Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiExxonMobil Continuing to Fund Climate Sceptic Groups, Records Show
Records show ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published 'misleading and inaccurate information' about climate change
The world's largest oil company is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial, a new analysis shows.
![[Exxon. Photograph: Donna Williams/AP]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/exxon-2.jpg "exxon-2.jpg")
Company records show that ExxonMobil handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds to such lobby groups in 2008. These include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas, which received $75,000 (£45,500), and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, which received $50,000.
According to Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, at the London School of Economics, both the NCPA and the Heritage Foundation have published "misleading and inaccurate information about climate change."
On its website, the NCPA says: "NCPA scholars believe that while the causes and consequences of the earth's current warming trend is [sic] still unknown, the cost of actions to substantially reduce CO2 emissions would be quite high and result in economic decline, accelerated environmental destruction, and do little or nothing to prevent global warming regardless of its cause."
The Heritage Foundation published a "web memo" in December that said: "Growing scientific evidence casts doubt on whether global warming constitutes a threat, including the fact that 2008 is about to go into the books as a cooler year than 2007". Scientists, including those at the UK Met Office say that the apparent cooling is down to natural changes and does not alter the long-term warming trend.
In its 2008 corporate citizenship report, published last year, ExxonMobil said it would cut funds to several groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy.
The NCPA and Heritage Foundation are included among groups funded by ExxonMobil, according to details of its "2008 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments" published recently.
Ward said: "ExxonMobil has been briefing journalists for three years that they were going to stop funding these groups. The reality is that they are still doing it. If the world's largest oil company wants to fund climate change denial then it should be upfront about it, and not tell people it has stopped."
In 2006, Ward, then at the Royal Society, wrote to ExxonMobil to challenge the company's funding of such lobby groups. The move, revealed in the Guardian, prompted accusations of censorship and debate about whether experts should "police" the distribution of scientific information.
In an article on the Guardian website, Ward writes: "I have now written again to ExxonMobil to point out that these organisations publish misleading information about climate change on their websites, and to seek guidance on how to reconcile this fact with the pledge made by the company. I believe that the company should keep its promise by ending its financial support for lobby groups that mislead the public about climate change."
ExxonMobil said it annually reviews and adjusts its contributions to policy research groups. A spokesman said: "Only ExxonMobil speaks for ExxonMobil and our position on climate change is clear. We have the same concerns as people everywhere, and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We take the issue of climate change seriously and the risks warrant action."
29 Comments so far
Show AllBOYCOTT!!! ExxonMobil until they stop these practices and many others that are ruining our Earth.
For what it's worth, on the WSJ web page there is a big discussion about the "report" that Carlin put out that supposedly debunked the whole global warming scenario and was then viciously suppressed. Most of the people commenting seemed to think that you can just pick and chose your facts to fit your tastes and beliefs. Others of them are trying to claim that global warming is some sort of evil liberal plot to make them rich. "All you have to do is follow the money" to find out how the data is being falsified.
Well, that's true enough, but when you follow the money, you end up at EXXON, not at NASA.
Smoking deaths and harmful health effects are just imagined and any such statistics need to be constantly re-examined to show the correct answers that companies are providing....
Creationism just still needs a good honest debate for people to wake up to its validity and widespread adoption....
And climate change deniers are of the same ilk as the two above fed by vested interests, the deluded and the small-minded.
When water sources dry up they'll be saying it's just a seasonal thing....and praying for rain will help......
Then one day we'll be having pandemic deniers when a decent plague eventually makes it's way across the world......
i would like to see these f--ks breathe money when there's no
no oxygen left. now that would be amusing! its only a matter
of time before little georgey bush gets a seat on exxon's
board as repayment for all the crimes he committed on their
behalf.as long as theres no justice we will never have
peace. it always boils down to the haves and the have not's
THESE ARE THE BASTARDS WHO GOT A SEAT ON THE TITANIC'S
life boats while children and women drowned. while they always
get theirs hopefully someday they really will get their
just desserts. karma's a bitch.
THE DAY
When oh when is the day going to come? When will the stillness of a starry night seep into this ugly wound that travels down a mountain of shame and greed that belies any claim of humanity or care?
Is the day of the heart so deep in the realm of the money changers that a child should die than poisons should stop on their path to the polluting smoke stack?
Where is the day of the sacredness that was the home; the home of all who believed in Bill and a Constitution? A home for sharing and not to tear.
Why is the day, oh such a long day, get not a rest as life and land cry and plead for this day to end? Yet is the day of doom pursued with vim and vigor for that 30 pieces of silver; as to any animal, vegetable or mineral besides that black angel of death there will be no future to bear.
Without an environment there will be no life. Tony 7/2/2009
WOW....I JUST READ WILDWOOD'S COMMENT...RIGHT ON
YOU TOO, GWNORTH... PERFECT!!!!
snydly
You can't fool Mother Nature.
i HAVEN'T EVEN READ THIS ARTICLE YET, but I have to get this in before everybody comes back and takes the computer... Are these climate deniers looking out the window? Are they listening to the weather happening all over? Now, I realize you do not make assumptions on one season or one year, but to anyone living on this planet, the last,what .... how many years, are very representative of CLIMATE DISRUPTION... Put with what Climate scientist have collected from their studies of hundreds or even thousands of years of weather history, this says one of two things. The deniers are either very stupid and connot comprehend anything scientific or they are purposely ignoring the reality...because of greed, they can't give up what ever profit they are making, they are not able to give up the status quo... because they think they are UNTOUCHABLE -thinking they'll besafe because they have the money and resouces to SAVE THEMSELVES.
in other words, thomas/henry8, read the article.
It's apparent ExxonMobil chooses the cunning strategy of playing good guy/bad guy on the global heating issue. In so doing, the company placates both sides; keeps the undecideds guessing; keeps the unconcerned unconcerned; and all the while it keeps Exxon producing gross--and I do mean gross--profits. Such a strategy is admirable if you're a sociopath which is exactly what Big Oil and Big Coal exemplify.
http://freesolaradvice.blogspot.com
Corporations, for all their hideous flaws, are only doing what they are allowed, if not encouraged, to do in our society. They would be crazy not to take advantage of the system that nourishes them. Not until they are actually prevented from doing destructive things will their destructive behavior change. But where are the ends of this Gordian Knot? And if, like Alexander, you chose to sever the knot instead of trying to unravel it, where do you aim the blade?
Ethics would go a long way in solving the problem. I don't think corporate lying about global warming is encouraged by society, but I will sadly agree it is allowed. When people or corporations choose to not act ethically then it becomes very difficult to control their activities. It becomes a sick game where the unethical are always trying to skirt around any laws that may attempt to control their activities.
In my humble opinion if ALL corporations and ALL individuals chose to toss ALL ethics aside and only allow laws to guide their conduct I think society would simply crumble. You just cant write enough laws force people/corporations to do the right thing in all cases. I think giving corporations a pass on acting ethically is simply wrong. Ethics is one of the very weak glues that holds a society together.
I think the ends of this Gordian Knot are teaching ethics and enforcing ethics. I worked in the corporate world for over 30 years. Ethics were given lip service but almost never enforced especially when not enforcing them benefitted the corporation.
Corporations (like governments) are not created to be ethical institutions, but nexi of power. Only greater power, in our case the government, can coerce corporations to act 'ethically' as I think you may agree that corporations will not automatically do so.
You suggest that more laws (assuming enforcement) won't ensure ethical behavior, but then how does a society codify and promote its 'ethics' except through law? 'Social pressure' is perhaps an ad hoc method, but this can often be ignored if corporations (or governments) can act without concern for social pressure. Many recent examples of this exist in our society.
Business schools may teach 'ethics', but what is taught is often forgotten once the graduates reach 'the real world'. In my mind, 'enforcing ethics' as you suggest, amounts to enforcing laws; something since Reagan's time, about which we have been remiss.
So, while I agree with you that more ethical decision makers - in all walks of life - would be a great benefit, I have to ask: 1. How do you instill and enforce ethics on independent actors (corporations for example), and 2. whose ethics?
I agree with you that corporations are currently not created to be ethical institutions, but then why shouldn't they be? When a child is created does its parents not think it should be raised to act ethically? Both are creations of man. Why shouldn't we expect decent behavior of both.
The example here is Exxon continuing to give money to groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a pledge the company made to end that support. The institutions that it gave money to published "misleading and inaccurate information about climate change".
How on earth are you going to pass laws to fix that? Are you going to pass a law saying that corporations can't misinform people? Lawyers would have a ball with that one. Are you going to pass a law saying that corporations cant give money to other institutions to effect public opinion?
Social pressure is what made Exxon say it would stop funding those groups, not any laws. If Exxon didn't think it was doing something wrong it would not have bowed to that pressure.
All I am trying to say here is we should demand decent behavior from the corporations and people around us. That needs to be done by a combination of laws and social pressure to make companies and individuals to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
You and I both seem to agree that it would be better that corporations were created and maintained only if they behave ethically (though you have yet to express whose ethics they should promulgate). Be that as it may.
'How on earth are you going to pass laws to fix that?'
Here's an idea: Since corporations are an artificial creation, and not a creation of nature, they can be compelled to sign on to a list of ethical 'commandments' when they are chartered and can be de-chartered and, in effect, given the death penalty as an entity if there is evidence that they violated any of those commandments. Stockholders, not to mention shareholders like employees, taxpayers, and the community where the corporation is located, may be more mindful of inethical corporate behavior if their jobs, financial stability, and community might suffer from their the dissolution of their local corporation. In short, more people will take interest than only the stockholders.
Personally, I don't expect laws to be passed to 'fix that'. I expect the current situation to continue unabated until we perish as a society.
"Social pressure is what made Exxon say it would stop funding those groups, not any laws."
Big deal, Exxon says it will stop funding those groups. Do you think that will stop Exxon from using whatever tactics are allowed to pursue its ends?
Exxon, like any other creature, has an expectation of a right to self-defense - the fact that it is an artificial, man-made, 'creature' notwithstanding (and whether I agree with its 'right to exist' or not). It believes that attacking the 'global warming' crowd is in its best interest. Given the stakes, they'd be fools to do otherwise. Whatever Exxon 'accepts' - whether a result of social pressure or laws it accepts only because its directors believe it is in Exxon's interest. If ethical behavior is found to be in Exxon's interests then it will exhibit ethical behavior; but that is not currently the case. And as long as big money buys federal policy, and corporations cannot be given the death penalty, as other 'persons' are, the problem will exist.
I don't disagree with what you suggest, but demanding decent behavior without the ability to compel decent behavior amounts to little more than wishful thinking. Yes, it would be a better world if everybody behaved ethically, but I don't expect that. And I'm afraid that in this world force, or perceived (if short-sighted) self-interest, more often than not trumps ethics.
It would appear as if ExxonMobil are determined to be this era of history's corporate Flat Earthers. Though it should be written that the Flat Earthers were somewhat more honest, as their position was simply ignorance in the face of scientific data. ExxonMobil's is deliberate obfuscation to maintain profits in the short term while being active enablers of a dire future for our descendants, which is quite evil.
I don't know of how many of you ever watched the documentary "The Corporation" but I would highly recommend it. It's premise is that large corporations display the traits of a human sociopath, (most listed below). This explains why a company like Exxon has no problem contributing to, then lying about, its role in the destruction of the environment for future generations.
And my I add look at the list below and think of how many politicians, especially Republicans, display these exact characteristics. Scary stuff.
• Glibness/Superficial Charm
• Manipulative and Conning
• Grandiose Sense of Self
• Pathological Lying
• Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
• Incapacity for Love
• Callousness/Lack of Empathy
• Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
• Irresponsibility/Unreliability
• Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
• Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
• Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
• Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
• Authoritarian
• Secretive
• Paranoid
• Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
• Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
• Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
• Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
• Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
• Incapable of real human attachment to another
• Unable to feel remorse or guilt
• Narcissism, grandiosity (self-importance not based on achievments)
• May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
You have just described the ANTI-CHRIST.
Not only Republicans fit the decribtions listed but Democrats and President Obama fit the decribtions on the list too. Two faces of the same party!!!!! We need to move pass thinking that there is any difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party as they are both corporate toadies.
Our only real hope is if Progressives and others form another party who starts working now to elect real Progressives to political office and toss all those bums out of both parties who serve corporate interests over what is best for the country and the American people.
I basically agree with what you are saying but there are still a VERY FEW decent Dems and Bernie Sanders so I didn't want to paint them with that big old brush.
I think a third party of almost any kind (but I would prefer a progressive one) would be a great thing. These two parties have a strangle hold on power and have so narrowed what is allowed in a political discussion that it's disgusting. Third and fourth parties always shake things up.
THE truth has not a chance if you nurture ignorance. How can you relate a "want" to a "need"?
Should we but take only the ENERGY we need, instead of want. We have no problem.
The taking of our wants denies the needs of others.
Simple!
bring it on, you climate change/global warming deniers.
I don't think anyone is denying climate change. The controversy is centered around the theory that it is man made. Till clear scientific proof is available that it is man made, this type of conversation will comtinue.
Check out the BOOK 'An Inconv Truth' and study the big chart.
That tells all we need to know.
Let us just say that I am grateful that my Mother did not smoke or drink while pregnant because her Grandmother told her it would harm the child.
This LONG before the Scientific Consensus. This when Cigarette Companies were selling Cigraettes as a "health product".
There is plenty of evidence that the main cause of climate change is the sun. I am all for reducing pollution of all types but really folks, do your homework. A global tax will not cool the Earth.
As a life long amateur astronomer I have done my homework for decades. I am quite aware that the sun can have MINOR effects on the earth's climate, but all we have to do is to look at the planet Venus to see that what goes on in a planets atmosphere can have a much more dramatic effect on the planets climate.
Venus is 25 million miles closer to the Sun than Earth. If Venus had an Earth like atmosphere, adjusted for the distance difference, Venus would have an average surface temperature about 20% higher that earths or roughly 68 degrees vs earths average temp of 57 degrees. But because its atmosphere is mostly CO2 its average temp is really around 800 degrees, demonstrating nicely the point I am trying to make.
From what I've read it is probably already too late to do much to stop the the coming dramatic climate change which we have caused. Because the way politics works NOTHING meaningful will be done until there can be no denying it to the average person and by then it will be most assuredly too late.
Once we heat the planet enough we will enter the realm of positive feedback where the warming will enhance itself. As northern tundras thaw they will release methane which is roughly 25 times more potent than CO2 is for warming the planet. There is also large amounts of methane hydrates at the ocean bottoms which only need a few degrees of warming to also be released.
I am in my early 50s so I will probably not live to see things get real bad, but people who will be alive at the end of this century and beyound will. I feel very sad when I look at pictures of very young children knowing the world they will be living in. Between global climate change and declining oil supplies things will be pretty bleak.
There, I have done your homework for you.
Don't forget what ice/water does when temp rises...
it moves...into the sea and the atmosphere.
Henry8
The fact that you think that there is still a debate that global climate change is caused by human activity demonstrates that Exxon is spending its money wisely. Exxon like most dishonest politicians know they don't have to prove that they are right, all they have to do is muddy the argument. Which is exactly what they are doing.
Check out this URL then search for human activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
You will see that there is wide consensus that the overwhelming evidence indicates that the warming is most likely being caused by human activity. I supposed skeptics can point at the "most likely" part of those statements and say, see they are not completely positive.
In something as complicated as global climate change it would be extremely difficult to prove it beyond any doubt that it is caused by humans. But seeing what could be the dire results if we do nothing would be, I would gladly go with the scientific consensus.
It's kind of like you are sitting in a house and there has been a bad gas leak. You can smell gas everywhere. Now the scientific consensus there would be that if you light a match you will most likely blow yourself up. There is always the chance you won't because you happen to be standing in a small pocket of fresh air. But would you want to take that chance?