C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L L AW © MaxxGirr/Pixabay 18 community over a 2003 paper published by Soon in Climate Research even resulted in the resignation of several of the journal editors and an admission by the journal’s publisher that the paper should not have been accepted.”147 Leaked slides from a 2014 presentation from the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the successor to the Western Oil and Gas Association, outline the strategy the industry used to oppose climate change reduction efforts in the state of California, which has the second highest greenhouse emissions of any US state.148 WSPA members include BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Occidental Petroleum. The slides reveal that WSPA organized 16 “AstroTurf ” organizations—organizations with innocuous and grassroots-sounding names—to deploy industry messaging against proposed regulation under the guise of grassroots support.149 More recently, as the reality of climate change has become all but impossible to deny, the largest companies have adjusted their strategies from outright denial to questioning the human contribution to climate change, the timing and severity of impacts, and the economic feasibility of reducing emissions. In 2014, for example, ExxonMobil released a report entitled “Energy and Climate” which “provide[s] comments on the topics of global energy and climate change.”156 In its discussion, ExxonMobil describes itself as believing “that changes to the earth’s climate, including those that may result from anthropogenic causes, pose a risk.”157 Shell, in 2016, referred to fracking as a “future opportunity,” despite internal data from 1998 indicating that exploiting such reserves would be incompatible with climate goals.158 Finally, as recently as January 2017, Rex Tillerson, who served as CEO of ExxonMobil until being nominated as US Secretary of State by Donald Trump, downplayed the risks of climate change during his confirmation hearing. “The increase in the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are having an effect, our ability to predict that effect is very limited.”159 In August 2017, Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes completed an analysis of 187 “climate change communications” produced by ExxonMobil between 1977 and 2014.160 The team analyzed “peerreviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications, internal company documents, and paid, editorial-style advertisements (‘advertorials’) in The New York Times.”161 Their findings were clear: ExxonMobil misled the public, with a dramatic discrepancy between the certainties expressed in private and academic documents versus those shared with investors, consumers, and the general public.162 According to Supran and Oreskes, over 80% of internal and peer-reviewed documents acknowledge climate change as real and caused by humans, whereas only 12% of advertorials do—and over 80% express doubt.163 A Systemic Problem It’s critical to understand that the series of events presented above are not isolated incidents, but rather demonstrate a systemic, decades-long pattern of climate understanding, denial, and obstruction. Two recent developments in the understanding of Exxon’s behavior shed light on what we know, and how much more there is to discover. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is currently investigating ExxonMobil to determine whether the company misled investors about the reality of climate change and its effects on