Exxon Mobil conference calls
Posted by Stuart Staniford on February 3, 2007 - 9:04am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: exxon, exxonmobil, peak oil [list all tags]
As part of a public relations outreach effort to improve their image on climate change, Exxon Mobil invited a half-dozen or so green-shaded bloggers to a conference call with Ken Cohen, their Vice President of Public Affairs. The Oil Drum editors were invited, and I ended up being the one to do it. Here are a few thoughts.
First of all, I should say that I went in deeply dubious about Exxon Mobil, based on their past history of funding Astroturf campaigns to increase the FUD around climate change, not to mention their editorial page peak oil denial ad in the New York Times. However, I think it's good to talk with people one disagrees with, so I thought I'd at least listen to what they have to say. I'm still fairly dubious, but I also appreciate that they have been courteous and willing to sit through a couple of very frank exchanges of views with I and the other bloggers on the call.
We had a first session last Friday, where they went through their message and we got to ask questions. In essence, they are saying that they now agree that climate change is really happening, the debate on the science is over, and the right question now is what is the proper policy response. They didn't propose a specific policy response, even when invited in questions, but said that the "devil is in the details" and discussed in generalities some of the trade-offs with carbon taxes, downstream cap-and-trade, upstream cap-and-trade, etc.
I wasn't too impressed: the debate on global warming policy responses has been going on for over 15 years now, so there has been ample time for a large and sophisticated company to decide what its position should be. Being cynical about PR campaigns, my best guess was that they had simply decided that straightforward obstructionism denying the science was no longer viable, and they were now moving to a new phase of delay and obstructionism about the difficulty of deciding on the best possible policy option.
Still, at least Exxon is saying that there was no real debate on the science that climate change was happening, humans were responsible in significant part, and something ought to be done. That's definitely a good thing. There was considerable discussion about their past funding of climate-change denying groups. Ken was very careful in his wording, but indicated that they had stopped funding at least some of the groups in question, and in particular had stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute (purveyors of the ludicrous "Some call it carbon dioxide, we call it life" ads).
All in all, I wasn't moved enough to want to write about it, and I didn't. You can get a more detailed discussion here or from Environmental Law Prof Blog here.
However, things got a lot more interesting today, following the release of the IPCC 4th Assessment Summary for Policymakers and the breaking of the Guardian story that alleged:
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
and
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
Jesse at Watthead wrote a great note to the ExxonMobil PR people essentially asking them what the ??!*!! was up since they just told us they'd stopped funding groups like that. They promptly scheduled another call with us, and supplied us with two statements: a long one welcoming the IPCC report, and a short one responding to the Guardian allegations. The long statement said lots of reasonable sounding stuff like:
The release of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of Climate Science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an important contribution to the informed debate on the issue of climate change. The IPCC report process is valuable in that it facilitates the sharing of global scientific knowledge and encourages further inquiry on the important issue of climate change.
The Fourth Assessment Report of Climate Science provides a extensive update of scientific understanding regarding Earth's climate. It describes the scientific basis for concern regarding the risk of climate change and attempts for the first time to characterize the probabilities for change.
We look forward to the publication later in the year of reports on Impacts and Adaptation and on Mitigation by IPCC’s other two working groups. As in past IPCC assessments, scientists from ExxonMobil have participated directly as lead authors, as well as in the review process and workshops contributing to the development of AR4.
Climate remains an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. We are constantly learning and reassessing the science and policy aspects of this important issue, and the company’s views and actions will consider the best information available at the time.
There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.6 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period - and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.
Because the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant, it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health.
But are they saying one thing out of the front of their mouth, and a different thing out of the side? That is, are they funding independent groups to cast doubt on the IPCC report, while claiming themselves to welcome it? They say not:
ExxonMobil has no knowledge regarding the allegations made in the February 2 article by Ian Sample. ExxonMobil does fund AEI for the purpose of promoting active policy debate along with many others including Microsoft, Dell, State Farm, International Paper, Dow Chemical, American Express and others. The AEI is an independent tax exempt organization and questions related to this matter should be directed to them.
I more specifically asked Ken on the call whether in planning for ExxonMobil's public affairs response to the release of the IPCC report, he had had any discussions with any of his PR staff and agencies about using any independent organizations to help manage the news. He said "The answer is no." I asked it a couple of different ways, and he was pretty clear that they hadn't done so. So you have to decide if you believe the word of the VP of Public Affairs at ExxonMobil.
However, they do fund the AEI. He said they fund an array of think-tanks including both right leaning ones like the AEI, and more liberal ones like the Brookings Institute, but weren't, at this point, using them to get out a particular message.
One thing I will say: I don't think Ken was having a good day at all. I think Exxon was somewhat in public-affairs crisis mode - at least minor crisis. They didn't want to be in the news in this way and although he's a polished presenter and handler of the media, I got the distinct feeling he was finding it a herculean job turning around ExxonMobil's public image on climate change, and he was bummed that it was going so badly on this particular Friday.
Despite my doubts, I find that encouraging. Maybe they've already figured it out, but if they haven't, there seems hope that from these painful experiences they will learn this: they cannot have it both ways in this increasingly transparent world. Either they are responsible corporate citizens trying to move the world forward to a better climate policy regime, while protecting the legitimate interests of their shareholders, or they are sneakily sowing dishonesty and doubt via funded proxies.
But not both. Trying to do both is not going to work. A few years of consistent climate good citizenry and vigorously distancing themselves from the likes of the CEI is going to be required to clean up their image. I wish Ken Cohen the best of luck in that task.
Finally, it was off-topic, but I squeezed in a peak-oil question. Specifically I asked, since Exxon was reassuring everyone that peak oil was not a near term problem, what was their rationale for believing OPEC's proved reserve numbers? He said that "We have no basis for doubting the published numbers." I followed up by asking how it could be possible that their reserves could all roughly double in one year with no new discoveries. He said he couldn't answer that. Since I was asking a question somewhat unrelated to the conference call topic I followed up by email with a graph of the reserve data and a repeat of the query to see if I could get a more studied response. I'll let you know if I hear anything.
the road to hell is paved with reciprocal altruism. =) Exxon knows this, hence the invitation(s).
Congrats to TOD and Stuart for being recognized as "players" by the big boys at Exxon.
My take; for Exxon the ROI of open climate change denial has become negative, so they won't do it that way anymore. However they still perceive peak oil denial as having a positive ROI and plan to keep it up for awhile longer.
Congratulations on your invite. TOD must be getting noticed by somebody.
They would probably much rather give in on climate than po. Climate means, first, long discussions and hand wringing on what to do, as has barely begun. This will work for avg joe for quite a while, probably years, joe is sensitive about not blowing jobs or taking away suv's. Eventually the move will be to blame somebody else, eg coal, even better chinese coal, etc. A decade at least before something has to happen, certainly before something happens that affects xom's bottom line.
Po, on the other hand, is categorically different. Acknowledging this would roil the markets, not least the large dinsoaurs with declining reserves, seriously affecting the value of executive options. (XOM claims rising reserves, I think alarming SEC because the new bo(e)'s are qatar ng, not very liquid and far from markets, so not particularly transportable or equivalent.) We will see opec in general and sa in particular standing shoulder to shoulder with most of the majors denying peak some time after peak has come and gone. Actually, its more serious for opec; reduced options are not life threatening whereas peak arrival may be the trigger that moves princes and presidents for life into retirement, dead or alive.
Considering the latter, it is easy to understand why sa finds it easy to say what importers want to hear.
Looking at the big picture, we should give credit to those majors who have hinted that maybe oil won't last forever. Majors with ethics! Imagine that.
In the same way the US companies can increase their reserves year over year with little new discoveries and year over year consumption. I've asked this question before: would anyone care about the revisions if they were done over a decade?
Dude. You know that the accounting practices for oil reserves in the US are completely different than those used in OPEC. You also know that the revisions in OPEC numbers were made by individual countries in one year. How much does Exxon pay you to post nonsense? AEI? Conference Board? Business Roundtable? Hoover Institute? API? Seriously.
Conspiracy theories aside, I feel compelled to point out the obvious.
You are absolutely right...
...about accounting practices for oil reserves being different in the US then they are in OPEC countries. In the US, oil firms routinely UNDERESTIMATE the size of a field, as it allows them to defer taxes from the present into the future. Not only this, but having your reserves 'grow' in the future ensures a certain ammount of shareholder confidence in your firm. Not only that, but fields discovered and exploited from the 50s and 60s used very crude tools to estimate field sizes. As we learn more about a field using 4d seismic data and other advanced techniques the reserves in a given field usually increase, but do sometimes decrease.
Now, in OPEC countries, they HAVE no taxes to worry about deferring into the future. They have no shareholders to soothe, and they produce their oil on a production quota. So imagine for a minute that your an OPEC Oil CEO. You know that your field has a lot more oil in it then the American estimate initially stated. You know that your oil production is limited by a quota system based on reserves. You also have past history on thousands of other fields, big and small, that were discovered around the same time and through that data you have a known expected reserve growth ratio.
What do you do?
You immediately inflate the publicly stated reserves of your oil fields to a reasonable level based on similar fields in other regions.
Now your sitting pretty. You have a much larger share of OPEC proven reserves and as such you can pump more oil, sell more oil, and reap more benefits then your competitors. Unfortunately, every OPEC country jumped on this bandwagon within a years time.
Now you may not know this, but US fields today are STILL showing reserve growth. So is the rest of the world. Every year that goes by, we consume 31+ Gb of oil. If our discoveries only total 15 Gb, but our total reserve estimate grew by 30 Gb, that means we had a net increase of 46 Gb. Essentially, you 'discovered' the oil that you consumed that year, then some more based on new knowledge about a field, and then some more again based on discoveries. Even if oil reserves remain flat year over year, and you discovered 15 Gb, you still 'found' another 16 Gb in your old fields.
So once again, I will ask the question that needs to be asked: would we be in uproar about the OPEC figures if they had spread out their growth over a decade?
I highly doubt it.
Proven reserves in Western countries typically grow at a gentle pace until around the time that production peaks, and then they decline along with production. They represent effectively a kind of inventory - the oil that is close enough to being producible that it can be booked as reserves. Thus they are very roughly proportional to production. There's a bunch of graphs here. Since the OPEC country graphs look completely unnatural, we basically have no idea what is going on. We cannot say for sure how much oil is there or not. The issue is that it goes to the integrity of the reporting process; clearly it doesn't have integrity.
However, in answer to your question, there is no other country that I'm aware of where reserves have grown like that without significant ongoing discovery. So I think it would still look odd, though perhaps less odd, if they had spread it out.
Well it must look 'odd' in the US then, because that is exactly what happened here, but over several decades instead of just one.
The total proved reserves in the US have been declining for decades.
Yes, but not as fast as we have been depleting our reserves on a yearly basis. Its roughly half as much.
Sure, but they have not jumped up by 110gb, or jumped up in any way shape or form. Had they done so, it would seem very odd, as it does in Saudi Arabia.
hothgor, a company can defer reserves ( and taxes) into the future but really probably only for a year or so.
you state that techniques for estimating field size , and reserves, have vastly improved from the 60's. well maybe somewhat, but if that is true then can we count on the same reserve growth in the future ? much of reserve estimation is based on decline curve analysis so that hasn't changed since the 60's (although i dont have first hand knowledge of the 60's since i have only been doing this since the '70's)
The only reason for reserves to NOT increase in size as they have in the past is for us to discount all possible technological innovations. Not only that, but a good junk of the oil we find today is still by these same oil companies who routinely under-estimate the size of a field for the above mentioned reasons.
well, inovations may happen and they may not but you are talking about two different things here, technical innovations and political/tax/investor relations .
i can agree with you that most of the reservoir engineers of the 50's and 60's were crew cut and pocket protector wearing, slide rule wielding conservative who didnt want to ever over estimate reserves. they werent worried about being wrong by being too conservative. and i suppose exxon, chevron and bp are still in that mode to some extent.
arent ceo's today more worried about the value of their stock options and thus aren't their suv driving suburb living windows operating compliant reservoir engineers more likely to over rather than under estimate reserves ?
that and i think you are way too impressed with this whiz bang technology, with the exception of computers we are doing things largly as the crew cut wearing ones did.
Hothgor.
Reserves and Reserve growth:
The proof of a pudding is in the eating.
Explain how you square reserve growths against year on year reductions in Flows from specific, countries, regional basins and component fields.
And anyway where are the reserve growths of which you speak?
The lower 48, Alaska, UKCS and Norway have pretty good data for you to work on.
All, it would seem, are suffering reduced flows.
We are talking about the good stuff here: Cheap, easily extracted, light sweet crude.
You know. The stuff that has powered the planet for 60 years. Forget the sub-oil shales, tar sands and ethanol as important components in the Liquids flow levels. For sure, count the high sulpher heavy oils and other sludges that are still found in conventional geological formations and traps etc but need more energy to extract.
I cannot understand why this is such a big conceptual problem.
Maybe kids spend too much time playing on computers and not enough time playing at the sink with different sizes of cups and buckets and water.
The largest force towards reserve growth in the present day comes from economic incentives. It simply was not attractive to recover hydrocarbons from certain fields at the price level we averaged from the late 80s to the early 90s. Today, with oil most likely going to hover between $50 and $70, that allows a much larger range of hydrocarbon utilization, both conventional and unconventional. At some point in the future, the unconventional sources will be the new conventional.
Mooooo!
US Population 1970 213 million (1980 239 million)
US Population 2006 300 million
UP @48%
imported oil 1976 @30%
imported oil 2006 @60%
UP 100%
(not including manufactured imports, and the oil needed to build)
...and I should be excited by reserve growth?
Stuart: Thanks for your time and efforts. You will never know how much you are appreciated.
Rick
Stuart Staniford wrote:
Maybe instead of carefully inspecting the reprobates for signs of reformation, it would be better to just keep the heat on them.
The idea is to make their business shrink, after all. I'm not convinced their co-operation is actually needed or desired.
Nail'em up! Nail'em up!
Hello Asebius,
Your Quote: "The idea is to make their business shrink, after all. I'm not convinced their co-operation is actually needed or desired.
Respectfully disagree. It makes no sense killing the goose, that laid the golden eggs, with ill-considered legislation. The goose is dying on its own for lack of food [gas & oilfields]. Obviously, we need to be extremely careful how often we cook the last batch of eggs.
But the ethical behavior of this big bird sure can be bigtime improved--way too much goosecrap for me. We just need to re-arrange a few feathers, not "Nail'em up! Nail'em up!" See my post below-- you may have even better ideas than mine.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Ethical behavior is not in Exxon's charter. They will do everything in their power to maintain their record profits and if that includes sucking up to a few organizations concerned about global warming, they will do that as part of their overall objective. We thought BP was the exception, but look at all the problems they have had in the last several months.
This isn't about opining whether or not the oil companies have a unique purchase on evil, it is about the nature of corporations and their charters in the modern, industrialized world.
I think the supposition that we live in a world of transparency is rather dubiouis. KSA is no more transparent than it has ever been as a large bulk of the words spewed out on this site are devoted to devining what they plan to do or are planning to do. We still have not gained access to exactly what Cheney was doing with the oil companies early on in the Bush administration, despite numerous law suits. The Bush administration continues to stonewall congress and the media about a whole host of issues, including what they have done to deny global warming.
Perhaps we should not be killing the goose, but we should be putting that goose on a controlled diet and firmly controlling it with a very tight leash. Corporations should be serving the people, not the other way around.
Yes, of course the idea is to make their business, at least the oil part, shrink. We need to reduce the use of all fossil fuels, including oil, and especially oil coming from sources like tar sands or oil shale. Exxon, all the oil companies, and the oil rich countries of the middle east, need to be planning and acting on a future that is beyond petroleum, just like the BP slogan.
The required paradign shift is way overdue. Companies like Exxon have the monetary resouces, if not the intellectual bent, to move not only beyond petroleum, but beyond energy to energy services. Because they refuse to do this, and keep their head in the sand, so to speak, we have bills in congress to do that for them.
Another note on transparency. In a truly transparent world, we would know exactly where and for what purpose Exxon's funds are going. If indeed, AEI is offering up $10,000 to all comers who would like to write a paper debunking global warming, and if indeed they are receiving funds from Exxon, then Exxon should quit funding AEI immediately. Exxon doesn't have to tell its benefactors what to fund. If AEI and the like started doing diatribes againsst the oil companies are started touting policies that were not in Exxon's overall interest, they know they would be losing their funding in a heart beat.
Back to the socalled dying goose. Not yet, by golly. Exxon's recent new record profits would indicate there is a lot of life in the goose yet.
$10,000 to a respected scientist for debunking PO or GW is absolutely bargain basement, if they can get it. Certainly within the requirements of the corporate charter -- a very good use of shareholders' money to increase profits.
On the other hand, spending the same amount of money to get papers describing GW or considering real solutions -- well, that is just shareholder money down the drain. At best, no one will read those papers, at worst, they will contribute to declining profits.
What would you do if you were running a corporation?
By the way, "ethics" has to do with following accepted practice (accepted by one's peers, that is.) It has nothing whatever to do with morality or public benefit.
This increasingly depends on the PR costs of being seen making such offers. Sure, there are people who agree with or just could care less about this kind of 'Wanted:' Poster, but with public perception of energy-co shenanigans, price insecurity and record profits, I'm not sure that this $10k is really capable of helping as much as it is capable of hurting them now.
'The distinction between a patriot and a traitor is a matter of timing'..
- forgot who said this.. Oliver North?
Fouche, head of Bourbon /Napoleons / Bourbon secret police and expert political survivalist , i think.
BTW: $10 grand would buy you one of my geological staff for about a 11 days...
That would not include expenses...
...or VAT.
Hello SS,
Yes, Congrats to you and TOD! I don't envy any PR rep at any FF company--tough buck to earn in a PO + GW climate. Thus, I agree with your assessment that XOM needs to do an immediate about-face with their PR, but also make their corporate policy consistent with their new message.
Basically, I think the FF industry should take an active lead in Peakoil Outreach, thus shifting the focus from themselves to the consumer. Basic message is: we looking for oil as hard as we can, but we are running out-- so you and the consuming industries better conserve as hard as you can, and ramp up the alternatives. Time is limited, but we will do our part if you do your part.
Nobody blames a farmer if drought, pests, and/or floods wrecks his crops. Nobody should blame an oil co. if there are no more oilfields to be found--Such is Life.
To make the XOM corporate policy follow the PR message: stockholders ROI will only equal the DOW ROI, thus any excess above this will be auto-reinvested in Exploration, Alternatives, or Production infrastructure enhancement & maintenance. This indexing should be sufficient to satisfy the stockholders, yet also keep the Govt. from nationalizing or imposing a windfall profits tax. It is the idea of XOM stockholders getting rich at the expense of the public that XOM has to guard against as fuel prices rise. I know, I know-- not very capitalistic--but considering the alternatives of nationalization or excessive profit taxation, it maybe the best compromise for XOM to attain. Essentially, it leaves them free to find the last dregs of postPeak oil & gas, but it is up to the now Peak-aware consumer to shape the downslope tail.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Wow, this is spooky. Myself and several members of Seattle Peak Oil Awareness attended a Shell Town hall discussion in Seattle just recently. President of Shell America, Jon Hofmeister, admitted to the audience that Global Warming was an issue. But when one of his executives was confronted about peak oil, the offical claimed peak oil was irrelevant due to Oil Shale, LNG and Tar Sands. To read further reaction, check this out...
http://www.seattleoil.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4397#4397
I have a feeling that the big oil majors are in a concerted effort to engage environmental, energy awareness and alternative groups. What are their ulterior motives? It seems they want to convince average Americans that even though the era of cheap oil is over, we can maintain sustainable growth into the future. The massive evidence provided by TOD has to me, proven otherwise.
Back on climate change:
Flannery says: "the arctic ice cap will be gone in the next five to 15 years"
Can anybody here explain to me, what the consequences of this "dramatic" development could be???
That Exxon/Mobil will want to start drilling in the Artic :-(.
In terms of sea levels, my understanding is that if the ice cap itself melts it won't raise the level that much, at least directly. But ice is far more reflective than seawater, so if the ice cap melts, there will be increased warming.
It is the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet that hold vast quantities of water that have the real potential for raising the sea levels by more dramatic amounts.
furthermore, the arctic ice cap is floating, while the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are on the land. The weight of the ice causes the land to subside, and melting of the ice sheets will cause the land to rise when the weight is off-- further raising the global sea level.
My brother-in-law, a glaciologist, has quoted something on the order of a 100-meter sea level rise when all the ice is melted, and the land has all risen without the weight of the overlying ice.
This is not going to happen in anyone's lifetime, but even a meter of sea level rise will cause great distress to coastal cities.
Average sea level rise for the B1 climate scenario is only 0.18-0.38 m. B1 is probably the outcome we should be hoping for because it stabilizes CO2 at about 550 ppm by 2100. At the other end of the spectrum, a rise of 0.26-0.59 metres is associated with the A1F1 scenario, which has CO2 rising past 970 ppm by the end of the century due to aggressive fossil fuel use. Another 0.1-0.2 metres could be added if the loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica accelerates. To put those numbers in perspective, the IPCC says average sea level rise in the 20th century was 0.17 metres.
It bears repeating that some regions will see more rapid sea level rise, so a metre is not completely out of the question in areas where the land is subsiding, such as the Gulf coast. And of course, it's not the average rise that will cause the most damage the soonest but the flood associated with a storm surge on top of a high tide on top of the average rise.
The IPCC figures exclude dynamic ice sheet responses, which recent events in Greenland and Antarctica suggest are important and very possibly dominant. Thus the IPCC sea level rise numbers exclude large unknowns. The situation is much more uncertain than the range you quote suggests (something that is only clear if one has a secret decoder ring for the footnotes). Presumably by the time the next IPCC rolls around, all will be much clearer. I guess this is ok - it's still going to leave ample time to figure out where to build levees and/or give up on property if rises turn out to be large.
Yes, the IPCC sea level projections are conservative. An alternative view is that sea level could rise 0.5-1.4 metres beyond the 1990 level by 2100. There are big uncertainties about ice growth or loss in Antarctica.
As you say, we have lots of time before a rise like this happens. But we can't go on burning oil and coal as we're doing today without "dangerous" environmental change. The uncertainties are just one more reason to reduce emissions sooner rather than later.
It continues to be unfortunate that many if not most posters discussing climate change do not comprehend the use of temp, sea level, co2 as described with "bands".
The level of confidence lies in the center of the band. It is a ludicrous to use the high band and the low end of the band. Those are one in a million possibilities and are inserted only for those eventualities. It is not helpful to serious discussion to let this practice spread.
Perhaps this graph will help me illustrate:
.
Don't forget contamination of ground water wells by seawater. I'd hate to think how many cities have to rely on wells because they've already polluted adjacent rivers.
Exxon Mobil is a psychopathic corporation that values present-day profits (to the tune of nearly $40 billion this year alone) over the future survival of Homo sapiens on the Earth. One of the reasons why ExxonMobil remains profitable is because the corporation is allowed to leave a mess for someone else to clean up.
What is the value of the Earth's entire coastal developments? If sea levels rise three feet our entire species will lose much more than merely the property value of these lands. If sea levels rise over the next millennia there's a pretty good chance that civilization itself will collapse. If the climate changes drastically there is a very real potential for billions of humans to die horrendously -- What happens on a planet with nine billion inhabitants if there is a severe drought and heat wave which substantially destroys America's crops?
Exxon Mobil doesn't want to be held responsible for the damage that it has caused to the Earth. For that reason the psychopathic corporations has engaged in a sophisticated disinformation campaign that would certainly make the Tabacco corporations proud. Exxon Mobil is still engaged in disinformation today. If they say otherwise they certainly are lying.
Exxon Mobil would much rather protect its revenues, profit margin, and stockholders rather than acknowledge that the fossil fuels industries have all damaged the Earth in a fashion which will make life brutal, hellish and short for future generations of humans. These people care more about their own personal wealth than the survival of their own grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They live in the present moment and could care less about tomorrow.
What is the real price of Exxon Mobil's business and propaganda? Billions of humans will die. Civilization will collapse. Ultimately the Homo sapiens -- the miserable ape -- will go extinct ... so, ultimately, everything works out for the better. Homo sapiens are presently practicing a form of self-extermination. It is just as well: The Earth will become a much better place once humankind is gone.
Thank God for Exxon Mobil. Exxon Mobil's pollution and lies serve to destroy the Earth's most violent, destructive and wasteful primate. In the last six hundred million years, no animal has worked so hard to bring about its own extinction.
Despite my doubts, I find that encouraging.
The world will become a better place without us. Humankind's extinction is a blessing both to Nature and also to the tortured soul of the afflicted primate plague. We could have gone out with a bang using our nuclear bombs but it appears now like our species will go out with a whimper as the Earth becomes progressively more inhospitable to human life. Some day soon -- ten thousand or so years from now -- Nature will begin the work of restoring, repairing and reinvigorating the Earth. Nature will erase all memories of humankind's existence from the Earth's surface. All that will remain of humankind will be fossils in the sedimentary rocks of this era.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
In the scheme of things, Exxon Mobil is actually small-fry as an earth-raping oil company. Try screeching at the Nationals.
Er ... your at a computer terminal... Am I right?
So you are not a Khalahari Bushman or an Ingut Reindeer Herdsman or Inuit?
So... that makes you a part of the problem as well...
Welcome, David, to our predicament...
Mind you, no wonder you are so pissed:
You made your life in Florida.
Global Warming: Every Cloud has a Silver Lining :-)
Drown, baby, drown...