In the 1990s, the tobacco industry faced prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) when it covered up evidence showing cigarettes to be addictive and carcinogenic. The RICO Act focuses predominately on racketeering, allowing leaders of organization to be tried for the crimes they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing. This had previously been a loophole in the justice system, where only those responsible for the crime could be tried. The Department of Justice sued tobacco companies on the grounds that they had engaged in a longstanding conspiracy to mislead the public about the risks involved with smoking; mislead the public about the dangers of secondhand smoke; misrepresent the addictiveness of nicotine; manipulate the nicotine delivery of cigarettes; deceptively market cigarettes by characterizing them as “light” or “low tar,” even though those cigarettes were at least as hazardous as full flavored cigarettes; explicitly target young people; and neglect to produce safer cigarettes. They were eventually charged for targeting children in their marketing efforts and covering up the health-risks associated with smoking cigarettes.
California Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier are now seeking to use the judicial underpinnings of the case against Big Tobacco to investigate Exxon for a potential lawsuit. Lieu and DeSaulnier wrote a letter Wednesday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, asking the Department of Justice to ascertain whether Exxon/Exxon Mobil violated the law by intentionally hiding evidence about the role of fossil fuels in climate change. This in itself violates RICO in the same way that the tobacco companies did. Beyond RICO, however, the Congressmen are also asking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to consider consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, and shareholder protection laws to create a case against Exxon — issues that were core to the Big Tobacco case. Former Department of Justice Attorney, Sharon Eubaks — who won the historic case against Philip Morris and the tobacco industry back in the 90s — supports the two representatives’ ambitious endeavor, suggesting that RICO action “is plausible and should be considered” because she sees “a concerted effort by Exxon and others to confuse the public on climate change.” The letter to the DOJ cites the recent Pulitzer Prize-winning exposé by the Los Angeles Times, What Exxon knew about the Earth’s melting Arctic, which revealed that Exxon has studied climate change since the 1970s and knew the correlation between burning fossil fuels and global warming. Yet, Exxon repeatedly denied it in public, often going as far as initiating PR campaigns to spread false information about these issues. It also references several articles by Inside Climate News, which amassed a myriad of evidence that suggests Exxon intentionally covered up its scientific findings in order to preserve its bottom line and buttress the claims of politicians who stalled climate change legislation in Congress.
Surprisingly, Exxon has been trailblazing climate change research since the late 1970s. Though its own team of researchers found conclusive evidence of rising sea levels, higher global temperatures, and an increase in CO2 levels, Exxon publically repudiated the evidence that the scientific community presented to substantiate these very claims. Ken Croasedale, Senior Ice Researcher for Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary led a research team to evaluate the impact of climate change would have on the company’s profits. According to the LA Times article, the very models he and his team used in order to conduct their research were refuted by Exxon’s CEO Lee Raymond. Raymond asserted that future climate projections were “based on completely unproven climate models, or, more often, on sheer speculation.” This came after his senior ice researcher said that greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels” and that “nobody disputes this fact” to a large conference of engineers.
In addition to ignoring years of research into the impact of fossil fuels on climate change, Exxon also propagated messages that undermined efforts to corroborate the very real correlation between the two. In 2007, ExxonMobil began to weigh the implications of the US instituting a carbon tax. From then until 2014, the company spent over $10 million on organizations that deny climate change, disseminate misinformation, and undermine efforts to address climate change. This includes but is not limited to organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, the American Council for Capital Formation, the Center for Policy Research, and the American Legislative Exchange Council. This is only a portion of the $30 million ExxonMobil spent funding lobbyist groups, politicians, and think tanks since the 1970s. When asked about these questionable investments, Exxon spokesman Richard Keil said, “We have been factoring the likelihood of some kind of carbon tax into our business planning since 2007. We do not fund or support those who deny the reality of climate change.” However, Exxon funded Willie Soon, a leading academic and researcher in the realm of refuting climate change, to the tune of $335,000 until 2010.
Greenpeace, the prominent environmental advocacy group, was at the forefront of fighting Exxon’s tactics, calling on the company to end its campaign of agnotology. They rallied enough public support through condemnatory articles and grassroots efforts to elicit a pledge from Exxon, who announced that it would “discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”
Yet, Exxon still continued to funnel millions into the same lobbyist, foundations, think tanks, and politicians that publicly denied climate change — the most comical of which extend to the scope of Senator James Inhofe, the man who sought to disprove the climate change phenomenon by whipping out a snow ball on the Senate floor. Even the New York Times has publically asked Exxon to explain its funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization known for its opposition to climate change legislation. It models pieces of legislation for lawmakers, playing a major role in preventing governments from passing carbon emissions laws or measures to curtail pollution.
This form of corruption alludes to a much more expansive issue: corporate-funded research that gets evaluated in consideration of new legislation. To what extent, if any, can we limit the amount of biased scientific research that gets to influence the success of Congressional bills? There’s likely not anything to be done about corporations “exercising their free speech” by supporting candidates who flout fallacies. However, there must be some way to regulate the research for legislation. Disseminating misleading information in other domains is illegal — and yet, in the information that shapes the very laws of the land, it doesn’t seem to have any limitations.
Researchers like Willie Soon, who has accepted $1.2 million in money from the energy industry, make this initiative more challenging. And yet, he hasn’t disclosed this conflict of interest in most of his papers, which in some cases has even violated the ethical guidelines of the journals that published his pieces. It can be left up to organizations like Greenpeace to uncover his allegiances, but this might entail a substantial cost. This same phenomenon poses issues for other legislative issues, like GMO crops and pharmaceuticals, which often face similar struggles about research ethics.
Some organizations are even getting ahead of the curve when it comes to promoting their interests. They not only fund oppositional research but also prevent funding to independent researchers. For example, the National Rifle Association lobbied for an amendment that would take away funds for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s research on gun-violence. Now legislators don’t even have the adequate research at their disposal to ascertain the very best policies to prevent firearms deaths for when they draft bills for gun control.
Companies are crafty, and the government needs to be even craftier. Perhaps this DOJ investigation into Exxon can set a precedent or mark a starting point, but the current realities of scientific research need real reform. Science sits on an intellectual pedestal—and for good reason: it’s grounded in facts. When that’s no longer the case, it cannot and should not be part of the conversation in constructing our most critical pieces of legislation.
Photo: Mike Mozart