I agree that promoting climate change denial is evil, but these companies don’t have large profit margins. Most oil companies have profit margins below 10%.
Talking about “low” profit margins makes perfect sense when you’re discussing your neighbor Fred’s efforts to make a go of it with his corner store, or any small business, and for that matter, many large businesses, too. But Exxon Mobil is beyond any of those things. It has been pulling in gross revenues on the order of $500 billion a year and even at less than 10% margin its profit has been clocking in at around $45 billion in many years. This is such a staggering amount of money in the hands of a single private corporation – larger than the GDP and national budgets of many countries – that I submit that qualitatively different standards need to apply to how we judge it.
And this is just one company, albeit the largest, among a worldwide cabal of similarly sized oil companies, all universally interested – along with coal companies and all the allied industries – in promoting and extending the use of their products and minimizing, obfuscating, and outright lying about their ill effects, just as tobacco companies once did on a much smaller scale. And that staggering amount of money translates into tremendous power over government policy and public perception, and they have not been reticent to use it. That’s what matters, not their alleged profit margins.
The issue here is that most corporations will in the long run suffer from this regarding the costs, either at the displacement from coastal cities or the unrest caused by the forced migration from the areas affected and other issues. Just on the water issue alone many corporations are finding that this is not going to be pleasing for them. Most of the corporations that are not related to energy are noticing the problem and they are beginning to realize that jumping from a bridge as their fossil fuel energy producing friends are doing is not a good idea.
Just as foundations as the Rockefeller, and many academics are realizing, this issue will affect a lot of corporations. It is only until recently that most corporations are realizing that letting the fossil fuel companies fund all those denier groups that in turn funded the current denier Republicans was a huge mistake (The mistake was on not funding the ones that did support science at the same levels or at a higher one).
IMHO one duty to their shareholders should be to also prevent a flurry of lawsuits like the tobacco companies encountered before finally stopping the direct funding of denial; now the funding is indirect but still there, and the longer it goes I do think that even Rico laws will apply. They need to stop that and to start funding the groups and politicians that will enforce rules that while it will cost them in the short run, the reality is that not doing that will eventually make their shares to be as toxic as their emissions.
These companies, and others, benefit from having huge social costs go unpriced. That’s not just global warming, but also the many other externalities of fossil fuel dependence, from tens of thousands of premature deaths to vast water pollution.
It’s true that getting rid of these externalities would pass costs to the consumer, and so the consumer is also a partner in this scheme. But…
The whole point is that consumers who had to pay the real costs of their purchases, free from explicit and implicit subsidies for fossil fuels, would be choosing marginally less of these costly products and marginally more renewable energy, nuclear, and the rest. And so fossil fuel companies fight tooth and nail to protect their market share from the predations of a truly free market.
What’s really immoral is the particular tactics they use in this self-interested fight, including a campaign of misinformation. (“They” is obviously not every company, but the much of the industry has been involved at one time or another.)
Well, XT, you get the same as I pointed out to rat avatar, history shows (like in the case of acid rain) that one can make the point that we are indeed we all are fundamentally responsible, and we indeed have to change; but past experiences show that shaming the users first is not very effective (and powerful forces do spread FUD to the commoners so as to make them less likely to demand change), where mayor changes are needed a big part of the effort needs to come from the top.
Well, it’s a bit of a Catch-22 at this point. We need fossil fuels unless we want to go back to the joys of hunting and gathering. Certainly we need ‘chemicals’ in various forms in our modern world.
There are alternatives, but for a variety of reasons they aren’t alternatives that could or would completely replace our use of fossil fuels, at least not in the short or medium term. So, companies that produce them today and probably for the next 20-30 years aren’t ‘evil’, and demonstrating by marching on Wall Street is kind of silly to be honest. What can (politically and within economic reality) be done IS being done wrt alternatives, and Exxon or Big Oil™ isn’t the limiting factor right now, but reality. There is no conspiracy to prevent alternatives to gasoline or fossil fueled power production by ‘evil’ corporations, and while I agree with you that Global Warming denial-ism is a problem that certainly should be addressed it doesn’t really get to the heart of the issue, which is we can’t simply stop using fossil fuels regardless of how aware or unaware people are of the facts of climate change.
I think those guys marching on Wall Street would be better served marching on global environmentalist groups who continue to block the use of nuclear energy, since that DOES scale up and if widely used could make a real difference in the amount of CO2 produced yearly. It would be less silly anyway, at least IMHO. YMMV and all that.
Well said, and worth reading a second time.
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that.
But let’s be precise. A “profit margin” is a percentage of profit. What oil companies have are high profits, and high revenues, and large amounts of cash, and all of those can lead to undue influence.
What they don’t have are high profit margins.
Mmm, seems that you are looking too much at the right wing media bubble.
No one that I look at or me proposes that. That idea (that the ones for change are proposing the end of civilization as we know it) is a boilerplate contrarian point, be careful with your sources.
Not what I have found, there is indeed no conspiracy, what they are doing is clear and in the open. And as the current Republicans (Usually of the Tea Party variety and funded by denier groups that are funded in turn by fossil fuel groups) are the ones more willing to stop change, and the current Republicans are the weakest link now, we do have to stop encouraging them.
And I have to say I’m getting disappointed here, as NPR reported the current democratic leadership is not shy on supporting nuclear energy as part of an increase of supporting alternatives.
AFAICR a bill that does that (and includes more support to nuclear) has been delayed or ignored by the Republicans, and this will get worse if a nutso denier like senator Inhofe gets the gavel (in a Republican senate) in the committees dealing with this issue.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Mmm, seems that you are looking too much at the right wing media bubble.
[/QUOTE]
I’m merely reading the OP. 
(FWIW, I don’t actually read or go to right wing media, bubble or otherwise. I get most of my news from CNN, which is hardly right wing)
I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying if we tried, today, to stop using fossil fuels it WOULD be an epic disaster. We aren’t ready for that, and nothing we have today could possibly scale up in the short or medium term to fill the gap.
I think we are pushing new alternatives, but that from a market perspective (or in the case of nuclear, political and entrenched fear) they simply can’t compete, yet, with fossil fuels wrt transport. Power generation, IMHO, is the niche to go after, since a large percentage of CO2 is produced through generation of electricity and we have technologies that could significantly reduce those emissions. And wrt personal transport, I think it’s only a matter of time before we have those, whether they be all electric, hybrid or fuel cell. ‘Evil’ companies are spending literally billions on what they THINK will be the next paradigm wrt personal transport, betting that they know.
It’s going to bite the Republicans right on the butt some day…some day soon IMHO.
It’s entrenched at this point, the attitude that nuclear is evil and dangerous, so it’s going to take a hell of a lot to shift that attitude. Much more than trying to shift ‘Wall Street’ to support a green agenda or whatever…all you have to do there is make a business case that actually works and you’ll see ‘Wall Street’ falling over themselves to get on board. That’s why I say those protesters would be better served, if they REALLY care about the environment and global warming/climate change to poke at environmental groups, since it’s going to take a grassroots shift to change the entrenched attitudes on this, and environmental groups COULD be the catalyst for that. Consider if a number of well respected and widely followed environmental groups came out strongly for a large scale increase in nuclear power plants to shift our energy mix away from fossil fuel power generation.
At this point, I’d be happy if we built ONE new gen 4 reactor in the US, but we are going to need hundreds or even thousands of them to make a difference (and as an example to other countries, especially China and India, that they should too).
Actually, the “miracle” TEL is still used in a few (mostly Third World, AFAIK) countries around the world. The original manufacturers no longer produce TEL, but license the technology. It is still one of the cheapest ways to boost octane, and so used.
I actually work in the chemical industry, and have had more and more contact with China and chemical manufacturers in China in recent years. When I went there last year, the entire country was smogbound, from Shanghai to Beijing, even in the scenic mountains near Hangzhou. Since the company I work for has adopted Responsible Care guidelines, we had to ask about emissions controls and such. The companies I visited were all well aware of the links between emissions and smog, but most haven’t added process controls to improve things – if they do and their competitors don’t, then they compete at a considerable disadvantage on cost/price. Consumers buy the least-expensive option – whether that consumer is an individual or company.
Chinese companies working with some American or European firms have adopted process controls to limit emissions/pollution, in order to get that business. But they won’t all do so until the requirement is imposed by the government. There is quite a bit of pressure for the government to do so, because of the smog, so they may get there soon. But until then, even the folks in China I was dealing with weren’t certain whether foreign (American or European) companies operating in China were following the environmental practices of their home country or the laxer standards of China.
So, China is well aware of the facts about what pollution does to the environment, but continues to allow such for the competitive advantage. There are still a few countries who are well aware of the effects of TEL, who continue to use it because of the lower cost. And these choices are not just made at the corporate level, but on an individual level as well – if you’ve ever bought a cheaper made-in-China (or, years back, made-in-Mexico) product, you’ve made the same decision to prioritize cost to you over potential environmental harm.
If the OP thinks any of his three are evil, it has to be all of them.
Well XT, good to know you are not looking at right wing media sources, but CNN has been found to be too much on the corporate side and regarding this issue I do remember seeing recent surveys where they appear to be almost as bad as FOX in their lack of coverage or misunderstandings on the global warming issue.
There is a nit here:
Not paying those protesters too much attention, and the important point here is being missed, the Democratic leadership is ignoring them too, as they are mostly not opposed to nuclear power precisely for the environmental issue.
The point here was that one should look at what the leaders are willing to vote for, and not what protesters that are mostly ignored by the party do. Contrast that with the ugly reality that the current blind Republican leadership is letting their protesters (against doing anything) drive the ship.
Not sure about this one, IIUC gen 4 reactors are on the planning stages and theoretical right now.
Currently there are about 5 new reactors in the USA that are based on the latest developed designs are under construction.
When I said “given a scientifically accurate understanding of the facts” I was referring to the general public, particularly in the high-consumption industrialized world with huge markets and globally influential government policies. I have no doubt that corporate leaders are well aware of the environmental effects of their activities, just like tobacco companies were well aware that they were killing people. Which is precisely why the tobacco companies commissioned fake studies and engaged in similar disinformation campaigns to try to “prove” just the opposite.
To the extent that corporations are driven to care only about their bottom line and their competitiveness, the responsibility of protecting the public interest falls to government, in the three-pronged areas of regulatory policy, international environmental treaties, and trade policy. And governments won’t act if the public is ignorant and apathetic; indeed they won’t act unless there is relentless pressure from an informed and outraged electorate, like those guys marching in New York last Sunday, only a lot more of them. And this is precisely what the fossil fuel industry and their allies are afraid of and are hell-bent on preventing. Instead they misinform the public, spread doubt and dissent about well-established science, and help elect politicians who lie to their constituents and flagrantly refer to climate change as a “hoax”.
A bit of humor on this serious subject. 
It’s quite ironic, hilarious even, how you frame the debate. The real blame happens when there isn’t any fuel. Plain and simple. If the natural gas isn’t flowing, the gasoline pump is dry, or the electric company isn’t burning something to deliver power, that’s when blame happens.
Only if they stop allowing mankind to survive.
My electric company hasn’t burned anything in 37 years. I’ll be sure to keep an eye out for the blame, though, in case it happens.
Why not come up here to New Hampshire this coming winter and live off the land and not purchase the products of these companies ?
You might make it through December, but I doubt very far in to January before you get your cold ass down to the local fuel supply dealer and drop some cash.
I for one am glad they are in business and fill up the tank on a regular basis.
That seems to be a simplistic view of the situation. For example, say the company provides fuel by murdering people to control territory and lies to the public about it? Is that a net positive?
Power, gasoline and chemicals are a red herring. Companies in general are evil (despite the fact that many of them do much good, and most of the people involved in running most of them probably have good intentions). Privately owned companies, structured, as the system insists they must be, to place profit-making, the extraction of value from people, above all other possible goals, are an inherently evil way to structure an economy.