“How much money did you receive from ExxonMobil in
2005?” When energy expert Indur Goklany gave a National Press
Club briefing about his recent paper,
“Living With Global Warming,” he probably expected inquiries about
his findings and research. But that’s the accusation he was hit
with during the Q&A from David Tuft, an official of the Natural
Resources Defense Council. “We know you received $315,000 [from
Exxon] through 2004; we’re wondering what it is in 2005.”
The National Center for Policy Analysis, which published
Goklany’s research, did receive funding from ExxonMobil, but
Goklany rightly responded that he received no Exxon money. Still,
he was forced to publicly confront a left-wing smear tactic. Unable
to win the public policy debate fair and square, environmental
groups are falling back on an old stand-by — they attack the
integrity of their opponents by dragging a corporate bogeyman out
of the closet. Disgruntled green groups failed to win passage of
global warming regulations in the recently passed energy bill, so
they are resorting to claims that ExxonMobil buys off everyone who
doesn’t take their side. Some strategy.
The Exxpose Exxon campaign (Exxpose, get it?) was
launched by some of the biggest guns in the environmental movement:
Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, Environmental Action,
Greenpeace, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense
Council, the Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group
(PIRG) and the Union of Concerned Scientists. True Majority, the
creation of leftist ice-cream maker Ben Cohen (of Ben &
Jerry’s), and MoveOn.org, whose members played such a large part in
Howard Dean’s attempt to capture the Democratic presidential
nomination, also are part of the anti-Exxon group. They charge
(correctly) that Exxon favors opening the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge to oil drilling and opposes restrictive global warming
legislation, and they argue (questionably) that Exxon refuses to
invest “enough” money in alternative energy sources.
However, the thrust of their report
“ExxonMobil Exxposed” is as hollow as a Halloween pumpkin: “In
2004, ExxonMobil gave $1.9 million to 26 organizations specifically
to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming,” it says.
Does the report then compare the Exxon amount to the amount that
foundations give to groups that believe global warming is an
imminent threat to the environment? No. Fortunately, the George C.
Marshall Institute has done just that. It examined funding trends
for 2000-2002 and discovered that among the twenty top grant-makers
on the issue, ExxonMobil was the only one not hyping global warming
and it only ranked 14th in the amount of money it gave away. The
top two givers, the Energy Foundation and the Pew Charitable
Trusts, gave over $43 million and $12 million, respectively, for
programs on climate change. Both are strong supporters of the
argument that the world is growing warmer because Americans use too
much oil.
Indeed, looking at the funding patters of the groups in Exxpose
Exxon reveals that they have a vested interest in promoting global
warming hype. In fact, some groups raked in more money in one year
for their own global warming campaigns than ExxonMobil doled out in
total. According to the Marshall Institute, the Natural
Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists
each took in over $2.4 million just in 2002. From 2000-2002, they
took in $6.7 million and $6.3 million, respectively, for activities
promoting the global warming hypothesis. Other big grants went to
the National Environmental Trust ($2,150,000), U.S. PIRG
($1,015,000), Sierra Club ($405,000), Greenpeace ($385,000), and
Friends of the Earth ($150,000).
One Greenpeace website called “Exxon Secrets”
claims to have discovered more shady information about ExxonMobil’s
support for policy groups that question the global warming
argument. But there are no “secrets” here. ExxonMobil’s grantmaking
is public information, and it is available from the company’s
2002 Annual Report and its 2003 and 2004 Corporate Giving Reports. They are all
posted on ExxonMobil’s website.
Like other activist groups, the anti-Exxon coalition arrogantly
demands a boycott. Americans can help “by
refusing to work for ExxonMobil, refusing to invest their
hard-earned dollars in ExxonMobil, and refusing to buy
ExxonMobil products” [italics added]. But guess what? Some of the
foundations that support these groups invest their own money in
ExxonMobil! The Ford Foundation gave $150,000 each to the Natural
Resources Defense Council and Friends of the Earth in 2003.
According to its most recent tax return, the foundation owned about
2.2 million shares of ExxonMobil stock that was then valued at
about $82 million. The Surdna Foundation handed out $125,000 to
Defenders of Wildlife (in 2001) and $75,000 to the National
Environmental Trust (in 2003), and it owned about 15,000 shares of
ExxonMobil stock. The Wallace Global Fund gave $490,000 to the
Sierra Club Foundation (2001-2003), $200,000 to the Union of
Concerned Scientists (2001-2003), and $100,000 to Greenpeace
(2001), and it owned 20,000 shares of ExxonMobil. Because those
“hard-earned dollars” are invested in ExxonMobil, will the green
groups return the tainted money?
Few debates have been as one-sided as the one over whether the
scientific evidence backs up arguments for global warming and what
American public officials should do about it. Environmental groups
have gone overboard in attacking the integrity of anyone who
questions their assertions. Leftist groups never hesitate to argue
that having a “national debate” means all sides need to be heard.
Funny, though, how that doesn’t apply to ExxonMobil’s support for
the other side of the climate debate.
David Hogberg is a senior research analyst at the
Capital
Research Center. (CRC is a recipient of the ExxonMobil
Foundation.) He also hosts his own website, Hog
Haven.
