Thursday, June 01, 2006
Exxon has a new CEO; I like him already
On the Washington Post’s web site, a picture of some protesters outside an annual stockholders’ meeting for Exxon provides the link to a story on same: Exxon Mobil Shareholders Defy Board (the defiance was on a non-binding resolution – big whoop). The picture’s caption is what got me to follow the link: Exxon Chief Sneers at Global Warming 'Consensus'
Now this being the Post, anything short of genuflection at the altar of mankind’s (read: United States) guilt for global warming amounts to a dissing so I initially took this as typical Post hyperbole. But if Post writer Steven Mufson has quoted new Exxon chief Rex Tillerson correctly and within context, well then maybe the “sneering” descriptive isn’t too far off:
“Tillerson was most combative with critics of Exxon's funding of scientists and institutes that cast doubt on global warming. With reference to the global warming debate, he said that the phrase "scientific consensus" was an "oxymoron." And he denounced those who said the company was underwriting "junk science," arguing that Exxon was simply taking part in the "debate" over global warming.”
You go, Rex!!
Much of the story focused on shareholder dissatisfaction with the recent pay package announced for outgoing chief Lee Raymond but we do learn that Exxon once again raised their dividend “...as they have every year since 1983.”
Also, in response to Exxon’s approach to “global warming”:
“…Tracey C. Rembert, a representative of the Service Employees International Union, which owns $12.5 million worth of Exxon stock, said Exxon had funded groups that "have tried to muddle the debate" on global warming, not clarify it. She said it was unfortunate because "in so many other ways Exxon excels at long-range thinking."
She then announced that her union could not be part of such irresponsibility and would be selling their stock.
Ha!! Just kidding! Did you already forget the part about the dividend increase? Such a sale would be like law professors announcing they would willingly take a cut in pay as part of a principled stand against “Don’t ask; don’t tell”.
Finally, the article mentions that the annual meeting “attracted a small number of protesters”. However, they must have been of the plucky type as Mr. Mufson devotes three paragraphs to them and the Post site provides two pictures.
Would that some of our successes in Iraq get half that much coverage in the Post.
Now this being the Post, anything short of genuflection at the altar of mankind’s (read: United States) guilt for global warming amounts to a dissing so I initially took this as typical Post hyperbole. But if Post writer Steven Mufson has quoted new Exxon chief Rex Tillerson correctly and within context, well then maybe the “sneering” descriptive isn’t too far off:
“Tillerson was most combative with critics of Exxon's funding of scientists and institutes that cast doubt on global warming. With reference to the global warming debate, he said that the phrase "scientific consensus" was an "oxymoron." And he denounced those who said the company was underwriting "junk science," arguing that Exxon was simply taking part in the "debate" over global warming.”
You go, Rex!!
Much of the story focused on shareholder dissatisfaction with the recent pay package announced for outgoing chief Lee Raymond but we do learn that Exxon once again raised their dividend “...as they have every year since 1983.”
Also, in response to Exxon’s approach to “global warming”:
“…Tracey C. Rembert, a representative of the Service Employees International Union, which owns $12.5 million worth of Exxon stock, said Exxon had funded groups that "have tried to muddle the debate" on global warming, not clarify it. She said it was unfortunate because "in so many other ways Exxon excels at long-range thinking."
She then announced that her union could not be part of such irresponsibility and would be selling their stock.
Ha!! Just kidding! Did you already forget the part about the dividend increase? Such a sale would be like law professors announcing they would willingly take a cut in pay as part of a principled stand against “Don’t ask; don’t tell”.
Finally, the article mentions that the annual meeting “attracted a small number of protesters”. However, they must have been of the plucky type as Mr. Mufson devotes three paragraphs to them and the Post site provides two pictures.
Would that some of our successes in Iraq get half that much coverage in the Post.
Comments:
<< Home
I'm old enough to remember when we were faced with a new ice age about 25 - 30 years ago; so the globaly warming doesn't frighten me too much.
I know someone who does research on indoor pollution. He doesn't see that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. Naturally tobacco companies fund his research. Naturally he is tarred for having received the funding and has it suggested that his research is the result of those funds.
It's funny that those who are so openminded assume that if you disagree with them you must be corrupt because you couldn't possibly come to the wrong conclusion unless you were somehow impaired.
Post a Comment
I know someone who does research on indoor pollution. He doesn't see that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. Naturally tobacco companies fund his research. Naturally he is tarred for having received the funding and has it suggested that his research is the result of those funds.
It's funny that those who are so openminded assume that if you disagree with them you must be corrupt because you couldn't possibly come to the wrong conclusion unless you were somehow impaired.
<< Home
