dibona, chls A P I

<div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">=</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">house 25 acres by potomac river</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">=</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><a href="https://apps.publicintegrity.org/united-states-of-petroleum/fueling-dissent/">https://apps.publicintegrity.org/united-states-of-petroleum/fueling-dissent/</a></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="" /><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">no lnx many? twt</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">FUELING DISSENT</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">How the oil industry set out to undercut clean air</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">After casting doubt on climate change for decades, industry consultants have turned their attention to air pollution</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Illustration by Robert Fresson</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">by Jie Jenny Zou</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Tom Dart of Guardian US contributed reporting</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>December 12, 2017</b></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">SAN ANTONIO, Texas ― On sunny days, when his classmates at St. John Bosco Elementary School run out to play, Gabriel Rosales heads to the school nurse for a dose of Albuterol. The fine mist opens his airways, relaxing the muscles in his chest. Without it, recess could leave the 9-year-old gasping for breath. He gets a second dose at the end of the day before heading home.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Over the past year, Gabriel’s asthma has worsened. Visits to the emergency room, shortened trips to the park, and reliance on inhalers have become his new norm. “It got to the point where I couldn’t even leave him with anybody,” said his father, Gabe, who works as a consultant to the National Association of Public Employees, a workers’ advocacy group, and a seasonal field director of the Bexar County Democratic Party. “One time he almost looked blue.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Gabriel’s health is deteriorating alongside air quality in San Antonio, where oil and gas development, a hotter climate and a growing population have combined to spell misery for a city that once boasted clean air compared to other Texas metropolitan areas. Part of the problem lies southeast of the city in the Eagle Ford Shale, a 400-mile-long hub of hydraulic fracturing that unleashes microscopic particles and smog-causing, ground-level ozone.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);"><b style="">The state’s environmental regulator — the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality — hasn’t made things better. </b>In fact, it’s followed in the footsteps of Big Oil’s biggest lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, which has forestalled progress on ozone for decades. Using consultants also hired by<b> API, </b>the commission has spent millions of taxpayer dollars in an effort to undercut scientific evidence linking particulate matter and ozone with bronchitis, asthma and premature death.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 102);">Read more about API's history of climate denial and its ties to the White House ]</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Air quality is the new frontier for climate-change skeptics long tied to API. The institute has fueled uncertainty on climate by producing what critics call misleading scientific and economic studies. Now, by attempting to discredit established research on ozone and fine particles, API and its cadre of doubters are trying to undermine the Clean Air Act — the landmark U.S. law credited with saving millions of lives. Working in concert with other free-market groups, they’re taking their message to Capitol Hill. API officials did not grant interview requests from the Center for Public Integrity.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Residents of San Antonio’s low-income, mostly Latino neighborhoods — like Hillcrest, where Gabriel Rosales lives — bear the brunt of poor air quality even if they aren’t in ozone hot spots, said Mario Bravo, an outreach specialist with the Environmental Defense Fund. “They have less access to health care,” Bravo said. “They have less access to transportation to get to the health-care providers.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">‘A lot like climate’</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In June, two peer-reviewed studies trumpeted a conclusion at odds with years of solid science: fine-particle pollution long linked to premature death and chronic illness isn’t as dangerous as health advocates contend. If true, the findings would call into question health benefits claimed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has set ever-tightening air-quality standards.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">There was a catch, however. The articles — which were published within a week of one another — appeared in Critical Reviews in Toxicology and Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, two journals favored by industry consultants alleged to promote pay-for-play science. And both studies were funded by API, a trade group that has spent $40 million since 2013 to lobby Congress on topics ranging from taxes to global warming.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Twitter</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>“Our study is published...air quality does not kill. $600 million of EPA junk science up in smoke,” climate-change skeptic and Donald Trump acolyte Steve Milloy tweeted in June, linking to the Regulatory Toxicology article</b>. During a congressional luncheon a month later, the former coal executive took credit for conceiving the study before turning it over to friend, </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 102);">S. Stanley Young, and two other statisticians</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, who authored the final article. No mention of Milloy’s involvement is made in the publication.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Read more about how Big Oil is trying to sow skepticism of science among judges ]</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>Some of the same data were used in the Critical Reviews article published by Louis Anthony “Tony” Cox Jr</b>., which also disputed the link between fine particles and mortality. Cox, a biostatistician from Colorado,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 102);"> started consulting for API in 1988. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Cox disclosed that his paper “benefitted from close proofreading and copy-editing suggestions from API” but denied in an interview that his findings were influenced.<b> In November, he was named the next chair of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, drawing criticism from groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists.</b></span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The science on particle pollution, much like the science on global warming, is exhaustive and widely accepted, with thousands of studies pointing to serious health implications. The World Health Organization notes that particulate matter “affects more people than any other pollutant,” with effects observed at even “very low concentrations.” The particles — found in automotive and industrial exhaust and smaller than one-fifth of the width of a strand of hair — form a toxic mix with ozone that lodges deep in the lungs<b>. Unlike Cox, most researchers are no longer fixated on whether this form of pollution is fundamentally dangerous; they worry instead about whether it can cause — not just exacerbate — chronic illness.</b></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Attacking the science is one way of undermining the Clean Air Act, said John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which advocates for more protective air-quality standards. The Clean Air Act is routinely hailed as one of the most cost-effective federal laws, even by business groups. In 2015, the EPA estimated that the law will have saved the U.S. economy $2 trillion by 2020 while costing $65 billion to implement. About 85 percent of the act’s benefits come from reducing fine-particle pollution, which raises the risk of early death. Opponents of the law “deny that air pollution is deadly … or even harmful in order to try to pretend that no benefits are delivered,” Walke said.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Steve Milloy</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>Milloy’s July luncheon at the Rayburn House Office Building — billed as a “congressional staff and media briefing” — was little more than a plug for his latest book, “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA,”</b> which condemns the “echo chamber of deceptive science” on ozone and fine particles. The event was hosted by Myron Ebell, who chairs the Cooler Heads Coalition, a climate-skeptics’ group that began as an alliance of free-market think tanks. “It’s a lot like climate,” Milloy told the audience. “This stuff is pulled out of thin air.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“It’s a lot like climate... This stuff is pulled out of thin air.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Reached for comment, Milloy said the study is not an attack on the Clean Air Act but part of his 20-year effort to expose the EPA’s “garbage-in, garbage-out” air pollution research</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">. He denied having any formal ties to API. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“I am very, very disappointed in the American Petroleum Institute and all the oil companies for not defending their products, for leaving the science to people like me,” he said.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Young, who authored the study, stood behind its findings and disputed the idea that industry funding presents ethical conflicts. His study data are publicly available, he said, but the EPA isn’t as transparent. Ebell agreed, accusing the agency of using “junk science” to justify air-quality and greenhouse-gas regulation.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>
</b></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>Despite their misgivings about the EPA, all three men have become tethered to the agency. Earlier this year, Ebell oversaw the EPA transition for Trump, leading a group that included Milloy. Young was named to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board in October</b>.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., co-founder of the Senate Climate Action Task Force, complained that such appointments have become all too common.  “These people were fringe fanatics and industry stooges fighting on behalf of the industry a propaganda war against science,” he said.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Milloy and Ebell were listed among the authors of a $2 million plan to amplify uncertainty in climate science — as revealed in a 1998 API memo leaked to The New York Times. Both say the memo grew out of an API brainstorming session that never resulted in concrete action, with Milloy calling it “just a big joke.”</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>Years before, API had refuted the very concept of global warming under President Charles DiBona</b>, who joined the institute shortly after a stint as energy policy advisor to Richard </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">Nixon in the 1970s. White House communications show that DiBona regularly met with then-API President Frank Ikard, a close friend of Nixon’s</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, before becoming Ikard’s deputy in 1974.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">“You heard that a scientific consensus now exists,” DiBona said during API’s annual meeting in 1996. “This claim is beyond misleading; it is dead wrong.”</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> He borrowed an analogy from MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, who likened climate models to Ouija boards. By 2003, a group of scientists funded by API had turned out the first of several studies characterizing the warming trend as a natural phenomenon.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>The same year, however, the United Nations was holding its ninth conference on climate change —  focusing on how to mitigate warming. In 2001, an international consortium of scientists had delivered its third report on the trend, reaffirming findings that climate change was real and manmade.</b></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>Reached by phone recently, DiBona declined to answer any questions about the organization he led for 18 years. Months after retiring from API in 1997, DiBona joined the board of Halliburton</b>, an oilfield-service company then headed by future vice president Dick Cheney. DiBona is now an API honorary lifetime director and an</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> advisory chairman for a mining investment company based in the Cayman Islands.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>
</b></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>In recent years, fringe views espoused by API have found a receptive audience in U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas</b>), whose climate-denial credentials rival those of Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Since Smith became chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in 2013, the panel has handed out dozens of subpoenas — many to scientists at regulatory agencies and environmental groups — aiming to debunk climate research.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Smith — whose district includes San Antonio — has opened the committee’s hearing rooms to Cooler Heads Coalition events such as Milloy’s book promotion and briefings that urged the United States to drop out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In February, he reissued a controversial subpoena to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is investigating ExxonMobil’s historical knowledge on climate change. Since he joined Congress in 1989, Smith’s top campaign donors have been from the oil and gas sector, which gave him at least $764,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Smith did not respond to requests for comment.</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 102);">
</span></div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 102);">In 2016, Influence Map, a nonprofit environmental research group, estimated that ExxonMobil had spent about $27 million on “climate obstruction” lobbying and advertising campaigns. That amount was dwarfed by the $65 million API spent on similar efforts, the group found. ExxonMobil is one of the oldest and largest API members.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>‘Tired, old industry argument’</b></div><div style=""><b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In July, the House passed a bill targeting what its proponents called “job-killing regulations” — namely, bedrock air-quality standards. Its lead author was </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Rep. Pete Olson, </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">a Republican from the ozone-plagued Houston area. All but four of the 229 “aye” votes were cast by Republicans, Lamar Smith among them.</span></b></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Under Olson’s bill, states would have until 2025 to meet the EPA’s latest ozone limit, which was supposed to take effect in October</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. The agency, which is legally required to update air standards to keep pace with evolving science, would be obligated to review rules for pollutants once a decade, as opposed to once every five years.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>The 2017 bill is the latest iteration of a proposal Olson first floated in 2015, seeking to delay regulation of ozone</b>. The same day his bill passed, 144 trade groups, including regional offshoots of API, pledged their support in a letter to Congress. Oil and gas interests have been Olson’s top political contributors, donating more than $1 million to his campaigns since 2007. A Senate version of the bill has not come up for a vote.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>In an email, Olson’s office wrote that the congressman “believes the Clean Air Act is critically important” but has “fundamental concerns” about Texas’ ability to meet tighter standards. Pollution control, the email said, “can be done rationally and with an eye on our economy.”</b></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>By law, the EPA is not allowed to consider cost when setting ozone standards, but that hasn’t stopped API and other industry groups from injecting economics into the policy debate</b>.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Much like scientists for hire, economists have provided API with grist to challenge regulations</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. Armed with seemingly authoritative studies from firms such as <b>NERA Economic Consulting,</b> t</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">he institute has recast issues such as action on climate change as reckless moves that could tank the U.S. economy. NERA, whose clients include API collaborators such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council, was co-founded by Irwin Stelzer, an economist who works at the Hudson Institute, a free-market think tank.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Such studies, like the NERA report Trump cited when he announced the U.S. exit from the Paris climate agreement earlier this year, can be “extremely misleading,” often tallying every conceivable cost and ignoring every possible benefit, said<b> Ben Franta</b>, a Stanford University researcher investigating API’s climate activities. Because data underlying these reports are proprietary, Franta said, in many cases they can neither be verified or debunked. What’s left are unsupported arguments: “New ozone rules could be the most expensive ever,” reads an API webpage linking to dozens of NERA findings.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has taken a tack similar to API’</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">s. </span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Since 2013, the TCEQ has paid NERA more than $870,000 f</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">or economic research on ozone — a topic the firm studied earlier for API. More than $2.2 million in taxpayer funds have also been spent on contracts with Gradient — a consultancy previously hired by API to question the benefits of a stricter ozone limit. The TCEQ declined to comment on this story but on its website describes its mission as protecting the “state’s public health and natural resources consistent with sustainable economic development.”</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Anne E. Smith, a managing director at NERA,  did not respond to emails and phone calls seeking comment. She was among several industry-friendly voices at a 2015 TCEQ ozone workshop in Austin led by Michael Honeycutt,  the agency’s director of toxicology. Other speakers included Gradient scientists, the editor of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, industry toxicologist Michael Dourson and air researcher Robert Phalen, known for saying the air “is a little too clean for optimum health.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>The group’s findings were later referenced by Honeycutt at a House Science Committee </b>hearing, where he argued against a tighter EPA ozone standard. Honeycutt said the risks posed by the pollutant were “small” and any change could discourage people from “outdoor exercise.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Speakers at the Austin workshop have risen to prominence in the Trump administration. This fall, Honeycutt, Anne Smith, Dourson and Phalen were all named to key EPA science positions as either advisers or staff. Their fringe views on ozone — championed by API — have alarmed public-health advocates and run counter to the EPA’s own findings. The agency strengthened its ozone standard in 2015 after reviewing more than 1,000 new studies.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>Economics has long figured into API’s strategy to derail ozone rule</b>s. In 1971, the newly formed EPA set the ozone standard at 80 parts per billion, but in 1979 took an unexpected U-turn and weakened it to 120 ppb — angering industry and environmentalists alike. The latter called the reversal scientifically indefensible and accused the EPA of prioritizing economics over health. API promptly sued the EPA, with President DiBona claiming the relaxed standards would still cost “billions of dollars without significantly improving the quality of the environment or the health of the public.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Spurred by lawsuits from the American Lung Association that compelled it to update air standards based on the latest science, the EPA reverted to its original 80 ppb ozone limit in 1997. The cap is now at 70 ppb, though even that number may not be protective enough, as some research has found health effects at 60 ppb.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b>Nonetheless, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt — a former Oklahoma attorney general with deep ties to oil and gas — tried to keep the 70 ppb standard from taking effec</b>t</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">. He backed off on the delay after 16 state attorneys  [teAm BLUE] general sued the agency in August. In a lawsuit filed this month, however, environmental groups accused the EPA of failing to enforce the rule.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Pruitt had put forth what Dr. Greg Diette — a lung specialist at Johns Hopkins University who has testified in favor of tighter ozone standards — calls “a tired, old industry argument. They say, ‘It’s going to put us out of business,’ and it doesn’t,” Diette said. “All this stuff always comes down to who has to pay.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But not all costs are economic. High ozone days are the hardest for Diette’s patients. “It can be terrifying — it’s the sensation of not being able to breathe,” he said. “Some feel as if they're going to pass out. Some feel as if they're going to die.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Asthmatics can do little more than hide indoors in an air-conditioned environment. The only other option, Diette said, is to move.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Relocating isn’t possible for the Rosales family of San Antonio, who are uninsured and struggling to keep up with the cost of Gabriel’s medications. The air he breathes is expected to degrade further as oil prices rebound and drilling picks up in the Eagle Ford.</div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">=</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Charles_J.DiBona</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">
</font></div><div style=""><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Charles J. DiBona</b> is Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Logistics_Management_Institute" title="Logistics Management Institute" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Logistics Management Institute</a>, a non-profit organization "committed to improving management of the United States' defense establishment through research, analysis and counsel."<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.mosaicvp.com/Home/newsclip/2002November/HALLIBURTON%20BOARD%20MEMBER.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22" stroke="%22%2336c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" c="C" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[1]</a></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>DiBona joined the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Halliburton_Company" title="Halliburton Company" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Halliburton Company</a> Board in 1997</b>. He is a member of the Health, Safety and Environment, the Compensation and the Management Oversight Committees. He is a member of the Federal City Council in Washington, D.C., and an <b>Honorary Director of the American Petroleum Institute</b>.<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.mosaicvp.com/Home/newsclip/2002November/HALLIBURTON%20BOARD%20MEMBER.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22" stroke="%22%2336c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" c="C" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[2]</a></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DiBona was elected to the Board of Directors of <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mitchell_Energy%26_Development_Corporation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Mitchell Energy & Development Corporation (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Mitchell Energy & Development Corporation</a>, The Woodlands, Texas, in August 2001.<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.pipe-line.com/archive/archive_01-08/01-08_people.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22" stroke="%22%2336c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" c="C" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[3]</a> In November 2002, DiBona was added to the Advisory Board of <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Time_Industrial,Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Time Industrial, Inc. (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Time Industrial, Inc.</a> of Calgary, Canada, a "global service for contractor management that brokers real-time cost and progress data on capital projects."<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.e-chemmerce.com/c2/1102/s/1102s4.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22" stroke="%22%2336c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" c="C" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[4]</a><a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.constructech.com/online_news/news_0211/021115MS.asp" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22" stroke="%22%2336c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" c="C" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[5]</a></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">DiBona served nineteen years as President and four years as Executive Vice President of the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute" title="American Petroleum Institute" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">American Petroleum Institute</a> (API) (1979-1997), the pertroleum industry's largest association which represents over 350 national and international companies.</span><a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.mosaicvp.com/Home/newsclip/2002November/HALLIBURTON%20BOARD%20MEMBER.htm" style="background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22" stroke="%22%2336c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" c="C" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[6]</a></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 1971, President <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_M.Nixon" title="Richard M. Nixon" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Richard M. Nixon</a> established the Special Energy Committee comprised of senior White House advisors, including special assistants for domestic, foreign, and economic affairs. The National Energy Office was headed by Charles J. DiBona.<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://library.nstu.ru/InfoUSA/politics/cabinet/doehist.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22" stroke="%22%2336c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" c="C" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[7]</a></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Before joining API, DiBona was a Special Consultant for Energy to the President of the United States, served as President and CEO for the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Naval_Analysis&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Center for Naval Analysis (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Center for Naval Analysis</a>, and spent several years as an Officer in the U.S. Navy. He holds a BS in Engineering, an MA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics and is a <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rhodes_Scholar" title="Rhodes Scholar" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Rhodes Scholar</a>.<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/7041.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22" stroke="%22%2336c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" c="C" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[8]</a><a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.mosaicvp.com/Home/newsclip/2002November/HALLIBURTON%20BOARD%20MEMBER.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22" stroke="%22%2336c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" c="C" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[9]</a></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Charles is married to <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Evelyn_DiBona" title="Evelyn DiBona" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Evelyn DiBona</a>. <sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Charles_J.DiBona#cite_note-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[1]</a></sup></font></p><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Resources_and_articles"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Resources and articles</font></span></h2><h3 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; line-height: 1.6;"><span class="mw-headline" id="References"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">References</font></span></h3><div class="mw-references-wrap" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><ol class="references" style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li id="cite_note-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="mw-cite-backlink" style="user-select: none;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Charles_J.DiBona#cite_ref-1" aria-label="Jump up" title="Jump up" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">↑</a></span> <span class="reference-text"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.meridian.org/pdfs/news_winter_2000.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" https="https" upload.wikimedia.org="upload.wikimedia.org" wikipedia="wikipedia" commons="commons" icons-mini-file_acrobat.gif="Icons-mini-file_acrobat.gif" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right" px="px">Meridian International Center Newsletter</a>, Volume XII, Number 2, Winter 2000/2001.</span></font></li></ol></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/exxon-denial-and-deception.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/exxon-denial-and-deception.pdf</a></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">may <b>2002 </b>47 pp  <b>GCC Kyoto</b></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p6</font></div><div style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> report, Denial and Deception: A Chronicle of ExxonMobil’s Efforts to Corrupt the Global Warming Debate,</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> details more than a decade of deliberate and persistent efforts by ExxonMobil and its front groups to derail the evolving global warming treaty and the scientific consensus that urgently supports the international agreement. The report also delves into emerging ties between the ExxonMobil agenda and the damaging global warming legacy of the Bush administration. Since the early 1990s, Exxon and Mobil have taken leading roles in industry efforts to cast doubt over climate science. With the now defunct </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Global Climate Coalition f</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ront group and others, ExxonMobil has claimed that the scientists are getting it wrong on global warming and the role of fossil fuels. This ongoing effort was spawned by the revelations of the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1990, which pointed to strong and growing evidence of temperature rise, sea level rise and other changes resulting from rising emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. That report stressed the need for a 60 to 80 percent cut in CO2 emissions just to stabilize rising atmospheric concentrations of this greenhouse gas. This call for emission cuts was received by Exxon, Mobil and others as a direct attack on their core business. </span></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ExxonMobil’s campaign to slow the progress of scientific validation of global warming started with the use of paid skeptic scientists to publicly rebut scientific advances. Exxon has also actively engaged in manipulation of international scientific assessments<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">. In 1998, Exxon was involved in developing a $6 million American Petroleum Institute communications plan for a two-year campaign intended to reshape the climate debate – where the ultimate victory was the <b>defeat of the Kyoto Protocol,</b> </span>and making those promoting it appear ‘out of touch with reality’.iii The latest attack on climate science was revealed this year in a secret ExxonMobil memo to President Bush. The memo asked for the removal of Dr. Robert Watson, the Chair of IPCC. </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Bush administration climate team and its allies executed ExxonMobil’s will in mid-April of 2002. In addition to this latest tale of the working relationship between ExxonMobil and Bush, this report delves into some of what is known of the company’s close history with George W. Bush dating back to Bush’s days as Governor of Texas. In 1997, then Governor Bush consulted Exxon and Marathon oil to draft a proposal to deal with Texas’s debilitating air pollution problem from so called “grandfathered” facilities, those that do not pass modern pollution regulations, but are allowed to continue to operate. Rather like asking the fox to design the chicken coop, the resulting proposed regulations were not surprisingly voluntary and full of loopholes. Eventually the secret consultations between Exxon and Governor Bush were revealed and the plan was thrown out. This report also tracks ExxonMobil’s broad array of political dirty tricks aimed at slowing the progress of global warming policy agreements. From the funding and dissemination of “chicken little” economic scare reports on global warming policy to anti-global warming treaty advertising on television and in newspapers, ExxonMobil has carried this war on the climate treaty from international negotiations to Capitol Hill—around the world and back again. ExxonMobil’s use of divisive tactical rhetoric is best exemplified by its two faced argument on the role of developing countries in the climate treaty. While arguing in the U.S. policy arena that America should reject a treaty that does not conscript developing countries to act, Exxon simultaneously has lobbied developing countries not to support the treaty saying that they will be economically harmed by it. In the lead up to 1997 Kyoto climate negotiations, Exxon and Mobil, through the Global Climate Coalition and other front groups, were heavily pushing the message in the United States that developing countries were..</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p10 [bogus accuweather study]</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, drawing its data from only three U.S. cities. Although the study was unsupportable scientifically, it gained considerable media and public attention when it was heavily promoted by the </span><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">GCC.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> The IPCC Second Assessment Report </span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">was released in December of 1995. It concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the global climate” and that “significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions are technically possible and can be economically feasible.”15</span></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b> The president of the American Petroleum Institute </b>at the time, Charles DiBona, called the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report “inflammatory,” because it stated that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.</span>”16 It is notable that oil producing countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia tried to delay the report’s release because of this “strong language”, and argued against the use of the words “appreciable,” “notable,” “measurable,” and “detectable” in place of “discernable.”17 Also in 1995, the GCC attempted to orchestrate a <b>character assassination of an IPCC scientist, Dr. Benjamin Santer. I</b>t accused Santer of “scientific cleansing” – claiming in the press that he had secretly and substantially altered the 1995 IPCC report. Other scientists came to Santer’s defense and confirmed that the allegations were false.18 1997: In the lead up to the negotiations in Kyoto, Japan Mobil ran a series of advertisements in major U.S. newspapers regarding climate change. One of the most extreme appeared in The Washington Post one month before Kyoto: “Science: What We Know and Don’t Know.” It featured a large pie chart purporting to show that human activities are responsible for only 3 to 4 percent of total CO2 emissions in the Earth’s atmosphere. While this is true, it is highly misleading as it conceals the fact that overall CO2 levels have increased about 30 percent due mainly to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. British Petroleum withdrew from the Global Climate Coalition in 1997, distancing itself from Exxon, Mobil and other corporations that continued to refute the</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p11</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This would be achieved by recruiting and training five “independent” scientists – “new faces… without a long history of visibility in the climate debate” to participate in media outreach. The <b>American Petroleum Institute aimed to “maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours, </b>with Congress, the media and other key audiences” and admitted shamelessly that it would target teachers and students, in order to “begin to erect a barrier against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future.”21 (See appendix for full text of memo.) On 25 April 1998, The New York Times reported that the American Petroleum Institute intended to “spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the [Kyoto Protocol] is based on shaky science…” and to give global warming skeptics “the logistical and moral support they have been lacking.”</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">...In June 1998, prior to the climate negotiations session in Bonn, Germany, the</span><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Global Climate Coalition</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"> (GCC</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">) distributed a pamphlet to diplomats, entitled “Climate Change: The Case Against Scientific Certainty.”</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> In this document, the GCC argued that: “While it is certain that the Protocol would impose enormous burdens on America’s economy, there is no scientific certainty that human activity affects global climate.”</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Perennial skeptic, TV journalis<b>t John Stossel,</b> is named in the strategy document to get a major national story run “examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.” Potential funding sources for the strategy were identified as the American Petroleum Institute,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> U.S. Business Roundtable, Edison Electric Institute, and the National Mining Association and all of its corporate members. Among the potential “fund allocators” wer</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">e Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI),</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Frontiers for Freedom and the George C. Marshall Institute.23 It is clear that the disclosure of this plan by The New York Times did not impede its progress.</span></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p13</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On 11 March 2002, in a speech given at Stanford Universit<b>y, Sir John Browne, Chairman and CEO of British Petroleum, </b>explained why his company broke ranks with other oil corporations in 1997 and decided to face up to climate change: First, it was clear that reputable science could not be ignored. The science wasn’t complete – but science is never complete…. But they knew enough to say that there were long-term risks and that precautionary action was necessary if we were to avoid the greater risk - of the evidence mounting to the point where draconian action was unavoidable.46...</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p15</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ExxonMobil - Funding the Skeptics One of the most high profile skeptics in the climate change debate, S. Fred Singer, has recently denied receiving any oil company money, and claimed that his consulting for oil companies was solely “on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago….”59 Yet Exxon’s own documents60 show that in 1998, the company gave a grant of $10,000 to the Science and Environmental Policy Project <b>(SEPP</b>), of which Singer is the founding president, and another $65,000 to the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which promotes and supports Singer’s work.61 In addition, in the past Singer has acknowledged receiving funding from Exxon.62 According to the Wall Street Journal63, </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ExxonMobil also funds the ultra-conservative and anti-environmentalist Frontiers of Freedom Institute, of which Singer is a staff member. <b>Frontiers of Freedom was cited in the American Petroleum Institute (API) 1998 Global Science Communications Action Plan as a possible organization to help operationalize their anti-Kyoto strategy, to be funded by API and others in the fossil fuel industry.64 Singer has a history of public attacks on the integrity of the IPCC process.65</b> </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He has fabricated quotes from the former chair of the IPCC, Dr. Bert Bolin, in an attempt to suggest that Dr. Bolin had changed his mind about climate change.66 Singer was also the mastermind behind a Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) project that took fifty Republican students from the United States, trained in the skeptics’ arguments, to the climate negotiations in <b>Bonn in 2001,</b> to demonstrate in favor of Bush’s abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol.67 CFACT was also listed in the 1998 API plan mentioned above. Throughout the years, Singer, a seemingly professional generic skeptic, has argued against an international treaty to ban whaling, and against action on acid rain, ozone depletion and clean air. He has stated that most people would survive a nuclear war and that resultant climatic changes would be minor and short-lived. He has also argued that the lung cancer risk from second-hand smoke was statistically insignificant.68 (See appendix for details.) However, aside from one technical comment, Singer has been unable to publish his work in any peer-reviewed scientific journals for at least 15 years.69</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Sallie Baliunas</b> has published several reports which attempt to show that human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels play no role in global warming, that science does not support the prospect of dangerous climate change70, and that scientific findings do not support federal regulation of emissions.71 The Global Climate Coalition (of which Exxon and Mobil were prominent members) hired her to go on a media tour in 1994 to refute the science of global climate change.72 She was also a “co-author” of the paper which imitated the National Academy of Sciences format, and was the basis for the 1998 “Oregon Petition” with signatures from “17,000 scientists” dismissing the scientific consensus on climate change.73 Other prominent skeptics funded by Exxon include Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, and Sherwood Idso. 74 </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">All are veterans of the 1991 coal-industry funded skeptic campaign coordinated by the Information Council on the Environment (ICE). According to strategy papers developed for the campaign, the ICE campaign sought to “re-position global warming as theory (not fact)” and attempted to target “older, less educated males from larger households who are not typically information seekers” and “younger, lower income women.”75 </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 1998, Exxon gave a grant of $15,000 to The Cato Institute’s Environment and Natural Resources program, of which <b>Patrick Michaels</b> is a senior fellow. Michaels argues in four directions: global warming is not happening, science that detects global warming is flawed, industry-funded science is viable and objective, and global warming will be good for the planet and humankind. Contradicting his claims that global warming is not occurring, in 1998 Michaels wrote that: “The earth’s climate is not necessarily changing in a deleterious fashion…. These changes may bear, at least in part, a fingerprint of human activity.”76 Exxon also funds the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, which published <b>Robert Balling’</b>s 1992 book on climate change, The Heated Debate. 77 Balling has argued that climate change, when or if it occurs, will be beneficial, particularly for the United States. “Do something to stimulate plant growth in areas prone to degradation of graze lands: burn fossil fuels and help to increase atmospheric CO2 levels....</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The pastures of the world, along with the animals (and people) depending on those ecosystems, will be in your debt!”78 Sherwood Idso is the scientific advisor for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Arizona, which received a $10,000 grant from Exxon in 1998. Idso’s past contribution to the climate debate was a 1991 coal industry funded video The Greening of Planet Earth – which claims that global warming is good for humanity. It was the subject of congressional hearings in the early 1990s.79</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p19 Kytoto</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...Administration.” The op-ed stated that “the unrealistic and economically damaging Kyoto process needs to be rethought.”99 Meanwhile, ExxonMobil and its oil industry colleagues were lobbying Capitol Hill and the White House as well. Following Bush’s March 2001 statement regarding his formal opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the Chief Executive of the American Petroleum Institute wrote a letter of support and congratulations to the Chair of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, Congressman Joe Barton, thanking him for the “strong leadership” he had demonstrated on the issue. The letter indicated that Barton had asked the API for its view on the status of the international negotiations to implement the Kyoto Protocol on 26 March 2001, days before Bush’s rejection of the treaty. The letter re-stated the usual skeptic’s arguments against Kyoto (the economic implications and lack of developing countries participation), much of the language echoing that of both Bush (“the Kyoto Protocol represents a fundamentally flawed approach…”) and of Exxon’s statements (“the long term challenge of potential climate change”) (emphases added). Like ExxonMobil, the<b> API still calls for more research to reduce “the scientific gaps and uncertainties surrounding the potential of human impacts on the climate.”</b>100 The U.S. Council on International Business (USCIB), of which ExxonMobil is a member, wrote to Bush on 11 April 2001, after his withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, suggesting that “the U.S. should move quickly to chart a path forward that will avoid the Kyoto protocol’s unrealistic targets, timetables and lack of developing country participation.”101...</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p21</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Influencing U.S. Energy Policy</b> </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Documents obtained by the National Resources Defense Council110 thus far, through the Freedom of Information Act, regarding the Bush-Cheney Energy Task Force indicate that there were many conversations with industry, including ExxonMobil, regarding the formulation of U.S. energy policy in early 2001. Because numerous documents have been withheld to date, the extent to which ExxonMobil influenced the Bush-Cheney energy plan has yet to be determined. The<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"> American Petroleum Institute was the lead organization in the energy task force brought together by Vice President Dick Cheney </span>to formulate an energy plan<b>. Lee Raymond, CEO and Chairman of ExxonMobil, was a member of the API board at the time. </b>. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Under pressure from the U.S. media, ExxonMobil admitted that it was involved in the drafting of the Bush-Cheney energy plan, and at least one direct consultation between Raymond and Cheney’s office has been disclosed.</span>111 </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The resultant plan calls for increasing domestic supplies of oil and gas, and opening federal lands for drilling, thus giving renewed support to the coal and nuclear power industries. Bush Echoes ExxonMobil The similarities between ExxonMobil’s statements and the words coming out of Bush’s mouth are uncanny and likely not coincidental.<b> In April 2001, ExxonMobil paid for advertisements that described the Kyoto Protocol as “fundamentally flawed” and “fatally politicized.”</b> After Bush rejected the treaty, he described the Kyoto Protocol as “fatally flawed in fundamental ways.”112 Bush’s reasons for withdrawing the United States from the Kyoto Protocol reflected ExxonMobil’s arguments of the past decade. Bush rejected the treaty because113: • The emissions targets set forth in the protocol are not scientifically justified; • The Kyoto Protocol is “fatally flawed” and “ineffective;” • It would hurt the U.S. economy and mean massive job losses; • The largest developing countries are exempt – even though his father approved their initial exemption in the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Rio Earth Summit. Despite Dahan’s claim that “It is ridiculous to suggest that our contributions could buy influence on U.S. government policy,”114 immediately following his speech in London (October 2001), Dahan boasted to the Financial Times that the Bush alternative to the Kyoto Protocol “will not be very different from what you are hearing from us.”115 In fact, he was right. Below are ExxonMobil’s recommendations for a “sounder climate policy,” followed by the Bush plan as announced on 14 February 2002....</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p23</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Political Dirty Tricks</b> </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On the One Hand: Developing Country Commitments and the Byrd-Hagel Resolution Although developing countries emit only a fraction of global greenhouse gases, and the historical burden for emissions rests on the industrialized world, ExxonMobil continues to argue that the Kyoto Protocol excludes developing countries such as China and India, and that developing countries should make the same binding commitments to immediate reductions in emissions as the industrialized world. However, the Kyoto Protocol is a crucial and significant first step towards tackling global warming, which does include developing countries. Under the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries are allowed some increases in emissions in the short term, and more time to bring their emissions under control, in keeping with an international treaty signed in 1992, that included the United States. At the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, all nations agreed to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The first President Bush signed this convention, and the U.S. Senate ratified it, making it U.S. law. Under the UNFCCC, all parties agreed that the developed countries – those responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since the dawn of the industrial age – would take the lead in reducing emissions. Once developed countries, such as the United States, have made progress on reducing their own emissions, developing countries will be required to reduce emissions as well. However, until the United States takes the lead and starts to set an example, we cannot expect developing nations to make commitments to reduce emissions.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[mobil ad]</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That is why it is incumbent on all nations to participate in the solution even in the short term.”126 • After the vote, Mobil took out further advertisements expressing support for the concerns raised by the Senate vote over the equity of a climate treaty that excluded developing countries and might result in “serious harm to the economy of the United States.” It suggested that “when the Congress speaks this forcefully, the American public as well as the administration should take notice.”127 • </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the run up to the Senate vote, the American Petroleum Institute signed a U.S. newspaper advertisement on 23 June 1997, addressed to President Clinton and stating API’s support for the anti-Kyoto resolution by Byrd and Hagel.128 Hagel had close links with the API at this time; he spoke at its conference in November that year, just prior to Lee Raymond, who quoted Hagel’s resolution in his speech.129 • </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The U.S. Business Roundtable (BRT) ran a $1 million advertising campaign on climate change in June 1997, urging the Clinton administration not to rush into policy commitments without fully understanding the consequences. This campaign included full-page advertisements in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, signed by both Exxon and Mobil.130 The BRT also sent a letter to Senator Hagel on 8 July 1997, supporting his upcoming senate resolution, on the basis that “the science is less than compelling.”131 On the Other Hand, Developing Countries Should Not Commit In October 1997, just prior to the international climate negotiations in Kyoto, Japan, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond urged Asian governments at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing to continue to fight emissions regulations for at least the next two decades. Having previously argued that the lack of developing country participation was unfair to the United States, he now threatened that developing countries would lose foreign investment if binding targets were agreed upon at Kyoto:...</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p28</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ExxonMobil Behind the Curve In addition to these voices, other fossil fuel companies have called for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. On 7<b> November 2001, Greg Bourne, the President of British Petroleum for South Australia and Australasia, called on the Australian government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.</b> He said that the Australian economy would suffer if the nation did not commit to ratification.158 Bourne said that “the world is going to have to change its energy use pattern” and that postponing this change will make the transition more difficult, and “cause too much social upheaval.” Further, in contrast to ExxonMobil’s charge that the Kyoto Protocol will bring massive unemployment, Bourne’s “own belief is that there will be many more jobs created by changes into a newer economy than there will be lost.”159...</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[in in early December 2001, Robert A.G. Monks, founder of the leading U.S. corporate-governance consulting firm, Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc., announced the introduction of a shareholder resolution calling for ExxonMobil’s board to rein in Lee Raymond, charging that Raymond’s “increasingly extreme position on global warming and other environmental and social issues was harming the company’s reputation and share values.”162 In March 2002, ExxonMobil shareholders gained an important victory when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled in support of two shareholder resolutions in the corporation’s proxy for 2002. The resolutions, which were filed by 56 investor groups which are concerned about ExxonMobil’s position on climate change, call for executive compensation to be linked to the company’s social and environmental performance, and for the publication of a report on the company’s efforts to develop renewable energy technologies. ExxonMobil had challenged the resolutions at the SEC.163]</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p30</font></div><div style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 102);"><b>Global Climate Coalition (GCC)</b> “Over the past decade, the Global Climate Coalition</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> has spent millions of dollars to defuse the global warming issue, lobbying members of Congress to thwart any corrective action, conducting economic studies that conclude that any such measures would irreparably harm the economy, and sponsoring skeptics on speaking tours to question whether global warming is the crisis other scientists say it is.”173 The GCC was established in 1989 and, for more than a decade, was the most outspoken and confrontational lobby group battling emissions reduction commitments. It invested enormous resources into fullscale attacks on international climate agreement, waging extensive, multi-million dollar dis-information campaigns.174 </span></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Both Exxon and Mobil were board members of the</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"> GCC </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and supported the organization</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.175 It was recently reported that during the 1990s, Exxon and Mobil spent approximately $1 billion financing the GCC, though accurate figures may never be known.176</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> In 1997, British Petroleum (BP) left the GCC </b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">after admitting that climate change required action. During the period 1999-2000, there was a large-scale defection of companies such as Ford, Texaco and General Motors, but ExxonMobil remained. ExxonMobil was the last to leave the GCC, and left only because the coalition stopped listing corporations as member, accepting only trade associations.177 The GCC folded in early 2002, declaring that President Bush and the Senate were enacting their agenda and thus it had achieved its goals.178 </span></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>American Petroleum Institute (API)</b> </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ExxonMobil is a financial supporter of the API and sits on the board. Lee Raymond, CEO of ExxonMobil, was the chair of the API from 1995-1997.179 U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has been a member of its board of directors, and the API remained a member of the Global Climate Coalition until the GCC folded in early 2002.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) The ICC is an industry lobby group that has active at many sessions of the Kyoto negotiations. At the 6th Conference of the Parties (COP 6) in The Hague, Netherlands, in November 2000, ExxonMobil’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Brian Flannery, was registered as a representative of the ICC and was one of the group’s main spokespeople. </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) Exxon and Mobil were both members of the IPIECA in 1996 when it attempted to influence the December climate talks with dire economic forecasts resulting from emissions reductions. ExxonMobil remains a member. U.S. Business Round Table (BRT) The BRT is made up of CEOs from more than 200 large corporations, including ExxonMobil. The climate agenda it pushes calls for global agreements that include developing countries, voluntary agreements for industry, “flexible policies,” and tradable emissions permits between countries. Tax and regulatory measures are strongly opposed. Its 1997 position statement proposed that “a climate policy which fails to include all nations should be opposed,” despite the fact that in 1992, parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, including the United States, agreed that developed countries should act first.180 </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Global Climate Information Project (GCIP) In the run up to the international climate change negotiations in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, this industry coalition ran a $13 million advertising campaign in the U.S. press, and U.S. national and local television and radio stations that opposed U.S. commitments to the upcoming global warming agreement, claiming that developing countries were not included and the treaty would harm the U.S. economy.181 It was sponsored by the GCC and by API while Lee Raymond was chair. U.S. Council on International Business (USCIB) ExxonMobil is a member of this corporate lobby group which actively lobbied for President George W. Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>...Pushing ExxonMobil’s Economic Agenda</b> 1996: </font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">In 1996, the American Petroleum Institute commissioned and funded an economic model to predict the costs of reducing carbon emissions. The model – produced by U.S. consulting firm Charles River Associates </span>– predicted that any commitment to legally binding emissions targets within the next decade would entail large costs.182 This model failed to compare these potential Kyoto Protocol implementation costs with economic costs of inaction or delay on climate protection, nor the costs of past and future climate change impacts on humans and the environment. Furthermore, it did not incorporate the economic benefits that would result from new markets and jobs created through emissions reduction policies and the development and use of renewable energy and more energy efficient technologies. The author of the model, David Montgomery, spoke at a briefing organized by the U.S. Council for International Business and chaired by the head of the International Chamber of Commerce (ExxonMobil is a member of both organizations) at the UN climate negotiations in Geneva, December 1996. He was quoted widely in the media throughout that year.183</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> At the December 1996 climate talks, the IPIECA circulated a briefing paper which concluded that: “Current proposals for near term (10-20 years) emissions reductions in developed countries, which imply curbs on fossil fuel based energy use, would result in substantial costs that would inhibit economic growth and negatively affect trade, investment, competitiveness, employment and lifestyles.”184 Exxon and Mobil were both members of the IPIECA at the time.185 1997: In February of 1997, 2000 top economists (including six Nobel Laureates) signed a statement affirming that many potential climate protection policies “would slow climate change without harming American living standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the long run.” They urged the United States to play a leadership role at the Kyoto negotiations.186...</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">p35</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, experience in the United States, Europe, Japan and elsewhere has demonstrated that government policy is the most important factor in determining the success of renewable energy technologies. Furthermore, policies that create a market for these technologies encourage private investment in renewables research and development (R&D) and production capability, and enable the experience in installation, operation and maintenance, and the economies of scale that can significantly reduce the costs of renewable energy.209 If a corporation of ExxonMobil’s size – one of the world’s largest – were to shift significant investment out of fossil fuels and into renewable energy, it could play an important role in further reducing the costs of renewable energy.</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Unfortunately, ExxonMobil dismisses non-fossil fuel sources of energy such as renewables, despite the growing investments in these technologies by other major international oil companies including British Petroleum (BP) and Royal Dutch/Shell. But, rather than investing in renewable energy, ExxonMobil is investing more and more money in oil and gas. ExxonMobil is not interested in developing renewables, but in finding alternative ways to use fossil fuels. Its “solutions” to climate change range from “cleaner fuels,” to advanced drilling techniques, to increased energy efficiency of their operations, to tree planting. None of these actions will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. “Cleaner fuels” such as low-sulfur diesel reduce some airborne pollutants, but do not reduce the emissions that cause global warming. Hydrogen fuelcell vehicles offer great future potential – but the energy generated will be carbon-free only if the hydrogen fuel is produced with renewable energy. It is no surprise then that the fuel cell vehicle ExxonMobil is working to develop, in coordination with auto manufacturers, will use gasoline to produce the hydrogen fuel. In 2001, ExxonMobil earned $15.3 billion in profits...</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>By contrast, BP and Shell have both agreed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each on their renewable energy divisions. </b>Both companies have stressed that they want to turn what could be a regulatory burden into an eventual profit. “The element of profit stems from our belief that commercial mechanisms, such as those included in the [Kyoto] protocol, are the way to solve problems like global warming,” says BP spokesman Roddy Kennedy.212 BP and Shell spend a fraction on renewables of what they spend exploring and developing fossil fuels, and a mere fraction of what they could spend on renewables. Yet the divide between these companies and ExxonMobil is enormous. </font></div></div><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">==</font></font></p></div>