ExxonMobil isn't just in denial about climage change, it's in denial about its own denial. Despite a pledge in 2008 to discontinue contributions to groups "whose position on climate change could divert attention" from the need for clean energy, the company went right on funding them, the Guardianreports.
Recently released company records reveal that ExxonMobil handed over $75,000 that year to the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, Texas and $50,000 to the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC. Both NPCA and Heritage oppose siginficant action on climate change and question whether global warming is a threat.
Given ExxonMobil's past behavior, it's easy to see how the company might have a tough time going cold turkey. In 2005, Mother Jonesbroke the story that ExxonMobil gives millions of dollars to think tanks, researchers, and media figures to produce and promote phony science purporting to debunk global warming (check out the handy charticle). A few months later, ExxonMobil vowed to "soften" its public image, earning headlines such as "Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics" and "ExxonMobil Softens its Climate Change Stance."
That was all just wishful thinking. (For a taste of the propaganda Exxon has wrought, see the first comment in this recent post). Maybe the company needs to enroll in some sort of 12-step program. Perhaps Carbonoholics Annonymous, or better yet, Cap and Trade.
The taboo of writing about the environmental impacts of poop is officially on the wane. None other than Dwell, the glossy architecture and design magazine, has posted a snazzy video on the subject--an ode to the LooWatt, a slick-looking toilet constructed from dried poop that collects your #2 and turns it into cooking fuel. Here at the Blue Marble, we've been fascinated by all the new ways to convert poop into power instead of sewage sludge. With the LooWatt, you can do it yourself:
BP appears to be back pedaling on its vaunted commitment to alternative energy, renewing old skepticism about what the company formerly known as British Petroleum really stands for.
BP recently shuttered its alternative energy headquarters in London and plans to slash its $1.4 billion alternative energy budget by as much as 64 percent this year, the Guardian reports. Its clean energy boss, Vivienne Cox, is officially stepping down to spend more time with her family, though some industry insiders tell the paper that she's frustrated over the business being downgraded in importance.
Though BP has long led the oil industry in acknowleging climate change and investing in renewables, alternative energy investments make up only 5 percent of its portfolio. "Even its support of Kyoto is pilloried as disingenuous," Paul Roberts wrote in this magazine in 2006. "BP happens to be overstocked in reserves of natural gas, a fuel that emits less CO2 than coal or oil, and whose price would rise steeply if society was forced to cut carbon emissions."
Most people accept that politicians do stupid things in the service of parochial interests and paleolithic ideologies. It's a problem as old as Congress. Yet occasionally a Congressman does something beyond stupid--something that causes thinking people to wonder if this representative has the intelligence or integrity to serve in public office. These moments are like ice sheets splitting off the Arctic Shelf and sliding into the ocean--they're fun to watch and yet totally depressing.
Today's example comes from Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla), who has ordered a Congressional investigation into how the EPA "suppressed" a report that questioned the science behind climate change. Grist notes that the "suppressed" report was written by an economist with no training in climate science, includes no original research, cites old and irreputable references, and was nonetheless accepted, unsolicited, by the EPA's climate scientists for consideration. If the meagreness of the report's policy impact is a scandal, then so is the fact that Joe the Plumber isn't the go-to guy for rewiring your attic.
And yet Inhofe tells Fox News that this EPA economist, Alan Carlin, "came out with the truth" and that "they don't want the truth at the EPA." Inhofe really could be this stupid, or there could be a deeper, more cynical political logic at work. Fox concluded that "the controversy is similar to one under the Bush administration--only the administration was taking the opposite stance." Fox's message to its readers seems to be that the legitimate James Hansen scandal and the phony Alan Carlin "scandal" cancel each other out. It's all just politics.
If you believe that, how do you decipher the truth behind climate change? One way would be to start with what you already think you know and then look for those scientists--or economists posing as scientists--who support that position. Last week Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga) claimed that global warming was a "hoax"--a statement, impossible to back up with more than partisan intuition, that was met with applause on the House floor. It must have been quite a spectacle: A big chunk of legislators, smaller than in years past but still frozen in their beliefs, taking a jolly plunge into insanity.
The Waxman-Markey climate bill narrowly passed the House today. The vote was 219 to 212.
As we've noted, the bill's cap and trade approach is promising in many respects but might create a dangerous market in carbon derivatives (or not). Even before it was watered down and porked-up with gifts to biofuels industry, it never achieved the kind of emissions cuts that scientists and European governments say are needed to avert catastrophic climate change. Recent polls had shown that most people believe in the need to regulate emissions, yet the Obama administration framed the issue as a jobs bill, apparently believing the environmental message wouldn't stand up to attack. Environmental groups were deeply divided over the bill, and Greenpeace ultimately opposed it.
It now heads to the Senate, where it is likely to find more support from moderate Republicans than in the polarized House. Even so, I've been told by some environmental campaigners that the Senate isn't any more likely to strengthen the bill.