Rockefeller Fund Dumping Fossil Fuels, Hits Exxon On Climate Issues (cnbc.com)

mdsolar quotes a report from Reuters: The Rockefeller Family Fund said on Wednesday it will divest from fossil fuels as quickly as possible and "eliminate holdings" of Exxon Mobil, chiding the oil company for allegedly misleading the public about the threat of climate change. The move by the U.S. based charity, which will also include coal and Canadian oil sands holdings, is especially notable because a century ago John D. Rockefeller Sr. made a fortune running Standard Oil, a precursor to Exxon Mobil.
Given the threat posed to the survival of human and natural ecosystems, "there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons," the fund said. Exxon did not immediately comment. In a letter posted on its website, the Rockefeller Family Fund said Exxon's conduct on climate issues appears to be "morally reprehensible."

Comments

Fiduciary sense?

[Penguinisto]

I get the whole Greenwashing that happened there, but seriously - no matter the {whatever} you hold concerning AGW, three things are constant:

1) Barring thermonuclear warfare or a wayward asteroid, global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do), and will continue on its current trend.

2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy), hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy, so unless someone at Rockefeller has information that the rest of us do not have...

3) Plastics (made from petroleum) are the backbone of technology and civilization at this time - no viable replacement has yet arisen that doesn't require even more damage to the ecosystems, or can last nearly as long when the requirements call for longevity/durability. (e.g. yeah you can make plastic from corn, but it'll be much shorter-lived and will require massive up-scaling in agriculture, which presents problems of its own.)

On the plus side, this is a decision made by a private company, and they're risking their own money to do so... at least government isn't pushing these decisions upon an unwilling populace. ...and yes dear pro-AGW crowd, please feel free to mod the post down in a massive knee-jerk reaction, but how about instead of lashing out, you do us a favor and show us all where the alternatives are. If you're reading this, you are most definitely a beneficiary of petroleum, so...

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[twotacocombo]

2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy), hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy, so unless someone at Rockefeller has information that the rest of us do not have...

So, what's wrong with fission? Other than some people's overblown and misguided fear of it?

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fossil counts for some 90%+ of transportation energy, almost all of plastic and a lot chemical production, and something like 75% of all electricity.

There's nothing right now that can cover that scale of energy and production.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Barring thermonuclear warfare or a wayward asteroid, global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do), and will continue on its current trend.

2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy), hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy, so unless someone at Rockefeller has information that the rest of us do not have...

1. Climate does not have to continue on its current trend.

Certainly, if we keep up the status quo, it will continue on its current trend.
However, we can do something about it and reverse that trend.

2. Hydrocarbons came from the sun.

Every single joule of energy derived from hydrocarbon sources originated in the sun and eventually got buried underground.
We can cut out the middle man (bacteria, plants, animals, dirt, millions of years of time, oil rigs, oil pipelines, refineries, etc) and just collect those joules directly ourselves.
Are there enough solar panels to provide for all of our energy needs right now? No.
Could there be enough solar power stations to provide for all of our energy needs? Absolutely.

Is there a way to keep doing what we're doing and not suffer any consequences? Absolutely not.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Notorious G]

1. That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly.
2. There are no lack of other sources of energy. Hydrocarbons are hardly the only solution.
3. There are other ways to produce plastics and similar materials.

So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.

1. It has changed just as radically and quickly before, there is nothing new here. Learn a little history.
2. No, but they are the best we have and a huge infrastructure is in place to support it. Proven reserves in North America alone will last at least another 100 years.
3. And they all suck compared to petroleum based and in no way viable on the scale needed.

So what we really have here is you posting patently obvious bullshit only remotely related to reality.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[djsmiley]

So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.

Hi, and welcome!, you appear not to have used the internet before.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

So what if you can't stack glass jars.

Lies. You should see my pantry I have a bunch of glass jars stacked in it, granted they are mason jars filled with delicious jams, stews, sauces, honey, maple syrup, and veggies so they have a pretty rectangular profile unlike most glass containers in stores that instead have long necks or disproportionately small openings to the main volume of the container.

That said I do prefer to buy things in a glass container especially if it will take a mason jar lid (regular or wide mouth) and will reuse those for storing other things I want to keep moisture or pests out of.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[zdavek]

1. That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly.
2. There are no lack of other sources of energy. Hydrocarbons are hardly the only solution.
3. There are other ways to produce plastics and similar materials.

So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.

1. WHAT radical and quick change? An increase of .8C in the last 40 years is NOT radical and it decreased .5C in the 30 years before that.
2. Sure there are but, except for fission, they are 3 to 30 times more expensive to create/use.
3. Yes, and once again they're roughly 3 to 20 times more expensive. That's NOT fiduciary responsibility.

So it sounds like MightyMartian is spouting the party line and has no real knowledge of the facts.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[tnk1]

It is true that plastics would be okay all by themselves. Many oil companies would prefer to make plastics over petrol. And in plastic form, they aren't really an AGW problem, they're a different problem.

However, I would not underestimate the amount of effort required to move all transport to electric. You're not going to move giant freighters to electric power unless you make them nuclear powered, and diesel freighters are down and dirty.

You can make the changes slowly and they will eventually take, but you're not undoing a century of fossil fuel use with any of the existing solutions in anything resembling a short period of time.

I will say this, hopefully the Rockefellers use their money to fund something other than fossil fuels, rather than just reinvesting in McDonalds or something. It's not like there won't be takers for ExxonMobil stock. They make money hand over fist. There's always a buyer for that stock.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[pr0t0]

1) Global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do),...
True. There are many forces beyond those attributable to the anthropogenic that cause climate to change. ...and will continue on its current trend.
Misleading since no time scale is given. The argument as presented appears to be that since corrective action has no immediate effect, no action should be taken. This is of course, absurd. Even if corrective action will not have an effect for multiple generations, it should still be taken now. We have established that our past and current actions have adversely affected the climate. It is therefore our responsibility as stewards of this planet, and of the future following generations will inherit, to take action. Anything else is selfish and cowardly.

2) ...hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy...
False, demonstrably so. It almost doesn't even bear a rebuttal, but since I'm doing a relative point-by-point dissection; I'll do it anyway. in 2011, 61% of Canada's energy came from hydro. 70% of Portugal's energy today comes from renewables. Germany is on pace to have 80% by 2050. And then there's Denmark with a renewable energy output of 140% of it's consumption. They actually make more than they need. There are simply no technological barriers to 100% energy consumption from renewable sources. There are only economic ones, which themselves are fallacious. A nation having a surplus of energy to sell, sounds much more economical than exporting billions of dollars to other countries where oil extraction is optimal. (incidentally, I'm pointing to the alternatives you were asking for here)

3) Plastics...
Strawman. No one is claiming a 100% end to petroleum use is the solution, much less the only solution. Many plastics also have the neat property of being recyclable. Stating that plastics are the "backbone of technology and civilization at this time", implies that they may not need to be at some future time. Many materials scientists and engineers are already looking right now for viable alternatives.

What your statement failed to address is that the action taken by Rockefeller is based on their belief that Exxon Mobile (et. al.) has willingly mislead the global community about the effects of oil consumption with respect to the climate. The article is light on details, but we can infer that the misleading has been going on for some time, according to Rockefeller. Are you not concerned? If it could be proven that Exxon Mobile has known about these effects for years, would you be concerned then? How about if it could be proven they actively promoted a campaign of misinformation to obscure this fact? Would you be angry, even if it didn't change your mind about how you lived your life or voted, but simply because they withheld information from you as a consumer?

But this is really my favorite...
If you're reading this, you are most definitely a beneficiary of petroleum, so...
So...what? People have often been the beneficiary of things that needed to come to an end. Slavery comes to mind; not just in the U.S., but across the globe and throughout human history. People enjoyed tangible benefits from having slaves, just not the slaves themselves. Humans have had slaves far longer than we've been consuming petroleum, yet it has been globally, or nearly globally outlawed. This is a possible example of an argument made against ending slavery in the U.S. If you're clothes are made of cotton, you are most definitely a beneficiary of slavery, so...

So you still end slavery!

This was a lengthy rebuttal. It required thought and a little research. You may consider that as evidence that it wasn't knee-jerk. You should consider applying thought and research into more of what you do. We all should, particularly where divisive issues are concerned.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Darinbob]

Yes, you can stop using so much of it. Conservation can work. Turn off your lights, get energy efficient appliances, stop commuting with just one person in the SUV, buy locally produced goods and food rather than having it shipped from the other side of the planet, and so forth. For larger groups or countries they can stop cutting down old growth forests and slashing and burning rainforests. It's like a friend who complains that he's got no money left at the end of the month even though he's got a new laptop and playstation, start cutting back so that expenses don't exceed the income instead of complaining that you can't grow the income.

Oh Really?

[HighOrbit]

Rockefeller Fund: Now that oil has dropped from $120 per barrel to $30/$40 per barrel and oil stocks are no longer profitable, we've suddenly developed a sense of moral courage. Our decision has nothing to do with oil investments no longer being a money-spewing spigot.

Re:buy oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should go back to using the sustainable, eco-friendly fuel we used before Rockefeller: Whale Oil.

Re:Water is WET!

[tnk1]

The old money Rockefeller descendants and their foundations are not the same people as those who made the money. They're pretty much the poster children for old money guilt. John D. Rockefeller would probably make ExxonMobil look like a Green Party front organization if he was still alive.

Re:Water is WET!

[kuzb]

It's easy to be morally lofty when you're already obscenely rich. Most of us don't have that luxury. I'll continue to pump dead dinosaurs in to my car until someone comes up with an alternative that:

1) has the proper infrastructure to support it everywhere

2) gives me all the same advantages as oil

and

3) isn't either severely gimped or priced like a luxury item

Re:Water is WET!

[westlake]

John D. Rockefeller would probably make ExxonMobil look like a Green Party front organization if he was still alive.

They called it Standard Oil because its products were safe and predictable in use and sold in honest weights and measures --- at a time when it was not at all unusual to be widowed by the explosion of a kerosene lantern. Look at pictures of a Standard Oil refinery and what you see is a recognizably modern chemical plant and a vast improvement over what came before.

The reformer may have blasted the old man night and day for his ruthless consolidation of the industry, but when it came time to tank up he went to the Standard dealer like everyone else.

Re:buy oil

[mspohr]

I think you misread the "explore for new sources of hydrocarbons".
The problem oil companies have is that they currently have "discovered" and have counted as assets on their books more oil that could be possibly be burned without burning up the earth... probably about twice as much. This means that they will have "stranded assets" in the future as it becomes politically, economically, and environmentally impossible to sell all of the oil assets already on their books. They will have to write these assets off as a loss which means that these companies are actually worth a lot less than their "book value".
Rockefeller foundation is smart to divest now and sell their shares to some other sucker who still believes that these book assets are worth something.
In light of this, "there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons". We have already discovered many times more hydrocarbons than we will ever be able to burn.

Re:Water is WET!

[Gussington]

It's easy to be morally lofty when you're already obscenely rich. Most of us don't have that luxury. I'll continue to...

So it's someone else's problem to solve? I think this is the crux of the problem...

Re:Water is WET!

[bane2571]

You seem to be being intentionally dense here.

It's too hard to install an electrical plug?!
Yes, in fact it is actually ILLEGAL for me to install an electrical plug in any place that would be accessible to an electric car. I live in an apartment block so the ownership of the parking spots are shared. In addition these vehicles often require specialist charging equipment .
It's too hard to find a place to park?!
It's too hard to find a place to park with normal cars and I can park them on people's front lawns if I'm feeling like a dick, given a vehicle that requires a specialised charging bay to park in, parking becomes damn near impossible as adoption approaches 100%
(There are now more public Tesla charging stations in NYC than gas stations)
And if the utilisation on those stations is 10X higher than the utilisation of gas pumps, then you will need not more, but 10X the number of. I suspect the figure will be much higher than 10X though I have no data to back that up.
Every car has limitations. Most people can't afford to buy the biggest car that they might ever want to use for a once a year trip. Most people buy something that's economical and practical for their daily use and look at other options for their family vacation or visit to grandma. My daughter lives in the city and doesn't even own a car but finds it easy to rent one for the weekend when she visits... that's her definition of "freedom".
I deliberately don't own a car either but if I was to buy one, for any purpose, I'd be looking at spending around $5000-$10000 for one. That is around the same price as a replacement BATTERY for a tesla vehicle. Cost is a seriously prohibitive factor for non-fossil vehicles right now.

Re:Water is WET!

[jp_831]

I'd vote for a politician who sends out death squads to kill you and your family.

That would be a truly moral act.