ExxonMobil, Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
Before Kenneth Cohen retired from his post earlier this year as ExxonMobil’s longstanding vice president of public and government affairs, he published a blog reasserting the company's support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Cohen's Dec. 2 column was part of a broader public relations campaign to deflect allegations that ExxonMobil had downplayed evidence its own scientists uncovered about climate change and defrauded its shareholders and the public at large.
Cohen stressed that ExxonMobil believes "the risks of climate change are real and ... warrant constructive action" and traced the company's support for a carbon tax back to a January 2009 speech by company CEO Rex Tillerson. Since then, Cohen said, ExxonMobil has been actively promoting it as the most viable way to curb carbon emissions in its communications with shareholders, journalists, government officials and—most especially—federal lawmakers, who are in a position to do something about it. "ExxonMobil executives," he said, "have echoed that message in countless private briefings with members of Congress on carbon tax policy options."
Is that right?
A cursory look at just who ExxonMobil funds on Capitol Hill and how they vote tells a very different story. That funding is significant. From 2010 through 2014, the company spent $6.4 million to elect lawmakers and another $64.2 million—more than any other oil and gas company—to lobby them.
Given this largesse, one would expect a significant percentage of ExxonMobil's beneficiaries to support its position on a carbon tax. That's usually how it works. There may not be a demonstrable quid pro quo, but contributions guarantee access and access guarantees influence. In this case, however, an overwhelming majority of ExxonMobil-funded senators and representatives consistently oppose a carbon tax—as well as other measures to address climate change.
That makes me wonder: Just what have ExxonMobil lobbyists been telling Congress during those countless private briefings?
Although neither the House nor the Senate has voted on a stand-alone carbon tax bill in recent years, since 2010 legislators have voted on a handful of amendments that put them on record on the issue.
The vote tallies speak for themselves.
In March 2013, for example, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse—who has never received ExxonMobil money—offered a budget resolution amendment that would ensure that "all revenue from a fee on carbon pollution is returned to the American people." That's exactly what ExxonMobil claims to support: a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
Whitehouse's amendment was defeated by a 58 to 41 vote. Forty-eight of the senators on the floor that day received campaign contributions from ExxonMobil between 2010 and 2014. Of those, 39-33 Republicans and six Democrats—opposed the amendment. In other words, more than 80 percent of the legislators ExxonMobil funded voted against the company's stated position.
Five months later, the House approved an amendment that would prevent the Obama administration from imposing a carbon tax without congressional approval. Steve Scalise, an ExxonMobil-backed representative from Louisiana, tacked the amendment onto a bill that ultimately died. His amendment passed on a 237 to 176 vote and nearly 90 percent of the representatives who voted for it—204 Republicans and eight Democrats—received ExxonMobil contributions.
More recently, in March 2015, the Senate voted 58 to 42 in favor of a budget resolution amendment introduced by Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt prohibiting a carbon tax. Thirty of the 40 senators who received ExxonMobil campaign contributions, including Blunt, voted in favor of the amendment.
Besides these amendment votes, another way to gauge where ExxonMobil-funded lawmakers sit on this issue is to take a look at what they cosponsor—or ignore. Here again, the record is clear.
In March 2013, for instance, 156 House members cosponsored a resolution introduced by Rep. Scalise expressing "the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses and is not in the best interest of the United States." Including Scalise, 146 cosponsors—93 percent—were funded by ExxonMobil.
Conversely, when Maryland Rep. John Delaney introduced a revenue-neutral carbon tax bill in May 2015, none of his ExxonMobil-backed colleagues signed on. The bill would tax carbon emissions and use revenues to reduce the corporate tax rate, assist displaced coal miners and offset any increased energy costs for middle- and low-income households. Presumably ExxonMobil would approve. Neither Delaney nor the three other bill cosponsors received campaign contributions from the company.
Currying Favor with Key Members
Two committees in each chamber of Congress have jurisdiction over carbon tax-related bills. Between 2010 and 2014, ExxonMobil contributed to at least 50 percent of the members of each one.
On the House side, the company supported 24 of the 39 current members of the Ways and Means Committee and 35 of the 54 members of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Notably, 38 of the 59 ExxonMobil-funded lawmakers on the two committees are climate science deniers.
On the Senate side, ExxonMobil gave contributions to 16 of the Finance Committee's 26 members, nine of whom reject climate science. The company also funded half of the 20 members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Seven of the 10 are deniers.
Given the track record of ExxonMobil-funded lawmakers on climate bills and amendments, it's unlikely that a carbon tax bill could ever get off the ground in any of these committees. And if, by some miracle, such a bill managed to attract a sizable number of cosponsors, it would still die. That's because the chairmen of these four key committees—who have the ultimate say over a bill's fate—have refused to schedule a vote on anything remotely related to a climate bill. And perhaps it is no coincidence that all of them have received campaign contributions from ExxonMobil.
In the House, the company supported the campaigns of Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and Texas Rep. Kevin Brady—consecutive chairmen of the Ways and Means Committee over the past five years—and Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. In the Senate, it funded Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Finance Committee and Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Most of these chairmen—Ryan and Upton in the House and Hatch and Inhofe in the Senate—dispute mainstream climate science. Inhofe, perhaps the most outspoken climate science denier in Congress, has called climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
By donating money to these strategically placed lawmakers, ExxonMobil's actions belie its professed support for a carbon tax. As long as they remain in place, no carbon pricing bills will ever get to the House or Senate floor, let alone to the president's desk.
Of course, Congress' refusal to address climate change can't be blamed solely on the machinations of one company. There are a number of other fossil fuel industry players besides ExxonMobil—Koch Industries and Chevron immediately come to mind—that also spend millions to influence Congress. And then there are the ideological, theological and pseudoscientific rationales lawmakers hide behind to justify doing nothing.
Even after taking these other factors into consideration, however, ExxonMobil still bears a good deal of responsibility for the climate stalemate on Capitol Hill. After all, over the last 20 years, it has been a leading sponsor of a network of think tanks, advocacy groups and trade associations that has been peddling lies about climate science, even after the company's own scientists warned decades ago that the consequences of global warming could be catastrophic. And the company continues to finance members of Congress who oppose taking action to address climate change.
At the conclusion of his Dec. 2 essay, Kenneth Cohen pledged that ExxonMobil "will continue to pursue effective and efficient policy options using the established scientific knowledge as the foundation for the things we advocate." That may sound reassuring, but empty rhetoric doesn't take us where we need to go. If ExxonMobil thinks anyone is going to believe that it is sincerely interested in combating climate change, it needs to do more than talk. If the company really supported action on climate, it would stop funding groups that spread disinformation about climate science and renewable energy. And if it really supported a carbon tax, it would stop funding lawmakers who don't and only fund lawmakers who do.
In other words, ExxonMobil, put your money where your mouth is.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
- New Clues Help Monarch Butterfly Conservation Efforts - EcoWatch ›
- Monarch Butterflies Will Be Protected Under Historic Deal - EcoWatch ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
California faces another "critically dry year" according to state officials, and a destructive wildfire season looms on its horizon. But in a state that welcomes innovation, water efficacy approaches and drought management could replenish California, increasingly threatened by the climate's new extremes.
- Remarkable Drop in Colorado River Water Use Sign of Climate ... ›
- California Faces a Future of Extreme Weather - EcoWatch ›
Wisdom the mōlī, or Laysan albatross, is the oldest wild bird known to science at the age of at least 70. She is also, as of February 1, a new mother.
<div id="dadb2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="aa2ad8cb566c9b4b6d2df2693669f6f9"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1357796504740761602" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">🚨Cute baby alert! Wisdom's chick has hatched!!! 🐣😍 Wisdom, a mōlī (Laysan albatross) and world’s oldest known, ban… https://t.co/Nco050ztBA</div> — USFWS Pacific Region (@USFWS Pacific Region)<a href="https://twitter.com/USFWSPacific/statuses/1357796504740761602">1612558888.0</a></blockquote></div>
By Hui Hu
Winter is supposed to be the best season for wind power – the winds are stronger, and since air density increases as the temperature drops, more force is pushing on the blades. But winter also comes with a problem: freezing weather.
Comparing rime ice and glaze ice shows how each changes the texture of the blade. Gao, Liu and Hu, 2021, CC BY-ND
Ice buildup changes air flow around the turbine blade, which can slow it down. The top photos show ice forming after 10 minutes at different temperatures in the Wind Research Tunnel. The lower measurements show airflow separation as ice accumulates. Icing Research Tunnel of Iowa State University, CC BY-ND
While traditional investment in the ocean technology sector has been tentative, growth in Israeli maritime innovations has been exponential in the last few years, and environmental concern has come to the forefront.
theDOCK aims to innovate the Israeli maritime sector. Pexels<p>The UN hopes that new investments in ocean science and technology will help turn the tide for the oceans. As such, this year kicked off the <a href="https://www.oceandecade.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030)</a> to galvanize massive support for the blue economy.</p><p>According to the World Bank, the blue economy is the "sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and jobs while preserving the health of ocean ecosystem," <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019338255#b0245" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Science Direct</a> reported. It represents this new sector for investments and innovations that work in tandem with the oceans rather than in exploitation of them.</p><p>As recently as Aug. 2020, <a href="https://www.reutersevents.com/sustainability/esg-investors-slow-make-waves-25tn-ocean-economy" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reuters</a> noted that ESG Investors, those looking to invest in opportunities that have a positive impact in environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, have been interested in "blue finance" but slow to invest.</p><p>"It is a hugely under-invested economic opportunity that is crucial to the way we have to address living on one planet," Simon Dent, director of blue investments at Mirova Natural Capital, told Reuters.</p><p>Even with slow investment, the blue economy is still expected to expand at twice the rate of the mainstream economy by 2030, Reuters reported. It already contributes $2.5tn a year in economic output, the report noted.</p><p>Current, upward <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/-innovation-blue-economy-2646147405.html" target="_self">shifts in blue economy investments are being driven by innovation</a>, a trend the UN hopes will continue globally for the benefit of all oceans and people.</p><p>In Israel, this push has successfully translated into investment in and innovation of global ports, shipping, logistics and offshore sectors. The "Startup Nation," as Israel is often called, has seen its maritime tech ecosystem grow "significantly" in recent years and expects that growth to "accelerate dramatically," <a href="https://itrade.gov.il/belgium-english/how-israel-is-becoming-a-port-of-call-for-maritime-innovation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">iTrade</a> reported.</p><p>Driving this wave of momentum has been rising Israeli venture capital hub <a href="https://www.thedockinnovation.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">theDOCK</a>. Founded by Israeli Navy veterans in 2017, theDOCK works with early-stage companies in the maritime space to bring their solutions to market. The hub's pioneering efforts ignited Israel's maritime technology sector, and now, with their new fund, theDOCK is motivating these high-tech solutions to also address ESG criteria.</p><p>"While ESG has always been on theDOCK's agenda, this theme has become even more of a priority," Nir Gartzman, theDOCK's managing partner, told EcoWatch. "80 percent of the startups in our portfolio (for theDOCK's Navigator II fund) will have a primary or secondary contribution to environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria."</p><p>In a company presentation, theDOCK called contribution to the ESG agenda a "hot discussion topic" for traditional players in the space and their boards, many of whom are looking to adopt new technologies with a positive impact on the planet. The focus is on reducing carbon emissions and protecting the environment, the presentation outlines. As such, theDOCK also explicitly screens candidate investments by ESG criteria as well.</p><p>Within the maritime space, environmental innovations could include measures like increased fuel and energy efficiency, better monitoring of potential pollution sources, improved waste and air emissions management and processing of marine debris/trash into reusable materials, theDOCK's presentation noted.</p>
theDOCK team includes (left to right) Michal Hendel-Sufa, Head of Alliances, Noa Schuman, CMO, Nir Gartzman, Co-Founder & Managing Partner, and Hannan Carmeli, Co-Founder & Managing Partner. Dudu Koren<p>theDOCK's own portfolio includes companies like Orca AI, which uses an intelligent collision avoidance system to reduce the probability of oil or fuel spills, AiDock, which eliminates the use of paper by automating the customs clearance process, and DockTech, which uses depth "crowdsourcing" data to map riverbeds in real-time and optimize cargo loading, thereby reducing trips and fuel usage while also avoiding groundings.</p><p>"Oceans are a big opportunity primarily because they are just that – big!" theDOCK's Chief Marketing Officer Noa Schuman summarized. "As such, the magnitude of their criticality to the global ecosystem, the magnitude of pollution risk and the steps needed to overcome those challenges – are all huge."</p><p>There is hope that this wave of interest and investment in environmentally-positive maritime technologies will accelerate the blue economy and ESG investing even further, in Israel and beyond.</p>
- 14 Countries Commit to Ocean Sustainability Initiative - EcoWatch ›
- These 11 Innovations Are Protecting Ocean Life - EcoWatch ›
- How Innovation Is Driving the Blue Economy - EcoWatch ›