That's a George Allen talking point.  

ExxonMobilPAC handed out about $700K for the 2006 cycle, 93% of it to Republicans.

how can we incentivize corporate good behavior until we punish the bad? well done.

Would have loved to been on the call.

Speaking of global warming:

2/13 Tuesday

10 AM: House Committee on Science and Technology National Imperatives for Earth and Climate Science (National Academy of Sciences Decadal Survey) 2318 Rayburn My brief summary: global warming means we need to be pumping money into basic earth science, but Bush has been starving the budgets and crippling the programs such that the near future for our research satellites are fucked and other programs are on the brink of disarray. Witnesses: Richard A. Anthes, Co-Chair,"Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond"- President, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Berrien Moore III, Co-Chair,"Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond"- Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire The Honorable Jim Geringer, Governor of Wyoming (1995-2003), Director, Policy Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) From the preliminary report, the key earth science questions: Will there be catastrophic collapse of the major ice sheets, including Greenland and West Antarctic and, if so, how rapidly will this occur? What will be the time patterns of sea level rise as a result? Will droughts become more widespread in the western U.S., Australia, and Sub Saharan Africa? How will this affect the patterns of wildfires? How will reduced amounts of snowfall change the needs for water storage? How will continuing economic development affect the production of air pollutants, and how will these pollutants be transported across oceans and continents? How are these pollutants transformed during the transport process? How will coastal and ocean ecosystems respond to changes in physical forcing, particularly those subject to intense human harvesting? How will the boreal forest shift as temperature and precipitation change at high latitudes? What will be the impacts on animal migration patterns and invasive species? Will previously-rare diseases become common? How will mosquito-borne viruses spread with changes in rainfall and drought? Can we better predict the outbreak of avian flu? What are the health impacts of an expanded "Ozone Hole" that could result from a cooling of the stratosphere, which would be associated with climate change? Will tropical cyclones and heat waves become more frequent and more intense? Are major fault systems nearing release of stress via strong earthquakes? And yet: "As documented in this report, the United States' extraordinary foundation of global observations is at great risk." All full committee and subcommittee hearings and markups are WEBCAST live on the Committee website.

Also tomorrow in DC:
Tuesday, February 13, 12 PM.
Cooling Earth:  What We Can Do Now.
at Josephine Butler Parks Center 2437 15th Street, NW

Environmental scientist Pascale Maslin of Global Environmental Systems to help us all learn how we can each make an immediate difference in reversing the climate damage that the US is doing to the world.

Exxon Mobil gave up on pursuing alternative energy development about 10-15 years ago. They are directly responsible for so much misinformation and political intransigence on global warming that their executives should be strapped onto an iceberg with a starving polar bear.

EU: Exxon spends millions to cast doubt on warming

by Andrew Buncombe and Stephen Castle, The Independent (UK)
December 7th, 2006

Go to
http://www.corpwatch.org/
search on exxon

    ExxonMobil is anti-Jeffersonian because Jefferson was very interested in nature and a strong advocate of scientific study.

Well done, sir. What did you say when he said  "'It's like you think this is a moral issue'."?

"...he can't find pro-business Democrats..."

I guess it depends on how he defines the term "pro-business."  

According to an election review by Business Week (that's a pro-business magazine, right?)

Among the Democratic winners were a host of probusiness moderates, including Representatives-elect Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, a tough-talking sheriff; Heath Shuler of North Carolina, a businessman and former pro football player; Baron Hill of Indiana, a former moderate congressman who made a successful comeback; and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, a business executive with strong corporate support.

For business, the election offers hope for bipartisan compromise on some top corporate priorities... Democratic control of the House means that it is much more likely that Congress will approve comprehensive immigration reform... Democrats also have pledged to rein in the federal deficit and adopt a pay-as-you-go budgeting system, both goals of company reps. And companies are looking forward to Democrats keeping their promise to restore the R&D tax credit, which expired this year amid partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill.

Overall, pretty positive stuff.

Until we get to that part of the article that shapes Cohen's definition of "pro-business."

One industry that Democrats plan to target is oil. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has pledged to roll back the tax incentives given to energy companies in the Bush-Cheney energy package. Democrats want to spend that money instead on alternative energy sources and green technology.

As Matt described already, Cohen is pretty transparent.

Perhaps if ExxonMobile had taken any of the many opportunities to settle the outstanding Exxon Valdez lawsuits, they would have at least one leg to stand on. Unfortunately, similar to Bush, at this point EM's leopard spots could change and I wouldn't believe my own eyes. Credibility doesn't rely on words but on actions.

    They are responsible for the Exxon Valdez environmental disaster.  Exxon refused to pay the damages for their negligence.  They spent MORE on legal fees defending themselves against Alaskans suing for cash to clean up their state, than the Alaskans actually asked for!  
    They are such incredible assholes.  They treat their homosexual employees poorly.  They release disinformation much like Big Tobacco used to and still does.  Finally, they donate almost exclusively to Republicans.  Fuck them.  They are the quintessential evil, irresponsible, and corrupt corporation.  Exxon makes Walmart look downright angelic.  The only way they could improve their PR, would be to announce their bankruptcy.  Needless to say, I boycott their gas stations.  I would suggest that you sell your Exxon stock.  Thanks for the opportunity to bash Exxon.

Cohen explained at one point in the discussion that ExxonMobil supports Republicans because ExxonMobil is a business and he can't find pro-business Democrats.

From Open Secrets, Oil & Gas:

Year ... Dem%  Gop%
2006 ... 17%   83%
2004 ... 20%   80%
2002 ... 20%   80%
2000 ... 21%   78%

Alternative Energy:

Year ... Dem%  Gop%
2006 ... 41%   54%
2004 ... 69%   31%
2002 ... 69%   31%
2000 ... 69%   31%

Although, from the 2006 figures, it does look like the wind power folks do need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Paging Congressman McNerney!

Exxon also poisoned Norther Brooklyn with an oil spill they have refused to clear up for like 50 years. Its the largest oil spill in America. Bigger than Valdez. Now the area is a cancer cluster. The AG says he's going to go after them..

It is more the rule, than the exception, that PR, Government Relations (PACS, lobbying), and charitable giving all report up to the same person.

From the point of view of the corporation, it's all marketing in one guise or another, with a close eye kept on making sure all activities make a direct contribution to the bottom line.

The issue of morality really was key to the conversation and I thought was the most important point.

Also, allow me to say that it is kind of bad form to not mention the other bloggers who were on the call with you.

I think that statement says it all.  The powers that be in many - or most - but not ALL - major companies do not see any of these issues in terms of morals.  If we, as the Progressive Movement, try to argue "morals" we will get nowhere.

I've often thought we'd get farther by arguing financial benefits of doing the right thing.  Granted, when dealing with an ExxonMobil that is receiving lots of cash from the US Treasury, this is a challenge.  On the other hand, one example of what I'm saying is the recent announcement that Wal-Mart is joining with a union (I forget which one) to support a National Health Insurance plan.  Wal-Mart is not doing this because it's the right thing to do - they're doing it because they see a financial incentive.

Exxon might not have Democrats, but oil in general should lose favor with Alaskan Republicans.

The main reason Alaska goes Republican is two fold: guns, and independent (man) business- mostly fishermen. Fishing is one of the largest employers in the state.

Exxon Valdez
"Last month a federal appeals court cut the punitive damages award of the Exxon Valdez lawsuit from $4.5 billion to $2.5 billion."

..."Exxon issued a statement soon after, saying the plaintiffs have already been compensated for damages, the punitive award is too high. The company also signaled its intention to appeal to the Supreme Court."

So, not only were damages reduced, Exxon is trying to weasel its way out of paying.

During the clean up -contracted out to the corrupt VECO subcontractor- Exxon allegedly threw nearly $2 billion at the oil clean up project. Largely a tax right off, Exxon tried to pitch itself as a responsible company. 18 years later and finally a verdict, and Exxon is going to cover itself in oil and try and slide out of paying off Alaskan fisherman.

Lost jobs. Lost prices. Environmental damage. Everything was covered in oil. And all the lower 48 people ran up for big oil clean up a fat paycheck. Too many jobs went to out of state workers before all the local labors were employed. Money went out of state. Total rip off.

Alaskan politics needs serious change.

Keep the pressure on, Matt.  

I think the focus should be more and more on the fact that this is a moral issue.  From a religious perspective, stewarding the earth is most definitely a moral issue.  From a humanitarian issue, forestalling global flooding and the death/displacement of hundreds of millions of people is also a moral issue.

The time has long past when coporate America must realize that the economic and ecological impact of their behaviors are moral issues.  The bottom line approach is devoid of morality.

As for AEI, yes it is biased in its position, but it still qualifies as a think tank.  But your point is well taken.  AEI promotes a conservative agenda and that betrays the ideal notion of a think tank.  That said, I think we would be hard pressed to find a think tank that doesn't have an ideological bent.

In general, I find ideology to be the arch enemy of good science and research.  Those should be guided by empirical evidence and the investigators should be willing to accept conclusions that contradict their predispositions if the evidence leads them that way.

In an ideal world, that is what a think tank should be.

But we all know the world is far from ideal.

I havent bought there fuel in years.they worship money and are ignoble.

Does he not understand that climate change means that lots and lots of people are going to die, and lots and lots of species are going to go extinct, and the natural wealth of the earth will be dramatically reduced, so that the ones who do live into the future will have to live on much less than we enjoy now?  

How can he claim to "get" climate change if he doesn't get this?  Just show him a picture of people starving in the Sahel -- hell, Darfur will work -- and tell him that this is what climate change looks like, and dare him to understand that it's a moral issue.

"It is very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."  Rephrased: people will deliberately short-circuit their own intellect in order to protect their social position.  I know, cause as an evangelical I did that very thing for about two years.

I know a recently retired ExxonMobil VP. Nice man personally, fabulously wealthy as u would expect. But a total Hard rt. wingnut politically. Loves "W", Billo and Faux news. Thinks, anyone to the left of McCain is a traitor and deserves to be put in a prison camp for the duration. LOL, I wonder if he could make one Big enough to put 60% of the pop? Sad, part is he's serious and so are his buddies.

Be kidding me. ExxonMobil hasn't changed at all, they are still pouring tons of money to refute climate change. The extreme profits funneled to keep republicans in power, the millions spent on dozens of junk science organizations. Admitting that climate change is real isn't enough, they need to invest serious money in it, not PR.

So while ExxonMobil is trying to say they are now promoting climate change they are offering $10,000 to any individual who will publically attack and refute the new IPCC report on climate change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/ story/0,,2004230,00.html

We need to put a huge tax on these guys and invest it in clean energy if they aren't willing too.

The company is having trouble with PR, surprise surprise, and are reaching out to progressive and environmental bloggers to explain their new stance on climate change.

Really? Well, if they mean that, then I think the progressive/environmental bloggers are the wrong people to be talking to. I mean, I'm not really an expert on the subject or anything, but if Exxon/Mobil wants to convince the progressive/environmental bloggers they are in earnest about their new views on climate change, it seems to me they should be reach out to the libertarian/conservative bloggers, and try to convince the libertarian/conservative bloggers of how serious the climate change problem is.

After all, who better to communicate the strength of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change to the right-leaning "skeptics" than Exxon/Mobil, who has a similar ideological background and who has apparently recently undergone exactly such a conversion themselves?

I mean, look at Deltoid or any other of a dozen blogs with a focus on climate-change science. They've got a big task right now trying to communicate the importance of the recent IPCC report on climate change despite all the other distractions on America's mind lately. But when I look at those blogs over the last couple weeks, I find they're spending nearly all their time just trying to correct errors, lies, and half-truths about the IPCC report being put out by other bloggers and even mainstream op-ed columnists. And maybe it's just coincidence, but it seems like an awful lot of these other bloggers and op-ed columnists either have a right-wing ideological bent, or else are taking or have taken in the past money from energy companies. Gee, it seems like those are exactly the people Exxon-Mobil would be in a good position to reach! Wouldn't it be great if instead of the task of communicating to the public and correcting misconceptions about the IPCC report falling to some bloggers, some of the enormous resources of Exxon-Mobil were brought to bear on the subject?

Whether Exxon-Mobil's just trying to buy PR, or whether they actually really are just trying to help!-- actions would speak a whole lot louder than words. Trying to go around getting bloggers to give them credit for cleaning up their act before they've actually done anything to clean up their act, on the other hand, sounds to me like a strategy with some problems.

Just a thought...

ExxonMobile is still up to its same tricks.  The American Enterprise Institute has offered $10,000 to scientist to write a report criticizing the recent Fourth Assessment Report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change.  The Fourth Assessment recently concluded that the earth is warming and it's being caused by humans emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.  The AEI has received $1.6 Million from ExxonMobile over the years and the former CEO and Chairman of the Board, Lee Raymond, is now the Vice Chairman of the AEI.  http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climat echange/story/0,,2004397,00.html

By the way, articles are expected to be up to about 10,000 words, which is $1.00 a word.  I bet Chris Bowers wishes he was being paid at that rate. :)

I haven't seen the Union of Concerned Scientists report on ExxonMobil's global warming disinformation campaign mentioned in the comments.  So let me recommend that people read it by visiting this link:
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

Matt,

Don't let corporate PR flacks get away with constructions like "pro business." What they mean is "pro Big Business." These are very different things.

Big Business is fundamentally different from other business. The difference between a local restaurant and ExxonMobil isn't like that between a housecat and a tiger, it's like a housecat and an elephant. They're not just different in degree, they're different in kind.

Here's the basic difference between them: Regular businesses want to compete effectively. Big Business wants to avoid competition.

Big Business isn't Google. Big Business is what John Sperling wrote about in his book "The Great Divide:" huge corporations that make money sucking stuff out of the ground or out of the government.

Oil companies are Big Business--they suck stuff out of the ground. Same with big mining, timber, and agribusiness companies. Of course, they also suck stuff (subsidies) out of the government, too.

Defense contractors are Big Business--they suck stuff (our tax money) out of the government. Same with Big Pharma (most of their research is funded by tax money) and the Telcos (their infrastructure was financed with tax money, and uses public rights-of-way).

Big Business is lazy and stupid. Huge "suck stuff" corporations aren't quick, and they aren't smart. Why would they be? It doesn't take quickness or smarts to sell commodities, or rig procurement contracts. It just takes lots of money. Since it's not good at competition, Big Business tries to use its strength--big money--to avoid or stifle it.

Need more energy to sell? Don't explore new sources--that's too hard. Instead, get the politicians you bought to launch a war to take another country's existing sources.

Need more drugs to sell? Don't create new ones--that's too hard. Instead, get the politicians you bought to rig your largest market so customers can't negotiate volume discounts on existing drugs.  

Need more telecom products to sell? Don't develop new ones--that's too hard. Instead, get the politicians you bought to let you create network bottlenecks so you can jack up prices for your commodity product--bandwidth.

Regular business is different from Big Business. But new business is the enemy of Big Business. Startup companies foster the innovative technologies, ideas, markets, and business models that threaten the ability of Big Business to make a lot of money without working too hard.

The people who run startups are almost all progressive.

So, when the GOP/Greed is Good crowd's "pro business" talking point gets used, turn it in our favor. Ask, "Are you talking about "pro Big Business, or pro New Business?"

Big Business is a conservative thing. New Business is a progressive thing.

They are the Thomas Nast cartoon guys with top hats, pocket watches, and "Sugar Trust" emblazoned on their bulging vests. We are the people in T-shirts creating eBay, Photoshop, cures for Alzheimer's, and electric cars:)

This was my post in response to    

UK noble to senators: Apologize to Exxon or resign at:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/UK_Nob le_to_senators_Apologize_to_1218.html

In America it is called PEOPLES SOVEREIGNTY and not corporate anything. It upholds the supremacy of flesh and blood above and over divine rights or the rights of a dead corpse - the corporation. And just like we said fuck off to the British East Indian Tea Company We the Sovereign People are getting set to remove the articles of Exxon's Incorporation. They have become the enemy of the community and a subversion to science benefiting the needs of that community. You "noble" sir are of course referring to the false belief that corporations are a person under the Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific railroad Supreme Court decision (not signed by any judge by the way)and therefore deserving of so-called free speech rights. This is now recognized as a legal fiction. You may be referring to the Articles of Confederation but of course these failed thereupon the English Civil War concept of Peoples Sovereignty was adopted as the basis of the American Revolution. The concept of a corporation as a person will soon be destroyed. Stay tuned because ExxonMobil will be used as the first example of how this nation will reclaim our revolutionary rights.

Lets get moving.

I am Citizen Michael John Keenan

j1 j2 j3 j4 j5 j6 j7 j8 j9 j10 j11 j12 j13 j14 j15 j16 j17 j18 j19 j20 j21 j22 j23 j24 j25 j26 j27 j28 j29 j30 j31 j32 j33 j34 j35 j36 j37 j38 j39 j40 j41 j42 j43 j44 j45 j46 j47 j48 j49 j50 j51 j52 j53 j54 j55 j56 j57 j58 j59 j60 j61 j62 j63 j64 j65 j66 j67 j68 j69 j70 j71 j72 j73 j74 j75 j76 j77 j78 j79 j80 j81 j82 j83 j84 j85 j86 j87 j88 j89 j90 j91 j92 j93