Brit scientists tell Exxon to stop the poppycock and folderol

In a highly unusual move, Britain's top scientific body earlier this month sent a letter to ExxonMobil -- since leaked to the press -- calling on the oil giant to stop lying ... er, misrepresenting the science of climate change, and to stop funding other organizations that do so. Based on what he calls his "ad hoc survey" of Exxon's list of supported research organizations, Bob Ward of the Royal Society said that some 39 of them were issuing misleading information about global warming, "by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change, or by overstating the amount and significance of uncertainty in knowledge, or by conveying a misleading impression of the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change." More than $2.9 million went to such organizations, said Ward. ExxonMobil denied any lying, and rushed to point out that as of this year it had ceased funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, creators of the now-legendary "CO2 ... we call it life" ads, which never get any less funny.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

My family has been intimately involved with Exxon through the years. My great-great-grandfather Maurice Clark went into the provisioning business with John D. Rockefeller around the time of the Civil War, but ended up selling the nascent oil-refining part of the business to Rockefeller in the late 19th century. Years later, my grandmother's uncle ran Standard Oil of New Jersey, later to become Exxon; and most recently, my father spent his career working for the company in New York, London, and Rome.

Never mind the shoreline -- who's gonna fix the ship?

Photo: EPA

Exxon has always been the reflexive place where everybody in the family put their faith and their money. My brother and I grew up drinking out of Esso mugs and wanting foremost to go see the tigers at the zoo because that was Esso's logo. When somebody forced Esso to change its name to Exxon in the United States, we found it petty. And when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, we wondered what all the hue and cry was about. Wasn't it bad enough to lose all that oil and have your boat dinged up?

Our family involvement paid off, sending generations of children to college, helping them to purchase houses, and allowing aspiring novelists to take time off to write books. In 2000, I was trying to write my first novel after quitting my job. At some opportune instant, in between paragraphs, this thought lodged in my head: "I need to solve global warming." Being alone and sedentary in the basement, my novel bogged down, I was probably a perfect host organism for this rather gargantuan impulse.

I set about installing compact fluorescent bulbs, I bought a hybrid, I purchased renewable electricity for our house, I resolved with my wife to stop at two children -- and after a spasm of such activity, I sat back with some premature, smug triumph, and wondered what else I could do.

Five years passed. One day I found myself idly reading a missive from Greenpeace about the evils of the ExxonMobil Corporation. I shook my head. Why was it always Exxon that people set their sights on? Why not Chevron or GM? Why not themselves, for that matter?

And yet, Exxon did seem basically indifferent to global warming. According to the literature, Exxon was donating heavily to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an organization at the forefront of debunking climate science. For several years, I'd been marking a solid "yes" next to the ever-present call for a global-warming study on the Exxon proxy statements -- the one that was always rejected.

I mentioned the Greenpeace crusade to my wife that night at dinner.

"Don't you think you should sell your Exxon stock?" she responded.

"Why? So someone else can buy it?" Selling Exxon wouldn't solve anything, I told her. They're just a cog in a larger machine. It was the insatiable larger machine that needed to be reconfigured.

Yet, I reflected over the following months, to continue on as if my involvement meant nothing was subversive to my values. Perhaps it would be prudent to sell some Exxon as a sort of protest. What the heck -- it might even work out in terms of portfolio diversification, in terms of making money when Exxon went down and something else went up.

"Well, I sold some Exxon," I told my wife eagerly one day last year, feeling almost heroic.

"Good," she said. "How much?"

"A lot," I said, defensively. "The taxes will be humungous."

"Really?" she said, disengaging, as I anticipated. She doesn't like to hear about possible financial decay.

Tainted love.

Photo: iStockphoto

At tax time, the local H&R Block woman peered at my Schedule D reporting. "Does that Exxon stock say 1927?" she asked, clearly amused. "Never seen a 1927 stock before."

She placed one finger under the final tally and turned the page toward me.

"Crap," I said out loud. It was worse than I'd expected. Saving the world was one thing; reducing my net worth was another.

I returned home, chastened. I'd paid the global-warming doctor's bill, and I suddenly felt cured of all my save-the-world impulses. For a couple months, I went on a carbon bender. I turned up the thermostat. I let our renewable-electricity plan expire. I pretended to separate the recycling, and threw it all away instead.

Sometimes I looked at my remaining Exxon holdings and I thought, that's the only solid stock I own, the only one that doesn't have a hope-and-wish-and-pray quality to it. It can flip the bird at everyone and not drop a cent in value.

Then, several weeks ago, a buddy of mine came over all in a lather. He'd seen An Inconvenient Truth. Describing it to me, he said, "Al Gore: yawn. And a movie about global warming: double yawn. And, on top of it all -- it's a friggin' PowerPoint presentation: 10 yawns in a row. But dude, it'll blow your mind!" For a good 20 minutes, he carried on about global warming.

Poor bastard, I thought, sympathetically. Yes, of course, we must do something, I said. Absolutely. We should all do what we can, given our smallness. But the most important thing, I said, is just to talk about it, to pass the word along.

He looked at me in a miserable, crumbling sort of way.

Not long after, on a "date night" with my wife, I found myself breathlessly watching Gore rise on his mechanical crane to show the path of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. On that night, when I'd frankly wanted to see Superman Returns, I came face to face with my own inconvenient truth: when it came to global warming, I'd given up.

On our way home, shaken, we discussed the various things we could do: start an awareness club, re-sign up for renewable electricity, buy a more fuel-efficient car. "What about the rest of your Exxon?" my wife asked.

What about it? Hadn't we already sold our protest shares?

And yet ...

Here's the thing I've learned about values: not only do they essentially work to your disadvantage, but you give them a bone, and they want your whole steak.

The following day, I called our longtime family broker. I had a pen ready, because I was sure I could get a good story out of this dramatic transaction.

"I need to sell the rest of my Exxon," I said.

"OK," the broker responded.

There was a pause on the line. "Anything else?" she asked.

"No, but I want to sell all of my Exxon," I said. After a good century and a half of family involvement with the company, I expected something more -- an argument, at the very least. Or, You're *#@! kidding me! I was ready. Al Gore had made me ready.

Instead, the conversation ended there. I had her few measly words written down. I crumpled the paper up and tossed it aside. So much for the movie version.

Related Links:

Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!

Saudis want aid if world cuts oil use

Amanda Little talks energy on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’

It's early yet to begin writing the business obituary of long-standing BP CEO Lord John Browne, slated to retire in 2008. But the man once billed as the closest thing to a green Superman has had his cape singed recently.

Have we been duped? Could anyone reading BP's annual sustainability reports the last few years have detected early warning signs of the sort of problems that have shaken this superhero of oil and gas -- events like the Texas City disaster, the Alaskan pipeline mess, or the allegations that some BP employees crossed legal lines attempting to control pieces of the U.S. propane market?

We all have our kryptonite.

Photo: Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

Such turns of fortune call to mind the plot twists that leave comic heroes at the mercy of villainous adversaries. Have Browne and others among the world's erstwhile CEO supermen been exposed to something akin to kryptonite, or were we unrealistic to believe they could vanquish all foes, not least those inside their own organizations? Either way, it's time to examine some myths and realities of CEO superhero-dom. (While we do this, we remind readers that the CEOs mentioned here have bravely done or said enough in the sustainability space for us to try to assess their efforts, while too many business leaders continue to view environmental and social issues as non-core, or something only governments and NGOs need to worry about.)

Two of the more striking things about Browne's climb to rare heights of credibility and esteem have been his consistency and ability to think in multiple dimensions. One result: he has provided welcome counsel in high-level deliberations at other companies. Many moons ago, we found ourselves in the Ford boardroom with Bill Ford, then the newly christened chair, and Jacques Nasser, then CEO. (Full disclosure: SustainAbility has worked for Ford for many years.) Between the assembled top executives, a series of big screens carried a satellite feed of Browne, who was asked to explain how BP had managed, so early on, to stake out a coherent position on issues like climate change.

Like the faux-wizard of Oz, the man on screen was addressed with near-reverence. Unlike the wizard, however, he appeared to have nothing to hide, giving coherent, pragmatic replies. This memory came to mind when the news broke in mid-July that Ford will invest $1.8 billion in green car research and development in the U.K. over the next six years. While this may not result in a world swept by swarms of ultra-green mini-Fords, it's one of the largest such investments ever, intended to accelerate Ford's adoption of lightweight, hybrid, and diesel (including bio-fueled) technologies worldwide.

During the announcement, Richard Parry-Jones -- Ford's chief technical officer and group vice president of product development -- admitted that folks may doubt these intentions, given that the company's performance on previous high-profile environmental commitments relating to fuel economy and hybrids has fallen short. In light of this, The Financial Times reported "Ford's record of reneging on environmental commitments, such as Mr. Ford's promise to improve sport-utility fuel efficiency, made the company particularly careful in its analysis" of the potential of this latest program to generate real change. Thus Bill Ford, another corporate environmental superhero of recent years, is finding the reach of his powers questioned. Should we get rid of our collectible lunchboxes now?

Part of Ford's problem is that, until recently, the U.S. market has been off-road in terms of environmental sensitivities and energy security. Given Ford's profitability, could and should the company have bypassed consumer demand for SUVs to build and try to sell smaller -- and smaller-margin -- models, on which competition with the likes of Toyota is much more intense?

It's hard even today, as the margins on SUVs and full-size pickups are still in the range of 10:1 versus what Detroit makes on most cars. But transitioning to the future takes foresight and courage -- as The New York Times put it, "Had Mr. Ford produced more fuel-efficient vehicles like hybrids sooner, he not only would have found his company keeping pace with nimble competitors like Toyota when oil prices spiked, but he also would have been able to illustrate the bottom-line merit of his environmental values. Instead, Ford is again in the all-too-familiar spot of playing corporate catch-up." Ford himself has said publicly that he wishes he'd pushed management harder, sooner, to adopt more of the environmental ethos to which he does seem to personally subscribe, but has struggled to embed in the automaker.

In comparison, John Browne's problems, while painful, seem more manageable. Although once seen as a cultural outsider at BP, he has built a spectacular financial track record by any standards, and has the relative luxury of taking on crises and critics from a position of immense profitability.

While greens were thrilled by Browne's early speeches on climate change at Stanford and in Berlin in 1997, his oil-industry peers were shocked. But he tempered his critics' views by proving to be a consummate business leader. With his vision of a cleaner energy future and brave market forays, Browne has kept his competition off balance. He has transformed BP from a "two-pipeline company," widely considered doomed, into a hugely energetic and profitable global player. When he took over as CEO in 1995, the company was generating annual revenues of around $30 billion, compared with $260 billion today. Under his guidance, BP -- an early presence in areas like Alaska and the North Sea -- has again got ahead of the pack in new markets like Russia and China. And, despite hiccups, the company's "Beyond Petroleum" branding has helped to considerably soften its public image.

Part of the charm is that Browne and others at BP speak with considerable candor. Addressing a major conference in Istanbul recently, group vice president Nick Butler noted that "the 20th century is over, and the old oil industry -- dirty, arrogant, and secretive -- is becoming a thing of the past. The shift isn't complete -- we all have more to do -- but the shift is well under way." Ford has been similarly outspoken relative to industry peers: early on, it was the first automaker to leave the anti-Kyoto Global Climate Coalition, and recently became the first in its industry (and one of few globally) to produce a report exploring the impact of climate change on its business.

But candor gets you only so far. Whatever senior executives may say, recent disasters and controversies raise questions as to whether the BP miracle is starting to unravel -- and no one is quite sure where Ford's market share will settle, a question critical to determining what it really will be able to invest in cleaner technologies. Has BP's push for growth and profitability been undertaken too quickly to allow even the most earnest CEO to maintain desired standards in the areas of ethics, safety, health, and environment, making some breakdowns inevitable? Can any hard-driving CEO -- including recently anointed "Ecomagination Man" Jeffrey Immelt -- deliver on wider promises consistently enough to continue to captivate the rapidly growing sustainability crowd, or will they be forced to hang up their capes?

We hope it's not the latter. The world needs visionary leaders. And frankly, in spite of some glitches, Browne's and Ford's rhetoric may have been as important as their deeds. Against internal and external opposition, they've created room for others in their industries to join critical environmental and social debates. So we say to them: keep the capes, and may your companies and others become as green as you are.

Related Links:

I Say Good Day to You, Sir

Which is thicker, blood or oil? A longtime shareholder reflects

In working with Wal-Mart, activist Adam Werbach is abandoning his principles

In late 2004, Adam Werbach proclaimed that environmentalism was dead due to the movement's unwillingness to connect with ordinary working people and its inability to effectively grapple with the most profound problem the earth has ever faced, climate change. His diagnosis was clear: In order to build the next liberal majority in this country, environmentalists must create bold new "frames" that will unite us with our working-class brothers and sisters around "shared values."

Werbach argued that to win we must begin by challenging our most basic assumptions. "What if we stopped defining global warming as an environmental problem and instead spoke of the economic opportunities it will create?" he asked. It's this kind of out-of-the-box thinking that has landed Werbach a new gig in Big-Box Land.

Yes, Adam Werbach, founder of the Sierra Student Coalition, youngest president of the Sierra Club, author, filmmaker, and self-proclaimed progressive-big-think guy, is going to be a consultant for Wal-Mart. Will he be working with the planet's largest retailer to cut its carbon footprint by 50 percent, source its products locally from sustainable suppliers, or make fundamental changes to its labor practices? No. Werbach has been brought on to teach Wal-Mart's "associates" how to live a less consumptive existence in their everyday lives, how to eat healthy food and buy compact fluorescent light bulbs on their meager wages.

Wal-Mart's line is that this new "Environmental Health and Wellness Program" was created as a direct response to requests from its employees. Oddly they have not responded to employee requests for a living wage, affordable health care, or unscheduled bathroom breaks. The Wal-Mart Workers Association in Tampa, Fla., sent Werbach a letter respectfully asking him not to lend Wal-Mart his name or environmental credentials. They insightfully point out that greenwashing for Wal-Mart is woefully out of step with the views expressed in his 1997 book Act Now, Apologize Later, in which he compares the retail giant to a "virus, infecting and destroying American culture."

Let's be really blunt: there is no such thing as a green big box that is full of exploited workers selling you cheap disposable stuff made in sweatshops on the other side of the planet. Whenever environmentalists help Wal-Mart score easy "corporate responsibility" points in The New York Times, they set back the efforts of working people in their battle with Wal-Mart, and simply reinforce the flaws of the old environmentalism which Werbach and others declared dead over a year ago.

We've got a multi-issue movement to build, a country to take back, and a planet to save. So get back to work, Adam!

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Another coal plant bites the dust

GM promotion will cap gas at $1.99 a gallon for SUV buyers

In a promotion that begins today, General Motors promised to cap gasoline prices at $1.99 a gallon for a year for customers in California and Florida who purchase certain new full-size SUVs or midsize cars. That's right: if you buy a gas-guzzler from GM, they'll help pay for the gas. The refund amount for buyers will be based on estimated fuel use and the difference between $1.99 and the average state-wide price per gallon. Eligible SUVs in California include the Chevrolet Tahoe, Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukon, and Hummer H2 and H3. One analyst estimates savings at about $1,000 per vehicle. "Consumers are uncertain about gas prices, and this gives them some certainty about what they're going to pay," says GM's market analyst, adding, "Please, please, for the love of God, buy big American cars! We're dying over here!" Or maybe that last bit was just implied.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Conservative think tank launches climate-skeptic TV ads

"Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution; we call it life." Nope, not a story in The Onion. That's the punch line of two TV ads that the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute began airing in 14 U.S. cities yesterday, timed to correspond with the big-screen debut of Al Gore's climate-change movie An Inconvenient Truth. The ads, replete with happy, energy-guzzling families and a little girl blowing dandelion fluff, protest the maligning of poor, innocent CO2 -- which, according to one ad, "some politicians want to label ... a pollutant." (Gasp.) What will happen if we stop spewing CO2 into the atmosphere? The ads aren't specific, but apparently it has something to do with riding a bike in heavy snow. CEI acknowledges that global temperatures have risen in the past century, but according to president Fred Smith, warming is moving us "a lot closer to heaven than hell." So, the road to heaven is paved with CO2 emissions. The road to hell is paved by Al Gore. And reality has left parody in the dust.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Oil leaks all over everything

Oil, oil everywhere! And not in a good way. In its dubiously named Sustainability Report, oil behemoth Royal Dutch Shell reports that oil spills at its facilities rose 50 percent from 2004 to 2005. Hurricane damage was responsible for a goodly portion of the spillage, and sabotage of a major pipeline in Nigeria didn't help either. The amount of oil spilled leapt from 6,724 tons to 9,921 tons. We would advise not trying to convert that to a mental picture. Nor this: a ship that sank off the coast of Freeport, Texas, in 1976 has apparently leaked 300 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Officials disagree on whether it is fuel oil or crude oil -- crude is less toxic, but stays in the environment longer. The Texas General Land Office's Oil Spill Prevention and Response Team (goodness, what are they compensating for?) has concluded that the leak poses no significant environmental problem. And really, why would it?

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Ford teams up with TerraPass to help drivers offset emissions

Like the man said, the times they are a-changin'. Slowly, but a-changin' nonetheless. Ford Motor Co., manufacturer of all things carbon-emitting, is partnering with TerraPass, a carbon-offset company. Tomorrow, Ford is expected to announce a new "Greener Miles" program, whereby customers can visit a website to calculate the amount of carbon dioxide they produce in a year of driving, then invest money -- from $29.95 to $79.95, dependent on vehicle, miles traveled, etc. -- in clean-energy projects to offset their impact. Greener Miles contributors get a sticker to show off their eco-consciousness, and warm fuzzies for supporting a Nebraska wind farm or the conversion of Minnesota cow poop into electricity. Ford gets no money from the deal, but they do get warm fuzzies for helping to save the earth, a nice bit of green PR, and some good car-ma. Har har.

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

House Republicans fight to preserve $5 billion in oil industry tax breaks

In public, prominent Republicans are chastising oil companies over high gas prices, and threatening price-gouging investigations and windfall-profit taxes. Behind closed doors, House Republicans are fighting to protect some $5 billion worth of tax loopholes for those very same oil companies. Luckily for them, the country's Strategic Outrage Reserve has been completely tapped. At issue is a tax bill designed mainly to extend the tax cuts for the rich passed in Bush's first term. The Senate version includes changes in arcane tax accounting rules, among them rules that allow oil companies to grossly underestimate the value of their inventories. House Republicans are furiously fighting the changes, with backing from the White House. In February, Treasury Secretary John Snow sent letters to Congress stating that "the president's senior advisors would recommend that the president veto the legislation if this provision remains." After all, populist-friendly rhetoric is one thing, but we're talking about real money here!

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Shell and ExxonMobil power gas platform with wind and solar

The cognitive dissonance! It hurts! A new gas platform in the North Sea will be run entirely on wind and solar power. The tiny (26 by 26 feet) platform, co-owned by Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil, cost about $143 million to develop and was built for roughly 40 percent of the cost of conventional platforms. It's considered one of the first of a new breed of smaller, lower-impact platforms that will allow for better recovery of small pockets of gas. So, it won't produce any greenhouse-gas emissions, but will enable the recovery of more natural gas, which, when burnt, will produce more greenhouse-gas emissions. We can't handle this kind of moral ambiguity.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Another BP pipeline leaks in Alaska

Hot on the heels of last month's big oil spill, British petro-giant -- sorry, beyond-petro giant -- BP has confirmed that another pipeline ruptured on Alaska's North Slope on April 6, leaking 12,000 cubic feet of natural gas. The leak occurred at the same Prudhoe Bay oilfield as last month's 200,000-gallon oil spill, but was small enough that BP was not required to report it. "We are at the point where there is so much damage to the lines from corrosion, we don't know where another leak will occur," said a BP employee. The company is under criminal investigation for its pipeline management. Meanwhile, inspired by the oil industry's impeccable quality control, Alaska lawmakers are mulling over tax-break legislation that would pave the way for BP, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil to embark upon the largest construction project in U.S. history: a $25 billion natural-gas pipeline from the North Slope through Canada to the U.S. Midwest.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Greenpeace investigation links European fast food to Amazon destruction

Which came first, Chicken McNuggets or deforestation? A recent Greenpeace investigation has uncovered the depressing answer: the McDonald's supply chain begins with felled rainforest. Much of the chicken gobbled at European Mickey D's is supplied by a subsidiary of American agri-biz behemoth Cargill. For the last few years, Cargill and other agri-giants have been buying up massive quantities of soybeans (read: chicken feed) grown on fields that were cleared by torching portions of the Amazon in Brazil. Amazon deforestation rates have doubled in the past two years; last year, 10,000 square miles of forest were razed, mostly for soy production. Greenpeace claims public and indigenous land is often forcibly seized with bulldozers and slave labor, while environmental regulations are largely ignored. McDonald's Europe said it would look into the allegations. Meanwhile, activists in seven-foot-tall chicken suits invaded a number of McDonald's in the U.K. and chained themselves to chairs.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

BP under criminal investigation for oil pipeline problems in Alaska

When your massively profitable oil company is under criminal investigation by the U.S. government for possible violations of the Clean Water Act, it's not a good idea to spill tens of thousands of gallons of crude onto the Alaskan tundra. So oopsie at BP. Turns out that federal regulators have for several months been investigating the company's oil-pipeline management on Alaska's North Slope, and that probe has now been expanded to include the early March rupture of a BP-operated pipeline. Caused by internal pipe corrosion, the spill dumped anywhere from 134,000 to 267,000 gallons of oil, and may rank as the largest North Slope spill ever. The company may also face criminal charges over an explosion at a Texas City plant last year that killed 15. Current and former workers say the company skimped on staffing and maintenance, which if true could pose some awkward PR problems -- BP posted a record net profit of $22.63 billion last year.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Five major food firms dump shares in whaling operator

The Gorton's fisherman is going cold turkey on whale meat. Five major food companies, including Japanese seafood giant Nissui -- the owner of Gorton's -- announced that they are ending support for Japanese whaling by dumping their one-third share in Kyodo Senpaku, the largest operator of whaling ships in Japan. Nissui says the divestment is just a reorganization of assets, but the move is coming in the wake of an intense anti-whaling campaign by Greenpeace, which included organizing thousands of protest emails to the companies, as well as confronting whalers at sea. "After only a few months of consumer protest, the fragile commercial interest in whaling has collapsed," exulted Greenpeace. The picture still seems dicey for the hunted cetaceans, however: apparently Japan's government-backed "scientific whaling" operator, the Institute of Cetacean Research, is buying up many of the shares and has vowed to keep up the kill.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

New Exxon chair mouths same old wheeze in a breezier style

Watch for new ExxonMobil Chair Rex Tillerson to lighten up the company's communication style, but don't expect any substantial changes in how the world's largest publicly traded petro-corp responds to global warming. "We recognize that climate change is a serious issue," Tillerson told The New York Times, going on to defend the company's record on energy alternatives. But he added that there is "still significant uncertainty around all of the factors that affect climate change." Oil, for instance! And he said President Bush's "addicted to oil" phrase was "an unfortunate choice of words." Enviros call Exxon's culture "prehistoric" and a serious barrier to action on climate disruption. "They have too much money; they are too powerful," said Greenpeace's Kert Davies. "Without Exxon pulling with the rest of the world, it will take longer to solve global warming."

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Feds to lose at least $20 billion in oil-company royalties, report finds

Remember that outrageous story about how oil companies are going to gank U.S. taxpayers out of some $7 billion in royalties for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Well, time to crank up the outrage-o-meter: Turns out, based on a new report from the federal Government Accountability Office, taxpayers will actually be getting screwed out of $20 billion over the next 25 years. The report, presented in a private briefing Monday to congressional staffers and apparently leaked to The New York Times, cautions that the loss may quadruple to $80 billion if gas and oil firms win a lawsuit seeking further royalty reductions. Federal incentives designed to persuade petro-companies to drill in federally leased deepwater areas in the gulf were created about a decade ago, when energy prices were depressed. But oil prices hit $66 a barrel yesterday, oil companies are awash in record profits, a new estimate pegs the cost of the Iraq war at between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, the deficit has topped $8 trillion ... you see what we're saying.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Indonesia to Freeport: Clean up mining operations or we'll sue

Indonesia has warned New Orleans-based mining giant Freeport-McMoRan that it will sue if the company doesn't clean up its gold and copper mining operation in Papua -- ideally in the next two to three years. Politicians and eco-advocates have charged Freeport with polluting streams and rivers and killing wildlife, and now a report from Indonesia's Environment Ministry -- the country's first serious investigation into Freeport's environmental practices -- has found that the company is dumping thousands of tons of harmful tailings into Papuan rivers. Although Indonesia is eager for foreign investment to bolster its economy, Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar insists that Freeport must adhere to government standards. "Freeport shouldn't be its own country within a country," said Witoelar. "There are 500 other companies like Freeport here that follow the rules." Freeport says it will cooperate fully with the Indonesian government.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

American firms lag on addressing climate-change risks, study finds

Looking for a smart 21st-century investment strategy? Consider how 100 of the world's largest companies are preparing to compete in a "carbon-constrained world." A new report from Ceres, a coalition of environmentalists and institutional investors, concludes that European and Asian firms operating in countries already regulating greenhouse-gas emissions are more prepared than their American counterparts for the financial risks and opportunities posed by global warming. DuPont scored the highest among U.S. companies, having taken steps to green its products and reduce its greenhouse pollution by 72 percent since 1990. BP rated the best among European firms for its greenhouse-gas reduction targets and its plans to invest $8 billion in clean-energy technologies. Unsurprisingly, ExxonMobil scored lowest of all major oil companies. Perhaps Exxon can take solace in its gargantuan piles of cash.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Bush administration backs industry-friendly chemical-security rules

After years of foot dragging, the Bush administration is now backing federal security regulations to protect the nation's chemical plants from terrorist attacks -- but critics say the new rules may as well have been written by the industry itself. Speaking Tuesday at a forum organized by chemical-industry spokesflacks, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff touted the administration's newfound will to advance "sensible legislation," like rules that would allow plants to establish their own security practices and would not force them to switch from dangerous chemicals to safer alternatives. He also tickled the assembled industry leaders by implying uniform federal standards should supersede state rules, even if state rules are stronger -- perhaps a reference to New Jersey, which last year became the first state to require assessments of chemical-plant security. A staffer to Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) called the Bush administration's stance an "Enron mentality: trust industry and put the public at risk."

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Mining companies dig up trouble in Indonesia

Two U.S.-based mining companies are digging up trouble in Indonesia. A protest last week demanding closure of a Freeport-McMoRan gold and copper mine in the Papua province led to the deaths of at least three police officers and one soldier, then to the military seizing control of the provincial capital, then to military officers pulling locals out of their cars and beating them. Freeport-McMoRan makes large payments to the Indonesian army and Papua police for security services at its mining operations. The protesters in Papua say the mine brings no benefits to the local community and contaminates the area with pollution; waste from the facility covers 90 square miles, and 700,000 new tons are generated every day. Meanwhile, Newmont Mining Corp. suspended exploration on Indonesia's Sumbawa Island after a camp for its workers was burned. Local protesters have said that Newmont's operation brings no benefits to the local community and contaminates the area with pollution. Wait, that sounds familiar.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science