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

EarthTalk: ExxonMobil's Climate Contrarians

E Magazine. Posted April 30, 2007.


How ExxonMobil paid scientists and economists to write articles trying to de-bunk global warming.

Dear EarthTalk: Did Exxon/Mobil really pay scientists and economists to write articles trying to de-bunk global warming? -- Rosemary R., via e-mail

A February 2007 report in the British newspaper, The Guardian, fell like a ton of bricks on efforts by ExxonMobil, the world's largest and most profitable oil company, to repair its damaged environmental reputation. According to the report, the Exxon-financed American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative Washington, D.C. "think tank," offered scientists and economists $10,000 each, plus expenses, to write articles undercutting the dire findings of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the extent and impacts of human-caused global warming.

The ties between ExxonMobil, AEI and the highest levels of government go way back. AEI has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil over the years, and more than 20 of its staffers have worked as consultants for the Bush administration. Former Exxon head Lee Raymond is still an AEI board member.

A month before the Guardian report, the Boston-based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released its own report documenting ExxonMobil's $16 million in donations since 1998 to 43 organizations working to discredit the science of human-induced climate change. UCS joins a growing chorus of voices asking the company to turn the corner on global warming and start embracing a transition away from fossil fuels.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," says Alden Meyer, UCS's Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

In September 2006, Britain's leading scientific academy, the Royal Society, asked the company to stop supporting groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change." In response, ExxonMobil said that it funded groups that research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company" but that such groups do not speak for the company.

No doubt feeling some heat, ExxonMobil issued a statement recently in response to an IPCC update: "There is increasing evidence that the Earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.6 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period-and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions." The statement also acknowledged that "the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant...it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks..."

Whether the company is really ready to aggressively develop alternative energy sources-like its competitors Shell and BP-is yet to be seen. But environmental leaders share a guarded optimism that the tide is turning in their favor and that ExxonMobil will back up its words with action-eventually.

CONTACTS: The Guardian; UCS Report; ExxonMobil.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com.

Digg!

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

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:
Not all scientific research supports global warming alarmists
Posted by: XOMX on Apr 30, 2007 8:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, this certainly is hot news! Only two months ago as reported in a major London newspaper.

As I understand the story, Exxonmobil has funded research on global warming that has reached conclusions that differ from those of the "consensus scientists" who believe that global warming is not only occurring, but is caused solely by human activity, and will have near and long term disasterous consequences for all mankind.

The implication that Exxonmobil have paid off scientists to produce bogus results is nowhere supported in the article.

Contrary to the global warming gospel of the true believers, there are a significant number of scientists, most of whom are not funded by Exxonmobil, who are sceptical of the popular global warming "theories" as proponded by Al Gore and other climatolgical experts (now including Cheryl Crow).

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

Yes, Exxon supports tobacco scientists on climate issues
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 1, 2007 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See www.exxonsecrets.org for the details.

Exxon relies on cheap oil and high gas prices for their profits; their business centers around their oil refineries, and the last thing they and their shareholders want to see is a reduction in gasoline sales.

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

Exxonmobil Makes Money on Both Ends
Posted by: XOMX on May 1, 2007 6:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exxonmobil makes money both from the production and the refining of oil. It's called vertical integration. The oil they produce can be sold on the world market at world market prices or used for refinery feedstock, which basically costs Exxonmobil the world market price. If everyone else is paying $60 a barrel for refinery feedstock. so is Exxonmobil. When the price of crude is high, Exxonmobil can make more money selling its crude on the world market, than it can using it as a refinery feedstock, since the high price of the raw material, crude oil, squeezes the refinery margin. If the price of oil is lower (remember last year), it can make more money on refined products with less expensive raw materials.

However, in any event, it still has to obtain crude for its refineries at the world market price.

As far as I know, Exxonmobil isn't involved in the tobacco industry. The web site referenced above is a front for opponents of the oil companies, and is hardly objective.

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

Another Denier Heard From.
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive on May 2, 2007 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey XOMX...You're working hard at GWD, Global Warming Denial. Does your moniker XOMX have anything to do with WHO you work for...ExxonMobile?

Yes, Exxonmobil has funded research on global warming that has reached conclusions that differ from those of the world wide reasearch scientists who believe that global warming is not only occurring, but is caused PRINCIPALLY by human activity, and will have near and long term living consequences for all mankind.

A company paying for their research...now, goodness, you don't think the "researchers" are going to come up with conclusions that differ in anyway from what ExxonMobile dictates? They want their paycheck...right?

"The implication that Exxonmobil have paid off scientists to produce bogus results is nowhere supported in the article."

Amazing cupidity! Run any Google search on Global Warming and find the articles by a myriad of "scientists" all producing really "objective" studies for ExxonMobile. Please, try to hide your Big Oil roots a little more carefully in the future when trying to diss scientists. Your posts are so ridiculous and imbecilic!

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

Amazing - researchers are paid for their research!!
Posted by: XOMX on May 3, 2007 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, I certainly hope none of those "scientists" who have concluded that Global Warming is a man-made catastrophe don't have ties to Greenpeace or any other environmental organizations, much less have had their research funded by such organizations. How could we believe their conclusions!

In point of fact, their research is worthwhile in trying to define the problem, even if it has produced results that can't be verfied by computer modeling, or produced climate models that can't predict the trends being observed.

The greater problem is that the Global Warning Acolytes don't admit to any possible alternatives, nor will they accept scientific, peer reviewed research that reaches conclusions that don't fit the conventional, consensus "wisdom" on global warming. For example, Professor Mark Jacobson of Stanford has recently completed a study that determined that using ethanol for automobile fuel poses an equal or greater threat to the environment than does gasoline. His research has been widely condemned in environmental circles because Stanford, but not Professor Jacobsen or his research, receive funding from Exxonmobil. In fact, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights responded to the publication of these research results in Evironmental Science and Technology (online) with the following quote,"The science behind Jacobson's study could well be valid; however, the public cannot accept the results at face value, when Exxonmobil has funded a major energy research program [but not Jacobson's research] at the university and research results are in line with the giant oil firm's corporate goals." There is an open minded approach to scientific study! I wonder what The FTCR would think if Archer Daniels Midland (largest ethanol producer in the US) had funded a study that said ethanol was good for the environment?

BTW, I am not trying to hide my sympathies to Exxonmobil's position on global warming, which I believe is scientifically based and cautious in the light of the current state of knowledge on the phenomenon. And I would also point out that I am not the one diss'ing scientists nor am I making ad hominem attacks on persons posting on this site. I leave that up to the progressives (from either coast), who apparently have the motto, "when out of facts, defame."

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