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

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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!

[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!

[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: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: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.