Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Exposing Exxon's Bad Behavior

By Sunny Lewis, Environment News Service. Posted July 14, 2005.


A coalition of conservation groups have launched a nationwide boycott to protest the oil giant's many misdeeds; chiefly, its plan to drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge.
Advertisement

Changing ExxonMobil's corporate behavior is the mission of a new environmental campaign called ExxposeExxon.com. Calling for a boycott of the company's products, stocks, and workforce, campaigners from 12 of America's largest public interest and environmental groups showed up outside ExxonMobil service stations nationwide Tuesday.

"For years, ExxonMobil has intentionally put its own profits above a clean environment and the health of America's families. As a result, we are asking all Americans not to accept a new job at ExxonMobil, invest in the company, or to buy ExxonMobil's gas and products," stated the ExxposeExxon coalition in a letter sent Tuesday to ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond at the company's Irving, Texas headquarters.

The ExxposeExxon campaign began campaigning yesterday in more than 50 cities, including Washington, DC, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Des Moines, Honolulu, New York, Minneapolis, and Philadelphia. The coalition will work through the Internet, through the news media, through door-to-door contact, bumper stickers and T-shirts.

The campaigners object because the corporation is lobbying Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling. They point out that ExxonMobil is the only oil company remaining in Arctic Power, the single-issue group lobbying to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling.

In a response to the boycott on its website, ExxonMobil said Tuesday the company supports "responsible" development of the Arctic refuge.

"We believe that with more than 30 years of industry experience on Alaska's North Slope and with recent technological advancements, ANWR can be developed with little threat to the ecology of the Coastal Plain," the company says.

ExxonMobil says it has no rights to acquire any property in the Coastal Plain, and "critical data, such as seismic, is virtually nonexistent, making a meaningful interpretation and forecast of resources difficult."

But the company says that "since energy sources are critically important to energy security and to support US economic growth, development of this area could contribute to domestic oil production and to a reduction of US dependence on foreign oil for many years.

The campaigners charge that ExxonMobil has been "trying to avoid paying all the damages due to those harmed by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill."

ExxonMobil says, "The Valdez oil spill in 1989 was a tragic accident that the company deeply regrets. The company took immediate responsibility for the spill, cleaned it up and voluntarily compensated those who claimed direct damages."

"An Alaska jury set the actual damages of the Valdez accident at $287 million. ExxonMobil immediately and voluntarily paid more than $300 million to all those affected by the spill and the trial court in Anchorage commended us for acting so quickly. In addition, ExxonMobil spent $2.2 billion on the spill cleanup, continuing the effort from 1989 until 1992, when both the State of Alaska and the U.S. Coast Guard declared the cleanup complete."

"With regard to the Valdez punitive damages, the award has twice been thrown out by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a strong indication that there is a sound basis to ExxonMobil's arguments that the amount of punitive damages is excessive."

The appellate court referred the case for punitive damages back to federal district court Judge H. Russell Holland in light of two Supreme Court rulings. Judge Holland's decision awarding $4.5 billion to the plaintiffs, plus interest in the amount of $2.5 billion, has been appealed again by ExxonMobil, as it appealed his first award of $5 billion and his second award of $4 billion.

The Scarlett Law Group, a firm of California environmental disaster lawyers based in San Francisco, represents some 750 businesses, including fishermen, crew, fish processing facilities, cannery workers, tender boat operators, landowners, natives, and others harmed by the devastation left in the wake of the Exxon Valdez.

The law firm says, "Rather than devise a plan to provide adequate compensation to those harmed by its grossly negligent conduct, Exxon resolved that it would not assist those harmed by its egregious conduct unless forced to do so by the victims in Court. Without the plaintiffs' lawyers bringing suit on behalf of those harmed, the victims were assured of receiving nothing from Exxon."


Digg!

Sunny Lewis is editor-in-chief of Environment News Service, an independently owned wire service covering the environment.

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

Advertisement
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:
RE: Why we have problems now
Posted by: legs6_2 on Jul 14, 2005 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Name calling definitely shows your superior intellect!
The truth is becoming undeniable. The scary part is by the time it becomes undeniable even to people like you, it's too late.
Try opening your mind a bit, using it, and thinking for yourself.... you might be surprised at how well it really works!
....and you drive an 8 cyl vehicle that gets mmmm maybe 10-12 miles to the gallon on a good day?
Can you even conprehend the difference between renewable and non-renewable energy sources?

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

» RE: Why we have problems now Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: Why we have problems now Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Why we have problems now Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: Why we have problems now Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Why we have problems now Posted by: Armafied
learn the facts
Posted by: profwoof on Jul 14, 2005 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please read 'The True Price of Oil' by Ashley Shelby, posted June 24, 2005 on AlterNet. Here's a few excerpt:

Sixteen years after the Exxon Valdez spill, Alaskans most affected by the spill haven’t seen one cent of a $5 billion settlement...

If the herring fishery had been closed 1 or 2 seasons, fishers say, they might have been able to bounce back; but there hasn't been a herring season for more than ten years...

It has also been 10 years since a federal jury awarded the fishers & Natives on the Sound $5.2 billion in punitive damages from Exxon. And it has been 10 years that not a single check from that award has been cut. "I think the vast majority of people in Cordova believed the reps from Exxon, But once the issue transformed from 'how to get out of the media limelight' to 'how to get in a position to protect our profit margin & stock value', it changed overnight. They zipped up their purse strings, got out of town & said: you’ll find us in the courtroom.”...

Perhaps the most memorable brief from this 1st round was when Exxon claimed that crude oil was not a pollutant under the federal Clean Water Act,….

“I would love to collect the Exxon oil that is [still] on our beaches & dump those gallons of oil on the front yard of its corporate headquarters. It’s been in my front yard for fourteen years.”

"Each yr. Exxon delays payment it earns an estimated $400 million from the difference between the statutory interest rate on judgments of 6% & the company's internal rate of return of about 14%"...

Exxon has earned enough in interest alone to pay the initial 5 billion award...

The true reason for gas prices is greed.

Peoples of all nations must learn how to co-exist in a healthy & beneficial way. Spewing hatred & name calling will not get the job done.

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

» RE: learn the facts Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: learn the facts Posted by: lindalee
» RE: learn the facts Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: learn the facts Posted by: profwoof
» RE: learn the facts Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: learn the facts Posted by: profwoof
RE: Why we have problems now
Posted by: profwoof on Jul 14, 2005 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"stupid, unfounded opinions; green wacko squad; phoney envionmental theories,"???

Okey, maybe it's not actually name calling.....just like Rove didn't name Plame.

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

RE: Why we have problems now
Posted by: bornxeyed on Jul 14, 2005 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmental regulations have had very little effect on gas prices at the pump or wellhead. In the 1970s domestic crude oil production peaked. Global crude oil production is peaking in this very decade.

The reason gasoline is over $2 a gallon is due to the basic, conservative economic theory of supply and demand.

And, by the way, the reason gasoline prices weren't $5/gallon 20 years ago, like they were in Europe and Japan, is due to US government policy of subsidizing the oil and gas industry and its foreign policy in regards to the Middle East.

In actuality, our involvement in skirmishes and Middle East internal affairs has cost us all a lot more than an extra $2/gallon for gasoline in terms of military spending, lives lost, global reputation sullied, environmental damage and interest on the debt we've rung up paying for this "cheap" oil.

How do you like your country being mortgaged to China, Saudi Arabia, Japan and the European banks. The latter 3 of which have benefitted by not having to pay for their own defense?

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

» RE: Why we have problems now Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: Why we have problems now Posted by: lindalee
» RE: Why we have problems now Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Why we have problems now Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: Why we have problems now Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: Why we have problems now Posted by: bornxeyed
Exxon boycott
Posted by: bookwoman on Jul 14, 2005 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a "no brainer". Here in New England, their prices are so much higher than all the gas companies, that no one buys there anyway.

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

Beyond Boycott
Posted by: mudshark1 on Jul 14, 2005 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While boycotts hit offenders where they fear it most, there wallets, they only involve people who agree with your position.

What if, instead, all those who are upset with Exxon pulled into a station and bought only _one dollar's worth of gas_?

Think about it. This would create gas lines at every Exxon station, and even people who love the company, need to fill their tanks and _spend more money_ would say "Hell with this, I'm going over to (insert rival company's name here)"

This would be perfectly legal, affect sales far more than a boycott, and send a powerful message to management.

If you are interested in other strategies like this, get "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky, one of the best books any organizer can read. His work is also all over the web.

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

twoves
Posted by: twolves on Aug 21, 2005 5:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please read Sound Truth and Corporate Myths by DR. Riki Ott. It is an account of the clean up effort for the Exxon Valdez from an eye witness. Not only the fishermen were hurt by the spill, the workers cleaning up the spill were lied to about oil's toxicity and the toxicity of the cleaning solutions. It documents how the spill was not cleaned up to the extent that Exxon claims, how more oil was spilled then Exxon claims, How Exxon tricked workers into signing forms paying them $600 dollars for their health concerns and legaly exempting them from paying further damages (some of these workers are still experiencing dibilitating effects today), etc, etc. I also personally know one of the Federal agents who was in charge of the cleanup for the EPA. He is not allowed to talk about certain things that happened during the cleanup and has pictures that he had to hide from Exxon officials because they confiscated his first few rolls and burned them. How is it that a top offical for a federal org. (whose jog it is to clean up the environment) can be made to hush up about what he did and have to hide evidence of how badly the cleanup was progressing?

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