Oil and gas CEOs were too cowardly to show up at a recent congressional hearing, perhaps fearing their climate pledges would be exposed as nothing more than shrewd public relations.
By Sonali Kolhatkar
All around us there is evidence of climate change, from the increase in winter storms such as the late January blizzard in New England, to the recent record-breaking winter heat wave in California. Meanwhile, the world’s largest oil and gas companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and BP, whose products directly fuel global warming, have done little to counter this disastrous trend. Although they made promises that seem constructive on the surface, a cursory examination reveals that they are hollow. Perhaps worried that their deception would be exposed, the executives and board members of these fossil fuel companies snubbed members of Congress during a hearing of the House Oversight and Reform Committee on February 8. 2022.
The hearing was titled “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Examining Big Oil’s Climate Pledges”. The lawmakers wanted to know whether the companies were actually implementing their much-vaunted climate actions and were following up on a hearing last fall organized by the same committee that focused on the companies’ cover-up of the climate crisis. Senior oil executives introduced themselves this hearing in what was considered a historic apparition, and were subjected to a rare level of questioning during which they generally refused to take responsibility for their actions.
We can only assume they didn’t want a repeat of such rigorous scrutiny at the February hearing. Committee chair Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) explained in her opening statement that these companies “have spent millions advertising these plans. [to combat climate change] and green their images. Surely they would want to publicize the work they were supposed to do to alleviate the climate crisis. But, according to Maloney, “when the committee invited the board members of these companies to come today and explain their promises, they refused to appear on the date we had requested.” She added, “[n]one of them showed up today. Not one.
For decades, oil and gas companies have engaged in outright denial, claiming that global warming doesn’t exist. ExxonMobil in particular was caught burying its own internal research. Now that the game is over, the company has redefined itself as a climate leader by claiming to support the Paris Agreement and embracing the idea of ”net zero emissions”.
To promote the fantasy of how it will curb climate change, ExxonMobil has launched a slick website with a quote from CEO Darren Woods, saying, “We respect and support the company’s ambition to achieve net zero emissions. 2050, and continue to advocate for policies that promote cost-effective, market-based solutions to address the risks of climate change. This sentence could only have been written by a committee of lawyers and public relations experts.
First, in Woods’ worldview, company aims to reduce emissions, not his company, which apparently considers itself above society.
Second, “net zero emissions” is a godly goal that sounds really good on paper, until it becomes apparent that it’s based on emerging technologies that are entirely unproven, untested and may or may not work. The idea is to say that it is okay to litter all over your neighborhood if you also pick up litter elsewhere in the future, because the net amount of litter you will have thrown out on the street one day will be zero. Oh, and the technology for picking up litter has only just been invented, so we have to wait and see if it works.
Third, Woods says ExxonMobil wants “cost-effective, market-based solutions” – this despite the fact that the predictable outcome of a cost-effective, market-based solution to meet energy demands was climate change. Why would a market-based solution give us anything different this time around?
Fourth, the CEO says he is interested in “solutions to meet the risks climate change”, not to ensure that the climate does not change. Nor does it specify who is at risk (ours) and who risks our well-being (ExxonMobil).
Woods’ entire statement can be boiled down to “net zero” logic, spewing enough heartfelt falsehoods about solving climate change while balancing them with just enough vagueness to provide legal cover for doing nothing.
It is this kind of trickery that the recent congressional hearing aimed to expose. Since oil and gas executives were too chicken to show up and face the music, the committee instead invited climate experts such as Dr. Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric sciences at State University of Pennsylvania, and Tracey Lewis, Climate and Energy Policy Advisor with Public Citizen, to answer questions about climate commitments. For three hours, lawmakers including Ro Khanna of California and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan delved into the various euphemisms companies like ExxonMobil use to cover up their inaction.
The most egregious example turned out to be ExxonMobil’s accounting trick to hide its carbon footprint. Not only is the idea of net-zero emissions an unrealistic diversion, but the company also wants to apply it only to the production side of its operations, not the oil and gas it sells. Representative Khanna said it was “like a car manufacturer pledging to eliminate emissions from its manufacturing but doing nothing to improve the fuel efficiency of its cars”.
The Conservatives have come to the defense of fossil fuel companies. Although oil and gas company executives were absent (of their own choosing), Republican lawmakers such as Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and a witness named Katie Tubb of the Heritage Foundation were enthusiastic spokespersons for the industry. . The only defenses left in the face of some climate catastrophe are framed in imperialist thinking – such that “the health of industry is a measure of American prestige, and curbing it will harm the world position of the United States” – and false equivalences, such as “given all the beneficial results of oil and gas products, limiting fossil fuels will destroy civilization. Congressman Foxx and Mrs. Tubb employed both.
Foxx raised America’s favorite Republican idea of achieving “energy independence” or “energy freedom,” which is code for gobbling up fossil fuel resources faster and more cheaply than competing nations, whatever the consequences.
And Tubb oddly quoted how his contact lenses made from fossil fuel products are a giveaway. She said, “I’m very grateful for that; it has improved the well-being and productivity of my life,” as if to say that if we want the convenience of contact lenses, we must embrace ExxonMobil’s lucrative desire to destroy our planet. According to Tubb, if it’s her lentils or life on earth, she chooses lentils.
This is exactly the logic employed by former President Donald Trump, who deftly relied on his supporters’ ignorance of how wind power works when he claimed that television would not work as soon as the wind would have calmed down.
There was a time when the likes of Trump, Foxx and Tubb simply questioned the science of climate change. Now that doesn’t work, given how obvious the change is to most of us, the answer has turned into some version of “So what?” Should we live like barbarians?
The pro-fossil energy view is that if we are to adopt Western living standards, climate catastrophe is the price we must pay. Otherwise, we relegate ourselves to living like those unfortunate inhabitants of third world countries who regularly live without electricity or contact lenses.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
Sonali Kolhatkar is the founder, host and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali”, a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. She is a contributing editor for the Independent Media Institute’s Economy for All project.
