Cutting funding for sceptics is a long way from doing anything affirmative. Exxon has shown itself able to do easy things - raise its profits to record levels and please its shareholders - but it has not shown any commitment to developing commercially viable alternatives to oil. The sad thing is Exxon is one of the companies big enough to develop an alternative program and make a difference with it.

Rosie

Compared to most of the nation state oil companies around the world, our companies are small fries. Why is it incumbant upon them to come up with alternatives to fossil fuels when they are in the buisness of selling them. This artical shows them moving in your direction ROSIE!
What are you so peed about?

Your gonna dump this comment anyway Laura like you do most of mine.

weatherwatcher - ONE of your comments is on hold. I forwarded on to Katie to see if she wanted your opinion of her appearance published for all the world to see. I haven't heard back from her yet. As you asked Rosie, what are you so peed about?

As a scientifically minded individual the facts are now overwhelming that global warming is a reality. Exxon is tacitly admitting this by not funding contrary minded organizations. Two questions remain. Is the warming a natural or manmade phenomena? (significant warming trends have occured in the last 10k years). Second, has anyone given serious thought to positive outcomes like increased plant growth and increased fresh/rain water? Worldwide net positive? We should be much more concerned about cooling trends not current beach front property.

Joe, Thank you for posting a reasonable comment about a subject that has become so politicized. There is wide agreement that the earth has warmed by about 1 degree farenheit in the last century. As you said above, the question is whether or not the cause is man made.

The earth has been going through cyclical warming and cooling for much longer than man has existed and much longer than we have been burning fossil fuels. Despite this, there seems to be a theology existing now that global warming is due to man made causes, and anyone daring to question this is deemed a heretic.

Oh! the good ship, Exxon. Going to do something about fossil fuel and greenhouse gases.

I believe they still think that dinosaur bones cause oil.

Their stand is totally Politically Correct regardless of the science involved. I do not worry about CO2 but SO2 in the upper atmosphere.

But I am only a small voice in a small community lost in the wilderness.

Laura,

For too long, ExxonMobil's position on climate change has been misunderstood by some individuals and groups. Let me see if I can clarify our actions and positions on this important subject.

There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about .6 degree C in the last century. What is clear today is that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change.

Climate remains today an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. But the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant - so despite the areas of uncertainty that do exist, it is prudent 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.

Policymakers are considering a variety of proposed regulatory options to mitigate GHG emissions. In our view, assessing these options requires an understanding of their likely effectiveness, scale and cost, as well as their implications for economic growth and quality of life. Within ExxonMobil, we analyze and compare the various policy options by evaluating the degree to which they:

 maximize the use of market forces
 ensure a uniform and predictable cost of reducing CO2
 promote global participation
 minimize complexity and administrative costs
 maximize transparency to companies and consumers

ExxonMobil scientists have undertaken climate change research and related policy analysis for 25 years and their work has produced more than 40 papers in peer-reviewed literature. In addition, our scientists participate in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and numerous related scientific bodies.

Over the years the company has supported major projects at such institutions as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics, Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Princeton University, Charles River Associates, the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R & D Programme, Yale University, The University of Texas, Carnegie Mellon University, and the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University.

Similarly, we support an array of public policy organizations that research and promote discussion on climate change and other domestic and international issues, including the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. We publish the complete list of organizations on our web site - and update the published list once per year.

For our part, ExxonMobil is taking action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions today and to support the development of advanced energy technologies with the potential to significantly reduce future emissions. Some of these initiatives include:

 Working with Manufacturers of Automobiles and Commercial Industrial Engines on research and development programs that could yield fuel economy improvements in internal combustion engines by as much as 30%, with lower corresponding emissions.

 Supporting the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) at Stanford University with a charge to accelerate the development of commercially viable energy technologies that can lower greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale. GCEP�s focus includes hydrogen production, storage and use; biomass and solar energy; carbon dioxide capture and storage; and advanced transportation and coal technologies. ExxonMobil helped launch the $225 million project in 2002. GCEP is the largest privately-funded, long term research program of its type in the world.

 Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through Efficiency and Best Practices with steps taken to improve energy efficiency at our facilities since 1999 that have resulted in the avoidance of 11 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions last year alone - the equivalent of taking about two million cars off the road. We are working to identify and implement additional measures to more than double these reductions in the near future.

 Partnering with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy
to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in its aim to save more than six billion gallons of fuel annually in the U.S. freight transport system through the EPA's "Smartway" Transport Partnership. ExxonMobil was the first petroleum company to join and recently became a charter member of EPA's Natural Gas Star International Program which expands to international operations the technologies and practices that have reduced methane emissions in the U.S. by six percent over a 1990 baseline. In addition, through a 2003 industry-wide commitment by the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil is improving the efficiency of its refining operations, to gain a 10 percent or more improvement between 2002 and 2012.

 Partnering with the European Commission to study Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the recently announced CO2ReMoVe program, a ground-breaking research initiative to establish scientific monitoring systems and determine the reliability of geological carbon dioxide storage. Our support for CO2ReMoVe, builds on more than three decades of involvement in the development and utilization of CCS-related technologies.

I hope this note better explains our approach to the national dialogue on energy policy and the important issue of climate change.

Kenneth Cohen
Vice President - Public Affairs
Exxon Mobil Corporation

Mr. Cohen,

Thanks for taking the time to post this information here.

I recently made a post on this issue over at my own blog: http://ecocritic.blogspot.com/2007/01/exxon-mobil-to-cut-funding-for-anti.html

It seems that the issue has reached enough momentum that companies realise the pointlessness of supporting climate change sceptics which is a kind of victory.

The Costra Nostra would be proud. I suppose the 1st Admendment doesn't apply to shareholders of Exxon Mobil. It is nice to see our Senators, who enjoy a posh life style provided by the energy industry, threaten said industry into submission.

If Mr. Cohen from ExxonMobil is still reading here, I had an epiphany after reading his notes.

Wind, solar, wave, and tide power need sites that collect these precious resources. You could make a lot of money developing these power sources on your existing properties. For example, wind power meets opposition for two reasons: (1) if there's not enough wind they are not efficient, and (2) people worry about birds and tourism because of their size and environmental impacts. Solar power works best where there's lots of sun. Aren't your ocean rigs a good place for windmills, and your drilling areas a good place for sun?

Pardon me if you're already doing this, but it seems to me that not only would this be very good PR, but it would eventually make you tons of money!

From Ecocritics blog: "This blog aims to discuss the political issues associated with global warming and climate change. It seeks to address the problem from a non-ideological perspective, from neither left or right"

And his post here, "It seems that the issue has reached enough momentum that companies realise the pointlessness of supporting climate change sceptics which is a kind of victory."

So the truth is that you really aren't interested in a discussion, but only in forcing your opinions on everyone else. Hypocrite.

More from his blog: "Over time the author hopes to expand the scope of the blog to deal with the emergence of eco-critical issues in the humanities." What is it with the humanities today that it is so full of Nazis and Stalinists?

Ken Cohen says, "despite the areas of uncertainty that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks." What risks? No one even knows for certain if global warming is occurring nor, if it is, that any of it is human-caused. Exxon-Mobil should stick to the business of maximizing shareholder profits and stop chasing boogey-men. Caving into fear-mongers is not a good corporate policy.

I don't understand this. We all work for a days pay,in order to live." Why, who, or what". The company pays us, we agree to it. If not the right pay we would quit. Then why are a lot of people wanting to get more money to talk in groups about a company. The government should have more to say. The people are the government. There for the funds should come from the government. I feel the people of different ages should have it set up like our Jury system is. We all should be involved and able to state our equal rights. We,"deserve this in our country." As for the right of anything let the people make up there minds and take a vote on how to do it. We have a voting system set up all over the country, use it more often. I try to get every penny used the way I want.Don't you... Think it over... PLEASE!!!!