Globalisation:International Policy Network: Funding and connections

Return to Globalisation: International Policy Network

Funding

IPN state “it is supported entirely by charitable donations from individuals, foundations and businesses. It receives no money from any government or political parties, and it does no contract work.” They also state that they abide by a strict “code of independence ” which ensures that they are not influenced by any external bodies. However the following evidence opens a debate on the previous statement. IPN receives mass sums of money every year from industries that have major interests in the outcomes of the organisations research. It has been stated and argued that IPN received funding from the likes of Pfizer (the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, who may be interested in the outcomes of IPN’s research into health) and other large industrial companies such as big tobacco (again who may be interested in outcomes of IPN’s research into health) This has lead to much criticism from parties such as the media and politicians. For example, Norman Baker MP said: "We may be able to deduce from the comments of Julian Morris that there is an ulterior motive behind his denial of climate change." This statement does have evidence to support it, and will be shown through the main example of who funds IPN –ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest and most profitable oil and gas organisations.

ExxonMobil state that they support research that promotes discussions on issues that are directly relevant to the organisation, in 2005 they made world wide contributions of $6.4million for public information and funding, $139,000 of that sum was contributed towards IPN for research on climate change. This is one of the highest amounts of funding from Exxon Mobil, compared to $50,000 in 2003, $115,000 in 2004b and $95,000 in 2006. However, these numbers are nothing compared to what has been funded by Exxon since 1998, over the last twelve years Exxon have spent between the region of seventeen and twenty three million dollars bankrolling organizations that oppose the theory of climate change. The large sum of investment does not just lie at IPN.

Connections

ExxonMobil

In 2008, Exxon Mobil became the world's most profitable corporation with earnings over $45 billion as oil averaged $100 a barrel. Therefore they have a major interest and play a major part in climate change. ExxonMobil has been funding many of the efforts designed to cast doubt on the overwhelming evidence linking human activities and global warming. Greenpeace has identified about 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global warming or have affiliated with a small group of climate "naysayers" who continue to do so.

This could be seen through Exxon’s investment of $1,126,200 in 2006 in a research project by American Legislative Exchange Council which drew the conclusion, "The science of climate change is unsettled" and the "question is how much, if any, of this warming is caused by human activities. An oil and gas company funding research in climate change isn’t too controversial as it could be taken that the company is looking of ways to cut pollution to help with climate change, but it is a juxtaposition when the research shows climate change “as a myth”.

Clearly, IPN are not the only organisation funded by ExxonMobil who oppose theories of climates change ever important role on the environment. In other attempts to counter the scientific evidence for climate change, ExxonMobil has used outdated science and misrepresented scientific research. During a shareholders meeting, CEO Raymond used “evidence” of the earth’s tempreture to show that in fact the world is cooling . However, the science Journal Nature in 1998 shows this to be incorrect and that taking into account that the measurements were taken from a satellite, and the orbit of the satellite changed, the results do in fact show that the earth is warming up.

As a result new revised data has been publicised in 36 newspapers in the US. At the same AGM, Raymond also referred to temperature measurements in the Saragasso Sea to discredit the climate science. Dr. Lloyd Keigwin, author of the report, later claimed that “ExxonMobil's use of his research has been misleading and that no conclusions about the validity of climate change could be made from his research.” ExxonMobil has also used the Saragasso example in misleading ads that it placed in the New York Times under the headline “unsettled science” . This example of poor and unreliable evidence from research funded by ExxonMobil has meant that Greenpeace have maximised the opportunity to attact any other work funded by Exxon and in this quote it is IPN- , Greenpeace criticise IPN in The Times newspaper of "being in the pay of the world’s biggest oil company.”

This could even be viewed as true as the executive director of, Julian Morris, has even stated to George Monbiot of the Guardian news paper, that he runs his US office "solely for funding purposes”, which more than anything reinforces the argument of ulterior motives for funding projects, giving many critics ammunition to discredit the work of IPN. Many have interoperated Exxon’s mass funding as buying the outcome of the research and also diverting legitimate discussion on climate change, it can also be argued that they have been successful in doing this. New policies on climate change have the potential too majorly affect the profits of a gas and oil company. This directly contradicts much of what is said in the IPN’s Code of Independence as it states it is not influenced by any donating organisations or individuals.

A little more unsettling is the facts and figures about Exxon’s pollution, through both water and offshore drilling and also oil spills. For example in February 1998, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint accusing Exxon of nearly 200 Clean Air Act violations and demanding $4.7 million in fines. . In another example, during 1993 Exxon paid $1 million in air pollution fines for its Bayway refinery in Linden, N.J. The penalties stem from Exxon bypassing air pollution control equipment. All of this evidence slightly contradicts some of the points made in IPN’s “Statement of International Policy Network’s Independence and Guiding Principles”. For example, there is considerable evidence by credited scientists and sound research that show climate change is apparent and potentially fatal. Much of the work from the IPN shows the climate change is a “Myth” but yet their Independence and guiding principles state that the aim to protect the environment, surely denying climate change is very much apparent contradicts “protecting the environment.” IPN’s agenda is neither dictated nor compromised by outside financial sources. IPN has been open to much criticism for being a “front group” or lobby group especially by broadsheets like the Times, Guardian, and Observer, as a result they have threatened legal action. They even state again in their “guiding principles,” We are never a “front group” for any donor or industry.” And “IPN does not accept contributions intended to “purchase” a predetermined research outcome or in any way compromise the intellectual integrity of our work”However, these statements could again be open to much criticism taking into account the evidence of who funded research projects and who the research benefited. It is also very apparent that this is not the first funded project by Exxon, and IPN are not their only investment.