Monday, June 18, 2007

Exxon Funds Deniers, But Wants to Save the Planet

In a statement the redefines the notion of cogent argument for the worse, Exxon has launched a volley at Greenpeace saying that the oil giant's stance against Kyoto, their opposition to the European carbon trading system, and their funding of climate change denier groups does not make they themselves 'deniers'.

Mr Cohen (Exxon spokesman) was in London to explain the position of Exxon.

The firm's funding of third-party thinktanks, which have produced papers questioning the human role in climate change, has recently been heavily criticised in a Greenpeace report.

Exxon retaliated yesterday by saying some of Greenpeace's facts were "just flat wrong" and in one case "absurd", though the company hinted that it may stop funding the controversial thinktanks.

Nice explanation. Exxon maintains that it is supportive of an international cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, so long as they continue to fund deception campaigns on global warming and oppose international agreements, like Kyoto, that represent a bare minimum of what needs to be accomplished, the logical conclusion is that they will not endorse a level of carbon limits that would genuinely address the problem of climate change.

On the upside, if their arguments continue to become weaker and more absurd it just might mean that we're moving closer to more aggressive action on the issue.


BlueBerry Pick'n said...


Okay, I AM buying that portable solar array I've been considering...

Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
"We, two, form a multitude" ~ Ovid
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

Rick said...

good piece - please feel welcome to cross post over at our site anytime you care to -

keep on :-)

FeButterfly said...

Exxon is quite a corporate citizen as I'm sure you're aware. They still haven't paid for the Valdez and just lost a civil case in NJ where they were mandated to pay the state for lost recreational opportunities due to pollution caused by their refineries. I agree that if they become more absurd it may lead to action. There are two downsides though. First, if it becomes to absurd the people who are undecided if they can do anything may tune out. Second, if you take all dissenting opinions out of the mix some better policy alternatives may not come forward for fear of being shouted down. For example, studies are coming out saying that corn ethanol actually uses more energy to produce than it provides. But leading up to the Presidential election nobody will risk losing in Iowa.

Odiyya said...

Couldn't sum it up better if I tried FeB...what a cluster f$#!