More on the ExxonMobil Climate Change Saga
I’m told that I’m a decent public speaker, though I certainly know what stage fright feels like. It’s for that reason that I applaud people who have the courage to stand up in front of large audiences, especially hostile ones, to make points that no one in the auditorium wants to hear.
Yesterday, Anna Kalinsky, fresh from her college graduation, did just that. She’s the granddaughter of James F. Black, a scientist for Exxon for over 40 years, and she bravely addressed an enormous assembly of ExxonMobil shareholders at its annual meeting in Dallas, Texas. Her message: It’s time for ExxonMobil to stop stonewalling attempts and adopt a resolution calling for climate action.
To paraphrase an interview in which she spoke with “Democracy Now!” earlier today:
In July of 1977, Mr. Black briefed the company’s top executives on the scientific realities of climate change. He was one of a large number of company scientists who laid out very clearly that the planet was warming, that this was because of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and that those levels were rising because of the burning of fossil fuels. At the time, he told Exxon that humankind had five to 10 years to start making the hard decisions regarding climate change, or the situation could become dire.
Ms. Kalinsky was particularly frustrated with Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon, whose executive team has rejected more than 70 resolutions from groups of shareholders on the subject. In response to her presentation, Tillerson said: “We will continue to engage in the policy discussions, as we currently do, with a number of broad-based groups on all sides of these issues, and we’ll continue to be active in the discussions legislatively in Washington and elsewhere, including through the IPCC, on what we think are thoughtful, sensible policy actions that accommodate both our need for economic growth as well as addressing these risks, which are going to be very, very daunting.”
She responded by saying “we’re looking at all sides of the climate change issue” is ignoring the fact that there has been global consensus on the realities of climate change for years and that Exxon has now, at this point, had four decades of knowledge about climate change. And for CEO Tillerson to say that Exxon wouldn’t be taking decisive action to cut ties with groups which deliberately spread climate change misinformation, like the American Legislative Exchange Council, is incredibly disheartening. This is particularly true in light of the fact that Exxon also, even though they acknowledged during their shareholders meeting that climate change is real and that burning fossil fuels has an effect, thinks that it’s more important for them to focus on their immediate bottom line.
Kalinsky went on to point out that Exxon actually did, for a while, take what her grandfather said seriously. He gave that initial briefing in 1977, and in 1978 Exxon had him give a similar briefing to a larger group. For a while, they actually were funding climate change research; for a few years, Exxon really was on the cutting edge of climate change science. And then, that spun around to the situation we’re at today, where Exxon publicly and anonymously is funding these groups that spread climate change misinformation.
So where will all this go? It’s hard to say. The good news is that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has referred the federal investigation into ExxonMobil‘s decades-long suppression of climate science to the FBI’s criminal division. In response, Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law, said “The formal referral by the Department of Justice means that the FBI must now take real steps to evaluate the serious allegations against ExxonMobil … The referral demonstrates for both the public and investors that the legal risks facing Exxon and other fossil fuel producers are real, they are significant and they are now imminent.”
Of course, many legal groups have weighed in here, prognosticating about what if any punitive action Exxon will receive. It appears that the most unassailable charge is that the company knowingly defrauded its shareholders, withholding information vital to placing a fair value on the company’s stock.
Roasting the Earth and lying about it? Who cares?
Defrauding investors: Huge punishment.
A bit of irony here.
As the late comedian and social critic George Carlin said, “Being born on Earth is a ticket to a freak show. Being born in the United States is a front-row seat.”
Craig,
After carefully reading everything published about this controversy it’s obvious that the subject is fraught with passionate rhetoric, and very little rational objectivity.
For radically enthusiastic climate change advocates, and oil company haters, this is a wonderful opportunity to preach a highly emotive sermon and indulge in an orgy of self-righteous indignation.
For more moderate, reasonable, environmentalists the rhetoric is counter-productive and divisive.
In an effort to be objective, is it possible to forget all the hype such as engendered by such comments as:
“Roasting the Earth and lying about it? Who cares?Defrauding investors: Huge punishment !”
Is it possible to calmly, and objectively examine the issues in rational manner? Is it possible to forget all the slogans, and dispassionately examine the issue ?
I guess what I’m asking, is can you debate the issue in a calm rational, open-minded manner using moderate language, or are you so incensed with outrage that your “Crusade” will brook no dissent, and treat all alternate opinions as “heresy”?
At the risk of being burned at the stake, or having to fend off a crowd of fanatics wielding pitchforks and burning torches, I ask you to consider the following;
1) In 1977 Rex Tillerson was just leaving University. He only became President and CEO in 2006.
2) Rex Tillerson and his executive team can’t resist a motion passed by the majority of shareholders. (CEO’s have no power of veto). The motions to which you allude were defeated by the majority of Exxon shareholders by a huge margin.
3) Rex Tillerson’s comment is a balanced, carefully calculated commitment to consider all aspects, consult all qualified opinions and construct policies to be ratified by Exxon’s directors, shareholders and regulators. This is an almost textbook model of corporate governance required by most nations including the US.
4) The concept that Rex Tillerson is “defrauding Exxon shareholders” as to the true value of Exxon is unsustainable. Exxon has never been more prosperous or profitable. There are no genuine shareholder complaints ! So if the shareholders don’t believe they have been defrauded, why has any unrelated party any right to act on their behalf, without consent, and against their interests?.(Actually, such an action can be a crime in itself ! )
5) It’s not a “crime” deserving of punishment to doubt the claims of climate change advocates ! ( Nor is it a crime to produce and sell oil, in fact it’s a legal requirement by the US government for oil companies to continue making bunker oil).
6) Exxon is responsible for the development of the Lithium battery.
7) Exxon is the largest US taxpayer.
8) Referral by the DOJ of a complaint to the FBI, is meaningless. It’s an automatic process and carries not imprimatur from the DOJ as to the merit of the complaint. Your inference that referral is somehow significant, was completely refuted by both DOJ and FBI. Most referrals result in no further action. Acting on a compliant brought by two California legislators, the DOJ passed a request to the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division so that the FBI can determine “whether an investigation is warranted.”
Michael Kortan Assistant Director, Office of Public Affairs for the FBI explained : “No official investigation has been yet ordered, nor is the FBI obligated to begin a probe. This matter will be assessed in due process, following long established procedures”.
9) James F. Black made a great many predictions regarding oil. Some were valuable contributions, others less so. His prediction in 1977 regarding climate change, was far more extreme than just saying in 5-10 years the situation could be dire. From time to time he predicted apocalyptic scenarios within a decade.
In a somewhat confusing stance James F. Black was also a proponent of “peak oil”, subscribing to “irreversible shortages and high prices”, beginning in the mid 1990’s and by 2020 oil (gasoline and diesel) would no longer be economic and unless substitutes were found, civil society would breakdown by 2017.
Fortunately, neither of these predictions has yet proved correct. (the later largely because of EXXON).
Craig, don’t get me wrong, I’m no apologist for Rex Wayne Tillerson, or Exxon ! Rex Tillerson is a tough, determined corporate executive lacking a lot of the warmth and charisma evidenced in other CEO’s.
He’s also very intelligent, interested in different opinions and insights. Like most powerful individuals he’s a complex character. While on some occasion he appear to be a typical patriotic, gun toting, American religious right-wing sort of person, on other occasion he can surprise with scientific and cultural insights. His long term participation with Center for Strategic and International Studies, reveals a degree of flexibility.
One thing is evident, and that’s Rex Tillersons’ absolute commitment to his vision of Exxon’s future development.
I can understand that you are not likely to be an admirer or friend of CEO’s like Rex Tillerson, and you may vehemently disagree with his opinions, (I not a fan either) but that doesn’t make him an “arch-criminal” or the anti-Christ.
I think it very important that any criticism must be kept restrained and accurate, or the effectiveness of environmental information will be lost in all the hyperbole.
I believe it would be more effective instead of Crusading futilely against Exxon to instead concentrate on economically replacing Exxon’s most pollutant products.
We’ll see what happens. Personally, I see a considerable storm brewing.
Your line: Is it possible to calmly, and objectively examine the issues in rational manner? Is it possible to forget all the slogans, and dispassionately examine the issue? makes me laugh. Yes, my comment wasn’t too academically rigorous, but that’s what I do occasionally.
Exxon shareholders are happy right now, but I’m not sure how long that is going to stay in place. Yesterday, the largest public university in the U.S. (U of Massachusetts) divested itself of all fossil fuel holdings. My point: we are going to see enormous pressure put on Exxon and its fellows.