Greenhouse Gangstersvs. C l imate Just ice

Published by TRAC

Transnational Resource

and Action Center

C o n t e n t s1 Introduction: Oil’s Injustices • Defining Climate Justice

6 Part 1: The Most Powerful Industry on Earth • Size Matters • Getting Their Way • Oil,Globalization and Climate Change

11 Part 2: The Corporate Response: The Five “Ds”: Deny, Delay, Divide, Dump, Dupe

22 Part 3: A Platform for Climate Justice • Remove the Causes of Global Warming •Oppose the Destructive Impacts of Oil Locally and Globally • Forge Just Solutions Betweenand Within Nations • Reverse Corporate-led, Fossil Fuel-Based Globalization.

Sidebars3 What is Climate Justice?4-5 The Basics: What is Climate Change?8 Other Corporate Climate Culprits—Car, Coal, Utilities

17 Global Warming and Global Equity

19 The World Bank’s Climate Hypocrisy

21 Hydrocarbons and Human Rights

24 No New Exploration

27 End Notes

*The American Heritage Dictionary definition of gangster is “an organized group of criminals.” The history of big oil’s collusion, price fixing, transfer pricing, environmental crimes, complicityin human rights violations and most recently, concerted efforts to undermine initiatives to address global warming, effectively stealing our children’s future, eminently qualifies them as such.

Written by Kenny Bruno, Joshua Karliner and China Brotsky

Kenny Bruno is a Research Associate with TRAC.He also works with Earthrights International(ERI), on human rights and environment issues.Kenny worked with Greenpeace for more thantwelve years on a variety of domestic and interna-tional toxics issues. He is co-author of Greenwash:The Reality Behind Corporate Environmentalism (ThirdWorld Network/Apex Press, 1996).

Joshua Karliner is TRAC’s Founder, ExecutiveDirector and editorial coordinator of CorporateWatch. He is author of The Corporate Planet: Ecologyand Politics in the Age of Globalization, (Sierra ClubBooks, 1997). His writing has appeared in manypublications, including The Washington Post, The SanFrancisco Chronicle, and Global Policy Dialogue.

China Brotsky is Chair of TRAC’s Board. She is Director of Special Projects of the TidesFoundation and The Tides Center. She is anOrganizing Board member of the PoliticalEcology Group, a San Francisco-based environ-mental justice organization, and is a long timeenvironmental and social justice activist.

Published by TRAC—Transnational Resource & Action Center

Transnational Resource and Action CenterPO Box 29344San Francisco, CA 94129-0344 USATel: (415) 561-6568e-mail: tracadmin@corpwatch.org

TRAC works to build global links for humanrights, environmental justice and democraticcontrol over corporations. We publish CorporateWatch, www.corpwatch.org, an Internet maga-zine and Resource Center.This paper and sup-plemental materials are also available on theCorporate Watch website in both PDF and HTML formats athttp://www.corpwatch.org/climate.

This paper was made possible with a generous grant from The

Turner Foundation.

We wish to thank those who helped us with research, review of

the paper and other support, including: Joe Anderson, David Atkin,Stephanie Barnhart, Marc Beck, Adam Davis, Antonio Diaz, MeganDoyle, Danny Faber, Jennifer Ferrigno, Kirsty Hamilton, Liz Karan,Danny Kennedy, Rob King, Geoff Kinsey, Denny Larson, Julie Light,Penn Loh, Esperanza Martinez, Richard Moore, John Passacantando,Angela Ranzoni, Amit Srivastava, Steve Sawyer, Tristi Tanaka, JorgeVarela Marquez, Daphne Wysham.

TRAC is a project of The Tides Center.

Printing: Autumn Press. Printed with union labor on recycled 30%Post Consumer Waste paper with soy based inks.

Cover Art: Paul Normandia

Design: Melissa Lawton Design

©TRAC/Tides Center, November 1999

Greenhouse Gangsters* vs. C l imate Just ice

1

As we hurtle into the twenty-firstcentury, oil is still King. But it doesnot rule benevolently. Rather, thereign of those who control thepolitics of petroleum continues toundermine democracy while fos-tering human rights violations andenvironmental disasters across theEarth.

Now, by making a major contribu-tion to a global problem thatlooms larger than perhaps anybefore it, big oil may well havemet its match. Indeed, climatechange (often referred to as globalwarming or the greenhouseeffect) has the potential toradically damage entireecosystems, agriculture,and the inhabitability ofwhole countries. Changingthe climate affects every-one and everything.

Despite the efforts of afew transnational oil cor-porations (as well as theircohorts in the coal, chemi-cal and car businesses) todupe the public into think-ing that global warming isnot a real threat, the vastmajority of the world’s cli-mate scientists and a grow-ing body of evidence say itis. No longer does the sci-entific debate focus on ifglobal warming will hap-pen, but rather on how soonit will occur and on how

bad it will be. And ifthe extraordinarynumber of extremeweather events theworld has recentlybeen experiencing—killer hurricanes,floods and heat wavesin places as far flung asCentral America,Bangladesh and theEast Coast of theUnited States—are aharbinger of what is to

come, the greenhouse world willbe harsh indeed.

The common wisdom is that themodern consumer is at fault;excessive driving, homes packedwith appliances, central heatingand cooling, and failure to turn offthe lights when leaving the houseare what’s ailing us. This is partlytrue. But the ability of individualconsumers to radically change their lifestyle while participatingin mainstream society is severelylimited. U.S. residents cannot easi-ly buy a solar-powered house orlow emission car, many cannot

take public transport to work, and economic incentives for conserva-tion and efficiency are practicallynon-existent.

The ability of the individual con-sumer to influence climate isdwarfed by the impact of giantcorporations which explore for,extract, transport, refine and dis-tribute oil which is the primarysource of carbon dioxide emissions— by far the major greenhousegas. Just 122 corporations accountfor 80% of all carbon dioxideemissions. And just five privateglobal oil corporations—ExxonMobil,1 BP Amoco,2 Shell,Chevron and Texaco—produce oilthat contributes some ten percentof the world’s carbon emissions.3

While these five companies andtheir allies in Congress are busyblaming the American consumer

Introduction

“Oilhas meant mastery

throughout the

twentieth century.”

—Daniel Yergin,

The Prize

Climate change affects everyone and

everything. Bound Brook, New Jersey

in the wake of Hurricane Floyd,

September, 1999.

for massive energy consumption,or the “Developing World” fornot taking adequate steps to curbglobal warming, the emissionsfrom the fuel they produceexceed the total of all green-house gasses coming fromCentral America, South Americaand Africa combined!

In addition to producing the oilwhich is bringing on global warm-ing, these Greenhouse Gangsters con-tribute to and perpetuate the cli-mate change dynamic in severalother key ways:

— They are refiners and marketersof oil and gas.

— They use their political powerto prevent technologicaltransformation and maintainbusiness as usual.

— They buy public and scientific opinion.

Oil’s InjusticesAt the same time that the green-house gangsters are pushing theworld to the edge of global eco-logical havoc, they continue torelentlessly destroy the healthand well being of local commu-nities and ecosystems whereprofits from oil are to be found–be it in the mangrove swamps ofthe Niger Delta, the far reachesof the Amazon basin, or the frag-ile environs of the Arctic. As Ecuadorian activist PaulinaGarzon describes the petroleumindustry’s tremendous impacts:“Oil has changed the face of ourland and the life of our peopleforever.”4

Indigenous peoples and localcommunities are organizing toprotect their human and environ-mental rights in almost every sin-gle place where Big Oil suckscrude from the ground.Unfortunately, they are oftenmet with government repressioncarried out in complicity with oilgiants like Shell or Chevron.

Meanwhile, tankers and pipelinesbelonging to corporations likeTexaco and Exxon Mobil haveleaked and gushed oil into riversand the sea, devastating aquaticecosystems, undermining thelivelihood of local fisherfolk theworld over, and, once again, gen-erating resistance in communitiesacross the globe.

Refineries run by the likes of BPAmoco and others have spewedtoxic waste into the workplace,as well as the air and groundwa-ter of neighboring communities,for decades. This behavior hasseverely affected the health andsafety of refinery workers. It hasleft the refineries’ neighbors—often poor communities ofcolor—dirty water and air, lowproperty values and depressingnick names such as “cancer alley.”But it has also helped spawn avibrant movement for environ-mental justice that has spreadacross the United States.

The dynamics of corpo-rate-led globalization areonly magnifying thiscomplex set of problems,

and with it, the injustices. Big oilis riding the wave of globaliza-tion to more profits, power andpollution. With the help of insti-tutions such as the World TradeOrganization and subsidies fromthe World Bank, the GreenhouseGangsters are expanding theirexploration into new, uncharted,often pristine ecosystems popu-lated by Indigenous peoples. BigOil is also buying up newly pri-vatized state-owned oil compa-nies in countries like Russia,Brazil and Venezuela. What’smore, the oil industry is makingnew investments in refining anddistribution in these and otherenergy hungry countries—foster-ing a greater global dependenceon oil.

Meanwhile, in order to remain“competitive” in a global econo-my they themselves have helpedshape, the GreenhouseGangsters are cutting costs athome. To do so they are under-mining worker health and safety,and shedding jobs. They are alsomerging with one another toform a group of “super major”companies—oil behemoths of ascale not seen since the break-upof the Standard Oil empire near-ly a century ago.

Big Oil’s profits depend upon theperpetuation of local environ-mental injustices along this glob-al chain of production thatreaches from extraction, to trans-portation, to refining, to distribu-tion. These activities lead upand contribute to climatechange. In fact, the looming crisis of climate change repre-sents the globalization of thischain of local ecological andhuman rights problems. In asense, global warming is theexplosion of this diversity oflocal problems into a full blownplanet-wide disaster of unprece-dented proportions.

What’s more, catastrophic cli-mate change itself will bringwith it a new round of injustices.While the least powerful are theones who are hit hardest by theoil industry’s multitude ofimpacts today, it will once againbe the poor and disenfranchisedwho will suffer the most severeeffects of global warming. Forinstance, when Hurricane Mitchravaged Central America in1998, it generated hundreds ofthousands of environmentalrefugees. In the same year, nearlyunprecedented flooding inBangladesh severely impactedmillions of people’s lives in oneof the poorest nations on Earth.

If, as scientists predict, sea levelsrise while floods and droughtsincrease, the rich, middle class

2

and poor will all be affected.Beach-front property on theEast and West coasts will beinundated, agriculture and com-merce will be disrupted, hungerand disease will spread. But itwill be people in places likeBangladesh, along with those

living in the already oil ravagedwetlands of Nigeria andLouisiana, who will have theleast recourse as the oceans sub-merge their already toxifiedlandscapes, while scarce servicesand relief supplies are channeledto the more privileged.

WHAT IS CLIMATE JUSTICE?Climate Justice means, first of all, removing thecauses of global warming and allowing the Earth to

continue to nourish our lives and those of all living

beings. This entails radically reducing emissions of car-

bon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Climate Justice means opposing destruction wreakedby the Greenhouse Gangsters at every step of theproduction and distribution process—from a morato-

rium on new oil exploration, to stopping the poisoning

of communities by refinery emissions—from drastic

domestic reductions in auto emissions, to the promo-

tion of efficient and effective public transportation.

Climate Justice in the United States means the solu-

tions adopted to ward off global warming can’t fall

hardest on low income communities, communities of

color, or the workers employed by the fossil fuel indus-

try. Climate Justice means fostering a just transitionfor these constituencies to a healthier and more just

environment to work and live in.

Climate Justice means providing assistance to com-munities threatened or impacted by climate change,such as the communities devastated by Hurricanes

Mitch and Floyd.

Climate Justice means that while all countries should

participate in the drastic reduction of greenhouse gas

emissions, the industrialized nations, which histori-cally and currently are most responsible for globalwarming, should lead the transformation. The United

States, which emits about 25 percent of greenhouse

gasses, must in particular be at the forefront of this

transformation.

Climate Justice for developing nations means that

international institutions such as the World Bank andWorld Trade Organization should halt their fundingand promotion of corporate-led fossil fuel-basedglobalization and instead foster the transformation to

sustainable and equitable development based on clean

energy technologies.

Ultimately, Climate Justice means holding fossil fuelcorporations accountable for the central role theyplay in contributing to global warming. This signifies

challenging these companies at every level—from the

production and marketing of the fossil fuels themselves,

to their underhanded political influence, to their PR

prowess, to the unjust “solutions” they propose, to the

fossil fuel-based globalization they are driving. Climate

Justice means stripping transnational corporations of

the tremendous power they hold over our lives, and in

its place building democracy at the local, national and

international levels.

Defining Climate Justice

The severity and planet-wide nature of climatechange represents a sortof an endgame for the

global oil corporations. It sets upa showdown between theGreenhouse Gangsters whoseactivities are at the heart of theglobal warming crisis, and Cli-mate Justice. The gatheringforces of Climate Justice can bebroadly defined as the interestsof the vast majority of theworld’s people and that of theecological stability of the Earth.

What can the average persondo to promote Climate Justice?It remains true that each of usshould consume the leastresources possible, using energyefficient cars and light bulbs,etc. But just as important, eachof us can join the effort to holdcorporate climate culpritsaccountable for their role inwhat may well be the largestenvironmental justice issue ofall time.

Climate Justice provides analternative to the “solutions” cor-porations have proposed to theclimate problem—false solutionswhich are divisive, inequitableand unjust. Their response,detailed in this report, is not dif-ferent from past corporateresponses to environmentalproblems—to DENY the prob-lem, DELAY solutions, DIVIDEthe opposition, DUMP theirtechnologies on the developing

world and DUPE the publicthrough massive PR campaigns.

Building a framework forClimate Justice also creates analternative to “solutions” to glob-al warming—such as emissionstrading—that do not take thesocial dimension of climatechange into account.

Climate Justice integrally linkshuman rights and ecological sus-tainability, recognizing that thecommunities fighting to live freeof the environmental and socialproblems created by big oil arealso on the front lines in thebattle against climate change.

The ranks of those fighting forClimate Justice are filled bydemocracy movements strug-gling against oil interests aroundthe world. They include com-munities polluted by refineriesand working for environmentaljustice in the United States, aswell as Indigenous people tryingto maintain their cultures andtheir lands. Residents of smog-filled cities, and students seekingto reign in unaccountable uni-versity investments all can beadvocates for Climate Justice.Activists working to generatedemocratic control over corpo-rations and to reverse thedestructive dynamics of global-ization, along with those fighting the environmentallydestructive policies of theWorld Bank and the WorldTrade Organization, are alsoadvocates of Climate Justice.

The BasicsIndigenous prophecies are dovetailing

with scientific projections. What we have

known and believed, you now also know.

The Earth is in disequilibrium. Plants are

disappearing, animals are dying and the

weather itself—the rain, the wind, and

fire—react against human activities.

—The Albuquerque Declaration of

Indigenous Peoples5

What is Climate Change?

The Earth’s climate is the result ofcomplex interactions between theatmosphere, ocean, land masses andliving organisms, all of which are

warmed by the sun. Greenhouse gases trap theheat of the sun, and the natural balance ofthose gases is what allows our climate to

support life. Climate change is the effect onthe natural climate caused by human activities. Industrial society is affecting theclimate by releasing massive amounts ofgreenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Asindustrial activities have increased, theatmospheric concentrations of greenhousegases have also increased, upsetting the natu-ral balance of gases. The primary greenhousegas is carbon dioxide (CO2), which representsthe bulk of man-made greenhouse gas emis-sions. The main activities that cause thesecarbon emissions, are burning of fossil fuels—coal, oil and gas—for heat, electricity andtransportation.

Climate Change is Real There has been intense debate over the sci-ence of global warming and whether humanactivities will really change the climate.Industry has used this debate skillfully toinstill doubt in policy makers and the publiceye in order to avoid changing business asusual. Even now there remain a handful of climate skeptics who emphasize the uncer-tainties involved and the possibility that

some factor will emerge tocounteract the effects of man-made greenhouse gasses. By farthe majority of scientists andother sectors, including theIntergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC)—a UNpanel of 2000 of the world’stop climate scientists—the U.S.government, and even most ofthe private sector now agreethat climate change is real.7

Since the world community hasresolved this debate by agree-ing to take action to preventclimate change through the

Kyoto Protocol, this paper does not review thescientific arguments of the climate skeptics.8

Recent weather events show that the theoryof man-made greenhouse gases causing globalwarming is not only correct, but that the cli-mate has already been affected. Greenhousegas concentrations are higher now than any-time in the last 220,000 years. Seven of thiscentury’s hottest years were in the 1990’s;1998 was the hottest followed by 1997. Arcticand Antarctic ice are shrinking alarmingly.Since 1980, there has been an increase inboth drought and deluge, unevenly distributedaround the world. Cloud cover has increasedin some regions, nighttime temperatures arerising, coral reefs are being bleached, and thelist of already observed impacts goes on.9

The Kyoto ProtocolThe Kyoto Protocol is the key internationalagreement on climate change. It was negoti-ated by most of the world’s governments aspart of the Framework Convention on ClimateChange under the auspices of the UnitedNations. The Kyoto Protocol recognizes theproblem of climate change and calls for reduc-tions in carbon emissions from the industrial-ized countries by the year 2008 – 2012. Forthe U.S. the reduction is to be 7% below 1990levels, for Europe the target is 8%. Developingcountries are not immediately required to takeaction.10

The United States signed the Convention inNovember 1998, but the Senate has said itwill not ratify it unless major changes aremade, including “meaningful participation”from developing countries. The Protocol wouldbe hollow without the U.S., since it is thelargest source of greenhouse gases. Althoughthe Protocol does not go nearly far enough toprevent dangerous climate change, most envi-ronmental groups support it as a first step

Other Hydrocarbons 5%

Carbon Dioxide 64%

CF-12 6%

Nitrous Oxide 6%

Methane 19%

Share of Greenhouse Warming Due to Different Greenhouse Gases

Source: World Resources Institute, 1998

Hurricane Mitch strikes Honduras, October 1998

and many lobby for strengthening its provi-sions. Most of the oil industry has vociferous-ly opposed the Kyoto Protocol.

Climate Change andEnvironmental Justice

“The ferocity of Hurricane Floyd—like

Hurricane Mitch, which killed 9,000

people in Central America—is part

of a pattern of extreme weather which

results directly from early-stage global

warming.”

— Ross Gelbspan, author, The Heat Is On6

On a global scale, climate change islikely to be the biggest environ-mental justice issue ever. The rea-son is simple: the poor are most

vulnerable to the effects of climate change.The United Nations Environment Programmesummarizes the reason:

“The predicted impacts of climate changewould probably exacerbate hunger and povertyaround the world…People who are highly

dependent on farming, fishing or forestry willwell see their livelihoods destroyed…The poorwould suffer the most because they havefewer options for responding to climatechange.”

UNEP goes on to note that the likely impactsof climate change may lead to mass migrations,which themselves lead to social and politicalconflict, and loss of cultural identity.11

More specifically, the Small Island States—mostly in the Pacific and Caribbean—are likelyto be the hardest hit. Some low-lying islandsmay become totally uninhabitable, and entirepopulations will become environmentalrefugees.

Other countries likely to suffer dramatically arein South Asia, where life is heavily dependenton the pattern of monsoons, and floods have adevastating effect.12 In 1998, the world wit-nessed a distressing example of the vulnerabil-ity of countries in Central America to hurri-canes such as Mitch, which destroyed largeparts of Honduras and Nicaragua, killing thou-sands and generating hundreds of thousands ofenvironmental refugees.

There will be many people in rich countrieswho are affected by climate change as well.

But within those countries, certain groupshave less capacity to adapt and adjust to thechanges. Low income people by definitionhave fewer resources to move, rebuild, findnew jobs, and protect their health. While theclimate itself does not discriminate, as withother environmental issues, communities ofcolor, long subject to institutionalized racism,are likely to have to fight harder for a fairshare of resources and protections.

Certain communities already bear the brunt of oil company activities. Some of these com-munities are the hosts of oil refineries, wherechronic air pollution and toxic accidents arecommon. Denny Larson, from the National OilRefinery Action Network calls these problems“local warming.” He says that “the refinerycommunities have been the guinea pigs. Ifthis is how the oil companies treat the localcommunity, why would you expect them totreat the global climate any differently?”13

When we all fill up our tanks with gasoline,oil creates more problems still. For while theindividual must take some responsibility forhis or her impact on the global environment,it also must be understood that air pollutionin many major cities—contamination thatmost severely affects the inner city poor—can be attributed to a concerted historicaleffort by oil and auto corporations to under-mine public transit systems and fosterdependence on the gas guzzling car.14

Exacerbating the injustice of the situation isthe fact that the poorest people—in theindustrialized North and the South—have neither contributed to the problem to a sub-stantial degree nor benefited financially fromthe fossil fuel industry. With climate change,it’s the poor who pay, not the polluter.

China 14%South Asia 4% Middle East 3%

Africa 3%Latin America, Canada and Caribbean 7%

Japan 5%

Europe 28%USA 24%

Rest of Asia-Pacific 11%

CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Burning by Country/Region(Includes Cement Manufacturing)

Source: World Resources Institute, 1998

But what if a group of companieswere so powerful that they couldcontrol world politics and markets tosuch a degree that it became impos-sible to steer them, even for govern-ments? What if the policies of thosecompanies are the reason that we asindividuals are locked into fossil fueluse? What if their leaders believed,like John D.Rockefellerbefore them,that “It is not thebusiness of thepublic to changeour private con-tracts?”16 Shouldwe then look tothem to volun-tarily steerthemselves, orshould we tryto gain demo-cratic controlover theiractivities?In a worldincreasinglydominated bytransnationalcorporations,the oil indus-try is thelargest busi-ness onearth.17

Oil produced by Shell alone accounts

for more carbon dioxide than most

countries in the world.

S ize MattersPreventing climate change will takenothing less than a monumentalcollective effort to wean societyfrom fossil fuels, which are current-ly the very lifeblood of oureconomies, and even our daily lives.We all must change. But how?As we enter the new millennium,governments are looking to theworld’s most powerful economicactors, the transnational corpora-tions, for technological and marketoriented solutions to our environ-mental problems. Many of the mostactive environmental pressuregroups, from the relatively main-stream Environmental DefenseFund to the more radicalGreenpeace, routinely discuss theneed to steer the private sectortoward solutions. Ethical investorsapproach the same goal using thepersuasion of capital. The transna-tional corporations, with their vastresources and technical capabilities,can invent and implement solutionsfaster than government agencies,perhaps faster than we can imagine.Their behavior will determine ourfuture.

6

Part 1: The Most PowerfulIndustry on Earth

search well, and you find that the emissions, whether they are coming

from Nigeria or the United States, are flowing from the multinational

companies.” 15 —Oronto Douglas, Environmental Rights Action, Nigeria

“Dig deepFully integrated corporations suchas Exxon Mobil, BP Amoco, RoyalDutch Shell, Chevron and Texacogenerate hundreds of billions ofdollars in revenue every year. Theyhave a vested interest in all stagesof the industry, from explorationand production to transport, refin-ing, and marketing final productssuch as gasoline. Their tentaclesreach deep into the politicalprocess of almost every country onEarth. And their product is the pri-mary source of global warming.

Overall, almost 80 percent ofhuman produced carbon dioxideemissions come from just 122 pri-vate and state owned corpora-tions.18 The oil produced by thefive Greenhouse Gangstersaccounts for some 10 percent of allglobal carbon dioxide emissions.19

If we look at other measures such asrefining or control of key regionalmarkets, the role of this group offive fossil fuel corporations is con-siderably greater.

You can reach Greenpeace at 800-326-0959 or www.greenpeaceusa.org

These guys can actually change the weather.

Mike BowlinChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Steven W. PercyChief Executive Officer

Philip Carroll Chief Executive Officer

Lucio A. NotoChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Kenneth Derr Chairman

Peter BijurChairman

A. L. CondrayPresident

The burning of fossil fuels — oil and coal — is the major cause of global warming. Global warm-ing is now an accepted scientific fact. Unchecked, it will mean more severe storms, more floods, more crop failures. The truth is, it would take over fifty years toburn the proven reserves of oil at the current rate ofuse. Sadly, if we were to burn all that oil, along witheven moderate amounts of coal, the resulting changein climate would create a world-wide catastrophe. The men who run the major oil companies must know the last thing we need is more oil. Yet, British Petroleum and ARCO are planningto drill in the pristine waters off the North Coast of Alaska.

And the rest of the companies are exploring in other locations for oil we must not burn.These companies need to be pressured to do what is prudent and necessary for life on thisplanet. They need to be pressured to spend theirresearch and development dollars to promote energy efficiency and implement solar and otherrenewable energy sources. We have more thanenough reserves, more than enough time to preventdisruptions in the lives of the American people whilewe provide an orderly shift from oil and coal torenewable energy.We at Greenpeace are leading the fight to stopthe oil companies from further exploration for oil wedo not need and must not burn. Please join us.

7

For example, the Saudi Arabianstate-owned Aramco corporation isthe single largest corporate climateculprit, responsible for nearly 7 per-cent of global emissions. But mostof the oil the Saudi Aramco pro-duces is refined and distributed inEurope, the US and Japan by threeof the Greenhouse Gangsters:Exxon Mobil, Chevron andTexaco.20

Similarly, BP Amoco alone, after itsacquisition of Arco, will control59% of U.S. refining and marketingand 28% of European refining.21

Texaco has 3,200 gas stations inBrazil, a 13% retail market share.22

Exxon and Mobil combined have

Company, Country Million Metric Tons of CO2or Continent Emitted Annually

South America 747.3

Africa 745.6

BP AMOCO 622.6 (including ARCO)

EXXON MOBIL 601.4

United Kingdom 543.3

SHELL 493.7

Central America 477.0

Canada 470.8

Ukraine 430.6

Italy 410.0

France 362.0

Mexico 327.6

Brazil 287.5

Australia 286.0

Saudi Arabia 227.1

CHEVRON 187.6

Netherlands 178.8

Turkey 160.5

Thailand 155.5

TEXACO 145.7

Argentina 128.3

Nations vs. Corporat ionsContinent, Country and Corporate CO2 Emissions 24

22% of the US gasoline market,and BP Amoco has 16%.23

Another way to look at the role ofthese companies is to comparetheir production to country emis-sions. When we do so, we find thatwhile many of the greenhousegangsters are busy insisting that theThird World reduce its emissions,these corporations produce oil thatis responsible for far more green-house gasses than most countries.

Oil produced by Shell alone emitsmore carbon dioxide than mostcountries in the world, includingCanada, Brazil, Mexico, France,Australia and Spain. BP Amoco’s

production accounts for emissionsthat surpass those of its homecountry, Britain, while ExxonMobil emissions equal some 80%of those from all of Africa or SouthAmerica.

“Getting Their Way”The oil industry’s power cannot bemeasured merely by sales, assets,or barrels of oil produced. Wemust also look at their politicalinfluence. In the United States,these companies are used to “get-ting their way,” as The New YorkTimes puts it. The Times calls Exxonand Mobil “rich in cash, aggressivein style…effective in pursuing theiragenda…at the highest level ofgovernment and through arm-twisting in Congress.”25

The Center for Responsive Politicsreports that the oil industry as awhole spent $62 million on lobby-ing Congress in 1997, the fourthlargest amount of any industry.26

On top of this, between 1991 and1996, the oil and gas industry con-tributed over $53 million to candi-dates and Political ActionCommittees, with most going toRepublicans. One analysis showedthat these contributions weresteered strategically to members ofkey Senate committees.27 In returnfor this investment, the oil industryreceives more than five billion dol-lars a year in corporate welfarefrom the U.S. government.28 Not abad deal, for them.

This mutually supportive relation-ship between Congress and Big Oilundermines the ability of the U.S.government to effectively dealwith the most serious, and poten-tially calamitous, environmentalissue in history. And it furtherundermines a democratic processalready corrupted by overwhelm-ing corporate influence.

What’s more, as The New York Timesonce again points out, the powerof Big Oil is greater than the sumof its parts because the industry is

often “marching,and lobbying, inlockstep.”29 Or asExxon Chief Lee Raymondtold an audience of his col-leagues: “united we stand,divided we fall.” Raymond hascalled for “cooperation” to prevent a “fall” on criti-cal issues such as climate change. The models forthese campaigns include working with other tradegroups, employees, and even consumers. Raymondhas underscored the importance of allying with theauto industry in confronting the Kyoto Protocol.30

This alliance of corporate climate culprits extendsbeyond lobbying to coordinated public relationscampaigns. These PR initiatives, run under theguise of front groups like the Global ClimateCoalition or industry associations such as theAmerican Petroleum Institute, have also had pro-found effects on the U.S. government’s ability toseriously address climate change.

For instance, in the run-up to the original KyotoProtocol meeting in 1997, industry ran a $13 mil-lion dollar advertising campaign aimed at under-mining support for the climate treaty. Then, inApril 1998, the National Environmental Trust dis-covered a $5 million plan by industry, includingExxon and Chevron, to train climate science skep-tics in public relations so as to convince the publicthat climate change was not real.31 These effortsmay well be just the tip of the PR iceberg—theones that have come under public scrutiny.Certainly we can expect that below the surfacemany more exist.

$53 Million Cam

paign Contrib

utions

$62 Million Lo

bbying

$13 Million Public R

elations

$5 Billion in Corporate Welfare

Senate Inaction on Kyoto

Billions in Profits

8

How Big Oi l Rigsthe System

Other Corporate Climate CulpritsThe Auto IndustryAutomobiles and trucks use a great deal of the world’s oil. In the U.S.,transportation overall accounts for about 31% of CO2 emissions, themost of any sector in the world. In the U.S. especially, millions ofdrivers have been “sold” on the need for gas guzzling Sport UtilityVehicles and luxury models. The auto manufacturers have instigated,aided and abetted this preference because Sport Utility Vehicles createhigher profit margins. Meanwhile, they have consistently resisted anddelayed switching to fuel-efficient models.

Worldwide, General Motors and Ford combine to control nearly 1/3of the market for cars and light trucks, and could affect worldwidecarbon emissions substantially by focusing on creating and marketingfuel cell, hydrogen based or fuel efficient cars. Both companies haveconcentrated more on beefing up sales of luxury cars.

In March 1999, DaimlerChrysler announced the welcome news thatthey have developed a fuel cell car to be marketed in the year 2004.However, in the meantime, every car manufacturer is making bigengined SUVs as fast as it can make them, while lobbying to excludethese vehicles from fuel efficiency standards.32

Coal CorporationsBesides oil and natural gas, coal makes the largest contribution toglobal warming. In addition, coal can cause severe local pollution,both from mining and from burning. Coal producers supply 25 percentof the world’s primary energy demand. A number of giant coal compa-nies—Peabody, Cyprus Amax, Rio Tinto, CONSOL, BHP, and ArchCoal—compete with the oil giants for the dubious distinction ofgreenhouse gangsters. Together these six transnational corporationsare responsible for nearly five percent of all global carbon emissions.33

As they globalize their mining operations, expanding throughout theThird World, these corporations are fostering many countries’ depend-ence on carbon intensive coal for their energy needs. These same cor-porations are also aggressively working to undermine the KyotoProtocol through their industry association, the World Coal Institute,as well as through the Global Climate Coalition.34

Electric UtilitiesElectricity generation is another sector that plays a giant role in glob-al warming. Like that of motor vehicles, the responsibility of utilitiesoverlaps with oil companies. Much of the utilities’ fuel is oil, and thegeneral public is the ultimate consumer of the product. Still, the elec-tric utility companies must become part of the solution to globalwarming. The top three electric utilities emit over 100 million tons ofcarbon dioxide annually. These companies’ emissions are comparablewith the burning of oil and gas from Texaco, or with all the emissionsfrom Argentina.35

Company CO2 Emissions Name in Tons per Year

American Electric Power (AEP) 138 million

The Southern Company 136 million

Tennessee Valley Authority 108 million

9

In the early days of the oilindustry, John D. Rockefellerbecame the richest and mostreviled man in America by

gaining a near monopoly on theU.S. oil industry for his corpora-tion, Standard Oil. Meanwhile inAsia, Royal Dutch and Shell competed for dominance beforecombining. The break up ofStandard Oil in 1911 led to theemergence of a larger group of stillvery big companies known as theSeven Sisters, though there wereactually eight major players.36 Formuch of the century, the SevenSisters ruled the world’s oil industry.But the dominance of the multina-tionals was weakened by the forma-tion of OPEC and the nationaliza-tion of the oil industry in the 1970’sin the largest oil producing coun-tries.

The largest oil producers in theworld today are still the national oilcompanies of Saudi Arabia, Iran,Venezuela and Mexico.37 The topten national oil companies controlsome 70% of theworld’s reserves.38

But now the pendu-lum of power isswinging backtoward theGreenhouseGangsters as theyonce again move torule the industry.The swing of thependulum is speed-ed by the process of corporate-ledglobalization.

Oil, Globalization and Climate Change: How Free Trade, Mergers and Privatization Magnify Big Oil ’s Power

Globalization supports the interests of transnational oil corporations in atleast four key ways:

• MERGER MANIA, which is sweeping the industry, is one way. Thisconsolidation is occurring as the big corporations attempt to increasetheir competitiveness in the world economy. It also represents a shiftin power back toward Big Oil, as the former “seven sisters” attempt to“unmake history,” in a sense reversing some of the break up ofStandard Oil which occurred nearly 90 years ago.39 Assuming regula-tory approval, three of the four largest oil companies in the world willbe formed by recent mergers or acquisitions.40 Although there are stillthousands of oil companies in the world, at the beginning of the 21stcentury a few supermajors will dominate the industry to an extent notseen since Standard Oil’s heyday.

• STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS, imposed by theWorld Bank and IMF, are a second support for the oil transnationals.This, combined with the collapse of the former Soviet Union, has ledto the widespread privatization of national oil companies. Oil privati-zation is a major piece of what author Daniel Yergin has called the“greatest sale in the history of the world.”41 The big oil companies aresnapping up interests in these Third World and Eastern Europeancompanies (and their markets) left and right. For instance, Russia’sGazprom, just recently privatized, is now the single largest privatelyowned corporate contributor to climate change, responsible for morethan 4 percent of world carbon emissions. Shell and others havebought significant stakes in Gazprom.42

Other state-owned oil companies have formed joint ventures with private sector companies. Mobil’s joint venture with PDVSA for

Corporate-led global-

ization is accelerating

the pace of climate

change.

exploration in Venezuela’sOrinoco Delta is one example.43

Chevron’s James Simpson believeswe will see more joint ventures, or even mergers, between themultinational and national oilcompanies.44

• FREE TRADE AND INVEST-

MENT AGREEMENTS and insti-tutions, such as NAFTA and theWorld Trade Organization(WTO), are the third plank ofglobalization that supports the oilindustry. For example, NAFTA—the North American Free TradeAgreement—promotes the oilindustry over ecological sustain-ability in two key ways. First, itexplicitly encourages governmentsto subsidize oil and gas mega-proj-ects by exempting these subsidiesfrom challenge as “unfair barriers totrade.” Meanwhile, NAFTA givesno such protection to governmentsupport for energy efficiency, con-servation or alternatives—leavingclean energy exposed to the whimsof NAFTA’s secretive, undemocraticdispute resolution panels. Underthe guise of “free” trade, NAFTAalso virtually eliminates countries’ability to control the developmentof their energy resources for exportmarkets—in essence threatening tomake Canada and Mexico virtual“resource colonies” for the UnitedStates’ nearly insatiable energydemand.45

Meanwhile the WTO is loweringbarriers to trade and investmentaround the world, and encourag-ing the expansion of countries’increasing dependency on fossilfuel based transportation, agricul-tural and energy development.This creates ever expanding mar-kets for the oil industry.

Of course, it is no coincidencethat fossil fuel industry associa-tions and corporations, includingGreenhouse Gangster Texacodominate the official U.S. govern-ment trade advisory committeefor energy issues. There are no

human rights, labor or environ-mental groups on this committee,and only one renewable energyindustry association. By contrastthere are fourteen oil, gas, electricutility and mining companies andindustry associations on the com-mittee.46 These climate culpritsare working hand in glove withthe U.S. Trade Representative toforge a new round of WTO nego-tiations focusing on energy dereg-ulation. Just as the WTO’s log-ging accord will increase defor-estation rates, thus undermining,not only biological and culturaldiversity, but also the role thatthe world’s forests play in stabiliz-ing the global climate, an energyagreement will likely have theeffect of accelerating destructiveglobal warming trends.

The WTO can also be used to sti-fle countries’ efforts to complywith the Kyoto climate treaty. For instance, the U.S. and theEuropean Union are threateningto go after Japan’s new fuel effi-ciency standards—rules that aredesigned to reduce carbon dioxideemissions—as unfair barriers totrade.47 Government subsidies forenergy efficiency, “green” govern-ment purchasing programs, andgovernment labeling of goodswhose production contributes toclimate change are all at risk ofbeing struck down by the WTO.48

• NEW FRONTIERS, includingecologically fragile areas, areopened up to oil exploration byglobalization. As free trade andinvestment accords tear downinternational economic barriers,transnational corporations arerushing into a number of newareas. The Greenhouse Gangstersare amassing cash to expand theirreach to the developing countriesof the South, to the remote rain-forests, to the deep sea, to theforbidding Arctic, literally “to theends of the earth.”49

Oil exploration is monumentallyexpensive. Even with record lowoil prices, in 1998 the industryspent $88 billion in exploration.50

Prices rebounded in 1999, andexploration budgets are likely tosoar even higher. Even Shell andBP agree, on paper, that renewablesare the wave of the future. Yet BigOil’s long-term strategy is still dic-tated by the urge to explore. Why?Many oil executives seem to sharethe feeling that “without oil…civi-lization as we know it could notexist.”51 Certainly their companiescould not exist, at least not withouta transformation. One traditionalmeasure of success for these compa-nies is how well they replace pro-duction with new discoveries. Thisbrings pressure on the oil compa-nies to look harder for more oil.

Yet there is good reason for theoil companies to resist this logicand allow discoveries to lagbehind production. The reason iswe have too much oil. This is truein the short term, as the glut of1998 and OPEC’s decision to cur-tail production in early 1999showed. But it is also true in thelong term. The scientists of theIntergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) estimatethat in order to stabilize CO2concentrations at current levelswe would need to cut back oncarbon emissions by some 60%.52

There is simply no way to do thiswithout a massive cutback on fossil fuel consumption and devel-opment of alternate energy. Theworld’s proven oil and gasreserves, if fully exploited, wouldfar exceed the earth’s capacity toabsorb carbon emissions. In otherwords, it is impossible to safelyburn even the fossil fuels wealready have, let alone those stillundiscovered.53 Yet the oil giantscontinue their expensive anddestructive search for new oil andgas fields, even in some of the mostremote places on the planet.

10

11

This drive toward new oil explo-ration has come up against amovement for human and envi-ronmental rights. The oil indus-try has profound impacts notonly on the global climate, buton local ecology and the strug-gle for democracy. Currently,new exploration and oil or gaspipelines continue to threatenthe survival of Indigenous peo-ples in the Amazon basin,Southeast Asia, North Americaand other centers of Indigenouslife. These people and their sup-porters have been actively resist-ing the encroachment of oil andgas exploitation on their land.

Such movements are attemp-ting to combat the economic

globalization fueling theGreenhouse Gangsters’ expan-sion by building a process of“grassroots globalization,” aninformal network of Indigenouspeople, economic justice advo-cates, human rights defendersand environmental groups whichcoordinate efforts to curtaildestructive oil development.Recognizing that new oil explo-ration threatens both the globalclimate and local ecology andculture, members of this networkhave called publicly for a mora-torium on new oil exploration.54

As Nigerian human rights attor-ney and activist Oronto Douglashas put it, “a stoppage of oil in the frontiers and fragile environments” can serve as

“a first step towards arresting cli-mate change.”55

In sum, globalization has fos-tered the consolidation of the oilindustry in an ever smaller num-ber of mega-corporations. It hasallowed these oil giants to buyup former state-owned compa-nies. While through NAFTA, theWTO and other accords, it hasfostered a deregulation of tradeand investment which is provid-ing the oil industry with theopportunity to continue toexpand its exploration and itsmarkets. As a result, globaliza-tion increases the GreenhouseGangsters’ responsibility for cli-mate change, both in the UnitedStates and around the world.

The words of BP’s JohnBrowne sound reassuring,especially coming from oneof the most influential exec-

utives in the oil industry today.Surely they are a step forward fromthe total denial that climate changeis a problem, which has been issuedby most oil executives until recent-ly. But what do they mean in realterms? Has John Browne put hiscompany’s money where his mouthis? How about the other oil giants?Will they act soon enough, and

Part 2: The Corporate Response—The Five “Ds”

“There is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists

and serious and well-informed people outside the scientific community that

there is a discernable human influence on the climate, and a link between

the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature…The

time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the

link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively

proven…but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seri-

ously by the society of which we are a part. We in BP have reached that

point.” —John Browne, CEO, British Petroleum56

“D”s. These often overlapping tacticsand strategies form the core of thecorporate response to environmentalissues and are all on prominent dis-play in the global warming debate.

DENY“There is no harm tohuman health or theenvironment.” Soundfamiliar? This phrase is stock in trade forcorporate spokes-people whenever thereis a release, spill, oraccident of any kind. It is also the first reaction of manu-facturers to scientific or anecdotalevidence that their products arecausing long-term damage. Forexample, DuPont, which was thetop manufacturer of chlorofluorocar-bons (CFCs) for most of the century,denied the connection betweenCFCs and ozone destruction for 14years after that connection was firstdiscovered.57 Only after evidence

vigorously enough, to play theirpart in preventing climate change?To begin to answer these questions,we invite you to study the reactionof the climate culprits to the news ofclimate change, and compare it tothe behavior of other industriesfaced with the conundrum of aproduct which provides profits butalso damages health and the envi-ronment. That behavior, typically,can be summarized as: Deny, Delay,Divide, Dump, and Dupe—the Five

was so overwhelming that dissentevaporated did DuPont finallyannounce its own decision tophase-out CFCs.

In the case of leaded gasoline addi-tive, too, the industry which madeit fought tooth and nail against thephase-out despite evidence of

childhoodlead poison-ing, denyingthat theadditive wasthe cause.The asbestosindustry hasa similar his-tory ofdenying theconnectionbetweenasbestos

products and cancer.58

Currently, the chlorine industry asa whole is still in the midst ofdenial that its products are at theroot of many of the world’s mosttoxic and persistent chemicals.59

Typically, these industries use a sci-entific sounding approach to bol-ster their denials of harm. Mostinfamous in this regard is thetobacco industry, which claimedthat there was no proven connec-tion between smoking and lungcancer despite the overwhelmingevidence of such a connection. A former speechwriter in the autoindustry recalls the policy atGeneral Motors: “If we wereaccused of contributing to air pollu-tion, we would simply say nothinghad been proved.”60

Strictly speaking, that was true. Butwhat does it really mean?The “no proof of harm” defense is amisleading use of scientific sound-ing language. “No proof of harm”may sound to the unsuspecting earlike “there is no harm.” But that isnot what the scientist means. In thelaboratory, to prove a hypothesis,the scientist must prove cause and

effect, and must be able to replicateresults. In the real world, it is diffi-cult to create the conditions toprove, beyond a scientific doubt,that a certain chemical causes a cer-tain ailment. “No proof of harm” isnot the same as “no harm.” Theindustry understands this, yet theyuse the scientific language of “noproof” to imply that there is nocause and effect.

Waiting for scientific proof ismorally wrong, because by defini-tion the proof of cause and effectcomes after the damage is alreadydone. The toy industry, in recentyears, kept vinyl toys on theshelves saying there was no proofof connection between vinyl toysand harm to health of children. Butparents understood that there was astrong possibility of a problem. Thecompanies agreed to phase out dan-gerous vinyl additives even thoughadvocates could not name a singlechild who had been affected by thechemicals.61

This principle of avoiding harmeven when there is no absolute scientific certainty is the precau-tionary approach. The precaution-ary approach is endorsed by manyinternational agreements, includingthe Rio Declaration, and even, intheory, by Shell and BP.

Denial by the Greenhouse Gangsters The theory of climate change dueto human activities became well-known in 1988, when a scorchingsummer and other events broughtenvironmental issues to the fore. Itwas also the year of the first majorinternational conference on climatechange. The meeting helped createthe IPCC, a large group of theworld’s best climate scientists. Atthis conference, industrializedcountries’ governments pledged tovoluntarily cut CO2 emissions by20% by the year 2005.

By the time of the Rio EarthSummit in 1992, the Climate

Convention was one of the mostimportant international treaties onthe table. The reaction of the oilcompanies was predictable. Climatechange was not proven, the sciencewas not scientific, there was nocause for alarm, etc. In short, fulldenial of the problem.

An industry lobby group, theGlobal Climate Coalition (GCC),was formed to spread the notionthat global warming is a dangerousmyth. Until recently, the GCC wasthe main voice of the oil industry atclimate negotiations and in keycapital cities. Although other indus-try associations have formed withmore sophisticated positions, theGCC continues to rely on the oldhabit of inappropriately emphasiz-ing the lack of proof.62

This trick is still used by Mobil andothers, who stress the lack of cer-tainty as a reason to delay actions.63

Currently, outright denial by theGreenhouse Gangsters has weak-ened a bit. For example, Shell andBP have left the GCC. They agreethat actions should be taken evenwhen there is scientific uncertainty.However these words have nottranslated into significant actions toprotect the climate. The U.S.majors, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron andTexaco are all still in the “deny”mode, stressing the uncertainty ofthe scientific studies as a reason todelay action, while admitting thereis “concern.”64

Exxon turns the precautionary princi-ple on its head, comparing the sup-posed uncertainty of the science ofclimate change to the alleged certain-ty of “serious adverse consequencesfor economic development andgrowth around the world” if fossilfuel use is curtailed.65 This rhetoricaltrick still sounds like precaution, butactually is an old-fashioned cost-benefit assertion. For Exxon, the economic disruptions of climate protection are more costly than thebenefits of climate protection.

12

Oil’s responseto globalwarming isclassic: Deny,Delay, Divide,Dump and Dupe

13

DELAY In the case of lead fuel additive,asbestos and CFCs, eventually the

evidencebecameso over-power-ing, andsocietyso over-whelm-ingly infavor ofphase-out, thattheindustrywasforced

to abandon their denials, or thedenials were simply ignored. Oncedenial has been abandoned, theindustry puts more of its effort intodelay.

The delay strategy relies a greatdeal on the value to society of theproduct in question. Issues of jobs,convenience, and consumer pricesare brought in to show that therewill be a downside to the phase-out. In this way the public is divid-ed—workers against environmen-talists, people adversely affectedversus those who gain convenience,rich versus poor—and momentumfor phase-out is temporarily slowed.All of these products are useful toat least one constituency, and theirreplacements are generally lessproven. Users and consumers arescared into thinking that theirrefrigerators or cars will not work,and begin to support a gradual sun-setting of a product rather than animmediate ban.

The latest possible phase-out dateis sought, so that the maximum usecan be made of equipment andtechnology which already repre-sents investment for the firms.Meanwhile, the firms work feverish-ly to control the market in the suc-cessor products. DuPont did this

brilliantly, having already estab-lished a dominant market share forCFC replacements like HCFC 31,even as they were wringing the lastprofits out of CFCs. DuPont flour-ished during the phase-out of CFCsby delaying it long enough to planits own dominance of replacementchemicals.

Delay by theGreenhouse GangstersDelay is also an important tactic forthe Greenhouse Gangsters. Mobillaid its cards on the table in a seriesof ads just before and after theKyoto meeting in December 1997.On the op-ed page of The New YorkTimes, Mobil emphasizes the “highdegree of uncertainty” over theimpact of human carbon emissions.It says we “don’t know enoughabout global warming;” it scares uswith predictions of job loss and“difficult choices” for Americans,such as “How much prosperity areAmericans willing to forgo?” and“How much more tax will theyhave to pay?” It warns that theProtocol could put “the U.S. at adisadvantage.” And it claims thatactions to prevent climate change“could wreak havoc on nations.”This is the set up. Mobil thenadvises us not to take any “quick-fix” measures, and to “Stop, lookand listen before we leap.” In otherwords, delay.66

To implement the delay, the entirestrategic arsenal is on display.Contributions to right wing legisla-tors; alliances with other industriessuch as the auto industry and withsome labor unions such as theUnited Mine Workers of America;lobbying for U.S. rejection of theKyoto Protocol, even after weaken-ing it by calling for late action; theformation of the Global ClimateCoalition and other lobby groupswhich are very active at the climatenegotiations—these are all aimed atdelaying changes.

Delay is self-perpetuating. Mobilnotes that the 7% carbon cutsbetween 2008 and 2012 which theU.S. would require under theKyoto Protocol really represent41% cuts, because the 7% arebelow 1990 levels. It uses the 41%figure to frighten the public intothinking that affluence and modernconvenience are at stake. Mobildoes not mention that its owndenials and delays are part of thereason that carbon emissions arestill growing in the U.S. Its ownpolicies are part of the reason thatthe relatively modest 7% goal willbe more difficult to reach.67

Here it is also interesting to notethe role of BP and Shell, the twoGreenhouse Gangsters that haveadmitted that climate change is aserious problem. These companieshave stated that precautionaryaction is appropriate to the situa-tion; that is, carbon emissionsshould be reduced even thoughthey believe there is no scientificcertainty that human activities arecausing harmful climate change.They have received positive atten-tion for these statements, and for astated commitment to investmentin solar energy.

Shell and BP, as European-basedcompanies, were quicker to under-stand the meaning of a precaution-ary approach, and quicker toinclude it in their rhetoric. In theirhome countries, where climatechange has become a big issue, the political climate encouragessuch political positioning. But thesecompanies’ relatively minor effortsto promote alternative energy may,more than anything else, help alleviate the growing political pressure on them, serving to delayreal measures to address globalwarming.

What’s more, Shell and BP are content to allow the AmericanPetroleum Institute do their dirtywork for them. API continues itsrole in denying the problem of

climate change and delaying solu-tions.68 In doing so, API representsboth BP Amoco and Shell Oil. Thepositions of the more reactionarycompanies like Exxon, and of indus-try associations like API, allowShell and BP to sound progressiveand environmentalist without hav-ing to make substantial changes totheir business plans. Or, as The WallStreet Journal puts it, “oil companiesplay on both sides of the globalwarming debate.”69

Pollution Trading—Another Way to DelayTo prevent climate change, reduc-ing fossil fuel use is the crux of thematter. Yet the U.S. governmentand industry have gone to greatlengths to come up with schemes toavoid or delay doing just that whilestill getting credit for carbon reduc-tions. These schemes are based onthe principle of emissions trading.

In its broadest sense, trading takesseveral forms, which are known asFlexible Mechanisms under theKyoto Protocol. These includeJoint Implementation and the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM).Joint Implementation allows theindustrialized countries to buy thecredit for another country’s reduc-tions rather than having to reduceemissions at the source. The CDMallows the industrialized countriesto avoid domestic reductions inexchange for participating in devel-oping country projects which wouldproduce lower emissions than other-wise would have been emitted. Forexample, the U.S. could buy “credit”for carbon absorbed by carbon“sinks,” like forests, in the South, orfor global warming gas reductions inthe former Soviet Union, whereeconomic downturn is causingreductions anyway.

Experience with emissions tradingin air pollution has shown that pollution trading can create phan-tom reductions, reward the worsthistorical polluters, promote fraud,

and undermine technology innova-tion. Emissions trading schemes donot address the local pollutingeffects of carbon emitting facilitieslike refineries, and therefore canexacerbate environmental racismboth within the U.S. and acrossborders. And thetrading system putssouthern countriesat a disadvantagewhen they beginmaking carbon cuts,since the easiestcuts will havealready been pur-chased and creditedto northern coun-tries.70

Even some climatescience skepticssuch as Jack Kemprealize that emissions trading is “acynical bargain between big busi-ness and the Federal Government”which will “divide the businesscommunity between winners…andlosers, who will face the full bruntof any emissions controls.”71

The Greenhouse Gangsters are byno means the only proponents ofemissions trading as a solution toclimate change. It is supported bysome environment groups such asEnvironmental Defense Fund andUnion of Concerned Scientists. Butto an extent, this support reflectsthe realpolitik of climate change. Itpresupposes that we cannot forcethe fossil fuel industry to change ifwe cannot make it profitable to doso, and this assumption is based onthe knowledge of the industry’stremendous power. Questions ofjustice and fairness become second-ary in the realpolitik calculation.Trading schemes, as one columnistputs it, provide a “pretense ofaction to the public while givingwinking assurance to industry thatthe status quo is not disturbed.”72

The embrace of emissions trading as asolution reflects the desperate lengthsto which the U.S. government feels

it must go to avoid and delay making actual reductions in ourdependence on fossil fuels and ouremissions of carbon. The emissionstrading system allows the least challenge to the power of theGreenhouse Gangsters and their

allies, while under-mining the creationof real solutions toclimate change.

DIVIDEIn fighting envi-ronmental regula-tion, corporationsdo not merelyadvocate delay,but bring out theentire arsenal oftactics to effectthe delay. Among

the most important of these tacticsis to DIVIDE the opposition.Perhaps the most important divi-sion exploited by business in thelast 30 years has been between theenvironment and labor movements.From the infamous spotted owl ver-sus lumberjacks debate in thePacific Northwest to the closing ofchemical plants, jobs versus envi-ronment is the traditional wedgefor business.

Some environment and labor advo-cates believe this wedge is becom-ing even more powerful, due to ris-ing job insecurity.73

Greenhouse Gloom and Doom In the case of global warming, thethreat of job loss and other eco-nomic forecasts of doom have beenan effective way to divide critics ofthe fossil fuel industry. In the U.S.,the economic doom forecast by theindustry should the Kyoto Protocolmove forward has successfullydivided environmentalists from atleast a portion of the labor commu-nity, despite that fact that workershave not fared well at the hands ofthe fossil fuel industry, and despiteefforts by the AFL-CIO to keep

14

15

open a dialogue between the laborand environmental movements.74

Job loss in the U.S. has been themost effective scare tactic industryhas used in opposing climate pro-tection in general and the Kyototreaty in particular. Let’s look atthose claims.

According to the AmericanPetroleum Institute (API), the oilindustry employs nearly 1.5 millionpeople in the U.S.75 API, whosemembers include all the major oilcompanies, has actively raised thespecter of job loss due to the KyotoProtocol.76

In 1997, a study by the WhartonEconometric Forecasting Associatesforecast wildly gloomy conse-quences if the U.S. were to sign theKyoto Treaty. These included theloss of 2.4 million jobs, $300 billionin GDP, and an average loss of$2,700 per household.77 The studywas cited by the AmericanPetroleum Institute, Mobil andother companies as evidence of thehardships combating climatechange will bring.

The Economic Policy Instituteexamined the study and found theauthors had included portions ofthe Kyoto Protocol which were notagreed to and made other undulypessimistic assumptions.78 TheNational Environmental Trust dis-covered connections betweenWharton and the GCC, API, Shelland Texaco. API funded the study.79

API also co-sponsored a study byRonald Sutherland, which con-cludes that the Kyoto Protocolwould cost Americans thousands ofjobs—23,000 in the aluminumindustry alone, 5,800 in the cementindustry, 7,500 to 75,000 in thechemical industry, and thousandsmore in steel, paper and petroleumrefining. The study says that thejobs would migrate overseas, tocountries with less stringent com-mitments under Kyoto.80

Again, a gloom and doom scenario.The tone of these studies and adsimplies that the industry is just fineas it is, and the Kyoto Protocol isthe main threat to its health. Inreality, the fossil fuel industry isalready shedding jobs, withoutinfluence from the Kyoto Protocol.

In the U.S., the Bureau of LaborStatistics calculates that from 1990—1996, oil and gas extraction lost76,000 jobs net. According to theBureau, between Oct. 1997 andMarch 1999, 52,000 jobs—some15% of the workforce—were lost inoil and gas production alone, andmany will not be replaced. Exxonchief Lee Raymond says 450,000 oiljobs were lost between 1981 and1996, though he blames U.S. envi-ronmental regulations for the loss.81

Many of the job losses are amongthe small producers, who are hard-est hit by low prices.82

But giant oil companies arecutting jobs as well The Oil and Gas Journal believes thatmost of the 51,500 oil jobs lost fromDecember 1997 to February 1999were layoffs at large companies.83 BPAmoco’s purchase of Arco will leadto approximately 2,000 jobs lost,mostly in California.84 Two monthsbefore the announcement of the

ARCO acquisition, BP Amoco hadalready laid off 400 Alaskaworkers.85 In January the companyannounced a loss of 900 jobs inBritain and in February 1,500Chicago area jobs.86 The ExxonMobil merger will involve at least9,000 jobs lost.87 And Exxon hasalready been cutting jobs at the rateof 4% annually for over a decade.88

Neither climate change nor theKyoto Protocol are a current causeof job loss in the fossil fuel indus-try. Rather, management’s ownplans for mergers and other restruc-turing to maximize competitivenessand profit, are the main forcesbehind job loss in the industry.

The predicted future losses are alsomisleading. The API studies andrelated advertising campaignsassume that the Kyoto Protocol willbe signed without policies to miti-gate the job loss. That is a prepos-terous assumption, and there aremany policies available.

Big oil’s rush to profits comes at the

expense of jobs, community health

and the environment—their tactic is

to play these groups against one

another.

Fossil fuel

corporations are

misleading the American public

by playing off their fears and blaming the “Third World”

policies favoring new technologiescould not only reduce carbonemissions and other pollutants, butalso “cut energy costs, increaseemployment… [and] reduce netcosts by $530 per household.”91

Economic Extortion and JobFear or Just Transition? In the long run, jobs will be dis-placed as the fossil fuel industry isgradually phased out. Unless some-thing unexpected happens toreverse the trend of global warm-ing, this is as inevitable and desir-able as the phase-out of leadedgasoline, CFCs, and asbestos. Thesooner we plan for the transition,the better off workers and environ-ment will be.

The phase-out of leaded fuel is afascinating precedent, and onewhich we must avoid repeating.Lead was added to gasoline startingin 1924 to boost octane. By the1970’s scientists discovered thatthis was a monumental mistake.Leaded fuel was the biggest sourceof global lead contam-ination and millionsof children had beenpoisoned by lead,causing loss of intel-ligence, behavioralproblems and neuro-logical problems.Starting in 1975,lead was phased outof gasoline.92

DuPont, Ethyl andother lead additiveproducers warnedthat thousands ofjobs would be lostas a result of thephase-out. Theywere not cryingwolf. The closure

The Sutherland study asserted thatjobs in the steel, paper, cement andrefining industries would migrate todeveloping countries with less strin-gent Kyoto commitments. It is true,though reprehensible, that some ofthe dirtiest industries have migratedto developing countries whenhealth and safety regulations makeit more difficult or more expensiveto operate in the U.S.

But ironically, it is these industries,including the members of API,which support the ability of U.S.companies to freely move whereveron earth they wish. Instead of argu-ing for some control on the exportof polluting and hazardous indus-tries to the South, they now arguethat we can’t afford regulationsbecause industry will leave.

The argument is disingenuous isanother way. Even without regula-tions which directly restrict migra-tion of dirty industries, there areways to prevent the loss of thesejobs. A carbon tax on imported car-bon intensive goods is one way. Aborder adjustment is another way.With border adjustments, the taxon fuel, for example, is based onthe place of consumption, not pro-duction. Therefore, there is noincentive to move production over-seas. Border adjustments are alreadycommonly used and are compatiblewith international trade rules. Forexample, ozone depleting chemi-cals are taxed in this way.89 Whenindustry tries to scare us about jobloss if we take action to preventglobal warming, they are deliber-ately ignoring these policies.

The Greenhouse Gangsters are alsoignoring the employment benefits ofcutting greenhouse gas emissions.Researchers looking at solar andwind power, micro-energy andlow/no-emission vehicles have con-cluded that the Kyoto Protocol“would create more winners thanlosers” through low energy pricesand job creation.90 One detailedreport shows how market-based

16

of lead additive plants and refiner-ies (some of which closed ratherthan upgrade) cost 7,670 jobs.93

For some of the families of theseworkers, the layoffs were no doubta severe hardship. Yet who wouldargue that another entire genera-tion of children should risk thenightmare of lead poisoning to pro-tect these jobs? Who would tell amother in New York City orOakland that her child mustbreathe additional lead because ajob must be protected at all costs?It is entirely understandable thateach generation of workers willfight to protect its jobs. But indus-tries will continue to transform,mostly due to changing markets ortechnologies, but also sometimes as a response to social or environ-mental issues. When these changescost jobs, the response should benot to protect jobs in dirty indus-tries indefinitely but to provide a JUST TRANSITION. Such supportneeds to be both for workers wholose their jobs, and the communities

that are left dealing with the environmental andeconomic consequences of a toxic industrydeparting as a result of regulations which benefitthe wider society.

The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union,which has since merged with the PaperworkersInternational to form PACE, has demanded thecreation of a National Just Transition Fund “toprovide full income protection, access to sus-tainable jobs and education for workers in toxicindustries, and economic support for impactedcommunities.”94 PACE is working with theSouthwest Network for Environmental andEconomic Justice and other environmental jus-tice organizations to build a Just TransitionConsortium that organizes workers and fence-line communities through training and dialogue(see p. 25). Meanwhile, in Canada, theChemical, Energy and Paperworkers Union hasnot only made Just Transition its policy, but isworking nationally to make it a legislative ini-tiative across the country.

API and its members, which cry so loudly aboutjob loss due to the Kyoto Protocol, are mainlysilent about their workers’ call for Just Transition.Industry’s concern about job loss due to theKyoto Protocol or other means of reducing fossilfuel use rings hollow when it routinely slashesjobs to increase profits. Its failure to developplans for a Just Transition is another way theGreenhouse Gangsters hang on to their fossil fuelbusiness at the expense of the planet’s health.

North vs. SouthHow to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a waythat is fair to all countries is the most con-tentious issue at the Kyoto Protocol negotia-tions. This reflects both the real complexity ofthe issue and the mutual suspicion between socalled developed and developing countries ininternational politics.

The Greenhouse Gangsters have used this emo-tionally and politically charged issue to slowdown, weaken or derail progress toward CO2reductions. Fossil fuel corporations have usedjingoism and xenophobia cleverly to divide theinternational public on the issue. The maintheme is the need for developing countries tocut carbon emissions.

The petroleum industry has insisted that theKyoto Protocol is unfair because no action isrequired of developing countries. Its campaignhas worked, as its position has been echoed inthe U.S. Senate and casts a shadow over the

THE BLAME GAME: GLOBAL WARMING & GLOBAL EQUITYHow should actions to prevent climate change be shared among the countries of theworld? There are many ways to look at the question, and the answer, inevitably, ispolitical. A common sense approach to equity, or fairness, includes the followingfactors:97

• historical emissions

• current and future emissions

• per capita emissions

• ability to reduce emissions without hardship to population

The Kyoto Protocol, which so outrages big oil, says that the U.S., Western Europeand other industrialized countries must reduce their carbon emissions by variousamounts by the year 2010. Developing country commitments will come later. Is thisreally so unreasonable?

One measure of how to require actions would be historical responsibility. In otherwords, how much total carbon a given country has emitted in the past is one indica-tion of their responsibility. By this criterion, the United States has by far the largestcontribution to total CO2 emissions. Despite having smaller population, the U.S. hasemitted about three times more CO2 since 1950 than the Soviet Union/Russia orChina.98 The industrialized world as a whole accounts for about 80% of CO2 emis-sions historically.99

In current emissions, the U.S. also has by far the highest of any country in theworld. Moreover, U.S. emissions are still growing, with an increase of 11% between1990 and the year 2000. With the exception of Germany and the UK, all the majoremitters whose CO2 emissions decreased were in the former East bloc; the decreasewas due to economic stagnation rather than improved efficiency or development ofalternative fuels.100

On a per capita basis, the U.S. contribution is even more skewed. On average a U.S.citizen emits about 120 pounds of greenhouse gases per day, about twice as muchas the average for other wealthy countries like France, Germany or Japan. With justfour per cent of the world’s population, the U.S. emits about one-fourth of theworld’s greenhouse gases.101 The average greenhouse gas emissions of a U.S. citizenare equal to 25 Indians, 33 Pakistanis, 125 Bangladeshis, or 500 Nepalese.102

Worse still, U.S. energy consumption is still growing, largely as a result of more driv-ing, bigger cars, bigger houses and appliances, and lack of efficiency measures byindustry.103

In addition, the U.S. has the strongest economy in the world, and one of the high-est rates of CO2 emissions per unit of GDP. By any interpretation of equity, the U.S.should double, triple or quadruple the reductions of almost all other large countries,even the wealthiest nations of Western Europe. Neither the Kyoto Protocol nor anyother forum has dared to suggest this, however.

If one were to take into account emissions created by US corporations operating inthe developing world, the responsibility of the US is greater still.

And what about China and India? If we look at the four criteria for common sensefairness above, we see that these countries fit just one of the four. They are notmajor historical contributors, they have relatively low per capita emissions, andtheir widespread poverty makes it difficult to reduce emissions while improving thestandard of living. But in simple numerical terms, it is true that China, India, Braziland a few other developing countries must become part of the solution if climatechange is to be prevented. As we have already seen, the oil companies, along withthe international financial institutions, nevertheless are pushing the development offossil fuel based economies on these countries.

climate negotiations.95 The indus-try has deliberately focused on thisissue because it plays to the mostjingoistic and racist side of the U.S.public, to the unsubstantiated butnagging belief that the masses ofChina and India are the real envi-ronmental problem, to the fear thatthe United Nations is picking onthe American people, their free-dom, their lifestyle.96

The justification for this position isthat in approximately 2015, accord-ing to the International EnergyAgency, carbon emissions fromdeveloping countries as a group willexceed those of industrialized coun-tries. Yet this projection is just oneside of the story, and does not meanthat all countries must make thesame commitments. The corpora-tions know this. In truth, their posi-tion is really an attempt to weakenor derail the treaty altogether.

The oil industry downplays theobvious fact—understood by every-one outside the United States—thatcarbon emission cuts must comefrom the U.S., which puts out 24%of all greenhouse gasses, making itthe single largest contributor to cli-mate change. This divisive themeleads to misplaced outrage amongsome Americans at developingcountries. This is juxtaposed withthe outrage felt by much of theworld at massive overconsumptionin the U.S. With people from indus-trialized countries and developingcountries blaming each other andmisunderstanding their relativeresponsibilities and roles, the oilindustry no doubt feels less threat-ened than it would in a world unit-ed to reduce fossil fuel use.

DUMPWhen a corporation sees the writ-ing on the wall, when its homecountry has at last banned itsproduct, it may have alreadymade arrangements to protectprofits by dumping the productin the developing world.

18

In one especially heinous case,Shell and other companies manu-factured a pesticide for export toCentral America even after its usewas banned in the U.S. because itcaused sterilization in men.104

But in many cases, the expansion ofa dirty industry proceeds well beforeregulations clip its wings at home.

The tobacco industry is one of thebest examples of an industry whichfirst denied scientific proof, thendelayed restriction at home, andthen dumped its product on the restof the world. As massive publiceducation campaigns and the litiga-tion by State Attorneys Generalfinally brought an end to growthfor tobacco in the U.S., the tobaccocompanies were busy building theirmarkets overseas. They enlisted theUnited States Trade Represen-tative’s help in opening markets.And they kept health warningsoff cigarettes for export, evenwhen such warnings were requiredin the U.S.

The strategy worked. Philip Morrisand RJ Reynolds, the two leadingU.S. companies, now sell nearly 2/3of their cigarettes and earn nearlyhalf their profits abroad.105

It worked for DuPont and Ethyl aswell. They continued profiting fromexport of lead fuel additive to thedeveloping world well after its role incausing childhood lead poisoning wasunderstood and its use was phased-out in the U.S. and Canada.106

Canada, the second largest produc-er of asbestos in the world, exportsnearly all of it, since asbestos is virtually banned in Canada. Most of

the exports go to the developingworld, where people are still rou-tinely exposed to the misery ofasbestos diseases.107

The chlorine industry and its satel-lite industries like pulp, paper andPVC plastic are expanding mostrapidly in Asia and Latin Americaas the environmental consequenceof chlorine chemistry has becomeunderstood in Europe and NorthAmerica.108

Since most technologies and prod-ucts which spread globally are firstinvented in the North, this is thestandard pattern. It is a patternwhich has become even more pro-nounced as the rules of the globaleconomy facilitate the export ofdirty industry and discouragenational governments from prevent-ing import of environmentally dam-aging products and technologies.

Dumping by the GreenhouseGangsters (aka: Globalize,Globalize, Globalize)Chevron said it well in its 1992Annual Report. “Attractive opportu-nities overseas combined with limited business opportunities inthe U.S. due to stringent regulatorybarriers, drilling bans and a dwin-dling number of high-potentialexploration opportunities haveresulted in a shift in investmentemphasis.”109

Despite some differences, the expan-sion of the fossil fuel industry in theSouth has a lot in common with theclassic dumping practices of tobacco,asbestos and lead industries.

Most governments agree that, des-pite the squeals of the U.S. rightwing, the developing world shouldbe given more time before they arerequired to cut back on CO2 emis-sions. During that time, developingcountries will be a growth marketfor oil and gas. So the oil giants,along with many of the smallerbrethren, are tripping over eachother to claim concessions in these

19

countries. An oil concession map of the Amazon basin of South Amer-ica or West Africa looks like a who’swho of international oil companies.Massive areas of Peru, Venezuela,Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador aregiven over to these companies bygovernments in the process of eco-nomic liberalization.110

The process of globalization, sup-ported and pushed by these samecorporations, opens the economiesup to these companies. These coun-tries become as dependent on fossilfuels, both for foreign exchangeand for domestic consumption, asany industrialized country.

Hydrocarbon Hypocrisy The industrialized world and itscorporations are driving the devel-oping world toward replicating theenergy model which causes globalwarming, and supporting massivenew fossil fuel projects for theSouth. This being the case, it isremarkable that the same forces arecrying out that the developingworld must reduce CO2 emissionsunder the Kyoto Protocol.

Exxon chief Lee Raymond, forexample, reminded an audience inChina of “the need to maintain and,if possible, increase local productionand reserves [of oil]…” He went onto explain that “excluding develop-ing countries from the reductions [ofthe Kyoto Protocol] will not preventthem from being hurt. Their exportswill suffer as the economies ofindustrialized nations slow.”111

As already noted, the oil majors are highly transnationalized companies and their petroleumactivities extend to dozens of coun-tries in Africa, Latin America andAsia. They are proud of their roleas major driving forces behind thegrowth of the fossil fuel industriesin the South.112 To name just onenotorious example, Exxon and Shellare part of the consortium planningthe controversial Chad Cameroongas pipeline, which will have the

capacity to carry 225,000 barrels ofcrude per day for a period of 25–30years.113

It is one thing to invest millions ingrowing a carbon-based economy inthe developing countries, butanother to insist simul-taneously that thesecountries must plan tocut carbon emissions.The Rio Earth Summitestablished the princi-ple that industrializedand developing coun-tries have “common butdifferentiated responsi-bilities.”114 This princi-ple guides the Kyototreaty as well. It is anaccepted part of theinternational approachto environmental issues. The oilgiants are well aware of this.

Yet the oil companies have allowedtheir public relations departments,trade associations, front groups andright-wing politicians to do thedirty work of stigmatizing China,India, and other developing coun-tries to the U.S. public. The UnitedNations and environmental“extremists,” like Al Gore, are demo-nized for allowing these countries adifferent timetable for adjustingtheir economies to the reality ofclimate change.

The Greenhouse Gangsters shouldbe telling the world the truth. It isthe U.S.—its government, peopleand, perhaps most of all, its corpo-rations—which must take the leadrole if disastrous climate change isto be prevented.

DUPE Since the late 1980’s,industry has becomeincreasingly con-cerned and sophisti-cated about environ-mental issues.Whether the concernis mainly for the envi-ronment or for theirpublic image is a mat-ter of heated debate.Some companies and

business groups do not even distin-guish between the two rationales.116

In any case, business has movedaggressively to control the terms ofthe environmental debate, by co-opting and distorting environ-mental language, by forming envi-ronmental departments and givingspeeches about the importance ofenvironment for good business, bycreating corporate sponsored “envi-ronmental” groups, by allying withmainstream non-governmentalorganizations, by investing insmall-scale projects which are envi-ronmentally friendly and distract

THE WORLD BANK’S CLIMATE HYPOCRISYResearchers have documented that the World Bank and other international financial institu-tions have a similar Climate Hypocrisy policy. Rather than assisting developing countries inphasing out fossil fuels, the Banks are lending millions of dollars a year for new fossil fuelprojects. These projects include coal-fired power plants in China and India, the most carbonintensive energy sources available. The researchers found that the projects enriched Amoco,Exxon, Chevron and Mobil, among other western companies.

World Bank projects financed since 1992 will produce 37.9 billion tons of carbon, more thana year’s worth of total carbon emissions for the whole world. U.S. export credit and insur-ance agencies, the Export Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation,have underwritten $23.2 billion in financing for fossil fuel projects around the world—proj-ects which will emit 25.5 billion tons of CO2 over their lifetimes. Yet when China recentlyannounced a $23 million investment in solar energy, no international financial institutionsupported it.115

of Peru. If Mobil’s ad is to be be-lieved, Conservation International’scollaboration in this unnecessaryand destructive project has beensecured.121

Shell has its “Profits or Principles”philosophy which indicates that itdoes not need to choose betweenprofits and principles but can satisfyeveryone. A recent ad, replete withthe predictably exuberant greenfoliage behind the company logo,claims Shell is “focusing [its] ener-gies on developing [renewable ener-gy] solutions”122 even while itsAnnual Reports document fossil fuelgrowth and provide maps graphical-ly demonstrating the astoundingglobal reach of its oil and gas explo-ration and production operations.123

In 1999, British Petroleum one-upped its competitors in the green-wash sweepstakes. Chairman JohnBrowne laid the groundwork withhis endorsement of the precaution-ary principle and recognition thatBP needs to take into account theviews of the society in which itoperates. Then came a commit-ment to reduce BP’s own

from the destructive nature of theircore business, and by “posing asfriends of the environment andleaders in the struggle to eradicatepoverty.”67

The largest petroleum, chemical,nuclear and mining companies havespent hundreds of millions of dol-lars trying to convince the publicthat they are the leaders in environ-mental protection and our allies inpromoting sustainable developmentand human rights. Some of themost notorious names in environ-mental history—DuPont, Dow,Sandoz, Monsanto, Shell, Exxon—have promoted themselves as envi-ronmentally concerned leaders. Thephenomenon of environmentalimage advertising and other envi-ronmentally oriented PR programshas been dubbed “greenwash.”118

Greenhouse GreenwashThe Greenhouse Gangsters, someof which were pioneers of green-wash in the 1980’s, indulge in un-healthy doses of climate greenwash.

Chevron has its “People Do” adver-tising campaign.119

Exxon has its“Save the TigerFund,” which asso-ciates its logo withthe endangeredtiger.120

Mobil has its unc-tuous op-ed pageads every Thursdayin The New YorkTimes. In May 1999,Mobil boasted ofhow it overcameConservationInternational’s alarmat plans to developoil in the sensitiveTambopata rainforest

20

Going green or greenwashing? BP bought itself

the world’s largest solar company for $45 mil-

lion. Meanwhile it plans to spend $5 billion on

more oil exploration and production.

emissions by 10% by the year2010.124 In March, 1999, BP boughtSolarex for $45 million, making itthe largest solar company in theworld. And on March 13th, JohnBrowne announced that BP Amocowould install solar panels in 200gas stations around the world.

It’s not that there’s anything intrin-sically wrong with these initiatives.Its just that they pale in compari-son to the aggressive consolidationof power and commitment to fossilfuels in which the company hasbeen engaged. For BP, being theworld’s largest solar company is notdifficult. The $45 million spent onSolarex, is a mere fraction of the$400 million in transfer taxes asso-ciated with the purchase of ARCO,which cost $26.5 billion.125

The company’s dramatic move toacquire Arco in 1999 was aimed atstrengthening its gasoline market-ing position in the U.S., and givesit control over all Alaskan oilexploration. In Alaska alone, BP

21

HYDROCARBONS ANDHUMAN RIGHTS

“Speaking of human rights in the

[Amazonian] oil producing regions

is like speaking a language from

another planet.”128

—Paulina Garzon, Center for Economic

and Social Rights, Quito, Ecuador

Oil development has been at the centerof human rights abuses around the globefor decades, and the companies havecome under withering attacks for theirroles.

In Ecuador, Texaco dominated the oilindustry for decades and the pollutionfrom their operations affected an esti-mated 30,000 Amazonian Indians andfarmers. Their health, their ability togrow food, their land, in short, theirentire lives, were affected. These oil vic-tims are plaintiffs in a lawsuit againstTexaco for damage to their land andhealth.129

In Nigeria, Shell’s role in propping upthe military dictatorship became notori-ous because of the execution of KenSaro-Wiwa and the suppression of dissentby the Ogoni people. In 1998, Chevronplayed a similar role, providing transportfor military personnel who killed Ijawyouth who were protesting at oil installa-tions. Shell and Chevron are also beingsued in U.S. courts for these violations.130

In Burma, California-based Unocal’sYadana pipeline is the cause of massive

militarization of the area, which hasresulted in forced relocation, forcedlabor, rape and summary executions bythe military regime. Unocal joins Shell,Texaco and Chevron in the dubious dis-tinction of being sued for its role inthese abuses.131

In Colombia, a former oil engineer says“it is inarguable that the arrival of thepetroleum industry to any region of thecountry immediately worsens the condi-tions of the population. One only has tolook at a map to see that the regions ofviolent conflict and human rights viola-tions coincide with the regions of naturalresource exploitation, particularly petrole-um.”132 Despite this record, environmen-tal protection is not the only cause theGreenhouse Gangsters have belatedlyadopted in the last few years. The oilgiants are now promoting themselves ashuman rights champions as well.

Incredibly, the oil industry is proud of itshuman rights record. Shell and Unocal, forexample, both include the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights on their web-sites and Shell discusses why it is commit-ted to human rights.

The American Petroleum Institute offersa 12-page dossier: “Oil and Natural GasIndustry Promotes Human RightsAbroad.” The Institute concludes that“Wherever they are engaged, Americanpetroleum companies…provide powerfulsupport for humanitarian activities.”

The compendium includes claims such as:“Peru has benefited in a number of ways

from the presence of OccidentalPetroleum.” This laugher specificallymentions the sinking of 10 freshwaterwells along three Rivers in northeasternPeru which are known for their contami-nation by crude oil from Oxy’s opera-tions. Oxy also has the gall to include itscontribution to education in Colombia,where it threatens to begin oil activitiesin sacred U’wa land. The 5,000 U’wa peo-ple have threatened to commit mass sui-cide if Oxy proceeds.

In this document we discover that BPjoined with WWF in bringing environmen-tal education into the school curriculumin China. We may be surprised to learnthat Shell has “consistently called for fairtrials and humane treatment for prison-ers” in Nigeria, where the military gov-ernment executed Ken Saro-Wiwa andeight other Ogoni activists for agitatingagainst Shell. Perhaps we’re shocked tofind out that Unocal has “improve[d]living conditions in the Yadana region ofMyanmar [Burma],” where, as even UNO-CAL President John Imle has admitted,forced labor has been used to build thecompany’s pipeline.

Evidently, Exxon had to dig deep to findsomething to include here. It joined withthe government of Colombia to form anonprofit organization to promote eco-nomic development. It has helped “topromote capitalism among young peoplein Russia.” Quite believable. And finally,a bit of unintended, though welcome,honesty: “Exxon is committed to helpingits advertising icon [the tiger].”

Amoco will spend $5 billion in thenext five years on oil explorationand production.126 The implicationis clear: BP Amoco is committed,over the long term, to continuedreliance on oil and gas.

The merger with Amoco and thepurchase of Arco put John Browneat the helm of the largest fossil fuelcompany in the world. The pursuitof oil in Alaska and in the Arcticare perfect examples of following a

fossil fuel path which is leading tocatastrophic climate change. Theendorsement of the precautionaryapproach and the miniscule solarinvestments don’t change the basicfacts. BP Amoco is part of green-house greenwash, an attempt todupe the public into leaving the oilcompanies to regulate themselves.

In reality, over time, the Green-house Gangsters have not used theirpower for significant development of

renewable energy. In 1973, geother-mal, wind, and solar accounted for0.1% of world energy supply. In1996, renewables accounted for amere 0.4% of world energy supply.During that same period, oildeclined in terms of dominance offuel supply, from 44.9% to 35.3%,though it is still the biggest source.But this decline was replaced largelywith natural gas, which contributesequally to global warming, andnuclear power.127

accounts for 10% of all carbonemissions. If we include their rolein refining and marketing, theircontribution to climate change ishigher. Their power in Washingtonand other capitals is difficult toresist, and that power is magnifiedby a collective political strategy.The globalization dynamic theyhave forged further expands theirreach and impact. This collectionof power dwarfs the influence ofthe individual to affect changethrough lifestyle choices.

As the saying goes, with powercomes responsibility. How has theindustry handled its power? The oil

giants would like us to believe theyhave become allies in the quests forenvironmental protection, sustain-able development and humanrights. These corporations haveadopted, to varying degrees, therhetoric of scientists and environ-mentalists concerned about climatechange. They promote their humanrights and environmental records.They would like us to believe thatthey understand the problem betterthan anyone, and are in the bestposition to balance scientific, technological, environmental andeconomic considerations whenfinding solutions.

Reality, however,is a differentstory. On theground, theGreenhouseGangsters areegregious viola-tors of humanrights and envi-ronmental stan-dards. The oilcompanies’exploration andextraction of oilhas destroyedrainforests andpolluted Indig-enous lands.Their oil boom-towns have tornthe social fabricand introduceddisease toIndigenous and

22

Part 3: Cl imate Just ice

“Respectfor the climate, like all ecological

protection, is inseparable from

the struggle for democracy, for

freedom, and for justice.”

—Ka Hsaw Wa, Burmese Activist,

EarthRights International133

Secoya demonstrators in Ecuador: “Gas

prices rise and my rainforest cries.”

People around the world are fighting

the Greenhouse Gangsters for survival.

The petroleum industry isgoing through the biggestrestructuring since the oilembargo of 1973. At the

start of the 21st century, a fewsuper-giant oil companies will bemoving toward re-establishing theirdominance over one of the world’smost strategic industries.

As we have seen, fossil fuel produc-tion by just five corporations

23

peasant communities. Their oil sep-aration stations have dumped con-taminated wastewater in rainforestand farmland. Their hellish gasflares light up the night. Theirpipelinesand oiltankers havespilled bil-lions of bar-rels of oil,causingtoxic con-tamination.Theirrefineries,often locat-ed in low-incomecommuni-ties, havepolluted theair andwater, while poisoning workers.Their host communities oftenremain impoverished, despite thewealth oil generates. Their politicalallies have repressed dissent, some-times violently and brutally. Is thisan industry which can be trusted todeal responsibly with its role incausing global warming?The reality is that because of theirpowerful interests, the oil giants areadversaries, rather than allies, in thequest for environmental protectionand justice. Their behavior demon-strates that their goal is to obstructactions to prevent climate changeso as to protect their business for as long as possible. Modeling theiractions on historic corporateresponses to environmental issues,the Greenhouse Gangsters havetaken strategic steps to accomplishthis goal at the expense of the plan-et’s health.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a leading business association, hasvowed to “Block [the] ClimateTreaty and ‘EnvironmentalJustice.’”134 Perhaps without realiz-ing it, they made the link: climateprotection and environmental

justice go hand in hand. The bestsolutions to climate change will notonly reverse global warming. Theywill protect jobs and incomes,improve respect for human rights,

reduce inequalitybetween andwithin nations,improve the localenvironment inmany places, andreduce ourdependence on afew large corpo-rations for ourdaily energyneeds. Or, asEsperanzaMartinez, coordi-nator of the glob-al, Ecuador-basedOil Watch net-work, puts it:

“the sum of local experiences…willhelp us resist the causes of climatechange.”135

Thus, the following is an attempt toset forth a platform for ClimateJustice.

1. Remove the Causes of GlobalWarming—Build DemocraticControl Over CorporationsAlmost every one of us is an emitterof greenhouse gasses, an addict, ifyou will, of fossil fuels. We must par-ticipate in the technological changeswhich will be necessary, includingreining in our energy habits. But wemust also change the habits of thepushers, the fossil fuel producers.Ultimately, if those who supply andcontinue to push fossil fuels are notheld accountable, we will live the21st century in a turbulent and terri-fying greenhouse world.

Addressing climate change is intertwined with the challenge of building a movement to addressincreasingly unfettered corporatepower in the U.S. and worldwide.Corporations, through their influence in the legislative, executive and judicial branches

of government, through theirunabashed promotion of the glob-alization agenda, through theircontrol of the mainstream mediaand their advertising power, con-tinue to undermine democraticinstitutions nationally and interna-tionally. By creating a global sys-tem of corporate rule where thebottom line reigns supreme, thesecompanies—the GreenhouseGangsters central among them—attempt to insulate themselvesfrom the values of human, laborand environmental rights.

A movement for Climate Justicemust join with other organized effortsto strive to reverse this dynamic. Itmust make human rights, laborrights and the environment theguiding forces for local, national andinternational politics and economics.If we are to halt global warmingwhile addressing the other negativeimpacts of the GreenhouseGangsters and their cohorts, wemust build a movement for grass-roots globalization and democraticcontrol over corporations.

Such democratic control could andshould take many different forms.Regulating not just how a companyproduces something, but ratherwhat that company produces is animportant step toward greater dem-ocratic control over corporations.When applied to climate changethis approach might manifest itselfin government requirements that oilcompanies invest truly significantamounts of money in developingecologically sound energy andemployment alternatives.

Another step toward exerting democratic control can be takenthrough divestment campaignsagainst the Greenhouse Gangstersand other climate culprits. In fact,students at many universities acrossthe U.S. are organizing a nation-wide“Cool the Planet” campaign to pres-sure their schools to divest theirholdings in members of the GlobalClimate Coalition.136

Cl imate Just iceplaces environ-mental , labor andhuman r ights at the center of themovement toreverse globalwarming

More broadly speaking, democraticcontrol over corporations meansrevoking the Supreme Court grant-ed status of U.S. personhoodwhereby corporations enjoy thesame rights and privileges as indi-vidual citizens. Other importantreforms that could exert such dem-ocratic control include ending thebillions of dollars in governmentsubsidies to the oil industry; strictly

prohibiting corporate campaigncontributions; supporting and gen-erating government subsidies forthe widespread development ofcommunity based, renewable ener-gy sources; and creating affordable,sustainable public transportation.

With such changes in place, Senateapproval of the Kyoto Protocolwould be a slam dunk. Of course,to get there, a powerful socialmovement must emerge in the USand around the world to challengethe Greenhouse Gangsters. Such

a movement for Climate Justice must make democratic control overcorporations a central organizingprinciple.

2. Oppose the DestructiveImpacts of Oil Locally andGlobally

The growing global reach of theGreenhouse Gangsters is encoun-tering increasingly vibrant move-ments to curtail the mastery of oilin our society. One is the move-ment for climate protection.Internationally, most activists haveput their efforts into strengtheningthe Kyoto Protocol, which in theo-ry will reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions country by country. This willrequire a major transformation ofenergy and transportation systemsand development models.

This movement has allies andpotential allies whose own battlesfor survival against the oil compa-nies provide a strong push for Cli-mate Justice. For example, manyIndigenous people and their net-works are leading battles againstnew oil exploration which has pro-foundly impacted them. And to agrowing number of Indigenous peo-ple, the connection between theirlocal struggles against the fossil fuelindustry’s incursion on their ecolog-ically fragile lands and the globalproblem of climate change is clear.

As a group of Indigenous leadersmeeting on climate change recentlydeclared, “The continuing largescale extraction of fossil fuels results in a number of adversechanges in these vital zones,including deforestation, pollutionfrom drilling and ultimately forestdegradation caused by climacticinstability on a world widescale…The zones of fossil fuelextraction are the homes of someof the oldest and most vulnerableIndigenous populations on MotherEarth. This accelerates the loss ofbiodiversity, traditional knowledgeand, ultimately results in ethnocideand genocide.”137

Similarly, communities in the U.S.located near refineries which havebuilt resistance to the toxic pollu-tion and refinery accidents throughgroups like the National OilRefinery Action Network are keyallies in the struggle for Climate Jus-tice. The disproportionate siting ofpolluting facilities like refineries inlow income communities of colorhas sparked an environmental jus-tice movement that has respondedto both unjust government policiesand to the unfettered power oftransnational corporations, like theGreenhouse Gangsters. When aLatino community in Austin forcesthe corporate clean-up of oil stor-age tanks, it becomes a victory—a

24

The prevention ofc l imate change goeshand in hand withopposit ion to cor-porate rule.

NO NEW EXPLORATION!

Amoratorium on all new oil exploration would benefitthe global climate, fragile local ecosystems andIndigenous people living in these pristine places.

A moratorium would acknowledge the long-term necessityfor society to wean itself eventually off of fossil fuels. Itwould recognize that we cannot afford to burn all the oilon the planet without causing catastrophic climate change.A moratorium would cut off the spigot of climate change,even as we allow ourselves time to transform our energyand transportation systems. By the time supplies of fossilfuels get low, society will have had more time to developalternative energy sources.

For the sake of the protection of Indigenous rights and tropicalforests, a moratorium on new oil exploration should begin with afocus on pristine and ecologically sensitive areas, and a recogni-tion that Indigenous people have the right to say no to oildevelopment on their lands.

While the industry is traditionally concerned with replenishing itsconsumption with new finds, the carbon logic, i.e. the ecologicallimit on our ability to burn oil safely, indicates it is time to lowerthat priority in favor of investment in other energy sources. Sofar, the industry has not responded to calls for a moratorium onnew oil. Governments are unlikely to call for a moratorium rightnow, but as Esperanza Martinez, coordinator of Oilwatch in Quito,asserts, the moratorium “can be decreed by governments or it canbe decreed and executed by local populations.” 139

link in a chain thatcan eventuallysever the strangle-hold of theGreenhouseGangsters.138

3. Forge JustSolutions to theChallenge ofClimate Change

Prevention of cli-mate change couldimpact workers infossil fuel- inten-sive industries andneighboring com-munities hardest ifthere is no paralleleffort to foster aJust Transition.Also, as we haveseen, some of the proposed “solu-tions,” like pollution trading, arenot only unproven but alsoinequitable, as they allow localcommunities to become toxic sacri-fice zones for the rest of the planet,while letting countries like the U.S.delay true emissions reductions.Solutions that force countries of theSouth to bear an undue burden areunjust as well.

A Climate Justice approach to solv-ing the global warming problemwould, at its core, develop solutionsthat promoted economic and envi-ronmental justice between commu-nities and between nations. Centralto this approach is the principle ofJust Transition, which would setaside funds to finance the transitionfor workers and communitiesdependent on the fossil fuel indus-try. Such a transition would pro-mote investment, worker trainingand community development basedon sustainability and justice.

There is already organizing andgrowing pressure on this front fromworkers and communities. As men-tioned earlier, the recently mergedOil, Chemical and Atomic WorkersUnion and Paperworkers

International (PACE), is working inpartnership with the SouthwestNetwork for Environmental andEconomic Justice (SNEEJ) to builda Just Transition Consortium. Theconsortium counts among its mem-bers a number of environmental jus-tice organizations, including theIndigenous EnvironmentalNetwork, the Asian PacificEnvironmental Network, and theNortheast Environmental JusticeNetwork, along with Canada’sChemical, Energy andPaperworkers Union. This consor-tium is organizing workers andneighboring “fence-line” communi-ties through training and dialogue.The focus of this effort is to bringtogether these groups, which havebeen wedged apart by industry, andto mobilize them to implement aJust Transition of their jobs andcommunities so they do not unjust-ly bear the negative economic bur-den of addressing the impacts oflocal pollution or global climatechange.

A similar transition needs to be fos-tered at the international level,whereby Southern nations are givensupport to transition theireconomies away from fossil fuels.

For instance, technology for eco-logically sound energy develop-ment should be made available tothe poorer countries for little or nocost, rather than being held hostageto corporate driven intellectualproperty and patent regimes.

Climate Justice also requires thatadequate support be given to thevictims of global warming—espe-cially environmental refugees whohave lost access to their land,homes, food, health and work as aresult of global warming.

Finally, Climate Justice demandsthat the Kyoto Protocol negotia-tions be democratized. Until now,the minor concessions of the KyotoProtocol have been negotiated ininternational fora dominated bygovernment and lobbyists forindustry. The voices of NGOs,Indigenous peoples and those mostaffected by climate change havenot been included.

25

If we are to stop global warming, a

strong activist movement for Climate

Justice must emerge in the U.S.

—protest at Chevron headquarters,

San Francisco, 1999.

fuel use, we can begin to free ourselves of the tyrannyof the oil industry over our lives. We can reducedestruction of Indigenous cultures and reduce pollutionof local communities. We can begin to build less cen-tralized energy systems, cleaner cities, less sprawl,

more cooperation betweenNorth and South, moreindependence from thesuper-giant corporationswhich now control suchfundamental aspects of ourdaily lives. The preventionof climate change goes handin hand with the oppositionto corporate rule.

Of course, Climate Justicewill not be achieved withoutthe emergence of a powerfulmovement for grassrootsglobalization—one whichlinks efforts for social andenvironmental justice acrossthe globe. The good news isthat such a movement isemerging.

26

The clash between the hydrocarbon economyand environmental protection seems to presentan intractable contradiction. But it also pres-ents an opportunity to society. Once we accept

that climate change forces us to severely limit fossil

4. Reverse the dynamics ofcorporate-led, fossil fuelbased globalizationCurrently, corporate led globaliza-tion is fostering investment oppor-tunities and new markets for thefossil fuel industry. Internationaltrade and investment agreementslike NAFTA and the WTO, alongwith multilateral lending institu-tions like the World Bank/IMF, havecreated the global economic struc-tures that are advancing both cor-porate profits and global warming.

Climate Justice requires that theworld economy serve interests ofhuman rights and the environment,not corporate bottom line. Forstarters, international labor stan-dards from the ILO, the UniversalDeclaration on Human Rights and

UN-brokered international environ-mental agreements like the KyotoProtocol must take precedence overthe institutions of globalization likethe WTO. The World Bank andother lending institutions mustreverse their policies subsidizingfossil fuel-based globalization.

True Climate Justice requires thatthe Kyoto Protocol specificallyfocus at the root of the problem—the 122 corporations that produce80 percent of the fossil fuel whichwinds up as carbon dioxide in theEarth’s atmosphere. A first steptoward international control ofthese global climate culprits wouldbe for the Kyoto Protocol torequire that every major energycompany in the world report thecurrent and future global warmingemissions implications of the fossil

fuel production and investments.140

Based on this reporting, the world’sgovernments could begin to holdGreenhouse Gangsters and theircohorts globally accountable fortheir central contribution to thisglobal problem.

Climate Justice also means that thecentral corporate contribution toglobal warming be publicly identi-fied on a global scale. There aremany creative ways to do this. Forinstance, in 1998 members of theEuropean Parliament proposed thathurricanes should be renamed toreflect this corporate role. ThusHurricane Mitch might have beencalled Hurricane Shell, whileHurricane Floyd might instead havebeen called Hurricane Exxon-Mobil.

Final Words

Ken Saro Wiwa puppet, International Day of Action Against Corporate Globalization, San Francisco

27

1 Exxon and Mobil announced their intention tomerge in 1998. Unless otherwise indicated, thispaper treats them as one corporation. The mergeris pending U.S. government approval.

2 The recently merged BP Amoco has announced itsintention to buy Arco. Unless otherwise indicated,this paper treats them as one corporation. Themerger is pending U.S. government approval.

3 Kingpins of Carbon: How Fossil Fuel ProducersContribute to Global Warming, Natural ResourcesDefense Council, the Union of Concerned Scien-tists and the U.S. Public Interest Research GroupEducation Fund, Washington DC, July1999.(www.nrdc.org/nrdcpro/carbon/kocinx.html)The figure of 122 corporations counts Exxon,Mobil, BP Amoco, Arco, Total Fina and ElfAquitaine as separate companies.

4 Personal interview with Paulina Garzon, Center forEconomic and Social Rights, Quito, 6/3/99,regarding oil’s impacts on the Amazon region ofEcuador

5 Translated from Spanish by authors, Declaracion deAlbuquerque de los “Circulos de Sabiduria” LosPueblos Nativos/Las Tierras Nativas Sobre LosCambios Climatologicos, Reunion de Trabajo yCumbre, 1 De Noviembre de 1998. Albuquerque,New Mexico.

6 Comments of Experts on Hurricanes and ClimateChange, Institute for Public Accuracy, Washington,D.C. 9/16/99 www.accuracy.org

7 Climate Change: The IPCC 1990 and 1992Assessments, Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, Geneva, Switzerland. pp 168; IPCC SecondAssessment - Climate Change 1995, A Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Geneva; www.ipcc.ch/; Framework Convention onClimate ChangeWebPage,www.unfccc.de/resource/iuckit;Executive Summary of the National Communicationof the United States of America, submitted to theUNFCCC Secretariat under Articles 4 and 12;FCCC/NC/7 25 July 1995; Climate Countdown factsheet “In Their Own Words; CorporationsRecognize the Threat of Climate Change andSupport Action,” National Environmental Trust,Nov. 1998, Washington, D.C.

8 The Greenpeace WebPage: www.greenpeace.org/climate/industry/ reports/sceptics.html has athorough rebuttal of the skeptics’ case against thereality of climate change.

9 Almost every week brings new scientific reports ofobserved effects of climate change in scientificpublications or general interest magazines andnewspapers. A good summary as of spring ’99 canbe found in Patrick Mazza and Rhys Roth, “GlobalWarming Is Here: The Scientific Evidence” ClimateSolutions, Olympia, Washington, May 1999

10 See United Nations Climate Convention Secretariatat www.unfccc.de/

11 United Nations Environment Programme WebPage,www.unep.ch/iucc/fs111.html

12 “South Asia Statement to Fourth Conference ofParties to the Framework Convention on ClimateChange,” Buenos Aires, published in Center forScience and Environment Dossier, Delhi, 10/24/98

13 Personal communication, Denny Larsen, NationalOil Refinery Action Network, San Francisco, Dec.,1998

14 See Bradford C. Snell, American Ground Transport:A Proposal for Restructuring the Automobile, Truck,Bus and Rail Industries, Report prepared for theCommittee of the Judiciary, Subcommittee onAntitrust and Monopoly, United States Senate,February 26, 1974.

15 “Tongues of Fire,” Corporate Watch Interview withOronto Douglas, Nigerian Human Rights lawyer,www.corpwatch.org/features/climate/

16 Daniel Yergin, The Prize p.41 Simon and Schuster,New York 1991

17 In this paper, natural gas is considered as part ofthe petroleum, or oil industry. Natural gas gener-ally burns somewhat cleaner than oil, and theo-retically has a slightly lower greenhouse effectthan oil. However, fugitive emissions of naturalgas bring its greenhouse effect up to oil’s level.Moreover, the local impacts of natural gas extrac-tion are similar to oil. Finally, natural gas is domi-nated by the same corporate players as oil.

18 Kingpins of Carbon

19 Rick Heede, “Carbon Majors Summary Table,”unpublished study for Greenpeace International,based on data from CO2 Information and AnalysisCenter, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,TN

20 Kingpins of Carbon, Part 2.

21 “Big Oil Accords Have Raised the Stakes forCompetitors Like Texaco,” The New York Times12/3/99 C6

22 Texaco 1998 Annual Report p.20, White Plains,New York April, 1999

23 Patrick Crow, “Watching Government” Oil and GasJournal 97:2,1/11/99

24 Rick Heede, Oil Industry and Climate Change,Appendix V p. 61 Greenpeace International,Amsterdam 1998, from Table 1. “Total anthro-pogenic CO2 emissions,” Updated information ongreenhouse gas emissions and projections,Subsidiary Body for Implementation, FrameworkConvention on Climate Change, United NationsFCCC/SBI.INF. 4/10/14.97, and Data Table 16.1“Emissions from Fossil fuel Burning and CementManufacturing, 1995,” Carbon Dioxide InformationAnalysis Center, reprinted in World Resources1998-99, World Resources Institute/ OxfordUniversity Press, New York, 1998.

25 Leslie Wayne, “Companies Used to Getting TheirWay,” The New York Times 12/4/98 p.C1

26 As cited in “Greasing the Wheels,” The New YorkTimes 12/4/98 p.C1

27 Gary Cook and Kirsty Hamilton, Oiling the Machine,Greenpeace, Washington D.C. undated

28 The US government provided net subsidies ofbetween $5.2 and $11.9 billion to the oil sectorduring 1995, Douglas Koplow and Aaron Martin,Fueling Global Warming: Federal Subsidies to Oil inthe United States, Greenpeace USA, WashingtonDC, 1998.

29 Leslie Wayne “Companies Used to Getting theirWay,” The New York Times 12/4/98 p.C1

30 Remarks by Lee R. Raymond, Chairman ExxonCorporation, American Petroleum Institute AnnualMeeting, 11/11/96, Exxon WebPage,www.exxon.com/exxoncorp/news/speeches/speech_111196.html

31 “Industry Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty”The New York Times April 26, 1998 p.1

32 Sources: Matthew Wald, “Muscle, Muscle Every-where,” The New York Times, 5/19/99 p.18; “FordBuys Volvo Unit in Bid To Lift Profile of LuxuryCars,” The New York Times 1/29/99 p.C4,“DaimlerChrysler Presents First Driveable Fuel CellTechnology Car In the U.S.,” DaimlerChrysler pressrelease, Washington, D.C. 3/17/99; John Kennedy“How Oil and Gas Companies Fought 1998 andWon,” Oil and Gas Journal 97:1, 1/4/99; and KeithBradsher, “It’s a Hybrid in sport Utility Clothes,”The New York Times, 9/15/99 p.C1

33 Kingpins of Carbon, Table 3.

34 Ibid, Part 1.

35 Figure 1.5: CO2 emissions of top 100 generatingcompanies, Benchmarking Air Emissions of ElectricUtility Generators in the U.S, Natural ResourcesDefense Council, New York 1998

36 The Seven Sisters were Standard of New Jersey(later Exxon), Socony-Vacuum (Mobil), Standard ofCalifornia (Chevron), Texaco, Gulf, RoyalDutch/Shell and British Petroleum. The eighth

major was French-owned CFP. Daniel Yergin, ThePrize p. 503 Simon and Schuster, New York 1991

37 1997 Top 100 Ranking, Energy Research Group,New York, 1998

38 Speech of James Simpson, VP and ManagingDirector, New Ventures, Chevron OverseasPetroleum Company, to the 1998 AnnualConvention, American Association of PetroleumGeologists, Salt Lake City, Utah, 5/18/98

39 Agis Salpukas, “Do Oil and Bigger Oil Mix?” TheNew York Times 12/2/98 p.C1

40 The deals pending are Exxon/Mobil, BPAmoco/Arco and Total Fina/Elf Aquitaine

41 Yergin and Stanislaw, The Commanding Heights p.13 Simon and Schuster New York 1998.

42 Kingpins of Carbon, p. 5, and Part II.

43 Mobil WebPage, www.mobil.com/alliance_venezuela/index_venezuela.htm

44 Speech of James Simpson

45 Carol Alexander & Ken Stump, The North AmericanFree Trade Agreement and Energy Trade,Greenpeace USA, Washington DC, 1992.

46 “Industry Consultation Program, CurrentMembership, November 17, 1998” Office of the United States Trade Representative,www.ita.doc.gov/icp/members6.html

47 Lori Wallach and Michelle Sforza, Who’s TradeOrganization? Public Citizen, Washington DC,1999, pp. 31-34.

48 Aaron Cosbey, James Cameron Barrister, “TradeImplications of the Kyoto Protocol,” InternationalInstitute for Sustainable Development, Canada, nodate.

49 Steve Kretzmann and Shannon Wright, Drilling tothe Ends of the Earth, Rainforest Action Networkand Project Underground, San Francisco, 1998

50 David Chance, “Oil spending set for biggest dropin decade” Reuters 12/22/98

51 Harold L. Ickes. U.S. Secretary of the Interior,1933, as quoted in Daniel Yergin, The Prize, p.254

52 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2ndAssessment Synthesis of Scientific-TechnicalInformation Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 ofthe United Nations Framework Convention ofClimate Change, www.ipcc.ch/

53 This argument is thoroughly explained in severalGreenpeace Reports, including The Carbon Logic,Greenpeace International Amsterdam, 1997, andon the Greenpeace WebPage www.greenpeace.org.The argument against new oil exploration ongrounds of human rights protection as well as cli-mate protection is well laid out in Steve Kretzmanand Shannon Wright, Drilling to Ends of the Earth

54 Among the groups which have called for a mora-torium in some form are the Oilwatch Network,Environmental Rights Action, Greenpeace,Rainforest Action Network, Project Underground,Institute for Policy Studies, Accion Ecologica, andmany others.

55 Oronto Douglas, “Tongues of Fire”, CorporateWatch Interview:www.corpwatch.org/feature/cli-mate/oronto.htm, October, 1998.

56 John Browne, BP CEO, as quoted in “BusinessInformation Sheet,” Climate Countdown Project,National Environmental Trust, Washington D.C.1997

57 Jack Doyle, Hold the Applause: A Case Study ofCorporate Environmentalism as Practiced at DuPont,Friends of the Earth, Washington, D.C. 1991

58 Barry Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and LegalAspects, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall Law andBusiness, 1990

59 Chlorine Chemistry Council, various press releasesand position papers, see for example http://c3.org/newsroom/press releases/03-9-99.html

Notes

60 David Lewis, former General Motors speechwriter,quoted in Keith Bradsher “New Leaders Hope toHelp Motor City Come Clean,” The New York Times5/19/99 p.G21

61 Personal communication, Greenpeace toxics cam-paign, Washington, D.C. 1998

62 Andy Rowell, unpublished report “The GlobalClimate Coalition,” for Friends of the EarthInternational, 1997

63 Mobil and Exxon WebPages,www.mobil.com andwww.exxon.com, speeches and position papers onclimate change

64 Exxon, Mobil and Texaco WebPages:www.mobil.com, www.exxon.com, and www.texa-co.com

65 Exxon WebPage, www.exxoncorp.com/news/publi-cations/safety_report/energy/index.ht

66 Series of Mobil op-eds available at:www.moblile.com/climate_opeds/

67 “The Kyoto Protocol: too many gaps” Mobil adver-tisement, The New York Times op-ed page 9/10/98

68 American Petroleum Institute WebPage,www.api.org/global climate/start a/html

69 Steve Liesman, “Inside the Race to Profit FromGlobal Warming,” The Wall Street Journal,10/19/99

70 Mike Belliveau, Smoke and Mirrors: Will GlobalPollution Trading Save the Climate or PromoteInjustice and Fraud? Transnational Resource andAction Center, San Francisco 1998

71 Jack Kemp and Fred L. Smith Jr., “Beware of theKyoto Compromise” The New York Times op-edpage 1/13/99

72 Gregory Palast “Fill your Lungs—It’s OnlyBorrowed Grime” London Observer 1/23/99

73 “Just Transition Movement for Jobs and theEnvironment,” Public Health Institute and LaborInstitute, draft 7.1 pp. 1, 18-19 May 1998

74 AFL-CIO has organized several meetings of envi-ronmental groups and labor unions in WashingtonD.C. to explore a Blue/Green coalition on the cli-mate issue.

75 “Energy Facts and FAQ” American PetroleumInstitute fact sheet, via www.api.org/edu/fact-soil.htm

76 “Global Climate Change,” American PetroleumInstitute fact sheet, via www.api.org/global cli-mate/start a.htm

77 Mary Novice et al, Global Warming: The High Costof the Kyoto Protocol, Wharton EconometricForecasting Associates (WEFA) 1998

78 James P. Barrette, Global Warming: The High Costof the WEFA Model, Economic Policy Institute,Washington, D.C. November, 1998

79 Memorandum “American Petroleum InstituteStudy,” provided by National Environmental Trust,Washington, D.C. undated

80 Ronald J. Sutherland, “The Impact of PotentialClimate Change Commitments on Six Industries inthe United States,” Energy Policy, Vol. 26 no.10pp.756-776, 1998

81 Remarks by Lee R. Raymond, chairman, ExxonCorporation to American Petroleum AnnualMeeting, Nov. 11, 1996, viawww.exxon.com/exxoncorp/news/speeches/speech_111196.html

82 Ages Salukis, “Low Prices Have Sapped Little OilProducers,” The New York Times 4/3/99 p.C1, C4

83 “Oil prices and Layoffs,” Editorial, Oil and GasJournal 97:13, 3/29/99

84 BP Amoco press release, BP Amoco WebPages,bpamoco.com/pressrelease01041999

85 “BP Amoco Acquisition Means Layoffs” AssociatedPress 4/1/99

86 “BP Amoco cuts 900 Jobs in Britain,” AFP Jan. 8,1999 ; “BP-Amoco to cut 1,500 Chicago-areajobs” UPI/Oil and Gas Journal Online 2/4/99

87 David M. Halbfinger, “Consolidations Give Jittersto Station Operators,” The New York Times12/3/98 p.C7

88 William L. Randol, “Rockefeller’s Revenge” TheNew York Times op-ed page 12/3/98

89 J. Andrew Hoerner, Border Adjustments andClimate Policy: What Are Border Adjustments andWhy Should Labor Care? Center for a SustainableEconomy, Washington D.C. Feb. 24, 1999

90 Flavin and Dunn, “Shift To A Low-Carbon EnergyEconomy May Open Multi-Billion-Dollar EconomicOpportunities,” WorldWatch Institute, Washington,D.C. 11/30/97, reprinted in Rising Voices againstGlobal Warming, IZE, Frankfurt, pp. 54-155 undated

91 “Energy Innovation: A Prosperous Path to a CleanEnvironment,” Executive Summary p. 19, EnergyInnovations, Washington, D.C. 1997: TellusInstitute, Alliance to Save Energy, AmericanCouncil for an Energy-Efficient Economy, NaturalResources Defense Council, Union of ConcernedScientists, www.tellus.org/ei

92 Kenny Bruno, “Poison Petrol,” MultinationalMonitor, Washington, D.C. July/August 1991

93 Just Transition Movement for Jobs and theEnvironment, Public Health Institute and LaborInstitute, New York, May 1998

94 Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union,Resolution on Just Transition, passed at 1997OCAW Convention

95 Climate dossier from National Environmental Trust,Washington, D.C. 1998

96 Various Mobil op-ed page ads, The New York Times

97 This adapted from Eileen Claussen et al., TheComplex Elements of Global Fairness, Pew Centerfor Climate Change, Arlington, VA 1998; for otherproposals on equitable sharing of emissions reduc-tions from a southern viewpoint see CSE dossier,factsheets 1- 6, Center for Science andEnvironment, Delhi, November, 1998

98 Eileen Claussen et al. The Complex Elements ofGlobal Fairness

99 Duncan Austin, Jose Goldemberg et. al.,“Contribution to Climate Change: Are ConventionalMetrics Misleading the Debate?” Climate Notes,World Resources Institute October 1998Washington D.C.

100 Framework Convention on Climate Change,“Communications From Parties included in Annex Ito the convention” FCCC/SBI/1997.INF.4 14October 1997

101 World Resources 1998-1999, Data Table 16.1

102 South Asia Statement

103 “US Goes On Energy Splurge After Falling Of ItsDiet,” The New York Times Oct 22, 1998 p.C6

104 Bruno and Greer, Greenwash: The Reality BehindCorporate Environmentalism, Third World Network,Penang, 1996 p. 56

105 Robert Weissman, “Big Tobacco Goes Global”Multinational Monitor, July/August 1998 pp26-32.

106 Kenny Bruno, “Poison Petrol,” MultinationalMonitor, Washington D.C. July/August 1992

107 Barry Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and LegalAspects

108 Bruno and Greer “Moving South” Third WorldResurgence #54, Third World Network, Penang,Malaysia 1994

109 Supplement to the 1992 Chevron Annual Report,p. 11, cited in Joshua Karliner, The CorporatePlanet: Ecology and Politics in the Age ofGlobalization, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco,1997, p. 80

110 Andy Rowell, unpublished report for GreenpeaceInternational, Amsterdam, 1997, on file withauthors

111 Remarks by Lee R. Raymond, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer Exxon Corporation, WorldPetroleum Congress, Beijing, People’s Republic ofChina 10/13/97 via Exxon WebPagewww.exxon.com/speeches

112 See, for example, Mobil op-eds in The New YorkTimes and fact sheets “Oil Industry and HumanRights,” American Petroleum Institute, Washingon,D.C. undated

113 Daphne Wysham and Jim Vallette, Fueling ClimateChange; The World Bank and the G-77 StillChanging the Earth’s Climate for Business, version1.2, Sustainable Energy and Economy Network(Institute for Policy Studies) and InternationalTrade Information Service, Washington, D.C. Nov.1998

114 Rio Declaration, Principle Seven, Rio EarthSummit, United Nations, Rio de Janeiro and NewYork, 1992

115 Daphne Wysham and Jim Vallette, Fueling ClimateChange; “Business as Usual?” Institute for PolicyStudies and Friends of the Earth, May, 1999Washington, D.C; . “China Launches Project toDevelop Solar, Wind Energy,” AFP, Beijing 4/7/99.

116 Responsible Care, Chemical ManufacturersAssociation, Washington D.C., various Exxon andMobil WebPage statements on climate change

117 Bruno and Greer, Greenwash: The Reality BehindCorporate Environmentalism, p.11, Third WorldNetwork, Penang, Malaysia 1996

118 ibid

119 “Greenwash Award,” www.corpwatch.org/trac/greenwash/chevron.html

120 Exxon WebPage: www.exxon.com

121 “When Special Care Is Called For,” Mobil advertise-ment, The New York Times op-ed page 5/5/99

122 Shell advertisement, Business Week, 5/17/99, pp.68-69

123 Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies, Financialand Operating Information 1994-1998, ShellInternational Limited, London

124 BP Amoco WebPage:www.bpamoco.com/about/policies/climate.htm

125 BP Amoco WebPage,www.bpamoco.com.nms.page3.html

126 “We Laughed! We Cried! But Mostly We Cried!”Greenpeace press release, New York, April 22,1999.

127 International Energy Agency WebPage,www.iea.org/stats/files/keystats/

128 Personal communication with Paulina Garzon,Center for Economic and Social Rights, Quito,June 3, 1999

129 “Texaco vs Indigenous Groups,” EnvironmentalNews Service, February 3, 1999; also see www.tex-acorainforest.org

130 Peter Waldman, “Nigerian’s Suit Alleges ChevronBacked Attacks That Violated Human Rights,” WallStreet Journal, 528/99; Kenneth Howe “HumanRights Group Investigates Chevron: 2 Nigerianskilled in offshore protest” San Francisco Chronicle,November 19, 1998

131 Earth Rights: Linking Human Rights and EcologicalProtection, EarthRights International, WashingtonD.C. 1999

132 Personal communication with Tatiana Roa, CENSAT,Bogota, 6/99

133 Personal communication with Ka Hsaw Wa, Karenactivist from Burma now living in exile inThailand and the United States, 9/23/99

134 “Key U.S. Chamber-Backed Environmental Riders -Block Kyoto Climate Treaty and EnvironmentalJustice’” U.S. Chamber of Commerce New Release,Washington, D.C. 10/6/98

135 Personal Communication, Esperanza Martinez,coordinator, Oilwatch, Quito 6/7/99

136 See http://www.ozone.org/cooltheplanet.html

137 Declaracion de Albuquerque

138 Mike Ward, “Escaping the Shadows of the Tanks:Citizens Use voice for Change,” Austin American-Statesman, 2/14/93

139 Personal communication, Esperanza Martinez

140 Kingpins of Carbon, Executive Summary.

28

29

Centre for Science and Environment, CSE is a leading voice fromthe South on questions of climate change and international equity.

41, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, New Delhi-110062. INDIAtel: 91-11-698-1110, fax: 91-11-698-5879 e-mail: webadmin@cseindia.org; www.oneworld.org/cse/

Climate Action Network provides an International Directory of non-governmental organizations working on climate change.

1200 New York Avenue Suite 400; Washington, D.C.20005tel: 202-289-4201; fax: 1-202-289-1060e-mail: Uscan@igc.org; www.climatenetwork.org

Climate Solutions works in the Pacific Northwest to stop globalwarming at the earliest possible point, boost Clean Energy Investmentand create more livable community design

610 East Fourth Avenue, Olympia, Washington 98501 tel: 360-943-4595; fax: 360-943-4977 e-mail: info@climatesolutions.org; www.climatesolutions.org

Cool the Planet is a national student-run campaign dedicated toopening people’s eyes to the threat global warming poses to the futureand to showing the world that students are no longer going to standfor the corrupt policies of corporate America and groups like theGlobal Climate Coalition.

Contact: www.cooltheplanet.org; www.ozone.org/cooltheplanet.htm

EarthRights International combines the power of law and the powerof people in defense of human rights and the environment. ERI workson the ground level in Southeast Asia.

2012 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20036 tel: 202-466-5188; fax: 202-466-5189; e-mail: www.earthrights.org

Friends of the Earth International runs a climate change campaign,focuses on corporations like Exxon and lobbies governments aroundthe world on ratifying and strengthening the Kyoto Protocol.

P.O. Box 19199; 1000 GD Amsterdam; The Netherlandstel:+31-20-622-1369; fax: 639-2181; e-mail: foeint@antenna.nl;www.foe.co.uk/climatechange/

Greenpeace has steadily pressured the world’s governments throughcampaigning and lobbying to enact and implement the KyotoProtocol. It has also targeted corporate climate culprits, includingmany large oil corporations for their role.

1436 U St NW, Washington, D.C. 20009 tel: 202-462-1177; fax: 202-462-4507 e-mail: www.greenpeace.org/climate

Indigenous Environmental Network is an alliance of grassrootsindigenous peoples whose mission is to protect the sacredness ofMother Earth from contamination and exploitation by strengtheningmaintaining and respecting the traditional teachings and the naturallaws. IEN was helped draft the Albequerque Declaration ofIndigenous peoples on climate change.

P.O.Box 485 Bemidji, MN 56601 tel. 218-751-4967; fax: 218-751-0561e-mail: ien@igc.org; www.alphacdc.com/ien/

The Just Transition Consortium is a process to ameliorate the conflict between jobs and the environment. It brings organized labor,the traditional environmental community and the people of color environmental justice movement together to develop policies and rela-tionships to avert clashes.

Cl imate Just ice Resourcesc/o Public Health Institute 853 Broadway, Room 2014; New York,NY 10003; tel: 212-674-3322; fax: 212-353-1203; e-mail: laborinst@aol.com; www.justtransition.org;

The National Oil Refinery Action Network links together neigh-bors, workers, and responsible shareholders who want to see the oilindustry made cleaner, healthier, and safer. A project of CBE.

c/o CBE, 500 Howard Street, Suite 506, San Francisco,CA 94105tel: 415-243-8373; e-mail: cbebucket@igc.org; www.igc.org/cbesf

Oilwatch is an Ecuador-based network of organizations and communi-ties in Asia, Africa and Latin America fighting oil development in thetropics. Oil Watch has also been active on the climate change issue.

Alejandro de Valdez N24-33 y La Gasca Casilla 15-15-246-C, Quito, Ecuador tel: 593-9-700-712; fax: 593-2-547-516; e-mail: Oilwatch@uio.satnet.net

Ozone Action is a progressive Washington, DC based non-profit pub-lic interest organization focused exclusively on two atmosphericthreats: global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion.

1700 Connecticut Ave. NW, 3rd Fl., Washington, DC 20009 tel: 202-265-6738; fax: 202-986-6041 e-mail: ozone_action@ozone.org; www.ozone.org

Project Underground seeks to systematically deal with the problemscreated by the mining and oil industries by exposing environmentaland human rights abuses by the corporations involved in these sectors.

1847 Berkeley Way Berkeley, CA 94703; tel: 510-705-8981; fax: 510-705-8983;e-mail: project_underground@moles.org; www.moles.org

Rainforest Action Network: RAN’s Beyond Oil campaign works tohalt new oil exploration and to protect indigenous people’s rights, thelocal environment and the global climate.

221 Pine Street Suite 500; San Francisco, CA 94104 U.S.A tel: 415-398-4404; fax: 415-398-2732 e-mail: rainforest@ran.org; www.ran.org

The Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice

is a coalition of community based grassroots organizations, native,labor and student groups from the southwestern and western UnitedStates working to build a multi-racial, multi-cultural and internationalmovement that promotes environmental and economic justice. SNEEJis a participant in the Just Transition consortium.

P.O. Box 7399, Albuquerque, NM 87194 tel. 505-242-0416; fax: 505-242-5609 e-mail: sneej@flash.net

The Sustainable Energy and Economy Network: SEEN works inpartnership with citizens groups globally on environment and develop-ment issues with a particular focus on climate change, energy, genderequity, and economic issues.

C/o IPS, 733-15th St., NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20005tel: 202-234-9382; fax: 202-387-7915 e-mail: dwysham@igc.apc.org; www.seen.org

Photo Credits: Pg. 1 Daniel Hulshizer/AP/WideWorld Photos, 1999;Pg.4-5 CODEFAGOLF, Honduras; Pg. 15 Sam Kittner/Greenpeace,1990; Pg. 22 Andy Drumm/RAN; Pg. 25 Marc Beck, 1999; Pg. 26Marc Beck, 1999; Back cover: Jennifer Pangraze/Greenpeace, TomLevy/APEN.

Name______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Address____________________________________________________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip______________________________________________________________________________________________

Country_______________ E-mail______________________________ Phone______________________________

I’d like to get more involved, please send me information about working for Climate Justice

Send me monthly Corporate Watch e-mail updates

Put me on your CyberAction Team so I can send free faxes protesting corporate abuses!

I’d like to order more copies of The Greenhouse Gangsters

____1-9 copies @ $2.00 each ____10-49 copies @ $1.50 each ____50 or more @ $1 each Amount ______________

(Prices for fossil fuel corporations and their representatives: $75 each, no bulk discount)

California Residents add 8.5% sales tax Sales tax ______________

I’d like to make a tax-deductible contribution to support TRAC’s work for Climate Justice: Donation ______________

$25 Climate Justice Activist $50 Corporate Watchdog $100 Multinational Masher

$500 or more Globalization Gladiator! Other_____________________ Total ______________

Make check payable to: TRAC/Tides or use your credit card: Visa Mastercard

Card #___________________________________ Exp. Date _______ Signature______________________Today’s Date _______

TRAC PO Box 29344, San Francisco CA, 94129, USA • e-mail: tracadmin@corpwatch.org • www.corpwatch.org

The Greenhouse Gangsters—giant oil corporations—play a key role in causing both localpollution and global warming.

Building a movement for “ClimateJustice,” one where communities holdthe oil corporations accountable whileprioritizing human rights, labor rightsand environmental justice, is central toany solution to climate change.

You can help build this movement! Get involved and get active. Think andact both locally and globally. Mobilize to hold corporate climate culprits accountable.

Order Greenhouse Gangsters vs. Climate Justice in bulk and distribute it through your community, activist networks, co-workers and friends.

O r d e r F o r m