Exxonmobile initially denied climate science showing fossil fuels caused greenhouse gas emissions that are responsible for a warming planet. But in recent years it has reversed its position and now spends millions on educating the general public about the issue.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The prompt presents a statement about ExxonMobil (note the misspelling in the prompt as Exxonmobile) and asks whether it is true or false. The statement has two parts: (1) that ExxonMobil initially denied climate science linking fossil fuels to greenhouse gas emissions and a warming planet, and (2) that in recent years it reversed its position and now spends millions educating the public about the issue.

Option 1: True. Why this might be considered incorrect: Some readers might accept that ExxonMobil historically downplayed or cast doubt on climate science, but labeling the entire history as a simple denial could be an oversimplification. Moreover, characterizing the later period as a straightforward “reversal” and portraying its spending as clearly aimed at public education can be contested. Companies often engage in public relations campaigns, lobbying, and messaging that are not purely educational in intent, and the nature of their communications can be more nuanced than a blanket reversal suggests. If a student reasoned that the statement is true by accepting a linear arc from denial to open education, they would be overlooking the complexity of corporate messaging, timing, and the actual content of the campaigns.

Option 2: False. Why this might be correct: The statement might be false because it implies a clean, two-step trajectory that may not reflect reality. ExxonMobil’s public stance on climate change has included ongoing debates about the science, policy positions, and significant lobbying efforts even after making some acknowledgments. Additionally, the claim that the company “spends millions on educating the general public about the issue” could be misleading if those funds are largely used for public relations, advertising, or campaigns that seek to influence opinion rather than purely educate, or if the scale and nature of such spending are not as clear-cut as suggested. This option prompts students to consider nuance in corporate communications, funding patterns, and how “education” is framed in public discourse.

Option 1 invites consideration of a simplified, chronological narrative, which can misrepresent the complexity of corporate messaging and policy engagement. Option 2 invites scrutiny of what counts as “education” versus persuasion, and whether the described reversal is complete or partial, and whether the funding attributed to education is accurately characterized.

In summary, both options require attention to nuance: the history of corporate messaging around climate change is intricate, and simple dichotomies (deny → educate) can misstate the reality of ongoing strategies, messaging, and funding. The evaluation hinges on interpreting the completeness and intent of the described reversal and the nature of the alleged “education” spending, not merely on a binary memory of events.

IS 17 Global Environme... Quiz 3 - Today's environmental politics

Exxonmobile initially denied climate science showing fossil fuels caused greenhouse gas emissions that are responsible for a warming planet. But in recent years it has reversed its position and now spends millions on educating the general public about the issue.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

According to the IPCC Working Group 3 report, the stated emissions reductions from signatory countries are not enough to limit warming to 1.5ºC.

According to the global greenhouse gas emission pathways shown, what is the expected temperature increase by 2100 if current policies are followed without additional action?

Do you believe individual actions can make a significant difference in combating climate change? (yes or no)

Which of the following statements about carbon dioxide is most accurate?

According to the article "Climate Scientists: ‘Net Zero’ is a dangerous trap," the threats of climate change are the direct result of there being too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Solutions that don't actually change the amount of carbon dioxide in the air are not real solutions.

Results of recent climate models suggest that projected greenhouse gas emission patterns may lead to a global warming of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius during _____.

The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) released by factories and automobiles has soared, while the quantity of plant life on Earth has diminished. The net result is a rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turn has led to __________.

Climate change mitigation to a level of 1.5 degrees Celsius can be achieved by radically cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

More Practical Tools for International Students

Homework AI Solver

Stylized Writing Assistant

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation Assistant

In-Class Translation Assistant

Class Notes Assistant

Quiz Search Assistant

Past Exam Questions by School

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler