Comments on WattHead - Energy News and Commentary: Climate Change Conversations with ExxonMobil, Part...

Hi, I like they way you created and manage your bl...

2007-02-01T04:44:00.000-08:00

Hi, I like they way you created and manage your blog. As long as I have time, I will try to keep visiting. And if you ever need Live Chat solutions for business, please search for LIVECHAT ContactCenter! Bye!

Jenny, thanks for the comment. You make a very go...

2007-01-31T11:38:00.000-08:00

Jenny, thanks for the comment. You make a very good point about the need for campaign finance reform. It is certainly difficult to fight entrenched corporate interests through legislation when big money contributions from corporate and business leaders have such a huge influence on our democratic system.

I also agree that grassroots 'corporate accountability' campaigns have won several major victories over the years - the tobacco industry is a great example among many (although it's also worth pointing out that legislative action banning most forms of tabacco advertising and other efforts to curb the tobacco industry had a large part to play there).

And of course, grassroots efforts designed to put pressure on legislators can go a long way to overcome the influence of big campaign contributors. Grassroots campaigns can earn plenty of free press and tarnish an elected officials name and chances of reelection, and legislators are aware of that.

I'm certainly not saying we should 'put all of our eggs in one basket' and stop doing these kinds of campaigns. If they are an effective tool, we should be using them (we need all the tools we can get). Still, I think the ultimate goal needs to be using policy to make sure we don't have to fight corporations like this anymore - if we can make environmentally friendly business decisions profitable business decisions, they'll do what we want of their own free will.

You mentioned loopholes in legislation that allow corporations to continue to make a profit as a crucial failure in many pieces of legislation and an indicator of the need for campaign finance reform. While these loopholes are certainly a problem in legislation, the goal is not to stop corporations from making a profit, it's to stop corporations from making a profit at the expense of the environment and to ensure that profitable decisions are environmentally responsible decisions.

Using policy to put new market forces into play is really the only way I see to make sure that the profit motive is working on our side, instead of against them.

Until we get to that point, we should certainly continue using grassroots corporate accountability campaigns, along with any other effective tools we can find. These campaigns also impact a companies bottom line and are aimed at showing corporations that it's more profitable to do the right thing than not.

We are lucky in the United States in that we live in a democratic, capitalist society. That means that we have the ability to influence corporate actions through both our purchasing decisions (and efforts to influence other's decisions though grassroots campaigns) and through our input into public policy. Clearly more needs to be done to level the playing field and increase the effect our voice has in the political realm, but we can still win major victories.

We need to use both of those tools effectively to influence corporate action. Together, they will make big gains and hopefully push us forward towards the day when a healthy environment is simply good business.

A really neat post, thanks for your insight. I to...

2007-01-31T10:04:00.000-08:00

A really neat post, thanks for your insight. I too am facinated by what has contributed to this tipping point where global warming has quickly become a mainstream concern.

I do have a couple comments on your Part Two post. You speak about the need to enact public policy to curtail corporations. You write that we cannot fault them for making money, instead: "We can appeal to their good nature, for what little good that will do, or we can organize boycotts or bad PR to put some economic pressure on their bottom line, but those efforts only have success in very limited cases, and even then are very tough battles which generally affect only one company at a time. What will bring about lasting and widespread change in corporate actions...are smart public policies that ...ensure that making a smart investment means making an environmentally responsible investment. Until then, we will be fighting a constantly uphill battle, one, I would argue, that is ultimately fated to fail."

Yes, this is ideally how our legislative system would interact with the marketplace. We citizens tell our representatives how we'd like to see environmental and social responsibility incorporated the market place, and then legislation would pass to ensure this happens. Our laws then become a check on capitalism. But if this is how we want the system to work, then an extensive overhaul of campaign finance reform is needed. I do admire your idealistic faith in our system of law development. And I agree that the legislative avenue offers much opportunity to address social/environmental issues (global warming in particular right now!). However, until we have substantial campaign finance reform, I would argue that we're fighting the uphill battle and doomed to fail anyways (at least not accomplish all that we want).

When the system fails to work, and loopeholes are created by these companies for the purpose of continuing to make profit, then what other choice does the upstanding citizen have than to contribute in some way to tarnishing the name (and therefore the bottom line) of a company via boycott or protest of some other sort. When the system doesn't work, we must resort to other means to support environmental and social responsibility. And although you're critical that these victories are small, citizen grassroots efforts were what brought the tabacco industry to its knees (see the group Corporate Accountability International). This isn't a pretty method for change, but it is effective, and when you win, you win big due to the amazing influence of large companies. Even one small change at the corporate level, such as slightly increasing the fuel efficiency of Wal-Mart semi trucks, has huge ramifications for the environment. This was quite a ramble of a comment, but my point is not to throw all your beans in the same basket down the legislative avenue. Until campaign finance reform is satisfactory, there is certainly a place for targeting corporations directly to achieve the same ends we hope could be acheived politically.

Hey Jess! Hope things are going well. Just though...

2007-01-30T20:44:00.000-08:00

Hey Jess!
Hope things are going well. Just thought you'd like to know...I just made my 8th graders watch "An Inconvenient Truth," and it was truly the highlight of my life when I heard a good majority of every class say, "But WHY aren't we part of Kyoto?"

Yes, thanks for the posts. When asked about diver...

2007-01-30T14:20:00.000-08:00

Yes, thanks for the posts.

When asked about diversifying Exxon's portfolio (as Exxon's competitors have in wind and solar), Mr Cohen says Exxon is looking for investments that stand on their own two feet. He points out ethanol as an example of one that doesn't stand on it's own feet. And yet he points to ethanol as proof that Exxon Mobil is one of the world's largest purchasers of biofuels, as if to say this is their diversification. That seems rather contradictory to me.

Jesse, thanks for this great write-up. Very intere...

2007-01-30T09:24:00.000-08:00

Jesse, thanks for this great write-up. Very interesting!

I am starting to question the "80% by 2050" goal -- from what I've read, we are much better off prescribing temperature targets (as the EU has done) such as limit the warming to 2degC over post-industrial. Because the climate sensitivity is so poorly known, emissions targets are much more of a guess. I hate to say it, but we may well need steeper cuts than 80% by 2050.