My RSS Feeds
Guess Who’s Funding Our Science Teachers & Making Them Afraid To Discuss Global Warming? Interviews: Filmmaker Laurie David “An Inconvenient Truth” & Majora Carter, Cleaning Up Bronx! - RI9
Guess Who’s Funding
Our Science Teachers &
Making Them Afraid To
Discuss Global Warming?
Interviews: Filmmaker
Laurie David “An
Inconvenient Truth” &
Majora Carter, Cleaning
Up Bronx! - RI9
Transcript Show 304 - January 26, 2007
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/304.html
BRANCACCIO: Welcome to NOW. On the road in California, where for the first time, a film featuring a slide show by a former Vice President of the United States has just received an Oscar nomination.
The documentary, an inconvenient truth, has done much to bring the debate over global warming to mainstream America. Those concerns even made it into the president's state of the union speech, when he called for a 'mandatory fuels standard' that would push Americans to increase our use of renewable and alternative fuels nearly fivefold by 2017.
Anything that would cut the burning of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas production is good news for Laurie David, one of the producers of the Al Gore film and a woman who has spent a lot of energy of her own getting the conversation about global warming in front of our eyes.
It's more than the movie. Laurie David got global warming onto the soap opera The Bold and the Beautiful with a guest appearance. She cajoled magazines like Marie Claire and Elle to take on the issue. She did Oprah. And she even got the Fox network to run an hour doc looking at the threat of climate change.
You may also know Laurie as the spouse of comedian Larry David and the force that put him behind the wheel of a hybrid car in his hit series "Curb Your Enthusiasm."
BRANCACCIO: Laurie thanks for doing this.
Laurie David Larry and Laurie
Photo: Tierney Gearon Photo: Alex Berliner
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/06/16/griscom-david/index.html
LAURIE DAVID: Thank you for having me.
BRANCACCIO: You've been working on global warming for what years now?
DAVID: Yes, years. But not as long as other people have been working on it. You know—scientists have been ringing the bell for about 30 years.
BRANCACCIO: You were a producer of "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore's film about this topic. Started as a slide show and became this—this hit film in—in theatrical release. The question is this: you're trying to get copies of that film to an even wider audience. What was the deal, 50,000 DVD copies into America's schools? Tell me the story of what happened when you tried that.
DAVID: Every single person that I talked to at every screening we had, the first thing people said was, "This has to get into every school in America. Every school kid needs to see this film." And of course I totally agree
But in the Untied States we had to figure out a way to distribute it. Right? How do you—how do you get it into—teacher's hands? So we approached the National Science Teachers Association. The National—we approached the National Science Teachers Association. Which seemed like a logical place—if we gave them 50,000 free copies, then they can give it to the teachers—
BRANCACCIO: And what did they say when you offered this—
DAVID: And—well there was a whole series of email exchanges. And eventually the last one said, "No thank you." And I mean I found this really shocking. So we started to dig a little bit. Well why not? And it turns out a couple of things are going on. Number one, they take money from Exxon Mobile. Okay? They—
BRANCACCIO: The—the—the Science Teachers Association—
DAVID: The NSTA accept—has taken over $6 million in the last 10 years from Exxon Mobile; number one. There's an Exxon Mobile executive that sits on their Advisory Group; number two. And there was a—a—a remark in one of their emails saying, "You know—this might affect our capital campaign."
"So maybe we shouldn't be doing this." Now I find this outrageous. And it's not just about the DVD. It's the fact that our—our science teachers, and access to our teachers is up for sale. I mean they did offer us, "Well you can—you can buy our mailing list. You can—you can rent a booth at one of our conventions." Well why is the mailing list of the nation's science teachers up for sale for anyone who has the cash to buy it
BRANCACCIO: Well what do you want from them? You know how strapped teachers are these days.
DAVID: Well I've gotten—you know—hundreds and hundreds of emails from teachers across the country saying—you know—"I can't afford to buy a DVD." Which is—you know—it just—it's unbelievably painful. They have to pay for all these other things themselves out of their own pocket.
So we have to get—figure out a way to get the—the DVDs to them. And we are figuring out a way to do it. And we're—we're—we're talking to independent donors to get the DVDs to teachers that want it. But the fact that the—the Association that represents science teachers is in business with an—a corporation that has spend millions of dollars misinforming the public on global warming.
Is—you know—I find that personally outrageous. I really do. And by the way, you know—people say, "Well why has it taken so long for people to get this issue?" You know—for people to understand it? Well Exxon Mobile's one of the reasons. You know—they have—it's just like the tobacco industry.
They have spent a lot of time—you know—causing doubt. Well cigarettes—you know—don't really cause cancer. And your doctor suggests that you should smoke—you know—cigarettes. They're—I mean that was a campaign for awhile you know? And that's there—that is in "An Inconvenient Truth".
And—and here we have—you know—Exxon Mobile in bed with the Association of Science Teachers of America. And—and they have—they have a self-interest to keep us dependent on oil. I mean it's really outrageous.
BRANCACCIO: Wasn't there a suggestion—from the Science Teachers Association—that they can't take a film like "An Inconvenient Truth" because it would be an advocacy piece within a school. And they shy away from that.
DAVID: Well they say they have a policy that they can't endorse it. But guess what, they've endorsed other things. They endorsed—a—they sent 20,000 films of something that they produced with Conaco Phillips. So—you know—basically they have loopholes big enough to put an oil tanker through. Okay?
And by the way, you can distribute the DVD without endorsing it. You could say, "Hey, this has been given to us for free. You know—it's—it's an acclaimed film. Take a look at it. If you want to, you can use this in your science class." You can do it without the official endorsement.
BRANCACCIO: Yeah, there's plenty of things in a school library that perhaps the school itself doesn't endorse—
DAVID: Exactly.
BRANCACCIO: —for instance.
DAVID: Exactly.
BRANCACCIO: Now as—now as 2006 turned into 2007, one of the last hearings conducted on Capital Hill in the old Congress was Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, looking into media reports of global warming. And the distortions therein. What do you make of that?
DAVID: History will judge Senator Inhofe. You know he has a lot or responsibility on his hands for keeping any kind of movement and—and serious, meaningful action on global warming happening in the Congress.
And—that—the American people have spoken. Senator Barbara Boxer is gonna be taking over that committee. And her first goal is to—have hearings on global warming. I mean when Senator Inhofe—you know—wanted a scientists to testify on global warming, he called in a science fiction writer; Michael Crichton. I mean that's outrageous.
BRANCACCIO: But a hearing like that is directed right at somebody like you. I mean images of global warming in the media. That's kinda Laurie David.
DAVID: this isn't—you know—I don't own this issue. There's a lot of people've been working on it. And I think that—you know—every night when people turn on the evening news, and they hear there—the latest extreme weather event. Or the — the latest record being broken. That—that people are—you know—getting pretty smart to this issue.
BRANCACCIO: So you feel there's a seen change going on with this issue? I mean—as—as 2006 came to a close—late in 2006—Senator Olympia Snow—a Republican—and J. Rockefeller—a Democrat—Sent a letter to Exxon Mobile's Chief saying—an I paraphrase—would you please Exxon Mobile quit funding those groups who say they ain't no global warming. I mean clearly something is shifting.
DAVID: Something is shifting.
I mean one of the great—the great—signs that—that things are shifting is how business has taken this on. That companies like DuPont, and Johnson Johnson—all kind of companies that you might not expect are taking a very aggressive stance on global warming. You know—Duke Energy—which is a coal company—you know—the—the CEO of Duke Energy is saying, "WE have to have—you know—we have to figure out our limits on carbon emissions." "WE have"—on their annual report, 30 pages on global warming.
So when a company like Wal-Mart comes out—that has lots of things about it that—you know—people object to. Or that—that I would object to.
The fact that they are—they have sent me—a very strong message to suppliers and said, "You have to change your packaging. Because we need to reduce our carbon emissions." Like that's a powerful thing.
BRANCACCIO: Energy experts tell me that is a major step. Because one of the constituencies here are energy companies that are actually calling for regulation—
DAVID: Right.
BRANCACCIO: —because they want an even playing field.
DAVID: Right.
BRANCACCIO: They don't wanna like spend a lot of money to clean up their act, and their competitor being able to not clean up their act.
DAVID: Right. But they know legislation is coming. I mean we are going to have legislation. The key is—you know—how long is it gonna take? And hopefully it won't take that long. But—you know—another Side of that is—is a corporation like TXU in Texas. That is fast tracking 11 new dirty coal plants.
Okay, they're—the—the governor of Texas is helping them fast track it. It used to take a year and a half to get a permit. Now it's taking a couple of months. Because they know that legislation is coming. Now we have to stop those plants.
WE have to—you know—there shouldn't be dirty coal plants built anymore. There's—there's—there is technology to make them a—cleaner then they are. And we have to—you know—we need legislation for that too. But because they know that legislation is coming—it's in the wind. Look when you have Jeffery Immult (PH) the head of—you know—of a huge corporation like—
BRANCACCIO: General Electric—
DAVID: —GE, say, "Green is Green. WE know that we're gonna make money—you know—in the future by going green." Then—you know—again, that's another huge shift.
BRANCACCIO: And flabbergasting to some people—Newscorp—Rupert Murdoch—
DAVID: Yes.
BRANCACCIO: —apparently he's—been telling his own company to—
DAVID: Well Newscorp—Rupert Murdoch—a couple days after Thanksgiving issued what I thought was an earth shattering memo to all his—corporations—all his employees—saying, "We are gonna get engaged on global warming. And we're gonna do it in a big way. We're gonna reduce our own personal carbon emissions."
"We're gonna—inspire our employees to get involved in this. And we're gonna permeate all our media groups on this issue." Now that, I think, is huge. Now let's watch and see what he does. But the fact that he's saying it is big.
BRANCACCIO: One of the concerns people tell me when I discuss global warming with them is this. And these are pretty good-hearted people, who wanna do right by the world. They would agree with you on the issue of global warming.
But they say this, "Look, every improvement that we make as Americans is going to get reversed by what might happen overseas. As China's economy grows, and India's economy grows. That it's a futile enterprise because—we might be able through your efforts change America's culture. But we're not gonna change India's or China's."
DAVID: Well I don't agree with that at all. And first of all—you know—if we show no leadership, how can we ask anybody else to show leadership? Right? And by the way, the United States is the biggest cause in global warming pollution. And we're doing the least about it.
I—I find that personally embarrassing. You know—I—that's wrong. And we have to show leadership. You know—we could be selling cars to China, but guess what, we can't. Because our car—they get higher mileage standards then we have of our own cars. You know—we should be selling technology to them.
And—and we need to be leading the way. We need to be the leaders on this.
BRANCACCIO: Laurie, of all the issues you could have taken on, human rights, Guantánamo, Darfur, global poverty. How did you light on this one?
DAVID: Well—you know—it happened to me when I became a mom. And I had a colicky baby. And I was on the streets of my neighborhood pushing a stroller. And it happened to coincide with the explosion of SUVs.
And I understood—okay, SUVs 12 miles per gallon. You know—double the global warming pollution. Double the amount of gas to get where you need to go. And I just started reading everything I could about it. And I—you know—I got more and more disturbed. All my friends drove them.
So—you know—that's when it happened to me.
It's like I just—you know—I connected the dots. And—you know—once you know something—like if you know the things that you love and care about are at stake. Like you have to do something about it.
There are things that you can do to help solve this.
I mean that's empowering. I mean you're telling me by the choice I make in toilet paper, or in a vehicle, could actually—in—in—in my—my cell phone charger pulling it out of the wall. In the light bulbs I buy. That I could actually help reduce my own personal carbon emissions? And help stop global warming? Well wouldn't you do that if you understood that? Or course you would.
BRANCACCIO: Did you convert your famous spouse?
DAVID: I did convert—well we were the first ones—really, one of the first ones to buy hybrid cars. And he put it on his television show. Which—you know—gives him lots of brownie points with me. And—you know—and I think—you know—I—a—a bald man driving a hybrid is a very sexy thing.
You know—and I think it becomes a babe magnet. I tried—we tried to get other people buying them. Next thing you know—you know—you can't—you can't go out in Los Angeles now—I mean every other car is a hybrid. And—you know—Toyota is—is—is raking in the—the dough. And—and Detroit isn't.
And one of the reasons is because they—they didn't see the writing on the wall. That Americans want fuel-efficient cars. Americans want to reduce our dependence on oil. And Americans really don't wanna be contributing global warming if they can help it.
BRANCACCIO: Do you want your husband to be a babe magnet? (LAUGHTER) What are you doing? You talk about the shift that we're starting to see. Maybe your work is done. You can move onto something else now. You did it. You got that issue front and center in the culture.
DAVID: My work isn't gonna be done till the federal government of the United States takes a leadership role on this issue. And some serious legislation comes down to reduce CO2 emissions. You know—I mean that's—we're not gonna be done till we get there.
All—the only place we're at right now is that people are finally understanding the urgency of the issue. And I think they're starting to look at what they can do. And there's a lot they can do. But now we have to get government to change. I mean we have to take a leadership role.
WE have to join the rest of the world—you know—in dealing with this problem. And we have to do it fast. I mean there is a 10-year window, they say, to solving this problem in a serious way. And—if they're saying 10 years, and that's the—those—those are scientists saying that; the most cautious people on the planet.
You know—in my mind, okay, I'm thinking maybe we have five years. So, I mean we have to get going on this issue. And it's—and—and the work's not gonna be GU—done until—you know—till government takes—takes this on in a huge way.
BRANCACCIO: Well, Laurie David, thank you very much.
DAVID: David thanks for having me.
BRANCACCIO: Since I sat down with Laurie, there have been additional signs that thinking may be shifting at some of our largest fuel producing companies.
Exxon Mobil has just announced that it has quit funding groups that dismiss global warming claims and that people from Exxon Mobil and about 20 other energy companies are meeting to talk about options for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. You can read more about these meetings over on our web site: PBS dot org is the jumping off place for that.
And now we turn to a woman who picks up on this theme of what we can do in our own lives to help the environment.
Majora Carter has taken up this challenge in one of the toughest communities to make it work - her own neighborhood in the South Bronx. Dedicated to the proposition that low-income communities of color are just as deserving of clean air, clean water and open space as richer ones. Carter started an organization called "Sustainable South Bronx" which is bringing parks, greenways and bike paths to her urban waterfront. She has also rallied residents to oppose dumping and air pollution, and is challenging New York City's plans to fill a vacant lot with a jail in favor of creating a recycling center. My colleague Maria Hinojosa visited with ms carter on the roof of her headquarters in the South Bronx.
HINOJOSA: Majora Carter, the screenplay of your life could have been of a granddaughter of a man who was born into slavery. Raised in the south Bronx. You go to these elite schools, study fine arts, literature, film. You could have left the south Bronx and you end up back here doing environmental work.
Majora Carter, Sustainable South Bronx
CARTER: Right. I did leave the south Bronx and came back only after I realized you know, realized that the things that I—made me want to leave, the fact that I thought this neighborhood
was nothing except ugly and dirty, and—and disgusting, really had much more to do with the regulations that were thrust upon it rather than—with the people that were here.
HINOJOSA: You've said that you feel like your community, the people of the south Bronx are like the yellow canaries I—
CARTER: Yeah. In the coal mine.
HINOJOSA: Because?
CARTER: Because we feel the effects first. But, ultimately, everybody around them—will also be impacted by it.
Communities like the South Bronx are the point sources for—for the—diesel emission or power plant emissions. They’re the point sources for the green house gasses that everybody's trying to curb. You know, we may feel the effects of it right now in terms of our very high asthma rate and our respiratory issues and all that stuff. But, ultimately, we all pay, you know, in terms of—increased global warming. You know, with—and actually poor air quality everywhere.
And that's why all of our work really is helping to support you know cleaning up here, but it's—it really is, like as far as we're concerned, a we're starting to save the world starting in the south Bronx.
If you look right out there...
HINOJOSA: Majora Carter knows exactly where the dirty air and pollution are coming from. One source: the smoke stack of the New York organic fertilizer company.
HINOJOSA: So, this here—
CARTER: Yeah.
HINOJOSA: —this is putting out what into your community?
CARTER: Dioxins—nit—nitrous oxide—sulfuric oxides. Probably some heavy metals. There's a whole bunch of other things that we're not sure of. But, that's what we're trying to find out. But, we know that all the things that I mentioned already, particulate matter 2.5 and smaller—those are the kind of things that actually lodge deep into people's lungs and actually cause public health impacts—anything from—upper respiratory problems and, of course, asthma.
HINOJOSA: And, then you've got trucks.
CARTER: Well, yes, plenty of 'em delivering, you know, goods—well, some are goods like the produce market is right down the hill as well as the meat and fish markets. Or, you will see garbage trucks either dropping off or picking up uh—picking up—garbage
HINOJOSA: But, this noise—these heavy trucks in and out—
CARTER: It's—it's pollution. It is noise pollution
HINOJOSA: Right. Here comes another truck.
CARTER: Yeah. Yep. Ah, take a deep breath of that.
HINOJOSA: So—"Of all the places to take on and try to change a neighborhood, you choose the south Bronx which has, for years, for decades, for more than a century, been the industrial hub of New York City." some people say, "Majora, you're gonna take away jobs, perhaps, by closing businesses down."
CARTER: We're not trying to close business down. That's a fallacy that lots of people like to throw on environmental justice activists. Absolutely not. We're trying to build a different kind of job that actually supports the environment, supports the people, and supports your business's bottom line.
We're trying to create something called a recycling industrial park that actually takes recycled materials and uses them as raw materials so there's a collection of businesses that do that. And—that would reduce the amount of solid waste in New York City.
It could—it could—prepare like 3 to 500 jobs, you know. And, unfortunately, that same site is the same place the city wants to build a 2,000-bed jail.
So we believe our—our shot, you know, at a—the best alternative to incarceration is actually a decent job. Crazy. I know.
HINOJOSA: What's going on here?
CARTER: This is Baretto Point Park. It's about five acres, like literally the greenest place in all of Hunts Point. We're really excited that we have five acres of green open space here, but it came because the city kind of wanted to pay us back a little bit for the sewage treatment plant expansion that we're getting. This park is about I think $7 or $8 million. The sewage treatment plant expansion comes at a—a public expense of like close to a billion dollars.
HINOJOSA: So, where we're standing here, we're on a park, but actually we're looking at a sewage treatment plant?
CARTER: Yes. Yes.
HINOJOSA: Those flames, they are—
CARTER: Those flames are actually burning off the excess methane—that is produced as a result of the sewage treatment process.
HINOJOSA: So, not necessarily the healthiest place to have a park?
CARTER: Yeah. Yeah. (LAUGHTER) I'd say that. Yeah. Yeah. But you know, it is a start, and we are happy that we have something here. But, no, it's not enough.
HINOJOSA: So you say that this is not about bringing green to your community just to make it look nice.
CARTER: Unh-uh. Although that helps. Oh, believe me, I like pretty things as much as anybody else does.
HINOJOSA: So it's not about making pretty things. You're—it's about what?
CARTER: But it is about making pretty things. Because, you know, I do think your environment will reflect on you.
CARTER: And If you're told, you know, from birth, that everything—in your neighborhood, and that would include you in it, is less valuable than other parts of the city, how is it not gonna reflect on you?
HINOJOSA: And less valuable because you're being dumped on?
CARTER: Yeah. It's like, you know, that's where all the nasty dirty things go.
And I think—the work that we do, you know, here in Sustainable South Bronx is designed specifically, you know, to provide people with an opportunity to—to see their community, and therefore themselves, you know, as powerful, beautiful beings.
CARTER: I mean I don't think that, you know, too many folks, you know, really consider the—environmental justice, the civil rights issue that it actually is.
HINOJOSA: A civil rights issue.
CARTER: Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, Martin Luther King, is—his birthday just passed. You know, injustice—anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
And, you know, it's not just the south Bronx.
You know, it's not just, you know, the gulf coast. It's not just, you know, places in—in—in—in Oakland. You know, there—these places—places—we—the whole—all the cities around the world have little south Bronx's. But, ultimately, you know, I see people in my own community suffering in ways that they don't need to. And—it—it—it—it really—I'm sorry. (LAUGHTER)
HINOJOSA: It—it's that upsetting.
CARTER: Yeah, it is upsetting. It is really upsetting.
HINOJOSA: Because when you see people in your neighborhood suffering, you're talking about—
CARTER: They're—the—the—the—the degraded public health. You know, the fact that—you know—our obesity rate is as high as it is because we don't have, you know, the—what—because we don't have access to like decent affordable produce. Even though we've got the world's largest food distribution center here, where food is trucked out.
I think that is an environmental justice issue that you can't buy a decent head of lettuce in most of the neighborhood stores. You know, and the fact that when we try to build things like green manufacturing jobs, that we're told that, you know, that that—that the—the sites that would be perfect for it are better used for jails. You know, what are—what are people trying to tell us here?
HINOJOSA: when you step back, are you optimistic? Or do you see a battle everyday that's just like, wow, it's gonna be hard one yet again today?
CARTER: Oh, I see the battle everyday. Every single day. But I also see that—there is—so much—there is so much hope. And, like I don't see hope as like this like very passive thing.
It's the fact that like, you know, we've got, you know, parks in the neighborhood. The fact that we've got, you know, now—about $20 million coming in for like green way, bikeway development. The fact that, you know, we did put it on the table, you know, the—these green manufacturing jobs. The fact that, you know—it is not over, you know. As far as we're concerned, you know, that jail is not gonna be built here.
You know, that's what I see. And I think that's why the role that we've been playing here is all about creating, you know, something new for people to see so that it will reflect back on them. And I'm really, really proud to be a part of that.
HINOJOSA: Majora Carter, director of Sustainable South Bronx, thanks for speaking with us on NOW.
CARTER: Thank you for having me.
Sustainable South Bronx 02
Sustainable South Bronx 10
Sustainable South Bronx 19
Sustainable South Bronx 07
Sustainable South Bronx 05
Sustainable South Bronx 13
Sustainable South Bronx 03
Sustainable South Bronx 09
Photos found at http://www.ssbx.org/#
BRANCACCIO: And that's it for now. From San Francisco I'm David Brancaccio. We'll see you again next week.
http://www.globalization101.org/index.php?file=issue&pass1=subs&id=161
Global Warming
Global warming—also called climate change—refers to the worldwide rise in temperatures that has been blamed for severe weather in many parts of the world. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a worldwide consortium of scientists set up in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the world's average temperature has risen by 1.1° F (0.6° C) over the past century. The IPCC also predicts an increase in average temperature between 2.5° F (1.4° C) and 10.4° F (5.8° C) over the next century, a rate of warming unprecedented in the last 10,000 years.
This rise in temperature is blamed for a number of environmental problems, such as an increase in the worldwide sea level by four to eight inches (10 to 20 centimeters) caused by melting ice glaciers that threatens to swamp coastal land areas and islands. Global warming may also cause higher precipitation levels and more frequent severe weather, such as El Niño.
The cause of global warming is human activity, including fossil fuel combustion associated with industrial development, the burning of forests by farmers in the developing world, and even biomass combustion—the burning of wood, coal, and dung for cooking and heat—by the poor. These activities have produced emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorine, fluorine, and bromide (together called halogens), that are often described as "greenhouse gases" because they warm the atmosphere by trapping heat from the sun and cause the "greenhouse effect."
To combat these problems, in 1992 the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a commitment "to achieve…stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at levels that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system." Since then, 186 countries have joined the UNFCCC, and in 1997, 84 countries agreed on the Kyoto Protocol, a more stringent and detailed procedure for execution of the UNFCCC goals. Under the Protocol, signatory nations are supposed to achieve a 5-7 percent reduction from 1990 levels in CO2 emissions by 2008 to2012.
The Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2004 after signed the agreement. At least 55 countries that account for a total of 55 percent or more of greenhouse gas emissions (at 1990 levels) must ratify the protocol for it to take effect. Most importantly, despite being one of the 84 drafters of the Protocol in 1997, the United States has been an outspoken critic of the agreement since then, and as the producer of about 36 percent of greenhouse gases (at 1990 levels), U.S. refusal to ratify has almost single-handedly thwarted the effectiveness of the protocol.
The United States and other countries, such as Australia, have voiced several concerns about the Protocol, focusing on its scientific basis, economic cost, feasibility and fairness.
First, critics of the protocol question how serious global warming is. For example, the IPCC has never offered a specific figure for an acceptable concentration of greenhouse gases, and Thomas C. Schelling, a professor at the University of Maryland, estimated in the May/June 2002 issue of Foreign Affairs that an acceptable concentration ranges widely between 600 and 1200 parts per million. With this kind of uncertainty, say the protocol's critics, the benefits of reducing emissions cannot be adequately compared to its disadvantages. Supporters of the protocol, on the other hand, say that the prospect of better scientific knowledge in the future should not prevent action in the present.
Second, there will undoubtedly be an economic cost to
reducing greenhouse emissions. For example, closing down cheap coal-fired electricity plants and replacing them with cleaner but more expensive natural-gas burning plants would increase energy prices. Likewise, forcing automobile manufacturers to produce more energy-efficient cars would be expensive. As a result, the economy as a whole would face slower growth and lost jobs, although the exact amount of such a reduction is subject to debate.
Furthermore, there is a cultural divide over how concerned we should be about environmental risk versus economic development. For instance, Europeans are generally more willing than Americans to pay high fuel taxes and drive small cars in order to protect the environment.
Third, critics say that the prescribed timeframe for emissions cuts is unreasonable and unrealistic. For example, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States increased by 13 percent in the 1990s, so that meeting the Kyoto targets for reduction from 1990 levels would require the United States to cut emissions by about 30 percent from the levels they would otherwise be projected to reach by 2010. Instead, the United States wants reduction efforts to focus on "greenhouse gas intensity"—emissions per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—arguing that this measure considers emissions reductions within the context of economic growth. For example, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while absolute levels of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions grew 12 percent in the 1990s, greenhouse gas intensity actually declined 17 percent. Thus, economic growth produced extra pollution, but the economy as a whole was in fact becoming cleaner and more efficient.
Fourth, critics decry the protocol's weaker restrictions on developing countries—particularly India and China—than on developed countries. While the UNFCCC provides a general mandate for all countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the specific commitments entailed in the Kyoto Protocol apply only to a group of rich countries on the basis that rich countries are best economically positioned to adopt environmental protection measures.
On the other hand, it is relatively easier for poor nations to upgrade outdated, dirty industrial processes by applying modern technology already available in wealthy countries. In fact, the Kyoto Protocol calls for rich countries to provide technological and capacity-building assistance to poor countries so that these "easy" emissions reductions can be made, with the simultaneous benefit of a badly needed boost to economic efficiency.
Developing nations, however, argue that it is unfair to burden their current economic development with environmental regulations while the richer countries enjoyed unfettered development in decades past without environmental restrictions.
These differences between the United States and many other countries have delayed implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, but most of the international community seems determined to press ahead. Since 2002, the European Union, Japan, and Russia have ratified the Protocol, meeting the 55 percent threshold of global emissions and put the protocol into effect. As of 15 April 2004, 84 parties have signed and 122 Parties have ratified or acceded to the Kyoto Protocol.
Nevertheless, the disputes over the balance between economic development and environmental protection and between the responsibilities of rich and poor countries will have to be settled before an internationally coordinated strategy on reducing greenhouses gases can gain the participation of the United States.
ROCKEFELLER AND SNOWE DEMAND THAT EXXON MOBIL
END FUNDING OF CAMPAIGN THAT DENIES GLOBAL
CLIMATE CHANGE
Senators Demand that the World’s Largest Oil Maker Make Public Its History of Funding Climate Change “Skeptics”
October 30, 2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In an effort to call attention to the detrimental effects of industry-funded, so-called “research” in the debate on global climate change, Senators John (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) today called on the world’s largest oil company to end its funding of a climate change denial campaign. Rockefeller and Snowe’s effort would also reassert the leading role of the United States in addressing important global issues that demand the world’s collective attention.
Rockefeller and Snowe said that ExxonMobil’s extensive funding of an “echo chamber” of non-peer reviewed pseudo-science had unfortunately succeeded in raising questions about the legitimate scientific community’s virtually universal findings on the detrimental effects of global warming. This ongoing “debate” has also damaged America’s reputation as a leader in global affairs.
“American companies have every right to engage in important public debates, but these discussions should neither serve as a license to obscure credible data and research nor impede domestic and international actions based on that data,” said Rockefeller. “Climate change is one of the most serious environmental and economic issues facing the United States and our partners in the international community. It is absolutely irresponsible for any entity to try to influence our government’s involvement in such an important debate in any way that is not scrupulously accurate and honest.”
“The institutions that ExxonMobil is supporting are producing very questionable data. The company’s support for a small, but influential, group of climate skeptics has damaged the United States’ reputation by making our government appear to ignore conclusive data on climate change and the disastrous effects climate change could have.”
“ExxonMobil - which recorded $10.5 billion in third quarter profits this year – has an obligation and a responsibility to the global community to refrain from lending their support, financial and otherwise, to bogus, non substantiated articles and publications on climate change that serve only to cloud the important global debate of rigorous peer-reviewed research and writings,” Senator Snowe said. “The efforts of those supported by ExxonMobil foster the false belief among the international community that the United States is insensitive to global warming and unwilling to engage in forthright discussion on what many consider to be one of the most important economic and environmental issues of the 21st century.”
“Rather than continue to damage our credibility abroad, I urge ExxonMobil, under its new leadership, to work with those of us in Congress who are committed to moving our nation back to the negotiating table and leading the way toward greater energy efficiencies, and clean alternative and renewable fuels. ExxonMobil has the tremendous opportunity to employ its significant resources and assist the United States and the world by promoting the technological innovations necessary to address climate change and help develop a global solution to this undeniably global problem.”
According to reports, in 2004 alone, ExxonMobil was the primary funder of more than 29 climate change denial front groups. Since the late 1990s, ExxonMobil has spent more than $19 million on a strategy of “information laundering,” enabling a small number of professional skeptics, working through so-called scientific organizations, to funnel their viewpoints through non-peer-reviewed websites, such as www.techcentralstation.com.
“Climate change denial has been so effective because the ‘denial community’ has mischaracterized the necessarily guarded language of serious scientific dialogue as vagueness and uncertainty,” Rockefeller and Snowe wrote ExxonMobil Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson. “ExxonMobil is responsible for much of this scientific data debate and support of global warming deniers.”
Rockefeller and Snowe insisted that ExxonMobil end its funding of the climate change denial campaign by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and other organizations with similar purposes. The two Senators also encouraged ExxonMobil and Tillerson to make its history of funding public and acknowledge the dangers and realities of climate change.
Finally, Rockefeller and Snowe suggested that Tillerson, as the company’s new CEO, has a unique opportunity to change the culture of the company: “You will become the public face of an undisputed leader in the world energy industry and a company that plays a vital role in our national economy. As that public face, you will have the ability and responsibility to lead ExxonMobil toward its rightful place as a good corporate and global citizen.”
The entire letter is attached.
October 27, 2006
Mr. Rex W. Tillerson
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
ExxonMobil Corporation
5959 Las Colinas Boulevard
Irving, TX 75039
Dear Mr. Tillerson:
Allow us to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your first year as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the ExxonMobil Corporation. You will become the public face of an undisputed leader in the world energy industry, and a company that plays a vital role in our national economy. As that public face, you will have the ability and responsibility to lead ExxonMobil toward its rightful place as a good corporate and global citizen.
We are writing to appeal to your sense of stewardship of that corporate citizenship as U.S. Senators concerned about the credibility of the United States in the international community, and as Americans concerned that one of our most prestigious corporations has done much in the past to adversely affect that credibility. We are convinced that ExxonMobil’s longstanding support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics’ access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy.
Obviously, other factors complicate our foreign policy. However, we are persuaded that the climate change denial strategy carried out by and for ExxonMobil has helped foster the perception that the United States is insensitive to a matter of great urgency for all of mankind, and has thus damaged the stature of our nation internationally. It is our hope that under your leadership, ExxonMobil would end its dangerous support of the “deniers.” Likewise, we look to you to guide ExxonMobil to capitalize on its significant resources and prominent industry position to assist this country in taking its appropriate leadership role in promoting the technological innovation necessary to address climate change and in fashioning a truly global solution to what is undeniably a global problem.
While ExxonMobil’s activity in this area is well-documented, we are somewhat encouraged by developments that have come to light during your brief tenure. We fervently hope that reports that ExxonMobil intends to end its funding of the climate change denial campaign of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) are true. Similarly, we have seen press reports that your British subsidiary has told the Royal Society, Great Britain’s foremost scientific academy, that ExxonMobil will stop funding other organizations with similar purposes. However, a casual review of available literature, as performed by personnel for the Royal Society reveals that ExxonMobil is or has been the primary funding source for the “skepticism” of not only CEI, but for dozens of other overlapping and interlocking front groups sharing the same obfuscation agenda. For this reason, we share the goal of the Royal Society that ExxonMobil “come clean” about its past denial activities, and that the corporation take positive steps by a date certain toward a new and more responsible corporate citizenship.
ExxonMobil is not alone in jeopardizing the credibility and stature of the United States. Large corporations in related industries have joined ExxonMobil to provide significant and consistent financial support of this pseudo-scientific, non-peer reviewed echo chamber. The goal has not been to prevail in the scientific debate, but to obscure it. This climate change denial confederacy has exerted an influence out of all proportion to its size or relative scientific credibility. Through relentless pressure on the media to present the issue “objectively,” and by challenging the consensus on climate change science by misstating both the nature of what “consensus” means and what this particular consensus is, ExxonMobil and its allies have confused the public and given cover to a few senior elected and appointed government officials whose positions and opinions enable them to damage U.S. credibility abroad.
Climate change denial has been so effective because the “denial community” has mischaracterized the necessarily guarded language of serious scientific dialogue as vagueness and uncertainty. Mainstream media outlets, attacked for being biased, help lend credence to skeptics’ views, regardless of their scientific integrity, by giving them relatively equal standing with legitimate scientists. ExxonMobil is responsible for much of this bogus scientific “debate” and the demand for what the deniers cynically refer to as “sound science.”
A study to be released in November by an American scientific group will expose ExxonMobil as the primary funder of no fewer than 29 climate change denial front groups in 2004 alone. Besides a shared goal, these groups often featured common staffs and board members. The study will estimate that ExxonMobil has spent more than $19 million since the late 1990s on a strategy of “information laundering,” or enabling a small number of professional skeptics working through scientific-sounding organizations to funnel their viewpoints through non-peer-reviewed websites such as Tech Central Station. The Internet has provided ExxonMobil the means to wreak its havoc on U.S. credibility, while avoiding the rigors of refereed journals. While deniers can easily post something calling into question the scientific consensus on climate change, not a single refereed article in more than a decade has sought to refute it.
Indeed, while the group of outliers funded by ExxonMobil has had some success in the court of public opinion, it has failed miserably in confusing, much less convincing, the legitimate scientific community. Rather, what has emerged and continues to withstand the carefully crafted denial strategy is an insurmountable scientific consensus on both the problem and causation of climate change. Instead of the narrow and inward-looking universe of the deniers, the legitimate scientific community has developed its views on climate change through rigorous peer-reviewed research and writing across all climate-related disciplines and in virtually every country on the globe.
Where most scientists’ dispassionate review of the facts has moved past acknowledgement to mitigation strategies, ExxonMobil’s contribution the overall politicization of science has merely bolstered the views of U.S. government officials satisfied to do nothing. Rather than investing in the development of technologies that might see us through this crisis – and which may rival the computer as a wellspring of near-term economic growth around the world - ExxonMobil and its partners in denial have manufactured controversy, sown doubt, and impeded progress with strategies all-too reminiscent of those used by the tobacco industry for so many years. The net result of this unfortunate campaign has been a diminution of this nation’s ability to act internationally, and not only in environmental matters.
In light of the adverse impacts still resulting from your corporation’s activities, we must request that ExxonMobil end any further financial assistance or other support to groups or individuals whose public advocacy has contributed to the small, but unfortunately effective, climate change denial myth. Further, we believe ExxonMobil should take additional steps to improve the public debate, and consequently the reputation of the United States. We would recommend that ExxonMobil publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it. Second, ExxonMobil should repudiate its climate change denial campaign and make public its funding history. Finally, we believe that there would be a benefit to the United States if one of the world’s largest carbon emitters headquartered here devoted at least some of the money it has invested in climate change denial pseudo-science to global remediation efforts. We believe this would be especially important in the developing world, where the disastrous effects of global climate change are likely to have their most immediate and calamitous impacts.
Each of us is committed to seeing the United States officially reengage and demonstrate leadership on the issue of global climate change. We are ready to work with you and any other past corporate sponsor of the denial campaign on proactive strategies to promote energy efficiency, to expand the use of clean, alternative, and renewable fuels, to accelerate innovation to responsibly extend the useful life of our fossil fuel reserves, and to foster greater understanding of the necessity of action on a truly global scale before it is too late.
Sincerely,
John D. Rockefeller IV Olympia Snowe
Cc:
J. Stephen Simon Reatha Clark King
Walter V. Shipley William R. Howell
Samuel J. Palmisano James R. Houghton
Marilyn Carlson Nelson William W. George
Henry A. McKinnell, Jr. Michael J. Boskin
Philip E. Lippincott
http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9acba744-802a-23ad-47be-2683985c724e
Exxon Mobil softens its climate-change stance
Thursday, January 11, 2007
By Jeffrey Ball, The Wall Street Journal
In one of the strongest signs yet that U.S. industry anticipates government curbs on global-warming emissions, Exxon Mobil Corp., long a leading opponent of such rules, is starting to talk about how it would like them to be structured.
Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company by market value, long has been a lightning rod in the global-warming debate. Its top executives have openly questioned the scientific validity of claims that fossil-fuel emissions are warming the planet, and it has funded outside groups that have challenged such claims in language sometimes stronger than the company itself has used. Those actions have prompted criticism of the company by environmentalists and by Democrats in the U.S., who now control the Congress.
Now, Exxon has cut off funding to a handful of those outside groups. It says climate-science models that link greenhouse-gas concentrations to global warming are getting more reliable. And it is meeting in Washington with officials of other large corporations to discuss what form the companies would prefer a possible U.S. carbon regulation to take.
The changes in Exxon's words and actions are nuanced. The oil giant continues to note uncertainties in climate science. It continues to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, the international global-warming treaty that limits emissions from industrialized countries that have ratified it. It also stresses that any future carbon policy should include developing countries, where emissions are rising fastest.
Still, the company's subtle softening is significant and reflects a gathering trend among much of U.S. industry, from utilities to automakers. While many continue to oppose caps, these companies expect the country will impose mandatory global-warming-emission constraints at some point, so they are lining up to try to shape any mandate so they escape with minimum economic pain.
Exxon has stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank that last year ran television ads saying that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is helpful. After funding them previously, Exxon decided in late 2005 not to fund for 2006 CEI and "five or six" other groups active in the global-warming debate, Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president for public affairs, confirmed this week in an interview at Exxon's headquarters in Irving, Texas. He declined to identify the groups beyond CEI; their names are expected to become public in the spring, when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups.
Myron Ebell, director of CEI's energy and global-warming program, declined to comment about why Exxon didn't fund CEI last year. But he added: "Like any company, they are concerned about both policies and image.
"We're not at the mercy of our funders for what we believe. But we are dependent on them for funding to help promote our programs," he said. "Obviously, we would like to find a lot more funding on energy and global warming than we've had."
More significant are the meetings between executives from Exxon and other companies to discuss the potential structure of a U.S. carbon regulation. Several parallel tracks of discussions are under way, some sponsored by Washington think tanks, including the Brookings Institution and Resources for the Future.
The meetings underscore the view within much of U.S. industry that the science and the politics of global warming are changing. "The issue has evolved," Mr. Cohen said.
Exxon says important questions remain about the degree to which fossil-fuel emissions are contributing to global warming. But "the modeling has gotten better" analyzing the probabilities of how rising greenhouse-gas emissions will affect global temperatures, Mr. Cohen said. Exxon continues to stress the modeling is imperfect; it is "helpful to an analysis, but it's not a predictor," he said. But he added, "we know enough now -- or, society knows enough now -- that the risk is serious and action should be taken."
The question is what kind of action. The economic reality is that some companies will win from a carbon constraint and some companies will lose, depending on how the regulation is written.
One question is whether a carbon tax or cap should be imposed upstream -- on producers of fossil fuels -- or downstream, on the industries, and perhaps even the individual consumers, who use those fuels. Another question is whether such a constraint should target just a few industries or should be applied across the economy.
Such questions already are sparking fierce lobbying fights among industries in Europe. There, countries have slapped carbon caps on several heavily emitting industries. Now the countries are toughening those constraints.
A similar zero-sum fight appears increasingly likely in the U.S. California adopted a broad global-warming cap last year, and now it has to decide which companies, and perhaps which consumers, to stick with the responsibility for meeting the targets. Other states say they plan to follow California's lead.
In Washington, meanwhile, Democratic congressional leaders say they will push for some sort of federal carbon constraint.
"By all indications, we'll certainly see much more legislative activity at the state and federal level going forward," Exxon's Mr. Cohen said. Among the broad options being debated, he said, "some look more favorable to us than others."
Exxon wants any regulation to be applied across "the broadest possible base" of the economy, said Jaime Spellings, Exxon's general manager for corporate planning. Exxon says avoiding a ton of carbon-dioxide emissions is, with certain exceptions, less expensive in the power industry than in the transportation sector. Though solar energy remains expensive, reducing a ton of emissions by generating electricity from essentially carbon-free sources such as nuclear or wind energy is cheaper than reducing a ton of emissions through low-carbon transportation fuels such as ethanol.
Exxon, like the U.S. government, also argues that any regulation should take into account rising emissions from developing countries, too. Both Exxon and the federal government oppose the Kyoto Protocol.
The fact that Exxon officials are beginning to lay out even these generalities is significant, said Philip Sharp, president of Resources for the Future. "They are taking this debate very seriously," said Mr. Sharp, a former Democratic congressman long active in energy-policy debates. "My personal opinion of them has changed by watching them operate."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07011/753072-28.stm
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)