In an effort to distort the public discourse on global warming, especially in Europe, ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company has contributed millions to projects hostile to the Kyoto treaty. The projects question the scientific consensus about global warming.
“ExxonMobil invests significant amounts in letting think-tanks, seemingly respectable sources, sow doubts about the
 |
Instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the last few years, ExxonMobil has actually increased emissions. The company has spent millions of dollars to fund climate skeptics, according to the Corporate Europe Observatory. Exactly how much is unknown, but some estimates suggest $19 million since 1998.
In its 2005 report, the Observatory described payments by ExxonMobil to two groups, the International Policy Network, which received $130,000, and the Centre for the New Europe, which received $50,000. The report said: “There is mounting evidence that many EU-focused think-tanks are heavily funded by corporations and this raises serious concerns about their agenda and their independence.” The two groups, IPE and CNE, have been linked to global warming skepticism for many years by the environmental organization Greenpeace.
Kert Davies of Greenpeace said, “Europe is leading the world right now in terms of climate policy. Exxon know that if they can [enlist] lobbyists they may be able to slow things down. That is the tactic right now.”
Even the Royal Society, considered Britain’s leading scientific academy, wrote to ExxonMobil to ask that it stop funding groups that have “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence.”
Ellen Bisnath, a CNE spokeswoman, confirmed that they had accepted $130,000 from the oil company. She said, “We are an independent think-tank and we are contributing to the scientific debate on climate change.”
However, most scientists believe that global warming is fueling serious problems such as stronger hurricanes and more severe forest fires and flooding. Carbon dioxide emissions, created by burning fossil fuels, are understood by scientists to play a key role in stimulating the global warming process.
What the Exxon-sponsored ‘skeptics’ say
The two sponsored “think-tanks” do not conduct scientific research. Instead, they formulate policy positions, which agitate for prioritizing “economic growth” over environmental protection. The CNE website asks, “How long will it take to reject environmental policies that harm the economy while not making better the environment?”
They also cast doubt on the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol. According to IPE, “Some believe climate change is an exceptional environmental problem that requires global regulation. By reducing emissions now, it is said, we buy insurance against future catastrophic changes. But against what exactly is Kyoto insuring, and at what price? By itself, Kyoto will have little if any impact on the global climate.”
Admittedly, Kyoto does not go far enough: it is designed to reduce emissions by only 5.2 percent by 2012. The U.S. government, acting on behalf of the capitalist class, will not agree to cut emissions at all. Under capitalism, preventing and reversing the problems caused by global warming is not the priority—maximizing profits is. This is the perspective being promoted by the Exxon-funded organizations.
To halt the pace of global warming, world emissions must be cut by 70 percent. The worldwide environmental movement has been active in urging the United States and other industrialized nations to take concrete steps to halt global climate change. This struggle has had minor success in limiting some of the more environmentally destructive practices of capitalism. Corporations closely monitor governments’ positions on global warming because they know how much they contribute to pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Real action to reduce emissions would be damaging to the bottom line of profits for oil companies. That is why they are trying to alter the public discourse about global warming—to forestall any reforms that might cut into their profits.
