Is Exxon Going Green?

Well not exactly, but maybe the carbon giant is finally greening up around the edges, perhaps realizing that its hardline position on global warming may be hurting the bottom line.

The WSJ reports today that Exxon has softened its "climate-change" (the weasel words used by Bushies and their ilk) stance, including cutting off funding to a handful of outside groups that have repeatedly challenged global warming claims.

If true, it's about time. The Union of Concerned Scientists recently likened Exxon's stance on global-warming to the old Tobacco Institute's dogged claims that the link between cancer and smoking had not been "proven." It appears now, however, that Exxon has stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the most notorious of a series of front groups for global warming skeptics. (The CEI went so far as to air television ads praising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere).

Part of the reason Exxon is cleaning up its act is the need to have some credibility in dealing with the new Congress, as well as many states--especially California--that are blazing their own trail on regulation of carbon emissions. In the new Congress, Exxon will no longer be able to count on jerks like Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, who infamously chaired the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in the prior Congress, where he shamelessly shilled for global warming doubters and bottled up any useful legislation. So its a smart move for Exxon to begin shifting its position. Still, Exxon has a long way to go before it catches up with some of its rivals, particularly British Petroleum, which has for years run ads burnishing its green image.

It appears that Exxon's current strategy is to acknowledge the "risk" of global warming while opposing Kyoto-style efforts to reduce carbon emissions. At the same time, Exxon is urging that it's more economical to reduce emissions by electric utilities--by switching to nuclear (or nu-CU-lar as our President would say), wind and solar energy--than to effect savings in the transportation sector.

Exxon has a point, but it can only be taken so far. It is certainly true that replacing a coal-fired electric plant with wind energy (or nuclear) is economical and provides a huge benefit in terms of reduced carbon emissions.

But it's ridiculous to think we should simply ignore the transportation sector, where little progress has been made over the past 30 years in terms of gasoline efficiency. The technology exists to boost our gasoline mileage to as much as 70 mpg by using hybrid engines with an extra plug-in battery. And that technology can, in turn, take us to the point of widespread use of fuel cell powered automobile, with no carbon emissions. No doubt Exxon dreads that day, but it has plenty of time and money to get ready.

Here at the Curmudgeon, we'll wait and see what Exxon has to say over the coming months--we're not quite yet ready to lift our personal boycott of our two local Exxon gas stations, but we'd like to since they are convenient and their independent owners have never shared Exxon's past views doubting global warming.