Exxon Terminators Versus Rockefeller Transformers

by Robert L. Gisel


An article came to my attention that I just had to comment on.

http://dailymail.com/comments?build=yes&ContID=200805290176

Apparently 15 or so members of the Rockefeller family are urging Exxon Oil to give consideration to the issue of global climate change. I must say I am quite dubious that this highly unlikely, to me, excursion by the Rockefeller families let alone Exxon Oil will result in any carry-through more than mere lip service. However my great belief in the goodness of mankind allows me to consider this as a serious offer to which I tender some very genuinely beneficial solutions.

This group of Rockefeller descendants cosponsored shareholder resolutions for change for Exxon Oil. This is the largest of the 34 companies formed when Standard Oil was broken up in the antitrust action by the Supreme Court in 1911. The article by the Charleston Daily Mail is very enlightening. You can see my feedback in the comments where I address the importances of the issues.

No datum is of any importance unevaluated and in particular unless against datums of comparative order. This is not meaning simply the proverbial apples to oranges but if you try to think of how do apples compare with screwdrivers it's a bit of a stretch right?

What is good for apples is not what is good for screwdrivers so viewpoint is important. The super-rich may think that what is good for them is good for everyone else as their jobs and capital feed back into society. The struggling middle class or destitute poor may have quite another opinion if inflation is so out of hand one cannot afford to keep bread on the table. Building fine palaces and homes from the lumber in the forests may seem a good thing. When a century or so later there are no more forests as in the once thickly forested Mediterranean areas this becomes manifest as a bad act.

Keeping a business going on continuous sales is good for business. A one-time sale is usually regarded as not so good unless the demand for these remains unlimited. The original horseless carriages were electric. The apparent reason for favoring combustion engines in the ensuing development was forwarded as insufficient battery technology. One suspects that repeat business by reason of the necessity to refill the gas tank was the true deciding business decision.

One suspects as well that it was also the determining factor in killing the electric cars several years ago. GM pulled all it's leased EV-1s and sent them to the crusher. Same with other EV car companies at the time. That Toyota would make the same decision but did not have the same situation as GM is a dubious coincident. Meanwhile the President of the united neocons pushes a program for the hydrogen fuel cell in a program requiring the addition of an infrastructure of added pumps around the nation replacing the expensive gasoline with expensive hydrogen fill ups.

I might even go along with hydrogen as an alternative if it were sold with the equipment to produce your own hydrogen out of water in your own garage. This would be a truly independent source similar to electric but it doesn't seem to be rolling out that way. For mobile applications, hydrogen has been called the least efficient and most expensive possible replacement for gasoline.


This whole subject needs a lot of help in the right direction so the Rockefellers are certainly welcome to pitch in and, hopefully, put their money where their mouth is.