Is ExxonMobil starting to worry about the fossil fuel divestment movement? Based on this article, it certainly looks that way.
Exxon Mobil is wielding its public relations might against the fossil-fuel divestment movement, signaling that climate-change activists have struck a nerve at the world's biggest publicly traded oil and gas company.
Exxon Mobil's blog, titled "Perspectives," posted a lengthy attack Friday about the divestment movement, which urges universities, churches, pension funds, and other big institutional investors to dump their shares of oil and coal companies as part of the fight against global warming.
But the blog post calls the movement "out of step with reality," saying it's at odds with the need for poor nations to gain better access to energy, as well as the need for fossil fuels to meet global energy demand for decades to come.
So far, the climate advocates' progress at getting a growing number of institutions to shed holdings in fossil fuel companies remains pretty small compared with the scale of the industry they're battling.
But, the article adds, while the fossil fuel divestment movement may be small now, it's growing fast. As a result, the fossil fuel divestment movement clearly has ExxonMobil nervous, and there's one clear piece of evidence to prove that's the case: ExxonMobil's attacking it. Because, let's face it, that's what the fossil fuel industry does when it sees a threat - relentlessly attacks, just as it's done with clean energy and climate science in recent years. The problem for the fossil fuel industry, though, is that no matter how much money they spend attacking their demons, the reality - plummeting costs and rapidly improving technology for solar and wind, mountains of scientific evidence on climate change driven by fossil fuel combustion - isn't going away.
All of which means the harsh reality for ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies is that, while they certainly are big and powerful today, that situation could change in a hurry. And if the fossil fuel folks don't believe that, all they have to do is look at the land line telephone companies of the 1970s in the era of cell phones and Skype, or the traditional journalism business model in the internet age, then figure out if that could be them. While they're pondering this question, they might also consider whether in 10-20 years, will they be: a) kicking themselves for fighting the inexorable shift towards clean energy; or b) patting themselves on the back for joining it? At least at the moment, it looks like they're foolishly, stubbornly sticking with option "a".