7 ms·

> The new shareholder resolution calls on the oil company to reduce its Scope 3 emissions or those that result from the use of its products Exxon is supposed t

by imgabe 3y ago

> The new shareholder resolution calls on the oil company to reduce its Scope 3 emissions or those that result from the use of its products Exxon is supposed to reduce emissions from their customers using their products? How? If I buy Exxon gas and take it home and light it on fire in the back yard is an Exxon employee supposed to come and stop me? There’s definitely a lot of things we can do to fight climate change but passing nonsensical shareholder resolutions demanding impossible things isn’t one them.

HenryBemis 3y ago
Yes, that's a sample of one. YOU can/will do that. A government buying $50m worth of oil & gas for its needs (i.e. Army vehicles) won't be doing that. So unless you are willing to buy $50m then it doesn't matter how much oil & gas you burn in your background ($100 perhaps before the neighbors call the police and the FD on you?) The fuel is meant to be consumed. Majority of the fuel purchased will end up being consumed a very certain way. Now, how do manage the cost of this handling? I recently listened to some EU minister saying that "super markets include the cost of recycling in the price of the milk carton". I didn't know that when I buy something from a super market I pre-pay for the recycling - which made me feel stupid since we pay extra in admin-costs in our building for this - anyway such is life). So back to the oil & gas. Let's assume that 99.9% of oil & gas will be consumed in the standard process. We can make an average calculation on the technology it will be consumed in (i.e. 50yo old bus vs new bus - different polluting outputs). With a certain (?) degree of confidence we can estimate the pollution that will be created. Is it absolute? No. Is it better than nothing?
- imgabe 3y ago
  Right, I picked a deliberately silly example. I just don't understand what these activists think Exxon is going to do. Do they think Exxon can dictate to the military how the military is allowed to use the fuel they buy? Because...uh...they can't. The military will buy fuel and do whatever it wants with it and Exxon can't do a thing about it.
- wasmitnetzen 3y ago
  > I didn't know that when I buy something from a super market I pre-pay for the recycling - which made me feel stupid since we pay extra in admin-costs in our building for this You're probably paying for trash collection, not the recycling itself, and you're paying for the disposal of the non-recyclable trash.
leoedin 3y ago
I think everyone understands the necessity of oil & gas - but what's becoming clear is that some oil & gas companies are acting like tobacco companies have in the past - they're intentionally trying to discredit climate change research, minimise public awareness of their impacts, and other "bad" activities which are good for business, but bad for society. There are oil & gas companies which are at least trying to change - Equinor in Norway, Engie in France. The common thread is that they're both at least partly state owned.
NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
[flagged]
Osmose 3y ago
By reducing the amount that they produce and sell?
- imgabe 3y ago
  Then someone else produces and sells it. Exxon doesn’t control market demand. If companies could control demand for their products then they would make infinite money by just controlling the demand to be as high as possible.
  - Osmose 3y ago
    Then Follow This and other orgs will start looking into how to get voting power there, too.
    - imgabe 3y ago
      Good luck getting a vote at Aramco or PDVSA or anything in Russia. They'll be laughed out of the room if they're lucky and probably murdered if they get too annoying.
      - Osmose 3y ago
        Maybe. Then maybe they'll try some other tactic in those cases. Either way Exxon totally has a way to reduce the emissions of their customers: by reducing their customers. They may go to other producers but this is hardly the only thing activists are trying. It's not an impossible request and could be a useful component of a larger strategy.
        jamesmstone 3y ago
        In addition, it would then increase the market prices, which in turn helps incentive lower emissions or greener cheaper alternatives
rkachowski 3y ago
are you arguing that Exxon is powerless to reduce emissions from oil and gas?
- imgabe 3y ago
  What powers do you think they do or should have over how customers use their product? If Exxon is asked to immediately reduce your personal carbon emissions by say, 30%, what control do you think Exxon should have over your personal fossil fuel use to do that?
pjc50 3y ago
1) Oil and gas extraction itself is very energy intensive and quite dirty. That could be improved. 2) Flaring is a pure loss of fossil carbon to the atmosphere and should be absolutely minimized. There's a local community near me with an ongoing complaint against Exxon for too much flaring: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c6wk2ml6gwzt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c6wk2ml6gwzt - on a dark night I can see it myself from 25 miles away. 3) Corporate lobbying can be pro-fossil or pro-renewable. Pro-fossil lobbying generally doesn't have a moral leg to stand on once climate change is taken into account, and they should stop doing it and stop making political donations to pro-climate-change politicians and PACs. 4) BP has a renewables division. Does Exxon? Just a quick list of things that could be done. Like Philip Morris, they're going to have to acknowledge that their main product is inherently harmful and its use should be phased out.
- imgabe 3y ago
  None of those except maybe indirectly the lobbying meet what the resolution is asking for, which is that Exxon control how customers use their products.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Where is the full text of the resolution? It doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere obvious. Like I say, the closest analogy is Philip Morris: the product is inherently harmful.
    - jamesmstone 3y ago
      Exon could buy offset on behalf of their customer's expected emissions. (which I guess would indirectly increase the cost for their customers) . or they could give discounts to their customers that show they have reduced their emissions through various initiatives , eg buying cleaner buses
defrost 3y ago
> The new shareholder resolution calls on the oil company to reduce its Scope 3 emissions or those that result from the use of its products. There are multi pronged approaches to this, reducing C02 emissions. * Exxon can invest more effort into effective carbon sequestration down wells, ala Gorgon (currently the largest such project on earth, albeit somewhat vaporware for now). * pivot assets and engineering out of fossil fuels and into renewables, remaining an energy company but shifting out of whale oil. * Developing better public transport in the parts of the world with greatest per capita FF usage to reduce that demand. * etc. Exxon Mobil Corp. has a market cap. of some 400 billion USD .. it's not as though they lack resources to pivot toward shareholder demands.
- imgabe 3y ago
  The first two are not what the resolution is asking for, which is to reduce emissions from customers using their product. For the final one, why would you ask Exxon, a company that has 0 expertise in building public transportation systems, to suddenly pivot into an entirely new industry? Why would this be an effective strategy to get more public transportation built? Why not lobby the relevant city / state governments directly? Why not invest in any one of the companies that already build public transportation systems?
  - defrost 3y ago
    It's very clear that regardless of what resolution was put forward that the intent of the shareholder bloc supporting it is to reduce global carbon emissions from fossil fuel companies. The first two directions (of many possibilities) go toward that end and would likely be supported by that shareholder block if put forward. The last would put resources toward the reduction of per capita fossil fuel production, and use the resource of a fossil fuel extractor to do so. > Why would this be an effective strategy to get more public transportation built? Because, if carried forward, it achieves the desired end goal and uses the resources of a problematic company to do so. For an activist block that wants change in energy creation it makes a great deal more sense to change bad behaviour than to leave that in play and invest elsewhere. If you can imagine the mindset of activist investors you'll be able to answer these questions for yourself as you pose them - it's a useful technique to work on.
the8472 3y ago
It's not physically impossible. CCS and all that. They could even do it at the source, turn the oil into hydrogen and carbon and bury the latter. Whether it's economical is a different story.

by imgabe 3y ago

HenryBemis 3y ago

Yes, that's a sample of one. YOU can/will do that. A government buying $50m worth of oil & gas for its needs (i.e. Army vehicles) won't be doing that. So unless you are willing to buy $50m then it doesn't matter how much oil & gas you burn in your background ($100 perhaps before the neighbors call the police and the FD on you?) The fuel is meant to be consumed. Majority of the fuel purchased will end up being consumed a very certain way. Now, how do manage the cost of this handling? I recently listened to some EU minister saying that "super markets include the cost of recycling in the price of the milk carton". I didn't know that when I buy something from a super market I pre-pay for the recycling - which made me feel stupid since we pay extra in admin-costs in our building for this - anyway such is life). So back to the oil & gas. Let's assume that 99.9% of oil & gas will be consumed in the standard process. We can make an average calculation on the technology it will be consumed in (i.e. 50yo old bus vs new bus - different polluting outputs). With a certain (?) degree of confidence we can estimate the pollution that will be created. Is it absolute? No. Is it better than nothing?

imgabe 3y ago
Right, I picked a deliberately silly example. I just don't understand what these activists think Exxon is going to do. Do they think Exxon can dictate to the military how the military is allowed to use the fuel they buy? Because...uh...they can't. The military will buy fuel and do whatever it wants with it and Exxon can't do a thing about it.
wasmitnetzen 3y ago
> I didn't know that when I buy something from a super market I pre-pay for the recycling - which made me feel stupid since we pay extra in admin-costs in our building for this You're probably paying for trash collection, not the recycling itself, and you're paying for the disposal of the non-recyclable trash.

leoedin 3y ago

I think everyone understands the necessity of oil & gas - but what's becoming clear is that some oil & gas companies are acting like tobacco companies have in the past - they're intentionally trying to discredit climate change research, minimise public awareness of their impacts, and other "bad" activities which are good for business, but bad for society. There are oil & gas companies which are at least trying to change - Equinor in Norway, Engie in France. The common thread is that they're both at least partly state owned.

NoPedantsThanks 3y ago

[flagged]

Osmose 3y ago

By reducing the amount that they produce and sell?

imgabe 3y ago
Then someone else produces and sells it. Exxon doesn’t control market demand. If companies could control demand for their products then they would make infinite money by just controlling the demand to be as high as possible.
- Osmose 3y ago
  Then Follow This and other orgs will start looking into how to get voting power there, too.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    Good luck getting a vote at Aramco or PDVSA or anything in Russia. They'll be laughed out of the room if they're lucky and probably murdered if they get too annoying.
    - Osmose 3y ago
      Maybe. Then maybe they'll try some other tactic in those cases. Either way Exxon totally has a way to reduce the emissions of their customers: by reducing their customers. They may go to other producers but this is hardly the only thing activists are trying. It's not an impossible request and could be a useful component of a larger strategy.
      - jamesmstone 3y ago
        In addition, it would then increase the market prices, which in turn helps incentive lower emissions or greener cheaper alternatives

rkachowski 3y ago

are you arguing that Exxon is powerless to reduce emissions from oil and gas?

imgabe 3y ago
What powers do you think they do or should have over how customers use their product? If Exxon is asked to immediately reduce your personal carbon emissions by say, 30%, what control do you think Exxon should have over your personal fossil fuel use to do that?

pjc50 3y ago

1) Oil and gas extraction itself is very energy intensive and quite dirty. That could be improved. 2) Flaring is a pure loss of fossil carbon to the atmosphere and should be absolutely minimized. There's a local community near me with an ongoing complaint against Exxon for too much flaring: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c6wk2ml6gwzt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c6wk2ml6gwzt - on a dark night I can see it myself from 25 miles away. 3) Corporate lobbying can be pro-fossil or pro-renewable. Pro-fossil lobbying generally doesn't have a moral leg to stand on once climate change is taken into account, and they should stop doing it and stop making political donations to pro-climate-change politicians and PACs. 4) BP has a renewables division. Does Exxon? Just a quick list of things that could be done. Like Philip Morris, they're going to have to acknowledge that their main product is inherently harmful and its use should be phased out.

imgabe 3y ago
None of those except maybe indirectly the lobbying meet what the resolution is asking for, which is that Exxon control how customers use their products.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Where is the full text of the resolution? It doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere obvious. Like I say, the closest analogy is Philip Morris: the product is inherently harmful.
  - jamesmstone 3y ago
    Exon could buy offset on behalf of their customer's expected emissions. (which I guess would indirectly increase the cost for their customers) . or they could give discounts to their customers that show they have reduced their emissions through various initiatives , eg buying cleaner buses

defrost 3y ago

> The new shareholder resolution calls on the oil company to reduce its Scope 3 emissions or those that result from the use of its products. There are multi pronged approaches to this, reducing C02 emissions. * Exxon can invest more effort into effective carbon sequestration down wells, ala Gorgon (currently the largest such project on earth, albeit somewhat vaporware for now). * pivot assets and engineering out of fossil fuels and into renewables, remaining an energy company but shifting out of whale oil. * Developing better public transport in the parts of the world with greatest per capita FF usage to reduce that demand. * etc. Exxon Mobil Corp. has a market cap. of some 400 billion USD .. it's not as though they lack resources to pivot toward shareholder demands.

imgabe 3y ago
The first two are not what the resolution is asking for, which is to reduce emissions from customers using their product. For the final one, why would you ask Exxon, a company that has 0 expertise in building public transportation systems, to suddenly pivot into an entirely new industry? Why would this be an effective strategy to get more public transportation built? Why not lobby the relevant city / state governments directly? Why not invest in any one of the companies that already build public transportation systems?
- defrost 3y ago
  It's very clear that regardless of what resolution was put forward that the intent of the shareholder bloc supporting it is to reduce global carbon emissions from fossil fuel companies. The first two directions (of many possibilities) go toward that end and would likely be supported by that shareholder block if put forward. The last would put resources toward the reduction of per capita fossil fuel production, and use the resource of a fossil fuel extractor to do so. > Why would this be an effective strategy to get more public transportation built? Because, if carried forward, it achieves the desired end goal and uses the resources of a problematic company to do so. For an activist block that wants change in energy creation it makes a great deal more sense to change bad behaviour than to leave that in play and invest elsewhere. If you can imagine the mindset of activist investors you'll be able to answer these questions for yourself as you pose them - it's a useful technique to work on.

the8472 3y ago

It's not physically impossible. CCS and all that. They could even do it at the source, turn the oil into hydrogen and carbon and bury the latter. Whether it's economical is a different story.