Rockefeller Fund Dumping Fossil Fuels, Hits Exxon On Climate Issues (cnbc.com) 231
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."
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."
RockEfeller? (Score:2)
buy oil (Score:2, Interesting)
They are selling because of emotional reasons, no matter how right they may be, in a capitalist sense it would be best to buy their shares up cheap. Only law or technology will kill big oil not bleeding hearts.
Re: (Score:2)
The fund pays for charities too. They probably get a lot of pushback to have guilt-free income sources.
Re: (Score:3)
In other news, Lyft and Uber invest 600 million dollars in rickshaws.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? If all new drilling were suspended tomorrow, the current wells (many of them idled because there's TOO MUCH OIL already) won't magically stop existing.
Mind you, you also wrote this [slashdot.org]
I can't wait for the throngs of homeless in your scenario!
I dunno...Humans have been survivors since their beginnings on this earth.....
I somehow doubt that the masses will either give up and die on the streets or become criminals.
My thoughts are that if you force most people to get off the dole...they will do something to get work and survive.
I can't believe the majority will resort to crime or just give up...that's now how humans work.
"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche".
-- Marie Antoinette.
She figured poverty wasn't something to lose your head over - the guillotine proved otherwise. Desperate people in desperate times resort to desperate measures. Even the Romans, with their bread and circuses, understood that.
Qu'ils mangent de la brioche (Score:2)
If you know enough to quote the original French (brioche is delicious btw) why did you bother attributing it to M. Antoinette? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's true, most poor have armies of servants on call, are raised in palaces and have never known hunger.
Re:buy oil (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It is odd that they would publicly announce it. They are rich and greedy and annoucing the sale of crappy shares that a likely to lose a whole bunch of value makes little sense ie you are driving down the price whilst you are trying to sell. I smell a little stock manipulation, they have already lost a bundle on the reduce price of fossil fuel stock. So attack the PR=B$ story that all is rosy in fossil fuel stocks, to really drive down the price selling lots early to help that trend. When it hits bottom, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Fiduciary sense? (Score:2, Insightful)
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), 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 un
Re:Fiduciary sense? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fossil counts for some 90%+ of transportation energy, almost all of plastic and a lot chemical production, and something like 75% of all electricity.
There's nothing right now that can cover that scale of energy and production.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you can stop using so much of it. Conservation can work. Turn off your lights, get energy efficient appliances, stop commuting with just one person in the SUV, buy locally produced goods and food rather than having it shipped from the other side of the planet, and so forth. For larger groups or countries they can stop cutting down old growth forests and slashing and burning rainforests. It's like a friend who complains that he's got no money left at the end of the month even though he's got a new
Re:Fiduciary sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
rather than just reinvesting in McDonalds or something.
I'm pretty sure their fries are cooked in West Texas Intermediate though it might be Brent Crude...
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Well, sort of, -ish; plastic is one of those universally useful materials, like concrete, but the problem is that we produce enormous amounts of it to be used solely for things that are immediately discarded: carrier bags, wrappings etc. Plastic waste is a huge and growing problem, because there still aren't many organisms that can break down plastics, so it ends up as sharp, brittle particles that cause damage on a microscopic level - a bit like asbestos fibres, I suppose.
At the root of all these problems
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
yes because nuke powered big rigs on our highways and in our cities is the right idea
Straw man. Nobody mentioned nuclear big rigs.
Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
More like electric trains and even electric big rig trucks powered by an overhead network of high voltage wires on the highways and by fuel cells or more overhead wires on secondary roads. The electricity could be generated by nuclear power plants.
Re: Fiduciary sense? (Score:2)
Hydrogen is a solid option. Split from water using excess solar or wind power, burn it or use fuel cells on the sea. Another option is charged liquid electrolytes for a reflow battery (they're what ships crave!).
Powering ships is easy, they have much less rigid constraints on fuel weight or volume.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. It still requires more energy to split it than you get from it. If you're going to split it with electricity you might as well just put that electricity into a battery instead.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, it's a form of energy storage, not a pre-charged energy source like fossil fuels. What's more important here is convenience and efficiency, not so much where the energy comes from. And it's far faster & easier to top up some hydrogen or electrolyte tanks over a pipe than to recharge giant lithium batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. It still requires more energy to split it than you get from it. If you're going to split it with electricity you might as well just put that electricity into a battery instead.
Your statement is a very good example of the tendency for smart people to say stupid things because they haven't grasped the fucking point. Nobody said Hydrogen was an energy source. Electricity isn't an energy source, either. Both are just a convenient form of energy that makes it portable, given the right container. This is, in fact, the main benefit that gasoline has -- not as a fuel source, but as an extremely dense portable energy form. The fact that gasoline is also an energy source gives it an obviou
Re: Fiduciary sense? (Score:3)
There is nothing about hydrogen that makes it a convenient form of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
... electric cargo ships. electric tractor-trailers. electric rail?
electric planes oh mine. the only thing that's remotely replaceable with electric at this time is maybe passenger vehicle.
Re: (Score:3)
You've never seen electric rail!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.
Hi, and welcome!, you appear not to have used the internet before.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding the alternatives to plastics; the increase in demand for the agricultural ingredient would cause an increase in its production. This would shift the demand for petroleum products from plastic production to fertilizer production and further contribute to soil depletion and groundwater contamination from runoff with the end result being an inferior plastic-like product. So no, there aren't any ways to produce plastic products that would yield a net positive result in the end. Not yet anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
1. That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly.
This is quite debatable, and highly politicized. It also does not invalidate my point, since you have provided nothing more than a vague allusion from your sentence, and have not disproven what you were replying to as it stands.
2. There are no lack of other sources of energy. Hydrocarbons are hardly the only solution.
I have already said that. See the part where I specifically wrote "...for providing the majority of humanity's energy..." Therefore my statement is still true.
I'll help you out: Nuclear is still treated like some sort of venereal disease, solar and wind only work under limited condit
Re: (Score:2)
1. Only if you ignore the scientific findings you find so troubling. Otherwise it's patently obvious from the data what's happening. You choosing to not believe it is your problem, not anyone else's.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is what we know from actual evidence.
Through burning fossil fuels and making cement and cutting down trees and other land clearing we are increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by generally around 2ppm per year resulting in an increase from 280ppm (pre-industrial 19th century) to around 403ppm now.
This increased level of CO2 has probably caused a temperature increase of around 0.8 celsuis since the 19th century and will very likely continue to raise temperatures by similar amounts each century.
Re: (Score:2)
The onset of the last ice age happened in the space of a single human generation. Quite a bit faster than the gloomiest AGW predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there isn't a lack of other energy sources. Even the lack of technology to access those other sources is being bridged. What there is is higher initial costs to accessing tidal, solar, hydro-electric, geothermal and so on.
Considering the most severe effects of AGW, which will have drastic effects on rain belts (read: large scale agriculture), this idea that we'll just keep barfing CO2 into the atmosphere, and that's just so much cheaper is beyond idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean those highly speculative and completely unproven effects generated by simplistic (as compared to the immense complexity of an actual planet) computer programs? GIGO. I think we as a species should make decisions based on real science and not pseudo-science disguised as real science because the fake science happens on a computer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. No, it hasn't. Radically and slowly, but not radically and quickly. http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com]. Nothing comes close.
2. They are not the best we have because of their polluting nature. Even aside from climate change they have large negatives. They do indeed have a huge infrastructure advantage.
The total amount of oil in North America is of minimal relevance; somewhat more relevant is the expected cost of extracting oil as time goes on since that makes oil seem ever-worse by comparison. Also
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
So, what's wrong with fission? Other than some people's overblown and misguided fear of it?
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely nothing wrong with fission if done properly although even fission is currently more expensive than fossil fuels (between 1.5 and 2.5 times). I would suggest changing to something other the uranium based reactions though. Uranium was used because we could do it relatively easy with early tech, we have better tech and options now if the Government would allow it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what's wrong with fission? Other than some people's overblown and misguided fear of it?
I agree, wholeheartedly. Problem is that when you say "nuclear power" to populations and politicians, they immediately think "Chernobyl" and "Fukushima", and not "hey, that's a working technology we can improve on for efficiency and safety!"
It's a people problem, not a technical one. Problem is, until you overcome the former, the latter will remain stifled and stunted in progress.
Re: (Score:3)
Beyond the fear factor, nuclear also has a fundamental problem in that it has gone from "too cheap to meter (predicted)" to too expensive to matter. Solar and wind power are as cheap a coal plants now and keep getting cheaper. Nuclear is much more expensive and just keeps getting more expensive (even in low regulatory environments).
So, nuclear has a "banker" problem. Nobody will give money to build one because they can't pencil out a profit. The only nuclear plants being built are those who have massive gov
Wait for the other shoe to drop (Score:2)
What you see as voluntary today, will be mandatory tomorrow, and it will be enforced. What's more these people will buy the politicians they need to make it happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Paranoid nonsense. I'd expect nothing less from you - these discussions always bring out your bad side. Remember when you didn't know the difference between ice on the sea and ice on the land? You kept on arguing your damaged logic for all to see, completely unaware of just how wrong your grasp of basic science was.
Re:Fiduciary sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fiduciary sense? (Score:5, Informative)
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. ...and plastic isn't the problem, since turning fossil hydrocarbons into plastics puts the carbon into the plastic, not into the atmosphere.
2.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the gp was re
Re: (Score:2)
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), 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...
3) 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.)
On the plus side, this is a decision made by a private company, and they're risking their own money to do so... at least government isn't pushing these decisions upon an unwilling populace. ...and yes dear pro-AGW crowd, please feel free to mod the post down in a massive knee-jerk reaction, but how about instead of lashing out, you do us a favor and show us all where the alternatives are. If you're reading this, you are most definitely a beneficiary of petroleum, so...
Well I'm ore than willing to pay extra for glass bottles and glass containers. So what if you can't stack glass jars.
Re:Fiduciary sense? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what if you can't stack glass jars.
Lies. You should see my pantry I have a bunch of glass jars stacked in it, granted they are mason jars filled with delicious jams, stews, sauces, honey, maple syrup, and veggies so they have a pretty rectangular profile unlike most glass containers in stores that instead have long necks or disproportionately small openings to the main volume of the container.
That said I do prefer to buy things in a glass container especially if it will take a mason jar lid (regular or wide mouth) and will reuse those for storing other things I want to keep moisture or pests out of.
Not a company (Score:2)
The Rockefeller Fund, otherwise known as the Rockefeller Foundation is NOT a company but a foundation, or a grant funding organization, AKA a charity. They are not in 'business' to make a profit but rather make donations to worthy causes and hopefully set a socially responsible example for others to follow. In reality it is probably an attempt to balance out the horrible karma John D. generated on his rise to riches, and maybe shave some time from the sentence in hell he is serving for being such a bastard
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tax shelter that buys influence through contributions to the "non-profits" of Rockefeller allies so they can employ the daughters and sons of the powers-that-be for $350k+/year. Oil hits $80+/bbl and they'll quietly buy back in, and no one will post a story about it on Slashdot.
Re:Fiduciary sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do),... ...and will continue on its current trend.
True. There are many forces beyond those attributable to the anthropogenic that cause climate to change.
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: (Score:2)
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.
False.
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...
False.
3) 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.)
False.
Any questions?
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Actually fission would work too. It would just be a lot more expensive than coal. As in 2-3 times more expensive most likely. IOW it would be fine for rich people but would seriously suck for poor people and poor countries. If you make less than say $400 USD per month you may find you cannot afford to even use electricity if all or nearly all electricity is from a nuclear source. I have noticed that a lot of the AGW alarmists are not poor, at least not by my standard of 'poor'. Their electric bill is not a
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like this
Ivanpah Solar Plant May Be Forced to Shut Down
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iv... [wsj.com]
if you don't subscribe
https://archive.is/nbsND [archive.is]
Power from the two Ivanpah units that serve PG&E last year fetched about $200 a megawatt-hour on average during summer months, and about $135 a megawatt-hour on average the rest of the year, according to sales data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
That compares to an average price of $57 a megawatt-hour for solar power sold under contracts signed in 2015, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Power from natural-gas plants went for $35 a megawatt-hour on average in California’s wholesale market last year, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data compiled by the Energy Department.
Re: (Score:3)
That article is a hit piece with no basis in reality. I read it a couple days ago and came away wondering if the author was paid to write it. The author uses data that is more than a year old, neglecting to mention that recent plant numbers are nearing the initial values projected. He ignores that the plant from day one has said that the time to ramp up of full production was an unknown because this is a new type of plant and all new technology takes time to figure out how to run it. It has taken longer tha
Re: (Score:3)
I feel bad about doing this, but , source please ?
Re: (Score:2)
how about the rest of the world?? id say there are 2 billion plus out there who either dont have electricity or have rolling brownouts on a regular
In other words (Score:5, Interesting)
Bull. (Score:2)
I find your lack of knowledge disturbing.
The fact that the ROCKEFELLER fund came to the conclusion is the news. Rockefeller made his money by creating the modern oil industry. He monopolized oil, beating up anyone that refused to sell their oil wells to him.
Basically, it's the equivalent of Bill Gates's charities selling all their Microsoft stock and buying Apple shares.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Standard Oil (S.O.) became a monopoly and it was how the anti-monopoly laws came into being.
Standard Oil's retail chain still remains today. The oil distribution network became Exxon, while the retail chain kept its name SO, somewhat - Esso. (Which is where that funny name came from)
Re: (Score:2)
Selling off stocks after they've seemingly hit their nadir is a common mistake rookie investors make. When a stock bottoms out, that's actually the best time to buy them. So the fact that they're selling it now actually lends credence to the backstory that they're doing it for environmental reasons. Only way your theory would fit is if they thought oil was going
Oh Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Rockefeller fund is heavily invested in Hydrocarbons and ALWAYS has been. It is extremely difficult for a fund with that much money not to be invested in hydrocarbons because there are so few companies that have a capital worth such that investments by the fund would see profitable returns.
To attribute this change in investment strategy as a short term maneuver due to market performance is very shortsighted. The divestment of the Rockefeller fund from hydrocarbons is going to affect the stocks of each o
Predictions on what this will do the price of oil? (Score:2)
Bad time to be a geology major. (Score:2)
"there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons,"
In related news, across the nation's university campuses the entire freshman class of geology majors looked at each other and said "shit, now what?".
(I joke because I have sons at two of the big petro-geology colleges (Colorado School of Mines and U of Oklahoma), and although one is taking geology, it's with an eye to paleontology. He already knows he's not going to make any money. (grin))
Virtue signalling (Score:2)
So they were vested in Exxon for the years of high oil prices, but now that oil has tanked they're pulling out for better opportunities. As a bonus they get to do a little climate grandstanding. Brilliant. That's the sort of thinking that insures the Rockefellers make the big bucks.
Lap it up. Your training is working as intended.
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been much better to sell a few years ago before oil tanked. (Remember the old saying "Buy low, sell high"... they seem to be selling low.)
Re: (Score:2)
good for rocky, will not change exxon (Score:2)
Exxon's value is going to go way down, but oil use will simply continue a slow downward spiral to about 1/3-1/4 of current usage.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that while EVs in 2 years are likely to destroy new ICE vehicle sales,
No. They haven't even gotten the infrastructure in place yet, so... no. There are too many things still to fix to make that a reality; I'll just point out one.
At peak periods a single fuel station on a popular holiday route (to the coast) where I am sees roughly 2500 fill-ups per hour; this is in the middle of a 600km drive. If you take 60 mins to charge the car up (best-case scenario) you need parking bays for at least 2500 cars. Doable, but at many times the cost to the charging station owner who won't
LENR (Score:2)
There's another theory on this..
sifferkoll.se has some compelling analysis of price moves as more information and more replications of various low energy nuclear reaction type technologies happen.
2016 will be an interesting year.
Just one fund, not the foundation (Score:3)
Rockefeller family is big - note that only RFF made that announcement, not jointly with all their other funds or the foundation. It is still a grand gesture, and clearly makes a strong political statement, but I doubt the monetary impact is anywhere close to the Rockefeller foundation.
The Rockefeller Foundation - Founded in 1913, this is the famous philanthropic organization set up by Senior and Junior. Endowment of 3.4 billion.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund - Founded in 1940 by the third-generation's five sons and one daughter of Junior. Endowment of 811 million.
The Rockefeller Family Fund - Founded in 1967 by members of the family's fourth-generation. Endowment ?
Water is WET! (Score:5, Interesting)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 pump dead dinosaurs in to my car until someone comes up with an alternative that:
1) has the proper infrastructure to support it everywhere
2) gives me all the same advantages as oil
and
3) isn't either severely gimped or priced like a luxury item
Re:Water is WET! (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Water is WET! (Score:4, Informative)
1) electricity can do it, but the infrastructure to charge is simply not there in many places. With multi-hour charge times in some cases, it wouldn't take much to get stuck somewhere waiting for hours for a person to be done charging their car.
2) range. it's still not even remotely as good in affordable consumer models. I don't want something that's going to leave me high and dry after 75 miles, and I don't want to have to own a second vehicle for long-range trips.
3) No, I wouldn't because the electric vehicle that currently fits my criteria is still an $80,000+ vehicle. Nobody seems interested in producing something practical for regular people yet.
Re: (Score:2)
1) electricity can do it, but the infrastructure to charge is simply not there in many places. With multi-hour charge times in some cases, it wouldn't take much to get stuck somewhere waiting for hours for a person to be done charging their car.
Have you notice that electrical infrastructure is ubiquitous... it is literally everywhere and it is trivial to install a plug to charge a car. (Unlike oil infrastructure which relies on "gas stations" fed by tanker trucks.)
2) range. it's still not even remotely as g
Re: (Score:2)
>Have you notice that electrical infrastructure is ubiquitous... it is literally everywhere and it is trivial to install a plug to charge a car. (Unlike oil infrastructure which relies on "gas stations" fed by tanker trucks.)
Sure, it is everywhere. However the places to charge are not. It's like having hundreds of gas tankers around and no gas station. There are space limitations to consider as well - it takes a few minutes to fill a gas car. It takes substantially longer to charge a car, meaning you
Re: (Score:2)
It's too hard to install an electrical plug?!
It's too hard to find a place to park?!
(There are now more public Tesla charging stations in NYC than gas stations)
Every car has limitations. Most people can't afford to buy the biggest car that they might ever want to use for a once a year trip. Most people buy something that's economical and practical for their daily use and look at other options for their family vacation or visit to grandma. My daughter lives in the city and doesn't even own a car but finds it
Re:Water is WET! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's too hard to install an electrical plug?!
Yes, in fact it is actually ILLEGAL for me to install an electrical plug in any place that would be accessible to an electric car. I live in an apartment block so the ownership of the parking spots are shared. In addition these vehicles often require specialist charging equipment
It's too hard to find a place to park?!
It's too hard to find a place to park with normal cars and I can park them on people's front lawns if I'm feeling like a dick, given a vehicle that requires a specialised charging bay to park in, parking becomes damn near impossible as adoption approaches 100%
(There are now more public Tesla charging stations in NYC than gas stations)
And if the utilisation on those stations is 10X higher than the utilisation of gas pumps, then you will need not more, but 10X the number of. I suspect the figure will be much higher than 10X though I have no data to back that up.
Every car has limitations. Most people can't afford to buy the biggest car that they might ever want to use for a once a year trip. Most people buy something that's economical and practical for their daily use and look at other options for their family vacation or visit to grandma. My daughter lives in the city and doesn't even own a car but finds it easy to rent one for the weekend when she visits... that's her definition of "freedom".
I deliberately don't own a car either but if I was to buy one, for any purpose, I'd be looking at spending around $5000-$10000 for one. That is around the same price as a replacement BATTERY for a tesla vehicle. Cost is a seriously prohibitive factor for non-fossil vehicles right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Some Data (Score:2)
It's too hard to install an electrical plug?!
It is if you want to install one which can charge your car rapidly. This is not just your standard wall socket and if you only plug it into a standard wall socket it you get 46km range per hour from Tesla's own figures [teslamotors.com] (so that might be on the optimistic side) so if you ever forget to plug it in you will be 1-2 hours late for work. Even then the 240V socket only doubles the recharge rate.
The comparison of petrol stations to charging spots is also highly disingenuous. For a start a single petrol station
Re: (Score:3)
This is very untrue for anyone but the wealthy. To rent a car I'd have to change my insurance to add comprehensive coverage, and the rental cost for just one day would be more than I spend on my car in a typical month.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Water is WET! (Score:3)
John D. Rockefeller would probably make ExxonMobil look like a Green Party front organization if he was still alive.
Consideringit was Standard Oil who equipped the Nazi war machine with their ability to turn coal into oil... yeah.
Don't know much about history. (Score:4, Informative)
Consideringit was Standard Oil who equipped the Nazi war machine with their ability to turn coal into oil... yeah.
The geek takes hold of a meme and can't let it go.
Direct conversion of coal to synthetic fuel was originally developed in Germany. The Bergius process was developed by Friedrich Bergius, yielding a patent in 1913. After World War I several plants were built in Germany; these plants were extensively used during World War II to supply Germany with fuel and lubricants.
Indirect coal conversion (where coal is gasified and then converted to synthetic fuels) was developed in Germany by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923.
During World War II, Germany used synthetic oil manufacturing to produce substitute (Ersatz) oil products by using the Bergius process (from coal), the Fischer --- Tropsch process (water gas), and other methods.
Synthetic fuel [wikipedia.org]
The US Bureau of Mines first studied the extraction of oil from oil shale between 1925 and 1928.
Between 1928 and 1944, the Bureau experimented with coal liquefaction by hydrogenation using the Bergius process. A small-scale test unit constructed in 1937 had a 100-pound per day continuous coal feed.
Between 1945 and 1948, new laboratories were constructed near Pittsburgh. A synthetic ammonia plant Louisiana, Missouri (Missouri Ordnance Works) was transferred from the Army to the program in 1945. The plant was converted into a coal hydrogenation test facility. By 1949 the plant could produce 200 barrels (32 m3) of oil a day using the Bergius process.
Part of the personnel were German scientists, who had been extracted from Germany by Operation Paperclip.
Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program [wikipedia.org]
Re:Water is WET! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
People often make the mistake of assuming that the old monopolies were created by evilness and killing. Really when you look at it, every one of them made huge advance in technology and innovation. They did it by being better than the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
They were ultimately forced to break it up into Chevron etc. but you ought to know about that since its ancient history right?
Well, yes and no.
Standard Oil was replaced by its regional operating companies.
But Rockefeller retained ownership of 25% of the shares in the regionals --- which prospered mightily. The small independents faded from view and while the Standards had to share a slice of the pie with Texas Oil and others, Big Oil was well on its way to becoming even Bigger Oil.
Re: (Score:3)
This right here.
They are going to drive themselves destitute In their bid to make an impact by joining the chicken little squadron in such a grandeur fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
These days it's much more lucrative to be green, or pretend to be green, because that's what gives you access to endless supplies of smugness, taxpayer subsidies, deductions, and grants.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It would be more akin to Sarah gates saying that. Who's Sarah you ask? She is some distant relative in charge of Bill's fortune generations after he is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It would be more akin to Sarah gates saying that. Who's Sarah you ask? She is some distant relative in charge of Bill's fortune generations after he is dead.
That's fair.
However, I doubt that the Gates fortune and dynasty will last in the way that the Rockefeller has.
I would also say, though, that I wouldn't be at all surprised if John D. Rockefeller himself, if he were alive today, would react very similarly.
Dan Aris
Re: Water is WET! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sell low? You don't seem to get the whole investment thing.
Re: (Score:3)
The news here is Exxon's decades-long cover up of its own climate research. This has been a story for months, but apparently many Slashdotters were unaware.
Scientific fraud (Score:2)