By now you are probably aware of climate change the study Implemented internally by ExxonMobil dating back to the 1970s. It’s not new news per se.What is new and fascinating, however, is that the predictions made in the study Verified Quite accurate.Ah piece in the Harvard Gazette Summarized like this:
“… Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former fellow of the History of Science at Harvard University [said] “What we have discovered is that between 1977 and 2003, some of the brightest scientists at Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, stunning skill and accuracy. That’s it..”
Among other peer-reviewed conclusions chemistry analysis:
“… ExxonMobil scientists rightly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a ‘carbon dioxide-induced ‘supra-interglacial’. Human-induced global warming first detected. correctly predicted to be 2000 ± 5 years.2 It will lead to dangerous warming.”
I thought it would be interesting for Zach and I to offer different perspectives on the possible impact of this issue. chemistry inspection.
Point: Potential Practical Aspects
I admit that not everyone is open to the idea that there could be practical value from ExxonMobil’s precise pessimism. However, I think it’s worth considering.
For example, the company’s assumptions and forecasts, which are now independently verified, may provide insight into the opportunities and timing of transition economies and the future of many companies, not just fossil fuel companies.Climate change – maybe of – Contemporary macroeconomic issues. Countries, people, cultures and landscapes change and adapt. Opportunities exist across global supply chains to avoid, reduce and mitigate climate change. ExxonMobil’s predictions could be seen as the basis for a better understanding of what the future holds, revealing avenues for policy makers. Business leaders now have concrete information to better plan their transition to a low-carbon economy. Companies that don’t like to plan have a sense of when the end will come.
Businesses and consumers alike can take some comfort in knowing that human predictions about nature may be valid. I’m not saying that we should rejoice in forecasting climate change. But recognizing that scientists have the magical ability to make accurate predictions about changes in global weather patterns over decades is a powerful thing in my opinion, and one that will help nature, humans, and other impacts on the landscape can be estimated. The insurance industry may particularly benefit from this. Indeed, various models already exist and have been validated to some extent, but ExxonMobil’s data, predictions, and scientific confirmation must be a buried treasure for quants and actuaries.
Internal studies may also show how the Earth responds, adapts, and changes to emissions levels. If we can anticipate these changes, we can make plans to counteract or mitigate their impact. Perhaps not all measures are permanent. Some buy time so that a better/permanent solution can be found later. Prevention/preparation is better than nothing at all.
Zach’s Counterargument: Legal Liability
While I appreciate Lawrence’s optimism about the validity of ExxonMobil’s research, my mind quickly turns to potential legal liability arising from new findings. elements that require actual or a priori knowledge to prove This requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant “knew or should have known” that the defendant’s conduct was harmful. This research may provide plaintiffs with evidence that ExxonMobil had actual knowledge that their actions were responsible for global warming.
Lawsuits against ExxonMobil and its peers come from local governments, but there may be fertile ground here for a wave of class-action lawsuits. Those facing climate change-induced property damage or loss of life, allegedly caused by fossil fuel emissions, may now have an argument against the fossil fuel industry.
This situation History of big tobacco lawsuits, as noted by other legal observers. Lawsuits against tobacco companies date back to his 1950s, but with limited success. But a turning point came in the 1990s when internal documents leaked that tobacco companies knew about the addictive properties of their products. This culminated in 46 state attorneys general reaching settlements with the four largest tobacco companies of the time. The settlement included fines totaling $206 billion over 25 years. In addition to government action, consumers have started winning large prizes from tobacco companies. This included her $51.5 million payout to her one consumer with inoperable lung cancer in California.
I believe ExxonMobil is aware of similar emerging risks. ExxonMobil spokesperson Todd Spitler issued the following statement: insider (publishing an article on corporate climate change research) Via email:
“This issue has been raised several times in recent years, and in each case our answer is the same: The conclusions of those who claim that ‘Exxon knew’ are wrong…some people seeks to misrepresent facts about climate science and ExxonMobil’s position, and as a corporate disinformation campaign attempt to find effective policy solutions by deliberately recasting internal policy disputes. ExxonMobil’s research into climate science has produced nearly 150 papers, including more than 50 peer-reviewed publications that we have made available to the public.ExxonMobil’s understanding of climate science It has evolved with the understanding of the wider scientific community.”
This statement makes it clear that ExxonMobil continues to take the stance that it had no real or constructive knowledge of the hazards of its products, which is understandable. Admitting knowledge increases potential liability and makes it easier for plaintiffs to win lawsuits against the company. As the case against ExxonMobil unfolds, we’ll see how the judge and jury consider this new evidence.
Finally, the points mentioned here need not be mutually exclusive. What do you think? If you have comments or other perspectives you’d like to share, please email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
back to all blogs