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

buy oil

[Anonymous Coward]

They are selling because of emotional reasons, no matter how right they may be, in a capitalist sense it would be best to buy their shares up cheap. Only law or technology will kill big oil not bleeding hearts.

Re:buy oil

[kuzb]

In other news, Lyft and Uber invest 600 million dollars in rickshaws.

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:buy oil

[thinkwaitfast]

Most poor in the west have more wealth than Marie could have hoped to imagine.

Re:buy oil

[dryeo]

That's true, most poor have armies of servants on call, are raised in palaces and have never known hunger.

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?

[MightyMartian]

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.

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?

[Geoffrey.landis]

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),

Yes to the first part: Yes, human sources of climate change are not the only source of climate change; the other sources are still there.

and will continue on its current trend.

...and no to the second. There is very very good evidence that the current trend is due to human activities. There simply are no natural sources of change that have this magnitude of effect this quickly that we would not be able to see. (Remember, we do measure solar output. One thing we know: the current trend is not due to solar variability. If we stop these activities, the current trend will stop. (Although it will take a while to do so.)

2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy)

You just said "unless there are other sources of energy, we have to use the current sources of energy." That statement is a tautology.

OK, so it is desirable to develop new sources of energy if we don't want to use the current sources. Fair enough. Let's get to it.

...

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.)

1. Plastics account for so small an amount of the hydrocarbon usage that you can't even notice it on the pie chart.
2. ...and plastic isn't the problem, since turning fossil hydrocarbons into plastics puts the carbon into the plastic, not into the atmosphere.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Crashmarik]

You mean like this

Ivanpah Solar Plant May Be Forced to Shut Down
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iv...
if you don't subscribe
https://archive.is/nbsND

Power from the two Ivanpah units that serve PG&E last year fetched about $200 a megawatt-hour on average during summer months, and about $135 a megawatt-hour on average the rest of the year, according to sales data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
That compares to an average price of $57 a megawatt-hour for solar power sold under contracts signed in 2015, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Power from natural-gas plants went for $35 a megawatt-hour on average in California’s wholesale market last year, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data compiled by the Energy Department.

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?

[MightyMartian]

No, there isn't a lack of other energy sources. Even the lack of technology to access those other sources is being bridged. What there is is higher initial costs to accessing tidal, solar, hydro-electric, geothermal and so on.

Considering the most severe effects of AGW, which will have drastic effects on rain belts (read: large scale agriculture), this idea that we'll just keep barfing CO2 into the atmosphere, and that's just so much cheaper is beyond idiotic.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[zdavek]

Absolutely nothing wrong with fission if done properly although even fission is currently more expensive than fossil fuels (between 1.5 and 2.5 times). I would suggest changing to something other the uranium based reactions though. Uranium was used because we could do it relatively easy with early tech, we have better tech and options now if the Government would allow it.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. No, it hasn't. Radically and slowly, but not radically and quickly. http://www.scientificamerican..... Nothing comes close.
2. They are not the best we have because of their polluting nature. Even aside from climate change they have large negatives. They do indeed have a huge infrastructure advantage.

The total amount of oil in North America is of minimal relevance; somewhat more relevant is the expected cost of extracting oil as time goes on since that makes oil seem ever-worse by comparison. Also your entire counterargument is moving the original goalpost, which stated that oil was inarguably the only option. This said I'm going to need a cite on proven oil reserves lasting 100 years. I've never heard of anything close to that, and couldn't find it from a quick search. In fact, it sounds like the *worldwide* estimate, from actual oil companies, is about half that: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/world.... "North America alone" has a small slice of that.
3. I advocate we keep using oil for those purposes. It's not a major source of pollution -- at least, not the same kind of pollution -- and it's a small fraction of our overall oil use, so that use really can last hundreds of years. This said, given that this oil use is at a much lower scale, the "nothing else is viable at the scale needed" argument doesn't work as well.

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?

[mirix]

You've never seen electric rail!?

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[mspohr]

Beyond the fear factor, nuclear also has a fundamental problem in that it has gone from "too cheap to meter (predicted)" to too expensive to matter. Solar and wind power are as cheap a coal plants now and keep getting cheaper. Nuclear is much more expensive and just keeps getting more expensive (even in low regulatory environments).
So, nuclear has a "banker" problem. Nobody will give money to build one because they can't pencil out a profit. The only nuclear plants being built are those who have massive government subsidies.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[rahvin112]

That article is a hit piece with no basis in reality. I read it a couple days ago and came away wondering if the author was paid to write it. The author uses data that is more than a year old, neglecting to mention that recent plant numbers are nearing the initial values projected. He ignores that the plant from day one has said that the time to ramp up of full production was an unknown because this is a new type of plant and all new technology takes time to figure out how to run it. It has taken longer than they projected to figure out how to run the plant and optimize it's systems, that isn't in dispute. The author is completely dishonest about the agreement details by selective use of parts of the agreement. In fact I dare say from the selective quotes he's put in the article he's completely rewritten it to say something completely different than it does.

Ivanpah isn't going to shutdown, it's reaching it's energy targets and it's generating power at rates that are competitive, though it does have a bit to go before it reaches optimal operation. IMO this article is a hit piece paid for by a carbon energy conglomerate or one of carbon energies sock puppets such as the Koch foundation. Anyone with any sense should read the article as such, and if anything it indicates how scared carbon based companies are of solar power. When you start seeing paid hit articles (particularly in things like the fox owned WSJ) like this the fear is real. Pay no attention to solar, it's bad, trust them.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Crashmarik]

I feel bad about doing this, but , source please ?

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[zieroh]

yes because nuke powered big rigs on our highways and in our cities is the right idea

Straw man. Nobody mentioned nuclear big rigs.

Try again.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Bartles]

There is nothing about hydrogen that makes it a convenient form of energy.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[jandersen]

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.

Well, sort of, -ish; plastic is one of those universally useful materials, like concrete, but the problem is that we produce enormous amounts of it to be used solely for things that are immediately discarded: carrier bags, wrappings etc. Plastic waste is a huge and growing problem, because there still aren't many organisms that can break down plastics, so it ends up as sharp, brittle particles that cause damage on a microscopic level - a bit like asbestos fibres, I suppose.

At the root of all these problems lie one things, ultimately: consumerism - the absurd idea that we must keep buying and throwing away far more than we need, even to live a very comfortable life. It is, of course, not sustainable and will come to an end at some point. Hopefully we manage to decide to do it voluntarily, in a controlled fashion. It always strikes me as strangely unambitious and void of vision, when people start talking about "we can't suddenly change away from fossil fuels and keep doing everything else as we do now" - well, of course not! The whole point is that we need to change our ways rather fundamentally - we have to stop doing things that rely on uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels, overconsumption, and pollution - I think everybody knows that, even those that try to convince everybody (including themselves) that it isn't so.

We don't even have to live austere lives in bleakness - we just have to stop being stupid and start making a bit of sense. There really is no need for producing huge amounts of cheap tat and transport it halfway arounf the planet; we could start looking into more localised forms of production - things like 3D printers are definitely a step in the right direction. Global consumerism isn't necessary for anything, except for those very few at the top, who are obcessed with constant growth of their own, massive wealth. There are better ways, I think.

In other words

[PeeAitchPee]

They know that petro stocks will be depressed for some time and are using their need to dump them as an opportunity for a feel-good, look-how-green-we-are presser. Just rich Wall Streeters doing what they do . . . nothing to see here, folks.

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.

Water is WET!

[danaris]

Well, yeah. We all know that. Hell, it's in the story summary.

The point is, even Rockefeller is divesting from fossil fuels. It would be like Bill Gates saying, "Y'know, Windows really is pretty terrible, and is likely to get you infected and turned into a bot. Everyone should ditch it and use Linux."

And, frankly, about time, too.

Dan Aris

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!

[kuzb]

1) electricity can do it, but the infrastructure to charge is simply not there in many places. With multi-hour charge times in some cases, it wouldn't take much to get stuck somewhere waiting for hours for a person to be done charging their car.

2) range. it's still not even remotely as good in affordable consumer models. I don't want something that's going to leave me high and dry after 75 miles, and I don't want to have to own a second vehicle for long-range trips.

3) No, I wouldn't because the electric vehicle that currently fits my criteria is still an $80,000+ vehicle. Nobody seems interested in producing something practical for regular people yet.

Re: Water is WET!

[Type44Q]

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

Consideringit was Standard Oil who equipped the Nazi war machine with their ability to turn coal into oil... yeah.

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:Water is WET!

[Hylandr]

This right here.

They are going to drive themselves destitute In their bid to make an impact by joining the chicken little squadron in such a grandeur fashion.

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!

[Gavagai80]

it's easy and cheap to rent a car.

This is very untrue for anyone but the wealthy. To rent a car I'd have to change my insurance to add comprehensive coverage, and the rental cost for just one day would be more than I spend on my car in a typical month.

Don't know much about history.

[westlake]

Consideringit was Standard Oil who equipped the Nazi war machine with their ability to turn coal into oil... yeah.

The geek takes hold of a meme and can't let it go.

Direct conversion of coal to synthetic fuel was originally developed in Germany. The Bergius process was developed by Friedrich Bergius, yielding a patent in 1913. After World War I several plants were built in Germany; these plants were extensively used during World War II to supply Germany with fuel and lubricants.

Indirect coal conversion (where coal is gasified and then converted to synthetic fuels) was developed in Germany by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923.

During World War II, Germany used synthetic oil manufacturing to produce substitute (Ersatz) oil products by using the Bergius process (from coal), the Fischer --- Tropsch process (water gas), and other methods.

Synthetic fuel

The US Bureau of Mines first studied the extraction of oil from oil shale between 1925 and 1928.

Between 1928 and 1944, the Bureau experimented with coal liquefaction by hydrogenation using the Bergius process. A small-scale test unit constructed in 1937 had a 100-pound per day continuous coal feed.

Between 1945 and 1948, new laboratories were constructed near Pittsburgh. A synthetic ammonia plant Louisiana, Missouri (Missouri Ordnance Works) was transferred from the Army to the program in 1945. The plant was converted into a coal hydrogenation test facility. By 1949 the plant could produce 200 barrels (32 m3) of oil a day using the Bergius process.

Part of the personnel were German scientists, who had been extracted from Germany by Operation Paperclip.

Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program

Just one fund, not the foundation

[hlee]

Rockefeller family is big - note that only RFF made that announcement, not jointly with all their other funds or the foundation. It is still a grand gesture, and clearly makes a strong political statement, but I doubt the monetary impact is anywhere close to the Rockefeller foundation.
The Rockefeller Foundation - Founded in 1913, this is the famous philanthropic organization set up by Senior and Junior. Endowment of 3.4 billion.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund - Founded in 1940 by the third-generation's five sons and one daughter of Junior. Endowment of 811 million.
The Rockefeller Family Fund - Founded in 1967 by members of the family's fourth-generation. Endowment ?

Re:What a load of utter bollocks.

[Boronx]

The news here is Exxon's decades-long cover up of its own climate research. This has been a story for months, but apparently many Slashdotters were unaware.