Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

I post this to again remind us that a great deal of what we read and  
tend to believe is "news" that is manufactured and manipulated by  
some entity other than the ostensible author. Never forget, let the  
reader beware.


‘Greenwashing’ Oil
A report says the world’s largest corporation funded studies that  
cast doubts on the link between fossil fuels and climate change.

Web Exclusive
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
Updated: 5:10 p.m. MT Jan 4, 2007

Jan. 4, 2007 - For more than three decades, the tobacco industry  
carried on a campaign of disinformation intended to mislead Americans  
about the health risks of smoking—a strategy that has been dubbed  
“manufacturing uncertainty” in the minds of consumers. And ever  
since global warming emerged as an environmental threat, there has  
been a well-funded public campaign to cast doubt on the scientific  
consensus about the danger of global warming and its source in fossil- 
fuel combustion. A report this week by the Union of Concerned  
Scientists finds a parallel between the efforts to whitewash tobacco  
and “greenwash” oil—and points the finger of responsibility at  
the world’s largest corporation, ExxonMobil.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Under its former chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, who retired in 2005  
as one of the best-paid corporate executives in history, ExxonMobil  
was well known for its hostility to government regulations on  
emissions of carbon dioxide. But, according to the report, the op-eds  
and position papers were only the visible tip of Exxon’s effort to  
fund a small group of researchers and an overlapping network of think  
tanks that could be relied on to spread the message that global  
warming was nothing to worry about—or at least, nothing the  
government could or should do anything about. Their frequently  
repeated call for “sound science” on global warming echoes the  
tobacco industry’s endless demand for more research on whether  
cigarettes really, truly, unquestionably cause cancer.

Of course, cigarette companies weren’t concerned just about future  
sales, but the billions of dollars in compensation they eventually  
had to … umm … cough up. ExxonMobil’s motivation, presumably, is  
to protect a fantastically lucrative market: its 2005 profits of $36  
billion made it the most profitable corporation in history. But that  
very wealth puts them in a position both to shape and eventually  
dominate the postcarbon energy world, if they choose to do so.  
Ironically, as the report points out, the company and its  
shareholders will suffer if it gets left behind in the transition to  
less polluting forms of energy.

For its part, ExxonMobil—after promulgating, and then withdrawing 20  
minutes later, a statement that called the report an “attempt to  
smear our name and confuse the discussion”—wants you to know that  
it now accepts some responsibility for global warming. Specifically,  
and in boldface, it admitted that “It is clear today that greenhouse  
gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate  
change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these  
emissions.” That would seem, on the face of it, to contradict the  
assertions of some of its favored researchers in the ever-shrinking  
coterie of global-warming skeptics. The question, of course, is what  
specific policies ExxonMobil is willing to accept to curb those  
emissions. With a new Congress taking office, climate change is  
likely to be a much more salient issue this year than it has been for  
the last six—so ExxonMobil will have the chance to show if it means  
what it’s saying now.
© 2006 Newsweek, Inc. |

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16475341/site/newsweek/