Should ExxonMobil Embrace Gore's Crusade?
A New York Times article “From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype” reveals that numerous scientists are calling on Al Gore to stop making “exaggerated and erroneous” scientific predictions about global warming catastrophe. It turns out that Gore’s scientific “consensus” about human-caused global warming conveniently excludes the many scientists who are publishing peer-reviewed studies contradicting Gore’s thesis. “A report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium,” notes the Times. “Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.”
The NYT article provides an interesting contrast to a recent article by NYT business columnist Joe Nocera savaging ExxonMobil for not climbing on the global warming bandwagon. In “Exxon Mobil Just Wants To Be Loved (Feb. 10),” Nocera writes: “Exxon Mobil has become the enemy because it has been slow to concede that global warming is a real phenomenon caused largely by human beings burning fossil fuels. Exxon Mobil opposed (and still opposes) the Kyoto accord. It has contributed money to Washington research groups that have cast doubt on the severity of global warming and on the need for taking drastic measures to reverse its effects. It has generally opposed mandatory caps on greenhouse gases.”
The global warming hysteria is not about science but about politics and the campaign to impose price controls and/or taxes on private sector energy use. There is massive media pressure for Big Business to endorse these “drastic measures,” if only to avoid becoming what Nocera calls “the world’s whipping boy.” Nocera actually argues it would be in ExxonMobil’s best interest to endorse energy regulation. But as George Reisman asks in a related Mises.org article, what would have happened if ExxonMobil had embraced Al Gore’s global warming crusade when he began it in 1977? Would the company have done right by its shareholders in 1977 by turning its back on petroleum and basing its business strategy on solar/wind power? It seems obvious that this company would have stood no chance of becoming the largest (market cap: $360 billion) and most profitable ($36 billion) business in the world thirty years later. Global warming alarmism is neither sound science nor sound economics.
Comments (3)
Haven't followed up on the probable letters to the editor that should result from this article. Have there been? Only on day ago, but...if so, were they in: point of order style, or rabid screeds?
Published: March 14, 2007 11:32 PM
JH:
This disappoints. Just to be helpful:
1. You might have been fooled by it, but the piece by Broad in the NYT is very biased. He has simply cherrypicked several outlying climate change scientists (who have consistently shown themselves to be wrong), thrown in a few "political scientists" like Pielke and Peiser and used these critics to downplay Gore's chief message by calling him "shrill", despite the fact that the vast bulk of the scientific community engaged in climate research thinks he has done a very commendable and accurate job of summarizing a very complex subject for laypersons - and despite the fact that his book and movie are well-supported by the recently released IPCC summary for policy makers and the NAS report last year.
These links and extensive commentary are a small start in seeing how deceptive the Broad piece is:
http://ghttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/12/233737/021/
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/13/8637/52346
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/03/broadly_misrepresenting.php
I am sure you will find them interesting reading.
2. "The global warming hysteria is not about science but about politics and the campaign to impose price controls and/or taxes on private sector energy use. Global warming alarmism is neither sound science nor sound economics."
Yes, by definition all public discussion about public policy is about politics. Thanks for telling us that.
But your assertion that this is "not about science" or that concern about global warming is "not sound science" is simply conclusory and wholly unsupported, even by the NYT piece that you cite. Did you miss the quote from Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, who is quoted as stating that "'Climate change is a real and serious problem' that calls for careful analysis and sound policy"?
Since you want to focus on Exxon, have you read and considered Exxon's recent statements on the science and the policy directions Exxon feels are justified? Just so your fingers don't have to walk too far, let me quote:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/NewsReleases/corp_nr_mr_climate_ipcc.asp
"The release of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of Climate Science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an important contribution to informed debate on the issue of climate change. The IPCC report process is valuable in that it facilitates the sharing of global scientific knowledge and encourages further inquiry on the important issue of climate change.
"The Fourth Assessment Report of Climate Science provides an extensive update of scientific understanding regarding Earth's climate. ...
"As in past IPCC assessments, scientists from ExxonMobil have participated directly as lead authors, as well as in the review process and workshops contributing to the development of AR4. ...
"There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.7 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period - and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.
Because the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant, it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health.
"While this long term objective is pursued, near term objectives should include supporting climate research to reduce uncertainties while pacing policy responses; promoting energy efficiency; deploying existing technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and supporting research and development of new, low-GHG technologies."
3. On the politics, why no interest in exploring the interests of Exxon, or even others like GE, DuPont, Duke Energy, Boeing and insurers who have long advocated action on climate change? Why not explore the way the Bush Administration and Republicans have until recently - until disgust by voters over budget-busting pork barrel and senseless wars that profit only elites - deliberately tied themselves to selling "uncertainty" while selling fear of slathering "enviros" (along with fear of gays, Islamofascists and whatnot)? Does interest in Austrian viewpoints simply leave you totally incapable of considering rent-seeking or statism - as well as being incapable of noticing that even Exxon agrees with Al Gore?
4. You disappoint on the related economics. Have you failed to noticce that Exxon and many other firms are SAVING MONEY by undertaking voluntary steps to monitor and reduce carbon emissions (and to sell their expertise to others)? Are you unaware that there are a litany of "no regrets" actions on climate change that would improve our economy by eliminating wasteful government regulations and program - including the billion we spend on energy subsidies annually?
And more fundamentally, have you failed to notice that the atmosphere is a classic open-access common resource, so that IF human-induced climate change is a real concern, then difficult cooperative institution-building will be needed to address it? Or do you take the view that "sound economics" is concerned only about private transactions between economic actors concerning OWNED resources?
Published: March 15, 2007 9:38 AM
Corporations have no souls and the management of corporations typically have no long term stake in the entity. As such, the larger the corporation, the more likely it will sell out immense longterm value for some miserable short-term gain.
Also, Exxon competes in a business where almost all its competitors are STATE owned entities. As such, it always at the mercy of buffoons like Chavez or rapacious tyrants like Putin.
Exxon's alleged "gains" from alternative fuels, expertise, etc, is technically correst in as much as I technically gain from paying taxes -- because the alternative is jail/death, etc.
Some individuals are always ready to fight and suffer for principle. In the old days there were surely oil execs who would make the oil corps take a stand. But those days are gone. So looking to oil companies for any leadership or guidence is stupid. They will, to paraphrase Lenin, sell the globalwarmingfascists the means to kill us all. Count on it.
Published: March 15, 2007 1:10 PM