Fossil Fuels Industry Ignored its Own Scientists on Climate

So deep in denial is the fossil fuels industry, it ignored its own scientists when they offered advice on climate change that the industry did not want to accept. The Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, had spent a decade leading an aggressive lobbying and PR campaign against the notion that greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change, and they weren’t about to screw it up with a silly thing like actual facts.

From The New York Times:

A document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

The coalition disbanded in 2002, but some members, including the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute, continue to lobby against any law or treaty that would sharply curb emissions. Others, like Exxon Mobil, now recognize a human contribution to global warming and have largely dropped financial support to groups challenging the science.

Basically, the fossil fuels industry knew about the harm that rampant greenhouse gas emissions would cause, and not only didn’t act – but sought to convince the public that there was no tie between these emissions and global warming, a tactic that was also employed by the tobacco industry. British environmental activist and writer George Monbiot points out that the fossil fuels industry didn’t have to convince people of their point of view, but simply create as much confusion as possible.

And, to some degree, it worked. Much of the ‘evidence’ and ‘scientific opinion’ that global warming deniers and skeptics still use to refute the reality of climate change to this day originates from the misinformation deliberately injected into the argument by the fossil fuels industry. Luckily, the noise from the ‘global warming is a myth’ side has largely died down in the face of actual facts.

So, where’s the public anger? Why aren’t people pushing back against an industry that would sacrifice millions of lives and the future of our planet for their own financial gain? It might have something to do with the fact that most people still don’t think global warming is going to affect them personally. I hope, for everyone’s sake, that they aren’t forced to learn otherwise in the near future.

Link [The New York Times]

WTF: Exxon Calls for Carbon Tax to Fight Global Warming

The world’s largest oil company has done an about-face from its former stance on global warming, suddenly announcing that it backs a carbon tax. The company has denied the existence of global warming for years, funding global warming denial groups and research. Exxon boss Rex Tillerson said he believes that a carbon tax is a “more direct, more transparent and a more effective approach” to controlling greenhouse gases than any other plans that have been proposed.

From The Independent:

Exxon had already dropped its funding of lobby groups which deny the science of climate change and begun to take a softer public line, but even Mr Tillerson admitted that propounding a carbon tax had stuck in the craw until recently. However, with European-style “cap and trade” rules governing carbon emissions moving up the agenda in the US, a carbon tax may be the least worst option, he said. Environmental groups gave a sceptical response to Exxon’s U-turn, calling it a deliberate attempt to torpedo the movement for outright carbon caps and any early switch to alternative energy. “A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions – from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements, to the product choices made by consumers,” Mr Tillerson said in a speech to the Woodrow Wilson Centre for International Scholars, a Washington think-tank.

Shocking, to say the least – but Greenpeace isn’t buying it. They believe that Mr. Tillerson’s statements are nothing more than a smokescreen for Exxon’s attempts to slow down the switch to alternative fuels.

“A carbon tax is a political poison pill,” said Kert Davies, a research director at Greenpeace. “No politician in the US would propose something with the word tax in it. Being in favour of something makes Exxon look like it is being intellectual, but this threatens to derail the prevailing international discussion.”

It’s highly unlikely that a carbon tax will pass, especially in a recession, so it’s fairly ‘safe’ for Tillerson to have made such remarks. The Huffington Post’s Andrew Winston theorizes that Exxon knows that a carbon tax would ultimately be cheaper for Exxon than a cap-and-trade.

From The Huffington Post:

The wrangling over a cap-and-trade system — who will pay for permits, who’s included in the “cap”, and so on — will be ugly. But you can bet that energy and utility companies will face the most traumatic changes and restrictions. A tax, on the other hand, would wind its way through the economy to the places that the supply and demand curves dictate (those with “inelastic” demand are more likely to pay the price). Basically, even if it’s taxed at the pipeline or refinery, the actual cost could be passed on to consumers. But isn’t that the point? A tax or a cap should reduce consumption, which won’t happen without a higher price signal. Only when gas hit $4 a gallon, did people demand more energy-efficient cars.

I don’t trust Exxon for one second, so I find it hard to believe that they’re suddenly supporters of global warming legislation. They’ve gained a reputation as the world’s #1 global warming villain for a reason and any greenwashing efforts to change public opinion of them are not going to work on most of us (check out this HuffPo editorial by Robert F. Kennedy for the lowdown on Exxon’s shady past).

Link [The Independent] + [The Huffington Post]
Photo credit: Flickr user azrainman

Toast the Earth with Exxon Mobile

Remember this classic video? Watch as ExxonMobil funds junk science, wrecks the Arctic Refuge, and spills oil on endangered wildlife.

“The globe is slowly warming, real scientists all know. But Exxon Mobile’s here to say it really isn’t so…”

Aside from a little less global warming denial, has much changed since 2006?

Exxon Valdez Payments Delayed Again After 19 Years of Waiting

An imminent payment from Exxon Mobil Corp. to the commercial fishermen affected by the nation’s worst oil spill has been delayed once again.  The damages have been put off for 19 years so far, and this time it’s due to lawyers for Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc., a Seattle-based company that ran a fish-processing plant in Valdez, filing court papers objecting to the allocation plan.

From The Huffington Post:

They are seeking a new plan that conforms to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June, which awarded up to $507.5 million in punitive damages to nearly 33,000 commercial fishermen, cannery workers, land owners, Alaska Natives and others who claimed harm from the 1989 crude oil spill. The plaintiffs had been seeking $5 billion.

After the Supreme Court decision, lawyers for the plaintiffs and Exxon worked out a partial settlement under which Exxon agreed to release $383 million.

The money was to be distributed under an allocation plan approved in 1996 by Anchorage federal Judge H. Russel Holland, and Sea Hawk contends that it is flawed.

According to the company, the Supreme Court decided that the size of punitive damage awards must be proportional to the size of compensatory damage awards already paid to plaintiffs. The company argues the current plan assigns some plaintiffs larger or smaller shares than they deserve.

Big shocker. This payment has been delayed so many times for so many reasons – usually through efforts of Exxon to avoid opening their wallet. This time, it’s infighting among the plantiffs. Exxon, of course, is fighting this effort by Sea Hawk Seafoods, claiming that their demands will deprive other plaintiffs of their fair share of the damages (like they’re really worried about that – they just don’t want to pay).

Prior to this development, Exxon had avoided paying the damages because ever since Sarah Palin stepped in as governor of Alaska, she has failed to collect the money. The previous governor had presented Exxon with a demand to pay the extra $92 million in estimated damages due for ‘unanticipated environmental injuries’ from the spill. Since Palin was elected, she hasn’t pressed the issue, while Exxon has continued to reap record profits in Alaska.

Aren’t the damages for this spill a drop in the bucket for a company that has raked in ungodly amounts of money in the last few decades? It’s obscene.  This needs to be laid to rest as soon as possible.

Link [The Huffington Post]
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Lawmakers Finally Agree to Ban Poison in Kids’ Items Despite Exxon Lobbying

Gee, Congress. Pat on the back. After literally decades of kids playing with toys filled with toxic chemicals, you’ve finally gotten around to banning pthalates in kids’ items. Great job. We’re so glad that you’ve been on top of children’s’ safety issues, protecting our kids from harm.

The U.S. does not currently require industries to prove the safety of a chemical before it’s allowed on the market. Parents may purchase these toys for their kids thinking, ‘Surely it’s safe – the government wouldn’t allow them to be sold if they weren’t, right?’ Unfortunately, that’s incorrect. Congress just now passed a measure that would ban pthalates, a dangerous family of toxins, from kids’ items. The ban would take effect in 6 months – that is, if President Bush doesn’t veto it, which he has threatened to do.

From The Washington Post:

Among other things, the legislation would ban lead in children’s products and would give consumers access to a new database of complaints or accident reports for goods. The measure also allows stiffer fines for violations and enhanced enforcement of consumer safety laws.

Under language finalized yesterday, House and Senate lawmakers agreed to permanently ban three types of phthalates from children’s toys and to outlaw three other phthalates from products pending an extensive study of their health effects in children and pregnant women.

Phthalates make plastics softer and more durable and also are added to perfumes, lotions, shampoos and other items. They are so ubiquitous that in one 1999 study, the Food and Drug Administration found traces in all of its 1,000 subjects.

We haven’t even gotten to the worst part yet. Believe it or not, this legislation got bogged down in the House due to a ‘costly battle’ waged by Exxon Mobil (could they BE any more evil?), who manufacture the pthalate most commonly found in children’s toys. In fact, they have said that they’re protesting the ban because without pthalates, manufacturers will be ‘forced’ to use even more dangerous chemicals instead.

Here’s an idea, folks: STOP PUTTING TOXINS IN KIDS’ TOYS! It’s really not that hard! It’s amazing that these companies are allowed to knowingly poison kids – and our country has just sat back and allowed it to happen. Sickening.

Link [The Washington Post]
Photo credit: Flickr user greenmelinda