Excuse me for being suspicious, but why are the international oil giants changing their tune on climate issues? Do leopards really change their spots?
ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company, recently announced that it had withdrawn funding from neo-conservative organizations that 'divert attention' from the fight against climate change. Compare this with a 2002 statement by chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond. "We at ExxonMobil do not believe that the science required to establish this linkage between fossil fuels and warming has been demonstrated - and many scientists agree".
Shell Oil has also dramatically softened its climate change rhetoric. John Hofmeinster, president of the company, told the US based, Nation Press Club, that from Shell's point of view "when 98 per cent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say 'lets debate the science'?".
The most obvious reason for this about-face would be that in the US, with W G Bush gone, President Obama's Democrats now have control of both Houses of Congress, and climate protection regulations are high on the agenda. The oil companies must now sense the advantage of being taken seriously in the discussions. They know that to achieve this they need, at least, acknowledge human responsibility for climate change.
Jim Hoggan points to another less obvious reason for the back-track. It is the possibility that if these companies continue to support claims that there is no threat to humans or the planet from their products, someone may take legal action against them.
Tobacco companies have already had to face such litigation, when confronted with charges that cigarettes were harmful and had caused health problems. However, the likes of Phillip Morris were able to argue in court, that smokers were fully aware of the dangers, and smoking was an informed choice.
Note: Andy Rowell, at his website priceofoil.org, claims that Exxon "has gone one better than actually funding skeptic groups - it is now funding the climate skeptics directly."
Link
No comments:
Post a Comment