1. Exxon's claim: Exxon does not deny the link between fossil fuels and climate change.

Reality: Exxon has denied the link between fossil fuels and climate change for more than ten years but tries to hide this position in Europe where its views are unpopular. But the company's position is clear. The head office's statement on climate change, dated May 2000, reads "Science is not now able to confirm that fossil fuel use has led to any significant global warming."

The company's actions reflect its position on climate change. In September 2001, the world's leading climate experts, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), met in London to agree its latest report on climate change. The IPCC's draft final report contained the following line: "The Earth's climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era, with some of these changes attributable to human activities." Exxon lobbied to amend the text by deleting "with some of these changes attributable to human activities". The IPCC rejected the amendment. Not only has the IPCC considerably strengthened its opinion that the recent warming is mostly due to human activities, it links this increase principally to the burning of fossil fuels.

2. Exxon's claim: Exxon has no influence over President Bush and its contributions to his election campaign were minimal.

Reality: The facts speak for themselves. Exxon's contributions to the Republican Party in the 2000 election cycle totalled more than US$1 million, more than any other oil company. These contributions came on top of years of funding multimillion-dollar anti-Kyoto advertising campaigns. In 1999 Exxon's lobbying budget, US$11.7 million, was the fifth highest in the US, beaten only by US pharmaceutical and tobacco giants. Exxon has also led front groups such as the Global Climate Coalition, specifically set up to undermine the UN negotiations on climate on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.

The result of Exxon's influence is that Exxon's words come out of Bush's mouth. After intensely lobbying Bush to ditch the treaty, which he did in March 2001, Exxon took out advertisements describing the Kyoto Protocol as "fundamentally flawed" and "fatally politicised". Two months later Bush described the Kyoto treaty as "fatally flawed in fundamental ways".

3. Exxon's claim: Exxon's anti-Kyoto lobbying has always been "open and honest".

Reality: "Arrogant and deceitful" is a better description of Exxon's approach than "open and honest". Since May 2001, in response to the Esso boycott in the UK, Exxon has written to thousands of people stating "we do not deny a link between fossil fuels and climate change". But in September it asked the IPCC to delete a sentence that linked the two (see claim 1, above).

The Greenpeace report Decade of Dirty Tricks cites 25 tricks Exxon has used to sabotage the Kyoto Protocol over the past ten years. One of the most illuminating is Exxon's promotion of a widely discredited petition, purportedly signed by 17,000 scientists, which dismisses the scientific consensus on global warming. The petition's organisers attempted to mislead the signatories, claiming that the petition had the backing of the respected National Academy of Sciences, which it didn't. Some of the so-called scientists on the petition include characters from the TV show M*A*S*H and one of the Spice Girls.

Exxon has also funded and heavily promoted "climate sceptic" pseudo science to try to undermine the scientific consensus on global warming.

4. Exxon's claim: The StopExxon campaign is trying to suppress opposing views in the climate debate.

Reality: The idea that anyone could suppress the views of the world's largest company is ridiculous. Exxon spends more than US$10 million a year on lobbying alone. Greenpeace has repeatedly asked Exxon to discuss the issue of climate change, an invitation that Exxon has consistently refused. The StopExxon campaign is open to public debate and its spokespeople are prepared to debate climate change with Exxon at any time.

5. Exxon's claim: The Kyoto Protocol will impose significant economic costs and excludes developing countries.

Reality: The Kyoto Protocol is a crucial and significant first step towards tackling global warming. It includes developing countries and will not impose significant costs. Exxon wants it scrapped because the treaty threatens the company's profits from fossil fuels.

The Kyoto Protocol allows developing countries some increases in emissions in the short term and more time to bring them under control. In the negotiations leading up to the Protocol, all countries, including the US, accepted that the industrialised countries - responsible for the vast majority of the emissions over the last 200 years - would take the lead in reducing emissions. The US, with 4 percent of the world's population and 24 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, exemplifies the need to address industrialised countries' emissions first.

The Kyoto Protocol will not be an economic burden. The IPCC states that greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced below year 2000 levels in 10 to 20 years at zero net costs using existing technology. This is borne out by a recent report that shows that since 1997, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 17 percent, while US emissions jumped by 14 percent. In the same period, China's economy grew four times faster than the US. However, if current warming trends persist, the insurance industry predicts that annual losses from natural disasters could come close to US$150 billion by the end of the decade.

6. Exxon's claim: Exxon is taking action on climate change now, developing cleaner fuels and fuel cell vehicles and improving energy efficiency.

Reality: Since Exxon denies the link between fossil fuels and climate change, it's not surprising that its "solutions" - ranging from "cleaner fuels" to tree planting - will not reduce carbon dioxide emissions. "Cleaner fuels" such as unleaded petrol and low-sulphur diesel reduce some airborne pollutants, but do not tackle global warming. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are the future - but only if the power to make the hydrogen comes from renewable energy. Not surprisingly, Exxon's hydrogen fuel cell vehicles still run on petrol. We should expect every company to be energy efficient - it saves money. The fastest route to significant global improvements in energy efficiency will be through a binding Kyoto Protocol.

7. Exxon's claim: Exxon invested in renewable energy in the 1970s and 80s and found it unprofitable.

Reality: Like the mobile telephone industry, the renewable energy industry today bears no resemblance to what it was in the 70s and 80s. In countries such as Germany, Denmark and Spain the wind industry is growing as fast as the telecommunications industry. Furthermore, members of the US Congress publicly accused Exxon several decades ago of deliberately misleading members of the public regarding the costs and potential for renewable energy.

Renewable energy - wind, wave and solar power - could supply all the world's energy needs. The technology is available and prices are falling fast. Denmark has led the world in showing that there are no technological or economic barriers to renewable energy that cannot be overcome. Denmark already gets 10 percent of its electricity from wind power and plans to increase this figure to 50 percent by 2030.

If a company of Exxon's size were to shift significant investments from fossil fuels to renewable energy it would help slash the costs of renewable energy even further. But for Exxon there is only oil, coal and gas. It dismisses non-petroleum sources of energy as merely "fashionable".

8. Exxon's claim: Exxon is not alone in its position on the Kyoto Protocol - the vast majority of US politicians and businesses oppose the Kyoto treaty.

Reality: There are clearly strong feelings about the Kyoto Protocol in the US, but opinion is divided. A recent US public opinion poll, conducted by the New York Times/CBS after the US administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol, found that three out of four people said immediate action was needed to tackle global warming. Furthermore, more than half of those surveyed said that the US should abide by the agreement, even if it meant that China and India would not have to follow the same standards.

Exxon's claim that other US businesses and US politicians also oppose the Kyoto Protocol is self-fulfilling. Exxon has led the campaign for US opposition to the treaty and has been successful in influencing politicians, industry and the US public. We have singled out Exxon not just because it opposes the Kyoto Protocol, but because it has undertaken a multimillion-dollar ten-year campaign of dirty tricks - targeted in the US - to prevent international action on global warming.

Furthermore, it is clear that Exxon is in fact leading many of the US trade associations that Exxon claims back its position. One of the associations most strongly opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, the US Council for International Business (USCIB), wrote to President Bush - allegedly on behalf of all its members - supporting his withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. Exxon is widely credited with drafting the USCIB letter. However, a Greenpeace survey revealed that a sample of its major member companies were not consulted and/or did not agree with the content. For example, British Telecom North America said, "We belong to this organisation for reasons of trade relations and were not consulted on the Kyoto statement. It therefore does not reflect our views." (Letter to Matthew Spencer of Greenpeace UK from Chris Tuppen, Head of Sustainable Development and Corporate Accountability, 18 July 2001.)