Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

We have been receiving government subsidies directly or indirectly for decades.

E360 DIGEST
OCTOBER 6, 2021
Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds

Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020 — or roughly $11 million every minute — according to a new analysis from the International Monetary Fund.

Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total. The remaining 92 percent were implicit subsidies, which took the form of tax breaks or, to a much larger degree, health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels, according to the analysis.

“Underpricing leads to overconsumption of fossil fuels, which accelerates global warming and exacerbates domestic environmental problems including losses to human life from local air pollution and excessive and road congestion and accidents,” authors wrote. “This has long been recognized, but globally countries are still a long way from getting energy prices right.”

The report found that 47 percent of natural gas and 99 percent of coal is priced at less than half its true cost, and that just five countries — China, the United States, Russia, India, and Japan — account for two-thirds of subsidies globally. All five countries belong to the G20, which in 2009 agreed to phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies “over the medium term.”

Setting the price of coal, oil, gas to reflect their true cost — say, with a carbon tax — would cut carbon dioxide emissions by around a third, helping to put the world on a path to keeping warming below 1.5 degrees C. Such policies would also raise revenues equal to 3.8 percent of global GDP and prevent close to 1 million deaths from local air pollution yearly.

“There would be enormous benefits from reform, so there’s an enormous amount at stake,” Ian Parry, an environmental policy expert and lead author of the report, told The Guardian. “Some countries are reluctant to raise energy prices because they think it will harm the poor. But holding down fossil fuel prices is a highly inefficient way to help the poor, because most of the benefits accrue to wealthier households. It would be better to target resources towards helping poor and vulnerable people directly.”

The sheer audacity of DW to lead a company that made almost $56 billion last year (in spite of his leadership, not because of) and then go to the government to ask for subsidies to allow that company to continue contributing to the problems associated with the fossil fuels industry. CCS is the moral equivalent of cramming all your garbage into the hall closet. Eventually it will overflow and explode all over the place. I guess we shouldn’t expect any different-all our managers want to survive long enough in their positions to pass all their problems on to their successors and ignore the fact that they created the issues in the first place.

Windfall Tax for LCS
What do you think the chances are that once the treasury starts sending big checks of taxpayer money to ExxonMobil for carbon capture the politicians won’t decide a windfall profit tax is needed to clawback the money? See what is going on in Germany with windfall tax in wind energy. You can’t trust the government to send you taxpayer money as a source of your profits.

Answer from OpenAI GPT-3:

“Given the current political climate, it is highly likely that politicians will impose a windfall profit tax on ExxonMobil if they begin to receive large amounts of taxpayer money for carbon capture. This is due to the increased scrutiny of large corporations and the trend of governments wanting to recoup some of the money they provide to these companies. The example of Germany’s wind energy sector is a clear indication that governments are willing to impose a windfall profit tax in order to recoup some of the funds that they have provided. Therefore, it is highly likely that a windfall profit tax will be imposed on ExxonMobil if they receive taxpayer money for carbon capture.”

No doubt. Wait for government legislation next (requiring plants to install carbon capture). Great move by XOM.

The amount of hostility shown towards a possible massive revenue stream is really weird.

If you are so opposed to government subsidies, wait until you find out how much the government gives farmers every year.

There is a green agenda that could make money NOW. It is called biofuels and power generation to support EVs. But we were too slow getting into that space so we pick a ‘pie in the sky’ technology package that needs to be funded by taxes? It might be the right investment in Europe. Cannot imagine the US outcome being that great.

I for one am embarrassed that we are lining up to steal taxpayer money. Pathetic. Read Atlas Shrugged.. Go produce value.

Key word here is “COULD”

I could win the lottery and not come to work ever again too. Tell the stupid analysts what they want to hear.

Lolol

Gotta get them gov't handouts and tax breaks

This is why we created a new "Low Carbon Solutions Company" within the corporation to track long-term net income on behalf of the stockholders for new and old sustainability technology especially carbon capture and storage (CCS).

As a stockholder, we can only hope that government subsidies around the world for CCS will not disappear during the next decade.

Modern day green algae money pit?

As an XOM stockholder, sure do hope Ammann is right!!💰💴 💵