5 ms·

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 &

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.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Who's to say "we" didn't? The whole point of this post is that any attempt to change the petroleum industry's priorities led to them fighting tooth and nail to block it. I mean, changing shareholder laws to allow companies to not prioritize profits > everything? That sounds exactly like the sort of thing the shareholders are going to want the company to fight against. It's the same problem (whether it targets only ESG or not).
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    The benefit of changing shareholder laws is providing CEOs with legal cover for making better decisions. As far as I understand the legal landscape, if a solar panel manufacturer turned down a capture and kill takeover offer from an oil company, they'd have to make a case on how it would be financially more beneficial for them to remain independent. They'd get a summary judgement against them for saying "We think oil will cook our planet, and we will continue doing the less profitable thing because we want our planet to survive." Which... seems insane that that couldn't be a valid defense. But then, our legal system isn't overly tuned to heading off planet altering, existence-scale threats.
    - lostcolony 5y ago
      I know the benefit. I'm saying the obstacle is the same. Tell the shareholders "Hey, we're hiring expensive lobbyists to go to Congress and explain why we shouldn't be beholden solely to making you the most money when it does harm to the planet", and they're probably going to start clamoring for the board to replace you. Certainly, they will be if the more benign "Hey, we're focusing on long term sustainable growth that won't destroy the planet, at the expense of short term profits" would lead to you being replaced.

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.

lostcolony 5y ago
Who's to say "we" didn't? The whole point of this post is that any attempt to change the petroleum industry's priorities led to them fighting tooth and nail to block it. I mean, changing shareholder laws to allow companies to not prioritize profits > everything? That sounds exactly like the sort of thing the shareholders are going to want the company to fight against. It's the same problem (whether it targets only ESG or not).
- ethbr0 5y ago
  The benefit of changing shareholder laws is providing CEOs with legal cover for making better decisions. As far as I understand the legal landscape, if a solar panel manufacturer turned down a capture and kill takeover offer from an oil company, they'd have to make a case on how it would be financially more beneficial for them to remain independent. They'd get a summary judgement against them for saying "We think oil will cook our planet, and we will continue doing the less profitable thing because we want our planet to survive." Which... seems insane that that couldn't be a valid defense. But then, our legal system isn't overly tuned to heading off planet altering, existence-scale threats.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    I know the benefit. I'm saying the obstacle is the same. Tell the shareholders "Hey, we're hiring expensive lobbyists to go to Congress and explain why we shouldn't be beholden solely to making you the most money when it does harm to the planet", and they're probably going to start clamoring for the board to replace you. Certainly, they will be if the more benign "Hey, we're focusing on long term sustainable growth that won't destroy the planet, at the expense of short term profits" would lead to you being replaced.