9 ms·

Boo hoo, they lost some board seats! What a world!! We treat pot dealers more harshly than these fucks. Give me a fucking break. I'm sick of it.

by Forbo 5y ago

ethbr0 5y ago
You know that boards elect CEOs and approve pay packages? So the Exxon CEO just lost 25% of his boardroom support.
- eggsmediumrare 5y ago
  I would rather see him lose his job, wealth and freedom, but I guess it's a start?
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    In the words of Meatloaf, a shove down the road to two out of three ain't bad. And given that we're talking about the ~12th largest corporation in the world by revenue, a 25% swing in support seems appropriate. Exxon suddenly becomes unable to operate because we put Greenpeace in charge? Worse things than climate change happen. Big ship, gentle turns.
    - toofy 5y ago
      > Big ship, gentle turns. Some might argue that certain situations require more agility not less.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rxhernandez 5y ago
  How big is his severance going to be if he loses complete support from the board? Is he going to get any jail time with that severance?
  - toofy 5y ago
    I suspect that won’t happen. Certain segments of the population rarely face the same level of life-altering repercussions that others might.
- Forbo 5y ago
  I'm sure that's great consolation to the families of people dying in heat waves and once-every-10,000-years weather disasters. Also climate migrants will rest easy knowing that the Exxon CEO "lost support".
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    As opposed to the people starving, freezing, and overheating because they don't have reliable and affordable access to energy? Part of being a solution, instead of just yelling on the corner, is starting with a realistic appraisal of the world and options. That's the difference between an engineer and... well, everyone else. The oil majors are not wrong in that we need (relatively) cheap energy. And will for some time. Any climate policy that isn't honest about that isn't solving anything.
    - lostcolony 5y ago
      Sure...which is in part because of decades of FUD inserted to slow down the adoption of cleaner energy sources, a practice which has not abated. Were the oil & gas companies saying "hey! Yes, this stuff is damaging! We need to get off it ASAP! We're here until we do, and we're putting all our R&D money into expanding out renewables and cleaner energy sources, and not just more oil & gas pipelines", we can have a dialog. Until then? Fuck 'em.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        Were they to do that, their shareholders (including and perhaps especially their institutional ones) would have sued the pants off them, tossed them out of their jobs, and demanded that Exxon get back to the business of making as much money as possible, as soon as possible. The sea change has been big investors throwing their clout behind ESG initiatives, which would have been laughable even in the 00s. If we wanted what we espouse to want to happen (big oil got in the renewable business) when we wanted it to happen (1990s?), we should have been pushing for more ESG-flexible shareholder laws & case law for the last few decades.
- pjerem 5y ago
  That's not serious, those people are accountable for our world actually burning and the sentence is that it'll be harder this year to get all the options on their new yacht ? Maybe they'll even need to use the same embedded submarine than the year before. I know it's caricature but please, what's happening is utterly important.

Boo hoo, they lost some board seats! What a world!! We treat pot dealers more harshly than these fucks. Give me a fucking break. I'm sick of it.

by Forbo 5y ago

Boo hoo, they lost some board seats! What a world!! We treat pot dealers more harshly than these fucks. Give me a fucking break. I'm sick of it.

ethbr0 5y ago

You know that boards elect CEOs and approve pay packages? So the Exxon CEO just lost 25% of his boardroom support.

eggsmediumrare 5y ago
I would rather see him lose his job, wealth and freedom, but I guess it's a start?
- ethbr0 5y ago
  In the words of Meatloaf, a shove down the road to two out of three ain't bad. And given that we're talking about the ~12th largest corporation in the world by revenue, a 25% swing in support seems appropriate. Exxon suddenly becomes unable to operate because we put Greenpeace in charge? Worse things than climate change happen. Big ship, gentle turns.
  - toofy 5y ago
    > Big ship, gentle turns. Some might argue that certain situations require more agility not less.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rxhernandez 5y ago
How big is his severance going to be if he loses complete support from the board? Is he going to get any jail time with that severance?
- toofy 5y ago
  I suspect that won’t happen. Certain segments of the population rarely face the same level of life-altering repercussions that others might.
Forbo 5y ago
I'm sure that's great consolation to the families of people dying in heat waves and once-every-10,000-years weather disasters. Also climate migrants will rest easy knowing that the Exxon CEO "lost support".
- ethbr0 5y ago
  As opposed to the people starving, freezing, and overheating because they don't have reliable and affordable access to energy? Part of being a solution, instead of just yelling on the corner, is starting with a realistic appraisal of the world and options. That's the difference between an engineer and... well, everyone else. The oil majors are not wrong in that we need (relatively) cheap energy. And will for some time. Any climate policy that isn't honest about that isn't solving anything.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    Sure...which is in part because of decades of FUD inserted to slow down the adoption of cleaner energy sources, a practice which has not abated. Were the oil & gas companies saying "hey! Yes, this stuff is damaging! We need to get off it ASAP! We're here until we do, and we're putting all our R&D money into expanding out renewables and cleaner energy sources, and not just more oil & gas pipelines", we can have a dialog. Until then? Fuck 'em.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Were they to do that, their shareholders (including and perhaps especially their institutional ones) would have sued the pants off them, tossed them out of their jobs, and demanded that Exxon get back to the business of making as much money as possible, as soon as possible. The sea change has been big investors throwing their clout behind ESG initiatives, which would have been laughable even in the 00s. If we wanted what we espouse to want to happen (big oil got in the renewable business) when we wanted it to happen (1990s?), we should have been pushing for more ESG-flexible shareholder laws & case law for the last few decades.
pjerem 5y ago
That's not serious, those people are accountable for our world actually burning and the sentence is that it'll be harder this year to get all the options on their new yacht ? Maybe they'll even need to use the same embedded submarine than the year before. I know it's caricature but please, what's happening is utterly important.