Exxon behind Bush's NO to Kyoto

[Lazul]

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyhete...657228,00.html
(sorry, its in swedish, but a reliable news-paper)

I guess the title speaks for itself, ill try and find a english article!

[Ldvs]

Och påtryckningar från Exxon Mobil bidrog till att president Bush sade nej till Kyoto-protokollet.

It's common knowledge that great industrial companies fund the presidential electoral campaign. Bush has made promises to these groups and now can't back away and I doubt that among them, only Exxon is against Kyoto Protocol.

EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...501632,00.html
It should be much easier to read

[Don Corleone]

The documents you posted say Exxon was consulted and offered their opinions through the GCC. While they were disingenuous to the House of Lords & other groups claiming they had played no role, that's not the same thing as Bush picking up the phone to them and saying "Yes, master?" as this article would have it.

I'd like to see some evidence of quid pro quo before we accept it as fact. I'd also like to know who else was on that GCC and in what percentages. It's an interesting start, and certainly doesn't look great, but there's a lot more homework to be done yet.

[Ldvs]

Perhaps it's not the "Yes, Master?" but it's not far behind. This case set aside, do you think it's normal to ask industrials if measures concerning the environment fit their plans? Maybe it's acceptable in the USA, but certainly not here.

[Don Corleone]

As long as you don't ask them exclusively. That's why I want to know who else was on the GCC.

In America, typically when something like this comes up that has the potential to impact a lot of different people, in a lot of different ways, we don't just go to the environmentalist loonies and ask them what they think we should do. We do ask them, but we ask (or at least supposed to) a wide swath of people, from all walks of life. The idea being that all impacts can be put out on the table and relative gains/losses (in all spheres) can be evaluated. Now if Bush stacked the deck and had all oil & automotive industry represetatives on this advisory panel, then yeah, I'm going to be pretty peeved. But if for every Exxon guy, there was a Sierra Club or Audobon Society guy, then the process was at least set up properly.

P.S. Don't for one minute think that Thales, Michelin & Alcatel have more to do with your policies then you think they do. They might be better at hiding it, but wherever you have open campaigns, you have corporate influence (and I would argue, again, as long as it's balanced, you should).

[Ldvs]

P.S. Don't for one minute think that Thales, Michelin & Alcatel have more to do with your policies then you think they do. They might be better at hiding it, but wherever you have open campaigns, you have corporate influence (and I would argue, again, as long as it's balanced, you should).

Oh, yes. They certainly find a means to voice their concerns about many subjects, but I doubt they're heard concerning environmental issues. The reason for this is simple: it's the EU that set environmental policies and the measures are quite drastic (many companies complain but that doesn't make the EU change its policy). I can think of only one consortium being powerful enough to influence the European decisions: EADS (AIRBUS is part of it). The firms you quoted have an influence on France's policies but they aren't yet big enough to be able to do the same with the EU.