A climate of doubt should not exist

Is there any organisation more immoral than ExxonMobil (Known as Esso in the UK)? Okay, its ruthlessness has made it the richest company in the world (bar a few blips regarding German car makers) and it dominates like Standard Oil used to. But shouldn't it devoted itself to sustainability because its executives and their children may be able to weather the effects of climate change more effectively, but they will still be affected. But the bottom dollar is all that concerns this company. For its top employees, greed still is good. But in 1989, the scum on television screens wasn't just the oil leaking out of the Exxon Valdez, but the Exxon middle-management covering up their bosses oversights. The guy responsible for Exxon's operation in Alaska was interviewed all these years later and he reeled off all these reasons why the spill was appalling before admitting it was bad publicity and you could just feel in your gut, like those animals on the felt the oil in theirs, that this was the main point that Exxon did anything at all to try and clean it up. They did this in the most brutal way possible, with any life that did survive the slick being obliterated by the high-power hoses (whose steam affected all those who used it, causing cancer and other ailments after the clean-up had finished). It still cost them $2 billion, which was a drop in the ocean for their finances, a term they probably felt for the disaster. As the operations manager of Exxon Alaska said that so what so many animals died, as there would be others who could propagate and replace them. Well, that's the kind of argument that given Exxon's recklessness in spite of the warnings that could be used to justify pouring oil down the throats of every single member of his family - because there are more humans who could propagate and replace them.
The scientist of Exxon who went to the fishing community in Prince William Sound probably got his degree from a mail order company, but he probably thought he was talking to a bunch of hicks who he could bamboozle. However, in front of the world's cameras he was confronted by a native of that community who had a PhD in marine biology and toxicology, disproving all the untruths he was peddling.
The fishermen and women of Prince William Sound successfully sued Exxon for ignoring repeated warnings, having a man known for his drinking as captain (he abandoned his post because he felt tired after a drinking session, leaving it to an inexperienced sailor who wasn't legally allowed to operate a supertanker) and having only a single skin for the hull of the Exxon Valdez (all supertankers now have two skins). They proved that the rock the ship struck had been plotted by Captain Cook and the jury awarded them $5 billion. Exxon fought this until in 2008 the battle reached the Supreme Court, which reduced it to only £500 million or $12,000 per person who have had to scratch a living for 19 years from their devastated industry, with many illnesses and rashes occurring and oil still around in patches. Disgracefully, Exxon sold off the Valdez to an East Asian haulage company (because, derr, they don't have reefs in East Asia).
The 1989 spill should have been a watershed moment. Hollywood (Waterworld) and television (The Simpsons) strongly attacked it. But Exxon survived and they went to fund all the climate change deniers. Al Gore showed that in the presidency that was stolen from him by the, ahem, Supreme Court, the top environmental advisor, who had no scientific experience, crossed out much of the report compiled by scientists about climate change. This censoring was leaked and the man resigned, only for a little while later to get a top job at ExxonMobil. Incidentally, the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth, which I watched last night, two weeks after the BBC Two programme commemorating the 20th anniversary of the spill, was banned from being shown in schools by a High Court judge, unless an opposing view was put forward - a bit like saying any teaching of geography which shows the Earth is round, has to have a contrary commentary saying that the world is flat given equal time and resources. The Supreme Court would probably have come to the same conclusion. I wonder who funded the complainant in that case? The film was very instructive, even given the 'nine minor errors', since the broad thrust was true. The frog that jumps into boiling water will jump out again, but the frog that jumps into lukewarm water but whose temperature in inexorably upwards to boiling point, will be boiled. Just look at recent events, governments have thrown more than $1 trillion to solve the banking crisis and their stalling economies without causing a revolution (the frog jumping out of the boiling water), but if only ten per cent of that was devoted to helping the environment, Barack Obama is told he would have a revolution on his hands (proving people are like the frog that's going to die without realising it). Environmental politics is plastered everywhere we look, but it's amazing how far behind the curve of what needs to be done, the public and the politicians are in doing anything about it. Al Gore demonstrated that it was a false choice for countries to choose between their economies and their environment (as Tony Blair once did, saying countries would not sacrifice their economies for the environment, proving the fraud he always was) because jobs can be created in the 'green' sector. Part of the rescue plan for General Motors, Ford and Chrsyler (which were failing because they produced the most inefficient cars in the developed world and China) is a mandate that they build mor green cars. President Obama shows himself to be the opposite of the gutless New Labour project - a man of firm intellect, principles and determination. As Al Gore said, political action is a renewable resource and after eight long, dark years, some positivethings about the environment can take place, once the banks have been dealt with that is, of course, they always have to come first it seems.