Today’s CNN Money column looks at how ExxonMobil is opening up to its critics and changing the way it talks about climate change. Exxon, you probably know, led the opposition to the Kyoto protocol in the late 1990s. Since then it has funded advocacy groups that challenge and obfuscate climate science–much to the dismay of environmentalists, CSR groups and socially-responsible investors. Now Exxon seems to be acknowledging that climate change is a serious threat, and that a government response is required.
How deep or significant the changes are, it’s hard to say. My sense is that Exxon recognizes that Washington is getting serious about regulating greenhouse gases, and the company wants to make sure its voice is heard. In that sense, this story is one more indication that the push to do something about global warming is finally gathering momentum. It’s been the issue at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Here’s how the column begins:
On issues ranging from global warming to corporate governance to gay rights, Exxon Mobil used to ignore detractors – or thumb its nose at them.
That’s changed. The oil giant has been quietly reaching out to critics, most importantly around the issue of climate change.
Exxon invited environmentalists, socially responsible mutual funds and religious investors to a two-day retreat in suburban Virginia late last year with company executives. It is participating in a project organized by Resources for the Future, a Washington-based environmental think tank, that will design a government plan for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.
You can read the rest here.
ExxonMobil has pledged $100 million over 10 years to GCEP at Stanford, not $225 million. That amounts to $10 million a year. That’s the company’s claim to fame as far as R&D in renewable energy. And… that’s about it. Keep in mind that the company is poised to announce roughly $37 billion in profits for 2006. ExxonMobil’s competitor BP has earmarked $8 billion over 10 years in renewable energy (not just R&D). Most of that is in renewable energy that can be deployable now or close to now (like wind, solar and biomass). Same with Shell, who’s already invested over a billion and made itself the world’s largest distributor of biofuels (so far). Are oil companies doing enough, considering their profits and the threat of global warming? Of course not. Should ExxonMobil get big kudos for taking 10 years to state the obvious (that action on global warming is warranted)? No way. Is ExxonMobil still funding scores of groups that deny the science of global warming and confuse the public? You better believe it. Pressure on ExxonMobil to start putting its money where its mouth is will only continue to mount – from all corners of society. ExxonMobil’s been double-crossing America on global warming for over a decade. Now that Exxon’s been exposed, people aren’t going to simply roll over and be duped again by hollow rhetoric! http://www.ExxposeExxon.com
Hi Marc- Things are certainly interesting for Exxon at the moment. Mr Cohen has the PR machine cranked up. Although you do credit Greenpeace for our pressure on Exxon, it should be mentioned that ExxposeExxon.com is nearly two years running and is the largest corporate campaign ever coordinated by most of the big green groups, indeed the first corporate campaign for some. We have about 1/2 a million people who have signed up online
Members of Exxpose Exxon include:
Defenders of Wildlife
Greenpeace
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG)
Union of Concerned Scientists
Alaska Oceans Program
Alaska Wilderness League
Co-op America
Corporate Accountability International
EcoPledge
Friends of the Earth
Environmental Action
MoveOn.org Political Action
National Environmental Trust
Oil Change International
Public Citizen
TrueMajority
Move On
cheers, Kert Davies
Research Director
Greepeace US
http://www.exxonsecrets.org
Thanks, Kert and Shawnee, for your comments. I hope I didn’t come across as applauding XOM. I do think it’s significant that they are opening up, even a little, and in part that is due to the pressure brought by groups like yours. If a company is seen as a pariah, they are not going to be affective advocates for their position in Washington or elsewhere.
Shawnee, thanks especially for pointing out the size of XOM’s contribution to Stanford. I didn’t mean to imply that they were financing the entire project. As for BP, yes, they have been great on policy but on the ground their record has been pretty horrendous. Exxon is the mirror image, as best as I can tell.