Lee Raymond

Lee R. Raymond

Credentials

Background

Lee R. Raymond was the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of ExxonMobil from 1999 until he retired in 2005 with a nearly $400 million severance package, one of the most generous in history. Raymond worked at Exxon and affiliates for his entire career. He served as director of Exxon and Exxon Mobil Corporation from 1984 to 2005. He was Chairman and CEO of Exxon in 1993, and continued to work with the group after it merged with Mobil Oil Corporation in 1999.⁵ ⁶

Raymond was elected chairman of the American Petroleum Institute (API) from 1996 to 1997 and again in 2001. A 1998 Communications Plan suggested API was working with several groups to promote “uncertainty” about climate change science and links to fossil fuels around this time. According to the document, “victory will be achieved when […] Average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’. ” While Raymond’s name doesn’t appear directly in the documents, representatives from both API and Exxon Corp were listed as “GCSCT [Global Climate Science Team] members who contributed to the development of the plan.”⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ¹⁰

Raymond has also been a trustee of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a fossil-fuel-funded think tank whose members have consistently questioned established science around human-caused climate change. In his 2012 book, Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power, journalist Steve Coll noted that Raymond knew Vice President Dick Cheney “very well.” In the 1990s, while Cheney served as chief executive at Halliburton, his company regularly provided services to Exxon. Both Raymond’s wife, Charlene, and Cheney’s wife, Lynne, regularly met at retreats and meetings hosted by AEI.¹¹ ¹²

Raymond has maintained various other corporate connections and board seats. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, an emeritus Trustee of the Mayo Clinic, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a member and past Chairman of the National Petroleum Council, and is Lead Independent Director at JP Morgan Chase & Co.¹³

Exxon & Climate Change Denial

ExxonMobil has spent tens of millions of dollars funding organizations questioning the existence of man-made climate change. From 1997 to 2005, Exxon gave at least $19.5 million in grants to climate change denial organizations. A total of at least $35 million in grants went to climate change denial groups between 1997 and 2016 with over $5 million of those donations earmarked for climate change. Many grant recipients were members of the Cooler Heads Coalition.

Climate Investigations Center noted that Lee Raymond was responsible for promoting Ken Cohen, formerly Legal Counsel for Exxon, to the position of Vice President for Public and Government Affairs. Steve Coll wrote in Private Empire:¹⁴

“Ken Cohen and his public affairs shop, in tandem with the K Street office in Washington, oversaw contributions to free-market advocates who published, spoke out, and file lawsuits to challenge policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or assess the long-term impact of global warming.”

Stance on Climate Change

In Private Empire, Coll described Lee Raymond, as “notoriously skeptical about climate change and disliked government interference at any level.” While leading ExxonMobil, Raymond was one of the few CEOs of Fortune 500 companies to openly oppose the Kyoto Protocol.¹⁵

Archived documents suggest Raymond was briefed on climate change issues as early as 1985, although he continued to be skeptical for many years after. For example, in a 1997 speech before the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing, China, Raymond outlined his views on climate change:

“First, the world isn’t warming. Second, even if it were, oil and gas wouldn’t be the cause. Third, no one can predict the likely future temperature rise,” Raymond said.

View the full text of his speech as well as a summary of Raymond’s other speeches and additional relevant documents at Climate Files.¹⁶ ¹⁷

November 8, 2005

Raymond discussed his climate change views with Charlie Rose:¹⁸

Lee Raymond: “The climate – the climate has changed every year for millions of years. If we weren’t here, the climate would change. It has to do with sun spots, it has to do with the wobble of the Earth, and it has – there are all kinds of things that come and go. If you talk to a geologist, he will tell you the Earth, over its history, has been much warmer than it is now and much colder. There have been times in the Earth’s history where there has been no ice on the Earth. No ice on the Earth. Man didn’t have anything to do with it. So now, the question is, given that there is natural variability – that we know. That’s not an unknown. We don’t know what it is, but we know that it’s changing all the time. Now, the question is, is part of what’s happening related to something other than natural variability? And if so, how do you determine what that is? And the reality is, the science isn’t there to make that determination.”

Charle Rose: “But why do a bunch of scientists from the National Academy and some scientists from the United Nations even say, well, we think it is?”

Raymond: “Well, there are a lot of other scientists that don’t agree with them.”

Rose: “You think it’s 50/50? I mean, I don’t know, I’m asking this out of – I mean, is there an even split or is it 90/10?”

Raymond: “Wait a minute, Charlie. Science isn’t – science is not a democratic process, where everybody gets together and votes.”

Rose: “I know that.But I’m asking, is it – it’s also, there is this reality. Ninety percent of the people can say, we believe, we believe that humans contribute to the emissions in the air in a significant way that causes global warming. Ten percent can say, we see no evidence of that, we think it’s a natural variance, and climate is a natural change. That’s you know, you choose to believe the 90 percent or you choose to believe the 10 percent or –”

Raymond: “I don’t know. Ninety percent of the people thought the world was flat. No? Right?”

1998

Lee Raymond provided a statement in a 1998 ExxonMobil Pamphlet titled “Global Climate change: everyone’s debate”:¹⁹

“Our analysis indicates that the current state of climate science is too uncertain to provide clear answers to many key questions about climate change. Even if global warming were a proven threat — which it is not — targets agreed on in Kyoto, Japan, fail to provide a fair, practical or cost-effective solutions,” Raymond wrote.

October 13, 1997

In a speech at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing, China, Raymond presented three questions: “Is the Earth really warming? Does burning fossil fuels cause global warming? And do we now have a reasonable scientific basis for predicting future temperature?” In his response, he cited a range of common myths regarding climate change:²⁰

“In answer to the first question, we know that natural fluctuations in the Earth’s temperature have occurred throughout history – with wide temperature swings. The ice ages are a good example,” Raymond claimed, revealing his belief in a common climate change myth.

“In fact, one period of cooling occurred from 1940 to 1975. in the 197Os, some of today’s prophets of doom from global warming were predicting the coming of a new ice age. — Myth #2

“Some measurements suggest that the Earth’s average temperature has risen about half a degree centigrade since the late 19th century. Yet sensitive satellite measurements have shown no warming trend since the late 1970s. In fact, the earth is cooler today than it was 20 years ago.” — Myth #3

“We also have to keep in mind that most of the greenhouse effect comes from natural sources, especially water vapor. Less than a quarter is from carbon dioxide, and, of this, only four percent of the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere is due to human activities – 96 percent comes from nature.” Myth #4

[…]

“Forecasts of future warming come from computer models that try to replicate Earth’s past climate and predict the future. They are notoriously inaccurate. None can do it without significant overriding adjustments.” Myth #5

[…]

“[T]he case for so called global warming is far from air right. You would think that all the uncertainty would give political leaders pause. Unfortunately, it hasn’t, and officials continue to insist that agreement is needed in Kyoto.”

November 14, 1996

Lee Raymond spoke at an American Petroleum Institute event while he served as API’s chairman of the board. During his talk, text of which is republished and annotated at Climate Files, Raymond described “so-called global climate change” as “the issue that perhaps poses the greatest long-term threat to our industry.” Raymond also questioned the science and described global warming as a “theory”:²¹ ²²

“Proponents of the global warming theory say that higher levels of greenhouse gases — especially carbon dioxide — are causing world temperatures to rise and that burning fossil fuels is the reason. But scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect global climate,” Raymond said.

On Gay Rights

Lee Raymond found himself in conflict with gay rights organizations after he denied corporate benefits to same-sex partners of his employees, Steve Coll noted in his 2012 book Private Empire. The following interchange was quoted in the book, according to an interview with an executive who served as a director of the Exxon corporation during the Lee Raymond era and recalled the interchange:²³

“Do you discriminate against people based on sexual preference?” the director asked.

“Of course not,” Raymond answered.

“Then why don’t you say it?”

“Well, it’s not required by law.”

ExxonMobil Climate Ads

Greenpeace’s Polluterwatch project compiled ExxonMobil and Mobil ads from 1972 to 2004. As Polluterwatch reported, the ad series fully contradicted the findings of their own scientists regarding climate change.²⁴

Below are those released since Lee Raymond became a director in 1984:

Key Quotes

June 7, 2004

In a board and council meeting on global energy issues at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Raymond declared:²⁵

“While there can be little doubt that wind and solar will grow rapidly, these start from a very small base, and even with extremely rapid growth, will only supply about one-half of one percent of the world’s energy in 2020. The predominate energy sources will remain oil and gas.” [14:00]

“In the decades ahead, carbon dioxide emissions from greater fossil fuel use will climb. We simply do not yet have the economical solutions or technologies that would permit us to meet future energy demands without carbon emissions growth, and as important, we do not know how to increase economic growth without increasing energy use.” [27:50]

“The danger exists that economic activity will be compromised due to the efforts to meet the commitments that have been made. This is the fundamental reason that the developing world has been very cool to Kyoto.” [29:13]

“In my view, the most sensible and fundamental avenue to meet rising energy needs throughout the world, as well as to address greenhouse gas emissions concerns is through a long-term effort in energy research and development. Much, if not most of this will be privately sponsored research.” [29:40]

1998

“We don’t run this company on emotions. We run it on science and principles.”²⁶

October 13, 1997

“Let’s agree there’s a lot we really don’t know about how climate will change in the 21st century and beyond,” Raymond said in his speech before the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing.²⁷

“We need to understand the issue better, and fortunately, we have time,” he said. “It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are enacted now or 20 years from now.”

May 9, 1982

“We see governments come and go,” Lee Raymond once remarked according to The New York Times.²⁸

Undated

Raymond has noted that ExxonMobil’s interests were global rather than focused on the United States. At an industry meeting in Washington, Raymond was asked whether Exxon planned to build more refineries the US.²⁹

“Why would I want to do that?” Raymond asked, as an executive recalled it to Steve Coll.

“Because the United States needs it … for security,” the executive replied.

“I’m not a U.S. company and I don’t make decisions based on what’s good for the U.S.,” Raymond said.

Key Deeds

2013

Lee Raymond teamed up with former Chesapeake Energy CEO and Founder Aubrey McClendon to frack wells in Ohio. At the time, McClendon was under investigation by the SEC for his previous financial dealings while he was at Chesapeake. DeSmog reported McClendon received a permit permit to frack five wells from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources on November 26.³⁰

“The Ohio Department of Natural Resources awarded McClendon’s new company, American Energy Utica LLC, five horizontal well permits Nov. 26 that allows oil and gas exploration on the Jones property in Nottingham Township, Harrison County,” an article in The Business Journal explained. “In October, American Energy Utica announced it has raised $1.7 billion in capital to secure new leases in the Utica shale play.”³¹

Raymond was listed as s a director of of American Energy Ohio Holdings LLC, according to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. The Wall Street Journal reported the company raised $1.35 billion for Mr. McClendon’s new firm, American Energy Partners LP, however “The extent of Mr. Raymond’s participation isn’t clear; he declined to comment, as did American Energy.” Raymond’s son, John Raymond, served as Managing Partner, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Executive Officer of Minerals & Energy Group, initially the largest capital investor in the venture. John Raymond also served as a partner.³² ³³ ³⁴

October 2006

News that Lee Raymond would be tapped to lead a panel on America’s energy future was met with criticism from environmental groups. Over 60,000 letters were sent to the Energy Department to protest Raymond’s appointment.³⁵

“ExxonMobil is currently the worst of the oil giants fueling America’s oil addiction,” said Shawnee Hoover, campaign director of Exxpose Exxon. “Putting Exxon’s Lee Raymond in charge of solving America’s energy crisis is like putting Jack Abramoff in charge of solving political corruption.”

December 12, 2000

Religious shareholders in ExxonMobil filed a resolution charging Lee Raymond with misleading investors at the company’s annual meeting. The resolution filed by Patricia Daly of the Dominican Sisters of Caldwell, New Jersey said:³⁶

“We believe that ExxonMobil has misinformed shareholders about global warming with inaccurate statements and unreliable information. In addition we believe CEO Lee Raymond made inaccurate statements and used unreliable information when discussing global warming at the May 2000 Annual Meeting.”

“Shareholders are potentially vulnerable to the financial costs of global warming and have the right to a full and accurate assessment about it, not the half-truths and half-science that ExxonMobil offered them last year,” said Daly. “We are very concerned that management has so little regard for investors that they are willing to make misleading and disingenuous statements in a shareholder meeting. This is simply a terrible abuse of the truth by ExxonMobil.”

Scientist Lloyd Keigwin, whose work was repeatedly used by ExxonMobil to make the case there is uncertainty about climate change, supported Caldwell’s argument. Raymond had cited Keigwin’s temperature data from the Sargasso Sea during the May 2000 meeting. “So the issue isn’t only: is the earth warming but why is it warming,” Raymond had concluded.³⁷

Keigwin responded in a December 11, 2000 letter: “I believe ExxonMobil has been misleading in its use of the Sargasso Sea data. There’s really no way these results bear on the question of human induced climate warming. I think the sad thing is the a company with the resources of ExxonMobil is exploiting the data for political purposes,” he said.³⁸

August 10, 2000

ExxonMobil ran an ad in the Washington Post titled “Political cart before the scientific horse” that was severely critical of the draft synthesis report of the US National Assessment on climate change. On September 26, 2002, Michael MacCracken, a retiring senior scientist for the Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program, wrote a letter to Lee Raymond wherein he responded to ExxonMobil’s critical comments on the draft of the report.³⁹

MacCracken noted:

“Without having participated in the Federal Register review process that had led up to the draft report being made available for public comment (after two rounds of technical review), nor having participated in the public meetings discussing the draft report and its contents until the very end, the ExxonMobil proceeded to make a number of charges in the advertisement, generally based on rather poor understanding of what was being done and why the National Assessment was being undertaken.”⁴⁰

He proceeded to address each of ExxonMobil’s charges with a detailed response, including the claim that climate models “are not yet capable of predicting Earth’s global
climate,” that “global models simply don’t work on a regional level,” and other charges.⁴¹

“More thorough consideration and investigation should have been given by ExxonMobil to the content and process of the National Assessment,” MacCracken concluded.⁴²

April 2000

Under Raymond’s leadership, ExxonMobil released a four-part series of Op-Eds on climate change that appeared in a number of newspapers. The articles were titled Do No Harm, Unsettled Science, The Promise of Technology, and The Path Forward on Climate Change. Raymond wrote the ads “summarize our views on this important issue.” Exxon’s publications promoted supposed uncertainties regarding climate change science and opposed actions like the Kyoto Protocol.⁴³

May 2000

A group of environmentalists, having bought shares in ExxonMobil, attended the corporation’s annual meeting in Dallas where they criticized the corporation’s policies. One activist shouted for a “long-term solution to global warming.” Lee Raymond responded by quoting from the debunked Oregon Petition:⁴⁴

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that any release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate,” Raymond began. He continued in his own words: “I’m not saying you’re wrong. What I am saying is there is a substantial difference of view in the scientific community as to what exactly is going on.”

1998

Raymond provided a statement in a 1998 ExxonMobil pamphlet titled “Global Climate change: everyone’s debate” claiming that “Even if global warming were a proven threat — which it is not — targets agreed on in Kyoto, Japan, fail to provide a fair, practical or cost-effective solutions.”⁴⁵

View the complete document below, via Climate Files

Global Climate Change Everyone’s Debate(Text)
November 11, 1996

Lee Raymond spoke at an American Petroleum Institute event while he served as API’s chairman of the board. During his talk, Raymond contended that many Americans share a “distorted view” that fossil fuel use poses a threat to the environment.⁴⁶

During his speech, text of which is republished and annotated at Climate Files, Raymond described “so-called global climate change” as “the issue that perhaps poses the greatest long-term threat to our industry.” Raymond said of the Kyoto Protocol:⁴⁷

Global Warming Who’s Right (Text)

“Right now, a United Nations-led effort is moving toward decisions in 1997 to cut the use of fossil fuels, based on the unproved theory that they affect the Earth’s climate.”

Raymond urged that “we in the industry provide a voice of common sense … [by] getting people to look at the science surrounding the issue, the economics of the policies being proposed and the impact on them as individuals.” On the science, Raymond contended that “scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect global climate.”⁴⁸

Near the conclusion, Raymond proposed a plan, citing success of a coalition fighitng the Btu tax.⁴⁹

“Addressing these and the other long-term issues we face will require that we do a better job of convincing others — Politicians and the public alike — of the merits of our case. To do that, we’ll need to draw on a third ‘C’ — cooperation.

“In dealing with important issues in the past, we’ve been most effective when we’ve kept a clear focus on our common interest. The coalition we formed to defeat with Btu tax is an excellent example.

“On that issue, we brought together various groups within the industry. We mobilized our employes. We gained the support of small business. We worked with other trade groups and associations. And we even picked up the support of a wide range of energy consumers. In the end, we all came together and cooperated to defeat an ill-conceived and onerous proposal.”

Raymond also identified the auto industry as an ally in their fight:⁵⁰

One example is our close cooperation with the automobile industry in research programs on both sides of the Atlantic. Recently, they have become engaged in the global climate issue and are active, aggressive allies. They, in turn, have gained the support of others, and I expect that circle of support will continue to expand.”

July 1996

During his European tour from July 11 to 26, apart from reporting on Exxon’s business results, Raymond discussed the importance on staying “focused” on external issues. “One such issue,” he reported, “and probably the most important external issue, is the theory of ‘global climate change.’”⁵¹

1996 Exxon’s Lee Raymond European Trip Talking Points(Text)
May 6, 1996

In a 1996 speech to the Economic Club of Detroit, Raymond claimed the science is “inconclusive” on man-made climate change. See the document below, via Climate Files.⁵² ⁵³

Lee Raymond 1996 Economic Club of Detroit (Text)

“Proponents of the global warming theory say that higher levels of greenhouse gases – especially carbon dioxide – are causing or will cause global temperatures to rise. But more than 96 percent of the carbon dioxide is naturally produced in the environment, and it has nothing to do with human activity. It and the other greenhouse gases are necessary for life to survive on Earth. Currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate.

“The lack of scientific understanding on this subject has not prevented activists from politicizing it and seeking to stir up all kinds of fears. They do so in an effort to force wrenching changes in our lifestyles and in the economies of the world’s industrialized nations, with their real objectives often obscure. Such attempts represent a threat both to sound science and sound economics,” Raymond claimed.

According to Raymond, in developing nations, “the most pressing environmental problems are related to poverty and not global climate change.” He added, “Addressing these problems will require economic growth, and that will necessitate increasing, not curtailing, the use of fossil fuels.”⁵⁴

“This does not mean that we will inevitably experience grave consequences from global warming. We should keep in mind that some Cassandras of global warming were predicting the coming of a new ice age 20 years ago. And so, it makes little sense today to adopt economically punishing policies on the basis of uncertain predictions,” he said.

“Our first priority ought to be to improve scientific understanding. Exxon is helping with that process by conducting its own research and by supporting that of others, including a major research effort at M.I.T. on the science, economics and policy options of potential global warming.”

1996

In the fall of 1996, Raymond published an article in the Exxon publication The Lamp titled “Climate change: don’t ignore the facts.” According to Raymond, “Proponents of the global warming theory say that higher levels of greenhouse gases – especially carbon dioxide – are causing world temperatures to rise and that burning fossil fuels is the reason. (See Global Warming – What to Think? What to Do?) Yet scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect global climate.”⁵⁵

In the spring of 1996, Exxon Corporation released a publication titled “Global warming: who’s right? Facts about a debate that’s turned up more questions than answers,” that included a statement from Lee Raymond promoting uncertainty on climate change science. Climate Files noted the piece also cited Exxon-funded climate change deniers throughout.⁵⁶

Global Warming Who’s Right (Text)

April 1989

In an interview with The New York Times following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Raymond had a differing version of the company’s cleanup efforts at the time of the spill. He blamed Alaskan officials for not granting permits to use cleanup equipment. ”We had a lot of cleanup equipment on the ground, but we couldn’t get the permits to use it until it was too late,” Raymond said.⁵⁷

Raymond also countered suggestions by experts that the oil company’s spill response could have been slowed by the departure of nine of its oil spill specialists during staff cutbacks. ”We have people all over the world trained to handle oil spills, even if they don’t have the exact title of oil spill specialist,” he said.⁵⁸

The Exxon Valdez spill is considered one of the most devastating human-cased environmental disasters in history.⁵⁹

In a later deposition on the spill, Jim Sherman, a lawyer for the State of Alaska, asked Raymond what, if anything, he felt Exxon did wrong:⁶⁰

Jim Sherman: “I asked you a moment ago … what, if anything, you felt Exxon did wrong, and I think your answer began by saying, well, you didn’t really think it was a matter of right and wrong.”

Raymond: “Well, I don’t mean to be argumentative, but assigning blame isn’t the same as being right or wrong.”

Sherman: “Well, do you think the State of Alaska’s actions in the first seventy-two hours after the spill in regard to dispersant use were wrong?”

Raymond: “My own view is that dispersants should have been applied. If you are suggesting that the state didn’t think they should be applied, then I guess we would have a difference of view. And since I’m right, I guess by your supposition you are wrong.”

Sherman: “By those same terms, did Exxon do anything in the course of the weeks that followed the spill that was wrong?”

Raymond: “The state may have a view on that and I have a different view.”