Why does ExxonMobil donate so much money to the denier movement?

Question

Even after claiming to have ended denier funding, it appears exxon is still doing it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273692,00.html

Why is the strategy of exxon so much different from all the other oil companies who do not (or no longer) fund this movement?

though i may think it is wrong, no where in this question did i say it was wrong.
Maybe i'll ask this again in the business and economics section.

Why are other oil companies not as threatened by global warming as Exxon?

nm, here is the reason:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-10-27-oil-invest-usat_x.htm?csp=34

I already knew they were less prepared for gobal warming than other oil companies, but i didn't realize that exxon does not invest in alternative energy at all. Which seems pretty stupid, considering we may have already hit "peak oil". They better start using some of those windfall profits to save the future of their company. (this article is a couple years old, perhaps they have started)

Answer 1

"Exxon disputed that many of the organizations were "global warming deniers."

The groups listed include: the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the National Black Chamber of Commerce. Many of them concern themselves with a wide range of issues."

Most of those are well-known global warming deniers.

I don't know why Exxon is still funneling so much money into the global warming denier movement, but I have a few theories.

1) They have the biggest profits and therefore the most money to burn in this fashion.

2) Because those massive profits are based on oil consumption, they also have the most to lose if fossil fuel consumption decreases.

3) Most importantly, other oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell and BP have done the smart thing and diversified their R&D, working on alternative energies rather than relying entirely on oil, as I believe Exxon has done. At the very least Exxon is well behind these other companies in the alternative energy game.

I think Exxon has just made the mistake of relying too heavily on the global warming denial movement, and now they can't give up on it or they risk the financial stability of their company.

Answer 2

Exxon/Mobil and the other large oil companies are scared. And its a lot more than global warming. What they are seeing is that concern for theenvironment is making people take a hard look at how wwe produce energy--and that's a disaster for them.

here's why--first, the technology s there to build cars tha tcost no more than current models--but get twice the gas mileage. Look at how much they are spending lobbying Congress to stop legislation that would require car companies to do jsut that.

And--there's a whole host of technologies that can produce alternative-powered cars. Including electric power for electric cars.

The bottom line--for the oil 9and coal) companies: their technology is basically obsolete. There are better ones available now--and whenthese are implemented on a large scale, tehey'll be cheaper as well as good for the environment.

Oil and coal are obsolete--and the oil companies know it. Their biggest fear is that the rest of us will realize it too.

Answer 3

Gaby, maybe you should pause and think a bit.

"So? What is the problem? They can donate to where they want to.

I certainly hope there are many organizations out there checking out anything Greenpeace puts out. They were one of the biggest killers of Nuclear power in the U. S., and look where that puts us today. Maybe if we had had a "Denier" movement then we would be more like France with 80% Nuclear, and not so worried about foriegn oil and CO2.

First off, Green peace is active in France. They've worked hard against their test detonations of atom bombs. They got the 'Rainbow warrior' sunk by the French government. I don't see why every sentence that you bring have to be a lie?
For example, France's share of nuclear energy ( 2004 ) was 39%, not the 80% you have dreamt up.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/France/Background.html

The situation is not that they choose to put out information that is sound, legit etc. But information that is designed to misinform, and that potentially can kill people, destroy property, etc, is not ok to put out. Look at all the commercials that have rules regulating them. Or the necessary warning labels on cigarette packets.

Answer 4

Maybe Exxon-Mobil are more litigious than other big oil companies. It took them many years for them to pay up over the Exxon Valdez disaster. They have a history in other instances of fighting tooth and nail through the courts for many years where many companies would put their hands up and admit liability much sooner. I suspect these donations are Exxon-Mobil trying to make sure that they can repeat the delaying tactics from any pressures, legal or otherwise, which might affect their business, and are a reflection of the long standing culture of the company.

Answer 5

Isn't that sad. Poor skeptics have no-one to fund their research. When they get a couple of measly millions from Exxon, everyone cries foul. Better to get $50 Billion a year to prove man made global warming. Who is there to fund the skeptic?

No new business can come out of skepticism anyway.

Answer 6

You read the whole story?

"The groups listed include: ... the National Black Chamber of Commerce. Many of them concern themselves with a wide range of issues.

Harry Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, said his group believes that there has been a change to the climate, but that the cause is still uncertain.

"Whether its cyclical -- something that happens every few hundred years -- or whatever, I don't know. I don't believe anyone has the answer yet," said Alford, head of the group that says on its Web site it is dedicated to economically empowering African-American communities.

"I think where Greenpeace gets upset is that we don't agree with them. But so what? I think their position is pretty radical and one-sided," he said."

If you ask me, the problem is Greenpeace and others that believe there is only one acceptable view. Greenpeace has a problem with anyone that Exxon might give money to, as long as that group does not acknowledge global warming as the one, true science.

It is fascism, and you are contributing to the fascism.

Please display your fascism by voting thumbs down.

And Anders, GABY is right when it comes to France's power generation. The article you quoted dealt with total energy consumption. When speaking of electrical generation, France makes enough to export it to other countries while still supplying 78% of the country's electrical needs.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.htm

Get your facts straight.

Answer 7

What exactly is wrong with this? I am no big fan of oil companies considering the price of gas right now, but who am I to say what they can or can't legally do? On top of that, why can't a company fund a legal organization that could keep it from losing billions of dollars?

It would be different if Exxon was funding an organization that was setting fire to car dealerships and putting spikes in trees.

Answer 8

Boy you can't win with you global warming cultists. You don't support it, you're a denier. You give money to the cause you are somehow in the wrong as well. Is there nothing that pleases you people (other than large concerts, private jets and mansions)?

Answer 9

So? What is the problem? They can donate to where they want to.

I certainly hope there are many organizations out there checking out anything Greenpeace puts out. They were one of the biggest killers of Nuclear power in the U. S., and look where that puts us today. Maybe if we had had a "Denier" movement then we would be more like France with 80% Nuclear, and not so worried about foriegn oil and CO2.

Answer 10

I wonder. Is the global warming movement the equivalent of the skin head movement and the oil corporations the new minorities?

Why does the environmental movement stir up so much hatred? If you hate them that much, stop buying their products.