WASHINGTON,
May 27 — Exxon
Mobil has publicly
softened its stance toward
global warming over the last
year, with a pledge of $10
million in annual donations
for 10 years to Stanford
University for climate
research.
At the same
time, the company, the world's
largest oil and gas concern,
has increased donations to
Washington-based policy groups
that, like Exxon itself,
question the human role in
global warming and argue that
proposed government policies
to limit carbon dioxide
emissions associated with
global warming are too heavy
handed.
Exxon now
gives more than $1 million a
year to such organizations,
which include the Competitive
Enterprise Institute,
Frontiers of Freedom, the
George C. Marshall Institute,
the American Council for
Capital Formation Center for
Policy Research and the
American Legislative Exchange
Council.
The
organizations are modest in
size but have been outspoken
in the global warming debate.
Exxon has become the
single-largest corporate donor
to some of the groups,
accounting for more than 10
percent of their annual
budgets. While a few of the
groups say they also receive
some money from other oil
companies, it is only a small
fraction of what they receive
from Exxon Mobil.
"We
want to support organizations
that are trying to broaden the
debate on an issue that is so
important to all of us,"
said Tom Cirigliano, a
spokesman for Exxon.
"There is this whole
issue that no one should
question the science of global
climate change that is
ludicrous. That's the kind of
dark-ages thinking that gets
you in a lot of trouble."
He also noted, "These are
not single-agenda
groups."
The
organizations emphasize that
while their views align with
Exxon's, the company's money
does not influence their
policy conclusions. Indeed,
the organizations say they
have been sought out in part
because of their credibility.
"They've determined that
we are effective at what we
do," said George C.
Landrith, president of
Frontiers of Freedom, a
conservative group that
maintains that human
activities are not responsible
for global warming. He says
Exxon essentially takes the
attitude, "We like to
make it possible to do more of
that."
Frontiers of
Freedom, which has about a
$700,000 annual budget,
received $230,000 from Exxon
in 2002, up from $40,000 in
2001, according to Exxon
documents. But Mr. Landrith
said the growth was not as
sharp as it appears because
the money is actually spread
over three years.
The increase
corresponds with a rising
level of public debate since
the United States withdrew
from the Kyoto Protocol, some
of the groups said. After
President Bush rejected the
protocol, a treaty requiring
nations to limit emissions of
heat-trapping gases, many
corporations shifted their
attention to Washington, where
the debate has centered on
proposals for domestic curbs
on the emissions.
"Firefighters'
budgets go up when fires go
up," said Fred L. Smith,
the head of the Competitive
Enterprise Institute. Myron
Ebell, an analyst from the
institute, spoke at last
year's Exxon shareholders'
meeting, where he criticized a
renewable energy resolution
proposed by a group of
shareholders.
Exxon's
backing of third-party groups
is a marked contrast to its
more public role in the Global
Climate Coalition, an industry
group formed in 1989 to
challenge the science around
global warming. The group
eventually disbanded when oil
and auto companies started to
withdraw. As companies were
left to walk their own path,
Exxon shifted money toward
independent policy groups.
"Now
it's come down to a few of
these groups to be the good
foot soldiers of the corporate
community on climate
change," said Kert
Davies, a research director
for Greenpeace, which has
tried to organize an
international boycott of
Exxon.
Exxon's
publicly disclosed documents
reveal that donations to many
of these organizations
increased by more than 50
percent from 2000 to 2002. And
money to the American
Legislative Exchange Council,
a conservative group that
works with state legislators,
has almost tripled, as the
policy debate has moved to the
state level.
The gifts
are minuscule compared with
the $100 million, 10-year
scientific grant to Stanford,
which is establishing a
research center that will
focus on technologies that
could provide energy without
adding to greenhouse gases
linked by scientists to global
warming. Nevertheless, the
donations in the tens of
thousands or hundreds of
thousands of dollars are
significant for groups with
budgets ranging from $700,000
to $4 million.
Critics say
that Exxon and these groups
continue to muddle the debate
even as scientific consensus
has emerged, and as much of
the industry has taken a more
conciliatory stance toward the
reality of global warming. As
Exxon has become isolated from
its peers, it has faced
increasing pressure from
shareholders and
environmentalists. BP,
Shell and ChevronTexaco
have developed strategies that
incorporate renewable energy,
carbon trading and emissions
reductions.
Among the
initiatives that Exxon's money
has helped is the Center for
Science and Public Policy. The
two-month-old center is a
one-man operation that brings
scientists to Capitol Hill on
two issues: global warming and
the health effects of mercury.
"We
don't lobby, we educate,"
said Bob Ferguson, head of the
center, who spent 24 years
working as a Republican
Congressional staff member.
"We try to be
nonpolitical and nonpartisan
and nonideological."