Started By
Message

Exxon Mobil CEO on the ‘dirty secret’ of Net Zero

Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:10 pm
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
21375 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:10 pm
quote:

As it stands, we’re not on the path to net-zero emissions by 2050, Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods said. And maybe that’s not Big Oil’s fault.

The dirty secret nobody talks about is how much all this is going to cost and who’s willing to pay for it,” Woods, who replaced Rex Tillerson at the helm of Exxon Mobil in January 2017, said. “If you look at the policies [governments] are putting out, the cost is very implicit. It’s not an explicit cost.”

Most objective analyses would suggest that “we’ve waited too long to open the aperture on the solution sets in terms of what we need, as a society, to start reducing emissions,” Woods told Fortune CEO Alan Murray and editor-at-large Michal Lev-Ram on a recent episode of the Leadership Next podcast. Plus: “We’re not investing nearly enough in the technology.”

Exxon Mobil is No. 3 on the Fortune 500 and the largest gas and oil corporation in the U.S., having posted a $36 billion profit in 2023. The firm has “tabled proposals” with governments worldwide, Woods said, “to get out there and start down this path using existing technology.” But it’s been hamstrung by a need for cost transparency—and the fact that everyday people are responsible for generating the emissions too.


quote:

Woods, though the head of a fossil fuel giant, has some ground to stand on; he was the first oil and gas CEO to appear at a UN climate summit when he attended COP28 late last year, advocating for reducing emissions and investing in clean energy. In 2022, Exxon Mobil invested $17 billion in its lower-emission initiatives. It has long maintained that greenhouse gas emissions, not fossil fuels, are behind climate change—claims over which it is now being sued.

The main issue, in any case, is that fixing the problem is currently too expensive, Woods told Murray and Lev-Ram. “People can’t afford it, and governments around the world rightly know that their constituents will have real concerns,” he went on. “So we’ve got to find a way to get the cost down to grow the utility of the solution, and make it more available and more affordable so that you can begin the [clean energy] transition.”


quote:

The challenge, in Woods’ mind, is reframing the cost as necessary on both a corporate and personal level, rather than a nice-to-have. It’s anyone’s guess how long that would take. “I can’t predict if we’ll be successful in that space or not.” A popular suggestion for passing the cost off to consumers is carbon taxes or a built-in charge on purchased goods, though many experts nonetheless encourage the most offending firms to shoulder the cost burden, not individuals.


quote:

Murray pointed out the subsidies Exxon Mobil has received through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that are geared at encouraging low-carbon energy solutions. But Woods said that too is a Band-Aid solution. “The way that the government is incentivized and trying to catalyze investments in this space is through subsidies,” he said. “Driving significant investments at a scale that even gets close to moving the needle is going to cost a lot of money.”

The U.S. government is trying to “get things moving” through those subsidies, he added. “But I would tell you building a business on government subsidy is not a long-term sustainable strategy—we don’t support that.” Exxon Mobil has committed to using its IRA subsidies to advance its low-carbon energy solutions, “but at the same time, we’re advocating to move to market forces, either through regulation and prices on carbon.”

The challenge with all those solutions, he said, “is the cost ultimately, explicitly bears itself in the price of products out there.” And nobody wants to pay up.


LINK /
Posted by 0x15E
Outer Space
Member since Sep 2020
12789 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:13 pm to
quote:

The dirty secret nobody talks about is how much all this is going to cost and who’s willing to pay for it,


John Q. Taxpayer
Posted by Longhorn Actual
Member since Dec 2023
936 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:13 pm to
Nothing "secret" about any of that for anyone with half a brain.

Posted by Corinthians420
Iowa
Member since Jun 2022
6749 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:16 pm to
quote:

“We’re not investing nearly enough in the technology.”

So aim for 2070 instead of 2050.

Technology will be cheaper then.

20 years aint shite in the grand scheme.


Also at the rate we're going we'll have nuked each other by then anyway
This post was edited on 2/27/24 at 7:19 pm
Posted by No Colors
Sandbar
Member since Sep 2010
10484 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:22 pm to
quote:

The dirty secret nobody talks about is how much all this is going to cost and who’s willing to pay for it,
quote:

John Q. Taxpayer

Actually, it's more like Jane C Consumer who will be paying

The Green Tax on renewable energy is brutally regressive to the poor and the working class. It's the fallacy loop of the progressive environmental movement.

A hungry person makes a lousy environmentalist. And when it costs $80 to charge your smart car to drive 200 miles, even the pink hair enviro wackos are going to wonder what they've bought
Posted by turkish
Member since Aug 2016
1783 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:23 pm to
quote:

John Q. Taxpayer

Bingo. I’ve had some bleeding heart engineers that are actually really really good at their jobs tell me the following … the government will just tax companies that are responsible for these emissions until they can’t afford to operate without complying. Or that .gov will ensure that prices of goods don’t get out of hand with subsidies.

It makes my head explode.
Posted by bad93ex
Member since Sep 2018
27329 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:25 pm to
No fricking way, Jim Bob in the trailer park fricking predicted this shite.
Posted by alajones
Huntsvegas
Member since Oct 2005
34502 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:27 pm to
Who is saying in 2024 that getting away from fossil fuels will be less expensive than the status quo? This is a “secret?”
This post was edited on 2/27/24 at 7:29 pm
Posted by fallguy_1978
Best States #50
Member since Feb 2018
48741 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:29 pm to
We'll still be heavily dependent on fossil fuels in 30+ years.
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
43380 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:30 pm to
Look at my virtues! LOOK AT THEM!
Posted by turkish
Member since Aug 2016
1783 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:32 pm to
Not to be contrary (we’re kinda splitting hairs) but I work in energy. I work with this stuff daily. The prices of consumer goods will be untenable without .gov interaction in a low carbon system, without generational technological breakthroughs. The taxpayer will fund that .gov interaction. Woods talks about this toward the end of the article, referring to subsidies.
This post was edited on 2/27/24 at 7:45 pm
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
21375 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:33 pm to
quote:

I’ve had some bleeding heart engineers that are actually really really good at their jobs tell me the following … the government will just tax companies that are responsible for these emissions until they can’t afford to operate without complying. Or that .gov will ensure that prices of goods don’t get out of hand with subsidies.


I work with some folks like that, and they aren’t just engineers, and I don’t care how smart they are. If that’s what they’re wishcasting, then they need to stop collecting a paycheck from an O&G or petrochem company and go work for some carbon capture or “green” fuel outfit. Stop being a fricking hypocrite.
This post was edited on 2/27/24 at 7:43 pm
Posted by HeadSlash
TEAM LIVE BADASS - St. GEORGE
Member since Aug 2006
49810 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:40 pm to
quote:


The dirty secret nobody talks about is how much all this is going to cost and who’s willing to pay for it,



John Q. Taxpayer


We can afford only so much
Posted by PigDog33
Louisiana
Member since Jul 2021
767 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:41 pm to
quote:

The dirty secret nobody talks about is how much all this is going to cost and who’s willing to pay for it



This isn’t a “dirty secret”.
It is abundantly clear to anyone who has ever had to sit through any amount of net zero lectures or training.

The cost for”LEED” certified new construction is absurd.
Posted by kywildcatfanone
Wildcat Country!
Member since Oct 2012
119412 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:45 pm to
The dei commercials are helping
Posted by fallguy_1978
Best States #50
Member since Feb 2018
48741 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:48 pm to
quote:

Look at my virtues! LOOK AT THEM!

I love when the Dems say they are going to end fossil fuels. And replace them with what? Are you going to make tires out of wind and solar?
This post was edited on 2/27/24 at 8:28 pm
Posted by turkish
Member since Aug 2016
1783 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:49 pm to
Trust me, this flies over the heads of most people in those lectures. 80% of our country think government “subsidies” are just free money that comes out of thin air.
Posted by O
Mandeville
Member since Oct 2011
6470 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:50 pm to
quote:

No fricking way, Jim Bob in the trailer park fricking predicted this shite.


Why are you attacking me? I was right!
Posted by molsusports
Member since Jul 2004
36133 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:52 pm to
quote:

Not to be contrary (we’re kinda splitting hairs) but I work in energy. I work with this stuff daily. The prices of consumer goods will be untenable without .gov interaction in a low carbon system, without generational technological breakthroughs. The taxpayer will fund that .gov interaction.



I don't follow the logic to the same conclusion.

I agree that the renewable like solar and wind won't work. Anyone closely following the issue now realizes that. See Germany over the last dozen years. See batteries and energy storage being years away. See the spatial, technical, and resources required to create duplicate energy grids when some of it is only available intermittently.

But the subsidy part is also wishcasting. The amount of energy needed and the required cheapness of energy required just is not possible by government subsidy. Even if our ability to subsidize "green" energy wasn't limited by the debt to GDP issue.

Heavy investment in nuclear might work in the longer run but that would also require the people who say we're dying in 15 years from global warming to stop blocking nuclear power use through a thousand different legal shenanigans.
Posted by Snoop Dawg
Member since Sep 2009
2195 posts
Posted on 2/27/24 at 7:53 pm to
The whole “climate” movement is about power and money, not saving the planet. Proof #1 is their disapproval of carbon free nuclear power in favor of environmentally destructive wind and solar projects.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram