Exxon: Destroying Planet Necessary to Relieve Global Poverty
Michael Brune | October 21, 2014
An ExxonMobil chemical plant along Cancer Alley in Baton Rouge and New Orleans in Louisiana.
The fossil-fuel divestment movement has been on a roll lately to the tune of $50 billion, but one of its biggest successes happened last month: The world’s most profitable oil company squirmed. ExxonMobil’s vice president of public and government affairs published a critique of divestment that concluded by saying that destroying our planet’s climate by recklessly extracting and burning fossil fuel reserves is necessary to relieve global poverty.
This sudden concern is interesting from a company that holds the record for the highest corporate profits ever posted in the U.S. and whose CEO made more than $100,000 a day in 2012 (including Sundays). ExxonMobil hasn’t earned those kinds of profits by worrying overmuch about the poor of the world. As the Sierra Student Coalition‘s Anastasia Schemkes put it: “This is the oil industry saying ‘please don’t be mean to me’ after bullying vulnerable communities around the globe for decades.”
The real message of ExxonMobil’s blog post was unintentional. The fossil fuel divestment movement, which started on college campuses but has since spread to foundation boardrooms and beyond, is achieving its principal goal, which is to raise awareness of how morally indefensible the actions of companies like ExxonMobil really are. I’m not just talking about its core business of extracting as much oil as it can, wherever it can, while it can. This is a company that pretends to care about climate disruption (with lots of talk about “mitigation,” which is code for “do whatever it takes to keep burning fossil fuels”), while simultaneously funding the climate-denial industry and lavishing its largesse on obstructionist legislators.
How can we begin to get companies like this to change? It’s tough to beat such a Goliath through financial pressure alone. Even the most wildly successful divestment campaign is unlikely to dent this mega-corporation’s profits in the near term. But let’s not forget that even the hugest corporation is made up of real people. And real people start to get uncomfortable when it’s clear that not only is what they are doing terribly wrong—but that other people are taking note.
That’s when they start to get defensive—and we can see that divestment really is making a difference.
The oil giant seeks to counter the campaign that urges investors to dump stock in petroleum and coal companies.
By Ben Geman, October 13, 2014
Exxon Mobil is wielding its public relations might against the fossil-fuel divestment movement, signaling that climate-change activists have struck a nerve at the world’s biggest publicly traded oil and gas company.
Exxon Mobil’s blog, titled “Perspectives,” posted a lengthy attack Friday about the divestment movement, which urges universities, churches, pension funds, and other big institutional investors to dump their shares of oil and coal companies as part of the fight against global warming.
But the blog post calls the movement “out of step with reality,” saying it’s at odds with the need for poor nations to gain better access to energy, as well as the need for fossil fuels to meet global energy demand for decades to come.
So far, the climate advocates’ progress at getting a growing number of institutions to shed holdings in fossil fuel companies remains pretty small compared with the scale of the industry they’re battling.
Consider that the roughly 1,700 oil-and-gas and coal companies listed on stock exchanges are worth nearly $5 trillion, notes the research company Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
But the divestment movement has been growing– just last week the University of Glasgow became the first European university to announce divestment plans. And the movement also has a number of high-profile adherents, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African Nobel Prize-winning anti-apartheid leader. (The fossil fuel divestment movement takes its cues from the 1970s and 1980s movement urging divestment from apartheid South Africa.)
Another supporter is Christiana Figueres, the United Nations official shepherding international negotiations aimed at reaching a new global climate pact in late 2015.
But Exxon calls divestment a misplaced solution to climate change.
“Divestment represents a diversion from the real search for technological solutions to managing climate risks that energy companies like ours are pursuing,” writes Ken Cohen, Exxon’s VP for public and government affairs.
Cohen’s post argues that the movement ignores the scale of global energy demand for power, transportation, and other needs, as well as “the inability of current renewable technologies to meet it.”
“Almost every place on the planet where there is grinding poverty, there is also energy poverty. Wherever there is subsistence living, it is usually because there is little or no access to modern, reliable forms of energy,” Cohen writes.
Divestment advocates will find plenty of material to argue about in Exxon’s post. In one case, Exxon cites estimates that renewable energy’s share of the total global mix will be about 15 percent in 2040.
But the activists pushing for divestment, such as Bill McKibben’s 350.org, advocate for more aggressive policies that promote low-carbon energy, and analysts say that would change the global mix a lot more and a lot faster.
While the International Energy Agency has forecast that without policy changes, renewables will meet about 15 percent of total energy needs in 2035, IEA and other agencies have also modeled various other scenarios in which low-carbon energy takes a far larger share.
For instance, in late September, IEA released a “roadmap” of policies explaining how solar power alone could become the world’s biggest source of electricity by 2050 or even earlier.
Divestment advocates have already criticized Exxon’s post.
“This is the oil industry saying ‘please don’t be mean to me’ after bullying vulnerable communities around the globe for decades,” said Anastasia Schemkes, a campaign representative with the Sierra Student Coalition.
Reverend Fletcher Harper, executive director of the pro-divestment group GreenFaith, took issue with Exxon’s assertions that the divestment movement is out of touch. “Divestment advocates have been clear from the start that the divestment campaign is about calling into question the industry’s ‘social license’ to operate. In this regard, divestment is a highly appropriate debate, and highly reality-based,” he said in an email.
Harper also said that advocates agree with the imperative of bringing energy to nations where access is now lacking. “I believe that these energy needs must be met, to the greatest degree possible, with clean, renewable energy. The [Exxon] blog post does not reckon with the fact that coal, oil, and gas combustion are responsible for a large number of deaths annually worldwide,” Harper said.
It’s not the first time Exxon has tussled with divestment advocates.
In response to shareholder activists, Exxon released a report in late March that rebuts advocates’ claims that its fossil fuel reserves are at risk of becoming “stranded assets” in a carbon-constrained world.
Repost from WABC TV7 Eyewitness News, New York, NY [Editor: Trains actually pass right UNDER one school. A shocking video and excellent investigative reporting. Someone really should research and list the schools (and other vital structures) along the Union Pacific tracks proposed as the route for Valero Benicia crude-by-rail. UPDATE, Nov. 1, 2014 – Note previous NRDC study on this issue in California, especially p. 3 of It Could Happen Here, The Exploding Threat of Crude by Rail in California, which lists the number of schools. More detailed mapping is available on the NRDC’s Risk Zone Maps. – RS]
The Investigators: Potentially explosive trains rolling through New York, New Jersey neighborhoods
By Jim Hoffer, October 31, 2014
NEW YORK (WABC) — They are mile-long trains filled with explosive crude oil that the government says are unsafe, yet more and more of them are rolling through neighborhoods in New York and New Jersey.
In an exclusive investigation in which the Eyewitness News Investigators tracked the movements of these trains, we’ve determined that several times a day, they pass right by dozens of schools filled with students.
In some towns, they are called bomb trains: tanker cars filled with millions of gallons of crude oil.
“If you live in community near rail lines, I guarantee you, you know about bomb trains,” said Paul Gallay, president of the environmental group RiverKeeper.
Ten months ago in North Dakota, a fireball from a crude oil train derailment forced the town of 1,400 to evacuate. Then, last April, there were more evacuations in Lynchburg, Virginia, after a CSX oil train derailed there.
Last year, a derailment in a small Canadian town killed 47 people, the devastation made worse because the old rail cars are prone to rupture in a crash.
Just months ago, the federal government told rail shippers they have two years to phase out these older tankers. RiverKeeper thinks the ban should be immediate.
“You have to have better rail cars, and soon,” Gallay said. “And until you do, you shouldn’t be putting communities at risk.”
In the last two years, there’s been a 400 percent increase in crude oil trains rolling down along the Hudson River and into New Jersey. Our investigation has found that along a 60-mile stretch of the rail line from Newburgh to Newark, there are at least 55 schools located within 1,500 feet of the tracks.
Every day, three to four trains filled with millions of gallons of crude from the mid-west roll by these schools.
“It’s totally unacceptable,” mom Sarah McTasney said.
McTasney, of West Nyack, worries that for at least the next two years, these tanker cars that the government says are defective will continue rolling by near her daughter’s school.
“It’s putting our communities at risk,” she said. “And when talking about schools, you’re talking about high concentrations of children.”
A spokesman for CSX Railroad says they’ve put in place numerous safety measures, including increased track inspections, lowering the speeds of some of their trains and installing monitors to detect track defects. The spokesman adds that CSX does not own the railcars but are responsible for moving them safely. And as for safety, our investigation found one school along the CSX rail line that stood out more than the rest.
At West Point Military Academy, long lines of tanker cars filled with highly flammable crude go right under the campus through a tunnel below one of the academy’s main buildings.
“We have evidence from al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups specifically looking at rail targets,” rail security expert Fred Millar said.
CSX says it has worked closely with first-responders in both New York and New Jersey and has advocated for higher design standards for cars.
Here is the list of all the schools located within 1,500 feet of CSX rail line from Newburgh to Newark.
NEW JERSEY
Hawkins Street Elementary- Newark, NJ – 1300 ft
Ethical Community Charter School- Jersey City- 600 ft
Elementary School 2 – Jersey City – 1500 ft
St. Anne’s School – Jersey City – 1500 ft
North Bergen Vocational School – North Bergen, NJ – 500 ft
McKinley School – North Bergen, NJ – 800 ft
St. Brigid’s School – North Bergen, NJ – 1100 ft
Franklin Elementary School – North Bergen, NJ -1100 ft
Robert Fulton School – North Bergen, NJ – 1100 ft
Franklin Elementary School #3 – North Bergen, NJ – 1500 ft
High Tech High School – North Bergen, NJ – 1000 ft
Grant Elementary – Ridgefield Park,NJ – 1400 ft
Han Al High School – Ridgefield Park, NJ – 1400 ft
Lincoln Elementary – Ridgefield Park, NJ – 1300 ft
E Roy Rixby Elementary – Bogota, NJ – 1400 ft
Trinity Lutheran School – Bogota, NJ – 1000 ft
St. Joseph School – Bogota, NJ – 1300 ft
Bogart Memorial School – Bogota, NJ – 400 ft
Bogota Jr. Sr. High – Bogota, NJ – 1200 ft
Teaneck Community Charter School – Teaneck, NJ – 130 ft
Teaneck High School – Teaneck, NJ – 1200 ft
Benjamin Franklin M.S. – Teaneck, NJ – 1200 ft
Yeshiva Gedolah – Teaneck, NJ – 100 ft
Torah Academy – Teaneck, NJ – 250 ft
Ma’ayanot Yeshiva H.S. – Teaneck, NJ – 150 ft
Roy W. Brown M.S. – Bergenfield, NJ – 300 ft
Yeshivat He’Atid – Bergenfield, NJ – 600 ft
Franklin Elementary School – Bergenfield, NJ – 1300 ft
Transfiguration Academy – Bergenfield, NJ – 800 ft
Dumont High School – Dumont, NJ – 500 ft
Newbury Academy – Dumont, NJ – 900 ft
Bergen Center for Child Development – Haworth, NJ – 900 ft
Haworth Public School – Haworth, NJ – 900 ft
Harrington Park Public School – Harrington Park, NJ- 1400 ft
The Goddard School – Norwood, NJ – 100 ft
Thomas Jefferson Elementary – Northvale, NJ – 300 ft
NEW YORK
Dominican College – Orangeburg, NY – 200 ft
Tappan high School – Orangeburg, NY – 1100 ft
St. Dominic’s School – Blauvelt, NY – 1100 ft
St. Catherine’s School – Orangeburg, NY – 1000 ft
Cottage Lane Elementary – Blauvelt, NY – 1300 ft
St. Paul’s School – Valley Cottage, NY – 200 ft
Congers Elementary School – Congers, NY – 200 ft
Haverstraw M.S. – Haverstraw, NY – 1300 ft
Gerald F. Neary Elementary – Haverstraw, NY – 1000 ft
North Rockland Control School District – West Haverstraw, NY – 1300 ft
West Haverstraw Elementary – West Haverstraw, NY – 800 ft
West Point Military Academy – Highland Falls, NY – 0 ft
Cornwall on Hudson Elementary – Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY – 1300 ft
Cornwall Central School District – Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY – 1200 ft
Liberty Street School – Newburgh, NY – 1200 ft
St. Patrick’s – Newburgh, NY – 900 ft
Grand Street Public School – Newburgh, NY – 1000 ft
Newburgh Jabemacle Elementary School – Newburgh, NY – 1200 ft
Mount St. Mary College – Newburgh, NY – 1500 ft.
Many railroad companies want more time to retrofit cars in the U.S. and Canada, but some are forging ahead.
By Joe Eaton for National Geographic, October 31, 2014
Smoke rises from railway cars that were carrying crude oil and derailed in downtown Lac-Megantic, Quebec, in 2013. Regulators in Canada and the United States have been working on new standards for trains that carry flammable fuel. – Photograph by Paul Chiasson, Associated Press
Three days after an oil train derailed and exploded in 2013 in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people, Greg Saxton wandered through the disaster site inspecting tank cars.
For Saxton, the damage was personal. Some of the tank cars were built by Greenbrier, an Oregon-based manufacturer where he’s chief engineer. Almost every car that derailed was punctured, some in multiple places. Crude oil flowed from the gashes, fueling the flames, covering the ground, and running off into nearby waterways.
Each day, as Saxton returned to the disaster zone, he passed a Roman Catholic church. “We never came and went when there wasn’t a funeral going on,” he said.
In the wake of this and other recent accidents as energy production soars in North America, Canadian and U.S. regulators are proposing new safety rules for tank cars that carry oil, ethanol, and other flammable liquids. Saxton and Greenbrier have pushed for swift changes, but others in the industry are asking for more time to retrofit cars like the type that exploded at Lac-Mégantic. (See related stories: “Oil Train Derails in Lynchburg, Virginia” and “North Dakota Oil Train Fire Spotlights Risks of Transporting Crude“)
“If you don’t set an aggressive time line, you won’t see improvements as quickly as the current safety demands require,” Jack Isselmann, a Greenbrier spokesman, said. “We’ve been frankly just perplexed and confused by the resistance.”
Industry Pushes for More Time
The tank cars that derailed at Lac-Mégantic were built before October 2011, when the American Railway Association mandated safety enhancements to the oil and ethanol tankers known in the industry as DOT-111 cars. The cars lacked puncture-resistant steel jackets, thermal insulation, and heavy steel shields, all of which could have lessened the destruction, experts say.
In July, the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposed rules that, if finalized, would require higher safety standards for new oil cars. The rules also require owners to retrofit older cars or remove them from the rails by October 2017.
Canadian regulators in July mandated that DOT-111 tank cars built before 2014 be retrofitted or phased out by May 2017. Transport Canada, which regulates rail safety, has also proposed aggressive safety standards for new tank cars and will seek industry comment this fall before finalizing its rules.
Saxton and others at Greenbrier support the proposed regulations, which could be tremendously lucrative to the company. However, others in the rail supply industry say the proposed retrofit time line cannot be met.
The Railway Supply Institute—a trade organization that represents the rail industry—has asked DOT to allow legacy cars in the oil and ethanol fleet to remain on the rails until 2020.
Thomas Simpson, the institute’s president, said a survey of rail maintenance and repair shops found that only 15,000 of the roughly 50,000 non-jacketed legacy tank cars in the crude oil and ethanol fleet can be modified by the proposed 2017 deadline.
For many cars, the retrofit process would include adding thermal protection systems, thick steel plates at the ends, and outer steel jackets, as well as reconfiguring the bottom outlet valve to ensure it does not break off and release oil during a derailment.
That’s too much work to complete before the deadline, and the regulations have not yet been finalized, Simpson said.
The proposed deadline, he said, will “idle cars waiting for shop capacity and adversely affect the movement of crude and ethanol.”
In comments to U.S. regulators and the press, API tied the safety upgrades to approval of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport Alberta’s tar sands oil through the Midwest to Texas refineries.
The deadly oil train accident at Lac-Megantic, Quebec, raised awareness of the potential dangers of transporting crude by rail. – Photograph by Ryan Remiorz, Associated Press
Both API and the Rail Supply Institute have also warned regulators that a short time line for retrofitting oil cars could cause a spike in truck shipments of oil and ethanol.
But Anthony Swift, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group opposed to Keystone XL, called these arguments misleading. Swift said Keystone XL would have little impact on retrofitting tank cars, because most train traffic from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota moves to East Coast and West Coast refineries. He said that traffic would not be affected by the pipeline.
Keystone XL would have the capacity to carry 830,000 barrels of oil-sands crude a day, with up to 100,000 barrels a day set aside for crude from the Bakken. By 2016, the rail industry in Canada is expected to carry about as much oil as Keystone XL would. The U.S. rail industry is already there: Almost 760,000 barrels a day of crude had traveled by rail by August.
Swift said the costs to the oil industry are worthwhile if lives are saved. “The argument that we need to wait until the oil industry does not need tank cars until we can make them safe is ridiculous on its face,” he said.
Greenbrier Gears Up to Meet Demand
In February, Greenbrier introduced a beefed-up tanker with a 9/16-inch steel shell (1/8-inch thicker than many DOT-111 cars), 11-gauge steel jacket, removable bottom valve, and rollover protection for fittings along the top of the cars.
Greenbrier calls the tanker the “car of the future,” saying it’s eight times safer than the DOT-111. Isselmann said Greenbrier has received more than 3,000 orders for the new car and plans to double its manufacturing capacity by the end of the year.
In June, Greenbrier and Kansas rail-service company Watco joined forces to form GBW Railcar Services, creating the largest independent railcar repair-shop network in North America. Isselmann said the company plans to hire 400 workers and start second shifts at its factories to meet demand for retrofitting DOT-111 tank cars.
In comments to U.S. regulators, GBW said it currently has the capacity to retrofit more than 10 percent of the fleet of DOT-111 tank cars.
Isselmann said that number will grow as other companies take advantage of the market once regulators release final rules. For that reason, he said the industry’s current capacity to meet regulations is less important than its ability to ramp up quickly to capture the increased business that new safety standards could bring.
“This notion that the status quo is going to remain—it’s diversionary at best,” Isselmann said.
Almost every tanker in the Lac-Megantic accident was punctured. New standards would mandate stronger cars, among other measures. – Photograph by Ryan Remiorz, Associated Press
Some in the industry are responding to public concern before rules are finalized. In April, Irving Oil—the owner of Canada’s largest refinery, in Saint John, New Brunswick, where the Lac-Mégantic train was headed before the disaster—completed a voluntary conversion of its crude oil railcar fleet.
Also in April, Global Partners, one of the largest U.S. distributors of gasoline and other fuels, began requiring all crude oil unit trains making deliveries at its East and West Coast terminals to meet October 2011 safety standards for tank car design.
“As an industry, we have both an opportunity and a responsibility to maximize public confidence in the safety of the system that carries these products across the country,” Eric Slifka, Global Partners’ CEO, said in a press release.
A Push to Harmonize Regulations
As the U.S. and Canada consider train safety regulations, oil and rail companies are pushing to ensure that the same tank cars can be used to haul flammable liquids in both countries.
Regulators say they are working together to make that happen. Lauren Armstrong, a spokeswoman at Transport Canada, said the department is holding technical discussions on new tank car standards with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration.
However, coordinating tank car regulations between the two countries would have to overcome current gaps, industry representatives say.
In April, Transport Canada banned the use of the oldest and least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars, which lacked bottom reinforcement. The U.S. so far has not banned the cars from carrying oil and ethanol.
Canada also set a 2017 deadline for retrofitting the cars. In the U.S., regulators are expected to release final rules by early 2015. The process, however, could continue much longer.
The strongest standards will carry the day, said Thomas Simpson, the president of the Railway Supply Institute. Given the large amount of oil that moves between the two countries, Simpson said it makes no business sense for companies to keep two different sets of cars to meet the two sets of rules.
Communities Concerned About Safety
But as final rules are being hammered out in the U.S., some train safety advocates and community groups worry they are being left out of the process.
But she said rail and oil industry lobbyists have had much more access to policymakers than community advocates, and she’s concerned they will have a greater impact on final rules.
“The inside players, the guys in the industry,” she said, “they seem to be able to be in front of the decision-makers more than we have been.”
Exxon Mobil is wielding its public relations might against the fossil-fuel divestment movement, signaling that climate-change activists have struck a nerve at the world’s biggest publicly traded oil and gas company.
You must be logged in to post a comment.