It is nice to know that, in this climate of financial change -- where markets are tumbling, shares are crumbling, and currencies are stumbling -- some things carry on as they always have done.
Well, I say "nice."
The annual meeting of shareholders of Exxon Mobil occurred Wednesday, and they seemingly have promised to change their ways. Yet through all their announcements and past their public statements about their intentions and hopes, they continue to pursue policies that damage our environment and kill our planet. They have been canny in being able to shield it from us -- funding research into "green options," making the short-term PR problem go away, and creating a façade that "they want to change how they operate."
Since Lee Raymond's retirement from being chairman of Exxon, the company has seemingly improved its standards of environmentalism, and in 2007 even funded a 422-page report into the hard facts behind the oil-industry's participation in climate change. Even though it was chaired by Raymond himself, it suggested necessary steps that need to be taken in order to achieve "economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner." (Gantt Walton, Exxon Mobil, 05/27/08)
But to me, this seems entirely the wrong way to approach the issue. Instead of focusing on how to change the economy to help the environment, I would like to see Exxon focus on achieving environmental growth, in an economically responsible manner.
And the two go hand-in-hand. In Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, (if you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it), he shows a picture of some gold bars and the globe, balanced against each other on a set of scales. After mock umm-ing and ahh-ing over the gold, he then compares it to -- "the entire planet!"
It is one of the funniest parts of the film, where Al really gets going with that Nashville humour of his. But it illustrates the point perfectly -- that economy must come secondary to the environment, since it can't operate without it!
And yet, just when you think Exxon might be starting to understand this, turning the corner and seeing the future of energy provision, they throw a bombshell. On Tuesday, they announced they were stopping funding to five of the top environmental researchers in the US: The Capital Research Center; the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow; the Frontiers of Freedom Institute; the George C. Marshall Institute and; the Institute for Energy Research.
Their explanation:
"We discontinued contributions to several public-policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner." (Gantt Walton, Exxon Mobil, 05/27/08)
To me, that isn't a reason to stop funding climate research, it's a reason to increase it. And this is the problem we face -- not with proving climate change is happening. It is. Not with trying to alter how we live our domestic lives - we do need to do this, but unfortunately it only has a limited impact.
What we have to achieve is altering the mindsets of those in power -- especially in businesses like Exxon Mobil - and show them how it would be so much easier for their companies in the long-run to alter if their ways now and start helping themselves.
I can only hope this current climate of economic downturn will help in achieving that.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Exit?? -> No way.
Stay right there Robber Barons, we just want to talk to you....
Actually, Mr. Roberts, Exxon's cutting off funding to the groups mentioned is a huge step in the right direction.
According to the website SourceWatch:
1) "The Capital Research Center is a conservative think tank whose stated mission is to do 'opposition research' exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups."
2) "The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow...does policy and lobbying work on the environment from a libertarian perspective. It touts itself as a conservative answer to the Public Interest Research Groups (e.g. NYPIRG, ConnPIRG et al.), progressive lobbying groups concerned with environmental issues. The PIRGs raise much of their funding from student activity fees at college campuses around the country. CFACT has been involved in efforts to eliminate this funding, or found counter-organizations that would give right-wing causes a piece of the pie."
3) Among other funders for Frontiers of Freedom and the George C. Marshall Institute, both astro-turf environmental groups, are the right-wing Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Carthage Foundation.
4) "The Institute for Energy Research (IER)...advocates positions on environmental issues which happen to suit the energy industry: climate change denial, claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless, and the deregulation of utilities."
Why is this posted on the business page? You have no idea what the job is of a CEO do you?
Make profits for their shareholders, it has nothing to do with hugging trees.
You won't find anybody here or elsewhere who will accuse Exxon of tree-hugging. That much is for sure. But you are right about the CEO thing. Sadly...
Why is that sad? I think it is amazing that oil companies can pull oil out of the ground from half way around the world, ship it here, refine it, get it to the gas station for $4 a gallon.
Once again people are confusing oil companies with energy companies. They provide one or two products (oil and natural gas). That's their business.
We'd be better served as a nation if we consulted with energy experts. Explain to them we want to be energy INDEPENDENT. Ask them to provide us ways to get there, costs, pros and cons.
Let's then sell it to the American people and DO it.
There's no reason we can't bring our consumption in line with our production, shift the nonessential parts of our transportation system to the electric grid, retool the automobile plants, build factories to produce parts for the solar and wind industry, test the clean coal concept, and have it done in a decade.
We beat the two strongest militaries in the world in 4 years. We caused the collapse of the Soviet Union without starting WW3, so don't tell me it can't be done and done quick.
"We beat the two strongest militaries in the world in 4 years."
No, you didn't. The Russians did most of the fighting in Europe and the Japanese were nuked into submission. The financial scale of WW II does in no way compare (not even on a logarithmic scale) to the cost of reducing US energy consumption.
I am not telling you it can't be done, but you will be in for a nasty surprise if think it can be done quickly. We are talking about 30-50 years of hard work and cost sharing for the next two or three generations. Sadly, Americans are plain incompetent when it comes to long term planning. I have no doubts that a four year time scale sounds good to you, but this is going to be more like ten times that much.
Yes, we did.
If tackled like it's war (which it is when you think in terms of national survival) it can be done alot faster than the 3 to 5 decades you think.
I'll agree with you on one thing. It will take alot of hard work
It will have to be done regardless. As oil extraction becomes too costly and/or there are climate change related interferences, our energy policy must switch non-essential power needs to sustainable alternatives for the general population. The cost savings in doing so will be negated by price-fixing. Until they figure out how to charge monthly for the sun energy you get, you're not going to see it implemented at the national level. Same with wind power. The majority of power needs to be centralized on the grid. That means nuclear plants, hydro-power, natural gas, etc.
Our government can accomplish radical changes rapidly when it's in its interests. It is completely feasible to alter our energy policy on the national level in a generation. The devil is in the details, and by that I mean $$$. A fiscally viable plan would gain traction. Of course, one where we consumers get hosed is what I mean by fiscally viable. Whatever it takes, I'm game.
As much as I hate Exxon... their business strategy is sound: make an enormous buck for as long as possible, then crash the company's core business and reinvest the earnings in something else (not necessarily energy). It makes sense. It is totally perverted, irresponsible, repugnant. But from a pure economic perspective it is not only genius but I bet that the long term analysis will show that it will have been the "right" thing to do. Exxon might well be dancing on the graves of BP, ConocoPhilips etc. in ten or twenty years.
And now somebody go and lock those assholes up for life.
My view is a little different at this time. Countries all over the place are reviewing Exxon-Mobil contracts and finding some very unpalatable practices. Protecting Exxon through this is #1 priority of our U.S. government. Where are they going to put the money they're pulling is the single most important question to focus on. Where are they going to re-invest it.
"Changing their ways" may involve supporting direct invasion & extraction as opposed to the horse & pony show they've "put up with" for so long.Oil isn't running out and OPEC isn't fixing prices, we are. Squeeze the public long enough by raising oil prices and they'll agree to anything. Including invasions. Control the oil, control governments, control the food, control populations. Link both, you control the world. Conversion to alternative energy, at least, complete conversion, won't happen overnight. That could take a generation at least and we don't have the moral fortitude to concede hegemony & power over populations by being completely independent from oil control. And while oil may run low over there, new oil has been nicely forming over here. It's akin to cooking meals in dozens of different ovens. Just when one meal is starting to cook, the other one is done. Time to take it out and serve it. By force preferably.
We've been the hostages all along. That"s why the green committee was dismissed.
Very tin foil, but makes sense to me....
They don't care. Their children will be so rich they'll be able to move off planet when all the clean air is gone.
Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects...
Loading comments…
Posted May 29, 2008 | 05:29 PM (EST)