ExxonMobil's Legal Obligation to Disclose Climate Change Awareness in the 1980s

Governments were first alerted to the scientific risks of climate change over 50 years ago. However, addressing such societal risks is primarily the responsibility of the government, not individual companies. This has significant implications for the legal landscape, particularly when examining ExxonMobil's actions in the 1980s. This article explores the legal obligations of ExxonMobil to disclose its awareness of the material significance of climate change research during this period.

Scientific Awareness and Government Inaction

The scientific community first warned the U.S. government about the risks of climate change as early as 1965. By the 1980s, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began releasing reports that underscored the urgency of climate change. However, these reports were largely ignored by governments around the world. The response to environmental issues like air pollution and ozone depletion has historically been more robust when federal or state regulations are in place. In the absence of such regulation, pursuing individual companies for damages caused by climate change actions can be extremely challenging.

Theoretical Debate and Practical Obstacles

From a technical legal standpoint, it is difficult to argue that ExxonMobil was required to disclose information about climate change in the 1980s because Exxon and Mobil only merged in 1999. Furthermore, there were already federal and state laws in place by 1977 against deceptive business practices and shareholder fraud. ExxonMobil may have known about significant harms without disclosing these risks to the public, but the practical challenges in proving such actions, especially regarding the causation of specific harms, make it hard to hold the company legally responsible.

Corporate Strategies and Investor Misleading Claims

ExxonMobil developed a public relations strategy to downplay the risks to which their own scientists had high confidence. This strategy was similar to the one used by the tobacco industry, which has been successfully sued for deceptive practices. While it is conceivable to argue that ExxonMobil misled investors and omitted significant risks, it is extremely difficult to prove that their actions led to material harm. Any initiative to hold ExxonMobil accountable would require strong evidence and a legal framework that does not currently exist.

Regulatory Actions and Future Investigations

The criminal justice system plays a crucial role in determining the liabilities of companies like ExxonMobil. Sharon Eubanks, a federal prosecutor who successfully prosecuted cases against the tobacco industry, believes that a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) action is plausible and should be considered. RICO actions are designed to tackle organized crime, but they can also be used to pursue companies that engage in widespread illegal activities.

Despite the significant legal and practical challenges, the ongoing legal and regulatory battles against ExxonMobil reflect a broader societal interest in ensuring that companies take responsibility for their actions. The future of these investigations may pave the way for new standards and regulations regarding corporate responsibility and environmental disclosure.