Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing issues faced by humanity today. It shapes policy discussions, public rhetoric, and even our daily choices. But what if the very narrative surrounding this global dilemma was being manipulated? This is precisely what Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes delve into in their meticulously researched study, "Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil's climate change communications." Their work uncovers how ExxonMobil's public messaging mimics techniques used by the tobacco industry, effectively downplaying the reality and urgency of climate change.
In a world where the power of narrative can influence behaviors and policies, understanding the messaging strategies employed by major fossil fuel companies is crucial. This study provides an eye-opening look at how ExxonMobil has historically shaped public perception about climate change, steering the blame away from their operations and onto consumers. Through an in-depth analysis of 180 ExxonMobil documents—including peer-reviewed publications, internal records, and paid advertisements—the researchers reveal a calculated use of rhetorical strategies aimed at minimizing the perceived risks of climate change and shifting responsibility to individuals.
Historically, industries facing public scrutiny have sought to deflect blame. The tobacco industry, for example, notoriously downplayed the health risks of smoking by framing the debate around individual choice and consumer freedom. Similarly, ExxonMobil employs a rhetoric of climate "risk" instead of reality, suggesting that climate change may or may not happen, thereby fostering doubt and delaying action. This parallel is more than coincidental, as it suggests a systematic approach to maintaining business interests by influencing public discourse and policy.
To uncover these tactics, Supran and Oreskes performed an algorithmic corpus comparison and employed machine-learning topic models on the selected documents. This approach allowed them to identify recurring themes and language patterns that might not be immediately obvious. They noticed that ExxonMobil's communications frequently mention climate "risk" and emphasize consumer "demand," subtly suggesting that the continued reliance on fossil fuels is a consumer-driven inevitability.
This framing creates a 'Fossil Fuel Savior' narrative where ExxonMobil positions itself as a leader in addressing climate change, while simultaneously justifying the necessity of fossil fuels and shifting the burden of responsibility onto individuals. They argue that ExxonMobil’s rhetoric normalizes the continued use of fossil fuels by framing it as a response to consumer demand. This tactic not only obscures the company’s role in the climate crisis but also undermines regulatory and activist efforts by portraying any reduction in fossil fuel use as economically unviable or socially undesirable.
The study indicates that ExxonMobil’s language has evolved over time but consistently follows a pattern designed to protect its interests. By contrasting internal acknowledgments of climate science with public messages that emphasize uncertainty and consumer responsibility, the study offers a stark look at how corporate interests can shape public understanding and policy.
One of the more revealing techniques uncovered in the study is the use of advertorials—paid advertisements designed to look like editorial content. These advertorials in The New York Times and other publications serve to subtly influence readers by embedding ExxonMobil’s messages within seemingly neutral or journalistic content. This technique ensures that the company’s perspective on climate change reaches a broad audience, further muddying the waters of public discourse.
The implications of these findings are vast. For policymakers, understanding these rhetorical strategies is essential for crafting effective climate policies that address the root causes of climate change rather than its symptoms. For consumers, it underscores the importance of media literacy and critical thinking when encountering corporate messaging. The study also calls for increased scrutiny of how industries communicate about issues of public concern and suggests that more oversight and regulation may be necessary to ensure that public discourse is not unduly influenced by corporate interests.
Supran and Oreskes highlight that the framing of climate change as a matter of consumer choice distracts from the larger systemic issues that need addressing. The 'Fossil Fuel Savior' frame serves to justify the continued extraction and use of fossil fuels by suggesting that it is the public's demand that drives these practices, not the industry's choice to supply. This narrative can have significant implications for climate litigation, potentially making it harder to hold companies accountable for their role in driving climate change.
Moving forward, the researchers call for greater public awareness and education about these rhetorical strategies. By understanding how public narratives are shaped, individuals and policymakers can better navigate the complex landscape of climate communication. The study emphasizes the need for more transparent and honest discourse about climate change, one that acknowledges the scientific realities and the responsibilities of all stakeholders.
The parallels drawn between the tobacco industry and ExxonMobil are particularly striking. Just as the tobacco industry shifted the focus from corporate responsibility to individual choice, ExxonMobil's rhetoric seeks to individualize the climate crisis. This shift in responsibility is not merely a matter of semantics but has real-world implications for policy and action. It underscores the need for regulatory frameworks that hold corporations accountable and encourage more sustainable practices.
In conclusion, Supran and Oreskes's work sheds light on the powerful role of language in shaping public perception and policy. By critically analyzing the rhetoric used by ExxonMobil, they provide valuable insights into how corporate messaging can influence the climate discourse. This study serves as a call to action for greater vigilance and critical engagement with the narratives that shape our understanding of climate change and our responses to it.
