February 2007
The Solution To Climate Change: Buy A Different Answer
The former chief economist of the World Bank Sir Nicholas Stern, the UK government, the IPCC, signatories of the Kyoto Protocols, a critical mass of world scientists, climatologists, meteorologists and even major oil companies admit that climate change is real, is happening, and we're most likely the cause.
On the other side of the fence, are conservative think tanks, some sceptical scientists and making a surprise appearance, major oil companies again. Contrary to conventional wisdom that one may sit on either side of the fence or on it, oil firms possess the unique ability to do all three simultaneously.
Obfuscation and spin is nothing new to these companies, but what is particularly insidious is their attempt to confuse climate science using their most plentiful resource: cash.
For example, Exxon Mobil make much of their climate research funding, but keep curiously quiet on their website about their sponsorship of both the American Enterprise Institute and George C Marshall think-tank. This may or may not have something to do with the high positive correlation of their funding patterns (over $100,000 a year over the past 6 years to the Marshall think tank and $250,000 in 2005 alone to the AEI) and the recipients providing an umbrella for climate change sceptics to attack accepted wisdom on the subject.
The Marshall think tank has the dubious distinction of releasing a report claiming that "cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases"; whilst simultaneously backing the view that IPPC and Kyoto Protocol reporting is too narrowly focussed in its appreciation of factors affecting climate change. One would hope that the irony is not lost on them.
The AEI also enjoys distinguished record which includes contacting scientists and economists to offer $10,000 "incentives" to produce articles that emphasis shortcomings in the IPCC reports on climate change.
Similarly, the US National Science Teachers Association has refused 50,000 free DVD copies of An Inconvenient Truth, not because of the science behind it, which makes it required viewing for schoolchildren in Norway and Sweden, but apparently because of distribution costs. The fact that the NSTA has accepted millions of dollars in donations from Exxon Mobil and Shell is apparently coincidental.
Most worryingly, Exxons "altruism" knows no boarders. Oliver Hoedeman of the Corporate Europe Observatory has railed against ExxonMobil’s interference in European environmental policy:
"ExxonMobil invests significant amounts in letting think-tanks, seemingly respectable sources, sow doubts about the need for EU governments to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." He continues, "covert funding for climate sceptics is deeply hypocritical because ExxonMobil spends major sums on advertising to present itself as an environmentally responsible company."
$130,000 and $50,000 were received by the International Policy Network and Centre for the New Europe from Exxon’s generous coffers. Greenpeace however, view this as a Trojan horse designed to weaken Europe’s tough stance and excellent credentials on climate change:
"Europe is leading the world right now in terms of climate policy. Exxon know that if they can [enlist] lobbyists they may be able to slow things down. That is the tactic right now."
Think tanks, lobby groups and wealthy corporations wield immense influence over US politics and oil firms are hoping to export this model to Europe. They are artificially supporting theories and giving them the oxygen of publicity when they would have long since withered and died in a truly free market of ideas.
Oil and water do not mix. The same is true for oil money and climate science.
If you are looking for answers to solve your climate change issues or to reduce your carbon output, contact Nersi Salehi on 01788 538 150.
Print this page