Environmental Law Prof Blog

More and more interesting: ExxonMobil to Explain AEI Funding

One of the bloggers who participated in the recent conference call with Ken Cohen of ExxonMobil has brought an interesting article to our attention.  It claims that American Enterprise Institute, heavily funded by ExxonMobil, is offering a travel funds + $10,000 bounty to scientists willing to publish articles downplaying and criticising the IPCC findings.  Cohen had claimed in our conversation that Exxon was no longer funding organizations that devote efforts to challenging climate change science.  Cohen is arranging a conference call with us today to clarify this matter.  Stay tuned!!!

Real Climate Explains IPCC Conclusions on Sea Level Change

Real Climate Comments on The IPCC Fourth Assessment SPM: Sea Level Change Real Climate

When the IPCC started to release highlights to the press before today's launch of the IPCC Fourth Assessment, I was wondering why the IPCC had such low numbers for sea level change.  It turns out that the new numbers simply exclude the dynamic shifts of ice sheets because the magnitude of those shifts are not clear.  What is clear is that the increasing evidence on ice sheet dynamics all points in a single direction: ice sheet dynamics will substantially increase the sea level change expected from a given change in mean temperature.

From Real Climate: ...First of all, given the science that has been done since the Third Assessment Report ("TAR") of 2001 - much of which has been discussed here - no one should be surprised that AR4 comes to a stronger conclusion. In particular, the report concludes that human influences on climate are 'very likely' (> 90% chance) already detectable in observational record; increased from 'likely' (> 66% chance) in the TAR. Key results here include the simulations for the 20th Century by the latest state-of-the-art climate models which demonstrate that recent trends cannot be explained without including human-related increases in greenhouse gases, and consistent evidence for ocean heating, sea ice melting, glacier melting and ecosystem shifts. This makes the projections of larger continued changes 'in the pipeline' (particularly under "business as usual" scenarios) essentially indisputable.

<>

... The uncertainties in the science mainly involve the precise nature of the changes to be expected, particularly with respect to sea level rise, El Niño changes and regional hydrological change - drought frequency and snow pack melt, mid-latitude storms, and of course, hurricanes.

....How good have previous IPCC reports been at projecting the future? Actually, over the last 16 years (since the first report in 1990), they've been remarkably good for CO₂ changes, temperature changes but actually undepredicted sea level changes.

When it comes to specific discussions, the two that are going to be mostly in the news are the projections of sea level rise and hurricanes. These issues contain a number of "known unknowns" - things that we know we don't know. For sea level rise the unknown is how large an effect dynamic shifts in the ice sheets will be. These dynamic changes have already been observed, but are outside the range of what the ice sheet models can deal with (see this previous discussion). That means that their contribution to sea level rise is rather uncertain, but with the uncertainty all on the side of making things worse (see this recent paper for an assessment (Rahmstorf , Science 2007)). The language in the SPM acknowledges that stating

"Dynamical processes related to ice flow not included in current models but suggested by recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise. Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude."

Note that some media have been comparing apples with pears here: they claimed IPCC has reduced its upper sea level limit from 88 to 59 cm, but the former number from the TAR did include this ice dynamics uncertainty, while the latter from the AR4 does not, precisely because this issue is now considered more uncertain and possibly more serious than before.

We've had a policy of (mostly) not commenting on the various drafts, misquotes and mistaken readings of the Fourth Assessment report ("AR4" to those in the acronym loop) of the IPCC. Now that the summary for policy makers (or "SPM") has actually been published though, we can discuss the substance of the report without having to worry that the details will change. This post will only be our first cut at talking about the whole report. We plan on going chapter by chapter, hopefully explaining the key issues and the remaining key uncertainties over the next few months. This report will be referenced repeatedly over the next few years, and so we can take the time to do a reasonable job explaining what's in it and why.

First of all, given the science that has been done since the Third Assessment Report ("TAR") of 2001 - much of which has been discussed here - no one should be surprised that AR4 comes to a stronger conclusion. In particular, the report concludes that human influences on climate are 'very likely' (> 90% chance) already detectable in observational record; increased from 'likely' (> 66% chance) in the TAR. Key results here include the simulations for the 20th Century by the latest state-of-the-art climate models which demonstrate that recent trends cannot be explained without including human-related increases in greenhouse gases, and consistent evidence for ocean heating, sea ice melting, glacier melting and ecosystem shifts. This makes the projections of larger continued changes 'in the pipeline' (particularly under "business as usual" scenarios) essentially indisputable.

Given all of the hoopla since the TAR, many of us were curious to see what the new report would have to say about paleoclimate reconstructions of the past 1000 years. Contrarians will no doubt be disappointed here. The conclusions have been significantly strengthened relative to what was in the TAR, something that of course should have been expected given the numerous additional studies that have since been done that all point in the same direction. The conclusion that large-scale recent warmth likely exceeds the range seen in past centuries has been extended from the past 1000 years in the TAR, to the past 1300 years in the current report, and the confidence in this conclusion has been upped from "likely" in the TAR to "very likely" in the current report for the past half millennium. This is just one of the many independent lines of evidence now pointing towards a clear anthropogenic influence on climate, but given all of the others, the paleoclimate reconstructions are now even less the central pillar of evidence for the human influence on climate than they have been incorrectly portrayed to be.

The uncertainties in the science mainly involve the precise nature of the changes to be expected, particularly with respect to sea level rise, El Niño changes and regional hydrological change - drought frequency and snow pack melt, mid-latitude storms, and of course, hurricanes. It can be fun parsing the discussions on these topics (and we expect there will be substantial press comment on them), but that shouldn't distract from the main and far more solid conclusions above.

The process of finalising the SPM (which is well described here and here) is something that can seem a little odd. Government representatives from all participating nations take the draft summary (as written by the lead authors of the individual chapters) and discuss whether the text truly reflects the underlying science in the main report. The key here is to note that what the lead authors originally came up with is not necessarily the clearest or least ambiguous language, and so the governments (for whom the report is being written) are perfectly entitled to insist that the language be modified so that the conclusions are correctly understood by them and the scientists. It is also key to note that the scientists have to be happy that the final language that is agreed conforms with the underlying science in the technical chapters. The advantage of this process is that everyone involved is absolutely clear what is meant by each sentence. Recall after the National Academies report on surface temperature reconstructions there was much discussion about the definition of 'plausible'. That kind of thing shouldn't happen with AR4.

The SPM process also serves a very useful political purpose. Specifically, it allows the governments involved to feel as though they 'own' part of the report. This makes it very difficult to later turn around and dismiss it on the basis that it was all written by someone else. This gives the governments a vested interest in making this report as good as it can be (given the uncertainties). There are in fact plenty of safeguards (not least the scientists present) to ensure that the report is not slanted in any one preferred direction. However, the downside is that it can mistakenly appear as if the whole summary is simply up for negotiation. That would be a false conclusion - the negotiations, such as they are, are in fact heavily constrained by the underlying science.

Finally, a few people have asked why the SPM is being released now while the main report is not due to be published for a couple of months. There are a number of reasons - firstly, the Paris meeting has been such a public affair that holding back the SPM until the main report is ready is probably pointless. For the main report itself, it had not yet been proof-read, and there has not yet been enough time to include observational data up until the end of 2006. One final point is that improvements in the clarity of the language from the SPM should be propagated back to the individual chapters in order to remove any superficial ambiguity. The science content will not change.

Had it been up to us, we'd have tried to get everything together so that they could be released at the same time, but maybe that would have been impossible. We note that Arctic Climate Impact Assessment in 2004 also had a similar procedure - which lead to some confusion initially since statements in the summary were not referenced.

How good have previous IPCC reports been at projecting the future? Actually, over the last 16 years (since the first report in 1990), they've been remarkably good for CO₂ changes, temperature changes but actually undepredicted sea level changes.

When it comes to specific discussions, the two that are going to be mostly in the news are the projections of sea level rise and hurricanes. These issues contain a number of "known unknowns" - things that we know we don't know. For sea level rise the unknown is how large an effect dynamic shifts in the ice sheets will be. These dynamic changes have already been observed, but are outside the range of what the ice sheet models can deal with (see this previous discussion). That means that their contribution to sea level rise is rather uncertain, but with the uncertainty all on the side of making things worse (see this recent paper for an assessment (Rahmstorf , Science 2007)). The language in the SPM acknowledges that stating

"Dynamical processes related to ice flow not included in current models but suggested by recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise. Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude."

Note that some media have been comparing apples with pears here: they claimed IPCC has reduced its upper sea level limit from 88 to 59 cm, but the former number from the TAR did include this ice dynamics uncertainty, while the latter from the AR4 does not, precisely because this issue is now considered more uncertain and possibly more serious than before.

On the hurricane/tropical strorm issue, the language is quite nuanced, as one might expect from a consensus document. The link between SST and tropical storm intensity is clearly acknowledged, but so is the gap between model projections and analyses of cyclone observations. "The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period."

We will address some of these issues and how well we think they did in specific posts over the next few weeks. There's a lot of stuff here, and even we need time to digest it!

                                     4 blog reactions

32 Comments »

Imagine: Exxon/Mobil Choosing to Save 5 million children per year

Imagine.

Imagine if Exxon decided to commit $ 7.5 billion of its record $39.5 billion profits to its foundation (which incidentally is presided over by Ken Cohen) and fund on a 1:1 matching basis any increase in foreign government spending, official donor aid, foundation aid, etc. for safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene education in developing countries.  That would no doubt produce the additional $ 15 billion/year required to meet the Millenium Development Goal of reducing by 1/2 the number of people in the world that lack safe drinking water and sanitation [[i.e. provide roughly 1 billion more people with this life-saving commodity]].

Just imagine.

Exxon's current profits:
2:55 PM ET Feb 1, 2007
HOUSTON (MarketWatch) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. turned in its biggest profit ever on Thursday, with momentum from last year's record oil prices powering the world's No. 1 publicly-traded oil company through a weaker fourth quarter to a staggering $39.5 billion profit for 2006. Exxon's annual results, up nearly 10% from $36 billion in 2005, set a new benchmark for U.S. corporate profit. Revenue for the year rose 2% to $377.6 billion -- flowing in at a rate of more than a billion dollars a day.

 

Exxon's Current Giving from its Worldwide Giving Report

In 2005, Exxon Mobil Corporation, its divisions and affiliates, and ExxonMobil Foundation, the primary philanthropic arm of the corporation in the United States, combined to provide $132.8 million in donations of cash, goods and services worldwide. Of the total, $81.1 million supported communities in the United States and $51.7 million supported communities in other countries around the world. Spending included traditional contributions to nonprofit organizations, as well as funds invested in social projects through various joint venture arrangements, production sharing agreements, projects operated by others, and contractual social bonus arrangements.

Exxon Mobil's Worldwide Giving Report

Exxon Mobil Corporation believes in creating a positive and lasting social impact by developing successful partnerships built on mutual trust and respect. With operations in nearly 200 countries and territories and more than a 120-year history, we have a long tradition of making a positive contribution in the communities and economies in which we operate.

In 2005, Exxon Mobil Corporation, its divisions and affiliates, and ExxonMobil Foundation, the primary philanthropic arm of the corporation in the United States, combined to provide $132.8 million in donations of cash, goods and services worldwide. Of the total, $81.1 million supported communities in the United States and $51.7 million supported communities in other countries around the world. Spending included traditional contributions to nonprofit organizations, as well as funds invested in social projects through various joint venture arrangements, production sharing agreements, projects operated by others, and contractual social bonus arrangements.

Beyond the Corporation’s investments, ExxonMobil employees, retirees, and their families contribute their own time and money to charitable organizations. In 2005, employees and retirees donated $35 million through ExxonMobil’s higher education, cultural, and disaster-relief matching programs and employee-giving campaigns. When combined with corporate donations, ExxonMobil, together with its employees and retirees, contributed $168 million to community investments around the world. In addition, over 12,000 ExxonMobil employees, retirees, and their families worldwide donated more than 826,000 volunteer hours to more than 5800 charitable organizations in 22 countries. In 2005, ExxonMobil and its employees and retirees contributed more than $22 million to assist with relief and recovery efforts responding to natural disasters around the world. Contributions in response to the devastating December 2004 tsunami totaled more than $11 million. In support of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita relief efforts, cash donations totaled more than $10 million and the company donated in-kind fuel and lubricants totaling almost $1 million. ExxonMobil also funded relief efforts in response to the Pakistani earthquake, Hurricane Stan (which impacted Mexico and Central America), and severe flooding in Venezuela.

Continuing our long tradition of working to improve public health in communities where we operate, we awarded more than $10 million through our Africa Health Initiative in 2005. This program, established in 2000, supports activities that contribute to the prevention, control and treatment of malaria. ExxonMobil has now contributed more than $20 million to support international and local health organizations and programs in the fight against malaria and to support important public health activities. As an extension of ExxonMobil’s long-standing support for education, we launched a new Educating Women and Girls Initiative in the developing world.  This initiative, which was funded at $3 million in 2005, is aimed at improving education opportunities for women and girls as a foundation of societal progress, development, and economic growth. By funding such programs, we believe we have targeted the most powerful development tool of all. Research consistently shows that educating women and girls yields a higher rate of return than any other community investment available in the developing world.

The key area of community investment in the United States continues to be the support of education in both the K through 12 and higher education areas. In 2005, more than $42 million was directed to the funding of education worldwide, with more than $33 million benefiting the United States to support higher education and the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). ExxonMobil also supports programs to improve career opportunities for women and under-represented groups, with specific focus on the STEM areas.

The following reports highlight ExxonMobil’s 2005 worldwide contributions and community investments of $132.8 million, list organizations in the United States that received grants of $5,000 or more, and summarize our investments benefiting countries outside the United States. Contributions reflected in these reports were made by Exxon Mobil Corporation, its divisions and affiliates, and ExxonMobil Foundation.

• 2005 Worldwide Summary

• 2005 Arts and Culture

• 2005 Civic and Community

• 2005 Environment

• 2005 Health

• 2005 Higher Education

• 2005 Pre-College Education

• 2005 Public Information and Policy Research

• 2005 United Appeals and Workplace Giving

The Heat is On!!!

<>

Senator Boxer's unprecedented, seven hour open mike marathon on global warming drew a crowd yesterday: Sen. Boxer, Clinton, Cardin, Lautenberg, Klubuchar, Whitehouse, Inhofe, Durbin, McCain, Kerry, Lincoln, Bingamen, Feinstein,  Obama,  Nelson, Murkowski, Akaka, and Levin -- plus statements from Enzi, Lugar, Snowe, Biden, Kennedy, Craig, and Feingold.  That's 1/4 of the Senate.  While the minority may object to the hearing format...it did its job of focussing attention on the issue.

From the LA Times:
WASHINGTON  - All of a sudden, global warming is hot.

After years of languishing on Capitol Hill, efforts to curb global warming have picked up momentum, powered by a growing bipartisan belief that climate change can no longer be ignored.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has declared it a top priority for the House. Presidential candidates from both parties call it one of the biggest issues faced by the next occupant of the White House. Even President Bush, long a skeptic, is sounding the alarm.

That's an abrupt break from the past, when the issue - the role man-made pollutants play in the increase in the Earth's temperature - was shrugged off by many politicians. Especially among Republicans, it was regarded as an untested theory or an alarmist fantasy.

Polls show that most Americans believe the studies that show pollution is a cause of climate change. And politicians now are scrambling to keep up with science and public opinion.

Legislation to curb global warming is still a long shot in Congress because there is no consensus on a solution. But almost all the candidates who want to succeed Bush - from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. - are far ahead of him in proposing ways to reduce carbon emissions.

"There has been a sea change in this issue over the last year," said Cathy Duvall, national political director of the Sierra Club. "It went from a backburner issue to something people understand is a problem. Now they are looking for leaders to take action."

The United States is the leading emitter of carbon dioxide, about one-quarter of the worldwide total. About 80 percent comes from fossil fuels, with power plants and vehicles as the leading culprits. Presidential politics and legislative debate came together Tuesday when McCain and several other candidates discussed their climate change legislation at a Senate hearing.

"The number of individuals in Washington who reject the clear evidence of global warming appears to be shrinking as its dramatic manifestations mount," McCain said. "We are no longer just talking about how climate change will affect our children's and grandchildren's lives, as we did just a few years ago, but we now are talking about how it is already impacting the world."

McCain, considered a front-runner for his party's presidential nomination, has introduced a bill to impose mandatory limits on the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and intends to introduce another to target vehicle emissions by raising miles-per-gallon rules. His cosponsors on the first bill include two leading Democratic presidential contenders, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

Other candidates have their own proposals. New Mexico's Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson touts his efforts to get his state to generate more electricity from cleaner sources, such as solar and wind power. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., recently introduced a resolution calling for the United States to return to international negotiations on climate change that Bush spurned.

Edwards, who ranks global warming as one of his top three issues, recently pointed out that he has given up his old-fashioned sport utility vehicle for a hybrid one. Even conservative Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., mentioned the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in announcing his candidacy.

Some states are beginning to act on their own, causing influential business leaders to call for federal regulation to avoid a patchwork of different state and local laws.

Most important, Democrats who want action on the issue now control the House and the Senate, and the party's leaders have moved it to center stage.

Pelosi has asked committees to produce legislation by July 4 and has moved to establish a special global warming committee to bypass Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., an auto industry ally who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He is seen as a potential obstacle to legislation, including new limits on tailpipe emissions.

Despite signs that Congress might shift from talking to legislating, advocates of limits on greenhouse gases warn against high expectations, noting that any measure must make it through the narrowly divided Senate and past Bush's veto.

And proposals to cap emissions, especially from coal-fueled power plants, also face opposition from many Republicans and some Democrats who contend they would harm the economy.

"There's going to be a lot of sound and fury," said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming program, "but unless something changes pretty radically, it's really hard to see how an important bill passes this Congress - and is signed by this president."

That's why many environmentalists are looking ahead to the 2008 elections. The League of Conservation Voters Education Fund has launched an initiative, called "The Heat Is On," to ensure global warming is at the center of debate. The organization is tracking what candidates say and hopes to pressure them through town hall meetings and ballot initiatives.

"We will make sure there is an expectation they will outline clear solutions," said Navin Nayak, director of the project.

Like ethanol in Iowa, global warming could become a litmus-test issue for candidates in New Hampshire, which holds the first primary. More than 100 towns are planning votes on a resolution calling for federal action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Ted Leach, a Republican and former state lawmaker from New Hampshire, is co-chairman of the Carbon Coalition, which persuaded the towns to weigh in. He has issued a warning to contenders: "If we don't hear out of you what we want to hear, you're probably not going to get our votes."

The 2008 presidential candidate most deeply involved in the issue is McCain, who has for years pushed legislation to impose mandatory limits on emissions that contribute to global warming. It is a goal that has put him at odds with most in his party, and one that helped him build his reputation as a maverick.

A Little Different Take

During the last Congress, Michael Crichton, famed climate change novelist testified about the uncertainty of climate change science.  Now, Rep. Waxman is asking the hard questions about how the White House manipulated the federal government's climate change scientists.  What a difference an election can make!

AP reported:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government's response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, said he and the top Republican on his oversight committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, have sought documents from the administration on climate policy, but repeatedly been rebuffed.

"The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security," said Waxman, opening the hearing. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists."

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," Waxman said.

Administration officials were not scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change. Present Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly.

Waxman said his committee had not received documents it requested from the White House and other agencies, and that a handful of papers received on the eve of the hearing "add nothing to our inquiry."

Two private advocacy groups, meanwhile, presented to the panel a survey of government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

Survey: Scientists pressured to downplay threat

The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.

The questionnaire was sent by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private advocacy group. The report also was based on "firsthand experiences" described in interviews with the Government Accountability Project, which helps government whistleblowers, lawmakers were told.

<>

....At the Waxman hearing, the two advocacy groups said their research -- based on the questionnaires, interviews and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act -- revealed "evidence of widespread interference in climate science in federal agencies."

The groups report described largely anonymous claims by scientists that their findings at times at been misrepresented, that they had been pressured to change findings and had been restricted on what they were allowed to say publicly.

The survey involved scientists across the government from NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency to the department's of Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, Defense and Interior. In all the government employees more than 2,000 scientists who spend at least some of their time on climate issues, the report said.

TheSeminar on Economics of Climate Change

The Stern Review  and the Economic Impact of Climate Change
      
Resources for the Future is pleased to host a special seminar on the economics of climate change featuring a discussion on the recently released Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm> . Compiled by Sir Nicholas Stern, head of the United Kingdom's Government Economics Service and adviser to the U.K. government on the economics of climate change and development, the Stern Review is the first major government-sponsored report on the economics of climate change.

This technical seminar provides a rare public opportunity in the United States for members of the Stern Review  team and outside experts to discuss and answer questions about the methodologies and conclusions of the Stern Review and the economic analysis of climate change more generally.  One hour of the event will be dedicated to addressing questions from attendees in order to engage in a broader discussion of these issues.
                
        Moderator:                      
        Billy Pizer, Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future
                        
       Panelists:
        Alex Bowen, Senior Economic Adviser, The Stern Review      
       Henry (Jake) Jacoby, Professor of Management and Economics,
                                Massachusetts Institute of Technology
       Joe Aldy, Fellow, Resources for the Future
  
When:            Wednesday, February 14, 2007, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

                         
Where:            Kelley Auditorium
                        Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
                        1740 Massachusetts Avenue, NW (one block east of Dupont Circle)
 Washington, D.C.

No Surprise: No Surprises from Exxon

(Original 1/30; revised 2/6 to add links to other participants' reports)
Here's the scoop from our conference call with Ken Cohen, VP Public Affairs, Exxon/Mobil.  Obviously, as one would expect, given his background, bio Ken Cohen is an intelligent, well-informed, and articulate spokesman for Exxon/Mobil's position on climate change.   

Cohen attempted to downplay Exxon's historic role on climate change by (a) tracing criticism of Exxon back to its opposition to Kyoto (which everyone is supposed to forgive and forget), (b) noting its defunding of CEI in 2005 (but not addressing the remainder of disinformation organizations supported by its "policy" funding), (c) pointing to its generous funding of scientific research, and (d) arguing that Exxon is energy efficient internally.  He answered criticism of Exxon by investors and investment advisers by noting that their criticism is based upon (a) and Exxon's limited involvement in alternative energy projects due to its refusal to fund energy projects that are not currently economically viable without government subsidies. 

Cohen did not foreshadow Exxon's position on any of the pending national legislative proposals -- merely noting that Exxon would study them with certain "first principles" in mind:

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
• provide transparency to companies and consumers
• adjust to new developments in climate science and the economic impacts of policies

As Cohen analyzes cap and trade, it is a market based approach, so far so good.  However, he differentiates between "downstream" and "upstream" caps -- on whether the caps are upstream caps on energy production or downstream caps on carbon emission.  The former flunk the "uniformity" test.  Cohen also suggests that cap and trade, at least as administered in the EU, may flunk Exxon's "minimize complexity and administrative costs" criterion.  Cohen avoids taking any position by arguing that "the devil is in the details."  Similarly, when questioned about whether a carbon tax better meets Exxon's policy principles, Cohen noted that economists would argue it does, that any tax must be "revenue-neutral", and that as always "the devil is in the details." 

Cohen suggests that Exxon will need to examine current policy proposals "under a microscope."  Personally, I find it implausible that Exxon has not analyzed these proposals and has not suggestions about how they could be modified to better comply with its first principles.  Exxon is remaining uncommitted in order to be the dealmaker.

Cohen artfully stresses the need to consider costs in choosing mitigation options, pointing to Exxon's comparison of cost of avoiding a ton of CO2:
basically modifying power generation rather than the use of gasoline in light duty vehicles is far cheaper.  As to power generation, Exxon considers gas to be the cheapest option, followed by nuclear and clean coal, followed by wind -- with solar currently infeasible.  As to vehicles, Exxon considers cellulose ethanol to be most promising, although still requiring research, with conventional ethanol and hybrids much more costly.  Cohen noted that conventional ethanol has costed roughly $ 4 whereas the price of gasoline has been about $ 2.  [So it would take a pretty sizable carbon teax to shift consumers towards ethanol!!!].

Cohen disclaimed the position that developed countries should not act on climate change unless the developing countries act.  He indicated that Exxon's statements raising the competing priorities of poverty eradication, standards of living, and economic development were merely designed to highlight the reality that the developing world will address climate change with these competing priorities in mind.   But, sub silentio, he suggested that developed countries should consider these priorities in formulating climate change policy.

Cohen also stressed that alternative energy is not likely to contribute greatly to meeting the world's energy demand, without suggesting in any manner that the projected demand must be significantly reduced.

So....Exxon wants to change perception, without changing its position.  It carved out its niche as a climate change policy resister and a single bottom line evaluator of alternative energy projects.  It is seeking to modify the public's perception that it is a environmental neanderthal.  That perception is underscored by recent news about Exxon's appeal of the Valdez verdict and spills from its NY refineries (see stories from Energy 360 below).  Exxon thinks that communicating its climate change position more clearly will make public reaction more favorable.  But, that position seems to be that oil can and should remain king in transportation, that climate science remains uncertain (although they concede that some climate mitigation action needs to be taken), that it loves free markets, that we need to go slow on climate change policy ("move gradually")and that alternative energy is currently too expensive to develop.  Good luck on getting favorable public reaction to that!

Exxon, however, is not necessarily evil or stupid.  Exxon is simply betting that the best niche to carve out is: alternative energy pessimist and "go slow" advocate.  Because of its massive size, it does not need to seek to be perceived as an industry leader on climate policy -- especially because Exxon would have to dramatically change its position in order to achieve that honor.  Exxon apparently believes it can just sit back, wait, and be the dealmaker on climate change policy, and the spoiler of any climate policy it doesn't care for.

We'll see.  I think that responsible American lawmakers will be loathe to let Exxon stand in the way of a sensible climate policy.  And if Exxon doesn't attempt to secure more of a leadership position in the industry, it may simply lose its place at the table.

Here's the information Exxon provided:
climate_framework_exxonmobil.pdf
exxonmobil_climate_change_backgrounder.doc

Links to other participants:
Oil Drum:  Initial conference call report and AEI follow-up
Watthead: Initial conference call report
Energy Bulletin: Republishing Oil Drum

See these stories from Energy 360 (subscription required -- trial subscription available).

Bush EO on Energy: A Halting Step in the Right Direction

                                                   

<>

January 24, 2007

Executive Order: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the environmental, energy, and transportation management of Federal agencies, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States that Federal agencies conduct their environmental, transportation, and energy-related activities under the law in support of their respective missions in an environmentally, economically and fiscally sound, integrated, continuously improving, efficient, and sustainable manner.

Sec. 2. Goals for Agencies.  In implementing the policy set forth in section 1 of this order, the head of each agency shall:

(a)  improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions of the agency, through reduction of energy intensity by (i) 3 percent annually through the end of fiscal year 2015, or (ii) 30 percent by the end of fiscal year 2015, relative to the baseline of the agency's energy use in fiscal year 2003;

(b)  ensure that (i) at least half of the statutorily required renewable energy consumed by the agency in a fiscal year comes from new renewable sources, and (ii) to the extent feasible, the agency implements renewable energy generation projects on agency property for agency use;

(c)  beginning in FY 2008, reduce water consumption intensity, relative to the baseline of the agency's water consumption in fiscal year 2007, through life-cycle cost-effective measures by 2 percent annually through the end of fiscal year 2015 or 16 percent by the end of fiscal year 2015;

(d)  require in agency acquisitions of goods and services (i) use of sustainable environmental practices, including acquisition of biobased, environmentally preferable, energy-efficient, water-efficient, and recycled-content products, and (ii) use of paper of at least 30 percent post-consumer fiber content;

(e)  ensure that the agency (i) reduces the quantity of toxic and hazardous chemicals and materials acquired, used, or disposed of by the agency, (ii) increases diversion of solid waste as appropriate, and (iii) maintains cost-effective waste prevention and recycling programs in its facilities;

f)  ensure that (i) new construction and major renovation of agency buildings comply with the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings set forth in the Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings Memorandum of Understanding (2006), and (ii) 15 percent of the existing Federal capital asset building inventory of the agency as of the end of fiscal year 2015 incorporates the sustainable practices in the Guiding Principles;

(g)  ensure that, if the agency operates a fleet of at least 20 motor vehicles, the agency, relative to agency baselines for fiscal year 2005, (i) reduces the fleet's total consumption of petroleum products by 2 percent annually through the end of fiscal year 2015, (ii) increases the total fuel consumption that is non-petroleum-based by 10 percent annually, and (iii) uses plug-in hybrid (PIH) vehicles when PIH vehicles are commercially available at a cost reasonably comparable, on the basis of life-cycle cost, to non-PIH vehicles; and

(h)  ensure that the agency (i) when acquiring an electronic product to meet its requirements, meets at least 95 percent of those requirements with an Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)-registered electronic product, unless there is no EPEAT standard for such product, (ii) enables the Energy Star feature on agency computers and monitors, (iii) establishes and implements policies to extend the useful life of agency electronic equipment, and (iv) uses environmentally sound practices with respect to disposition of agency electronic equipment that has reached the end of its useful life.

Sec. 3.  Duties of Heads of Agencies.  In implementing the policy set forth in section 1 of this order, the head of each agency shall:

(a)  implement within the agency sustainable practices for (i) energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions avoidance or reduction, and petroleum products use reduction, (ii) renewable energy, including bioenergy, (iii) water conservation, (iv) acquisition, (v) pollution and waste prevention and recycling, (vi) reduction or elimination of acquisition and use of toxic or hazardous chemicals, (vii) high performance construction, lease, operation, and maintenance of buildings, (viii) vehicle fleet management, and (ix) electronic equipment management;

(b)  implement within the agency environmental management systems (EMS) at all appropriate organizational levels to ensure (i) use of EMS as the primary management approach for addressing environmental aspects of internal agency operations and activities, including environmental aspects of energy and transportation functions, (ii) establishment of agency objectives and targets to ensure implementation of this order, and (iii) collection, analysis, and reporting of information to measure performance in the implementation of this order;

(c)  establish within the agency programs for (i) environmental management training, (ii) environmental compliance review and audit, and (iii) leadership awards to recognize outstanding environmental, energy, or transportation management performance in the agency;

(d)  within 30 days after the date of this order (i) designate a senior civilian officer of the United States, compensated annually in an amount at or above the amount payable at level IV of the Executive Schedule, to be responsible for implementation of this order within the agency, (ii) report such designation to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and (iii) assign the designated official the authority and duty to (A) monitor and report to the head of the agency on agency activities to carry out subsections (a) and (b) of this section, and (B) perform such other duties relating to the implementation of this order within the agency as the head of the agency deems appropriate;

(e)  ensure that contracts entered into after the date of this order for contractor operation of government-owned facilities or vehicles require the contractor to comply with the provisions of this order with respect to such facilities or vehicles to the same extent as the agency would be required to comply if the agency operated the facilities or vehicles;

(f)  ensure that agreements, permits, leases, licenses, or other legally-binding obligations between the agency and a tenant or concessionaire entered into after the date of this order require, to the extent the head of the agency determines appropriate, that the tenant or concessionaire take actions relating to matters within the scope of the contract that facilitate the agency's compliance with this order;

(g)  provide reports on agency implementation of this order to the Chairman of the Council on such schedule and in such format as the Chairman of the Council may require; and

(h)  provide information and assistance to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Council, and the Federal Environmental Executive.

Sec. 4.  Additional Duties of the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality.  In implementing the policy set forth in section 1 of this order, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality:

(a)  (i) shall establish a Steering Committee on Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management to advise the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Chairman of the Council on the performance of their functions under this order that shall consist exclusively of (A) the Federal Environmental Executive, who shall chair, convene and preside at meetings of, determine the agenda of, and direct the work of, the Steering Committee, and (B) the senior officials designated under section 3(d)(i) of this order, and (ii) may establish subcommittees of the Steering Committee, to assist the Steering Committee in developing the advice of the Steering Committee on particular subjects;

(b)  may, after consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Steering Committee, issue instructions to implement this order, other than instructions within the authority of the Director to issue under section 5 of this order; and

(c)  shall administer a presidential leadership award program to recognize exceptional and outstanding environmental, energy, or transportation management performance and excellence in agency efforts to implement this order.

Sec. 5.  Duties of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.  In implementing the policy set forth in section 1 of this order, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, after consultation with the Chairman of the Council and the Steering Committee, issue instructions to the heads of agencies concerning:

(a)  periodic evaluation of agency implementation of this order;

(b)  budget and appropriations matters relating to implementation of this order;

(c)  implementation of section 2(d) of this order; and

(d)  amendments of the Federal Acquisition Regulation as necessary to implement this order.

Sec. 6.  Duties of the Federal Environmental Executive.  A Federal Environmental Executive designated by the President shall head the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, which shall be maintained in the Environmental Protection Agency for funding and administrative purposes. In implementing the policy set forth in section 1 of this order, the Federal Environmental Executive shall:

(a)  monitor, and advise the Chairman of the Council on, performance by agencies of functions assigned by sections 2 and 3 of this order;

(b)  submit a report to the President, through the Chairman of the Council, not less often than once every 2 years, on the activities of agencies to implement this order; and

(c)  advise the Chairman of the Council on the Chairman's exercise of authority granted by subsection 4(c) of this order.

Sec. 7.  Limitations.  (a)  This order shall apply to an agency with respect to the activities, personnel, resources, and facilities of the agency that are located within the United States.  The head of an agency may provide that this order shall apply in whole or in part with respect to the activities, personnel, resources, and facilities of the agency that are not located within the United States, if the head of the agency determines that such application is in the interest of the United States.

(b)  The head of an agency shall manage activities, personnel, resources, and facilities of the agency that are not located within the United States, and with respect to which the head of the agency has not made a determination under subsection (a) of this section, in a manner consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order to the extent the head of the agency determines practicable.

Sec. 8.  Exemption Authority.  (a)  The Director of National Intelligence may exempt an intelligence activity of the United States, and related personnel, resources, and facilities, from the provisions of this order, other than this subsection and section 10, to the extent the Director determines necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.

(b)  The head of an agency may exempt law enforcement activities of that agency, and related personnel, resources, and facilities, from the provisions of this order, other than this subsection and section 10, to the extent the head of an agency determines necessary to protect undercover operations from unauthorized disclosure.

(c)  (i) The head of an agency may exempt law enforcement, protective, emergency response, or military tactical vehicle fleets of that agency from the provisions of this order, other than this subsection and section 10.

(ii)  Heads of agencies shall manage fleets to which paragraph (i) of this subsection refers in a manner consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order to the extent they determine practicable.

(d)  The head of an agency may submit to the President, through the Chairman of the Council, a request for an exemption of an agency activity, and related personnel, resources, and facilities, from this order.

Sec. 9.  Definitions.  As used in this order:

(a)  "agency" means an executive agency as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, excluding the Government Accountability Office;

(b)  "Chairman of the Council" means the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, including in the Chairman's capacity as Director of the Office of Environmental Quality;

(c)  "Council" means the Council on Environmental Quality;

(d)  "environmental" means environmental aspects of internal agency operations and activities, including those environmental aspects related to energy and transportation functions;

(e)  "greenhouse gases" means carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride;

(f)  "life-cycle cost-effective" means the life-cycle costs of a product, project, or measure are estimated to be equal to or less than the base case (i.e., current or standard practice or product);

(g)  "new renewable sources" means sources of renewable energy placed into service after January 1, 1999;

(h)  "renewable energy" means energy produced by solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean (including tidal, wave, current and thermal), geothermal, municipal solid waste, or new hydroelectric generation capacity achieved from increased efficiency or additions of new capacity at an existing hydroelectric project;

(i)  "energy intensity" means energy consumption per square foot of building space, including industrial or laboratory facilities;

(j)  "Steering Committee" means the Steering Committee on Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management established under subsection 4(b) of this order;

(k)  "sustainable" means to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans; and

(l)  "United States" when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace.

Sec. 10.  General Provisions.  (a)  This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c)  This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 11.  Revocations; Conforming Provisions.  (a)  The following are revoked:

(i)   Executive Order 13101 of September 14, 1998;

(ii)  Executive Order 13123 of June 3, 1999;

(iii) Executive Order 13134 of August 12, 1999, as amended;

(iv)  Executive Order 13148 of April 21, 2000; and

(v)   Executive Order 13149 of April 21, 2000.

(b)  In light of subsection 317(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107   107), not later than January 1 of each year through and including 2010, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Senate and the House of Representatives a report regarding progress made toward achieving the energy efficiency goals of the Department of Defense.

(c)  Section 3(b)(vi) of Executive Order 13327 of February 4, 2004, is amended by striking "Executive Order 13148 of April 21, 2000" and inserting in lieu thereof "other executive orders".

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 24, 2007.

 

---

   Return to this article at:
   http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070124-2.html