Catch the vote today? If not, read about it here. Then read the dialogue with my sister Ellen, which was precipitated by those silly e-mail chains calling for boycotts of Exxon and others in an erroneous attempt to reduce oil prices (uh, sorry folks, it wont work -- read why here).
Neal kicks it off with an article from the NYT on the Exxon/Rockefeller vote…
This is actually the CORRECT way to reduce oil prices, along with a severe
reduction in oil-based transportation...
BUSINESS | May 27, 2008
Rockefellers Seek Change at Exxon
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
A shareholder move supported by the Rockefeller family is prodding Exxon
Mobil to shift its priorities and take the threat of global warming more
seriously.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/business/27exxon.html?ex=1212552000&en=d59dd0eb20a694c9&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Ellen:
What I read (albeit a quick scan) is that the shareholders will be voting on three resolutions. One will study the impact of global warming on poor countries, another would encourage Exxon to reduce its emissions and a third would encourage it to do more research on renewable energy sources.
The other resolution would simply separate the chief exec and chairman jobs which might be a benefit to their public image but admittedly not to their strategy.
How does any of that equate to an immediate need for reduction in oil prices or oil-based transportation?
"Similar or identical environmental proposals have not passed at previous Exxon shareholder meetings, but the public support of the Rockefeller family has given old efforts new energy" Perhaps the Rockefellers might invest in and build on a new foundation of supplying the nation with alternative energy choices.
I don't believe the shareholders will allow these resolutions to threaten the value of their investment.
Neal:
There's a strong likelihood that these resolutions will not pass......now. Recall that less than 1 year ago, Exxon was one of the world's largest polluters (not to mention one of the world's largest -- and most profitable companies) and Tillerson was ranting about how the company would NEVER look into renewable fuels. He's already come off of that high horse significantly. Many of the other companies are already responding to consumer demand and hedging their operations for the future. Even if not passed today, the fact that this is hitting the front page of the business section of the NYT is compelling, much more so than would EVER result from a shift in where we buy our fuel from.
Ellen:
Here's what I read:
"Mr. Tillerson, who is widely perceived as more resistant than other oil chieftains to investing in alternative energy." Hitting the front page doesn't reduce oil prices or oil-based transportation.
The title was "Rockefeller's Seek Change at Exxon". Why seek change? Start new. How about starting with a US Energy Policy?
Neal:
Legislation is not "starting new." It's the same old garbage. Starting new is the string of new technologies and companies supporting them. I'm not touting the Rockefeller's as an angelic family until I see what else they may be invested in. However, my point, which may have been lost, is that the e-mails going 'round the net calling for us to boycott a certain oil company are urban legend and present an erroneous position. The only way to make the oil companies reduce the cost of oil is to use less of ALL oil, not just the oil of one company, and to force change at the corporate level through shareholder action. Changing the law will not change human nature. That has to start from within each of us, not through Congress.
Ellen:
"Conservation and green energy just aren't enough to resolve our energy problems"
http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/971442,CST-EDT-hunt27.article
Neal:
No, I wont be voting for McCain, though I'm not certain that it matters who I vote for. Expect more of the same for years to come, i.e. the massive energy lobby jockeying over nuclear power plants instead of investing in clean technology. Did you know that scientists now believe that we have the technology to harness all needed energy for North America from the sun in under 10 years...yet our government and the lobby groups will spend zillions fighting over this instead of advancing the development and affordability of this technology. Note that even Rowe, CEO of Exelon, has identified the many risks, including economic, to investing heavily in nuclear energy going forward.
Amy chimes-in:
do i think if exxon got boycotted they may consider making some concessions? yes perhaps- don't know and don't care what "other holdings" the rockafellers have; it is powerful and impactful that a family with such a reputation is putting itself out there in hopes of eliciting change. as for the changes at exxon, to me the biggest thing and obviously best first move is getting the main dude off the board?! that is not little separation. that is huge and would give the board the opportunity to have an independent voice -- which they have obviously never had.
Ellen:
a board does not have an independent voice - they speak on behalf of millions of shareholders, who will not let anything threaten the value of their investment. what the heck is that going to do for what drives oil costs: a globalized economy increasing demand for petroleum; a weak dollar; speculation in commodities markets; stretched refinery capacity; falling production from aging oil fields, and fears of supply disruptions from geopolitical troubles?- and tillerson would still be the ceo - this isn't all about the oil companies
why does everyone continue to find places to point their fingers - everyone else is always at fault, right? wrong United States Energy Policy - where/what is it?
Neal:
Funny how you think the answer is NOT at the boardroom level but that it is at the government level. HAH! Who has the most money, government or corporations like Exxon? I'm not pointing fingers. I'm opining as to where the answer lies. It's not with boycotts. It is with corporations. If more shareholders come on line to voice (and vote) their beliefs, then we'll see change. The Rockefeller issue may have already had an impact on Exxon's other, smaller shareholder, creating true, systemic change in the way the company will do business going forward (note that gains realized 45 days ago have been sold-off in the past few days). However, as I also said, this is not enough. We simply need to stop driving so much and invest in new technologies.
There's a strong likelihood that these resolutions will not pass......now. Recall that less than 1 year ago, Exxon was one of the world's largest polluters (not to mention one of the world's largest -- and most profitable companies) and Tillerson was ranting about how the company would NEVER look into renewable fuels. He's already come off of that high horse significantly. Many of the other companies are already responding to consumer demand and hedging their operations for the future. Even if not passed today, the fact that this is hitting the front page of the business section of the NYT is compelling, much more so than would EVER result from a shift in where we buy our fuel from.
Thanks Neal...
It is heartwarming that the Rockefeller family is looking to the future end of oil and prompting the board to consider investing transitional strategies and renewable resources. I am (mildly) shocked the board is resisting this!
Maybe Mr. Tillerson need to do a little reading... I suggest "The Party's Over" by Richard Heinberg... a very scholarly approach to a National exigency. Why it is likely that many of the oil geologists interviewed for his book are former employees!
YIKES!
Posted by: Brian Becharas | May 29, 2008 at 02:46 PM