Global Warming vs. Exxon
May 30th, 2007 by Grant in: Energy, Oil & GasThe global warming farce has made it’s way into shareholders meetings, as evidenced by the tongue lashing Exxon (XOM: chart, web) shareholders gave CEO Rex Tillerson at the companies annual meeting.
Evidently, a group of Exxon shareholders want to know why the company hasn’t addressed the global warming “epidemic” by investing more money in alternative energy. They even went so far as to insite a resolution to withhold votes aimed at ousting board member Michael J. Boskin, chairman of the company’s public issues committee. Luckilly the got nowhere with this venture.
There are times when I wish Lee Raymond were still in power as the top man at Exxon, as he would have had a field day with this!
Tillerson, however, seemed to be more diplomatic about the concerns, and tried to address the issue with understanding concern, but then finally made the quite obvious point that Exxon is an oil and gas company.
Duh.
Tillerson maintained that while global warming is indeed a current climate trend, he understands that the debate is still on about what to “do” about it.
Readers of The Corner Office Blog will remember that I find it incredible that we (let alone corporate America) have any hard evidence to even prove we can “do” anything about global warming.
Tillerson went on to address the companies stance on the issue by saying: “We don’t fund junk science.”
Amen brother!
I’m glad that Tillerson is taking a firm stand on this issue, and anyone with any business sense would realize that it is not Exxon’s primary business to develop or fund alternative energy. They are in business to produce, sell and refine oil and gas products.
The shareholders who demand to see capital outlay (from an oil and gas company like Exxon) go towards alternative energy development stimulated by global warming, are lucky they didn’t get an ear full in return from the likes of Lee Raymond. They surely deserved it!
Leave comments
Subscribe to Comments
Loading ...
May 31st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Obviously global warming is charged and sadly partisan issue, and I rather not get into a political debate on the matter as I’m assuredely in “let’s see what we can do slow global warming.” I think it’s a valid criticsm from just a pure captialistic perspective as a shareholder to demand Exxon do something to address the issue. Oil and Gas companies like Exxon stand to lose the most if the regulatory environment turns against them (as it looks is happening). I work for coal generating power company that stands to be hurt substantially by Carbon regulation, and applaud my company for getting ahead of the curve rather than just reacting too late. Good companies not only react to change but are prepared for when it happens.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hey Dong, good comments.
While I agree with most of them, I have to chime in and mention that I’m also all for trying to see what what we can do to slow global warming, provided we can prove that humans have a substantial influence on the climate.
If the science world can come to an agreement that human behavior DOES have an influence on the climate, then I’m all for trying to minimize that influence.
As of yet, though, no one in science world can tell us that without a doubt, humans can change the climate. Acting on misinformation or worthless science is throwing money away.
I also agree that from a capitalistic perspective, Exxon has a perogative to be financially responsible and hedge it’s own industry where practical. However, this does give shareholders the right to “demand” that money be put into a field that has yet to be proven, much less proven to be profitable.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:25 am
Grant-
I respect you opinion to think of the company as an oil and gas company. I think that it is short sited of Exxon to take that opinion. It is generally accepted that the decline of the railroad business occurred, in part, due to the fact that they thought they were in the railroad business and not the transporation or real estate business. When airplanes came into wide spread use, the railroads in America lost the people transporation business of the country.
If the railroad companies had seen themselves in the transportation business, they might have hired the Wright brothers, or otherwise invested in air travel, but no they were in the railroad business.
It is clear, that at some point in this century, the world will run out of oil. I guess Exxon, or at least the current caretakers that call themselves management don’t care about that and that there successors will just say, ok, we’re done. Exxon has the understanding of energy, the distribution system for the product and the money on hand to develop other energy products so that they can, over the next few decades be an energy company that supply the world it’s fuel.
As for this denial of the fact that the planet is warming up, well, I just posted an interview with Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA, and regarded as one of the smartest scientists around regarding energy. Please read the interview at http://www.evolutionshift.com/blog/2007/05/29/leading-scientists-and-thinkers-on-energy-%e2%80%93-dennis-m-bushnell/
if you think global warming is some ‘political issue’. When I listened to 15 of the greatest scientific minds speak on the future of energy two months ago, they referred to global warming as the ‘canary in the mine shaft’ in the sense that it is an early warning signal of the greater catastrophe unfolding regarding our planet.
Just another opinion.
David
July 18th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I appreciate your standpoint on global warming, which has recently been brought to the forefront with the ridiculous “Live Earth” worldwide concert extravaganza.
Interested in this issue, I read the “Politically Incorrect Guide to Science” which presented a fairly balanced view of the politics–and science–of the global warming debate. I am convinced that most of the key leaders behind the “global warming” mantra are either 1) brainwashed beyond I’ll get out, 2) ignorant of the facts, or 3) have a hidden agenda, like spurring government funding for useless research, etc. And everyone else just follows along, without examining the issue for themselves.
I disagree with David’s comments above: no, of course it isn’t “clear” that the world will run out of oil this century. How can anyone make such a claim, assumed to be obviously “fact”, and not support it? You don’t give the entrepreneurial spirit found in American businesses enough credit for coming up with solutions to big problems. Exxon will change–if it ever needs to–when it needs to do so. Or not, and someone will replace it with a cheaper, alternative fuel source and make billions. But obviously that hasn’t happened yet, so why try to force it based on speculation, fear, and ignorance?
July 18th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I completely agree, Jonathan. Great post!
-Grant