Start A Petition
This thread is displayed with the most recent posts first.
No problem! February 04, 2007 7:01 PM

  I dont think I have bought gas from them in years. I always go to BP or Citgo, their are plenty of them around here. Heck, I drive on fumes, I did that today, before going anywhere but the two metioned.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 February 04, 2007 4:01 PM

Science bought again:

 [ send green star]
Exxon Mobil posts record US profit February 01, 2007 5:30 PM

Oil giant Exxon Mobil has posted the largest annual profit by a US company - $US39.5 billion ($A50.94 billion) - even as earnings for the last quarter of 2006 declined four per cent.

The 2006 profit topped the previous record, also by Exxon Mobil, of $US36.13 billion ($A46.6 billion) set in 2005. The record earnings amounted to roughly $US4.5 million ($A5.8 million) an hour for the world's largest publicly traded oil company, which produces about three per cent of the world's oil.

It also equals the approximate gross domestic product - a measure of all goods and services produced within a country in a given year - of countries like Ecuador, Luxembourg and Croatia.

 [ send green star]
 December 31, 2006 11:35 PM

You could try the ethical consumer magazine site.  [ send green star]
 December 30, 2006 8:25 PM

A year ago when a friend mentioned the boycot to me, I was able to find a whole list of gas station names owned my exxon mobile.  cannot find it now.  Is there a list anywhere of what companies own which gas station names?  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 December 28, 2006 9:30 PM

How much of the market do they control?  [ send green star]
 December 28, 2006 8:45 PM

I think you missed my point. 
I agree that Exxon-Mobile is a big problem.
Exxon-Mobile has a number of subsidiary companies.  Effectively, the same company under a different name.  If you truly want to boycot Exxon-Mobile then that means not buying gas from their subsidiaries either.  Taking this one step further.  If you buy gas from a company that is not a subsidiary of Exxon-Mobile, but buys their gas from Exxon-Mobile,  then in the end Exxon-Mobile sold the gas and you bought it.
I think another step that needs to be taken is to use the anti-trust laws to break up Exxon-Mobile so that they do not control so much of the market.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 December 27, 2006 12:45 AM

Esso, Exxon and Mobil are the same company. They bought each other out, or something like that, but still use the old brands in different countries. Here in Australia they use Mobil.  [ send green star]
Boycotting ExxonMobil and BP December 26, 2006 10:29 PM

This needn't be over-complicated!

Simple fact 1: BP let their pipelines deteriorate in Alaska. They broke, and polluted large areas of land. BP then tried to put a ridiculous timetable and costs on repairs.

Simple fact 2:
ExxonMobil made record profits as we paid through the nose at the pumps and the increased prices for anything which used ground transport.

We don't need massive organization. We need to spread the word and stop stopping at Exxon, Mobil and BP gas stations. In addition, w need to buy other brands in auto supply stores, quick oil change places and discount department stores. If the opportunity presents itself, we need to spread the word to other customers and store staff of what we're doing and why.

So far, I've heard that Exxon also sells under the Esso ad Standard Oil labels here and in Canada. If you here of other brand names to avoid, add them here.

Also, keep your vehicle tuned and your tires inflated. If you can afford it, buy a newer, more energy-efficient vehicle.
Better yet, ride bicycles and public transportation if you can.

Oh, and sell any leftover ExxonMobil and BP stock you have.

Seems easy enough to me!!

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 December 21, 2006 6:31 PM

I remember a friend tellling me about a boycott of both BP and ExxonMobil.  THe problem with it was that to truly boycott them you would also have to boycott all of their subsidiaries.  It is quite a list and between the two of them, well there wasn't much of anything left to choose from.  IF you boycott a company, and then buy the same thing from one of their subsidiaries or another company that buys it from the one you are boycotting- well what changes.  I think there is a bigger issue of mgacompanies with a lot of economic power abusing that power.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 December 15, 2006 6:08 PM

some details on the 'sceptics'

 [ send green star]
 November 28, 2006 4:36 PM  [ send green star]
 November 28, 2006 4:34 PM

Exxon has used it's position as a sponsor of American schools to block their acceptance of free copies of 'An inconvenient truth.'

 [ send green star]
Oil giant hits at 'unfair' attack by scientists September 22, 2006 9:36 PM,,1878449,00.html

ExxonMobil has escalated a row with the Royal Society by accusing it of "inaccurately and unfairly" depicting the world's largest oil company as a climate change sceptic.

However, Exxon admits it is reviewing the funding of various outside groups which were accused by the Royal Society of undermining the scientific consensus on global warming.

An unprecedented letter from the UK's premier scientific academy to Exxon was quoted in the Guardian this week, criticising it for making "inaccurate and misleading" statements on climate change.

 [ send green star]
We have been boycotting ExxonMobil since the gas hike August 08, 2006 7:45 AM

We usually pump at Gulf, BP, or Sheetz.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
Sick lobbying is behind penguin spoof of Al Gore August 06, 2006 12:26 AM,,3-2299550,00.html

The maker of the Gore-baiting spoof is credited as Toutsmith, a 29-year-old from Beverly Hills, California. The video appears to have been produced on a home computer, with a budget of pennies. But an investigation by The Wall Street Journal has discovered that Toutsmith is actually operating from Washington, on a computer registered to a PR company called DCI Group. The company’s clients happen to include the multinational oil company ExxonMobil.

Yet the video on YouTube – which allows people to post short video clips online and share them with friends — appears to be an example of what the PR industry calls “Astro Turfing”. The term was first used by the US Senator Lloyd Bentsen, a Democrat, when trying to describe fake grassroots campaigns to sway public opinion.

If the video was produced by DCI Group, it would not be the PR company’s first attempt to produce its own content. The company operates a news and opinion website called Tech Central Station, which is sponsored by companies including Exxon, General Motors and McDonald’s. The website takes a highly sceptical view of climate change, and is openly anti-Gore.

  • In 2001 Microsoft was suspected of being behind a deluge of readers’ letters sent to newspapers complaining about the US Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit against the software company

  • Last year an organisation called Working Families for Wal-Mart was set up to voice the opinions of people who believe the superstore chain is helping ordinary families of America. Most of its funding came from Wal-Mart

  • Even environmental groups have been Astro Turfed. The harmless- sounding Save Our Species Alliance was accused of being a front for timber lobbyists to weaken the Endangered Species Act. It is headed by a veteran PR man and the former president of the Oregon Forest Industries Council
  •  [ send green star]
    stickers July 12, 2006 1:12 AM had some anti-big oil bumber stickers for your car. They are sold out at the moment, but hopefully they will get more in:

     [ send green star]
    This Petition Needs More Signatures..... July 08, 2006 1:29 PM

    ExxonMobil is the sole major oil company still pushing to drill in the Arctic Refuge, one of the most important onshore denning habitats for America's remaining polar bears. Tell ExxonMobil to leave polar bears and their wilderness home alone!

    Take Action!

    ExxonMobil is swimming in cash...while polar bears are drowning in the Arctic.

    ExxonMobil raked in over $35 billion in profits in 2005, and another $8.4 billion in the first quarter of 2006. But where are Exxon's priorities?
    • ExxonMobil has given its former CEO Lee Raymond a retirement package worth almost $400 million. Yet, it still refuses to pay punitive damages for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill that killed birds, fish, sea otters and other wildlife – some of which have yet to recover.
    • ExxonMobil is the sole major oil company to remain in Arctic Power, the lobbying group whose only purpose is to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to toxic oil drilling. The Arctic Refuge is home to caribou, millions of migratory birds, and other wildlife. It is also one of the most important onshore denning habitats for America's remaining polar bears.
    • In the past five years, ExxonMobil has spent nearly $37 million on lobbyists and millions more in campaign contributions to relentlessly push its anti-wildlife agenda and fight efforts to curb global warming – the same warming that's melting sea ice and leaving walrus calves and polar bears to starve and drown.
    Tell ExxonMobil's CEO to stop pushing for oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge; to withdraw its support of the pro-drilling Arctic Power lobbying firm; and to start investing in renewable energy for the future. Let ExxonMobil know that until they mend their anti-wildlife ways, you will be boycotting their gasoline!
     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
    Despite Record Profits, Exxon Mobil Refuses To Pay Up June 29, 2006 6:51 PM

    Seventeen years after the Exxon Valdez spill dumped millions of gallons of crude oil into the pristine waters of Prince William Sound, Alaska, Exxon Mobil has yet to pay $4.5 billion in punitive damages ordered by a court.

    A federal court ordered Exxon Mobil Corp. to pay $4.5 billion to Alaskan fishing communities affected by the 1989 spill. But Exxon continues to fight the order, claiming the $3.5 billion paid in initial cleanup efforts and compensation is sufficient.

     [ send green star]
     June 06, 2006 7:33 PM

    Check out Sandra's "beyond boycott" post:

     [ send green star]
     May 13, 2006 6:43 AM

    I boycott them all by bicycling.

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
    Texas Town's Fuel Boycott Draws Support, Doubt May 02, 2006 6:39 PM

    BEEVILLE, Texas (May 1) - High gas prices are unquestionably painful in this small South Texas town that is at least an hour's drive from malls and specialized medical care, but some residents are doubting the wisdom of the county board's call for a boycott of Exxon Mobil Corp.

    The boycott against the world's largest oil company will continue until gas is down to $1.30 a gallon, said County Judge Jimmy Martinez, the county's highest elected official.

    Martinez said Exxon, based near Dallas, was targeted because of its size and the message it sent with its recent compensation and pension package to former chief executive Lee Raymond. He received $69.7 million in compensation and a $98 million pension payout after retiring late last year.

    But Exxon Mobil, which made $36 billion in profits last year, said supply and demand are mainly responsible for the high gas prices and pointed out that only about 13,000 of the country's 170,000 gas stations have the Exxon or Mobil brand. And all but about 1,000 of those are owned by franchisees, the company said.

     [ send green star]
    US: big oil kills wind energy April 23, 2006 5:47 PM  [ send green star]
     February 24, 2006 12:20 AM  [ send green star]
     February 07, 2006 6:06 AM

    Boycotting Exxon seems like a good idea, but let's not forget our wonderous politicians that are lining their own pockets with money from the oil companies.  We need to get serious and remember these people when we go to the polls.  VOTE THEM OUT!  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     February 06, 2006 3:30 PM

    You realise of course that the main reason for boycotting ExxonMobil is for actions that ultimately keep the price of oil lower.  [ send green star]
    continued February 06, 2006 6:16 AM

    If politicians like Wisconsin’s Governor Doyle, Senator Schumer, and Congressman Markey were serious about wanting to reduce the burden imposed on American working families and consumers by the high price of oil, all they would need to do would be to abolish the restrictions on energy production that they have up to now been supporting. The truth is that their policy has been “wildly effective,” to use Congressman Markey’s phrase, in raising the price of oil and making life so much more difficult for the American people than it needs to be.

    This article is copyright © 2006, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book. (Email notification is requested). All other rights reserved.

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     February 06, 2006 6:15 AM


    Friday, February 03, 2006

    The story named above appears in today’s New York Times. It opens with the declaration, “Still fuming over higher gasoline prices and rising heating oil bills, politicians and consumer groups set off a fresh wave of calls for special taxes against Big Oil after Exxon posted record profits of $10.7 billion in the latest quarter and more than $36 billion for the year.” It then quotes Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle as saying, “`Once again, Exxon Mobil has reaped the largest windfall in U.S. history at the expense of hard-working families . . . . `I hope that this news will finally convince the U.S. Congress to take action and force the oil companies to give consumers a refund.’”

    The article goes on to note that “New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Edward Markey, a senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, were others who quickly piled criticism on Big Oil. `The Bush policy of subsidizing wealthy oil companies has proven to be wildly effective in boosting oil company profits, but it continues to harm American consumers and threaten economic growth,’' Markey said in a statement.”

    It then proceeds to give the environmentalists their say: “ExxposeExxon, a coalition of 15 environmental and other groups that banded together a few months back, used the record results to launch a fresh attack on Exxon and its policies. `A company like Exxon Mobil that is making record profits, and is making those profits off the back of American consumers, has a responsibility to invest those profits into responsible energy policies,’' said Shawnee Hoover, a campaign director for the coalition. `And that is precisely what Exxon is fighting.’''

    Such statements demonstrate breathtaking disregard of facts, logic, and the science of economics.

    Let us begin with the fact that oil prices would be lower if the supply of oil were greater. The oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, have been doing their utmost to increase the supply of oil, including reinvesting a major portion of their profits precisely for that purpose. But time and again, they have been prevented from increasing the supply of oil by the environmental movement and the maze of governmental regulations and prohibitions that it has inspired. A prominent part of the environmental movement, of course, is the very organizations represented by “ExxposeExxon.” And prominent among the politicians who have done the bidding of the environmental movement are Senator Schumer and Rep. Markey.

    For example, just last December 21, in a vote on the Senate floor, Senator Schumer helped defeat the attempt to open a small part of the Alaskan wilderness to oil drilling, which, had it been successful, would all by itself have made possible an increase in production capable of making the price of oil substantially lower than it is today. (Just as a relatively small decrease in the supply of oil is capable of increasing its price dramatically, because of the great need for oil and lack of available substitutes for many purposes, so a relatively modest increase in the supply of oil is capable of reducing the price of oil just as dramatically. True enough, the development of this source of oil might take a few years, but Senator Schumer and his colleagues have been preventing its development for over twenty-five years.)

    The potential oil from ANWR (the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge), which Senator Schumer and forty-three other Senators (forty-one Democrats and two Republicans) voted to keep from the market last December, significant as it is, is only a small part of the supply of domestically produced crude oil that the environmental movement and its congressional supporters have kept off the market. To it must be added all of the crude oil that could be produced from additional offshore drilling. To that must be added all of the additional crude oil that could be produced from the vast areas besides ANWR that have been closed to oil production by virtue of having been set aside as wildlife preserves or wilderness areas.

    The increase in the supply of oil that would be achieved if only the environmentalists and their congressional supporters would get out of the way and allow profit-seeking oil firms to expand their output, is not the only readily available means of bringing down the price of oil. There is also the elementary economic fact that a decrease in the demand for oil would cause the price of oil to be lower. And among the things that would serve to reduce the demand for oil is an increase in the supply and reduction in the price of competing forms of energy, notably, atomic power, coal, and natural gas, all forms of energy whose supply the environmental movement has also succeeded in greatly restricting.

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     February 05, 2006 7:39 PM

    That was my sneaking suspicion... most people have heard about the horrors of Exxon, but don't necessarily associate Mobil with Exxon.  although, I think Jersey vies for Gas Capital of the world with the huge conglomerations of gas stations clogging the roads... there are stretches were you can see 3-4 lined up right next to each other.... 3-4 being both standard and conservative.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     February 05, 2006 7:26 PM

    Maybe they are pretending to be competitors?  [ send green star]
     February 05, 2006 7:20 PM

    Is it just by me, or is it whenever there's an Exxon, there's a Mobil across the street?  I passed two set up this way within 10 miles of each other.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     February 02, 2006 11:56 PM

    Does anyone know if this site actually sends on the emails, or just harvests the addresses?

    Tell New ExxonMobil CEO To Change Course

    On January 30, 2006, ExxonMobil announced yet another record-breaking profit -- $36.13 billion in 2005!  Outrageously, despite its enormous profits, ExxonMobil still refuses to invest in developing cleaner, safer energy solutions or to pay the money it owes to fishermen hurt by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. 

    The good news is that there's a brand new CEO over at ExxonMobil -- Rex Tillerson.  Rex may be more responsive and environmentally-conscious than the old CEO.  That's why you need to let him know your views on energy and the environment as a consumer and a citizen now.  

    Fill out the form to send an email asking new ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to change the company's course before it's too late!

    Dear Mr. Tillerson,

    (Edit Letter Below)

    Our country remains overly dependent on oil, which has serious consequences ranging from rising gasoline prices that burden every American to global warming that threatens current and future generations.

    This addiction to oil represents a failed energy strategy, one that your company not only supports but has helped to develop.  I am most disturbed by:

    * ExxonMobil's active support of drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;

    * ExxonMobil's efforts to block meaningful action to cut global warming pollution and its funding of junk science to hide the real facts about global warming;

    * ExxonMobil's conscious decision to forgo investment in clean energy solutions - despite your record profits at a time of rising gasoline prices;     

    * ExxonMobil's failure to pay all of the punitive damages awarded to fishermen and others injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

    ExxonMobil represents yesterday's energy policy; I would rather spend my money and time moving forward, not backward.

    That's why I will NOT purchase ExxonMobil's gas or products, invest in ExxonMobil stock, or work for the company. 

    [Your name]
    [Your address]

     [ send green star]
     January 31, 2006 9:18 PM

    How do you know? There profits would have been more if there wasn't a boycott.  [ send green star]
    $36 billion in profits January 31, 2006 9:13 PM

    Exxon-Mobile's reported $36,000,000,000 in profits are an all-time high for any oil company (or is it any corporation?)

    I don't think they have been hurt too much by the boycott.

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
    ExxonMobil posts record $14bn profit January 30, 2006 4:13 PM,10166,17992831-31037,00.html

    EXXONMOBIL Corp. overnight booked record earnings of $US36.1 billion ($48.24 billion) in 2005, reviving claims that the oil industry is profiting from sky-high prices at the expense of hard-pressed consumers.

    ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company, saw its net income rocket 43 per cent from 2004. In the last three months of 2005 its earnings surged 27 per cent to $US10.71 billion ($14.31 billion) -- one of the highest quarterly totals ever.

    "The Federal Government has a responsibility to make sure that these companies continue to innovate instead of just profiting from the status quo," Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said.

    "These companies should be investing in developing new sources of fuel and new technologies, like hydrogen fuel cells and alternative fuels, that will ease our dependence on foreign oil and help consumers save," he said

    Opposition Democrats have seized on a recent report in the New York Times that said energy companies have been underpaying the government by hundreds of millions of dollars on the oil and natural gas they extract from federal land.

     [ send green star]
     January 30, 2006 3:45 PM

    new mini movie:

     [ send green star]
    Boycotting and signing.... November 25, 2005 1:14 AM

    But it seems like much more needs to be done, to turn these greedy folks around.  I wish I had stock in some of these companies just so I could dump it--seems to me a lot of them value shareholders much more than customers.

    HuskyMusky, you are so, so right! It makes my blood boil to think about it.

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
    petition November 13, 2005 3:32 PM

    Apparently there are a few petitions on Exxon.

     [ send green star]
     November 11, 2005 4:44 PM

    On the GOTPV group:

     [ send green star]
    anonymous  October 28, 2005 10:20 AM

    Think of the bonus's these guys get - then think of the people that are going to have to either freeze to death this winter or eat cat/dog food, or go witout their meds just to pay their heating bills..  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
    I saw it too October 28, 2005 9:55 AM

    Looks to me like not many people are following the boycott. 

    I was sick this morning when I read about the profits that EXXON and SHELL have made.  I guess the ones with the gold do make the rules, huh?   

    This was the version of the story in the Arizona Republic;

    To access the content, click on the headline below or copy and paste the full address into your Web browser:

    Oil industry under fire as it posts billions in profits

    Peace, Marsha

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]

    anonymous The Boycott can't be hurting that much October 28, 2005 7:15 AM

    Exxon Mobil posts largest quarterly profit everU.S. oil giant reports quarterly sales of $100 billion; Shell profit also soars

    IRVING, Texas - High prices for oil and natural gas propelled Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC to their best quarterly results ever on Thursday, with Exxon becoming the first U.S. company ever to ring up quarterly sales of $100 billion.

    To put Exxon’s performance into perspective, its third quarter revenue was greater than the annual gross domestic product of some of the largest oil producing nations, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. The world’s largest publicly traded oil company also set a U.S. profit record with net income of almost $10 billion, according to Standard & Poor’s equity market analyst Howard Silverblatt.

    Both Exxon and Shell said their performances were buoyed by higher crude-oil and natural-gas prices, even as output suffered due to a busy hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico.


     [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
    Hurricanes and Global Warming October 28, 2005 3:30 AM  [ send green star]
     October 11, 2005 11:10 AM

    I suppose the best option is don't drive if you don't have to...but a lot of people have to commute, me being one of them. 

    So I guess next is look into those hybrid cars, or perhaps the hydro ones I heard about somewhere (maybe from here).  But where I live, the waiting list for a hybrid car (Honda, Toyota being the two major players) is at least one year. 

    So, what then?  I guess maximizing fuel effeciency (tune-ups, filling up at the "right time" of the day, limiting stop-and-go unless you drive a hybrid, etc.) and combining trips is a feasible, though imperfect, option.  Having a car with good mpg/kpg.  Also doing local errands via pounding the pavement or bicycles when weather allows (in temperate zones).   Those aren't great, but beats not doing anything. 

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     October 10, 2005 3:49 PM

    There are better alternatives, which doesn't necessarily mean good. Some people are going to buy some petrol no matter what. We can help buy guiding them on the best option.  [ send green star]
     October 10, 2005 12:11 PM

    The ethical consumer report I posted the link to will give you recommendations on who the "best buys" are (although this is UK not US). If I remember correctly of the main brands it is Shell but do remember this is based on their 2003 position, not the previous report in 1999 as they have improved somewhat since then. Not sure who the independent recommendation was but you have to remember that anyone who isn't also in the oil extraction business has to buy their oil from one of these companies and it could well be Exxon/Esso.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     October 10, 2005 11:56 AM

    Is there really a "good" alternative???  Freediver, a little help here...

    It looks as if they all are bad in their own way.  Exxon is the most egregious, but it seems all these companies have issues in one way or another. 

    This is one that continues to stump me...

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     October 08, 2005 10:16 PM


    I agree that we must boycott ExxonMobil (yes we must!); however, please be careful when choosing the alternative.  Shell Oil has an absolutely APPALLING human rights record, and I would hate if we all flocked to them instead!

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
    intimidation of scientists: October 01, 2005 2:17 AM  [ send green star]
    Ethical Consumer September 05, 2005 7:51 AM

    That link is to their 1999 report. A 2003 report can be found at this link (NB it's a pdf so you'll need the appropriate reader software)

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]

    If you already signed one or more, please disregard. Thanks! August 17, 2005 3:05 PM

    (1) ExxonMobil is the only oil company that's part of Arctic Power, the group lobbying Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling


    (3) Exxpose Exxon

    (4) ExxonMobil is lobbying to drill in the Arctic Refuge

    (5) (From Michael N's network)

    (6) Don't buy ExxonMobil. Don't buy Esso.

    (7) Don't Feed the Exxon Beast


    (9)To tell ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond what you think of the company's harmful environmental policies and let him know you won't buy their gas or products, just use this form.

    10) It's from Sandra W's network.
    Tell ExxonMobil: Less Talk and More Action on Climate Change
    Take Action! Tell ExxonMobil to put money into developing renewable technologies instead of spending $600 million in research to keep the fossil fuel economy going.

    (12)Tell ExxonMobil: Less Talk and More Action on Climate Change
    Take Action! Tell ExxonMobil to put money into developing renewable technologies instead of spending $600 million in research to keep the fossil fuel economy going.

    (13)Get Started: Sign Our Petition! Even if you signed this petition before, you can sign it again.  They need to collect more voices.  Plus if you have extra cash, you can donate too. 

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
    The Sierra Club says YES August 16, 2005 6:25 PM


    The Sierra Club and over a dozen of the nation's largest environmental and public advocacy groups have joined together to Exxpose Exxon in a campaign to reveal and change Exxon's appalling environmental policies. ExxonMobil is making record-breaking profits because of record high gasoline prices but refuses to invest that windfall in renewable energy to ease America's oil dependence; in fact, ExxonMobil spends hundreds of millions of dollars to fund junk science to hide the facts about global warming and is the only major oil company still pushing to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

    Tell ExxonMobil that you pledge not to buy ExxonMobil's gas, not to invest in ExxonMobil's stock, and not to take a new job with the company.
     [ send green star]
    Take Action For Animals July 27, 2005 7:44 PM

    Lots of Take Action's / Petitions to sign.

    There's even one there about Exxon.

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     July 27, 2005 7:39 PM

    If Exxon is the worst, then any otyher would be better. If you want to find the best, try ethical consumer magazine's comparison of oil companies:

    I don't think they rank citgo, but it is considered the best option by many:

     [ send green star]
    .... July 27, 2005 7:33 PM

    I couldn't find in any of the links which gas stations I should be using instead; Ofcourse, I haven't the time to scour...

    help, pls?
     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
    what exxon gets in return for the bribes: July 27, 2005 7:18 PM  [ send green star]
    Josh, Claire, Sharon July 14, 2005 5:42 AM

    I agree that people are more apathetic these days. I read Howard Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States' and was amazed that years ago people faced bullets and death to protest their rights to fair pay, good working conditions, etc. However, maybe this was because they realised that their lives depended on defying the system. Nowadays, we can get a new job or we are lulled into complacency by consumerist distractions like the television, drugs, the movies, shopping... On the other hand, it is in mainly non-western countries where protesting is still alive and kicking, like with the women's movements for social justice in India, South Africa, Eastern Europe, South America and Asia. I think that because the elite have grown so rich and powerful, with some corporations owning more assests than entire governments, people feel overwhelmed with what they face, especially when it is so easy for people to be spied on and harrassed by the government or by corporate lobby groups. Don't give up hope! I watched a documentary about Australia's anti-nuclear activist Dr Helen Caldicott and was inspired by what one person can achieve. However, with the oil running low, governments ignore all the evidence: the fact that these installations pose excellent terrorist targets and pose an even greater threat to the environment and human health, and they say that nuclear power is going to save humanity! Tsk tsk tsk. In one ear, and out the other.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
    Hmm! June 22, 2005 4:31 PM

    Yeah, it worked for me now, whatta hell...I dunno, good information though. I found it funny I got a bunch of emails from whatev groups about this today too. ^_^  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     June 22, 2005 4:28 PM

    You mean the last link? I just checked it and it works for me.  [ send green star]
    Hmm June 22, 2005 8:11 AM

    Mehbe is it just me, but for some reason I could not follow that link, and I couldn't stop any obvious typos with it. I'm really interested to see what it says though. I hope it's not just me. Hmm.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     June 21, 2005 4:58 PM

    new links between GWB and Exxon:

     [ send green star]
     June 13, 2005 9:39 PM

    Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

    Published: June 8, 2005

    A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

    In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

    The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

    Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

    Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

    The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

    The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited.

    A White House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, said yesterday that Mr. Cooney would not be available to comment. "We don't put Phil Cooney on the record," Ms. St. Martin said. "He's not a cleared spokesman."

    In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, "Our Changing Planet," Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word "extremely" to this sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

    In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

    Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy.

    But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.

    In a memorandum sent last week to the top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Mr. Piltz said the White House editing and other actions threatened to taint the government's $1.8 billion-a-year effort to clarify the causes and consequences of climate change.

    "Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Mr. Piltz wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

     [ send green star]
    Right on. June 07, 2005 5:27 PM

    Will do all I can to promote the boycott here on the West Coast of Canada.

    Thank you for all the info.

    Wenke K

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     June 07, 2005 5:16 PM

    Boycott Mobil




    Greenpeace has called for action against Mobil (a.k.a. Exxon, Esso) citing their “continuing and blatant manipulation of US and international climate change policy.”


    Esso is the world’s no. 1 climate criminal. It has done more than any other company to stop the world from tackling climate change.

    Esso admits that it has a ‘vested interest’ in stopping governments from taking action on climate change. For over a decade, it has attempted to sabotage international negotiations on the issue and block agreements which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


    Anti-war activists are also targetting the company.


    In addition, political activists in the US are targetting the company because of the US$2.35 million in bribes to the Republican party – the party of George ‘Texas Tea’ Bush. These bribes are now a matter of public record. The Bush administration has failed to ratifiy the Kyoto protocol despite the fact that the majority of US citizens support the move, and John Howard has followed suit. Mother Jones has tallied $US8 million to some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of “skeptic” scientists who continue to do so.


    If you, your friends or your family drive, spread the word. This is one of the easiest ways for you to make a difference in the world.

     [ send green star]
     June 07, 2005 5:15 PM

    This is a new flyer. It has been changed so you can get two to an A4 page. The stuff about shell has been removed and the info from mother jones added.  [ send green star]
     May 29, 2005 4:03 PM

    Do up some flyers (half A4 size) and pin them to any noticeboards you can find is probably the best way. Plus tell your friends and family. Don't put in the bit about shell as I think that upsets some people.  [ send green star]
    By the way... May 29, 2005 8:25 AM

    We need to spread this boycott.  Any ideas?  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
    Thanks, Freediver May 29, 2005 8:24 AM

    ExxonMobil is indeed still a concern.  I sent them an email about renewable energy once, and it's amazing how cynical and stuck in the industrial age they are.  They don't think it's profitable enough, so they're just not going to touch it.  And has anybody seen their propaganda ads in magazines like Newsweek?  They try to make people think they care about the environment without once mentioning global warming (or any of that other stuff they contribute to).  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
    some like it hot May 28, 2005 4:24 PM

    News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.

     [ send green star]
     May 17, 2005 9:51 PM

    Thanks for the info...I've recently started using a generic gas-station called Greenway.  I love it...smells like the old gas-station/bait shops I remember as a kid.  Anyway, gas is actually about 5 cents cheaper there bc it's on the outskirts of town (though barely a mile from where I live). 

    Hope everyone is well,

    Smellin Ellen

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     May 17, 2005 9:25 PM

    I am hearing reports of these flyers being taken down, even from notice boards that have nothing else on them and the pins were left up. Has anyone else experienced that? Is it just the cleaners? Would Mobil pay people to take them down? People also write criticism of Shell on them, so I'll leave Shell off them next time.  [ send green star]
     May 03, 2005 9:17 PM

    Don't worry, I haven't given them a cent. I did it at work because I don't have a printer at home.  [ send green star]
    Freediver May 03, 2005 9:12 PM

    Thanks for the posts.  You mention MS Word, though, and that troubles me.  Just a reminder to everybody: you don't need Microsoft Office!

    This open-source software is compatible with with MS file formats (Word .doc, PowerPoint, Excel .xls), but I advise using its native file formats when possible.  Download it for free, and remember not to buy that Microsoft stuff if you can help it.

    Keep boycotting ExxonMobil!  Every dollar kept out of an unethical businessman's pocket is a small improvement in the world.
     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     May 03, 2005 8:47 PM

    I can also email the word document to anyone who is interested.  [ send green star]
     May 03, 2005 8:47 PM

    Boycott Mobil




    Greenpeace has called for action against Mobil (a.k.a. Exxon, Esso) citing their “continuing and blatant manipulation of US and international climate change policy.”


    Esso is the world’s no. 1 climate criminal. It has done more than any other company to stop the world from tackling climate change.

    Esso admits that it has a ‘vested interest’ in stopping governments from taking action on climate change. For over a decade, it has attempted to sabotage international negotiations on the issue and block agreements which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


    Anti-war activists are also targetting the company.


    In addition political activists in the US are targetting the company because of the US$2.35 million in bribes to the republican party – the party of Geroge ‘Texas Tea’ Bush. These bribes are now a matter of public record. The Bush administration has failed to ratifiy the Kyoto protocol despite the fact that the majority of US citizens support the move, and John Howard has followed suit.


    Ethical consumer magazine recommends Shell as an alternative. If you, your friends or your family drive, spread the word. This is one of the easiest ways for you to make a difference in the world.

     [ send green star]
     May 03, 2005 8:46 PM

    I have done up a flyer and printed it out and posted it in a few places, and I have asked a few friends and relatives to help spread the word, as well as some local environmental groups. I'll post it below. If you copy it into an MS word document it should take up one page, but you may have to adjust it. If you want to copy it, make sure you change Mobil to Esso or Exxon depending on what name they use in your country.  [ send green star]
     May 03, 2005 5:56 PM

    ExxonMobil Admits Boycott Hurts


    Last December, the ExxonMobil Corp., known as Esso in Europe, indicated that an activist  boycott is hurting its U.K. sales at the pump. Green groups, led by Greenpeace, People and Planet, and Friends of the Earth, staged over 300 demonstrations in the U.K. on December 1, at which time Esso's fuel retailing manager Stuart Kelly reported a drop in sales, though the impact was "low," he said. ExxonMobil, the largest publicly traded oil company, has been accused of opposing the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions and refusing to invest in renewable fuels. Exxon senior vice president Rene Dahan countered these statements by saying that the company does aim to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, but, "without giving up economic prosperity" Boycott organizers continue to ask drivers not to buy ExxonMobil or Esso gasoline.




     [ send green star]
     April 28, 2005 4:05 PM

    Sorry, the link above doesn't work:

    Very Important Anouncment 

    An energy bill has just been passed in the House of Representatives (H.R.6) that will provide huge government paid subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear industries, with very little money going toward clean energy and renewable resources. For example, the bill gives Exxon/Mobil $2 billion to help them drill in the Gulf of Mexico. However you feel about drilling in the Gulf, remember this is our money (the tax payers), and Exxon has made after tax profits of around $74 billion since Bush has been in power, so maybe our money could be better spent subsidizing solar, wind and hydrogen technology.
    This bill still has to pass the Senate, so find out who your Senators are and call them or e-mail them to vote against this bill. Tell them to vote against H.R.6 and any bill that gives money to corporations that have already grown rich by polluting our planet. Tell them to support clean energy sources like solar, wind, hydrogen and water. These are the areas where research needs to be subsidized. No more nuclear power plants!
    The number to call the D.C. switchboard to contact your Senator’s office. (202)224-3122
    I think will tell you who your senators are, although a quick search by state will probably find them.
    For more info on the bill (H.R.6) and what you can do about it, visit:
    We need to block this bill, and get these clean technologies off the ground. Stop Bush and Cheney from selling us out to their fossil fuel campaign contributors. Call you Senator Now!

     [ send green star]
     April 28, 2005 3:52 PM

    The good thing about this boycott is that it costs the consumer nothing. All gas is the same and the prices don't vary significantly between outlets either. You just have to remember it. So please spread the word on this one.  [ send green star]
    Thank you April 28, 2005 11:04 AM

    Thanks for sharing that news.People now a days dont care about anything but money.And I am not going to exxon or mobil anymore.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     April 28, 2005 11:04 AM

    Josh, it looks like it's up to us to get things back to the way they use to be.  Things aren't always easy, but if it's worthwhile, then it's worth the effort.  Something as simple as boycotting an oil company would make a big impact.  We just have to convince our families and friends to stick with us.  Remember, "Power In Numbers". 

     [ send green star]  [ accepted]
    Claire April 28, 2005 10:01 AM

    Maybe a topic for a new thread, as this could go on for a while, but I think Claire's comments are very appropriate.  People used to be able to shut down cities, companies, even nations with their power to boycott.  In our not-so-distant past, the power of the people was immense in getting changes in the world.  So where are they now?  Everyone complains about gas prices, everyone hates oil spills and doesn't want to be dependent on OPEC for our energy future... but when it's time to step up to the plate, where are they?  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     April 27, 2005 9:52 PM

    US: please contact your senator now about this bill to give Exxon more subsidies:

     [ send green star]
    Exxon April 22, 2005 4:59 PM

    has had to get along without my contributions since the Prince Wm Sound fiasco.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     April 22, 2005 4:24 PM

    This is one product where I can easily make the boycott, and I've told a few friends already.  [ send green star]
    What's wrong with people? April 22, 2005 6:15 AM

    Is it me, or do people just not care enough anymore to boycott things they don't believe in?  Is it too much trouble for them, or do they no longer have convictions?  It's scary to think this country would not be here today if we didn't have a few "warriors" to take a stand.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
     April 21, 2005 5:50 PM


    censored version:

    stop esso protests:

    week of action in may:

    The protests are sparked by Exxon's continuing and blatant manipulation of US and international climate change policy.

     [ send green star]
     April 07, 2005 8:14 PM

    Thanks, it helps to provide all the backup info and suggest companies that are doing better.  [ send green star]
    Boycott ExxonMobil! April 07, 2005 8:08 PM

    This was copied from my reply to another topic.

    There seems to be a general agreement in the activist community that ExxonMobil is about as bad as an oil company can get.  They don't clean up their messes, they do business with some of the worst governments in the world, and they do everything they can to keep America dependent on oil in the largest amounts possible, denying global warming, fighting the Kyoto Protocol, and refusing to invest any real money at all in renewable energy, despite being the 3rd largest corporation in the world.  Some rivals, like BP, do invest in renewables.

    The bottom line: ExxonMobil is the worst of the oil companies.  Boycott!  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
      New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct


    This group:
    $ Boycotts $
    623 Members

    View All Topics
    New Topic

    Track Topic
    Mail Preferences

    New to Care2? Start Here.