"The Climate Killers" is a great feature in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine that profiles some of the most powerful polluter lobbyists and what they've been doing to derail efforts to address global warming. A few of the seventeen guys might surprise you, but a lot of them are the same old CEOs, politicians, and industry-paid deniers that have spent so many years blocking progress toward a clean energy future. Here's what it says about Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute:

According to an internal memo leaked in August, Gerard directed API’s nearly 400 member companies to mobilize their employees to attend “Energy Citizen” rallies in 20 states to protest a cap on carbon pollution. To ensure the success of the fake grass-roots protests, Gerard bragged that he had also enlisted a bevy of polluting allies — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. “Please treat this information as sensitive,” Gerard cautioned in the memo. “We don’t want critics to know our game plan.”

Greenpeace has been taking on the American Petroleum Institute, Big Oil’s top lobbying group, and other powerful corporate interests with a vested interest in keeping America addicted to fossil fuels for years. After we exposed API’s astroturf campaign to fake “grassroots” opposition to climate legislation, we’ve kept up the pressure as the lobby group paid Newsweek to host an energy forum with lawmakers inside the Capitol Building. On his way out, we confronted Gerard, demanding to know how much he paid for access to the halls of power:

Anne Mulkern wrote an interesting article in today's New York Times/Greenwire about Big Oil's efforts to greenwash their dirty image with misleading advertisements.  As the article details, giant oil companies like BP, Shell, Exxonmobil, and their industry trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, are spending millions to convince Americans and policymakers that they are investing in clean energy, even though in reality, "...for all three companies, the alternative energy investments still are a small part of their overall business. BP, for example, puts $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion a year into alternative energy projects. That's about 1 percent of the company's total $20 billion investment this year in future business prospects."

Last week, we looked at some of Shell's ads, some of which were so misleading that they were forced to stop using them in the UK.

In Mulkern's article, Chevron attempts to explain their PR push:

Chevron's ads are aimed at getting people to think about conservation while also expanding their view of the company, said Helen Clark, Chevron's manager of corporate marketing.

"Oil and gas is a majority of our business, but there's a lot else we do that's important," Clark said.

"We want people to see past the rhetoric and past the view of 'Big Oil,'" she added. "We want to make sure it's showing all sides of the corporation."

All sides of the corporation? OK, let's check out some sides that you might not hear about on a giant billboard or full page ad in the Washington Post.  How about the side that's been accused of extortion on Capitol Hill for their lobbying efforts to avoid responsibility for dumping billions of gallons of toxic wastewater in the Amazon? Or the side that just settled a lawsuit requiring them to cough up millions of dollars for unpaid lease royalties to state, federal and American Indian governments? 

No amount of focus group-tested advertising is going to fool the people living nearby Chevron's massive polluting refinery in San Ramon, California, hundreds of whom marched on the facility this summer:

But maybe that's not the point.  As marketing expert Bob Kenney points out in Mulkern's article, it's important to look at just who Big Oil is trying to fool:

Many of the ads have run in Washington, D.C. Those are less about reaching customers and more about reaching Congress,

"It's concerned with contributing information in the public debate at a governmental level," Kenney said. "It may look like a public campaign sometimes, but sometimes it's not."

As Big Oil pollutes local communities from the Bay Area to the Amazon, their massive PR and lobbying efforts pollute the understanding of what they are doing to this planet, and they're especially focused on policymakers here in Washington DC. You can find Chevron's ads all over our nation's capitol, at bus stops, on the sides of buildings and in the newspapers and magazines read by our legislators and their staff.

In fact, there's a Chevron banner ad right on Mulkern's article itself, inviting us to "Join the Discussion" about the UN Climate summit in Copenhagen:

 

As the US Senate takes up energy and climate legislation, we'll be watching what kind of "discussion" polluter lobbyists are really interested in.

Sorry, folks, the Supreme Court must have been wrong about CO2 being an air pollutant.  I stumbled upon the Truth in the form of this half-page ad in Monday’s Washington Post:

Not only is there no scientific evidence that CO2 is a pollutant, higher CO2 concentrations actually help ecosystems support more plant and animal life… Higher levels of CO2 result in more plant growth as well as less water being required for plants to grow faster and larger.  In fact, we all exhale CO2 and enjoy it in our carbonated beverages.

This blows my mind.  I don’t even know how to categorize this latest piece of big-oil-funded misdirection. Junk science? Botany for third graders? Blatant untruthiness? 

CO2isgreen, Inc., the non-profit “with questionable parentage” that funded the ad, has already been called out twice in the blogosphere - once by Grist.org and again by Scienceblogs.com.  Miles Grant correctly points out H. Leighton Steward’s position as an honorary director at the American Petroleum Institute, recently in the news for staging astroturf campaigns, as well as his connection to numerous big oil companies:

He’s also a director at EOG Resources, an oil and gas company, a position in which he earned a whopping $617,151 last year. Steward is formerly head of Burlington Resources, now a part of ConocoPhillips) and former Chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association and the Natural Gas Supply Association. Not a word about any of that in his bio on the site.

The one connection that Grant missed is that Steward is currently Chairman of the Board of The Institute for the Study of Earth and Man at SMU, which has received $76,500 since 1998 from everybody’s favorite greenhouse gangster, ExxonMobil.

James Hrynyshyn paints a softer picture of Steward after talking to him on the phone, describing him as “earnest,” and insisting:

…he's not a dupe of Big Oil trying to pull the wool over our eyes. At least, not consciously… He simply doesn’t doesn't accept the mountains of evidence that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, and that small changes in its atmospheric concentration can have a big impact on climate.

Forgive my cynicism, but if it looks like big oil, works for big oil and gets paid by big oil, then it must be an earnest Joe with a penchant for taking out half-page ads in major news publications.

If we are going to base our science on experiments carried out by 8-year-olds, let us discuss these carbonated beverages that we so much enjoy.  It has long been known that carbonated beverages rot your teeth, due primarily to the carbonic acid, which forms when CO2 is dissolved in water. More CO2 in the air means more CO2 in the water.  The resulting acidification is rotting our oceans:

Almost half of all the carbon dioxide emitted since industrialization has been absorbed by the ocean. [Acidification] deprives animals like hard corals and certain mollusks and plankton of the raw material for their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons. This may ultimately cause the world’s oceans to become corrosive to such animals, and coral reefs to dissolve.

The science of our carbon burden is clear.  What is unclear is whether world leaders gathered in New York for a UN summit on climate change can be convinced to act in the interest of the many and the future rather than the few and the now.

Exxon is usually not known for Greenwashing.  They gave that up after the Valdez spill put their reputation in the garbage heap of history.   Instead, for years they have stuck to their guns, proudly declaring themselves an ‘oil company’, dismissing renewable energy, and spreading misinformation on global warming.

But extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.  The wave of green awareness, spiking gas prices and increasing concern about oil dependence has Exxon publishing print ads about batteries for hybrid cars and TV ads with images of wind turbines and talk of environmental responsibility. Indeed these are strange days on planet Earth. See for yourself here.

More on Exxon’s recent advertising blitz below and more on their campaign of global warming denial on ExxonSecrets and SourceWatch. But first, a review of past Exxon Greenwashing episodes.

Op-Ads and Ad Bluster

Over 30 years ago Mobil established ‘ownership’ of a corner of the New York Times editorial page to use as they saw fit. This contract with the Times continued after the merger of Exxon and Mobil in 1999.  The Op-AD space has been the home to varieties of greenwash and energy and climate misinformation balderdash over the years, in most cases bragging about small efforts with a big pen. Ross Gelbspan’s website, Heat Is Online, offers some classic Exxon quotes from these paid op-AD pieces.    

Oldies but Goodies

We also have a few old Exxon and Mobil TV ads that show the history, thanks to fantastic YouTube fanatics transferring old VHS tapes.

One UK ad from Exxon’s Esso brand shows the famous Exxon tiger running down a pristine beach.  The image makes you feel what?  Power, freedom, strength, majesty?  This might be contrasted with the horrific and criminal beach and rock washing the company did after the catastrophic Exxon Valdez spill in 1989.  Captain Hazelwood’s drunken incompetence spewed 11 million gallons of crude over 1,700 miles of Alaskan shoreline.  This was a mess that was honestly never going to come clean no matter how hard they scrubbed at the oil. Yet Exxon deployed a massive effort to wash the rocky shoreline; scrubbing, steaming, and rinsing away the oil on the surface of the rocks, driving it deeper and deeper into the beach and killing any organisms struggling to survive within the hot water.  This debacle was featured in the 2006 film Out of Balance by filmmaker Tom Jackson. SourceWatch explains more about this episode of greenwash.

Another ad from 1980s shows off the company’s endeavors to drill in the Arctic Ocean, an idea later executed by BP at the Northstar project (and strongly protested by Greenpeace and native Alaskans in the 1990s). The idea of drilling to the ends of the earth is back in vogue and Exxon’s current ad campaign looks and sounds very familiar. Once again the company is misleading consumers into thinking that its efforts to exploit the arctic are heroic and is bragging about its bravery and skill at drilling deeper, farther, and better. You can watch and compare their old and new ads.

 

Summer 2008 campaign

Exxon continues to struggle to reform its image in the hearts and minds of the American people.  Its most recent ad campaign clearly targets the broad distrust of the oil industry over oil prices and environmental responsibility.  It stresses the company’s technological prowess, appealing to the techno-optimist in all of us.  Exxon also knows that there is a pitched battle right now on energy and climate policy.

On June 17th, Russell Gold of the Wall St Journal wrote the first analysis of the new Exxon ad campaign that launched June 1st.  Gold wrote:

“Chief executive Rex Tillerson appears in one of the ads, which began running earlier this month, discussing the company's goal of caring for the environment as it provides energy to the world.”

 

And “Exxon's ads are part of a growing effort by the industry to counter a political backlash against rising oil prices and global-warming worries.”

Ad spending rises with the geyser of profits the oilies are bathing in.  Again the Journal reports:

“As gasoline prices have risen, so has industry spending on its image. The companies and their industry associations spent $52.5 million on advertisements in the first quarter, up 18% from the same period a year earlier, according to tracking firm TNS Media Intelligence. This spending is expected to jump in the second quarter on the back of Exxon's campaign, which has included print advertisements in the New York Times and a weeklong series of two-page ads in The Wall Street Journal.” 

Clearly, Exxon has money to burn and the newspapers are plenty glad for the revenue.  A two-page color spread in the New York Times, Washington Post or Wall St. Journal could cost upwards of $300,000, depending on the placement and day.

Clearly image is a problem for the entire oil industry, the Wall St. Journal reports that “An API public-perception poll in late 2006 found the public ranked the oil industry below even the tobacco industry.”

To counter this new low in public opinion, Exxon must portray itself  “as a company filled with technology whiz kids working to secure the world's energy future. Earlier this month, Exxon also began sponsoring Nova – a public-broadcasting science program.”

The new ads can be viewed here.

These Exxon TV ads hit most of our key Greenwashing criteria:

Dirty Business

The core business of Exxon, oil, is still a major source of global pollution, “when used as directed”.  In addition, refineries, drilling operations, and the risk of supertanker oil spills make the oil biz one of the dirtiest on earth.

The company can talk about better batteries, better engines, efficiency and caring for the world all it wants, but in the end, the more oil we use the more money the company makes and it is not inclined to sell LESS. Right now Exxon is spending tens of billions on new oil exploration, driven by record value per barrel of oil.  In its most recent annual report, Exxon listed 15 major projects that it has undertaken since 2007, and all of them revolve around more drilling, more pipelines and more carbon emissions [1].  There’s no mention of investment in wind, solar or other alternative energy sources.

Ad Bluster

Wait a second, rewind…did I see a wind turbine?  Does Exxon have anything to do with wind power?  Sure enough on one of these ads, with CEO Tillerson floating in front of long math formulas and images, all of a sudden an image of a wind turbine and other alternative energy sources scroll by.  Tillerson is muttering something about needing to explore all types of energy, but the implication is that Exxon IS investing in renewables.  It is not.  In fact, the only mention of renewable energy in its annual report relates to its contributions to Standford's Global Climate and Energy Project - a multimilllio-dollar black box R and D program, where money goes in and no ideas come out [2].  Exxon will continue to push this program as evidence of its environmental leadership, when in fact the program has little to show for all the millions of investment. The University has taken some heat over the controversial partnership, but continues to ignore protests by alumni and donors, who don’t have as much cash to offer as Exxon.

Political Spin

It’s no secret that Exxon is buying friends in Congress and elsewhere to fight environmental regulations on its behalf.  As evidence, last year Exxon spent $17M lobbying congress and lining up troops to push against various elements of the Clean Air Act and climate bills, while also pushing to open sensitive wilderness to drilling and other dirty operations.  Altogether the oil industry spent a whopping $84M lobbying in 2007, Exxon alone accounted for over 20% of that. 

At the same time, Exxon is also a heavy hitter when it comes to campaign contributions, providing over $850,000 to candidates, most of that to republicans who support the company’s drill-more, emit-more agenda.  Exxon doesn’t stop there though, the company is also trying to influence voters, as evidenced by its leads sponsorship of many political telecasts, including presidential debates. CNN has been one of the company’s best friends, providing it with hours of airtime throughout the campaign season.

[1] ExxonMobil, 2007 Summary Annual Report
[2] ExxonMobil, 2007 Summary Annual Report, pg. 14