Exxon Mobil has spent millions of dollars to sow confusion over the reality and urgency of global warming -- but that didn't stop the U.S. government from giving the Texas-based oil giant a $3 billion taxpayer-financed subsidy on the cusp of international climate talks.
On Dec. 3, just four days before the U.N. Climate Conference kicked off in Copenhagen, board members of the U.S. Export-Import Bank -- a federal agency that provides loans and guarantees to help U.S. companies secure foreign deals -- gave final approval to a plan to help Exxon finance a natural gas project in Papua New Guinea, Bloomberg reports. The company will use the funding to build a $15 billion pipeline and liquefaction plant, with the project design being handled by Houston-based KBR.
Exxon made more than $45 billion last year, making it the world's most profitable corporation. Between 1998 and 2005, the company funneled nearly $16 million to a network of advocacy organizations working to confuse the public about global warming science, according to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The U.S. currently spends an average of more than $10 billion in taxpayer money per year on subsidies to fossil fuel companies, compared with about $4 billion for renewable fuels, a recent study by the Environmental Law Institute found. And more than half of the U.S. subsidies for renewable fuels are going for corn-based ethanol, the climate effects of which remain controversial.
The amount that the U.S. gave Exxon earlier this month is roughly twice what it's now offering developing countries to help green their economies, according to Steve Kretzmann of Oil Change International. His organization is calling on President Obama to shift the subsidies it's now putting toward fossil fuels to climate finance instead.
"Does the Obama administration seriously expect other nations to believe that it can't find money to fund international efforts to build a clean energy economy and help vulnerable communities adapt to climate change when they're still giving billions to Exxon?" Kretzmann wrote in a recent post on his organization's blog.
The president played a key role in securing the recent pledge by the G20 group of major economies to end fossil fuel subsidies -- but he hasn't instructed agencies within his own administration to halt such financing, Kretzmann points out. U.S. climate and development coalitions recently called on the administration to immediately end fossil-fuel subsidies by agencies it oversees, including the U.S. Export-Import Bank.
Oil Change International is asking concerned citizens to send a letter to President Obama calling on him to shift U.S. funding away from greenhouse gas polluters toward climate solutions.
On Dec. 3, just four days before the U.N. Climate Conference kicked off in Copenhagen, board members of the U.S. Export-Import Bank -- a federal agency that provides loans and guarantees to help U.S. companies secure foreign deals -- gave final approval to a plan to help Exxon finance a natural gas project in Papua New Guinea, Bloomberg reports. The company will use the funding to build a $15 billion pipeline and liquefaction plant, with the project design being handled by Houston-based KBR.
Exxon made more than $45 billion last year, making it the world's most profitable corporation. Between 1998 and 2005, the company funneled nearly $16 million to a network of advocacy organizations working to confuse the public about global warming science, according to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The U.S. currently spends an average of more than $10 billion in taxpayer money per year on subsidies to fossil fuel companies, compared with about $4 billion for renewable fuels, a recent study by the Environmental Law Institute found. And more than half of the U.S. subsidies for renewable fuels are going for corn-based ethanol, the climate effects of which remain controversial.
The amount that the U.S. gave Exxon earlier this month is roughly twice what it's now offering developing countries to help green their economies, according to Steve Kretzmann of Oil Change International. His organization is calling on President Obama to shift the subsidies it's now putting toward fossil fuels to climate finance instead.
"Does the Obama administration seriously expect other nations to believe that it can't find money to fund international efforts to build a clean energy economy and help vulnerable communities adapt to climate change when they're still giving billions to Exxon?" Kretzmann wrote in a recent post on his organization's blog.
The president played a key role in securing the recent pledge by the G20 group of major economies to end fossil fuel subsidies -- but he hasn't instructed agencies within his own administration to halt such financing, Kretzmann points out. U.S. climate and development coalitions recently called on the administration to immediately end fossil-fuel subsidies by agencies it oversees, including the U.S. Export-Import Bank.
Oil Change International is asking concerned citizens to send a letter to President Obama calling on him to shift U.S. funding away from greenhouse gas polluters toward climate solutions.
Funny you leave out the amount of taxes Exxon mobil pays, not to mention permit and EPA fees. You also didn't bother to say that the profit magin was less than 5%. So for that 45 Bill was less that 5% of the gross. The tax and permit amount makes up almost 50% of the gross and overhead makes up the rest.
The fact that these were left out of this article displays nothing more than blatant bias against a corporation that employs millions. Not to mention provides mutual and pension funds enough profit to allow millions more to retire in reasonable comfort.
"green" energy is still completely unrealistic. Natural gas is realistic, clean and the fact that its going to New Guinea to vastly improve their economy and lives. Natural gas is the best and cleanest bridge to renewable energy. I hate to inform you that lithium batteries and solar panels are much bigger pollutants than natural gas. The mining of the mercury and trace metals used to create these 2 "renewable energy" sources are horrific pollutants. A prius will pollute more that a hummer before it even rolls off the lots due to the mercury alone, not to mention the high T-Hg concentrations. Mercurey mining is the biggest pollutant in California's San Franscisco Bay.
The amount subsidies going to the ethanol bundogle, the solar panel industry(GE), wind energy(but not the lines to bring that energy to cities), and various other pet congressional projects that will do nothing to help anyone other than the re-election campaigns. Natural gass for New Guinea actually seems like a reasonable and productive use of tax payer money since they pay taxes to the US also.
If you were seriously concerned, you would educate yourself instead of play the typical "evil big business" card.
December 15, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply