## **Exxon, the Koch Brothers, and Early Knowledge of [[Climate Change]]** ### **Exxon’s Early Awareness** Internal research conducted by Exxon (later ExxonMobil) in the **late 1970s and early 1980s** demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the greenhouse effect and its likely consequences. Company scientists modelled rising atmospheric CO₂ with surprising accuracy, predicting levels of warming broadly consistent with the consensus reached decades later. These findings were circulated internally. By the **mid–1980s**, Exxon’s scientists were not only studying climate change but warning senior management that continued fossil-fuel combustion would produce “catastrophic” outcomes. Despite this, the company adopted—beginning in the late 1980s and intensifying in the 1990s—a public strategy that emphasised **uncertainty**, funding organisations and campaigns that questioned or minimised the scientific consensus. This shift was not a matter of lacking evidence but of choosing a communications approach that protected commercial interests. ### **The Koch Brothers and the Fossil-Fuel Network** The Koch brothers, Charles and David Koch, through Koch Industries and a sprawling constellation of philanthropic and political organisations, also had long-standing exposure to research on climate risks. The company’s operations, like those of other major fossil-fuel firms, relied on atmospheric and combustion science in which climate effects were already being discussed internally by the **1980s**. By the 1990s and 2000s, the Koch network and its funded think tanks—such as the Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity, and the Heartland Institute—became central actors in shaping a political landscape hostile to climate regulation. Their approach differed from Exxon’s more cautious corporate communications strategy: the Koch network pursued **ideological confrontation**, framing climate science as a threat to economic liberty and governmental overreach. The objective was not to dispute physics per se but to make **regulatory paralysis** the default political outcome. ### **Comparative Perspective** - **Exxon**: possessed strong internal research; gradually shifted to outward doubt-casting to maintain market position. - **Koch network**: amplified climate scepticism through political and ideological channels, constructing a policy environment resistant to emissions regulation. - **Common thread**: early and substantive awareness of the environmental risks; subsequent strategies designed less to correct public understanding than to **delay structural change**. ### **Overall Assessment** The historical record supports the view that both Exxon and the Koch network were aware—decades before public consensus—of the likely warming effects of fossil-fuel emissions. The difference lay in the scale and style of their responses. Exxon’s was primarily corporate and defensive; the Koch operation was ideological, expansive, and explicitly aimed at transforming the regulatory and political climate. Together, they contributed significantly to a prolonged period in which scientific understanding advanced while public policy remained stagnant. --- `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:`