ExxonMobil Acknowledges Greenhouse Gasses Contribute to Global Warming

[scott]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16475341/site/newsweek/

‘Greenwashing’ Oil
A report says the world’s largest corporation funded studies that cast doubts on the link between fossil fuels and climate change.

Web Exclusive
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
Updated: 6:10 p.m. CT Jan 4, 2007

Jan. 4, 2007 - For more than three decades, the tobacco industry carried on a campaign of disinformation intended to mislead Americans about the health risks of smoking—a strategy that has been dubbed “manufacturing uncertainty” in the minds of consumers. And ever since global warming emerged as an environmental threat, there has been a well-funded public campaign to cast doubt on the scientific consensus about the danger of global warming and its source in fossil-fuel combustion. A report this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists finds a parallel between the efforts to whitewash tobacco and “greenwash” oil—and points the finger of responsibility at the world’s largest corporation, ExxonMobil.


Under its former chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, who retired in 2005 as one of the best-paid corporate executives in history, ExxonMobil was well known for its hostility to government regulations on emissions of carbon dioxide. But, according to the report, the op-eds and position papers were only the visible tip of Exxon’s effort to fund a small group of researchers and an overlapping network of think tanks that could be relied on to spread the message that global warming was nothing to worry about—or at least, nothing the government could or should do anything about. Their frequently repeated call for “sound science” on global warming echoes the tobacco industry’s endless demand for more research on whether cigarettes really, truly, unquestionably cause cancer.

Of course, cigarette companies weren’t concerned just about future sales, but the billions of dollars in compensation they eventually had to … umm … cough up. ExxonMobil’s motivation, presumably, is to protect a fantastically lucrative market: its 2005 profits of $36 billion made it the most profitable corporation in history. But that very wealth puts them in a position both to shape and eventually dominate the postcarbon energy world, if they choose to do so. Ironically, as the report points out, the company and its shareholders will suffer if it gets left behind in the transition to less polluting forms of energy.

For its part, ExxonMobil—after promulgating, and then withdrawing 20 minutes later, a statement that called the report an “attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion”—wants you to know that it now accepts some responsibility for global warming. Specifically, and in boldface, it admitted that “It is clear today that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions.” That would seem, on the face of it, to contradict the assertions of some of its favored researchers in the ever-shrinking coterie of global-warming skeptics. The question, of course, is what specific policies ExxonMobil is willing to accept to curb those emissions. With a new Congress taking office, climate change is likely to be a much more salient issue this year than it has been for the last six—so ExxonMobil will have the chance to show if it means what it’s saying now.

[smeagol]

Scott, global warming is a lie. You should know this. Ask xray if you don't believe me.

[scott]

ExxonMobil is just part of the liberal media.

[Guru of Nothing]

JohnnyBlaze, would you recommend a degree in marketing for budding journalists?

[xrayzebra]

Scott, global warming is a lie. You should know this. Ask xray if you don't believe me.

I have never said there wasn't global warming. I state that man is not
the cause of global warming. Mother Nature does her down thing, in her
own time. Man made global warming is a path to more taxation of the
so called rich nations to give to the third world nations.

[boutons_]

To use a hot buzz phrase, I think we are seeing a "tipping point" where even the culpable parties admit

1)global warming is real
2) can be a real problem
3) is caused by human activities

This is a first step, but don't count on the oilmen in the WH to do fuck all about it, except maybe veto any legislation attacking greenhouse emissions.

=============

btw:

January 6, 2007

Falling Oil Prices Should Help Drivers

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:36 a.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- U.S. drivers could start seeing lower prices at the pump as early as this weekend, thanks to the cascading price of crude oil and a seasonal dip in gasoline, analysts say.

A gallon of regular unleaded gasoline costs an average of $2.325 across the country, according to the AAA.

''That's probably going to be the highest price you pay in January,'' Oil Price Information Service analyst Tom Kloza said. ''We're going to get a nice little energy price dividend in January: If you're buying heating oil, you're going to pay a lot less than last year, and we're definitely going to be paying less for gasoline than we did in December.''

Gasoline prices typically fall in January amid weaker demand, Kloza said, before perking back up around Valentine's Day and rising through the summer.

Also helping to temper gasoline prices is the recent slide in crude oil prices. Light, sweet crude for February delivery dropped as low as $54.90 Friday -- the lowest price in 19 months -- before climbing back to settle at $56.31, up 72 cents on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

After sharp drops on Wednesday and Thursday, crude prices fell nearly 8 percent for the week, the biggest one-week drop since April of 2005.

February Brent crude on London's ICE Futures exchange rose 53 cents to settle at $55.64, after earlier dropping as low as $54.50.

Gasoline prices rose less than a penny to $1.493 after earlier falling as low as $1.46.

Kloza, though, said drivers shouldn't expect retail gasoline prices to drop as steeply as crude prices. Many retailers were unable to pass along higher wholesale costs in December, and they'll likely hold onto some of the price drop for themselves, he said.

A warmer winter has meant less demand for heating fuels, and the National Weather Service is forecasting continued mild conditions in the eastern United States. Temperatures could reach the upper 60s in New York on Saturday before cooling off but remaining above normal into next week, meteorologist Dennis Feltgen said.

Another factor is some investment and pension funds leaving commodities and moving money back into stocks, said Phil Flynn, vice president and senior market analyst at Alaron Trading Corp.

''We're catching a falling knife right now,'' he said. ''I think we're going to struggle to find a bottom in the mid 50s here and start working back up.''

But if prices fall further, they could drop close to $50, he said.

Ministers of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries are waiting to see whether the lower price trend continues before taking any further action, the chairman of Libya's oil company said Friday.

''We are concerned -- of course,'' Shokri Ghanem told Dow Jones Newswires from Tripoli. ''We need to see if this trend continues as it has only been for two days so far.''

Natural gas in underground storage fell by 47 billion cubic feet to 3.07 trillion last week, according to the Energy Information Administration. Traders and analysts had been expecting a withdrawal of 55 billion cubic feet, according to a Dow Jones Newswires survey.

Natural gas prices rose 2.2 cents to $6.184 per 1,000 cubic feet.

''It now seems that we might get some colder weather after January 20th, but some are wondering if that could be too little, too late,'' analyst Peter Beutel of energy consultancy Cameron Hanover wrote in his daily note.

U.S. crude inventories declined last week by 1.3 million barrels to 319.7 million barrels compared with the previous week, the EIA reported Thursday. Analysts on average had expected crude stocks to rise by 930,000 barrels, according to a survey by Dow Jones Newswires.

However, distillate inventories, which include diesel fuel and heating oil, increased by 2 million barrels to 135.6 million barrels as warm winter weather hurt demand. Distillate stocks were expected to increase by an average of 1.15 million barrels.

In other Nymex trading, heating oil futures rose less than a cent to $1.5658 a gallon and had dropped as low as $1.5334 earlier in the session.

==================

The falling oil prices will suck $Bs out of the profits Iran,Russia, Chavez get, to the world's benefit.

But falling oil prices will encourage prolifgate consumption, which will drive up oil prices as the oil cartel restrics supply to push prices up to $75.

======================

btw, I can't find the article, but it has been observed that the oilcos are NOT reducing fuel prices as quickly as the oil prices fall, and of course never as quickly as the oilcos RAISE the fuel prices when the oil price is going up/high.

[smeagol]

Man made global warming is a path to more taxation of the so called rich nations to give to the third world nations.

Sure.

Poor old rich countries who never take advantage of the poor countries. :sleep

[smeagol]

btw, I can't find the article, but it has been observed that the oilcos are NOT reducing fuel prices as quickly as the oil prices fall, and of course never as quickly as the oilcos RAISE the fuel prices when the oil price is going up/high.

Dude, you would fit right in with my leftist Argentine friends. :lol

[boutons_]

if they're female and pretty, fitting in sounds like a good plan

[01Snake]

if they're female and pretty, fitting in sounds like a good plan

Cheat on Dan? Tisk Tisk

[Nbadan]

Now that denying the existence of global warming is laughable, the Oilco talking-point has morphed into, but it's not our fault. :lol

[xrayzebra]

Sure.

Poor old rich countries who never take advantage of the poor countries. :sleep


It is my money and I might add your wife's money and every other person
on this sites money, if they pay taxes, that the old rich countries would
have to give away.

And take advantage of the poor countries, give me a break. We pay for
everything we get from the poor countries.

[MannyIsGod]

It is my money and I might add your wife's money and every other person
on this sites money, if they pay taxes, that the old rich countries would
have to give away.

And take advantage of the poor countries, give me a break. We pay for
everything we get from the poor countries.:lmao x 24082943825093457409583298509476927098723-95720985723-945329572395-7325092375092375023752075308723857-3957319-67423695=437608-75803275813067890476437 to the motherfucking 93485093480943853 power

[xrayzebra]

:24082943825093457409583298509476927098723-95720985723-945329572395-7325092375092375023752075308723857-3957319-67423695=437608-75803275813067890476437 to the motherfucking 93485093480943853 power

Yeah that is about what we have paid in my lifetime.

But Manny I know you think the US is just a mean old country robbing the
world of its resources and polluting all the air/water/destroying everything
on earth for our pure enjoyment.
:madrun

[MannyIsGod]

Don't put words in my mouth. It isn't my fault your statements are pretty ignorant and outrageous. What exactly is it that you're paying for?

[xrayzebra]

Don't put words in my mouth. It isn't my fault your statements are pretty ignorant and outrageous. What exactly is it that you're paying for?


I put nothing in your mouth, dude! You make statements and then
call me ignorant and outrageous.

If I consume it, I pay for it. Just like you and the rest of the folks
in this country. In short, if it comes from a "poor" nation it was bought
and paid for.

[smeagol]

And take advantage of the poor countries, give me a break. We pay for everything we get from the poor countries.

I have said this a million times, but here it goes again.

Are you familiar with the grotesque subsidies the US, Europe and Japan pay their inefficient farmers in order to compete with Third World farmers?

Are you aware of the outrageous tariffs applied to certain products coming from Third World countries which the rich countries use to protect their inefficient industries (steel is the one that comes immediately to mind)?

Go and do some research and get back to me.

[johnsmith]

I have said this a million times, but here it goes again.

Are you familiar with the grotesque subsidies the US, Europe and Japan pay their inefficient farmers in order to compete with Third World farmers?

Are you aware of the outrageous tariffs applied to certain products coming from Third World countries which the rich countries use to protect their inefficient industries (steel is the one that comes immediately to mind)?

Go and do some research and get back to me.


Do you know the prices that contractors are having to pay for steel nowadays? Or how much heavy industrial equipment costs to contractors due to the steel prices? The world's steel supply is being eaten up by China, not the United States and any outrageous tariff applied to the importing of steel is paid for by the United States economy.



I know about steel.

[xrayzebra]

I have said this a million times, but here it goes again.

Are you familiar with the grotesque subsidies the US, Europe and Japan pay their inefficient farmers in order to compete with Third World farmers?

Are you aware of the outrageous tariffs applied to certain products coming from Third World countries which the rich countries use to protect their inefficient industries (steel is the one that comes immediately to mind)?

Go and do some research and get back to me.

Could you please direct me to a link where a third world nation's farmers
are more efficient than the US farmers.

And by the way would you please check out where produce comes from
the next time you are in the grocery store.

Thank You

[smeagol]

Could you please direct me to a link where a third world nation's farmers are more efficient than the US farmers.

I can direct you to websites that show the amount of money the developed world spends on subsidizing its farmers. If a country needs to subsidize an industry (in this case the agricultural industry), then that industry cannot compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/subsidies/index.htm (http://)


And by the way would you please check out where produce comes from the next time you are in the grocery store.

And this denies the existence of subsidies how . . .?

[johnsmith]

I still want to hear about steel.

[smeagol]

I still want to hear about steel.
The US applies very high tariffs on steel that is produced overseas by companies that are not present in the US. Most of these companies are from the Third World. They do this to protect the local inefficient steel mills.

[MannyIsGod]

Do you know the prices that contractors are having to pay for steel nowadays? Or how much heavy industrial equipment costs to contractors due to the steel prices? The world's steel supply is being eaten up by China, not the United States and any outrageous tariff applied to the importing of steel is paid for by the United States economy.



I know about steel.Your comments make no sense. The US is artificialy raising the price of steel with tarrifs to help out the Americna steel companies, so if you're upset about the money that contracters have to pay for items in the steel industry then you need look no further than our government for a good deal of the blame.

Yes, the tarrifs applied to the steel imports are paid for by the American economny; that being the average american consumer. It is ridiculous for our government to be bitching about free trade this and free trade that while applying tariffs and other protectionist measures. It hurts the steel industry in other countries and hurts the average American's pocket.

[boutons_]

"free trade"

... is a myth.

[johnsmith]

Your comments make no sense. The US is artificialy raising the price of steel with tarrifs to help out the Americna steel companies, so if you're upset about the money that contracters have to pay for items in the steel industry then you need look no further than our government for a good deal of the blame.

Yes, the tarrifs applied to the steel imports are paid for by the American economny; that being the average american consumer. It is ridiculous for our government to be bitching about free trade this and free trade that while applying tariffs and other protectionist measures. It hurts the steel industry in other countries and hurts the average American's pocket.


You're right.
But now I'm confused, why would we tax imported steel so high knowing full well that there is a world wide steel shortage?

Honestly, I always just assumed our steel prices were so outrageous because of the demand China has caused (which it is), but why then do we further drive up prices on ourselves?

This question is for all those smarter then me..........which is pretty much everyone.

[MannyIsGod]

Could you please direct me to a link where a third world nation's farmers
are more efficient than the US farmers.

And by the way would you please check out where produce comes from
the next time you are in the grocery store.

Thank YouYou don't need a link to tell you when something is more efficent. You need only look at the cost. American produce is much more expensive, but they are able to sell it at a loss due the fact that American farm companies get a shitload of money depending on how much they grow. Those are subsidies and those are what Smeagol is talking about.

Because they can afford to sell their produce at a loss, they can compete with produce from other countries but only because our tax dollars go to them. In other words, we pay more in an indirect way and tax dollars go to waste all while 3rd world farmers can't compete here because of that.

All in all, the money goes to line the pockets of a few farm companies while the tax payers pay more and the 3rd world farmers lose a market. Wooohooo!

[johnsmith]

"free trade"

... is a myth.


"Dry land is not a myth"
-What's his nuts from the movie Waterworld

[MannyIsGod]

You're right.
But now I'm confused, why would we tax imported steel so high knowing full well that there is a world wide steel shortage?

Honestly, I always just assumed our steel prices were so outrageous because of the demand China has caused (which it is), but why then do we further drive up prices on ourselves?

This question is for all those smarter then me..........which is pretty much everyone.Because it makes American steel products more attractive to the steel market here. It's political pandering (as all subsidies are) to a specific group - in this case the steel industry [the companies, unions, and cities like Pittsburgh] at the expense of everyone else.

[MannyIsGod]

"free trade"

... is a myth.
No its not.

[johnsmith]

Because it makes American steel products more attractive to the steel market here. It's political pandering (as all subsidies are) to a specific group - in this case the steel industry [the companies, unions, and cities like Pittsburgh] at the expense of everyone else.


Yeah, but the prices for American steel are the same as they are on an international level. By the way, when I say steel I'm referring to structural steel and heavy equipment.

[smeagol]

You don't need a link to tell you when something is more efficent. You need only look at the cost. American produce is much more expensive, but they are able to sell it at a loss due the fact that American farm companies get a shitload of money depending on how much they grow. Those are subsidies and those are what Smeagol is talking about.

Because they can afford to sell their produce at a loss, they can compete with produce from other countries but only because our tax dollars go to them. In other words, we pay more in an indirect way and tax dollars go to waste all while 3rd world farmers can't compete here because of that.

All in all, the money goes to line the pockets of a few farm companies while the tax payers pay more and the 3rd world farmers lose a market. Wooohooo!
Could not have put it better myself.

This is why I like you dude.

[smeagol]

The starter of this thread will disagree with me and will get pissed off because I have derailed it.

[Duff McCartney]

It is my money and I might add your wife's money and every other person
on this sites money, if they pay taxes, that the old rich countries would
have to give away.

Apparently you haven't heard of to whom much is given much is required. Yeah it is your money...so go ahead and keep it. You earned it...doing what I don't know? Helping humanity? Bettering mankind? Probably not.

[Duff McCartney]

And by the way would you please check out where produce comes from
the next time you are in the grocery store.

Alot of it comes from Latin America...especially here in the United States. It's obvious you've never heard of the United Fruit Company or the term banana republic.

[Oscar DeLa]

i dont know what it is but one time i took a picture of myself looking at my tshlong

[xrayzebra]

Alot of it comes from Latin America...especially here in the United States. It's obvious you've never heard of the United Fruit Company or the term banana republic.

Once again, it is all our fault, we exploit everyone and give nothing back.
Of course don't consider the jobs provided by the mean old American
company.

Better yet, don't eat the bananas.

[xrayzebra]

Apparently you haven't heard of to whom much is given much is required. Yeah it is your money...so go ahead and keep it. You earned it...doing what I don't know? Helping humanity? Bettering mankind? Probably not.

Well you got one thing right in the above statement: "doing what I don't
know?"

That is an improvement.
:lol

[smeagol]

Once again, it is all our fault, we exploit everyone and give nothing back.
Of course don't consider the jobs provided by the mean old American
company.

Better yet, don't eat the bananas.
Let me clue you on one thing. Not everything the US does is great and should be applauded.

Subsidies and tariffs suck.

Unfortunately, you are ignorant on the subject.

[xrayzebra]

Let me clue you on one thing. Not everything the US does is great and should be applauded.

Subsidies and tariffs suck.

Unfortunately, you are ignorant on the subject.

Well, well. I happen to differ with you. Which I am sure you will
applaud. The US does make mistakes, but most of what we do
is great and should be applauded.

The United States has shed more blood, given more of our wealth
than any country in the history of the world. And I suspect we
will continue to do so. We have never kept any territory we have
conquered. Yes, MAYBE, some companies have to a degree, exploited
some countries. But in many cases what you would call exploit ion was
really God send to those people, who in many cases were living
below a human level to begin with.

In short, stick it in your ear. You are here exploiting our country. Simply
because you take a higher wage here than you can get in your own
country. Right?

As far as subsides and tariffs, they have existed from time immoral
and will continue to exist. The third world nations use them extensively
and will continue to use them. They are a fact of life. So live with it.

[Duff McCartney]

The United States has shed more blood, given more of our wealth
than any country in the history of the world. And I suspect we
will continue to do so.

For all the blood that we have shed and money we have given..there's just as much that has been shed by the dictators we have propped up in places like the Congo and Honduras.

And for all the money we give just as much if not more is given to these corrupt dictators and has been given to them time and time again. While they abuse and reign terror on their people, we turn the other cheek because they support us.

[scott]

I guess I missed WTF any of this has to do with Global Warming and ExxonMobil's admission of their contribution to it

[smeagol]

The US does make mistakes, but most of what we do
is great and should be applauded.

The US does many things very well and they should be applauded. That being said, obviously your red, white and blue colored glasses do not allow you to see things the way other countries see them.


The United States has shed more blood

What does this mean? In the two World Wars? In the 20th C wars? In the history of mankind?




On an absolute basis? Maybe. If you are the richest country in the world, chances are you will give more.

As a % of GDP? I don’t think so.

[QUOTE=xrayzebra] We have never kept any territory we have conquered.

The Philippines?



Yes, MAYBE, some companies have to a degree, exploited some countries. But in many cases what you would call exploit ion was really God send to those people, who in many cases were living below a human level to begin with.

So?

Tariffs and subsidies have nothing to do with US companies operating overseas. Stick to the point.


In short, stick it in your ear. You are here exploiting our country. Simply because you take a higher wage here than you can get in your own country. Right?

Wrong. I work here because my American employer first, and my French employer currently, believe no American can do the work I do. It said so in my Visa and it is the reason I have a green card. And this may hurt you, ray, but in the not so distant future, because of this quality, I will have a chance of become a US citizen.


As far as subsides and tariffs, they have existed from time immoraland will continue to exist. The third world nations use them extensively and will continue to use them. They are a fact of life. So live with it.

Oh, so is this one of the things I should applaud the US for (continuing with such a practice, that is)?

[smeagol]

I guess I missed WTF any of this has to do with Global Warming and ExxonMobil's admission of their contribution to it



The starter of this thread will disagree with me and will get pissed off because I have derailed it.

:depressed

[scott]

I don't know what there is to disagree with you about other than the uselessness of trying to talk sense to XRay.

[smeagol]

I don't know what there is to disagree with you about other than the uselessness of trying to talk sense to XRay.
A long time ago we debated on thread about agricultural subsidies from rich countries and we had a disagreement.

My comment was harmless.

[johnsmith]

A long time ago we debated on thread about agricultural subsidies from rich countries and we had a disagreement.

My comment was harmless.


Welcome to America Smeagol. I don't know how long you've been here, but way to (eventually) become a citizen the legal way.


See Mexico, we encourage the legal way.

[smeagol]

Welcome to America Smeagol. I don't know how long you've been here, but way to (eventually) become a citizen the legal way.
9 years, although I'll be back in Argentina as of February (no more League Pass :depressed :madrun :pctoss :wtf ).

I will be back in the US often (once a month) for work reasons, and keep an address here in NYC. If xray keeps bugging me I'll become a citizen simply to annoy his old Texan ass :lol

Nevertheless, I will keep posting on ST from wherever I am (that will never change). :smokin

[xrayzebra]

9 years, although I'll be back in Argentina as of February (no more League Pass :depressed :madrun :pctoss :wtf ).

I will be back in the US often (once a month) for work reasons, and keep an address here in NYC. If xray keeps bugging me I'll become a citizen simply to annoy his old Texan ass :lol

Nevertheless, I will keep posting on ST from wherever I am (that will never change). :smokin

You wont annoy me. You did it the legal way. Happy to have you.
But it wont stop me from bugging you either.....
:lol

[scott]

And now...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 12:42 p.m. CT Jan 12, 2007
NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.”

Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions.

CEI acknowledged the change. “I would make an argument that we’re a useful ally, but it’s up to them whether that’s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,” director Fred Smith said on CNBC’s “On the Money.”

Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.

Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. Several lawmakers on Friday introduced a bill to curb emissions.

President Bush has opposed mandatory emissions cuts such as those required by the international Kyoto Protocol. He withdrew the United States, the world’s top carbon emitter, from the Kyoto pact early in his first term.

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the new Senate majority leader, has said he wants new legislation this spring to regulate heat-trapping emissions. Other legislators also are planning hearings on emissions.

Scenarios studied
The industry talks center on the range of greenhouse gas policy options such as cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes, said Roy Kopp, head of the climate program at RFF. There also will be debates on whether rules should focus on companies producing oil, gas and coal, which release CO2 when burned, or consumers who use the fuels.

To spur open industry discussion, RFF said the talks, which began in December, exclude nongovernmental organizations.

Some see Exxon’s participation in the talks, coupled with its pledge to stop funding CEI, as early signs of a possible policy change.

“The fact that Exxon is trying to debate solutions, instead of whether climate change even exists, represents an important shift,” said Andrew Logan, a climate expert at Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmentalists that works with companies to cut climate change risks.

Exxon’s funding action was confirmed this week by its vice president for public affairs. Kenneth Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that Exxon decided in late 2005 that its 2006 nonprofit funding would not include CEI and "five or six" similar groups.

Cohen declined to identify the other groups, but their names could become public this spring when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups.

Scoring oil
In a report last year on how oil majors are addressing global warming emissions, Ceres gave Exxon a 35 — the worst of any company. Oil majors BP and Royal Dutch Shell got 90 and 79, respectively.

“Given how large and influential Exxon is and that they are basically the last big industry climate skeptic standing, even small moves can have a very big impact,” said Logan.

But he said it was too early to tell the substance of the change. “The devil is in the details,” he said.

Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that while questions remain about the degree to which fossil fuels are contributing to warming, the computer modelling on what the future may hold “has gotten better.”

And, he said, “we know enough now — or, society knows enough now — that the risk is serious and action should be taken.”

Peter Fusaro, a carbon markets expert, noted that Exxon already must comply with Kyoto regulations in other countries, and said the company may want to simplify compliance standards throughout its international operations.

“Multinational companies are under the gun to comply with Kyoto,” he said. “It’s starting to crystallize that companies can’t have dual environmental standards.”

Philip Sharp, president of Resources for the Future, told the Wall Street Journal that he was impressed by Exxon. “They are taking this debate very seriously,” said Sharp, a former Democratic congressman. “My personal opinion of them has changed by watching them operate.”

Reuters contributed to this report.