I’ve gotten a reply to my letter which I sent to ExxonMobil recently, and posted here on the 16th of October. The Public Affairs Manager, Samantha Potts, went through it point by point and expressed ExxonMobil’s position on each. I will give them credit here, as my expectation was no response at all, or a form letter response. (Though as GP pointed out, it merely says that they are well-organised and skilled at PR.)
Having said that, the reply dodges issues. For example, she writes:

However, it is important to point out that it is both false and misleading to suggest, as the Enough Rope program and the Royal Society have done, that in providing financial support to such organisations [she is referring to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), in this case], ExxonMobil controls their views and messages.

While it may be true that ExxonMobil does not control the views and messages of organisations that it funds or is a client of, it surely has some influence over those views and messages. And it can choose to end its relationship with them, citing their views and messages as a reason for this.

She points out that ExxonMobil has not funded CEI in 2006, but there is no indication that this won’t change again next year. Also the reply suggests that ExxonMobil funded them only in 2005, whereas the reality is that they had been funding them for several years.

I’ve scanned and linked the reply here. I will probably reply to this – feel free to leave a comment if you have a suggestion!

Incidently, here are some excerpts from Andrew Denton’s interview with Al Gore:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1734175.htm
ANDREW DENTON: How many do you think you would get?
AL GORE: Hard to say. But almost half of the Senate have voted for a
resolution now that is similar to the Kyoto approach. And I do think that
we’re getting close to a critical mass of support for major bold action. I
continued to advocate bold changes, but ran into that brick wall of
resistance, and one of the lessons I learned was the need to go to the
grassroots level. I don’t know if you have that phrase here.
ANDREW DENTON: Yes, we do.
AL GORE: And to go to people one by one, community by community, and engage
in a fairly massive and sustained effort to try to change the minds of
people about this crisis.
ANDREW DENTON: And to do that, you have some significant opposition. I will
show a bit of an ad now from the ‘Competitive Enterprises Institute’, part
funded by Exxon. This is what you might call the anti-Gore.
(FOOTAGE PLAYS)
COMMERCIAL VOICE OVER: Global warming alarmists claim the glaciers are
melting because of carbon dioxide from the fuel we use. But we depend on
those fuels, to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives. And as
for carbon dioxide – it isn’t smog or smoke – it’s what we breathe out and
plants breathe in. Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life.
(FOOTAGE ENDS)
AL GORE: I rest my case!
ANDREW DENTON: The stated aim of the Competitive Enterprises Institute is to
create confusion, uncertainty about global science – and global warming
science. A Time magazine poll of your country earlier this year stated that
65 per cent of Americans are still uncertain about global warming, which
means that they’re being effective. How do you combat that?
AL GORE: I don’t think that is an accurate reading of where America is right
now. I think that a lot of minds have been changed, and I think there is a
level of urgency and a degree of certainty about that that’s somewhat new
and encouraging. A lot of business leaders who used to oppose Kyoto have now
endorsed it. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California, of which he is governor,
just last week passed binding reductions in carbon dioxide, a very bold
measure, the Democratic legislature joined with him. Arnold Schwarzenegger
went to see my movie in June and he said “I’m going to get rid of my
Hummer.” And he said some kind things about the movie and came to one of my
book signings. There are now quite a few other state, nine north-eastern
states, Pennsylvania, Oregon, state of Washington. In our federal system in
the US, sometimes states take the lead, and when enough of them enact their
own provisions, business finds it difficult to comply with different sets of
standards, and they then say, well, it would be better to have one single
national approach. We’re in the beginning of that process now. So there is
movement.

ANDREW DENTON: Careful. You’ve already done Qantas, you don’t have to do me,
it’s alright! It’s admirable and important what you’re saying about how
individuals can change their lives and should address change in their lives.
But isn’t what individuals can do in terms of saving energy in houses a drop
in the ocean compared to the people who are the real cause of the problem?
In your documentary and in your book, there is no real mention of big
companies such as Exxon, who are responsible for something like 20 billion
tonnes of world’s carbon emissions every year – a sixth of the world’s
global economy is spent in harvesting oil. What haven’t you turned your
attention to them, the elephant in the room?
AL GORE: I beg to differ. I have. I don’t – I try to avoid demonising
specific villains, because really, we are all a part of this problem, and
CO2 – the ad that you showed is kind of an obscene version of corporate
lobbying, but CO2 is actually the exhaling breath of industrial
civilisation, and changing that requires accepting responsibility by these
large polluters, yes, I agree with that, but demonising individual
companies, I think, diverts from the larger challenge that has to be
addressed. I won’t shrink from it. Let’s talk about Exxon Mobil. What
they’re doing is absolutely immoral. How they live with themselves in
financing intentional lies designed to confuse the public for the purpose of
preventing the formation of a public consensus on saving the future of
civilisation – I mean, I don’t know how they live with that. And I’ve
researched why it is that people no longer think any kind of boycott is -
you know, is a viable approach to a company like that. I wish – if it was
viable, I think there should be one. I think what they’ve done is just
unforgivable.
ANDREW DENTON: Rather than demonising, perhaps illuminating. If we’re
talking about real change, if we’re talking about a planetary emergency,
then we’re talking about radical change from the top up. Let’s look at how
the American political system works. At this day, no-one gets into the Oval
Office effectively without the support of these big companies. You and
President Clinton had 28 oil and power companies support you. George Bush
had 20 million dollars put towards his campaign. Your inauguration was part
paid for by an oil company. How do we change the way that system works so
that the leaders of our nations are not beholden to these companies?
AL GORE: I think that leaves a false impression of what the reality is. It’s
true that in the American system, it’s common for both parties to accept
political action committee contributions but if you look at the reality of
the example you use, it’s like 20 to 1 on the side of the other party to
what the Clinton/Gore campaign received.
ANDREW DENTON: Sure. I’m not trying to get party political but they’re
integrally involved in the political process?
AL GORE: They are and there is a valid point in what you’re saying. I’ve
long advocated complete public financing, taxpayer financing of all federal
elections in the United States. I took that position when I first went to
Congress in 1976. I reaffirmed it for my campaign for President for 2000. I
think the entire conversation of democracy in the United States has suffered
greatly because of the inappropriate use of corporate money in politics. But
I think it’s a symptom of a deeper problem. A problem that’s probably worse
in the US than it is in Australia. But the way we communicate among
ourselves about the great issues of the day.
More than 40 years ago, television supplanted the printing press as the
source of information for the majority and its dominance has grown to the
point that in my country, the average American watches television four hours
and 39 minutes per day, and that’s 75 per cent of the discretionary time.
Unappreciated is the fact that this shift has taken us back to a one-way
form of communication, where the information comes from a very few sources,
and most people watch television and don’t – they can talk back to it if
they like but the message is not received, and in that kind of environment,
it becomes much easier for special interests with a lot of wealth to
dominate some of the messaging that shapes attitudes on issues.
ANDREW DENTON: How do we break that? How do we break that nexus between
corporate interests and the way political decisions are made?
AL GORE: Well, I think that focusing on the role of money in politics is
part of it. But I think that it’s really addressing one of the symptoms
rather than the cure. I think that the larger challenge is to democratise
the dominant medium, and fortunately, there are now new affordable digital
video cameras and laptop editing systems, and young people particularly are
learning how to use them. I have started a new television network called
‘Current TV’, and it’s on cable and satellite in 30 million homes in the US,
and you can get a training course. We give a free training course to anybody
in the world on how to make television. Then they stream the TV to us on the
Internet, we post it, and let people vote on what they think the most
compelling material is. Now, 30 per cent of our programming is made by the
viewers. And if individuals in a nation or in a society are empowered to
take part in the conversation, the key is having a meritocracy of ideas so
that the people who are part of the conversation themselves decide which of
the contributions from all these individuals merit more attention rather
than less.
ANDREW DENTON: You know how it works, which is what gets back to Exxon
spending money to spread disinformation, the person with the most money is
able to put out the most messages and the most skilful messages and they
win.
AL GORE: Exactly right. That is the way it works.
ANDREW DENTON: Tear it down, Al, come on!
AL GORE: I’m trying. I’m trying.
ANDREW DENTON: This is what I’m waiting to hear. How?
AL GORE: That’s the way it works now.
ANDREW DENTON: Yeah, but how do you tear it down?
AL GORE: I’m trying to tell you. You build a bridge between the…
ANDREW DENTON: I need a zinger, Al!
AL GORE: (Laughs) You see, this is part of the problem, though, you see.
It’s part of the problem.
ANDREW DENTON: I need an intelligent zinger.
AL GORE: ENOUGH ROPE is the place where you can go beyond zingers, am I
right about that? We don’t need to just focus on these zingers.
ANDREW DENTON: Yeah.
AL GORE: Please!
ANDREW DENTON: Okay.
AL GORE: All right.
ANDREW DENTON: You got 90 minutes!
AL GORE: (Laughs) That’s truly ENOUGH ROPE! But seriously… The Internet
allows individuals to get into contact with this incredible universe of
knowledge out there, and it allows individuals to take part in the
conversation. It has been that individuals find like-minded groups, and
that’s not entirely bad, but the Internet has not become a main public
forum. With television, it is possible for individuals to contribute
short-form, non-fiction essays, if you will – here’s what I see in my world.
Make it creative. The essays attracted an audience depending upon the
excellence of the prose, the style of the writing as well as the quality of
the ideas and in that same way, these televised expressions have to be
compelling and attract their own audience, and as they do, what it can
happen is the television medium can be the forum that it was intended to be
so that we can once again have a conversation of democracy that is not
dominated by Exxon Mobil financing these insipid ads for the virtues of
carbon dioxide, but rather, individuals can make their own case…
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1734175.htm

I recently wrote a letter which I will send to ExxonMobil soon. Don’t like the first couple of sentences – really weak beginning, so I think it needs some more editing. It was orginally all friendly and wordy, then I made it terse and and somewhat agressive. This is the current compromise. I do of course realise that it will go straight to the circular file, or maybe their propaganda department to help them market themselves better.

If you haven’t seen them, the videos mentioned in the first point of the letter are worth a look (see the endnotes). They are produced by a right-wing “think tank” called the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). ExxonMobil say they are proud sponsors of CEI. And why shouldn’t they be? CEI fights for the cause of ‘freedom’, whatever that means. It’s a good thing appearantly. Keep those videos in mind next if you buy Exxon/Mobil/Esso – you’re supporting crud like that.

A workmate (KB) suggested that if I’m really serious about changing their behaviour I should do lots of research on why ExxonMobil sucks, and give it to to commercial TV. Imagine how excited Naomi Robson would get if she could say words like “astroturfing”. And everybody hates an oil company, so it will probably run, unless the TV station has some other reason to keep Big Oil onside. I’m toying with the idea in the medium/long term, but I’m probably not going to invest the time for this over the next few weeks.

On a related note, there is an article in the current issue of Newsweek that I’ll have to read. I glanced at it and it seems to say that “Peak Oil” isn’t going to be an issue, but that Oil companies are struggling at the moment, despite high oil prices, partly because finding new oil isn’t as cheap as it used to be. That seems to be a contradiction to me. But I haven’t read it properly yet.

The other article that caught my attention was one about BP, and some of their recent mishaps in the US. Some are saying that they were a result of recent cost-cutting, and were quite avoidable. Investigations are under way. Here in Perth, it is my understanding that all of our petrol comes from only two sources. BP Kwinana, and Mobil Singapore. So I hope BP aren’t going to prove themselves as irresponsible as ExxonMobil are.