Exxon has admitted - for the first time - that the climate deniers it funds are causing problems for action on climate change.

This is a first for the company which has spent, since 1998, $23 million funding the climate denial industry. 

And it's official - Exxon made this statement in this year's Corporate Citizenship Report, released in time for its shareholder meeting. 

 The statement reads:

 "in 2008 we will distcontinue contributions to several public policy interest groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."  (page 41 under "public policy research contributions."

"Could divert attention"?  We award Exxon a special prize for the Understatement of the Year.  The denial industry can be held responsible for the US's failure to act on climate. And Exxon has been at the heart of it for more than a decade. 

So which groups is Exxon dropping?  According to Reuters, gone from the funding list in 2008 are the George C Marshall Institute,  the Committe for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Frontiers of Freedom... and others.  

These groups are what you might call the "engine room" of the climate denial industry.  

But even Exxon's walking away from them now. 

The company started dropping groups in 2006, with the Competitive Enterprise Institute being the first to go.  Last year, it dumped the Heartland Institute, which organised the biggest denial conference for a long time, in New York in March and has been running a slightly ridiculous campaign against Al Gore. 

 The other groups were all co-sponsors of the Heartland conference which concluded, surprisingly enough, that global warming isn't happening.

 We note that this announcement didn't come from the usual spokesman from Exxon, Ken Cohen, who chairs the company's funding committe, but from a new person.  Clearly the new CEO Rex Tillerson is trying to shift his company from the poisoned chalice left to him by former CEO and arch denialist, Lee Raymond. 

But is cutting nine groups getting the job done? 

In short, no.  From the 2007 Worldwide Giving Report, posted on Exxon's website on Friday, we can see that Exxon funded a total of 37 global warming denial groups, to the tune of nearly $2 million,  which is pretty similar to 2006. Even cutting nine of them means the company is still funding 28 groups engaged in climate denial. 

Tillerson needs to make a much wider sweep if he really wants to shake off Raymond's legacy - he has started, but we think he should apologise to the global community for the harm his company has caused.

1998 communications strategy groups finally seen off

The latest round of Exxon cuts means an end to the funding of the organisations who gathered together in 1998 to plot a communications strategy designed to foster public scepticism of climate science and undermine the Kyoto treaty. 

The plan was drawn up by a small cabal of groups and companies, including Exxon, Chevron and the big energy provider, the Southern Company, and Fred Singer's outfit, SEPP.  In there were also Frontiers of Freedom and the Marshall Institute, who have both enjoyed Exxon funding ever since. 

The memo stated that "Victory will be achieved when:

... average citizens "understand" (recognise) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties become part of conventional wisdom;

..."Those promoting the Kyoto Treaty on the basis of extant science appear out of touch with reality."

Well, sorry guys,  while you may have achieved a certain level of climate scepticism, the IPCC's latest report is absolutely clear on the climate science - and governments are acting on it. 

Will this stop the denial industry?

 Well, no.  We note that Walt Buchholtz, Exxon's former funding man, left the company and went to work at Heartland for a year. No doubt he helped set up Heartland's new sources of funding from other members of the business community. 

There's still a ways to go, but it's a start. When companies like Exxon start questioning this lot, there's not a lot of people who will continue to support them. 

 

When I have time I love standing at the bow and watching the waves. Sometimes hundreds of flying fish rise up out of the water all at once and glide over the surface ahead of our ship for an astonishing distance before disappearing into the big blue. I'm always hoping to see dolphins but I haven't been as lucky as some of the crew - yet. We've seen quite a few birds too and even had a brown footed booby stay with us for 2 days. I was delighted to have an animal on board but the deck crew weren't happy about it at all. By the time the booby left I realised why... the deck underneath the mast at the bow was totally covered in bird poo.

Living and working on board is very different to being on land. Each day, before anyone starts their job - the toilets, showers, alleyways, mess, laundry and lounge all need to be cleaned and everyone is expected to share these duties. On Saturdays we give everything a special, big clean. Sakyo signed up to do the showers last Saturday while I was scrubbing the alleyways. The drains needed to be opened up and this brought out the most disgusting smell I have ever come across. I had to try really hard not resurrect my cheese toastie but Sakyo went right inside one of the showers and closed the door in order to give it a good clean. I thought he might actually die in there and was about to attempt a rescue operation when he surprisingly came out by himself - looking a dodgy shade of green I might add. If anyone is thinking of working on board a Greenpeace ship - my advice to you would be to avoid cleaning showers on Saturdays - at all costs.

Lately I've had a craving for orange juice but haven't seen any since I arrived on board so I went to ask the cook with the cutest face I could possibly muster and managed to get my hands on some grapefruit juice (a triumph in itself!). As I poured myself a cup of liquid gold I immediately attracted several other crew members towards me like honeybees to nectar. It's funny how so many things that you take for granted on land suddenly end up being a treasured rarity at sea. Last night I opened up the fridge and found a bottle of organic orange juice in there. I felt like I had won the jackpot on a slot machine! Perhaps there is an orange juice fairy on board who has finally granted me a wish I have been silently making every morning.

Another treat we had was when the folks on board from Japan and Korea made an Asian feast. I pitched in and Sakyo showed me how to make vegetarian sushi. It's actually a lot easier than I thought and we managed over 30 long rolls with different fishless fillings. The crew absolutely loved it and the cook enjoyed a well deserved evening off.

The ship has been getting a makeover while we've been on the move - and a lot of new paint has gone on (obviously it's important to look good while saving the planet!) but now we're all gearing up for action again. As I write this the paintbrushes are being packed away and Dingo, our helicopter pilot, is pulling the covers off Tweety.

I'd better go and get ready

             - Lisa 

A clear window into what happened to our democracy could be seen today as the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing, “Exploring the Skyrocketing Price of Oil,” with executives from BP, Shell, Chevron, Conoco Phillips and ExxonMobil.  I found it on C-Span.  Some of the highlights:

None of the executives could remember how much they make, although most admitted it was in excess on 2 million dollars.  They all did their best to look somber about the record high prices of oil and then went on to blame China, OPEC (remember that old boogeyman?) and most importantly, lack of access to new places to drill for oil to help make America energy independent.  These guys are paid enormous amounts of money to pretend they care about the pain the public feels when they tighten the screws on us.  Congress throws some theatrically tough questions and act concerned, although they don’t pay for the gas for their own limos.  You and I do.  So its sort of like Broadway except it seems the makeup artists use brooms.    

J. Stephen Simon, the Senior VP of ExxonMobil went through a series of arguments showing how dramatically the oil industry margins have been reduced.  By the end of his explanation it seemed that ExxonMobil was profitless, although thanks to public records we know that their profits were a record 40 billion dollars last year and are on pace to crush that record this year.  He spoke of working together to strengthen American competitiveness, advised us not to worry about the current “upcycle” (that was his euphemism for the sky high gasoline prices) and all the while whining about taxes.

All the executives stated directly or implied that the oil price crisis could be alleviated by giving them access to the last wild places where oil is still to be found in America: the Rocky Mountain Front Range, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and more coastal drilling.  If your grandmother had oil in her teeth they’d want those too.  The fact is that these sources take years to explore, destroy wild areas permanently and would only reduce the price of oil marginally.  But they would add handsomely to the oil companies’ profits.  It’s the perfect argument for the oil companies: they want more of the same, record profits, easy access to our lands and waters, continued subsidies of about 40 billion dollars a year for oil and gas (easy to remember as it is the same as ExxonMobil’s 2007 profits – and both are on track to go up in 2008), and blame the lack of access on the environmentalists.   

The fact is I am not against oil prices going up.  That is what is going to make us use less.  If oil prices were being driven up by a federal system that put a cap on the carbon that these and other companies bring into the economy and force them to buy credits to emit permitted amounts, the revenue from the credits would then go back to Americans, all Americans to help offset the higher energy costs – not drive profits higher.

The retiring head of Shell had a fun way to try and downplay the record profits.  He mumbled out something about the profits they are reporting being very large in absolute numbers but you have to look at the segments of our business, the upstream something or another, historic age of oilfields, marginal costs… 

I started to feel sorry for these guys, I felt less resentful of the 40 billion dollars in subsidies that we give these guys each year who can’t remember how many millions of dollars they are paid.  Heck, I felt like running down to the Hill and bringing them flowers.  After all, they got some pretty tough questions from the Senators.  To make matters worse, a protest kicked in, I could hear the voices in the back of the room while watching on my computer screen the faces of the witnesses as they heard somebody demanding that we separate oil and state  Dammed hippies insisting that the politicians stop taking campaign donations from the executives that they are supposed to protect Americans from, yeah, and wreck the whole game.

Pretty nuts… like enough to make you wanna take the bus.

 

 

Solomon Islands talk about the impact of overfishing on their country and their lives.

Today, HuffingtonPost's RFK Jr. and Brendan Demelle detail a revealing interview with Steve "Junk-for-Brains" Milloy in the Pittsburg Tribune-Review this week.

In the interview, Milloy talks about his current anti-corporate responsibility campaign against corporations who are better than the laggards at Exxon on global warming policy- which would be most of them at this point...Milloy is targetting General Electric, Alcoa, Fe-Ex and other movers to the left of Exxon on the climate consciousness continuum.

We at ExxonSecrets, remember that Exxon seeded Milloy's Free Enterprise Action Fund in 2003 with a $50,000 grant for "Research" to the Free Enterprise Action Institute, an organization that exists nowhere in the world except in Milloy's mind and on Exxon's World Giving Report documents.  Exxon followed this with a $70,000 grant in 2005 to the Free Enterprise Education Institute for "Corporate Social Responsibility and Climate Change" though this annotation did not appear in the public Exxon World Giving Report, only in Exxon's tax forms to the IRS...hmmm  but remember that Exxon dropped Milloy in 2006...so sad

Also of interest is the leading stock holding of Free Enterprise Action Fund is none other than Exxon at over 4% of stock held.

We also note that Milloy was scoffed at during a recent Wall St Journal green forum for trashing corporate leaders on climate policy.  Hopefully corporations will brush Milloy aside at their annual meetings this year, as you would an annoying gnat...

 

 

oceans campaigner.

Our work reaches out to the 20 Pacific Island countries in this region to move towards a sustainable and equitable fishery. I am from Fiji and as a Pacific Islander allow me to point out that the Pacific is about to hit a catastrophe with the global tuna industry that could see an end to our poor countries' economy and most importantly the livelihoods of my fellow pacific islanders.

Let me give you some shocking facts about the Pacific and I will tell you a bit about why Greenpeace is here in the Pacific and why we do what we do best and that is confront the truth, tell the world by bearing witness and speak the unspoken.

The Pacific contains the last relatively healthy tuna fishery left in the world. Most of our island countries have nothing else but their huge ocean resources to survive on both as an economic need and an important livelihood that most of our people depend on for survival. The ocean for us defines and makes us who we are and I see that this is slowly being taken away from us.

If you’re paying attention to the news today, you’ll have heard that the federal government decided to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  What you’re probably not hearing is that this threatened listing comes with a huge exemption that effectively neuters any protections today’s decision could have brought to the polar bear.  What happened? The Interior Department will include an exemption so that federal agencies will not have to consider the impact of global warming pollution on the polar bear.  That’s like the Bush administration announcing it is going to stamp out lung cancer, but it’s exempting the impact of cigarettes in its plan.

Am I mad? You bet I am.  Once again the Bush administration is ignoring the science that is staring it in the face: global warming is threatening polar bears with extinction.   The federal government’s press release announcing the decision carried the headline, “Secretary Kempthorne Announces Decision to Protect Polar Bears under Endangered Species Act,” but it’s clearly mistitled and would have been more aptly written if it had said, “Secretary Kempthorne Announces Decision to Protect Oil and Gas Industry.”  Exempting global warming pollution caused by unabated oil and gas drilling spells doom for the polar bear, pure and simple.

I have been following this issue for quite some time, and I have seen firsthand the impacts of global warming in the Arctic. I’ve been in Alaska’s Beaufort Sea when the sea ice retreated so far offshore that a lone polar bear was stranded in open water, swimming for what little ice it could find in search of its ringed seal prey that were hundreds of miles away at the ice edge.   That bear was not long for this world, and the image haunts me every time I read another grim report about the plight of polar bears in our warming world.

The federal government’s own scientists predict that 2/3 of the world’s polar bears will be gone by mid-century, including all of Alaska’s polar bears, because of sea ice loss caused by global warming. Global warming is literally causing the polar bears habitat to melt out from under them, causing them to drown, cannibalize eachother, increase mortality in yearlings, etc.  The ESA is supposed to protect plants and animals from going extinct, yet our federal government is shirking its responsibility to the American people by looking the other way while global warming spells extinction for US polar bears.

I’m sure some of you are reading this and thinking that saving the polar bear is a laudable goal, but what’s more important is drilling for oil, jobs and the economy.  Consider these facts:

• The US will never be able to drill its way to energy independence since it has only three to four percent of global oil reserves, yet burns one-quarter of the world’s oil.

• The government of every other industrialized country on the planet is ratcheting back on its emissions of global warming pollution, without sacrificing jobs, their economies or their quality of life. Case in point: Europe is cutting back on global warming pollution, and the EU economy and Euro are walloping the dollar.

• The Arctic is a harbinger for things to come at lower latitudes. What we see now in the Arctic – unprecedented sea ice loss and species threatened with extinction – will not be limited to the Arctic.  Serious global warming impacts and species’ extinction will accelerate in the mid-latitudes as it is in the Arctic.

• Stalling action now means more disruption and economic cost down the line. It’s not just about polar bears and the Arctic, the entire country will benefit if the government replaces dirty sources of energy such as oil, gas and coal with cleaner, climate friendly forms of energy like solar and wind.  Conservation can go a long way toward cutting US energy needs as well.

I have to get back to work, but I’d be interested in hearing what folks think about today’s decision, and if you are getting the message that the threatened listing is nothing but a hollow victory for the polar bear.

I was on standby from 5.30am but it wasn't until 11.00am that we we finally got close to the reefer. Being on standby for that long really starts to get to you, The tension and the adrenaline really puts you on the line.

Boats were launched and we took off towards the reefer, radio contact was done already and Lagi our campaign leader came with us. When we arrived at the reefer some of our crew were welcomed on board. The captain and crew were very helpful and even our photographers were allowed on the reefer, which was really nice of the captain. I stayed in the inflatable for a while and bobbed alongside the ship for about 2 hours and then finally the radio contact was made asking me, my wantok Danny (from Papua New Guinea) and Sakyo (a Japanese activist) to also board the ship.

We managed to get on the boat without any mishap and I am still surprised that I actually climbed up that ladder because I am afraid of heights. But with the encouragement from my fellow crew on board the African Queen I managed to climbed up that ladder with shaky knees! Thank you Helena for your patience and encouragement from the rest of the team. We were invited to go down to the cooler which was half full with tuna of various sizes. We climbed down the ladder to document the cargo of tuna in there.

Being in the cooler, I got a close look at all the fish and it made me really sad because the smallest tuna that I could see was the size of my palm. No wonder there is a decline in the tuna stock because these foreigners took whatever size of tuna that they could get their hands on. I was filled with rage when I came out of the cooler I had to sit down for a while to get my emotions back together. In order for the Pacific to have tuna stocks for our children tomorrow we need to act now.

Images © Greenpeace/Paul Hilton

So i have to apologize for not posting recently.  Sadly, my time on the Esperanza has come to a close, for now.  I am back in Washington DC and watching the rest of the tour from here.  As the Esperanza continues to defend the Pacific, I will do my best to keep you all informed.  Let me know if there are questions you have about what I post and I'll do my best to get answers from the crew.  Stand by everyone, this fight is far from over! 

When I read in the NYT that there were reports being published in the prestigious journal Science showing that biofuels were actually creating more global warming pollution than conventional fuels, I was disappointed but not shocked. A lot of businesses had bought into biofuels, converting commuter, transport, and other vehicle fleets to run on biofuels, so it was disappointing to see that their efforts might have been wasted – or worse, anti-productive. But when you really think about it, adding a small percentage of (what was thought to be) more sustainably produced fuel to regular old fossil fuel is a pretty weak remedy for global warming in the first place.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is based on an even more ludicrous premise: keep burning coal, the dirtiest energy source around, but take all of the pollution and bury it underground?!? It almost sounds like a bad joke.

Both of these technologies have the same obvious liability: they allow business as usual to commence rather than fostering the energy revolution our society and global ecology desperately need.

Sadly, the idea of CCS has gained traction as coal industry lobbyists have pressed hard on lawmakers in an attempt to cast CCS as a remedy for global warming, a ploy ultimately aimed at winning more federal subsidies for their clients. But, as a new Greenpeace report shows, there’s no way CCS can be functioning on a large scale soon enough to play a role in mitigating the climate crisis. And even if it was ready to go right now, there’s always the danger that our storage methods could be compromised. All it would take is a small leak to reverse the benefits of storing all that carbon underground.

That’s why we need to tell Congress not to throw our money at this unproven and risky technology.

To play devil’s advocate for a moment: Perhaps the best and only viable argument for developing CCS is that it could be a useful “bridging technology.” In their book The Hot Topic, Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King explain what that means thusly:

[CCS] has the great advantage that it can remove emissions from traditional fossil-fuel plants, thus buying the world some time to develop new low-carbon alternatives. CCS is likely to be especially important for countries like India and China, which are currently exploiting their vast coal reserves at an increasing rate to fuel extremely rapid economic growth.

It is true that China and India are currently developing several new coal plants, and will therefore get substantial amounts of their energy from coal for at least the next several decades. And if the emissions from those plants could somehow be captured and safely stored where they will do no harm, that would be a good thing. But CCS is still in very early stages of development, and there’s absolutely no guarantee that it will ever be a viable technology. It is certain, however, that it won’t help us stop global warming, which is why it is nothing more than a distraction from the real solutions. Our government should not be subsidizing its development with taxpayer dollars.

We have totally clean, renewable, and proven sources of energy available to us right now, like wind and solar. Every dollar our government spends on CCS is a dollar not spent on the truly clean technologies that will fuel the energy revolution, and we should not accept that.

 

Ahhhh, another good news for Exxon-bad news for the rest of us day...

The economy in shambles, food prices skyrocketing, gas prices at all time highs and going higher...at least Exxon is smiling.

Exxon's quarterly earnings report today turned out another record breaker - with $10.89 Billion, which works out to over $120 million a day and over $5 million an hour.

and what is Exxon spending all this loot on?

they tell us, don't worry they are exploring for more oil to sell to us, to make more record profits... what me worry?

oh, and they have been buying back their own stock at a record clip...they repurchased $8 billion in shares in the 1st quarter of 2008.

The quarterly profits announcement brought out the predictable calls for "windfall profits tax".  Even Barack Obama took a shot at Exxon's profits in a recent TV Ad

But then it turned up that Obama, Clinton and McCain have all gotten money from Exxon employees during the '08 election cycle, and ironically, Obama has seen the most!

Obama $23,550

Clinton $15,700

McCain $8,450

Exxon is right behind Koch Industries lead in total campaign cash doled out this cycle according to OpenSecrets.org

 

If you want to see if your Congressperson has recieved Exxon cash go here

So far 85% has gone to Republicans...go figure. 

In a new Greenpeace investigation of more than 500 congressional lobbying records of the chemical industry and allied businesses researchers identified 238 lobbyists who registered to lobby against strong chemical security legislation in 2007. With at total lobbying budget of $130 million dollars, Greenpeace estimates that the industry averaged about $1 million a month to forestall strong chemical security legislation.

The Greenpeace report, as well as supporting documents, can be found here

 

The report documents multiple layers of a quiet but extensive lobbying campaign to prevent strong regulations and to keep chemical users from switching to safer, more secure chemicals and processes. The report includes 20 trade associations such as the chemical manufacturer's American Chemistry Council (ACC) as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 30 companies including Dow Chemical Company, and ExxonMobil and high priced lobby firms such as Hogan & Hartson.


Since 9/11, the chemical industry lobby has succeeded in delaying the enactment of permanent, comprehensive chemical security legislation. In 2006 a 740 word temporary law was enacted with the expectation that Congress would revisit the issue in 2007.

Jack Gerard, CEO of the ACC summed up the chemical lobby's agenda, “We believe the Department of Homeland Security should have the ability to put these regs in place. Let's let the dust settle, and then a few years down the road let's take a look at it."

In contrast the Association of American Railroads recently issued a strong statement on ultra-hazardous chemicals: "It is time for the nation’s big chemical companies to stop making the dangerous chemicals that can be replaced by safer substitutes or new technologies currently in the marketplace…And if they won’t do it, Congress should do it for them in the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008."

On March 6th, the House Homeland Security Committee adopted a comprehensive bill (H.R. 5577). The House Energy and Commerce Committee which is expected to take up this legislation soon and has scheduled a hearing for May 15th. To avoid a renewal of the hopelessly weak temporary statute, Congress must pass a permanent law this year.