On January 8, the Guardian wrote that ExxonMobil had a cynical and deceitful plan to change its anti-green image.
The leadership at ExxonMobil has promised investors that it will “soften” its public image in a bid to rid itself of a reputation for being green campaigners’ public enemy number one.
Chairman and chief executive Rex Tillerson made clear to a select group of top Wall Street fund managers and equity analysts that it would not be changing its basic position on global warming – just explain it better.
…
A note put out after the meeting by Fadel Gheit, oil analyst at the Oppenheimer brokerage in New York, says the company “has clearly taken a much less adversial and more reconciliatory position on key environmental issues.”
But the note adds: “Although the tone has changed, the substance remains the same.”
Why would Exxon need to change its image? Because in 2005, Mother Jones broke the story that Exxon gives millions of dollars to think tanks, researchers, and media figures to produce and promote phony science purporting to debunk global warming. (For a handy chart, see here.) Since that time, other news organizations have piled on, reporting essentially the same story time and again.
ExxonMobil’s plan is already working. Just a few days after the CEO announced that the company was attempting to change its public image, news stories started appearing with headlines like, “Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics” and “Exxon Mobil softens its climate-change stance.”
So a note to journalists: Read the truth about ExxonMobil. Mother Jones is more than happy to provide the material. The ExxonMobil story, “Some Like it Hot,” was part of a larger package on global warming called “As the World Burns.” More recently, Mother Jones published “The Thirteenth Tipping Point,” a study of twelve climate change hot spots that, if triggered, could “initiate sudden, catastrophic changes across the planet,” and “Let Them Eat CO2,” which looked at the Bush Administration’s spin on the subject.
And for a particularly germane article on corporate responsibility (Subtitle: “Is Corporate Do-Goodery for Real?” Answer here: No.), see “Hype vs. Hope.”
