InvadingInvader (talk | contribs) →Some ideas for GA review: Reply Tag: Reply |
Darknipples (talk | contribs) →Controversies: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
(48 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
||
{{Vital article|topic=Society|level=5|class=B}} |
|||
{{American English}} |
{{American English}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Companies |
{{WikiProject Companies|importance=top}} |
||
{{WikiProject United States |
{{WikiProject United States|importance=high|TX=yes|TX-importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth |
{{WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth|importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject Energy |
{{WikiProject Energy|importance=top}} |
||
{{WikiProject Brands |
{{WikiProject Brands|importance=high}} |
||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=mid}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{ |
{{FailedGA|16:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Economics and business|status=onreview|note=}} |
||
{{reqphoto|in=Houston|of=Houston area office and future headquarters, 22777 Springwoods Village Parkway, Spring, TX 77389-1425}} |
{{reqphoto|in=Houston|of=Houston area office and future headquarters, 22777 Springwoods Village Parkway, Spring, TX 77389-1425}} |
||
{{Image requested|in=Dallas County, Texas|of=Headquarters entrance sign, 5959 Las Colinas Blvd. Irving, Texas 75039-2298 - [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=5959+Las+Colinas+Blvd.+Irving,+Texas+75039-2298&hl=en&ll=32.891894,-96.949282&spn=0.004432,0.01929&sll=30.46714,-84.256856&sspn=0.320774,0.617294&hnear=5959+Las+Colinas+Blvd,+Irving,+Dallas,+Texas+75039&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.891887,-96.949291&panoid=eoeSixG4izxyb_50FJGsZQ&cbp=12,256.41,,0,8.51 Map]}} |
{{Image requested|in=Dallas County, Texas|of=Headquarters entrance sign, 5959 Las Colinas Blvd. Irving, Texas 75039-2298 - [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=5959+Las+Colinas+Blvd.+Irving,+Texas+75039-2298&hl=en&ll=32.891894,-96.949282&spn=0.004432,0.01929&sll=30.46714,-84.256856&sspn=0.320774,0.617294&hnear=5959+Las+Colinas+Blvd,+Irving,+Dallas,+Texas+75039&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.891887,-96.949291&panoid=eoeSixG4izxyb_50FJGsZQ&cbp=12,256.41,,0,8.51 Map]}} |
||
Line 51: | Line 49: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
==Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change== |
|||
== Merging Proposal == |
|||
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Bentley_University/NAS_348_Global_Climate_Change_(Spring_2024) | assignments = [[User:Forest gump egg|Forest gump egg]] | reviewers = [[User:SunshineANDSmile|SunshineANDSmile]] | start_date = 2024-01-22 | end_date = 2024-04-29 }} |
|||
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:TotalSolarEclipse|TotalSolarEclipse]] ([[User talk:TotalSolarEclipse|talk]]) 17:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|||
== Harvard study from May 2021 == |
|||
Any thoughts on which section would be suitable for a summarized addition of context (below)? |
|||
* "For decades, ExxonMobil has deployed Big Tobacco-like propaganda to downplay the gravity of the climate crisis, shift blame onto consumers and protect its own interests, according to a Harvard University study published Thursday. The peer-reviewed study found that Exxon (XOM) publicly equates demand for energy to an indefinite need for fossil fuels, casting the company as merely a passive supplier working to meet that demand. [https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/13/business/exxon-climate-change-harvard/index.html CNN] & [https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00233-5?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2590332221002335%3Fshowall%3Dtrue One Earth Journal] |
|||
* A new study suggests that ExxonMobil has used language to shift the blame for fossil fuel use from producers to consumers over the past four decades. [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whatonearth/exxonmobil-blames-climate-change-on-the-public-by-using-misleading-language-researchers-say-1.6031355 CBC] |
|||
* The world isn’t on track to meet its climate goals — and it’s the public’s fault, a leading oil company CEO told journalists. Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods told editors from Fortune that the world has “waited too long” to begin investing in a broader suite of technologies to slow planetary heating. [https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4494543-exxon-ceo-blames-public-for-failure-to-fix-climate-change/ The Hill] |
|||
* Exxon Mobil Corp. has used language to systematically shift blame for climate change from fossil fuel companies onto consumers, according to a new paper by Harvard University researchers. The paper, published yesterday in the journal One Earth, could bolster efforts to hold the oil giant accountable in court for its alleged deception about global warming. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-mobils-messaging-shifted-blame-for-warming-to-consumers/ Scientific American] |
|||
Cheers. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 18:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: I'm always baffled why people can't accept that consumers are indeed largely to blame; so no these suggestions are not good [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 19:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::What is "not good" about them? They seem to be reliably sourced. Whether or not we agree with Exxon's rhetoric seems immaterial. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: RS doesn't *oblige* you to insert junk, just because someone in the meeja has said it [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Are you capable of offering any more productive suggestions/input other than just exclusion, due to your personal opinions that the source material, produced by academic experts, is "junk" and "not good"? [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 18:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Here are a few more sources. The study seems to have a sizable amount of coverage. |
|||
* 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. [https://time.com/6048162/exxonmobil-climate-change/ Time] |
|||
* By endorsing the environmentalist image and removing themselves as the source of the problem, oil giants limit people’s ability to think about other forms of environmental action beyond consumption, and thus, economic growth. It confines the individual and his or her responsibility towards climate change within the logic of the market, reducing the possibilities for systemic transformation. ExxonMobil and Total also engage in the same strategies. They emphasize greenhouse gas emissions as a problem of demand, not supply, creating an imaginary concept around the individual as a consumer and the sole stakeholder responsible for mitigating climate change. This communication strategy legitimizes the continued production of fossil fuels and serves to protect the industry from restrictive environmental regulations by pointing the finger at growing demand. [https://theconversation.com/how-oil-companies-put-the-responsibility-for-climate-change-on-consumers-214132 The Conversation] |
|||
* There are many examples in ExxonMobil’s advertising materials and other documents right up to 2019, all doing the same thing: Deflecting attention away from the oil company’s role in fueling climate change by supplying fossil fuels and turning attention toward consumer demand for, and dependency on, its products. We now have a comprehensive view of this strategy, thanks to a new peer-reviewed study by Harvard research associate Geoffrey Supran and Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes in the journal One Earth. In a painstaking analysis, they show how hard the oil giant has worked to keep the conversation about climate solutions focused on the consumer, effectively individualizing responsibility for the problem. [https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study Vox] |
|||
Cheers. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 21:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|William M. Connolley}} I have posted this discussion to WP:3O [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThird_opinion&diff=1212032147&oldid=1212008413 here], since there is no one else to discuss this with and you've stopped responding. Cheers. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Note there is also an open thread at [[WP:NPOVN]]. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 21:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
(saw at the noticeboard) Zillions of things lead up to any one happening, it's subjective to call any one of them a "cause". (Normally the major departures from the norm are considered to be the cause(es)) The biggest ones here are that people use fossil fuels and energy companies provide those fuels. Even more so calling it "responsibility" or "blame" which implies wrongdoing. Such value-laden words are not informative. Also, if ExonMobil is speaking about consumer demand being a cause (but did not use the value-laden "blame") I'd avoid quoting those who mis-quote claims of "cause" as being claims of "blame". Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 21:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:While I do appreciate the advice on how to be careful with adding academic research into the article, there was a recent interview on February 27, 2024 with Fortune magazine, by the CEO, Darren Woods, where he said... |
|||
:*“People who are generating the emissions need to be aware of [it] and pay the price,” [https://fortune.com/2024/02/27/exxon-ceo-darren-woods-interview-pay-the-price-for-net-zero/ Fortune] |
|||
:Whether that statement is referring to economic or moral responsibility is not something I was trying to speculate on. My first instinct was to keep it short and more concise, but if others find that to be informative and there is consensus to add an actual quote, I'm open to it. |
|||
:However the peer-reviewed research from 2021 is obviously indicative of that rhetoric and seems to have more [[WP:WEIGHT]]. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 23:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I just came to make a few comments which I though might be useful. I don't need to be in on any decision but anyone please ping me if they would like anything more from me on this. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 18:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Controversies === |
|||
It would seem the best placement for it would be between the third and fourth paragraphs in the Controversies section, where it mentions [[Greenwashing]]. Perhaps something along these lines? |
|||
Let's get straight to it: At 182KB, ExxonMobil's article is [[Wikipedia:Article size|too long]].<br/> |
|||
I think that the history section is the one which should be separated and given its own article. The history of the company listed in this article prior to the 1999 merger is 38KB. Additionally, even though the 1999 agreement was effectively a merger, technically speaking, Exxon bought Mobil and renamed itself to ExxonMobil, similar to the T-Mobile US and Sprint merger except that T-Mobile US didn't change its name. <br/> What I'm suggesting ultimately is that '''the article [[ExxonMobil]] have its history section significantly trimmed down and pasted into a new article, which is to be named [[History of ExxonMobil]] (currently a redirect to [[ExxonMobil]]). After the merger takes place, the page [[Exxon]] will redirect to ExxonMobil.''' While I won't combine it with my proposal, I would also be open to merging [[Mobil]] into History of ExxonMobil if enough editors agree, but initially I would oppose it due to Mobil being a brand name used outside the US not just for fuel stations but also Mobil 1 motor oil and the sponsorships aligned with it. [[Exxon]] would be a perfect article to repurpose since the brand is only used in the United States for gas stations, and as mentioned previously, the company today known as ExxonMobil previously was Exxon prior to the merger.<br/> [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 01:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*ExxonMobil has used its own website to attack Exxon Knew, claiming that it is a coordinated effort to defame the company. |
|||
:Alright...I'm going to be bold and move the history stuff from this article, along with Exxon and Mobil, to [[History of ExxonMobil]]. I'd still like to wait for consensus on converting [[Exxon]] to a redirect. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 04:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Welp, after no response, I'm going to go ahead with the merger...editors from an earlier RFC ([[Talk:Exxon#Possible_Merger?]]) seem to be on board. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:>''A 2021 peer reviewed study by researchers at Harvard University showed that for the past few decades ExxonMobil and other oil companies have been shifting the narrative of responsibility for climate change towards consumers rather oil companies.'' |
|||
== Some ideas for GA review == |
|||
:In December 2022, U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney and U.S. House Oversight Environment Subcommittee Chair Ro Khanna sent a memorandum to all House Oversight and Reform Committee members summarizing additional findings from the committee's investigation into the fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign to obscure the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming. |
|||
Hello {{u|InvadingInvader}}, I noticed that you nominated this article for GA review. I'm not prepared to do a complete review at this time (partly because I've never done one and would have to get familiar with the process), but I'd like to offer these notes. |
|||
I'm open to tweaks and other suggestions. Cheers. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 01:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I think there's insufficient weight on controversies. Consider that there's almost equal space for the section on "Low Carbon Solutions" as there is for "Controversies", even though Exxon controversies are the subject of several other articles in themselves. Surely Exxon's role in [[environmental conflict]]s around the world is more significant than its role as a {{tq|world leader in carbon capture and storage}} (Can that latter claim be justified ''at all'' outside of a company press release?) I would recommend careful expansion of the controversy section in summary style to include subsections on the most notable conflicts (as evidenced by those conflicts having their own articles or reference to those conflicts in academic journals), and increased placement of that information in the lead. I think the lead is otherwise too long, and some other information in the lead should be removed to make room for this. |
|||
:I declined the request at 3O since I see four participants so far, but I'll make my voice #5. I don't think "peer reviewed" is necessary and the verb should be something like "said" or "stated", not "showed". I'm unconvinced though that due weight has been established given that the secondary sources are pretty news-of-the-day for an article about the company. I suggest a RFC to get broader input since several editors have already expressed editorial reservations about mentioning this at all. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 04:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Prominently missing conflicts are the [[Accusations of ExxonMobil human rights violations in Aceh|company's activities in Indonesia]] and in [[Cancer alley]]. Maybe also [https://www.proquest.com/openview/b13b009f0e53b34b0b1b71be0fd226e0/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=25431 this]. Exxon is also [[2010 ExxonMobil oil spill|active in the Niger Delta]]. There's really quite a lot, and it shouldn't be shuttled off to about 200 words at the very bottom of the article. |
|||
::Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I would note that one of the reasons this article failed it's last [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive_5#GA_Review GA review] was because #4 "The section on controversy needs expansion as we've discussed at [[Talk:Criticism of ExxonMobil]]". Whether or not this helps address that issue may be debatable, but I disagree with your take on the quality and quantity of coverage this aspect is getting. Cheers. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 05:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I'm open to doing a full GA review, depending on your thoughts here and what I learn about that process. Thanks![[User:Larataguera|Larataguera]] ([[User talk:Larataguera|talk]]) 18:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|William M. Connolley}}, here is the suggestion I received from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&diff=1212105154&oldid=1212077532 NPOVN]... |
|||
:Thanks for telling…the problem with controversies however was that the section was simply too big; I recently split it into [[Criticism of ExxonMobil]]. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Science historians Geoffrey Supran and [[Naomi Oreskes]] have analyzed documents originating from Exxon and write that during the 2000s the company's public position shifted away from outright denial of climate change, but that they used rhetoric which minimized its impact and portrayed the responsibility as being due to consumers, not corporations. In Supran and Oreskes' view this shift mirrors tactics used by the [[tobacco industry]] when seeking to disassociate itself from the harms of smoking. |
|||
::Yeah, I get that. I think there are two things that would fix this. 1) judiciously introduce concise summaries of the conflicts back into the controversy section (with most detail remaining in the [[Criticism of ExxonMobil]] article, and 2) dedicate space in the lead proportionate to the material about controversy in the other article (as if it were part of the article, which it once was). [[User:Larataguera|Larataguera]] ([[User talk:Larataguera|talk]]) 23:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Would you be open to it, or do you have any versions to suggest that might help us achieve consensus? |
|||
:::Got it. I can't get to it immediately, but I'll see what I can do over time. Thank you for your comments! <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Cheers. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 04:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Do you think that the controversy section is at a viable size as of right now, or are there certain other controversies you think should belong? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Thanks for checking. The following notable conflicts are still missing: |
|||
::::::*There should be some mention of [[Cancer alley]]. This is an extremely long-running conflict, as the [[Baton Rouge Refinery]] has been in operation over 100 years. Might be best to put this in the context of [https://www.salon.com/2021/08/25/exxonmobil-has-poured-millions-into-communities-its-accused-of-poisoning-now-theres-blowback/ pollution from ExxonMobil's refineries in general], so that the summary isn't too long. [https://www.npr.org/2013/05/30/187044721/baton-rouge-s-corroded-overpolluting-neighbor-exxon here] are [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/louisiana-cancer-alley-getting-more-toxic-905534/ some] relevant [https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_7c9cff22-5277-11ea-8371-775fba1a956e.html sources]. There are lots more, including scholarly literature on cancer alley. |
|||
:::::::There's some difficulty here, because the [[Criticism of ExxonMobil]] doesn't even mention [[Cancer alley]], (although it does list some incidents that took place there). I think in order to get this article to GA, we'd have to get the criticism article to B. I currently rate it a C. |
|||
::::::*There should be some mention of Exxon's presence in the Niger Delta and related [[Environmental issues in the Niger Delta]]. We do have [[ExxonMobil Nigeria]], but it's a stub. The [[2010 ExxonMobil oil spill]] is not listed in the criticism article. It may or may not be directly linked here, but Exxon's presence in Nigeria should be mentioned, as well as the controversy around their private security forces and whether these forces are state sanctioned. [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/nigerian-spy-police-sue-oil-giant/article4125113/ this] is one source. [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/2/3/nigerian-judge-issues-arrest-warrant-for-exxon-chief here] are [https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Africa/bpnigerdelta.pdf a few] more.[https://theintercept.com/2021/09/17/enbridge-line-3-pipeline-amazon-security-exxon/]. This is another extremely long-running and notable conflict that we can't leave out of a GA. |
|||
::::::*[[PNG Gas]] is a slightly more recent conflict. That article has a fairly long section on 'Conflicts with local communities'. I haven't reviewed it. It may deserve a brief reference here, but should certainly be included at criticism. |
|||
::::::All for now. There are some other issues, but I will note them at the criticism article and we can decide whether they warrant mention here. Thanks for your work so far! [[User:Larataguera|Larataguera]] ([[User talk:Larataguera|talk]]) 15:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Hey there! Did some updates and further reading on your suggestions |
|||
:::::::1. Cancer Alley has since been included. |
|||
:::::::2. Focusing on the 2010 Spill, I'm having doubts about individual notability for the main ExxonMobil article. That spill only released 232 barrels of oil, a figure dwarfed by the 257,000 barrels spilled by the Valdez. Furthermore, per [https://www.treehugger.com/the-largest-oil-spills-in-history-4863988 Treehugger], Valdez is only the 14th largest oil spill in world history (though by far Exxon's largest and most notable single incident). I think that the 2010 spill doesn't meet the notability standard for inclusion on this individual article, though it does definitely merit inclusion on [[Criticism of ExxonMobil]]. |
|||
:::::::Thanks, |
|||
:::::::<b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: I still think you're one-sided; you're effectively channelling GS+NO by your "portrayed" language, and so on. And anyway, all this discussion is in the wrong place: it should be at [[ExxonMobil climate change denial]], of which the bits here should be but a summary [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 09:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Talk:ExxonMobil/GA1}} |
|||
::That sounds like a textbook bad faith assumption, but honest at the very least. Considering this article failed it's last GA review, what other improvements would you be open to? [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:58, 9 March 2024
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Forest gump egg (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SunshineANDSmile.
— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Harvard study from May 2021
Any thoughts on which section would be suitable for a summarized addition of context (below)?
- "For decades, ExxonMobil has deployed Big Tobacco-like propaganda to downplay the gravity of the climate crisis, shift blame onto consumers and protect its own interests, according to a Harvard University study published Thursday. The peer-reviewed study found that Exxon (XOM) publicly equates demand for energy to an indefinite need for fossil fuels, casting the company as merely a passive supplier working to meet that demand. CNN & One Earth Journal
- A new study suggests that ExxonMobil has used language to shift the blame for fossil fuel use from producers to consumers over the past four decades. CBC
- The world isn’t on track to meet its climate goals — and it’s the public’s fault, a leading oil company CEO told journalists. Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods told editors from Fortune that the world has “waited too long” to begin investing in a broader suite of technologies to slow planetary heating. The Hill
- Exxon Mobil Corp. has used language to systematically shift blame for climate change from fossil fuel companies onto consumers, according to a new paper by Harvard University researchers. The paper, published yesterday in the journal One Earth, could bolster efforts to hold the oil giant accountable in court for its alleged deception about global warming. Scientific American
Cheers. DN (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm always baffled why people can't accept that consumers are indeed largely to blame; so no these suggestions are not good William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- What is "not good" about them? They seem to be reliably sourced. Whether or not we agree with Exxon's rhetoric seems immaterial. DN (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- RS doesn't *oblige* you to insert junk, just because someone in the meeja has said it William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- What is "not good" about them? They seem to be reliably sourced. Whether or not we agree with Exxon's rhetoric seems immaterial. DN (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Here are a few more sources. The study seems to have a sizable amount of coverage.
- 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. Time
- By endorsing the environmentalist image and removing themselves as the source of the problem, oil giants limit people’s ability to think about other forms of environmental action beyond consumption, and thus, economic growth. It confines the individual and his or her responsibility towards climate change within the logic of the market, reducing the possibilities for systemic transformation. ExxonMobil and Total also engage in the same strategies. They emphasize greenhouse gas emissions as a problem of demand, not supply, creating an imaginary concept around the individual as a consumer and the sole stakeholder responsible for mitigating climate change. This communication strategy legitimizes the continued production of fossil fuels and serves to protect the industry from restrictive environmental regulations by pointing the finger at growing demand. The Conversation
- There are many examples in ExxonMobil’s advertising materials and other documents right up to 2019, all doing the same thing: Deflecting attention away from the oil company’s role in fueling climate change by supplying fossil fuels and turning attention toward consumer demand for, and dependency on, its products. We now have a comprehensive view of this strategy, thanks to a new peer-reviewed study by Harvard research associate Geoffrey Supran and Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes in the journal One Earth. In a painstaking analysis, they show how hard the oil giant has worked to keep the conversation about climate solutions focused on the consumer, effectively individualizing responsibility for the problem. Vox
Cheers. DN (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
William M. Connolley I have posted this discussion to WP:3O here, since there is no one else to discuss this with and you've stopped responding. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note there is also an open thread at WP:NPOVN. Bon courage (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
(saw at the noticeboard) Zillions of things lead up to any one happening, it's subjective to call any one of them a "cause". (Normally the major departures from the norm are considered to be the cause(es)) The biggest ones here are that people use fossil fuels and energy companies provide those fuels. Even more so calling it "responsibility" or "blame" which implies wrongdoing. Such value-laden words are not informative. Also, if ExonMobil is speaking about consumer demand being a cause (but did not use the value-laden "blame") I'd avoid quoting those who mis-quote claims of "cause" as being claims of "blame". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- While I do appreciate the advice on how to be careful with adding academic research into the article, there was a recent interview on February 27, 2024 with Fortune magazine, by the CEO, Darren Woods, where he said...
- “People who are generating the emissions need to be aware of [it] and pay the price,” Fortune
- Whether that statement is referring to economic or moral responsibility is not something I was trying to speculate on. My first instinct was to keep it short and more concise, but if others find that to be informative and there is consensus to add an actual quote, I'm open to it.
- However the peer-reviewed research from 2021 is obviously indicative of that rhetoric and seems to have more WP:WEIGHT. DN (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I just came to make a few comments which I though might be useful. I don't need to be in on any decision but anyone please ping me if they would like anything more from me on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Controversies
It would seem the best placement for it would be between the third and fourth paragraphs in the Controversies section, where it mentions Greenwashing. Perhaps something along these lines?
- ExxonMobil has used its own website to attack Exxon Knew, claiming that it is a coordinated effort to defame the company.
- >A 2021 peer reviewed study by researchers at Harvard University showed that for the past few decades ExxonMobil and other oil companies have been shifting the narrative of responsibility for climate change towards consumers rather oil companies.
- In December 2022, U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney and U.S. House Oversight Environment Subcommittee Chair Ro Khanna sent a memorandum to all House Oversight and Reform Committee members summarizing additional findings from the committee's investigation into the fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign to obscure the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.
I'm open to tweaks and other suggestions. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I declined the request at 3O since I see four participants so far, but I'll make my voice #5. I don't think "peer reviewed" is necessary and the verb should be something like "said" or "stated", not "showed". I'm unconvinced though that due weight has been established given that the secondary sources are pretty news-of-the-day for an article about the company. I suggest a RFC to get broader input since several editors have already expressed editorial reservations about mentioning this at all. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I would note that one of the reasons this article failed it's last GA review was because #4 "The section on controversy needs expansion as we've discussed at Talk:Criticism of ExxonMobil". Whether or not this helps address that issue may be debatable, but I disagree with your take on the quality and quantity of coverage this aspect is getting. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
William M. Connolley, here is the suggestion I received from NPOVN...
- Science historians Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes have analyzed documents originating from Exxon and write that during the 2000s the company's public position shifted away from outright denial of climate change, but that they used rhetoric which minimized its impact and portrayed the responsibility as being due to consumers, not corporations. In Supran and Oreskes' view this shift mirrors tactics used by the tobacco industry when seeking to disassociate itself from the harms of smoking.
Would you be open to it, or do you have any versions to suggest that might help us achieve consensus? Cheers. DN (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I still think you're one-sided; you're effectively channelling GS+NO by your "portrayed" language, and so on. And anyway, all this discussion is in the wrong place: it should be at ExxonMobil climate change denial, of which the bits here should be but a summary William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)