Breaking: ExxonMobil Breaks Promise; Up Next: Area Coyote Continues Pursuit of Roadrunner

In perhaps the least shocking news we've ever heard, it recently surfaced that despite public promises that it would no longer fund climate change skeptics, ExxonMobil has continued to give money to groups that publicly question and deny the science behind global warming.

If you'd like, now would be the time to let out a fake sigh of indignation and pretend that you were actually surprised.

In its 2008 corporate citizenship report, ExxonMobil promised to cut funding to groups who "divert attention" from the need to address climate change:

In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.

Though they did cut funding to a few controversial groups, recent reports show that, in spite of their public statements to the contrary, ExxonMobil has continued to fund climate change skeptics. As the Guardian reported:

Company records show that ExxonMobil handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds to such lobby groups in 2008. These include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas, which received $75,000 (£45,500), and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, which received $50,000.

Exxon's doublespeak shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone (via The Wonk Room):

Just as ExxonMobil makes public promises to end funding to groups that work to deny climate change, it also has devoted millions to ad campaigns touting clean energy without actually investing significantly in renewable energy. In 2007, Exxon-Mobil spent $100 million on advertising and “green-washing” campaigns in an attempt to exaggerate their commitment to renewable energy, producing ads that focused on global warming, efficiency, and alternative energy. That’s despite the fact that ExxonMobil spent more on CEO Rex Tillerson’s salary than on renewable energy in 2007. While Tillerson took in $21.7 million, Exxon invested only $10 million or so in renewable energy – just a tenth of the amount they spent talking about investing in clean energy.

So remember that 100 bucks you lent Exxon last week so they could pay their rent? Don't count on getting it back. Sure they promised they'd "pay you back right away, we swear," but they clearly don't have the best track record. Chances are the money's already gone anyway, seeing as how Exxon spent over $120 million lobbying Congress between 1998 and 2009.

Integrity Prevails: NRCC ACES Attack Ad Pulled By Virginia Station

Over the past few weeks, we've been hearing a lot of different numbers thrown around by the press, pundits and politicians when discussing the costs of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Given the difficulty of modeling such comprehensive legislation, this is of course not surprising. What is surprising is how opponents of the bill have continued to use already debunked and misinterpreted studies in their efforts to keep America reliant on the fossil fuel industry.

In the weeks before the vote on ACES, we saw Exxon-backed interest groups making these false claims. During floor debate, the legislation's opponents used the false numbers on the House floor. After the bill's passage, we were left wondering who would answer the skeptics' call and carry on the tradition of using "simplistic and misleading" numbers to suit one's own end.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) answered that call. Soon thereafter, they were called out on it.

As The Huffington Post reported:

WDBJ-TV, a Roanoke television station, will not air a National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) ad attacking freshman Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), citing factual inaccuracies, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee communications director Jen Crider. A source familiar with the station's decision confirmed Crider's account

Numerous non-partisan fact checking organizations have come out against the ad (via Factcheck.org):

The ad says the bill will result in lost jobs and cost "middle class families" $1,870 a year. That sounds pretty dire, until you consider that this week we posted an item about the Office of the Republican Whip Eric Cantor's claim that the same bill would "impose a national energy tax of up to $3,100." So is the cost of the legislation going down? Did the NRCC make a mistake in its math?

Hardly. While it may seem curious that House Republicans would flog two different cost figures for the proposed legislation, it is indicative of the difficulty in determining how a cap on carbon emissions could affect Americans' electricity bills. The NRCC ad credits a Washington Times editorial for its claim that the Waxman-Markey bill would make electricity prices "skyrocket," costing families $1,870 a year. But the NRCC is wrong.

Others have echoed the finding that the "NRCC is wrong." We've pointed out numerous times that not only did the Congressional Budget Office score the bill, finding the cost to be close to a postage stamp a day for each household, but the EPA recently released a study with similar findings.

Though calculating such costs is difficult, we'll take the findings of a non-partisan body (CBO) that are corroborated by another study (EPA) over the oft-questioned findings of a think tank (the Heritage Foundation) that are "pulled out of thin air." But who knows, maybe the Heritage numbers and the CBO postage stamp finding are both right, and somehow the NRCC pays $5.12 a stamp. If that's the case, maybe they ought to find a new mailman.

Boehner Continues Bathroom Rhetoric With Potty Mouth

This past Friday, after the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, House Minority Leader John Boehner (OH) was not a happy camper. But really, who could blame him? ACES had passed, his Friday night was ruined (in his defense, America's Funniest Home Videos was on), and his attempts to delay the vote by speaking on the House floor for over an hour proved to be useless. Upset or not, I don't think anyone was expecting this reaction (via The Hill):

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a few choice words about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) landmark climate-change bill after its passage Friday. When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t.

We'd try and be snarky about it, but it seems an aide did that for us:

Pelosi's office declined to comment on Boehner's jab. But one Democratic aide quipped, "What do you expect from a guy who thinks global warming is caused by cow manure?"

Given his ability to talk about a 'pile of s--t' for well over an hour, we recommend that anyone with somewhere to be in the near future be wary of entering into a conversation with Mr. Boehner about something that actually interests him; he may end up talking forever.

Did we buy Idaho for the potatoes?

Cable talkshow personality Glenn Beck may be on edge these days. Might the controversial host, who probably has made as many friends as enemies in his career, now have to worry about Governor Sarah Palin (AK) after making an Alaskan-sized gaffe?

On a recent episode of Fox & Friends, Beck attempted to criticize the American Clean Energy and Security Act, but instead ended up confusing not only his history facts, but his climate change ones as well. Check out the text below, or watch the video (via Think Progress):

CARLSON: But nowhere in that bill is anything about reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

BECK: None. […]

You know Donald Trump, I want to talk to this guy. When he was on the show just a few minutes ago I was thinking how can you not be laughing at us? How can the world not be laughing at us? We have all these resources. Why did we buy Alaska in the 1950s? We bought Alaska for the resources. And now we say no!

As the folks at Think Progress point out:

Beck’s attempt to rewrite history to fit his talking point is also troubling. For clarification, Alaska was purchased in 1867 for $7.2 million and soon became known as “Seward’s Folly,” named for Secretary of State William H. Seward, because at the time it was widely regarded as foolish to spend so much money on remote tundra. (Perhaps Beck was thinking of Alaska becoming the 49th state in 1959.) The resources the U.S. was after in 1867 weren’t oil, but fish, furs, and the prospect of closer proximity to Russia from the North American continent.

Of course, besides getting his dates wrong, 'Beck's Folly' also consisted of claiming that "nowhere in that bill is anything about reducing our dependence on foreign oil," a statement which couldn't be further from the truth. The entire bill works towards that goal; not only will ACES spur investment in renewable energy, but it will also help create homegrown green jobs that can't be shipped overseas.

But really, who can blame Beck for not liking the bill? I don't think there's any money earmarked in their for him to hire a new fact checker, a staff member he clearly could use.

Time to dust off the ol’ bow and arrow?

During the floor debate of the American Clean Energy and Security act, most of the bill's naysayers seemed content to recycle old speeches and rely on using false and misleading numbers in an attempt to scare the American public. Of course, someone always has to be different, and that day, it was Representative Thaddeus McCotter (MI). You see, McCotter must have tired of the worn out roadblock talking point, because he apparently tried to get a new three word phrase to catch on: ‘hunting and gathering.’

Yes folks, McCotter attempted to claim ACES would lead us to revert to a “green economy called hunting and gathering." Check out the video below:




We can’t even make this stuff up. Perhaps our copy of the study showing that investment in clean energy would create 1.7 million new jobs was missing a page, but I highly doubt those jobs descriptions require prior experience in: “subsisting in the wild on food obtained by hunting and foraging."