ExxonMobil costs Stanford a big donor

Millionaire movie producer Steve Bing has withdrawn his donation to Stanford (his alma mater; and a school with numerous "Bing" buildings), due to its partnership with ExxonMobil commenting, through a spokesman, that: "Exxon Mobil is trying to greenwash itself, and it's using Stanford as its brush."

DUH. ExxonMobil is giving $100 million over 10 years (while other big oil interests are throwing in another $125 million over the same period) and is doing so to either rehabilitate their tarnished brand or to affect the research of one of the world's leading institutions -- or both.

According to Jennifer Washburne, an expert in the relationship between Universities and Corporations, an ad on the NY Times' oped page, signed by the Stanford Prof Lynn Orr, "suggested that the scientific debate about global warming is ongoing: 'Although climate has varied throughout Earth’s history from natural causes, today there is a lively debate about . . . the climate’s response to the presence of more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.'"

This, despite the fact that, as the Mercury article notes, there's a virtual consensus on the fact that human activity is the cause of global warming.

It comes as no surprise, of course, that ExxonMobil was still ...... deeply immersed in a massive misinformation campaign on the subject long after it signed the agreement with Stanford.

The perfect wording comes from Stanford spokeswoman, Elaine Ray, who countered charges with this carefully indignant statement: "The claim that Stanford has lost any academic autonomy as a result of sponsored research is preposterous on its face."

"Preposterous" is right -- except the only preposterous notion is that massive donations from a corporation proven to fund misinformation would not effect the University's reputation -- if not the quality of the research itself. I'd like to see Elaine Ray invest her child's college money with a broker who has stated interests in the growth of a particular industry. You don't do that, because it'd be a conflict of interest. It's stupid and disingenuous and anyone would think you were an irresponsible idiot for doing so.

It's so preposterous to argue against the fact that an avalanche of interested money is a bad thing for a supposedly objective institution that it's hard to believe that anyone would try it with a straight face.

Now, if ExxonMobil has a sincere interest in funding new research, and Stanford wants to take their money, fine. But in order for that to work -- and I'm not personally opposed to it altogether -- some preparatory measures should be instituted.

Stanford should require that ExxonMobil come to terms with the reality that, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just determined, "it is an unequivocal series of evidence [showing that] fossil fuel burning and land use change are affecting the climate on our planet." And ExxonMobil should no longer be allowed to give money to groups who argue that the jury is out on global warming.

Of course, Stanford requires nothing of its partner, except that the checks keep coming.

It's an age-old question: Do you work with large corporations, showing them that their bottom line won't be effected by more socially responsible positions and products or do you force them via the government and/or public pressure to do the right thing?

There's no easy answer but this laissez faire approach to partnering with corporations hardly forces them into anything; it's more likely, in fact, to give them the "greenwashing" they need to continue their potentially catastrophic course...

This message was paid for by Citizens Against Stanford and ExxonMobil.* Of course, the message was not altered by the fact that CASE paid for it in the least. We swear and we're really pissed at the preposterous nature of any potential claim that that's the case. REALLY pissed.