[Fixed] Exxon/Rex Tillerson: No longer willing to be "conservative" on climate risks, advocates carbon taxes and invests in carbon-lite tech
[Somehow
most of my excerpts of Tillerson`s speech weren`t included in my first try; there`re here
this time.]
It may still seem novel to some, but Exxon
Mobil Corporation began throwing its weight behind carbon pricing
policies more
than two years ago,
Subsequently, Rex
Tillerson, Exxon`s Chairman and CEO, has
given a
number of speeches on
Exxon`s actions (and cost savings) in reducing its own GHG emissions, its
investments in energy technologies that further improve energy efficiency and
GHG efficiency, and Exxon`s views on climate risks and preferred policy
options. Why is this worth mentioning? Simply, Exxon is an
excellent, well-run company that knows the energy business and climate risks
well (its scientists have been sitting on the IPCC panels fromtheir inception),
so it has some credibility (in this vein, Rob Bradley`s MasterResource
“free-market” energy blog has a post up today,
similarly remarking on Exxon`s credibility as well-run, principled and
“the consumer’s friend and the taxpayer’s friend;” Rob just
conveniently fails to mention Exxon`s pro carbon-tax stance).
Tillerson made another such speech on February 17, on the occasion
of a visit to the Stanford
University-centered Global
Climate and Energy Project (GCEP), the world`s largest privately-funded
effort to conduct basic research on energy technologies that will further
reduce GHG emissions. Exxon has has committed $100 million to
GCEP over ten years and has been the lead funder of GCEP since its
establishment in December 2002. The punchline of Tillerson’s remarks?
“It
is rare that a business lends its support to new taxes. But in this
case, given the risk-management challenges we face and the alternatives
under consideration, it is my judgment that a carbon tax is the best
course of public policy action. And it is a judgment I hope others in
the business community and beyond will come to share.”
Tillerson`s
full speech here is worth a look; I excerpt a few portions below – climate
policy comments are largely at the end (emphasis added):
GCEP’s research program, like ExxonMobil’s, is shaped to fit the contours of what has been termed the “grand challenge” before us. It is, in fact, a dual challenge — supplying the energy essential to global economic growth, while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions and managing the risks of climate change. …
However, the world economy will recover. History shows that human ingenuity and productivity cannot long be suppressed. And when the world economy recovers, so will world energy demand.
Growing populations in developing countries who are seeking higher standards of living will drive this increased energy demand, which is expected to be 35 percent higher in the year 2030 than it was in the year 2005, despite the current and temporary economic conditions.
Meeting this growing long-term societal demand requires that we develop all economic and environmentally sound sources of energy. This includes hydrocarbon energy sources like oil and natural gas, which are abundant, available, versatile and affordable.
Huge investments over many decades have enabled oil and natural gas to meet close to 60 percent of the world’s enormous energy needs today, and projections are that oil and natural gas will account for a majority of the world energy demand through at least the year 2030. They are simply indispensable and irreplaceable at scale.
This global energy demand challenge is matched by a global environmental challenge — curbing greenhouse-gas emissions and addressing the risks of climate change. Thanks to greater energy efficiency and growing use of cleaner energy such as natural gas for power generation, greenhouse-gas emissions levels are expected to decline in some developed economies. …
The challenge for developing economies is more daunting, where energy demand is increasing as growing populations strive for higher standards of living. For example, by the year 2030, China’s carbon-dioxide emissions will be comparable to those of the United States and Europe combined — even recognizing that China’s energy use and emissions will be much lower on a per-capita basis — rising from 4 metric tons per capita in 2005 to 5.8 metric tons per capita in 2030.
Nonetheless, the net effect of these countervailing trends will be a sizeable increase in greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide. Even with dramatic gains in efficiency, rising demand for energy will continue to push related carbon-dioxide emissions higher through the year 2030 — an increase of 28 percent from the year 2005. …
To develop these integrated solutions, we will need to find the best ways to unlock new technology. Energy innovation — led by private enterprise, furthered by independent research, spread by free markets, and supported by sensible and stable public policy — will be essential to enabling us to achieve each of these aims. It is the key to a more prosperous, more secure, and more sustainable energy and environmental future.
It is important to remember, however, that gains in efficiency and technology occur over time.
The most dramatic changes will not happen overnight, due to the sheer complexity of the technologies we develop and the enormous scale of the global energy market. Technological transformation takes time.
The history of energy over the last century helps put such transformation into perspective. For example, it is estimated that at the beginning of the 20th century, coal and wood provided more than 95 percent of the world’s energy needs. From that point, it took more than half a century for petroleum — a cleaner and more versatile alternative — to surpass coal as the world’s largest energy source. It took nearly 50 years more to develop the technologies and build the global infrastructure so that natural gas, an even cleaner-burning source, could play a sizable role in the world’s energy mix.
This reality about timeframes is another reason why we need energy policies that allow for long-term planning and consistent, disciplined investments that lead to technological advances.
National and state governments can play a helpful role in this vital enterprise.
By creating a stable, long-term policy framework for investment in academic and commercial research efforts, government can be a partner in the short-, medium-, and long-term technological transformations we need.
One of the areas where government can provide needed stability is by implementing simple, transparent, and predictable policies to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions. Throughout the world, policymakers are considering a variety of legislative and regulatory options. In our view, assessing these policy options requires an understanding of their likely effectiveness, scale and cost, as well as their implications for economic growth and quality of life.
Consistent with that view, we believe that a carbon tax would be a more effective policy option to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions than alternatives such as cap-and-trade. Pricing carbon through a direct and transparent tax could incentivize the search for lower-emissions energy solutions while also providing the stability and predictability industrial companies need to make long-term, capital-intensive investments in equipment and research.
To ensure revenues raised from this tax are indeed directed to investment, and to assist those on lower incomes who spend a higher proportion of their income on energy, a carbon tax should be offset by tax reductions in other areas to become revenue neutral for government.
It is rare that a business lends its support to new taxes. But in this case, given the risk-management challenges we face and the alternatives under consideration, it is my judgment that a carbon tax is the best course of public policy action. And it is a judgment I hope others in the business community and beyond will come to share.
Recent Comments