Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

ExxonMobil's War on Science

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Huffington Post. Posted January 31, 2007.


With an elaborate network of phony think tanks and slick public relations firms, ExxonMobil has become today's Big Tobacco, defrauding the public and waging a war on science.
Advertisement

In a quarter-page advertorial in Thursday's New York Times, ExxonMobil launched a new greenwashing campaign to salvage its earned reputation as Earth's number one global warming villain.

For over a decade the giant oil company has waged a successful multi-million dollar propaganda campaign to deceive the public about global warming. Using phony think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, scientists-for-hire called biostitutes, slick public relations firms, and their indentured servants in the political process, they have intentionally defrauded the public by promoting the notion that global warming is a hoax or a sketchy theory that requires more study.

The company now asserts that its position on global warming has been "misunderstood," but its decade of mischief is well documented.

Exxon has dished out at least $19 million dollars since the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol (1997) to fund an elaborate network including over 75 industry front groups mobilized in a misleading campaign to cloud the public's understanding of global warming. Their objective has been to counter balance the overwhelming scientific evidence of man-induced climate change with pseudo scientific denials to derail reforms that might effect corporate profits.

In 2005, ExxonMobil paid over $3.5 million to 49 different front groups, according to the company's own records, which are collected each year by ExxonSecrets.org and the ExxposeExxon coalition. A report released earlier this month by the Union of Concerned Scientists traces the roots of this fraudulent propaganda broadside -- and many of its prime actors -- back to the tobacco industry's tactical war on science.

Exxon has also used vast political contributions to guide the Bush administration's posturing on climate change. ExxonMobil successfully arranged the ousting of the world's top climate scientist Robert Watson as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

An Exxon memo to President Bush's top staffers obtained by NRDC through the Freedom of Information Act asks bluntly, "Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.?" The White House's carbon cronies obligingly complied, arranging for Watson's dismissal. He was replaced by a little known scientist from New Delhi who would not be regularly available for Congressional hearings.

A 2002 Exxon memo recently obtained by Greenpeace through FOIA coaches one of the President's top environmental advisers Philip Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality on how to "improve" administration research on climate change by emphasizing "significant uncertainties" in the science.

The New York Times later revealed that Cooney, a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute which is generously funded by Exxon, made myriad changes to government climate studies designed to weaken their strong conclusions about the need to act on global warming.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: climate change, global warming, exxonmobil

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a senior attorney for theNatural Resources Defense Council, and author of "Crimes Against Nature."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
From Iraq to Africa...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 31, 2007 12:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exxon is leading the charge into Africa, a project they began over a decade ago...see Questions Concerning The World Bank and Chad/Cameroon Oil and Pipeline Project -- Makings of a New Ogoniland? Corporate Welfare Disguised as Aid to the Poor (1997)...

Fast forward to now: World Bank ok with blood for oil; In 2004, oil began to flow through the World Bank-financed Chad-Cameroon pipeline. The $3.7 billion project is the second largest private investment project in sub-Saharan Africa - Wednesday, January 17, 2007

This is a decade of long-term investment - and where does Exxon intend to sell the oil it is taking out of Africa with the full cooperation of the World Bank? Why, to the center of global oil demand - the USA.

This is part of the reason why Exxon fights any regulations that would limit oil sales in the US, and why they spend millions funding propaganda centers like CEI and the American Petroleum Institute...it's why they oppose renewable energy as well... because the one thing they worry about is a fall in demand for petroleum in the United States.

Of course, it's not just Exxon - it's the international merchant banks, hedge funds and oil traders who simply use Exxon as a front, and who are really the ones raking in the cash on these deals - where do you think those record $10 billion quarterly earnings go? Just look up XOM on Yahoo! Finance; the same banks also control Chevron, BP, Shell, etc.

Don't hold your breath waiting for them to turn into 'good corporate citizens'... they were behind the war in Iraq as well. Something has to change - but how?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tipping Point
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 31, 2007 12:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I sincerely hope that we have finally arrived at a point where the people will finally demand that the government get serious about Global Warming & Peak Oil. I have spent quite a lot of time researching, reading and studying both issues and the data scares the sh*t out of me. It is for real and the clock is running.

For those of you unfamiliar with Peak Oil, it's about the point in time where production & future capacity (discovery) fall below the demand from the world market. Everything from the fertilizers and pesticides on the farm to the gas that drives the tractor to the plastic the food is packaged in is sourced in oil. Just imagine what effect oil scarcity will have beyond filling up your car. Put that with the cumulative effects of global warming an the future is not very bright.

While we still have a ready supply of oil at economically tolerable prices we need to revamp our economy to one that can function without the need for it. It's going to take a lot of energy, buckets of money (thanks for the $9 trillion debt, Mr Bush) and some very wise planning and coordination to pull it off. We do not have a great deal of time to get started without some very unpleasant economic disruptions and pain.

Either one of these problems would be a historic challenge to our nation's leadership and together they are even more so. Fortunately, many of the changes that will transition us off of oil dependence will also address Global Warming.

All we lack is a government willing to step up and take the lead, because the markets will not respond fast enough to prevent major economic shocks that will hit millions of Americans where they can least afford it. It's past time to ask our leaders nicely. We have to get started and should have years ago. Don't take my word for it, do some research and see for yourself. Just don't take too long as the hour is late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tipping Point Posted by: Krain61
» RE: Tipping Point Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE:Simply Not True Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Simply Not True Posted by: monkeywrench
Picky Lil Bobby
Posted by: edith on Jan 31, 2007 1:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's with RFK(whatever happened to your "investigation" of voter fraud) whining about a non-American obscure scientist running the IPCC review. Actually the person in question is eminently qualified. He just isn't White Like You Bobby. Early leaks to the NY Times and other media outlets indicate the IPCC report underscore human causes for warming since 1950 and temp increases of up to 5 degrees F if not more if the current use of carbon fuels and chopping down of forests continue.

Oh goshy goo, Bobbe. The dumb Indian won't or can't testify before the almighty American Congress? Where'd you get that info from? Some late night rant from your Uncle Teddy?

The US Congress is not the be all and end all but it is a significant source of Greenhouse Gas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Picky Lil Bobby Posted by: henderson
» RE: Picky Lil Bobby Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» The Martinimobile? Posted by: edith
Enemy of the State
Posted by: owlbear1 on Jan 31, 2007 3:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All profits of Exxon for the last 6 years should be forfeit to pay for Iraq.

Although I think their first quarter profits of 2004 would cover it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Payback Time
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jan 31, 2007 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's going to take money - lots and lots and lots of money - to clean up the mess that has been made of our environment due to decades of neglect and misinformation. Where is that money going to come from? My idea is for the people to seize the assets of companies like Exxon that have been the major contributers to what can only be described as a catastrophe. Think about that for a minute: if someone is convicted of mere criminal mischief - throwing a brick through the window of an ex-spouse, for instance - one of the penalties is usually restitutiuon! Shouldn't a company that has made a mess of the planet be held responsible for its cleanup? This is what is known as a "no brainer", folks!

The day will come - and I believe it will be in my lifetime (I'm forty-eight) - when oil will be as obsolete as the Edison Wax Cylinder. When that day comes, companies like Exxon won't be worth the paper their bankrupcy declarations are written on. Strike while the iron is hot, if you know what I mean. We are in this mess because of Exxon and a whole lot of other companies (not to mention their hand maidens in the House and Senate). Another way to pay for the cleanup? Take away the pensions of the politicians who enabled this atrocious situation - and that includes the half-witted fratboy in the Whire House. I'm serious! Why should the burden be place on the sholdiers of Weeda People?

Sooner or later, the trillion dollar shithammer is going to hit the fan. Those who are culpable must be called to account. This is just plain old common sense, kids!

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

AFTERTHOUGHT: It has been annouced that the great Molly Ivins, who has been battling breast cancer in recent years, is gravely ill in an Austin hospital. Please pray for her. We can not afford to lose her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's Payback Time Posted by: littlebozo
» RE: It's Payback Time Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: It's Payback Time Posted by: fearless flower
» Great posting, Fearless Flower! Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: It's Payback Time Posted by: Shey
» RE: your afterthoutht... Posted by: alternetrose
Big Oil had the cure
Posted by: Krain61 on Jan 31, 2007 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big oil had the cure since the 70's but they instead bought
the patent and the man who invented a attachment for carburetors came up dead..It ran off the exhaust of your car and your car would run on fumes instead of a steam of gas which could give a car that got 20 miles to a gallon could now get 60 mpg..If it got 30mpg it could get up to 90mpg..
At one time I had the drawing and been laying awake nights trying to remember how it worked..We as a world need to re-invent this thing..Coincidentally when the man died that invented it all the car makers started at a fast pace moving to fuel injection..Which this was made for carburetors..I'm sure it could be made to work on fuel-injection also..
But as we all know there is Money to be made on that gas..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Big Oil had the cure Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Big Oil had the cure Posted by: Krain61
» RE: Big Oil had the cure Posted by: Benny
Not in our lifetime Tom sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Jan 31, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good one Tom, but so much damage has been done it will not be undone in our grandchildren's lifetime. Our forests need to be restored, our oceans are polluted, the planet is a wreck.
A recent article chronicled how the oceans are turning from saline to acidic, which will destroy all the sea life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reality Check!
Posted by: williameon on Jan 31, 2007 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stink Tank
Freak Show
Corp-o-pirate
Bush & Co!

Trail of Tears
Environment
Carnage
Of
A
Thousand Years!

The
Lie
Spawn
Media
Corp-Franken
Seed.

Finally
NOW!
Dies
Fallow!
On
Deafened
Ear!

The Corp-o-pirate
Stupid State
Must be
Decentralized
To
Change
Our
Fate!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pity about the degenerated state of comment fom 'EDITH'
Posted by: Squarehead on Jan 31, 2007 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pity about the degenerated state of comment fom 'EDITH'

Why is it appropriate to dismiss his (RFK's) argument just because he is a grandson of Joe Kennedy and his unlovely & dysfunctional family? He (RFK) seems to me to offer valid & reasoned argument. From Ireland (call that 'Old Europe'), on the other side of the Atlantic, he seems part of the admirable part of US society, aware of the SHOCKING state of US politics, both local & geopolitical.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

documentary about ExxonMobil
Posted by: WakeUpEh? on Jan 31, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a new documentary expose´of ExxonMobil and their funding & fostering of confusion over the human impact on climate:

"Out of Balance: ExxonMobil's Impact on Climate Change"

www.worldoutofbalance.org

It screens at Cinequest in March, and at the One World International Human Rights Film Festival in August.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Responsibilities
Posted by: craigandrew on Jan 31, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is funny how business and propaganda corrupts both science and religion the same way. For me, the lesson is that we are responsible for what we know, we are responsible for what we believe, and we are responsible for how we live.

Thinking that some stranger is going to be responsible for you is absolute insanity; if not a little spoiled. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. Either we live in an over consumptive society with all the bells and whistles or we have a government and economy that is considerate and respectful to the world. One or the other, not both.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They're already backing down
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jan 31, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I notice that their paid editorial in the NY Times made reference to "climate change". That's already a major shift for them, since up to recently they said that there was no evidence that the world climate was changing. Seems to me that they're already losing the battle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The forest and the trees
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jan 31, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The petroleum industry is only one tree in the forest of the corporate establishment. This sinister manipulation of our government is carried out daily by a myriad of industries; the pharmaceutical, the financial, and insurance industries to name just a few. It's not enought to fight these battles industry by industry. It is the entire system that needs reform. Our government is the only thing big enough to control corporations. In order to control all corporations we the people must first control our government.

The easy answers are a third party and campaign finance reform. Either of these solutions would work but both are almost impossible solutions while the corporatocracy controls our government.

I think the answer is for the people to take control of the platforms of both parties before the next election. It can be done with a grassroots movement: The Lincoln Initiative. It's a strategy that costs nothing and takes only a few minutes of each participant's time.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The forest and the trees Posted by: jbwestwood
» RE: The forest and the trees Posted by: Grampop
Out of Control: Barclays Global Investors, #1 Shareholder in Exxon
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 31, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You won't read much about the real powers behind the international oil corporations in the United States, but the British press will occasionally discuss the topic:

Warming makes oil the 'new tobacco', Guardian UK, Friday May 3, 2002, The Guardian

Oil companies could find themselves facing multi-billion pound legal suits - similar to those facing tobacco firms - if they ignore the potential consequences of global warming, a report claimed yesterday.

ExxonMobil, the biggest oil group in the world, compares badly with its peers Shell and BP for its hardline stance on global warming, argues the study by Claros Consulting....

....Faith groups and environmentalists in the US say they have amassed support from 8.6% of shareholders for a motion calling for a change of its environmental policy.
They were in London this week in an attempt to win over British investors such as Barclays Global Investors, the biggest single shareholder in ExxonMobil....

....ExxonMobil is urging shareholders to reject demands that it move into renewable energy.


Thus, it seems there is a good chance that ExxonMobil and it's shareholders could be held accountable for the devastation caused by global warming.

It's also worth noting that Big Tobacco is still using the same tactics that ExxonMobil does.

The only thing Exxon worries about more then global warming restrictions is the growth of ethanol production in the United States and fuel efficiency standards for cars - if US cars double or tripled their efficiency, and cellulosic ethanol production took off, they'd probably lose about 3/4 of their transportation fuel sales in the USA - which is really what they're fighting to avoid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ethanol a joke. Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Owner
Posted by: Benny on Jan 31, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So!!!
what else is new??? Same old, same old.Power hungry
mothers defeat all progress not in their interest. Well
here is one they will have to fight the entire population
on. "HYDROGEN FREEFLOW ON DEMAND" IS HERE. And
they will not be able to stop it. Wer'e starting w/at least
20% fel saving on any vehicle. Soon to be direct
injection 100% Hydrogen w/WATER ONLY. How does
that grab you??? They can't fight this one. All we need is
public support. Stay tuned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jstroeve
Posted by: jas on Jan 31, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Years ago, ExxonMobil was found legally liable for the Valdez oil spill in Alaska's pristine waters and ordered to pay billions of dollars in restitution. Since then, they have gone back to court numerous times to reduce their liability (recently from $5 billion to $2.5 billion) exposure. Meanwhile, the fish and wildlife, the fisherman, and the villagers whose lives were forever affected by ExxonMobil's disaster have not seen ONE PENNY of compensation from that corporate deadbeat ExxonMobil, a company second only to WalMart in revenues (that $36 billion dollar quarter last year may have put them on top of WM -- anybody know for sure?). Where is our Congress when it comes to putting teeth into polluter compliance and fines for noncompliance legislation (get them where it hurts -- in their deep pockets!)??????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The courage to act
Posted by: sfortuna on Jan 31, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until an aggrieved populace takes action to defend itself from profiteers pushing our planet closer to extinction, all your complaints, histrionics and muckrakeing letters to Congress mean nothing. How many of you buy their products? How many of your even have their CREDIT cards? Citgo, BP and other oil companies at least pay lip service to climate change. At very least, vote with your dollars now, and with your righteous indignation thereafter.

By the time rising sea levels threaten coastlines and arctic species become extinct, Exxon's whores in Congress might abandon their masters to 'investigate'. But until money is removed from politics and talking head 'experts' at the Hoover and Heritage Foundations and Fox News can no longer be hired to lie to the public, paid with Exxon's tax deductible lobbying funds, don't look to our leaders. Their failure and corruption are legion. Many would prefer to see half of humanity rotting in mass graves, as long as their Swiss bank accounts grew another digit. If we are to save ourselves it is up to the few who have the will to live and courage to lead.

View Exxon's Board of Directors here:
exxonmobil.com/Corporate/InvestorInfo/ Corp_II_Board.asp
Twelve people, mostly pasty white men, who control billions in profits and untold suffering and devestation around the world. Twelve who dwell in ignorance, blind to the effect their practices have on 6 billion fellow human beings. How does one calculate justice in the light of so massive a failing?

Perhaps when their lives are made a living hell by the more heroic among us, when they are harrassed in public, embarrassed in the media, picketed in their homes, when their families are pilloried, children shunned and when they face civil suit after civil suit, perhaps when tribunals of their victims convict them for crimes against humanity, the profitable pillaging MIGHT stop. Who among us has the courage to defy our broken government and bring these environmental terrorists to justice? When governments and institutions fail us, it is time to build new ones. The 12 board members of Exxon, the bureaucrats and lawmakers who protect them, their paid shills and apologists, are nothing compared to the lives, rights and aspirations of the entire planet.

Mark Twain once remarked "there are those of us to whom death is an improvement". Let us hope enlightened self-interest can persuade the Exxon board, and if not, adjust tactics as needed. An organized planet can move even the greatest corporate titans away from the abyss of end stage oil to a renewable, sustainable future.

Until you are ready to organize, to inform, to stand up and act decisively, have another latte, buy another SUV, dream about acquiring more stuff that will fill a landfill in a few years and shut the hell up.

Steve Fortuna
Atlanta, GA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The courage to act Posted by: jbwestwood
The problem is the corporate media, who have "shut the hell up" on this issue
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 31, 2007 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You won't find much detailed discussion of the fossil fuel industry in the corporate press, and the press has also gone to great lengths to assure the American public that global warming is an 'undecided and controversial scientific question' which is just bull; the science was settled over a decade ago, and now the only question is how fast it's going to happen - and the speed of global warming seems to be faster then most scientists have predicted.

Even if ExxonMobil's upper management is hounded (not that they will be harrassed behind the walls of their gated communities and screens of security guards), you'd still have Chevron, or the Chinese and Indian oil corporations.

For example, when have you ever heard the US corporate media mention Darfur, Sudan and petroleum in the same news report?

See, for example, Tomgram: David Morse on Darfur as a Resource War:

Invisible because it is happening in Africa. Invisible because our mainstream media are subsidized by the petroleum industry. Think of all the car ads you see on television, in newspapers and magazines. Think of the narcissism implicit in our automobile culture, our suburban sprawl, our obsessive focus on the rich and famous, the giddy assumption that all this can continue indefinitely when we know it can't -- and you see why Darfur slips into darkness. And Darfur is only the tip of the sprawling, scarred state known as Sudan. Nicholas Kristof pointed out in a New York Times column that ABC News had a total of 18 minutes of Darfur coverage in its nightly newscasts all last year, and that was to the credit of Peter Jennings; NBC had only 5 minutes, CBS only 3 minutes. This is, of course, a micro-fraction of the time devoted to Michael Jackson.

This is balanced article on how Western, Chinese and Indian oil companies are all fighting over Africa's oil in kind of replay of the old Soviet-American proxy Cold War struggles in Africa.

The New York Times occasionally covers the issue with serious spin; here's the excerped excerpt from the David Morse article:

"As Chinese and Indian companies venture into countries like Sudan, where risk-aversive multinationals have hesitated to enter, questions are being raised in the industry about whether state-owned companies are accurately judging the risks to their own investments, or whether they are just more willing to gamble with taxpayers' money than multinationals are willing to gamble with shareholders' investments."

Except that the multinationals aren't gambling with their shareholder's investments! In Africa they're gambling with World Bank and IMF funds, i.e. American taxpayer dollars. In Iraq, they're gambling with the entire apparatus of the US military - and more taxpayer funds! The shareholders are entirely shielded from risk via these arrangements.

Forget about harassing the CEOs of ExxonMobil - unless you want to sue them in court for global warming damages - make the lying, dishonest, corporate apparatchiks of the US media system tell the truth about what really goes on in the world, and by all means, don't "shut the hell up" - that's exactly what they want you to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A storm front not mentioned
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Jan 31, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was surprised the story didn't mention the flap at the National Science Teacher's Association over the movie "An Inconvenient Truth". This was on PBS's "Now" program last week.

Basically, as I understand things, the producers of the movie wanted to give the organization 50,000 copies for distribution to its members, but the organization refused, saying it didn't want to appear to be endorsing the movie. The NTSA gets money from Exxon (and Shell).

PBS gave the movie producer's side of the story, pretty much exclusively; here's the NTSA side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Twisted logic
Posted by: willymack on Jan 31, 2007 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody can say the oil barons are stupid. Greedy, unscrupulous, amoral, yes, but not stupid. They can see the end of the Age of Oil, therefore, the end of their easy profits. As it dawns on the world that burning fossil fuels-or ANY fuel for that matter-is not in our best interests, all the lies, obfuscations, and denials by oil companies seem nonsensical, considering that the oil companies are uniquely equiped to lead the transition from wasteful and grossly polluting consumption of finite resources to something better-whatever that may be. Therein lies the twisted logic: Why is no effort being made to envision a world where no fossil fuels are used for energy, heat, etc. when the end of cheap oil is so clearly in sight? Why aren't the oil companies loudly proclaiming that they are proceeding with development of revolutionary technology to replace what is so close to the end? The Short-Term Profit Syndrome, inspired by greed and the "need" for immediate gratification is one explanation. Any others?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Death Knell Sounded 15 Years Ago.
Posted by: edgar_michel on Jan 31, 2007 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If these, spoil the world enviorns now for profit and play later while the rest of the world cleans up their mess, executives get away with this, it will only incubate a new crop of executives who will aspire to the same. Force these companies to pay for the global environmental disaster they fostered and deny the pensions of all their collaborators. This is a good idea, a very good idea. Also the defense industries who have been making 100's of billions off a senseless war, the proceeds of which could have gone to developing oil-less energy alternatives and an all electric rail transportation system to replace our cars and freeways which caused the death knell to be sounded 15 years ago should also anti up. Let's get busy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Countries are the problem, even more than 'big oil'
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jan 31, 2007 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exxon-Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, etc own a very SMALL percentage of the worldwide energy reserves. Its the countries of the Middle East, Russia, Norway, Argentina, Mexico, UK, and some African nations that control the energy industry. Until these countries, some more than others, diversify their economy and recognise the problems caused by their products nothing will change. Why, does anyone care, if its ExxonMobil or Venezuela ruining the environment? If anything there is a BETTER chance of getting western oil companies to comply with some regulations than the countries over which we have no control (despite the neo-cons attempts!). Everyone focuses on the companies and don't realise that they don't own even a small portion of the worldwide energy reserves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Suburban Hell
Posted by: benzene on Jan 31, 2007 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To link together various things:

First we had a revolution and won independence from the British.

Then we systematically massacred the Native Americans in the name of Manifest Destiny and Westward Expansion.

Next we had a civil war.

Then we had some world wars.

And the American Dream was born. Every family with 1.5 cars, a nice house with a big yard in a quiet neighborhood, and 2 kids.

Then the American Dream was realized, for those who could afford it.

So now we have sprawling megasubdivisions spreading like sepsis from city centers, chewing up forests and farmland as it goes. The other, and most currently salient, aspect of this megasubdividing is that, by their nature, they consume lots and lots of oil. Get in the SUV, drive 2 hours to work, drive .5 hours to get groceries, hair done, nail's done, go golfing, pick the kids up from soccer practice, etc etc ad nauseum. And the homes themselves consume massive amounts of energy to keep the non-walking fat-asses within comfortable.

The future, I hope, will witness a resurgence of compact cities wherein public transport is effective and people are able and willing to walk to where they need to go, and where an actual sense of community outside the brain-washing megachurches exists. If such a thing were to arise, oil consumption in this country would markedly decrease, simply because people wouldn't have to drive so much as they do.

In the meantime, if you're one of those suburban fat-asses, the least you could do is go carbon neutral.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check out today's Democracy Now!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 31, 2007 3:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are interested in this issue, DN has coverage of global warming hearings and the suppression of science by the Bush White House, as well as a great discussion of Bush's extensive ties to the Saudi oil monarchy:
Government Scientists Accuse Bush Administration of Interfering, Misleading on Climate Change

Blood of the Earth: Dilip Hiro on the Battle for the World’s Vanishing Oil Resources

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One Solution: Oil Companies Under State Control
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 31, 2007 3:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Russia effectively nationalized its oil resources by gutting Yukos, and in Venezuela, Bolivia, and other countries, oil exploration and pumping is effectively under state control. The percent of reserves in these countries and in the ground is actually quite a bit higher then what Exxon-Mobil has access too, if you look at the raw reserve numbers. However, this belies the truth because oil in the ground is nonetheless a net negative until pumped, economically that is. A solution is the Chavez approach. Oil is a state resource and should be under government or state control. That way profits can go to the people, as in Venezuela, and the possibility of exploitation is lessened.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And then there is CNN
Posted by: reinaldok on Jan 31, 2007 4:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where did CNN, that supposedly non-aligned news (?) channel dig up that great warming expert guru - Glenn Beck??
A sick joke just to watch him I did a bit of private investigation of CNN (with help from family members). We watched four hours straight hours of their unbiased (?) info. There were eleven bites about the freezing conditions in diverse parts of the USA. Of course, no mention was made about the spring and in some cases summer weather in so many other areas. Well, it sure is nice to have had our flowers, which usually bloom in April, showing their colors in January. And hooray to the Swedish bears. They no longer have to take their long winter naps. It really is amazing that some of these scientists (ha-ha) and their ilk still insist that global warming is a hoax.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not just global warming science that Exxon & friends are actively attacking
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 31, 2007 5:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're also continuing their century-long effort to keep renewable energy from taking over their oil markets. They are using all the traditional PR techniques, plus some new ones afforded by the Internet.

Take for example, "www.ecoworld.com" It pretends to be a site dedicated to "Eco-friendly technology", but what it really is a site dedicated to promoting fossil fuels and running hit pieces on biofuels and global warming - the two issues that threaten fossil fuel profits more than any other.

For example, check out this headline:
"Al Gore's "Truth": ONE-SIDED, MISLEADING, EXAGGERATED, SPECULATIVE, WRONG by Marlo Lewis, Jr."

Here's another choice example:
"Biofueled Global Warming: Today’s BBC ran a story entitled “Shifting Sands,” which describes towns in the Nigerian Sahel that are being swallowed up by the Sahara desert which is marching southwards.

The presumption is this: Global warming is causing desertification, and the villages of northern Nigeria are among the victims. But this is almost certainly false. Desertification is being caused by two factors stronger than global warming - it is being caused by deforestation, and it is being caused by drought."


It only gets better: here's an "Editor's Note" promoting drilling in the Arctic for oil:
Editor's Note: It is virtually impossible to get an unbiased assessment of the campaign to open the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. On one hand, the recoverable oil in the refuge, possibly amounting to as much as ten billion barrels, is enough oil to supply the entire needs of the United States for about 18 months....
....this much Alaskan oil could reduce American oil imports by about 15%, American imports from the Middle East by over 25%. The effect of Alaskan oil on helping manage oil prices is significant.


Hmmm..... global warming isn't happening, but if it is, it's due to the use of biofuels, and wouldn't drilling in the Arctic be great! The above editor, one Ed "Redwood" Ring, is the author of this fascinating piece: WE NEED MORE FREEWAYS by Ed Ring

Welcome to the fascinating world of Internet-based public relations activity - as designed by the "visionaries" at the major global PR firms: Edelman, Burson Marsteller, Golin/Harris, Euro RSCG, Fleishman-Hilliard and Ruder Finn... they're into the 'new vista' of Internet technology, working in teams, blogging - you know the drill (or should by now, as they have quite a presence on Alternet).

No wonder ExxonMobile still refuses to tell who their well-paid propaganda experts are. On a brighter note, it will only make them more liable when it comes to lawsuits over damages caused by global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why fossil fuel corps oppose ethanol and other renewables:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 31, 2007 10:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Consider the precursor to the electric car - the electric train, which was also deliberately sabotaged in the 50's, as documented in the film, "Taken For a Ride. This film displays the tactics that industry players used to destroy public electric train transportation, and that are still in play today.

The fact that US cities are full of polluting, inefficient diesel buses rather then clean efficient electric trains is a result of auto industry, tire industry and oil industry manipulations of government agencies, city politics, etc. It has nothing to do with 'the invisible hand of the free market' or consumer choice.

Consider the difference, in economic terms, between "Emerging vs. disruptive technology". Emerging technology is that which has no existing competition - for example, the birth of the computer industry involved emerging technology - there was nothing like it to compete with. Disruptive technology is technology that destroys an existing market - for example, imagine communications devices that worked on a direct person-to-person basis with no need for an intervening network - a bit sci-fi and very unlikely, but you can see how that would wipe out the cell-phone network cash flows. The fact is that new technologies aren't developed unless someone sees a significant economic benefit, and as long as the competition isn't powerful enough to squelch the new products.

A similar, but less-documented issue, is the relationship between the birth of Prohibition, farm-produced ethanol fuel, and JD Rockefeller's Standard Oil business practices. Prohibition destroyed the prospect of ethanol as a fuel and secured the market for automobile fuel for the fossil fuel industry. The fact that Rockefeller was a major contributer to the 'Women's Temperance Society" which was behind the Prohibition drive gives some credence to this notion. Alcohol consumption never decreased during Prohibition, but the farm ethanol business was destroyed and the future of fossil fuel in the transportation industry was secured.

Note that Henry Ford's first vehicles were run on farm ethanol at a time when the major market for fossil fuel was in illumination. Edison's invention of a practical electrical light was a "disruptive technology" with powerful backers, and it wiped out the illuminating fuel market. Thus, Rockefeller had to find a new market for his oil, and that new market was the transportation industry, and his major competition at that time was farm-produced biofuels.

The same dynamic is being played out today. It's all about trying to control market share, and that means denying that global warming is happening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]