iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Fenton

GET UPDATES FROM David Fenton
 

Exxon's CEO and Me

Posted: 07/02/2012 3:23 pm

Dear Rex Tillerson, CEO, Exxon/Mobil:

I'm the one who asked you about global warming at the Council on Foreign Relations last week. Your answer was light years ahead of Mitt Romney and half our Congress in admitting that "increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have... a warming impact." At least you accept the basic physics that CO2 traps heat. That's progress. (Watch video and a transcript of our exchange.)

You acknowledged human emissions are raising sea levels and will force us to "move crop production areas around." Moving them around is the least of it -- the Midwest is likely to become a dust bowl in our lifetime, and the price of food will rise a great deal.

But where you lost me and the rest of the audience -- and where you risk our economy and our kids -- is in saying "we'll adapt" to climate change which is "an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions." That answer, and the attitude behind it, threatens us all and is a giant business mistake, probably the worst in history.

Everyone knows the weather is changing. As I write, the worst wildfires in western history are burning and 1.5 million people are without power in Washington, D.C. Record high temperatures are being smashed weekly. Obviously, this is only the beginning of this. As emissions keep rising, the earth will continue to warm, the ice will melt, the coasts will be swamped, storms will become ever more ferocious. Given the long lifetime of carbon in the atmosphere, this will go on for generations to come.

You must know that we don't understand enough about ecosystems to "engineer" them. The path we are on will lead to the extinction of almost half the species on earth. We may be one of them. It's a totally imprudent risk.

Here is how the public will view your statement that "we will adapt to this": Exxon will make record profits destroying our economy and a livable climate and the public will then pay to clean up your mess. If you think oil companies get a bad rap now, think about what this will mean for your reputation as the weather inevitably worsens and our wealth is diverted to the massive costs of your "adaptation."

Here is your mistake: Exxon should get ahead of this issue. Instead of emphasizing the uncertainty of climate models, you should stress the need to mobilize our engineering ingenuity to move rapidly to a low carbon economy. Exxon should lead the way. If you don't, as the weather worsens your current business will be inevitably restricted and reduced by public insistence and you will be left out of the clean energy industries of the 21st century.

You are on record supporting a carbon tax. It's true -- only by pricing carbon to level the energy playing field can the market lead the way out of this mess. If we don't, the government intervention in the economy conservatives fear will be far worse than you can imagine -- the economy will be mobilized as if for war.

So lead the way -- join with business and environmentalists in a campaign to put a fee on carbon. But not a tax. It should be a slowly rising fee that is 100% rebatable to the public per capita. The government should get none of the money. Instead, every citizen would get an electronic rebate or a check every month, as they do from oil revenues in the state of Alaska. Over time, it will be a lot of money for families, and largely reverse the impact of higher energy prices. It's a market-based solution the public will support and conservatives can too.

And you need to act soon before you go down in history -- and to your grandchildren -- as the man who destroyed the future for enormous profits now. There is little time left to stabilize and reduce emissions before we risk terrible climate tipping points releasing potent methane from the Arctic and under the warming seas. If we burn all the unconventional fossil fuel reserves you are so excited about atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will double or even triple from pre-industrial levels. Mr. Tillerson, the last time that happened in earth's history sea level was 250 feet higher. Fossil fuel CEOs like you now control the thermostat of the earth. You are dialing it way up way fast. Once the glaciers start to move, they can't be stopped. Do you really want the blame for that?

Very sincerely,
David Fenton

David Fenton is the CEO of FENTON, the global public-interest communications firm.
 
FOLLOW GREEN
 
 
  • Comments
  • 30
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:40 PM on 07/22/2012
David, The standard answer from exxon's executives on EVERY concern whether climatic, HR, company policy, minortities, promotions etc. "Oh thats not really a problem".
I think they learn that in denial and greed 101 at management school.
07:38 AM on 07/06/2012
continued...
Generations of dogs maybe. CO2 has a time constant of between 7 and 9 years in the atmosphere. This is the main effect since it has the largest rate. Some (uber warmist Solomon, for example) argue there are other processes with longer TC's, but as anyone can tell you, the process with the largest rate dominates. The others are orders of magnitude smaller and are meaningless to the process.

I'm amazed at the comments here. I see nothing more than parroting the Climate Industrial Complex arguments for helping GE win government subsidies for wasteful products that make no difference to anything but their bottom line. Have ANY of you actually studied the science? I would bet no more than 20 minutes each.
04:02 PM on 07/03/2012
your system says my comment is too long by 123 words.

ok. i'll take it someplace else, like, say, my fb timeline.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheGreatRenewal
We're living a Great Renewal
08:57 AM on 07/03/2012
We have to shift our focus away from manufacturing and consumption to these types of jobs: locally, regionally, nationally and Internationally

1) Build  millions of miles of bike and horse paths
2) Replant diversified forests, grasslands and hedgerows
3) Tear down derelict buildings and parking lots and plant urban farms
4) Retrofit all buildings
5) Build light rail and trollies
6) Clean up every creek, stream, river, lake, beach
7) Put solar hot water and micro wind on all buildings
8) Develop clean energy
9) Put water catchment on all buildings
10) Modernize water, sewage systems
11) Put all power lines under ground

We need a 'growth' economy but one based on repair, regenerate, regrow, replant, redesign, restore, revitalize our natural environment.

How do we pay for all these jobs? The same way we paid for the paved road to our homes, the indoor plumbing, outgoing sewage, the electricity and phone wires, our neighborhood school, post office, library, police and fire dept.
08:10 AM on 07/03/2012
I actually don't blame the CEO's as much as I probably ought to- they are really just little folks riding on top of a corporate societal juggernaut which they can't divert without being tossed off. Denial is the only way they can cling to their social standing and livelihood. Sort of like being captain of the Titanic, watching the ship settle. Now the stockholders, on the other hand, who reap the profits...
Very interesting essay about the link between higher temperatures and photosynthesis failure: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/02/1105470/-Farenheit-104-40-degrees-C-is-a-number-everyone-should-know
Some interesting links in this story, too- especially the temperature projections from the American Geophysical Union.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:59 AM on 07/03/2012
Come on, you're not scaring anyone with that garbage.

Even if Global Warming was for real your approach is wrong if you SHUT DOWN industry and go with unreliable windmills and solar panels.

What's an elderly woman supposed to do in the winter when it's foggy outside and no wind?

Not only would she die from the cat food she has to eat because her power bill is so high, but, there still wouldn't be enough reliable power to heat up her home.
08:36 AM on 07/03/2012
Huh! I read that all and missed the part where he recommended SHUTTING DOWN industry. Why must conservatives today have knee jerk reactions whenever someone suggests changing emphasis in order to prepare for the future? Do you really think that is what is being proposed? Or is it just a convenient straw man set up so that you don't even have to defend your position? Lazy, lazy, thinking.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:27 PM on 07/03/2012
Windmills and solar panels are not only being proposed they are already being put up.

So explain to me how windmills and solar panels suppose to support industry when the wind doesn't blow and it's foggy outside?

Or do you have lazy lazy thinking and straw man arguments?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
30Taurus
Now is the time and you are the one.
01:25 AM on 07/03/2012
The best definition of addiction I've ever heard is, "Anything you keep doing even when you know it harms you." Alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, heroin, whatever - their destructive powers pale in comparison to oil. Everyone of us is using something we know can kill not just us or our kids, but the entire human race.
Mr. Tillerson is the world's biggest pusher of the world's most harmful product.
We CAN slow down the rise of carbon in the atmosphere if 100s of millions of people decide together to live without petroleum products. It's the only healthy response to this situation. Like going into a treatment center.
It actually is possible. There are enough concerned people, information flows fast enough, and there is enough money to handle the lost productivity.
Many who read this will laugh and I don't blame them. But I think there are enough caring people in the world that such a shift is possible.
You'd have to stop being afraid of bill collectors. You'd have to stop having insurance of any kind. You'd have to be willing to sweat for a living. There are all kinds of things that hold each of us back from that sort of change.
But the truth is that companies like Exon and people like Mr. Tillerson have a lot more to lose from that kind of change than most of us.
What would you be willing to give up, to save the human race? What would you get in return?
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
11:45 PM on 07/02/2012
6-8% of all co2 emissions are from human mouths!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
waltifarian
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
04:26 AM on 07/03/2012
...and so the other ~92% isn't. So what? Its the ones from fossil fules, that our atmosphere has no method for processing, add to that the amount left in by deforestation that formerly as absorbed, and thats where all the warming is coming from.

And then you need to look at the acidification of the oceans.

As for the "its plant food" stuff, see Leibig's Law.
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
11:00 AM on 07/03/2012
so co2 from your mouth is different from other co2?  
08:38 AM on 07/03/2012
Complete BS made up by you or someone you are parrotting. Even if you count Limbaugh as a human this is no where near correct.
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
06:09 PM on 07/03/2012
pretty funny about rush....but it is a close estimate...there are 7 billion humans.
08:33 PM on 07/02/2012
Oh, the naivete of the altruistic. What makes you think that Rex didn't tip his hand? He wants to make the maximum profit he can out of hydrocarbon release, then turn around and have Exxon become the solution and "engineer" an adaptation. That is the reason they are buying up the patents on clean energy and carbon sequestration scientific advances. They are a for profit corporation, either number one or two in the world in terms of profitability with a limited supply of their natural resource upon which they depend. By exploitation of it so quickly, they set up their next 100 year business plan. It is no coincidence that BP suddenly became the "green energy" compaany with the sunshiny/flowery emblem that they did. All the energy companies know the truth and are positioning themselves appropriately. As for the tobacco companies, don't even get me started.
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
11:46 PM on 07/02/2012
you hit the nail on the head...they have lots of underground storage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
waltifarian
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
04:28 AM on 07/03/2012
Ah, folly of the greedy. By the time such is figured out, the plant will be parboiled. And so much wealth will have been sapped to extract the stuff, there won't be enough to pay for the engineering.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Briteleaf
07:30 PM on 07/02/2012
In the same year as Exxon records an all time high for earnings for any corporation ever, Exxon paid zero taxes and received millions of tax payer dollars in subsidies. Wonder if some day they will be sued like tobacco companies? Exxon has a strangle hold on congress with it's campaign contributions.
photo
Terry
Singin Amazing Grace All the Way to the Swiss Bank
07:23 PM on 07/02/2012
Excellent letter. I would add an addiional small request to Exxon. Stop funding the denialists and get on with funding the solutions. Geoengineering will be part of it, we can start to take Greenhouse Gases out of the atmosphere. The oil companies are all reparing for that, pull it of the air and put it back underground to help oil production. But it will be much cheaper to cut back on the emissions in the first place.

I have been disappointed that this admission from Tillerson has hardly been acknowledged by the denialists and the GOP. I think the public is ready for this to become a campaign issue. I hope Obama is watching.
06:40 PM on 07/02/2012
Tilerson says Exxon has looked at the science and has come to the conclusion that the effects of global warming will be “manageable” through adaptation. Decades ago, Philip Morris looked at the science and found no solid "proof" of tobacco smoke's risk to human health. Actual scientists however, disagree with both Exxon and Philip Morris. Also disagreeing with them is the scientific literature and of course, the evidence. Smokers are dying of lung cancer and heart disease. And countess others around the world are already suffering the effects of climate change—many of whom are too poor to "adapt".

How long should we allow these large corporations to obfuscate the science and misinform the public just so they can rake in a few more decades of profit? When it comes time for us to "adapt", will Exxon generously donate that profit to pay for the adaptation?
06:30 PM on 07/02/2012
yes the worst scenario is how will the major industrialized nations responsible for climate change convince the many other nations of the world not contributing to its buildup and that we "the industrialized ones" have known about carbon warming the planet for decades .how will we stop maybe 1-2 billion future terrorists from forming after we really steal their futures from them ??????
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Revee
05:50 PM on 07/02/2012
I am curious what made Exxon shift from denial of climate change to it being something we have to "adapt" to. I see a few links missing in this transformation.
I am cynical every time I see PSA like ads from Exxon. They are honoring teachers now. I wonder what that is about? Anyone know why Exxon has suddenly become "teacher aware"?
The cynic in me associates every such move by Exxon to think that they are doing or planing to do something horrible (that has not yet come out).
05:41 PM on 07/02/2012
Guess because i think this way, it's why i classify myself as Moderate, rather than Liberal or Conservative. Greenhouse gasses are speeding up climate change. But they are NOT what is causing climate change originally. Earth's temperatures have always heated up, then cooled (and iced) down. Whether Exxon or any other greenhouse gas-producing mechanisms "cooperate" of not, Nothing will stop Nature's Cycle. So in a way, he is right. We Earthlings HAVE to adapt or die. It has always been the "way of the world."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
waltifarian
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
04:31 AM on 07/03/2012
Actually, its quite clear we'd be in a slight cooling phase were it not for GHGs. So the idea is that GHGs are forcing the trend in a direction it would not have gone creating volatility in the pattern that we , and most creatures around us, have not adapted to.