Shell Oil president calls for action against global warming
The AP reported today that Shell Oil Company president John Hofmeister publicly denounced U.S. leaders for not piecing together a strategy to combat global warming. He believes the debate over the science of climate change is over and says, "It's a waste of time to debate it. Policymakers have a responsibility to address it. The nation needs public policy. We'll adjust."
He projects that conventional oil and gas resources won't sustain the nation's energy needs and that the future will include fuel from oil shale, gasified coal, biofuels, wind, the sun, hydrogen and conservation.
As we all know, the Bush administration and most Republican politicians have resisted mandatory emissions limits curbing greenhouse gases, but the Democrats are going to feel a bit uneasy at Hofmeister's statements, too. He actually went so far as to suggest that the American government act now and use policy to keep gas prices high to force market and behavioral changes facilitating the growth of a "culture of conservation."
Democrat or Republican, I'm not sure how many publicly elected officials would be willing to advocate a reduction or removal of federal subsidies on petroleum or any other type of legislation that would keep gas prices high.
Hofmeister didn't overlook the American public either as he posited the nation as living in a culture of excess in relation to the rest of the world. He said that the U.S. represents 8 percent of the global population using 25 percent of the earth's energy supply which is not a "sustainable formula," noting that the rest of the world wants its "fair share."
There'll be a lot of speculation as to whether this was a genuine call for action, or a carefully crafted marketing ploy. I'm not certain it matters. The president of the 3rd largest oil company in the world just made a firm public statement advocating policy change that would lead to greater investment in the research and development of renewable energy.
Related:
[Source: Associated Press via MSNBC]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1985 Gripen 4:13PM (9/08/2006)
This is a complex argument on so many levels. Now I'll be the first to admit that the Bush Administration is ridiculous for not admitting that it's been proven human activity is responsible for global warming. The "we need more scientific investigation" argument is beyond stupid.
However, most Republicans believe that this is the Land of the Free and gov't should have a hands-off approach to most issues. They believe the free market will shake out the best technologies. They believe people vote with their checkbook.
Now if some guy wants to buy a huge SUV or pickup truck he doesn't ever intend to haul anything in or actually use off-road, that's his right. This is the Land of the Free. He's paying for that decision directly through his higher gas expenses. My opinion or anyone else's of him shouldn't matter.
The reason other countries have tiny little manual transmission cars with little horsepower (for the most part, whereas the rich in those countries have V12 Mercedes and gas-guzzling Ferraris and such) is because their governments have taxed both gasoline and based on their emissions. This is an artificial market force. If they want their "fair share" maybe they should address their gov't's policy of taxing the crap out of them.
This Shell President appears to be advocating the U.S. gov't taking away some of our freedom and choice in the name of the greater good. Sounds a lot like Socialism or Communism to me. Because nobody knows how to raise the quality of living like a government official, right?
Reply
BC 5:00PM (9/08/2006)
Gripen, you have a point but just because the Republicans advocate a "free" market, it doesn't actually mean that they really support one! Re-read the article -- oil companies receive huge subsidies from all forms of government, despite making record profits. That means, everyone who pays taxes are also contributing to their profits, whether you drive a car or not!
Far from advocating the government limit your "choice" (which ones are those, might I ask??), removing subsidies to carbon intensive forms of energy and using it to encourage less harmful forms of energy is not only good for the environment, it might actually stimulate new "choices" in energy sources. It might even stimulate new industries and new jobs.
As for quality of life, yes, if the subsidies are phased out, never mind charging the oil companies for the full cost of the damage that they do, gas prices would indeed rise. But IMHO, higher gas prices can only be a good thing. Look how many people are suddenly buying smaller cars. As far as I'm concerned, engery prices are way too low in North America and as a result, we use way too much energy per capita. The Europeans enjoy a similar quality of life, but use way less energy.
Perhaps it's time that we take a good look at ourselves and our habbits, instead of blaming it on the "socialists" and "communists".
Reply
Meeglosh 2:49AM (9/09/2006)
If John Hofmeister is so upset about greenhouse emissions, why doesn't he do something about it, given that he is one of the only people in the world uniquely qualified to do so?
Reply
Alternative Energy Blog 9:54PM (9/08/2006)
"This Shell President appears to be advocating the U.S. gov't taking away some of our freedom and choice in the name of the greater good. Sounds a lot like Socialism or Communism to me. Because nobody knows how to raise the quality of living like a government official, right?"
At least 43 percent of Archer Daniels Midland(ADM)'s annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. For every $1 of profit earned by ADM's ethanol operation (the largest in the U.S.), it costs taxpayers $30. ADM is the largest U.S. producer of ethanol. Policies favourable to ADM are strongly supported by both democrats and republicans.
Annual tax incentives and government programs supporting oil are estimated to be somewhere between $38 and $114.6 billion, and the U.S. 2005 energy legislation extended $8 billion in additional tax incentives to oil producers, despite the industry's record multibillion-dollar profits.
The U.S. government has also recently started subsidising the production of liquid fuel produced from coal, even though is produces more than double the CO2 emissions of burning regular gasoline.
As BC said, subsidies and tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry (and fossil fueled industry like ethanol) should be removed. If Gripen knows economic theory there are something called externalities, such as pollution and these have to be factored into price for a free market to work efficiently.
James
Alternative Energy Blog
Reply
Rick 6:59PM (9/09/2006)
The Shell president has a good point, wrong motives no doubt but good idea. I'd like to see the US implement a .50 per gallon tax on all gas. The increased tax revenue used solely to pay down the national debt. If the funds were to be used ONLY for this purpose, it might actually pass into law.
Reply
snakesausage 11:39AM (9/09/2006)
Rick,
I will never wish for more taxes, the real solution is to remove the oil subsidies. This will have the same effect of increasing fuel prices while allowing us to apply the subsidy to the national debt.
Reply
Ed C 12:52PM (9/09/2006)
Take Shell’s statements with a grain of salt. While it’s definitely good for them to say this publicly, it still doesn’t some close to the amount of money they spent lobbying congress to do the opposite. It’s just PR.
Reply
snakesausage 12:12PM (9/10/2006)
Rick, you just don’t get it.
Let me dumb it down a little.
The US government gives about 3 billion in subsidies and or tax breaks to the big oil companies. That money comes out of my and your pocket (I am assuming that you pay income taxes).
You are proposing that the oil companies will get 3 billion from the government and then we also pay $0.50 in EXTRA taxes on each gallon?
Logic would say that stop the subsidies and the price of gasoline will rise and you could use that 3 billion for the national debt.
Also, one thing that you have to remember about our government, they never use tax money destined for one purpose for only that purpose. The best example is the social security fund. It has been raided MANY times from both parties and moved to the general fund (which you could say went to the oil companies in the form of subsidies).
Reply
loikll 12:40PM (9/10/2006)
*** Annual tax incentives and government programs supporting oil are estimated to be somewhere between $38 and $114.6 billion ***
Could you give a source for that? I don't know enough to argue one way or the other, but it strikes me as unlikely the 5% of the US federal budget is devoted to subsidizing this one industry.
Reply
loikll 12:58PM (9/10/2006)
*** It has been raided MANY times from both parties and moved to the general fund (which you could say went to the oil companies in the form of subsidies). ***
Sorry, that's common demagoguery, but it is a nonsensical statement to say that the Social Security Trust fund has been "raided". There has never been a social security trust fund: From the very beginning of SS, by law, the government has been prohibited from investing the social security tax surpluses into real assets. Surplus social security cash revenues are required by law to be spent in the general budget, and always have been.
That's the way it has always been -- the social security trust fund has been "raided" every day for the past 70 years because that is how the system was designed and that is what the law requires -- which sort of makes the word "raid" inappopriate here.
BTW, about $2.5 trillion of our national debt is actually that social security trust fund. It's all non-marketable paper sitting in file folders (literally, in an office in Maryland), with one agency calling it a "debt" and another agency calling it an "asset". It's like your left pocket borrowing a dollar from your right pocket.
Did I mention that every single politician who you have ever heard accuse the other party of "raiding" social security knows exactly how this work and knows he is telling a lie? There's your Econ 101 lesson for the day, and sadly it's never in any politician's interests to be honest about how this stuff actually works.
Reply
loikll 12:59PM (9/10/2006)
Oh, did I mention that recently a politician had the revolutionary idea of putting just a tiny bit of Social Security money into real, actual assets, in order to put just a dent into the bizarre shell game? He was practically crucified by all sides -- the public, journalists, other politicians -- for even suggesting it. So the idea went nowhere (again).
Reply