3 ms·

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

• 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.
  • imgabe 3y ago
    > the intent of the shareholder bloc supporting it is to reduce global carbon emissions from fossil fuel companies. But that's why it makes no sense. The emissions caused by the customers are not emissions "from" fossil fuel companies. Exxon is not using the fossil fuels. If you want to reduce the emissions, talk to the customers. They're the ones who are doing the emitting. It's like if Wal-Mart sold 500,000 tons of rice and you say that Wal-Mart ate all this rice. They didn't, the people who bought it did. I suppose I could try to get into the activist mindset but it's painful to bang my head against a wall that hard and I'm worried about permanent damage.
    • sundaeofshock 3y ago
      You are acting like the demand side is all that matters. Using your analogy, Walmart can reduce their customers’ rice consumption by 50% by the simple act of only allowing 250,000 tons to appear on shelves.
      • imgabe 3y ago
        And the people who were eating the other 250,000 tons of rice will do what? Lay down and starve to death?
        • sundaeofshock 3y ago
          Irrelevant question. I was using your imperfect analogy to demonstrate that Exxon can reduce customer oil consumption by reducing the amount of oil Exxon supplies.
          • imgabe 3y ago
            Well, you failed
            • sundaeofshock 3y ago
              While I do appreciate your deep insight, I am missing a bit of nuance in your response. Perhaps you can help me understand why Exxon reducing its supply of oil would not reduce its customer’s consumption of its oil.
              • imgabe 3y ago
                Let’s pretend you have a job. You drive 20 miles each way to go to work. When you need gas, you buy it at the Exxon station every 3 or 4 days. Suppose the Exxon station closes. What are you going to do? Quit your job, default on your mortgage and become homeless? No, you’re going to buy gas somewhere else. So, did Exxon reducing its production of gas reduce your gas consumption? Did it move your house closer to your job? Did it make your car more fuel efficient? No, it did nothing except maybe slightly inconvenience you. Open an economics textbook and look up the phrase inelastic demand.