ExxonMobil Has 73,100 Employees. What’s Going Through Their Heads?
I thought readers would enjoy the comments by an Instagram follower, as presented below.
Caption: That is Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, explaining how his company plans to extract every molecule of petroleum from the Earth and sell it as fuel, knowing with full certainty that this will destroy our civilization. If you know of a more detestable human being, please let us know.
Comment from TransitAuthority: I wonder how many people work for him and live with the “devil’s dilemma,” i.e., they know their energy product is hurting people and they would rather not supply it, but they also told their partner they were going to have a new summer home or have some financial security, and are afraid of losing their job.
2GreenEnergy: It’s a great question. The obvious answer, though not at all specific is: Plenty. A huge percentage. But here’s our prediction: as time goes by and the case against fossil fuels grows even stronger, more people every day will find themselves pushed across their “moral threshold”–and bail out. Everyone (except extreme sociopaths) has this moral threshold, i.e., the demarcation line between right and wrong, past which one is simply unwilling to perform a certain action.
The ONLY way to end fossil fuel usage is to provide an alternative. Fossil fuel companies will continue supplying fossil fuels as long as the demand exists. When alternatives are readily available and fossil fuels are, perhaps by taxing, made too expensive be competitive, only then will fossil fuel usage be curtailed.
Wringing one’s hands over the behavior of fossil fuel companies is not productive.
A great number of people feel this way, and I expected some flack when I posted this.
Let me point out, however, that this world is very close to realizing en masse that the fossil fuel industry has, largely out of greed, knowingly put our environment in a condition of steep decline. They could have been honest about what they knew about climate change; they could have tried to develop renewables; but no, they chose, with all these alternatives available to them, to suppress the truth, and get rich by ruining the planet. Sorry, that’s just plain evil.
You won’t believe the you-know-what storm of public scorn that’s about to hit these people over the next 20 years.
When advocates begin to get irrationally passionate about a particular subject, truth isn’t just the only casualty of their tirades.
Rex Wayne Tillerson never said, “ExxonMobil plans to extract every molecule of petroleum from the Earth and sell it as fuel “.
Rex Tillerson did say ” Exxon’s least profitable products is fuel”.
Nor does anyone with any scientific knowledge, or even commonsense, “know with full certainly that this will destroy our civilization”. On the contrary, what we do know is modern civilization has been largely created by oil.
The oil industry, of which Exxon is the most energetic and outspoken, is essential to the production of more than 350,000 products without which our civilization could not exist. (Exxon is also the largest US taxpayer.)
Recently, I attended a conference in which a speaker proudly announced that her investment fund would no longer take part in “harming the earth ” by investing in oil production.
Well, she’s entitled to her position, but since she traveled to the conference on a aircraft fueled by oil, arrived at the venue in a vehicle powered by oil, and most of it’s components produced from oil, on a road made of oil, and while speaking holding a ball point pen (oil) wearing make-up (oil) etc, in fact since her entire world is totally dependent on oil products her ” moral stance” is not only hypocritical, but ludicrous.
The other disturbing aspect of critics vilifying Rex Tillerson, and oil industry workers, is the process of justifying irrational hatred and vilification of individuals on the cross of moral superiority.
Rex Tillerson is still a human being. He has children, grandchildren etc. He was an “Eagle Scout” , and served as National President of the US Scouting movement. He was also the executive who was criticized by his contemplates for authorizing expenditure that led to development of the lithium battery ! (Yeah, that’s right, no Exxon, no lap top, no Tesla ! )
Demonizing oil industry workers is morally repugnant, hypocritical, and counter-productive.
No one, not even Rex Tillerson, denies the desirability of developing new, zero emission sources of energy. No one denies that oil production is not a difficult, risky, dangerous and hard business. US oil companies like Exxon are often targeted by foreign factions as representing the evils of American values.It’s a tough business !
Despite increasing competition from foreign ( often government owned) competitors, Exxon has remained strong and competitive. Rex Tillerson’s time as CEO has seen an unprecedented growth in oil extraction technology and efficiency that has allowed the US economy to survive increasing challenges.
Transition will be a long evolutionary process. It will require a great deal of patience, vast investment and strong world economy.
None of these objectives can be assisted by a disruptive, ill-conceived, “moral crusade”, and chaotic economic conditions.
So, yeah, I know more “detestable human beings” than Rex Tillerson. I regard those sanctimonious, self -righteous haters, smugly vilifying oil industry workers, while hypocritically enjoying the security and prosperity provided by the 350,000 products of the oil industry, as far more “detestable human beings” !
Marco,
You wrote, “Nor does anyone with any scientific knowledge, or even commonsense, “know with full certainly that this will destroy our civilization”. Quite true. We know very little with absolute certainty. However, if we waited for absolute certainty for everything before making a decision, we would never make any decisions.
As those of us who have studied risk management know, it is not about certainty. Rather, it is about probabilities. The probability that uncontrolled global warming will destroy our civilization is so high that strong action must promptly be taken. If fact, if the probability were only 10%, that percentage, multiplied by the extreme consequences, would be more than sufficient to justify taking strong action promptly.
Exactly right, Frank.
Yes, I know you feel that way about oil company haters, and you’re entitled to your opinion.
Let me point out however, that your argument that it’s hypocrisy simultaneously to hate oil companies and use their products is specious. No one expects Bill McKibben to travel to venues where important environmental battles are being fought on horseback.
Craig,
Well,..ah,..in the case of Bill McKibben, it might be better for the environment if he didn’t arrive at all !
Bill McKibben’s grandstanding preaching and self aggrandizing interference in complex issues often contributes to polarization and bad decisions.
While personally charismatic and charming, Bill McKibben is a professional activist. It’s a family business, both his parents were professional activists. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t got a valuable contribution to make, but nor does it mean he’s objective or open-minded.
He’s an evangelist, defined by what he’s agin’. (But a very good writer and propagandist ).
I would argue that policy decisions that favor the migration away from fossil fuels are generally not “bad.” But that’s not the point. I could have chosen Bill Gates, with his $40 billion worth of philanthropic campaigns, or any of hundreds of other less controversial people.
Craig,
There is no need to “argue” that “policy decisions that favor the migration away from fossil fuels are generally not “bad.”
On that proposition we are agreed, and is not the subject of contention.
But why do you feel it’s necessary to revel in the vilification of employees of the existing, and still, essential oil industry ? Why must you have a “villain” to hiss ?
At the risk of repeating myself, when your loved ones are in danger of losing lives when your house catches fire, or in an accident or emergency, will you refuse the services of the 35 ton Fire Engine or Ambulance ?
Will you sacrifice those you love rather than enrich those greedy “villains” working in the oil industry who provide the only fuel that can propel emergency service technology ?
Of course you won’t ! Will you pay the small price premium to purchase a Hybrid or EV as personal transport ? Do you still cut your grass and tend your garden, get rid of your snow will a fossil fuel machine ?
Every day, we are surrounded by oil industry products. You decline to acknowledge that Rex Tillerson may have been instrumental in developing Lithium technology, Why ? Because you prefer a “Monty Burns” villain, that can be safely hissed as a villain.
Rex Tillerson is a very effective, efficient chairman of a US oil company. He produces products from oil that are essential to human economies and civilization.
He does so in completion with ferocious competitors, in some cases backed by national governments. His company is the largest single US taxpayer.
It’s not unfair or inaccurate to say that if he wasn’t exceedingly good at his job the US would be mired in a deep economic recession, and near economic collapse prey to the economic and social ravages of competitors.
The fact that oil (and all fossil fuels) need replacing with less pollutant forms of energy, is not his job. His job is to keep Exxon and the US economically strong enough to afford a transition and to buy time for new technologies to be developed.
It will be the task of his successor to transition Exxon out of energy, and become a purely petro-chemical chemical company once technology has reduced the demand for fossil fuel energy.
In contrast, Bill McKibben is a great agitator for causes that attract the maximum political coverage, and demanding political change, yet declined to interest himself in the issue of bunker oil in shipping, because he believed it lacked political appeal.
I haven’t read of Bill Gates castigating oil company employees, or calling them “evil “. But then I haven’t read of Microsoft, Apple or Google etc, paying the level of US tax that’s paid by Exxon either.
Perhaps if these corporations paid the same rate and amount of tax as Exxon, the US government would be able to afford greater support for worthy causes ?
My point is not that the oil industry is virtuous and morally pure, but that while it’s products remain indispensable to economies and human civilization, the employees in those industries should be afforded the same respect as any other human being.
Vilification of those employees and institutions while eagerly accepting the benefits of their activities is morally unjustifiable. …worse,…it invites the distraction of hypocrisy and alienation.
Hi Frank,
Perhaps I didn’t phrase my sentence clearly. I wasn’t intending to downplay consequences of uncontrolled emission production, or the need to evolve to a lower carbon future.
What I was intending to emphasize is the certainty of disaster if we continue to dissipate efforts on “crusades’ of hatred against the institutions that provide the economic conditions providing the ability to develop technology and infrastructure to produce orderly, practical, evolutionary progress.
Craig’s sanctimonious quotation infers the planet could simply stop the production of oil today without any consequences, if it wasn’t for the greed of oil company employees. That’s of course absurd and disingenuous.
My opposition to such a statement, is it gives permission for a crusade to dehumanize, demonize and vilify oil company employees as somehow less moral, less worthy human beings, deserving of only contempt.
Marco,
On bravenewclimate.com, a poster included a link to a study which indicated that slamming opposing points of view is less effective than strongly supporting one’s own point of view. I think that your 23 June post states a similar point of view. As a result of reading the entire somewhat article at the link, I have modified my own approach. Now, instead of continually decrying limitations of renewables, I am putting more emphasis on the advantages of nuclear power.
Just a few minutes ago I found a link to a poster which might be helpful:
https://eclipsenow.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/nuclear-waste-poster2.pdf
I think that it is somewhat anticipatory however since the advanced new reactors mentioned are not yet ready to be deployed. Even so, it could be helpful.