I know that it has become an increasing strategy for green organizations and supporters to buy stocks in chemical companies to try to effect change from the inside. There was a story in the Chronicle today about 8 proposals by green shareholders to, among other things, increase the companies efforts into finding renewable energy sources and adopting anti-gay descrimination rules at Exxon/Mobil. All the proposals failed with only the descrimination effort recieving moderate support. The Exxon CEO say that they wanted to dramatically increase drilling and production even if "global demand decreased." Wow! Genius. Anyway, the irony is that two versions of this story actually appeared in the Chronicle. One is currently on the net in their business section and is VERY friendly towards Exxon. The other version is in today's hard copy of the Chronicle and included the quote I have above along with others. Even the titles are different with the one in the Chronicle hard copy beings "Shareholders go with Exxon Mobil" and the one on the net saying "Exxon Mobil shareholders reject green proposals." The online version did not include quotes from some shareholders including the president of Greenpeace, but did include really stupid quotes from Bianca Jagger of all people. Man, I hate when stars stand up and talk **** about something. It does absolutely nothing for the credibility of the movement. But, I digress... In the online story, the writer also went out of the way to point out that some scinetists dispute the existance of global warming while the hard copy story was more balanced saying that some disagreed while others didn't. Does anyone else find this odd? ------------------ The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama
Jeff, let me ask you a question. Why do you think Exxon is planning on doing this? I mean, no offense, but I am certain Exxon's CEO knows more about the petroleum industry than you do. And, given that my dad's worked in that industry for nearly 30 years, I think I personally know more about it too. And Exxon's reason for this is clear to me-- so I wonder, what do you think they're trying to accomplish?
If Big Oil is going to price gouge consumers as many are now claiming, bringing more oil to the market during a period of decreasing global demand is pretty stupid. Sounds to me like Dr. Lee Raymond, CEO of Exxon/Mobil, didn't get that collusion memo from the other heads of Big Oil. ------------------
I have to agree with the Kagy guy here. From a purely business standpoint, there are some good reasons to continually expand production regardless of market conditions. I remember the good ol' days when I didn't agree with Brian on anything. I miss those days...... ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
I agree with Kagy too. I think oil companies should be drilling everywhere there's oil, including ANWAR and the Florida and California coasts. I was trying to debunk the price-gouging/collusion myths. ------------------
One word: money. That really wasn't the point of this post. The point was that I found it strange that the Chron would put two different versions of the story out. Anyone care to comment on THAT? ------------------ The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama
I *despise* it when people who act like global warming isn't likely. There isn't UNIVERSAL scientific certainty. But nearly all credible scientists have indicated that they believe that man-caused warming is *extremely* likely. To be sure, there's far too great of a chance not to at least suspect it. About the only scientists who still actively write papers arguing against it are paid by the oil industry. The evidence is really overwhelming. Anyone who's currently in CX debate can tell you that . In the tournaments I went to this last year, I don't think a single team won that argument that claimed global warming wasn't happening and caused by man. It's not a certainty. But it's idiotic not to treat it as one for policy purposes. I remember reading a Condoleeza Rice article this year that claimed that the US should not enter the Kyoto Agreement "whatever the truth about global warming," and that pissed me off. If you want to say "let's get a better treaty..." fine. But don't attack your opponent where he's almost certainly RIGHT. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 01, 2001).]
