[ad_1]
1977 and In 2014, 80% of ExxonMobil’s internal research was in favor of human activity contributing to climate change. But at the same time, 80 percent of the public statements of the oil and gas supplier expressed doubts as to whether climate change was man-made or even real.
To draw this conclusion, Harvard researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes used machine learning to study more than 200 internal documents, peer-reviewed studies, and Exxon Mobil’s public statements. Newly Released Paper, “ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communication Rhetoric and Framework Analysis” shows a model of public statements that sanitize the role the company plays in contributing to CO2 emissions.
Oreskes and Supran used automatic learning analysis to support both claims. First, ExxonMobil placed the talks on climate change in ways that could minimize its responsibility. Second, while the company questioned the immediate threat of climate change, it funded research that investigated whether climate change is a direct result of human activity, which it then ignored.
“It’s very important for us to understand the importance of misrepresentations and misleading claims and how they work,” Oreskes says. “At the time of writing this article it was very misleading to try to use the kind of language that ExxonMobil used to build the picture, even though they weren’t completely lying.”
Oreskes hopes the role will function as a “translator,” revealing the messages behind the rhetoric facing the public. He is also the author Doubtful traders, inspired the book 2014 documentary of the same name by examining the role that scientists themselves play in disseminating misinformation about climate change.
The company’s phrase “risk of climate change” is a misleading example of what the company is constantly using. According to the computational analysis, Exxon increasingly used phrases such as “long-term legal risk” or “potential long-term risks” in 2000 after merging with Mobile. Between 2000 and 2014, this emphasis on “risk” appears in almost all of ExxonMobil’s “advertisements,” including major publications such as paid publications. The New York Times.
“The use of the term‘ risk ’is very clear, on the one hand because it is known to be a problem, but also because it is driving it into the future,” explains lead researcher Oreskes. “That makes it speculative, to say that climate change is a real problem.”
ExxonMobil also often refers to “energy demand” or “energy use” to explain its ongoing reliance on fossil fuels. Oreskes calls this a “guilt-changing language” because he presents the company as a passive supplier simply to meet people’s needs, rather than an agent for producing oil and gas. This contrasts with the research reviewed at ExxonMobil, which begins entirely with the basic premise of human-induced climate change. While the company began to publicly acknowledge man-made climate change In the mid-2000s, Oreskes and Supran find that Exxon’s academic research cites “fossil fuel combustion” as a source of CO2 Since 1978.
Over the years, ExxonMobil’s public statements have said that natural gas can be made viable by “clean” or “clean burning”. This, in turn, has been acknowledged by peers who have contributed to the research reviewed technical difficulties in capturing carbon and biofuel, intriguing but not yet proven on the scale needed to interfere with climate change prevention. ExxonMobil knew there were no alternatives for the near future. (“If you ever see the word fossil fuel company used clean, you can replace it with dirty “, jokes Oresk.)
The researchers said the phrase was an example of clearing the green, overemphasizing the company’s role in exploring clean alternatives. “These companies have business models that are committed to using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and beyond,” Oreskes says.
[ad_2]
Source link
