The four-year-long study by atmospheric scientist Lawrence Meany concluded that human respiration and conversation could be responsible for up to 12 percent of the greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere every year. And, Meany discovered, that percentage appears to be growing.

Read more of this story »

Using some simple math, Revkin presents some not so surprising facts:

It’s simple multiplication. Right now, the sum of global emissions of carbon dioxide by 6.6 billion very-unequal humans is about 29 billion tons a year. (An excellent database is here on historic and current emissions, from energy and cement making.)

If everyone was emitting at the British level, it’d be 66 billion tons a year. Okay, let’s try the United States. That would be 132 billion tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere each year, if everyone on Earth had an equal carbon footing.

We spent a couple of minutes with Excel and a global emissions database to put some of these figures into a global perspective:

Read more of this story »

The only way to stabilize Earth’s climate, according to new research, is to cut carbon emissions to zero … and to do it quick.

Climate scientists Ken Caldeira and Damon Matthews reached that conclusion after taking a new approach to future climate modeling. Rather than analyze what it would take to stabilize carbon dioxide levels, they crunched data to determine how much carbon we could continue pumping into the air without warming the Earth any further.

The answer they got was: none.

“Most scientific and policy discussions about avoiding climate change have centered on what emissions would be needed to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” Caldeira said. “But stabilizing greenhouse gases does not equate to a stable climate.”

In Caldeira’s and Mathews’ model, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations slowly begin dropping only if emissions go to zero. And, even in that case, the Earth remains warm for another 500 years.

On the flip side, any emissions more than zero result in further warming of the planet.

“What if we were to discover tomorrow that a climate catastrophe was imminent if our planet warmed any further?” Caldeira asked.

That might be a question we’ll have to answer soon. Amazingly, though, Caldeira remains hopeful.

“It is just not that hard to solve the technological challenges,” he said. “We can develop and deploy wind turbines, electric cars, and so on, and live well without damaging the environment. The future can be better than the present, but we have to take steps to start kicking the CO2 habit now, so we won’t need to go cold turkey later.”

A new report from The Climate Institute in Australia examines the latest research on climate change and concludes the IPCC’s most recent assessment is already outdated.

“(T)he IPCC report only uses material published up to mid-2006, and many new important observations have been published since,” states the report, written by Dr Graeme Pearman in collaboration with the Climate Adaptation Science and Policy Initiative at the University of Melbourne. “These suggest that the IPCC assessment is underestimating the risks of adverse impacts due to increased warming during this century and that impacts previously considered to be at the upper end of likelihood are now more probable.”

“Evidence of Accelerated Climate Change” cites data showing that carbon dioxide emissions are rising nearly three times as fast this decade as in the last — 3-plus percent per year for 2000 to 2004, versus 1.1 percent per year for 1990 to 1999. The current growth rate, the report says, exceeds that used in the IPCC’s most emissions-intensive climate scenario.

The report adds we’ve already reached greenhouse gas atmospheric levels equivalent to 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide, the point at which the IPCC says we risk slipping into “dangerous climate change.” While the IPCC assessment acknowledges carbon dioxide-equivalent levels are around 455 parts per million, it assumes the actual climate impact is still below the danger point thanks to the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols and pollutants. The Climate Institute report notes those aerosol levels are dropping — thanks to pollution-control efforts — while greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

The IPCC’s climate scenarios also fall short of what is actually being seen in the Arctic, the report adds.

“Models show declining Arctic ice cover, but very few model simulations show trends as large as are observed,” states the report. “The current summer minima are approximately 30 years ahead of a range of simulation model forecasts.” That means we might seen an ice-free Arctic Ocean well earlier than the IPCC’s predicted dates of somewhere between 2050 and 2100.

But wait, there’s more. The Australian report’s most disconcerting finding is that the IPCC, in trying to craft an assessment that represents “the full range of uncertainties” in climate science, might not be giving enough attention to low-probability events with high-impact results. Those would include things like multiple feedback loops that cause a rapid collapse of the world’s ice sheets or a catastrophic release of stored carbon — thousands of gigatons’ worth — from undersea hydrate reservoirs.

“To the extent that the impacts of climate change may be in the more severe range of those outlined in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the case for a policy of risk management and more urgent intervention is strengthened,” the report concludes.

There have been some major wake-up calls in the fight against global warming, starting with the United Nations scolding the U.S. for not doing enough to mitigate its contributions to the problem.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer told the Associated Press that it’s "very clear" the U.S. is not on the right track, despite the Bush administration’s recent openness to even discussing the problem and the series of meetings President Bush has scheduled with world leaders.

More U.N. meetings begin today to prepare for the Bali talks in December that will include negotiations of how to proceed after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. On Thursday, President Bush convenes his own two-day meeting with 15 big-emitter nations. Some worry that his smaller, more limited round of negotiations will undercut the Bali discussions.

Our friends across the pond didn’t hear any good news on the climate change front, either. A representative of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the BBC that it’s unlikely the European Union will achieve their goal of keeping global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

Professor Martin Parry is the co-chair of the IPCC, the group that has brought us three reports so far this year on the science, impacts, and solutions of climate change. He told the BBC that the chances of humans keeping the average global temperature increase less than 2 degrees C is "quite little."

He went on to explain that the increase of more than 2 degrees will result in major consequences. Water shortages around the globe may occur (especially in areas with melting glaciers that depend on the freeze and thaw for water), heat waves may increase, and crops may be threatened.

Parry believes it is still possible to contain the rise in temperature to less than 3 degrees Celsius, although, as always, our actions have to be swift. In the meantime, world leaders must discuss "very seriously" plans for significant adaptation measures.

Associated Press, via Kansas City Star
BBC
Terra Daily

According to the statement, the indisputable need for drastic greenhouse gas emissions reductions should not hinge upon wider implementation of biofuels that contribute to deforestation and compete so readily with the world's food supply:

[M]onoculture expansion is a driving force behind the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks and reservoirs, thus accelerating climate change. . .[It] is a major threat to the livelihoods and food sovereignty of communities many of which are already bearing the brunt of climate change disasters caused largely by the fossil fuel emissions of industrialised countries."

The IPCC summary states that "Biofuels might play an important role in addressing GHG emissions in the transport sector, depending on their production pathway." It also suggests the implementation of second-generation GM biofuels, e.g. cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass, made from crops genetically engineered to facilitate ethanol production. Presently there is no consensus on how or when newer biofuels will be economically feasible and widely available, but some estimate the technology is at least 10-15 years from commercialization.

Vast tracts of fuel-producing GM monocultures do not sound appealing, nor does growth of currently destructive agricultural practices. Indonesia is already planning to increase biofuel crop production 43 fold to meet projected world biodiesel demand, consequently opening up 20 million more hectares to crop production. According to the press release, this expansion would release 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - or 6 years worth of global CO2 emissions. I've also already discussed Brazil's potentially damaging soy cropping industry and the impact of domestic ethanol production on world food prices. As Jeff noted in his post on the subject, Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch highlighted that biofuels now supply only 1% of global transport needs and have already affected grain and food prices for the world's poor.

Mayer Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at Policy Studies Institute said: "There is an inherent and acutely serious problem within the report. On the one hand, it leaves us in no doubt to how vital conservation of the planet's ecosystems and carbon sinks are to averting the worst predictions made in the previous sections of the report. On the other, it proposes the large scale use of the biosphere to satisfy demand in the transport and energy sectors."

But it doesn't seem clear the IPCC is arguing for full-scale implementation of biofuels at all–rather, the argument seems to be for the development of common-sense biofuel policy that avoids the worst aspects of biofuel production. Many fail to understand that biofuels are only a piece in a greater renewable energy portfolio. No sane and logical enthusiast will claim to have the panacea for intense and growing resource consumption.

Here are some of the IPCC's actual recommendations under 'mitigation for the tansport sector':

• More fuel efficient vehicles; hybrid vehicles; cleaner diesel vehicles;biofuels; modal shifts from road transport to rail and public transportsystems; non-motorised transport (cycling, walking); land-use and transport planning.
• Second generation biofuels; higher efficiency aircraft; advanced electric and hybrid vehicles with more powerful and reliable batteries.
• Transport Demand Management, which includes urban planning (that can reduce thedemand for travel) and provision of information and educational techniques (that can reduce car usage and lead to an efficient driving style) can support GHG mitigation.
• Investment in attractive public transport facilities and non-motorised forms of transport.
• Mandatory fuel economy, biofuel blending and CO2 standards for road transport.

This all sounds pretty reasonable to me. But technology will only get us so far, and the summary nails this on the head:

Changes in lifestyle and behaviour patterns can contribute to climate change mitigation across all sectors. Management practices can also have a positive role. (high agreement, medium evidence)

There are multiple mitigation options in the transport sector, but their effect may be counteracted by growth in the sector. Mitigation options are faced with many barriers, such as consumer preferences and lack of policy frameworks (medium
agreement, medium evidence)."

If the IPCC were to suggest that the global climate could be stabilized without a significant reduction in growth and concomitant lifestyle changes by First World (and growing Third World) nations, this would be problematic, and doesn't seem to be the case. Without overemphasizing their importance, I think we can say that biofuels have a niche (and perhaps only that) in the transition to greener fuel sources and global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Read the Summary for yourself: Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change" Summary for policymakers.

On one hand, the report was hopeful: we can lessen the effects of global warming with quick, substantive, mandatory action by the world's governments. Furthermore, the costs of such actions would be relatively low, and much of the technology needed already exists. On the other hand, the report does recommend the use of advanced nuclear power (let the arguments on this one begin!), and carbon capture and storage, which is not a fully developed technology.

We've gathered some of the responses to today's report, and provided excerpts below. Please let us know about others in the comments.

Environmental Defense: “We have a window of opportunity, but it won't stay open forever,” said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense . “Anyone pushing for delay is pushing for higher costs and longer odds.”

The Apollo Alliance: “The experts agree. If we act now, we can win the fight on global warming. As today’s IPCC report shows, with strong leadership and the right solutions, we can tackle the challenge of global warming while also creating new opportunities for jobs and growth through increased economic activity.

“By expanding the production of biofuels, we can promote energy security, strengthen our trade position and create jobs in agricultural communities. By investing in renewable electricity we will create economic activity while decreasing air pollution and its associated health care costs. And by making wise investments in new technology, we can reinvigorate our economy though the creation of good, new clean energy jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors.

“We can no longer ignore the facts. Global warming is happening, and if left untreated, the effects will be devastating for our planet and future generations. We have the solutions, now let’s fulfill our responsibility as Americans and international citizens and do everything we can to reduce global warming pollution.” — Apollo Alliance president Jerome Ringo

National Wildlife Federation: “The world’s scientific experts are giving us all the information we need. This latest report provides unmistakable clarity that we must act now, and that solutions are within reach to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

“Global warming is happening now. Our dependency on fossil fuels like oil and coal is causing the problem, and humans and wildlife are feeling the heat. We have a clear path to move forward with solutions that will curb rising global warming pollution, but only if we act with leadership and resolve.

“Scientists are telling us that we must start reducing global warming pollution immediately to limit further warming. Only by acting now can we prevent catastrophic environmental and economic damage that our children will otherwise face. America can do this if we set our mind to it.

“To limit global warming, we must start now and put ourselves on track to reduce pollution by two percent each and every year, ultimately cutting pollution by 80 percent by mid-century. We can do that." — NWF President Larry Schweiger

National Audubon Society: “This latest report from the world’s scientists makes it clear that people and governments have it within their power to curb global warming, but that time is running short. Humans caused the problem, and it’s up to humans to fix it.

“There is much good news here and even reason for optimism if we listen and heed the call to action. The report confirms that many of the technologies we need to address the problem already exist and simply need to be deployed in a serious way. The U.S. can start filling the scientists’ prescription by rapidly adopting emissions caps, renewable electricity standards, energy conservation measures, and improving fuel efficiency.

“The report makes it clear that voluntary measures have had no effect—these cannot be take ‘em or leave ‘em approaches. The world’s best scientists are telling us that it will take serious changes backed by the force of law if we want to minimize the risk to people and wildlife" — Audubon Society President John Flicker

National Environmental Trust: "After all the bad news from scientists on global warming, today we got some good news. The IPCC said that we can avert the worst impacts at a remarkably low price. The U.S. and the world simply need to make more efficient use of our energy and invest in cleaner technologies for the future.

"This newest report confirms that a small investment now is far better than bankrupting the treasury later by trying to build sea walls from Miami to Maine. " — Vice President for Climate Programs Angela Anderson

BioFuels Watch (UK): "It is already clear that the burgeoning demand for biofuels that has been created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is actually increasing them by deforestation in the tropics and accelerating climate change. So far, only 1% of global transport fuel comes from biofuels, yet already biofuels cause steep rises in grain and vegetable oil prices, threatening the food security of poor people and spurring agricultural expansion into forests and grasslands, on which we depend for a stable climate." — Almuth Ernsting

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): “The longer we wait, the more we will pay to fix this problem. The solutions are here. What we need is the leadership to make it happen,” said Daniel Lashof, PhD, the science director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The cost of cleaner, more efficient energy technologies pales in comparison to the sweeping impacts on our health and our economy if we continue to do nothing.”

“The IPCC has now completed its triple crown,” Lashof added. “The world’s leading scientists have told us that heat-trapping pollution is causing global warming, that global warming threatens unprecedented disruption of our way of life, and now most importantly that we know how to solve the problem. There are simply no more excuses for denial and delay.”

Friends of the Earth: “The report looks like a compromise rather than a serious plan. It offers something for everyone without making the tough choices,” Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder said. “Some of these recommendations make a lot of sense, but unfortunately, some of them—especially the push for nuclear power—move us in the wrong direction. Nuclear power threatens humans and the environment. It is not necessary to combat climate change.” …

“The IPCC got a number of things right,” Blackwelder said. “Increasing energy efficiency and using clean energy sources such as wind power are steps that can be taken right now to reduce global warming—without damaging other parts of the environment. Let’s focus on those measures, and not nuclear power, which has such harmful side effects.”

U.S. PIRG: “This report provides a roadmap on how to avoid the worst effects of global warming, but we have to start moving right now,” said Ben Dunham, Staff Attorney for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. “The sooner we act, the sooner we start improving energy security, creating jobs, and protecting future generations from the worst effects of global warming,” he added.

Of course, we're also interested in your response… fire away!

Environment News Service

The report will lay out ways to cut global warming emissions and prevent the worst impacts without seriously hurting the global economy. In fact, it is expected to show that the cost of doing nothing is far higher than the cost of taking action now.

On Wednesday, the Taipei Times reported that talks were stalled by China, India, and Brazil, who insisted that industrialized nations take more responsibility for their pollution contribution. The stalemate took up other time meant for discussion on how to best tackle global warming. One European delegate reported:

"Progress is slow…Brazil, India and China are trying to put on the shoulders of industrialized nations the historic responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions in order to clear their own emissions [of blame] and to protect themselves in any discussion.”

The report will assess not only the long-term options available for the next 100 years, but a range of economic, technological, and institutional solutions and covering short and medium-term timelines up until 2030, explained Dr. R.K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Taipei Times
World Wildlife Fund

For increases in global mean temperature of less than 1-3 degrees Celsius above 1990 levels, impacts may produce benefits in some places and some sectors, and produce costs in other places and sectors. However, some low latitude and polar regions of the world will see net costs rise even with only small increases in temperature. Once the average temperature increases more than 2-3 degrees Celsius in any region, however, it is “very likely” that we wil see declining benefits and instead see an increase in net costs.

The Summary for Policymakers of the Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability reports the projected effects of climate change:

• Costs and benefits of climate change for industry, settlement, and society will vary widely by location and scale. In the aggregate, however, net effects will tend to be more negative the larger the change in climate.

• Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid to high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1-3 degrees Celsius depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in some regions.

• Studies in temperate areas have shown that climate change is projected to bring some benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure. Overall it is expected that these benefits will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures world-wide, especially in developing countries.

• Approximately 20-30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5 degrees Celsius.

Each word of the report had to be agreed upon by consensus, but disputes between the scientific authors and diplomatic editors infuriated some scientists. They claim the predicted impacts have been watered down because of political interference. For example, a sentence that originally said scientists had “very high confidence” (greater than 90 percent) that many natural systems would be affected by rising temperatures was changed to “high confidence” (greater than 80 percent) at the insistence of delegates from China and Saudi Arabia.

The report goes on to say that global warming cannot be stopped at this point, only slowed down. However, the most catastrophic effects can still be avoided with swift and decisive global action. The IPCC recommends a combination of adaptation and mitigation measures:

Even the most stringent mitigation efforts cannot avoid further impacts of climate change in the next few decades, which makes adaptation essential, particularly in addressing near-term impacts. Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.

This suggests the value of a portfolio or mix of strategies that includes mitigation, adaptation, technological development (to enhance both adaptation and mitigation) and research (on climate science, impacts, adaptation and mitigation).

The full report will be released next week. It includes more than 2,500 scientists appointed by more than 130 countries.

The IPCC was created by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to assess the scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk for climate change, along with its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. Its assessments are based solely on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.

CNN
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: Summary for Policymakers
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

They did, however, help continute the "debate" on carbon dioxide's connection to rising global temperatures. CO2 may be necessary for life, but too much of it causes global warming. Really, it does! Look:

No, it isn't proof. Scientists don't often speak in the language of proof and absolute truths. With that said, the above variation of a graph developed and published in the journal Nature by J.R. Petit in 1999 shows a striking correlation between the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature over the last 450,000 years. The graph also shows that the earth does a lot of its own regulating of both CO2 and temperature, a truth that climate change and CO2 connection skeptics are all too eager to point out. Fair enough, but in that entire 450,000 year span, CO2 parts per million levels were never above 300. Today, atmospheric CO2 concentration has surpassed 380 ppm, and is climbing rapidly (think Al Gore riding the lift up to the top of the screen in An Inconvenient Truth).

Will the temperature line in the graph follow the CO2 line's lead? The earth hasn't needed this degree of self-regulation for at least 800,000 years. Worse still, we haven't yet experienced the full consequences of this astonishing carbon dioxide concentration.

It isn't just me and Al who say so. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report confirmed the CO2 connection and the human responsibility for the dramatic increase in its atmospheric levels. They concluded (PDF):

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

"Very likely" is defined as a greater than 90% probability. As summarized in the UK's Independent, the IPCC also reported:

The target for stabilising CO2 levels in the atmosphere which some scientists and politicians increasingly hope to aim for - an upper limit of 550 parts per million - would probably involve a rise of 3C, perhaps one as high as 4.5C, and almost certainly no lower than 1.5C, the report says.

But a 3C rise would bring about enormous damage to agriculture, weather patterns and ecosystems across the world with catastrophic effects on human society.

The figure of 550ppm represents a doubling of atmospheric CO2 compared with the level pertaining before the Industrial Revolution. The current CO2 level is about 382ppm, having risen from 315ppm 50 years ago, and is rising by more than 2ppm annually, with the rate increasing.

The IPCC, a collection of more than 2000 of the world's top climate scientists, concluded without reservation that climate change is happening, that humans are responsible, and that emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is one significant culprit. But can their findings really be trusted? The NRDC writes:

• Overall, the IPCC report will include work from more than 2,000 scientists appointed by more than 130 countries…

• The process is rigorous, based on open and transparent peer review.

• The Summary for Policymakers is reviewed line-by-line by scientists and government experts to ensure that it is a completely accurate reflection of the detailed scientific findings and that all comments have been fully considered.

• The IPCC brings fresh eyes to the issue — 75 percent of Fourth Assessment Report writers were not involved in the Third Assessment.

Now that we all agree that carbon dioxide is a major contributor to climate change, I know what your next question will be: "But what about the much discussed 'issue' of 'global warming' on SUV-free Mars?" Well, unless you're planning on buying a timeshare there, it's not much of an issue at all. More importantly, that globe isn't really warming, at least not in terms that have any parallel here on earth.

Some warming has been observed over the past 30 years, but it is largely confined to Mars's South Pole Cap region. To the extent that any truly "global" warming has occurred on Mars in recent years, it is a warming trend with decidedly unearthly roots. Mars's climate, unlike the earth's, is highly sensitive to immense dust storms. When these storms are active, the dust absorbs the sun's heat and warms the thin Martian atmosphere. When the storms aren't active, no such warming happens. Massive dust storms are not a cause of global warming or much of anything else on earth, making the comparison of the two planets' climate mechanisms crude at best and grossly misleading at worst.

Coming back to our little blue world, it is important to remember that carbon dioxide is not the only cause of global climate change. Other greenhouse gasses like nitrous oxide and methane are intense heat trappers as well, and their levels have also increased dramatically in the earth's atmosphere in the Industrial Age.

It's not just gasses, either. A variety of feedback loops also intensify warming trends. For instance, ice at the poles does our planet the great service of bouncing sunlight away from the surface and back out into space. When this ice melts, however, the (no longer white) water molecules absorb the sun's heat instead of radiating it away. The oceans warm. More ice melts. More heat is absorbed… Vicious, isn't it?

That viciousness is why we need to take immediate steps to curb carbon emissions and other climate change triggers. Mandatory carbon caps? Market-based carbon reduction incentives? Individual carbon taxes (while reducing personal income taxes)? I'm for it. All of it.

Now.

Temperature and CO2 image credit: Woods Hole Research Center

Want to discuss Ryan and Jimmy's posts? Leave a comment, or go to the Red, Grenn, and Blue discussion forum.

ExxonMobil

But can Exxon defend itself? Has it joined the rest of the world in recognizing global warming is happening? If so, what are its plans to slow it?

I had the privilege of participating in two telephone news conferences with ExxonMobil’s Vice President of Public Affairs, Ken Cohen, to answer some of these questions. Other bloggers on the call were Jesse Jenkins from Watthead, Tom Yulsman from Prometheus, Susan Smith from the Environmental Law Prof Blog, and Stuart Staniford from The Oil Drum. One call took place on January 26, a week before the IPCC report was released. The next happened on February 2, the day the IPCC report and the Guardian article came out. This post is the first of a 2-part series on Exxon’s response to the allegations in the Guardian, its position on global warming, and what it thinks should be done about it.

I went in with an open mind: To be sure, Exxon was making a concerted effort to reach out to the blogosphere and discuss its position on global warming – that in itself was big news. But I also expected some real answers that would give me at least a glimmer of hope that this behemoth was taking decisive action.

“The IPCC report is the best compilation of the thinking on the subject,” Cohen told us, insisting that Exxon takes global warming very seriously and has in fact recognized the problem for twenty years. He spelled it out further:

Is the climate warming? Yes. Are CO2 emissions up? Yes, they’ve never been as high as they’ve been [now]. Man’s use of fossil fuels and land use changes and other human activity contribute to that CO2 rise.

So did ExxonMobil fund AEI to muddle the dialogue on global warming?

“We had no knowledge that this was going on,” insisted Cohen. He explained that Exxon funds a lot of different groups, and “when we fund them, we want good analysis." Exxon does not condone what AEI did, but Cohen confirmed that it does continues to fund AEI, although other groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute are not funded by them anymore.

Cohen assured us that Exxon is “trying to be a constructive player in the policy discussion and not associate [themselves] with those that are marginalized and are not welcome in that discussion.” The IPCC report “is what it is,” and Exxon does not believe in engaging in scientific research that preordains an answer. Cohen:

…that's the issue with AEI: Are they preordaining an answer?…I can understand taking a market approach or a government interventionist approach, but this is not a question of trying to find who’s right or who’s wrong. Let’s let the process work.

But, I asked, how can you grant AEI nearly two million dollars and not know what they’re doing with the money? Turns out that Exxon conveniently funds the “general operations” of AEI, not specific programs that would allow them to track how the money is being used. Perhaps Exxon needs to think hard next time before it funds an organization so clearly disinterested in constructive solutions.

Cohen was consistently explicit in Exxon's position that global warming is happening and mainly caused by human activities. If that is true, then how will Exxon fight the huge misperception that it’s still the planet's largest naysayer? Cohen conceded that the company needed to do a better job of communicating its position on global warming, rather than allowing a fact sheet or news release on their website to do the work.

Jesse Jenkins asked whether it would consider joining the new U.S. Climate Energy Action Partnership, a coalition of major corporations and environmental organizations calling for federal carbon dioxide regulation. When Cohen answered this question in our first conference call, he seemed cool to the idea, pointing out that Exxon is already part of many global warming discussion groups and that some of their scientists participate in the IPCC. However, Cohen brought the idea up himself on our second call, this time saying that the Partnership is a group “…that we might join and participate in the discussions – if they’ll have us.”

Coming up Thursday: What is Exxon doing to mitigate its contributions to global warming? Which policies and market-based solutions does it think would be the most effective? How is Exxon staying market-competitive in a shifting energy system?

CBS News.com
News Release: ExxonMobil's response to publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of Climate Science
News Release: Addressing the Risks of Climate Change: ExxonMobil's Views and Actions
The Guardian: Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study