Readers React:  Exxon is to Arctic climate change what big tobacco is to lung cancer

To the editor: My parents smoked for decades; one died of lung cancer and the other of emphysema. So it really hits home when companies like Exxon use tactics straight from the tobacco industry playbook to sow doubt about scientific realities with denials and misdirection. (“What Exxon knew about warming in the Arctic,” Oct. 11)

What did Exxon’s leaders know about global warming, and when did they know it? These are critical issues to pursue, and the perpetrators should pay.

But we should not lose sight of the vital task at hand. Let their actions be our inspiration to put a price on carbon emissions so we can transition to an economy built on renewable energy before it’s too late.

Dennis Arp, Brea

..

To the editor: Your recent article about Exxon Mobil notes our company has been “at the forefront of climate change research” for several decades. That’s something not a lot of people realize.

Exxon Mobil scientists have contributed climate research and related policy analysis to more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed publications. They’ve participated in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since its inception in 1988, and were involved in the National Academy of Sciences review of the third U.S. National Climate Assessment Report.

Moreover, we have partnered with leading universities such as Stanford and MIT on climate modeling and research into lower-carbon fuel sources.

We are committed to helping advance society’s understanding of the issues around climate change, just as we are committed to advocating for good public policy that is based on sound science.

Exxon Mobil is working to find practical, effective, and affordable solutions to meet the world’s growing energy needs while addressing the risks associated with climate change.

Ken Cohen, Dallas

The writer is vice president for public and government affairs for Exxon Mobil Corp.

..

To the editor: I am very grateful to The Times for this article that exposes Exxon’s efforts to conceal the effects of burning fossil fuels on the Earth’s climate. It seems that Exxon only looked at how a warming planet results in easier access to Arctic oil. Did it not consider the catastrophic effects it would have on everything south of its area of interest?

This should be required reading for members of Congress who have the power to legislate a revenue-neutral price on carbon, reducing the demand for fossil fuel and increasing the innovation in renewables.

Mary Clumeck, Santa Ana

..

To the editor: Your tenacious investigation revealing

Exxon’s coverup of its own studies and affirmations of climate change should put to rest once and for all the question of who is conspiring to confuse and distract the American public.

Now we can catch up to scientists and the rest of the world in moving on to adapting to the disruption we can no longer prevent and, hopefully, mitigating the worst-case scenarios.

The IMF opined recently that “the time is right” for “governments to introduce taxes on carbon emissions.”

Sharon Markenson, Woodland Hills

..

To the editor: Is this The Times or am I reading a Greenpeace or Sierra Club hit piece?

I am incensed by the front-page story about Exxon. I can’t see that the company did anything wrong (all companies should hedge their bets), and yet I doubt many people will read the article carefully.

All of us who drive gasoline-powered cars and live in this energy-driven economy should be thankful for companies like Exxon, or at the very least have a balanced portrait presented as to what such companies provide and do.

Deborah Castleman, Santa Monica

..

To the editor: This article is just more climate alarmist propaganda alleging that the Arctic is losing ice in some unexplained process governed by man-made actions, versus behaving normally, driven by natural climate variation.

Loudly proclaimed, climate-alarmist stories falsely projecting an ice-free summer Arctic sea by any of a number of recent years have proved to be worthless, as has the “science” behind these projections.

Larry Hamlin, Dana Point

..

To the editor: The bottom line for the sake of the world and its inhabitants is that clean energy has to be developed faster to make it no longer economical for companies like Exxon to drill in the Arctic.

Financial gain is clearly Exxon’s only priority — polar bears, human beings, biodiversity be damned — but if green energy’s competition can bring the price down in time, companies may decide that the instability of permafrost, flooding, early breakup of the Arctic ice pack and severe summer storms might make drilling in the region too costly.

Jean Christensen, Louisville, Ky.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook