Climate Change

Wall Street Journal Publishes Ad Bashing Its Own Climate Change Editorial Position

Headline: Exxon's CEO says fossil fuels are raising temperatures and sea levels: Why won't the Wall Street Journal?

|

Mariusz Jurgielewicz/Dreamstime

The world's largest oil company ExxonMobil is on the record as favoring a revenue neutral carbon tax. Just prior to the U.N. Paris climate change conference in December, the company observed:

When it comes to policies for putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, we believe their effectiveness will be determined by how closely they hew to certain core principles. Among these are uniformity of application; global participation; reliance on markets to drive the selection of solutions; minimal regulatory complexity and maximum transparency; and the flexibility to make future adjustments.

Back in 2009, CEO Rex Tillerson declared:

A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions — from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers. A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement.

Now the new climate lobbying group Partnership for Responsible Change is publishing a series of 12 advertisements in the Wall Street Journal explaining its views of the science and economics of climate change. The Partnership asserts that "climate change threatens our liberty, freedom and prosperity. It's time to end the partisan divide and unite behind policies that work." The group claims that it favors "a free market solution to climate change." The first advertisement takes direct aim at the Journal's long-standing editorial skepticism with regard to "mainstream" climate change science. From the ad:

Exxon's CEO Says Fossil Fuels Are Raising Temperatures And Sea Levels. 

Why won't the Wall Street Journal? 

Exxon's CEO Rex Tillerson agrees that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are raising global temperatures and sea levels.

"I'm not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have an impact. It'll have a warming impact," he told the Council on Foreign Relations in June of 2012.

Full ad below:

Partnership for Responsible Change

For a Journal op-ed opposing a carbon tax go here. For a Journal analysis of why Obama and the Democrats wouldn't be thrilled with a carbon tax check here.

And just in case, New York State Attorney-General General Eric T. Schneiderman is still wondering, ExxonMobil has been acknowledging the risk of climate change in its annual reports since 2006.

NEXT: Newt Gingrich Misses the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Calls for 'Similar Steps' Today

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

29 responses to “Wall Street Journal Publishes Ad Bashing Its Own Climate Change Editorial Position

  1. How stupid can you get Bailey?

    Exxon favors a carbon tax because it crushes start-up competition. It also gives existing companies new things (aka government favors) to turn into financials.

    1. If: Pointing to the novelty interest of the placement of the advertisement says nothing about regulatory capture.

  2. Climate change on top of gun control?

    *heads to well-armed bunker stocked only with deep dish pizza*

  3. “The world’s largest oil company ExxonMobil is on the record as favoring a revenue neutral carbon tax. ”

    So stunning and brave. They support a tax that they won’t be paying. Economics, how the fuck does it work?

    1. And it would make fossil fuel exploration more expensive and harder for smaller players to break into the market and make existing reserves more valuable.

      Exxon is just being selfless here. What heroes.

    2. Well, in fairness, in theory such a tax would affect demand for their products in the negative.

      I mean, that’s the entire notional point of a carbon tax.

      (Perhaps they have a nice big “renewable energy” wing to profit from that.

      Note also contra the excerpt that ExxonMobil is the world’s largest publicly traded oil company.

      All the biggest players are … state-owned, like Aramco, NOC, PetroChina, or “public” but majority-state-owned Gazprom.)

      1. Well, in fairness, in theory such a tax would affect demand for their products in the negative.

        Demand for oil is inelastic. People still have to drive to work and heat their homes. The result of increased prices due to an additional tax will have little effect.

        http://www.resilience.org/stor…..onsumption

        As oil and natural gas deplete, suppliers will attempt to charge as much as the market will bear. That ? in turn ? will force demand destruction as higher prices and availability curb consumption. Unfortunately, since American oil demand per household has been relatively inelastic since 1982, demand destruction can only occur if the economy is forced into a recession, and/or Americans make substantial changes to their lifestyle.

        You can bet your bottom dollar that every oil exec know this.

  4. Pretty canny of the WSJ to stick to its editorial guns and drive up demand for a big pop-up ad like that.

    1. Yeah, I’m not exactly sure why I should care about this. What would be hilarious is if they printed the ad on the left side of the paper, and on the right there was a giant arrow pointing to it, with a follow-up article, that said This Ad is Bullshit, and Here’s Why:

  5. revenue neutral. that would end up being the single biggest lie in history, dollar-wise, shattering the current record, held by the 16th amendment.

  6. It’s time to end the partisan divide and unite behind policies that work.”

    Shut up, they explained.

    1. The natural climate change deniers are more brazen because they are getting more desperate. Every year the evidence of a lower equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 becomes more overwhelming.

      1. “But, but, the forcing factors!!”

    2. I agree. All the warmists need to give up their soclialist dreams and capitulate to a laissez faire economy.

  7. Suckers.
    *pockets money*

  8. “Exxon CEO tries to indemnify against future extortion, takes leason from cigarette companies”

    1. ^^Very much this.

  9. Partnership for Responsible Growth. Is that an Orwellian name or what?

    1. I wonder if they are deliberately trying to sound like Partnership for a Drug Free America?

      Yay, more “partnerships” of well connected people trying to screw us.

  10. Consumer-friendly carbon tax

    Holds the title for dumbest phrase I’ve read today.

  11. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement.

    Hey, poverty countries. Your betters are going to force you into an even shittier standard of living so that we can feel really, really, ridiculously good about ourselves.

  12. Good for them.

    I see both Bob Inglis and Jerry Taylor took part in the ad’s creation.

    Both have been ahead of the game for some time.

    1. Both have been ahead of the game for some time.

      Unfortunately for jackass, he doesn’t know what the game is.

  13. I have been told that anything coming out of an oil companies mouth in regards to climate change is motivated by greed and avarice, so why should it be credible that an oil company CEO comes out in support of it?

  14. How do you have an international tax? Who collects it? Who gets it?

    1. Leprechauns.

    2. Who collects it?

      They do.

      Who gets it?

      Not you.

  15. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement.

    Yeah. Now, buy me a hybrid car or pay my power bill, or something. I have a job to do, saving the planet, and I definitely don’t want to loose any time or money doing it.

    /regressive

  16. My employer says all kinds of political shit they aren’t qualified to have an opinion on. Because feels.

Comments are closed.