Republican Candidates Have Accepted The "Big Oil" Lies

The chart above, from an AP survey, shows just how far from the truth the Republican candidates are when they talk about global climate change. They have either foolishly accepted the propaganda from the big will companies in their desire to please corporate America, or they have received (or hope to receive) a lot of money from the big oil companies -- primarily the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil.

It is the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil that have been most responsible for paying for and promoting the propaganda (lies) that deny global climate change. They have know for decades that the climate change is real (and is caused by overuse of fossil fuels), but they have funded a huge effort to fool the American people into believing that climate change is not happening. They don't care about the truth or the planet. They only care about their profits, and are perfectly willing to toss future generations under the bus to protect those profits.

And their propaganda effort has been pretty successful with Republican officials and the general public -- successful enough to create doubt in the minds of too many people, and keep the government from doing anything about the global climate change. Now there is a report showing just how successful the propaganda from the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil has been. Here is how that report is described by Natasha Geiling at Think Progress:

When it comes to climate deniers in the halls of Congress, some have suggested that their rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change stems from their financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. 

But it turns out that it’s not just members of Congress whose climate doubt may be traced back to corporate influence — a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that over the last 20 years, private funding has had an important influence on the overall polarization of climate change as a topic in the United States.

“The main thesis that corporate funding influences climate change issues is definitely something people have been writing about for a long time, but just not with the type of data to fully support these conclusions,” Justin Farrell, author of the study and a sociologist at Yale University, told ThinkProgress. “It confirms what we thought using comprehensive data and computational analyses.”

To understand how corporate funding has contributed to the polarization of climate change in the United States, Farrell looked at 20 years’ worth of data, analyzing articles, texts, and policy papers produced by 164 organizations and more than 4,500 individuals who do not accept the science of climate change (that climate change is either not happening or not a product of human activity). The study also looked at funding from two key contrarian entities: the Koch Family Foundationsand ExxonMobil. 

By analyzing both the networks of individuals and organizations that have participated in climate misinformation campaigns and the climate-related texts that those organizations produced between 1993 and 2013, Farrell found what he described to the Washington Post as an “ecosystem of influence” within groups that received corporate funding. Groups that received funding from Koch or Exxon were not only more likely to have written texts aimed at polarizing climate change, but were more likely to change the emphasis of their content over time. Beginning in 2008, groups that received funding were more likely than unfunded groups to produce texts stressing things like the idea that climate change is a long term cycle or that carbon dioxide is in fact good for the planet, key tenets of the climate misinformation campaign aimed at casting doubt on the scientific consensus. Groups that received funding consistently touted these themes, while groups with no funding didn’t show the same level of coordination.

“This funding has an impact on the nature and amount of what is going out in the climate misinformation effort,” Robert Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University who was not involved in the study, told ThinkProgress. “It’s stronger, and there’s more of it, and these organizations are at the core of the effort.”

The study comes out at a time when ExxonMobil is facing increasing public scrutiny for its role in misleading the public about climate change. Several prominent politicians have called for a Department of Justice investigation into whether or not Exxon purposefully mislead the public about climate change, based on information published in a recent Inside Climate News investigation which found that Exxon’s internal research confirmed in 1977 that climate change is caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Earlier this month, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a subpoena to Exxon, demanding records relating to its climate research.

“[The study] gives credence and empirical strength to the argument that ExxonMobil made a concerted effort to promulgate climate misinformation, which they knew from their internal research was false,” Brulle said. 

But beyond Exxon, Brulle praised the paper for proving with data something that climate activists have long suspected: When it comes to climate misinformation, corporate funding plays a crucial role.

“We sort of always suspected that this was the case, that the funders were building and creating this effort, but this really demonstrates it empirically,” he said. “This is a very, very robust and interesting paper.”

Exxon Won't Have To Pay For Clean-Up

The picture above shows a tiny portion of the oil spill in Arkansas. It is from a pipeline owned and operated by Exxon -- and that company admits that thousands of barrels of oil were released from the broken pipeline before it was discovered and shut down. Now this city (Mayflower, Arkansas) faces a difficult clean-up (and the realization that the ecology of their area will be negatively affected). And guess who won't be paying for any part of that clean-up -- that's right, the Exxon Mobil corporation.

Years ago a fund was created to pay for oil spills. It is called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (and it is badly needed since at least 54,000 barrels of pipeline oil was dumped into the environment in 364 separate incidents last year).  But according to Oil Change International:

“The great irony of this tragic spill in Arkansas is that the transport of tar sands oil through pipelines in the US is exempt from payments into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Exxon, like all companies shipping toxic tar sands, doesn’t have to pay into the fund that will cover most of the clean up costs for the pipeline’s inevitable spills.”

That's because, in their infinite wisdom, the U.S. Congress let the oil companies talk them into passing a law that exempts those who ship this kind of crude oil (called diluted bitumen) from having to pay the 8 cents a barrel fee the fund requires. That's because they were able to get this particular kind of crude as not being defined as oil. And it is not the kind of crude oil that can be gotten by drilling a well. Instead, it is scooped from the ground as a solid, and chemicals are added to make it a liquid that will flow through the pipeline. That liquid is much like a thin asphalt, and is actually dirtier than the crude coming out of a drilled well.

So Exxon has not paid a single penny into the OSLT Fund for the sludge they are sending through that pipeline (and which has now spilled into the Arkansas landscape). And guess what, the companies that want to ship this same kind of dirty crude through the proposed XL pipeline won't have to pay into that fund either -- and that pipeline will pump nine times as much as the Arkansas pipeline does (which means of course, that it poses nine times the ecological danger to the environment).

This spill should serve as a warning to Americans -- that the XL pipeline should NOT be built. And the law exempting oil companies from having to pay into the OSLT Fund when they ship this noxious crude through our country should be repealed. It simply doesn't make sense.

Venezuela Claims A Win Over Exxon In Oil Dispute

Back in 2007, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez came to the realization that American oil companies were virtually stealing Venezuela's vast oil reserves. The American corporations were making billions and only paying a tiny portion of that to Venezuela. Chavez decided that enough was enough, and he nationalized the oil industry in Venezuela -- a move that makes imminent sense considering the large number of poor people that country had. Since the nationalization, much more money has flowed into Venezuela's government coffers, and Chavez has used much of that money on programs to raise the standard of living for millions of the country's citizens.

Although President Chavez paid a nominal sum to the oil companies when the nation's oil was nationalized, it was not nearly enough for the American oil magnates. They saw the goose that laid the golden eggs was taken from them, and they would no longer be able to steal the valuable resources that should have been the property of the people of Venezuela in the first place. One of these companies, Exxon Mobil, took their case to the International Chamber of Commerce. They demanded $12 billion in compensation (for losing the right to steal Venezuelan oil).

That international tribunal has now made a decision in the case. They ruled that Venezuela owes Exxon Mobil about $907 million -- a far cry from the $12 billion Exxon Mobil was wanting. But Venezuela won't have to come up with the full $907 million, because the arbitration tribunal also ruled that the American corporation owed the Venezuelan oil industry an additional $160 million. When that is added to the $191 million they already owed and the $300 million the company seized in American banks, Venezuela will only have to pay about $255 million.

This does not end all cases against Venezuela. Exxon Mobil has another case, and other oil companies have also filed claims. But it does indicate that similar (or even smaller) decisions will probably be made in the remaining cases. The tribunal is basically ruling that the oil does belong to the people of Venezuela, and not to the oil companies trying to claim it as their own. They are due a fair compensation, but that does not mean they are owed future profits which they will now not be getting.

I congratulate the nation of Venezuela for reclaiming their own resources and standing up for their rights. It's not often that anyone wins when they try to stand up to Big Oil.

A Bit Of Snark From David Van Os

The great Texas progressive, David Van Os (pictured above), has unleashed a bit of snark on Big Oil. As usual, I reprint his words here:

Poor Exxon-Mobil.

It is forced against its will to raise gasoline prices to nearly $4 per gallon. It has no choice. It has to raise the price to consumers in order to cover its costs.

Oops, there’s a slight flaw in that explanation. Exxon-Mobil made 10.7 billion dollars profit in the first quarter of 2011.

Wait; there is a better explanation. Exxon-Mobil didn’t raise the price of gasoline. The price raised itself!

Some outside force seems to have taken over the necessary computer keyboards, entered the computer programs, and inserted higher prices.

It must be the work of the awesomely powerful, invisible, mysterious force known as The Market. Though none can see it, The Market is a universal force, all around us, inside us and outside us, ever present, ever flowing, always beneficent if not interfered with.

An elite order of noble servants of the people known as the CEO Knights preserves a closely guarded secret knowledge, handed down from master to apprentice over many generations, which teaches how to keep The Market flowing freely, because if permitted to flow freely it will always protect the weak and helpless and preserve justice and democracy in our world.

This must be one of the occasions when the evil cave dwellers known as Liberals have interfered with the free flow of The Market and thus provoked it into irrational anger, by which it raised the price of gasoline. But we know we can count on the noble CEO Knights to continue to protect us through their continual sacrifices. As an example of their sacrifices, the leading masters of the CEO Knights are traumatizing themselves by accepting ever more millions of dollars in average annual compensation.

We owe them our greatest appreciation for agreeing to the fearsome responsibility to accept and guard our resources in their personal accounts. Now, we all need to transfer all the rest of our money and assets to the great and noble order of the CEO Knights in order to enable them to free The Market and thus save us from these high gasoline prices and other ravages caused by interference with The Market’s freedom.

David Van Os

Profits Drop for Poor Exxon Mobil

I'm absolutely devastated at the terrible news released by the Exxon Mobil Corporation. It seems that after posting record profits in 2008, the company's profits fell by more than 50% for 2009. The company had earned $45.2 billion in 2008, but their net profit was only a measly $19.3 billion for 2009. They must be crying in their champagne!

Just think, the poor company's profits were only $1.61 billion a month, $371.2 million a week, $53.02 million a day, $2.2 million an hour, $36,821 a minute or $614 a second for 365 days a year. That's pure profit after all expenses have been deducted. How on earth is Exxon Mobil going to survive? They probably had to cut their company bonuses down to just a couple of billion.

But this brave company is maintaining a stiff upper lip in the face of this economic disaster. Vice president of investor relations David Rosenthal said, "We don't see a need right now for any significant restructurings at this time. But we'll see how things go." The $19.3 billion in profits still represented the largest profit of any of the Fortune 500 companies, but I'm sure the Exxon executives are far too embarrassed by their poor performance to take any solace in that.

Aren't you as horrified as I am by Exxon Mobil's poor 2009 showing?

Chavez Threatens To Cut Off Oil To U.S.

Venezuela recently decided that the oil taken from their country should benefit the people of Venezuela, and not just the robber barons of the world's largest oil companies. To that end, Venezuela nationalized their oil industry.

Chevron (US), Total (France), BP (England) and StatoilHydro (Norway) saw the handwriting on the wall, and renogiated their contracts with Venezuela. They continue to make money there, only now as minority partners.

But the giant U.S. oil company Exxon Mobil decided they weren't going to go along with it. Rather than being happy with a slice of the pie, they decided they wanted to keep the whole thing. They have gone after Venezuelan oil-assets in U.S., British and Dutch courts. A British court has already temporarily frozen around $12 billion in Venezuelan assets.

I guess Exxon Mobil thinks if they can freeze enough of Venezuela's assets in foreign countries, then they can get them to back down on the nationalization and let Exxon-Mobil have their oil. This could turn out to be a huge mistake.

Hugo Chavez is angry at the court actions, and is threatening to cut off all Venezuelan oil coming to the United States. Chavez said, "I speak to the U.S. empire, because that's the master: continue and you will see that we won't send one drop of oil to the empire of the United States. The outlaws of Exxon Mobil will never again rob us."

This is a serious threat. Venezuela currently supplies 12 % of United States oil imports (1.23 million barrels a day). It would be a serious blow to the U.S. economy to immediately have 12% of our imports cut off. It would probably mean oil and gas shortages here. For sure, it would mean much higher prices. Even if we were able to make up the shortage by buying elsewhere, it would be at a much higher price per barrel.

Some of you may be saying Venezuela couldn't do it. We are the number one buyer of Venezuelan oil, and they need us to buy that oil. NOT TRUE! China (and others) would immediately step in and buy that oil. Venezuela would have no problem selling the oil. The sad fact is that we need Venezuela's oil more than they need to sell it to us.

We can't blame Chavez for the situation we're in. Even Exxon Mobil only gets part of the blame (as greedy as they are). Most of the blame must go to the Republican leadership that blocked all efforts to reduce our dependence on oil. They were more interested in protecting the oil interests than in protecting the American economy.

If the Republican leaders had just initiated policies that resulted in a 10% less dependence on oil, then Chavez's threat would have little sting (not to mention we'd be on our way to solving global climactic change).