http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/06/the_wsj_on_exxo.html
MoJo Blog: The WSJ on Exxon and the global warming "debate"
Since Mother Jones, in late April, released our exposé on
ExxonMobil's funding of global warming naysayers,
<http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/world_burns.html>
Exxon has been very much in the news. We learned more about the cozy
relationship between the company and the Bush administration when the
UK's Guardian revealed that Bush consulted with Exxon
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html
> before nixing the Kyoto climate change agreement. Next Philip A.
Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental
Quality, resigned after it was revealed he watered down reports to
obscure the links between climate change and fossil fuels. Cooney,
the former ''climate team leader'' and lobbyist for the American
Petroleum Institute, was immediately hired by Exxon
<http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/06/utterly_discred.
html> after leaving the White House two weeks ago. Then last week,
the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story on how Exxon is still
funding global warming skeptics
<http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/06/the_wsj_on_exxo.
html> and fighting regulations, even as many corporations have begun
to grapple seriously with the implications of man-made climate change.
In the midst of all of this, Mother Jones ran an ad in Friday's
Washington Post urging Exxon to "face the facts about global warming
- and stop supporting junk science and fake journalism." The ad
highlights the juiciest details of our May/June cover story.
The WSJ on Exxon and the global warming "debate"
The May issue of Mother Jones featured a terrific piece of reporting
<http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
> by Chris Mooney on ExxonMobil's strategy on global warming, which
has been to deny its reality while funding think tanks that cast
doubt on the scientific consensus that climate change is real and
largely human-influenced. In the same issue we had a piece by Ross
Gelbspan
<http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/snowed.html>
scorching the US media for being M.I.A. on global warming.
The Wall Street Journal today has a front-page article titled "Exxon
Chief Makes A Cold Calculation On Global Warming." (Subscribers only,
I'm afraid.) It opens thusly:
"At Exxon Mobil Corp.'s laboratories here, there isn't a solar panel
or windmill in sight. About the closest Exxon's scientists get to
"renewable" energy is perfecting an oil that Exxon could sell to
companies operating wind turbines.
"Oil giants such as BP PLC and Royal Dutch/Shell Group are trumpeting
a better-safe-than-sorry approach to global warming. They accept a
growing scientific consensus that fossil fuels are a main contributor
to the problem and endorse the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps
emissions from developed nations that have ratified it. BP and Shell
also have begun to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels.
"Not Exxon. Openly and unapologetically, the world's No. 1 oil
company disputes the notion that fossil fuels are the main cause of
global warming. Along with the Bush administration, Exxon opposes the
Kyoto accord and the very idea of capping global-warming emissions.
Congress is debating an energy bill that may be amended to include a
cap, but the administration and Exxon say the costs would be huge and
the benefits uncertain. Exxon also contributes money to think tanks
and other groups that agree with its stance. ..."
And continues:
"Exxon's approach to global warming typifies the bottom-line focus of
its entire business. It is slogging away to improve the energy
efficiency of its refineries -- primarily to cut costs, although this
is also shaving global-warming emissions. But it says the business
case for making more sweeping changes is still weak. It's a
conservative, hard-nosed approach that has helped make Exxon the most
profitable oil company in the world, with 2004 net income of $25
billion. ..."
Here's where it gets really good:
"Mr. Raymond disagrees [that Exxon should be investing significantly
in renewable energy]. Spending shareholders' money to diversify into
businesses that aren't yet profitable -- and that aim to solve a
problem his scientists believe may not be significant -- strikes the
Exxon chief as a sloppy way to run a company. "If I were to ask you
if you want to buy an insurance policy, you've got to ask yourself a
couple questions. No. 1, what are you trying to insure against? And
No. 2, what are you willing to pay on the premium? And I haven't
heard a very good answer to either one of those," he says. "
His scientists? Oh yeah, his scientists.
<http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html>
Them. <http://www.exxonsecrets.org/>
The Journal piece takes a very even-handed approach to the "debate"
over global warming (and I don't intend that as a compliment). I'd
simply suggest reading it, then reading Mooney's piece (and checking
out Exxonsecrets.org), and drawing your own conclusions.
Posted by Julian Brookes on 06/14/05
----
All the usual suspects -- see Biofuel list archives for more information, also:
http://www.prwatch.org/search.html
PR Watch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
SourceWatch
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html
Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank
ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think
tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights
groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe.
Herewith, a representative overview.
May/June 2005 Issue
Acton Institute for the Study of Religious Liberty
Advancement of Sound Science Center
American Council for Capital Formation
American Council on Science and Health
American Enterprise Institute
American Legislative Exchange Council
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
Arizona State University Office of Climatology
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Cato Institute
Capital Research Center
Centre for the New Europe
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Center for the Study of CO2 and Global Change
Citizens for a Sound Economy
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Congress of Racial Equality
Consumer Alert
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
Fraser Institute
Frontiers of Freedom
George C. Marshall Institute
Heartland Institute
Heritage Foundation
Hoover Institution
Hudson Institute
Independent Institute
International Policy Network
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Media Research Center
Mercatus Center
National Black Chamber of Commerce
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Center for Public Policy Research
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
Pacific Legal Foundation
Property and Environment Research Center
Reason Public Policy Institute
Science and Environmental Policy
Tech Central Science Foundation
Total 2000-2003
$8,678,450
Some key "skeptics" show up again and again in the echo chamber
funded by ExxonMobil.
SALLIE BALIUNAS, a Harvard-Smithsonian Institute astrophysicist, has,
along with colleague WILLIE SOON, been giving deniers scientific
cover since the mid-1990s. They began by claiming solar effects could
account for the rise of the global thermostat. After that theory was
debunked, Baliunas and Soon wrote a paper-partially funded by the
American Petroleum Institute-for Climate Research that claimed that
the 20th century hasn't been all that warm. Their conclusions have
been praised as the epitome of "sound science" by deniers, including
Sen. James Inhofe. The journal's editor, meanwhile, said the paper
should never have been published. Baliunas and Soon are each
connected to at least four ExxonMobil-funded groups.
PAUL DRIESSEN: See "Black Gold?" page 45. Connections to
ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five.
PATRICK MICHAELS: University of Virginia climatologist and Cato
Institute fellow. One of the most widely cited skeptics, Michaels has
received substantial funding from energy companies. Author of The
Satanic Gases and Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global
Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. Connections to
ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least seven.
STEVEN MILLOY: A columnist for FoxNews.com and publisher of
JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. Milloy also runs the Advancement of
Sound Science Center and the Free Enterprise Action Institute. Those
two groups-apparently run out of Milloy's home-received $90,000 from
ExxonMobil. Key quote: The date of Kyoto's implementation will "live
in scientific and economic infamy." Connections to ExxonMobil-funded
groups: at least five.
S. FRED SINGER: A godfather of global warming denial, author of The
Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty and Hot Talk, Cold
Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate. Key quote: "There is no
convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming."
Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least seven.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
