Donor to Stanford: No Big Oil; university donation rescinded over ad

[Newsjock]

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_5411886

It's an engaging TV commercial. Kids swinging golf clubs, and not very well. Balls flying everywhere. People taking cover.

But to movie producer Steve Bing, the words that accompanied those pictures were horrifying - so horrifying that the prominent Stanford donor decided to rescind a promised $2.5 million donation to the school.

"Kids, they'll tackle almost anything. An approach we can all learn from," the commercial began. "So Exxon Mobil has teamed up with Stanford University to find breakthrough technologies that deliver more energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It's a challenge. But we're getting there."

When the private university announced a partnership with the world's largest privately owned oil company in 2002 - Stanford will get up to $100 million from the company over 10 years to fund climate and energy research - critics questioned what Big Oil would be getting out of the deal. Now, they say, it's evident: a sweet public relations opportunity.

... "Exxon Mobil is trying to greenwash itself, and it's using Stanford as its brush," said Yusef Robb, who works with Bing on climate issues. "We think that people who give to Stanford do so because they want to help the future leaders of this nation, not because they want to advance the agenda of Exxon Mobil."

[intaglio]

1. This is an excellent reason to snigger like Bush*

excellent find

[nam78_two]

2. K&R.nt

[sarcasmo]

3. Kick, MR. Bing has Morals. Newt and Rudy could learn a thing or two.

[glitch]

4. Actually, they can't. Fundamentally incapable. But it was a sweet thought. ;) nt

[ShockediSay]

5. Guess we'll be seeing Exxon Mobil Field, Sports Arena, Student Union

etc.at Stanford

[Greyhound]

6. K & R

:kick:

[Lurking Dem]

7. Honest question here.

Please don't flame me - I'm really looking for an answer.

If the current energy companies don't research alternatives, who is going to? Who else has the money? Resources (human, background, etc.)? Incentives?

And I agree the ad is a whitewash. Reminds me of the GE "clean coal" ads.

[underpants]

8. I don't have an answer but ...

I am replying anyway.

I find it amazing that all these "masterminds" and "genius" oil execs can't see that they are in the ENERGY business, not just the oil business, and reach their tentacles out into the alternative fields. Hell all the major brewery went around gobbling up the microbrews because they recognized that they are in the BEER business not just the Joe-six-pack business.

I don't think they are involved in looking for alternatives they are just telling everyone that you know while they look in the back for that item you wanted why don't you just look around and see if there is anything that you like from the merchandise already on the floor...and everyone gets tired of waiting and just buys what they have always been selling.

When the history is written the "Oil age" will only comprise 150 years or so.


Just my two cents.

[Lurking Dem]

9. But they have to know

that they're running out of what they're selling, don't they?

Hell, even the tobacco companies diversified into junk food.

[underpants]

12. Never question ever forward

If you have ever seen "The smartest guys in the room" the Enron documentary you know of the cultlike atmosphere that existed there. Complete allegiance to the leader is required. Actually worshipping them is as well. This is broadly across the corporate world. I know of at least two Fortune 500 companies where every meeting of any substance begins with words of wisdom from the company founder or the guy who made them famous. Seriously. There can be NO dissent in fact you have to go beyond being the most stereotypical groveling asskissing shoeshiner just to get along...and then when it falls apart they all look around at each other trying to figure out who is was that didn't see it coming.

Corporate america-fostering the same group think that brought us Coors Light, Dane Cook, and Fox News.

[Robbien]

10. You asked the right question

the answer is no one is going to research alternatives. Governments use to be the ones to take on large projects such as this, but our government is not interested in alternatives. Well no alternatives other than the awful ethanol one which Jeb Bush heads.

[qwlauren35]

11. The alternatives are already there.

I think that's what makes this kind of bogus.

However, I take a wait and see attitude. If, within 5-10 years, we see Exxon-Mobil actually use this research for something beneficial, the maybe Bing will put his money back in Stanford.

The US military could invest in alternative energy, the energy savings for ground troops would be tremendous. The car companies have already invested in alternative energy, and could continue, in part because there's a market for it in Europe. If what I read is correct, you can get very high mileage American-made cars in Europe. They aren't in the states because they are small, and small cars don't sell well in the US. In fact, from what I read, the mpg's on European cars are high enough that the hybrid isn't worth paying for.

To say that this saddens me is an understatement. It shows how completely the average American thumbs his or her nose at saving energy. I don't even think we notice that the large SUV type cars are being hyped in commercials as recreational vehicles, taking you to the mountains or the beach, reinforcing the idea that part of the luxury of American recreation or vacations is expending fuel, and it's okay.

I could keep going, but you get the point... Sometimes I get very disgusted with this country.

[karynnj]

13. Having a top research university get up to $100 million

to research possible breakthough technologies sounds like a fantastic idea. Obviously, they hope to gain from the fruits of the research - which they likely hope will be energy sources of the future. Good PR is likely secondary. (Also, there are scientists employed by the oil energy itself working on these technologies.

I do not know who Yusef Robb is, but I think his position is one of cutting off your nose to spite your face. The fact is that putting a huge amount of money behind research is needed. We should want companies to do this and be happy that, in this case, Exxon/Mobile sees this as a good use of their money. The idea that we will allow only pure companies to work on future fuels is crazy. Would you refuse to use alternative fuels - if the they work and are clean, because you don't like the company?