Propaganda is a strong word that is often carelessly used with little consideration for the different types of propaganda and the strategies employed to further the spread of misinformation. Usually, the word evokes images of historical figures like Stalin, Hitler, or, from more recent times, the likes of Kim Jong-Un. However, it’s important to note that propaganda does not have to be as direct as in these more extreme examples. Western countries also use subtle propaganda to exercise control. Framing issues in a certain way or suppressing inconvenient information usually serves this purpose. To prove that Exxon uses propaganda, we should explore how language choices advance a political agenda that favours deregulation, maximising profits, and minimising public scrutiny/backlash.
In a recent research paper, Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes unpack how they have done this, borrowing techniques from the tobacco industry, which infamously denied the links between smoking and lung cancer for decades, then later did the same when scientists warned about passive smoking. This comparison between the tobacco industry and climate change denialism is a common theme in Oreskes’ and Erik Conway’s book Merchants of Doubt, so it’s no surprise to see these arguments fleshed out more in the study she co-authored.
Figure 1 Graphical abstract from Supran & Oreskes (2021) detailing major components of the frame crafted by Exxon Mobil following their analysis of 180 documents.
Their analysis demonstrates that Exxon has, through an effective propaganda campaign spanning decades, constructed a “fossil-fuel saviour” frame strongly influencing the way people discuss climate change. Such framing has been an enormous obstacle to climate change activists, especially given the financial dominance, lobbying power, and PR experience that backs big oil. While climate change denial is still a serious problem, many oil corporations and ex-deniers have altered their approach to emphasise individual responsibility instead, in response to the changing political landscape as the reality of climate change has become increasingly difficult to outright deny.
The Boris Johnson-appointed spokesperson for COP26 chose to exemplify this approach when she implied that we focus more on micro-steps instead of the large-scale, systemic changes needed and pushed for by researchers and activists. These ridiculous suggestions included avoiding rinsing dishes before putting them in the dishwasher, in a clear middle finger to those seeking real solutions.
The language in 180 Exxon documents analysed in their study includes 72 contributions to peer-reviewed journals, 32 internal documents, and 78 New York Times ads. They outline how documents emphasise the word “risk(s)” to downplay the urgency of action needed. The science that climate change is a reality, not a risk, is evident and has been for decades. Yet, Exxon has carefully chosen to use this word as it benefits them to cast doubt over the scientific consensus. The authors use a machine learning approach to unravel major themes within each body of text by searching for patterns that emerge due to the authors’ language choices, which shape the overall narrative. One example from the study is the discrepancy between advertorials and peer-reviewed scientific papers/internal documents when it comes to acknowledging fossil fuels as a driver of climate change. These New York Times ads reach far more people than the published research, meaning a skewed representation of the science has much more outreach – another theme in Merchants of Doubt.
Money in Politics and A Complicit Media:
The idea that Exxon has engaged in flawed logic that blames individuals for climate change to deflect from their own contribution and responsibility also features prominently in Michael Mann’s latest book The New Climate War: the fight to take back our planet. This technique has been remarkably successful, delaying movement for decades. Public pressure stood no chance against the well-funded, organised campaigns Exxon rolled out to initially undermine the science and then blame individuals.
Their propaganda is even more potent when coupled with the lobbying power behind these giant corporations and the money at hand to influence politics. A media environment, that has been so willing to enable “advertorials” and provide a platform for the experts-for-hire, has compounded this problem even more. Mann also explores this in his new book, highlighting the investments made by Saudi royals into Rupert Murdoch’s media conglomerate NewsCorp - a major climate denial machine backed by an extraordinarily wealthy oil nation. NewsCorp is one of the “big six” media companies that virtually controls the entire flow of information now thanks to decades of deregulation that favour monopolies and leave democracy to die on the vine.
An Exxon lobbyist recently admitted that the company does this to maintain its practices and that the notion of a carbon tax was a mere PR ploy to individualise the climate crisis. This is probably obvious to someone who follows climate change-related politics. Exxon has little wiggle room to deflect its own share of responsibility now that this admission is on record.
It is hard to imagine how much better the world would be today if corporations were less powerful regarding political influence. A head start of ~40 years to act meant we could have avoided so much damage to our environment. In 1980, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was ~340 ppm. Now that number has risen to 415 ppm as recorded by the Keeling Curve. Between 1990 and 2020, in just a 30-year period, more than half the total CO2 humans have emitted since 1751 got pumped into the atmosphere and oceans.
While it isn’t too late to mitigate the climate crisis, the actions of Exxon will make it far more challenging to combat climate change.
The impacts of climate change are already unfolding, indicated by the recent record-shattering extreme weather observed across the globe. These include increased biodiversity loss, extensive wildfires, and more intense (and frequent) natural disasters, plus many other problems that take hold due to climate change. It is deeply shameful that Exxon hasn’t been fined out of existence yet and is a testament to the amount of power money can have in politics. It is terrifying that they can get away with crimes that will affect so many people in a country where something as inoffensive as smoking cannabis can result in several years of imprisonment. Full Moving forward, Exxon and other companies that contributed to climate change should be retrospectively fined for their role and finally be held responsible for the damage they’ve caused. Unfortunately, I think they have too much power to ever be held accountable.
Further Reading:
Comments