Need help? Visit our Help Center. Thank you for reading TIME. You have a limited number of free articles. You have 3 free articles left. Subscribe for just $19.99. You have 2 free articles left. Subscribe for just $19.99. You have 1 free article left. Subscribe for just $19.99. This is your last free article. Subscribe for just $19.99. Subscribe Subscribe Now * Home * U.S. * Politics * World * Health * Personal Finance by NextAdvisor * Business * Tech * Entertainment * Ideas * Science * History * Newsfeed * Sports * Magazine * The TIME Vault * TIME For Kids * TIME Edge * Video * Masthead * Newsletters * Subscribe * Give a Gift * Shop the TIME Store * Careers * Press Room * Contact the Editors * U.S. & Canada Customer Care * Global Help Center * Reprints and Permissions * Site Map (c) 2021 TIME USA, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy (Your California Privacy Rights) and Do Not Sell My Personal Information. TIME may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy Terms of Service apply.