http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0528-10.htm
Published on Wednesday,
May 28, 2003 by the New York Times
Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global
Warming
by Jennifer Lee
WASHINGTON, May 27 - Exxon Mobil has publicly softened its stance
toward global warming over the last year, with a pledge of $10
million
in annual donations for 10 years to Stanford University for climate
research.
At the same time, the
company, the world's largest oil and gas concern,
has increased donations to Washington-based policy groups that,
like
Exxon itself, question the human role in global warming and argue
that proposed government policies to limit carbon dioxide emissions
associated with global warming are too heavy handed.
Exxon now gives more
than $1 million a year to such organizations,
which include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers
of
Freedom, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Council
for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research and the American
Legislative Exchange Council.
The organizations are
modest in size but have been outspoken
in the global warming debate. Exxon has become the single-largest
corporate donor to some of the groups, accounting for more than
10 percent of their annual budgets. While a few of the groups
say they also receive some money from other oil companies,
it is only a small fraction of what they receive from Exxon
Mobil.
"We want to support
organizations that are trying to broaden
the debate on an issue that is so important to all of us,"
said Tom Cirigliano, a spokesman for Exxon. "There is this
whole issue that no one should question the science of global
climate change that is ludicrous. That's the kind of dark-ages
thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble." He also noted,
"These are not single-agenda groups."
The organizations emphasize
that while their views align with
Exxon's, the company's money does not influence their policy
conclusions. Indeed, the organizations say they have been sought
out in part because of their credibility. "They've determined
that we are effective at what we do," said George C. Landrith,
president of Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative group that
maintains that human activities are not responsible for global
warming. He says Exxon essentially takes the attitude, "We
like
to make it possible to do more of that."
Frontiers of Freedom,
which has about a $700,000 annual budget,
received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001,
according to Exxon documents. But Mr. Landrith said the growth
was not as sharp as it appears because the money is actually
spread over three years.
The increase corresponds
with a rising level of public debate
since the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol,
some of the groups said. After President Bush rejected the
protocol, a treaty requiring nations to limit emissions of
heat-trapping gases, many corporations shifted their attention
to Washington, where the debate has centered on proposals
for domestic curbs on the emissions.
"Firefighters'
budgets go up when fires go up," said
Fred L. Smith, the head of the Competitive Enterprise
Institute. Myron Ebell, an analyst from the institute,
spoke at last year's Exxon shareholders' meeting, where
he criticized a renewable energy resolution proposed by a
group of shareholders.
Exxon's backing of
third-party groups is a marked contrast
to its more public role in the Global Climate Coalition,
an industry group formed in 1989 to challenge the science
around global warming. The group eventually disbanded when
oil and auto companies started to withdraw. As companies
were left to walk their own path, Exxon shifted money toward
independent policy groups.
"Now it's come
down to a few of these groups to be the good
foot soldiers of the corporate community on climate change,"
said Kert Davies, a research director for Greenpeace, which
has tried to organize an international boycott of Exxon.
Exxon's publicly disclosed
documents reveal that donations
to many of these organizations increased by more than 50 percent
from 2000 to 2002. And money to the American Legislative Exchange
Council, a conservative group that works with state legislators,
has almost tripled, as the policy debate has moved to the state
level.
The gifts are minuscule
compared with the $100 million,
10-year scientific grant to Stanford, which is establishing
a research center that will focus on technologies that could
provide energy without adding to greenhouse gases linked
by scientists to global warming. Nevertheless, the donations
in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars
are significant for groups with budgets ranging from $700,000
to $4 million.
Critics say that Exxon
and these groups continue to muddle
the debate even as scientific consensus has emerged, and as
much of the industry has taken a more conciliatory stance
toward the reality of global warming. As Exxon has become
isolated from its peers, it has faced increasing pressure
from shareholders and environmentalists. BP, Shell and
ChevronTexaco have developed strategies that incorporate
renewable energy, carbon trading and emissions reductions.
Among the initiatives
that Exxon's money has helped is the
Center for Science and Public Policy. The two-month-old center
is a one-man operation that brings scientists to Capitol Hill
on two issues: global warming and the health effects of mercury.
"We don't lobby,
we educate," said Bob Ferguson, head of the
center, who spent 24 years working as a Republican Congressional
staff member. "We try to be nonpolitical and nonpartisan
and
nonideological."
Copyright 2003 The
New York Times Company
###
