https://theconversation.com/i-was-an-exxon-funded-climate-scientist-49855
[links in on-line article]
I was an Exxon-funded climate scientist
August 24, 2017 9.20pm EDT
ExxonMobil’s deliberate attempts to sow doubt on the reality and urgency
of climate change and their donations to front groups to disseminate
false information about climate change have been public knowledge for a
long time, now.
Investigative reports 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 company’s future.
Now, a peer-reviewed study published August 23 has confirmed that what
Exxon was saying internally about climate change was quantitatively very
different from their public statements. Specifically, researchers
Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes 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 –
acknowledging that climate change is real and caused by humans, and
identifying “reasonable uncertainties” that any climate scientist would
agree with at the time. Yet over 80 percent of Exxon’s editorial-style
paid advertisements over the same period specifically focused on
uncertainty and doubt, the study 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 at Exxon?
I have a unique perspective – because I was there.
From 1995 to 1997, Exxon provided partial financial support for my
master’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 the published studies referenced in Supran and
Oreskes’ new analysis.
Climate research at 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 – these are characteristics any
scientist would be proud to own.
Did Exxon have an agenda for our research? Of course – it’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 methane 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 family members.
On a mass basis, methane absorbs about 35 times more of the Earth’s heat
than carbon dioxide. Methane has a much shorter lifetime than carbon
dioxide gas, and we produce a lot less of it, so there’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
fuels long-term.
For the gas and oil industry, reducing methane emissions means saving
energy. So it’s no surprise that, during my research, I didn’t
experience any heavy-handed guidance or interference with my results. No
one asked to review my code or suggested ways to “adjust” 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 federal agencies.
Did I know what else they were up to at the time? I couldn’t even
imagine it.
Fresh out of Canada, I was unaware that there were people who didn’t
accept climate science – so unaware, in fact, that it was nearly half a
year before I realized I’d married one – 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 on climate.
Yet Exxon’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. in wind energy, solar power, economic investment in clean energy
and even the existence of a national cap and trade policy similar to the
ill-fated Waxman-Markey bill of 2009.
Personal decisions
This latest study underscores why many are calling on Exxon to be held
responsible for knowingly misleading the public on such a critical
issue. For scientists and academics, though, it may fuel another,
different, yet similarly moral debate.
Are we willing to accept financial support that is offered as a sop to
the public 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 the right.
The Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University conducts
fundamental research on efficient and clean energy technologies – 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 to cut ties with him for funding lobbying groups
that “misrepresent” climate science. Shell underwrote the London Science
Museum’s “Atmosphere” program and then used its leverage to muddy the
waters on what scientists know about 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 – the
benefit of the research and education, or the rejection of tainted funds?
The appropriate response to morally tainted offerings is an ancient
question. In the book of Corinthians, the apostle Paul responds to a
query on what to do with food that has been sacrificed to idols – eat or
reject?
His response illustrates the complexity of this issue. Food is food, he
says – 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 be 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
greatest weight?
After two decades in the trenches of climate science, I’m no longer the
ingenue I was. I’m all too aware, now, of those who dismiss climate
science as a “liberal hoax.” Every day, they attack me on Facebook,
vilify me on Twitter and even send the occasional hand-typed letter -
which begs appreciation of the artistry, if not the contents. So now, if
Exxon came calling, what would I do?
There’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 – and cut their funding to those who don’t. Or I admire
one colleague’s practical response: to use a Koch-funded honorarium to
purchase a lifetime membership in the Sierra Club.
Despite the fact that there’s no easy answer, it’s a question that’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 half shut.