digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at dallasnews.com

Rockefellers call for Exxon to invest in alternative energy

dallasnews.com — A majority of members of the Rockefeller family called on Exxon Mobil Corp. to look beyond the oil and gas industry and invest in alternative energy

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • pentupentropy, on 04/30/2008, -2/+19Remind me and I'll thank Larry next time he drives by my house on his way to "I-own-a-million-acres-around-you" land.
    • themastersb, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1So this would be like electric or hydrogen and not something stupid like bio-fuel or freshwater right?
  • imacommi, on 04/30/2008, -7/+3It's about time...
    • BevansDesign, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2If the Rockefellers are saying it, we're *****.

      I think I'll trade in my car for an apple cart now while I still can.
  • specs10, on 04/30/2008, -4/+47The Rockefellers are full of crap.
    • jd72277, on 04/30/2008, -5/+1yeah, wait until Roc-A-Fella Records hears some white people have ripped off their name!
  • mikeyellenlee, on 04/30/2008, -0/+10Are they just yanking our chains?
  • Eivo, on 04/30/2008, -5/+21But.. but I thought the Rockefellers were evil too. What's their motive behind this?
    • Shorties, on 04/30/2008, -10/+19Possibly because they are humans, (Really rich humans but humans all the same) like all of us, they arent monsters. They may also see the Oil industry is getting near the peak (They are major Exxon shareholders) so they want Exxon to adapt for the future or die in the next 50 years.
      • ThatEvilGuy, on 04/30/2008, -4/+18Keep believing that.
        • Blandyman, on 04/30/2008, -3/+3What?
          He said they're probably noticing that Exxon will have trouble in the next few decades if they don't adapt, and as such, they want them to adapt so they can stay mega-rich.
          I don't see what's wrong about such an assumption...
        • Adamande, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3I think he was referring to the "they aren't monsters" part of it... Merely worrying that your oil company won't continue to make insane amounts of money isn't exactly what most people associate with showing humanity.
    • ajb2015, on 04/30/2008, -9/+6Not to defend their excessive wealth, but the Rockefeller's have done a lot of conservation work and donated millions of acres of land to be preserved as national parks.
      • fromonesource, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3Much of that land was stolen from individuals by eminent domain. It should be put back in the hands of the people.
    • temjrpgh, on 04/30/2008, -0/+21They've most likely bought a ton of shares in the companies/technologies they'll have their government dogs subsidize. They want to monopolize the next energy paradigm as they have the current.
      • Erich100, on 04/30/2008, -1/+13I believe you are right on the money. Nothing is done by these elites is for humanity. It's all about the money and the control of the people.
      • Shogun6996, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Indeed its all about making sure their investment remains profitable into the future because they can clearly see that peple are moving towards alternative fuel sources.
        • Cl1mh4224rd, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2> "Indeed its all about making sure their investment remains profitable into the future [...]"

          I honestly can't wrap my head around why people think this is an evil thing to do...
        • Ryanr14, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2I think it gets evil when it's done monopolisticly. They want total control
    • aussieNickuss, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3They can see that oil's days are numbered.
      • PeppermintPig, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Via their secret underground fortress with window views to all ze oil??
    • EmporerTitus, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3The NWO is using Climate Baloney to starve 5 billion of the most useless eaters on the planet, via biofuels.
      see Endgame by Alex Jones.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 04/30/2008, -15/+7But investing in the future is what liberal communist hippies do.
    • Scheissen, on 04/30/2008, -1/+7haha no
      • moolaismyfriend, on 04/30/2008, -5/+4Ohh so sending young kids to die in a desert to ensure 125$ a barrel oil is what you want?
        • jmpeagle, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1if anything...that's ensuring the success of alternative fuels....since "alternatives" are by definition substitutable goods then the demand for one will increase when the price of the other increases. Economics 101.

          High oil prices are what America needs to get off of oil.
        • popfrogs, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1God I wish people's sarcasm detectors weren't broken on Digg.
        • Blandyman, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1@moolaismyfriend:
          Uh, duh?
    • jmpeagle, on 04/30/2008, -6/+8communist hippies make myopic choices which is why their populations routinely starve in the not to distant future from their brain dead decisions.
      • moolaismyfriend, on 04/30/2008, -10/+2Ahh cool.

        Thanks, and my guess is that you are a Christian Conservative who is looking forward to the day that your savior will come down here on a white horse and obliterate mankind.

        Great thanks for insight buddy.
        • jmpeagle, on 04/30/2008, -1/+71. I am atheist
          2. how is being anti-communist the same as being conservative. I am classical liberal. I don't believe government have the right to starve their populations as just about every communist regime ever has done.
        • Blandyman, on 04/30/2008, -2/+13. Jesus doesn't come down and destroy mankind... he comes back to say Hi and let us all know that God's waiting for them, but that the apocalypse is nigh (which, in Bible time, could mean thousands of years away STILL)
  • lazerus9, on 04/30/2008, -3/+46Yes! That's what we need! Exxon controlling all of the alternative energy resources as well!
    Give me a break!!
    • Spire3660, on 04/30/2008, -4/+4EXACTLY. I dont want big oil to have ANYTHING to do with oil's replacement energy source.
      • jmpeagle, on 04/30/2008, -3/+5do you think Big Solar will be any better?
        • swiftideas, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0what? are they gonna start sun wars? and pollute the planet?
    • pianomahnn, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3They have the huge cash reserves though. If anyone can develop a way out of this oil mess it's a company that invests billions on research.
      • cheeseysynapse, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1they're geologists - they dig holes - thats like GM running health-care AND making cars............oh wait............
    • TJ11240, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2How much is the sun going for these days? The wind? Tides? Switchgrass?

      The great part about renewables is that they CANT be controlled by a monopolistic corporation.
      • jmpeagle, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5all you have to do is control the product that turns those into energy. So yes...it can be controlled by a monopolistic corporation. There aren't may places that make high grade silicon...it wouln't be hard to control the whole supply.
        • TJ11240, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Silicon is the second most abundant element of the earth's crust; it makes up about 28% of the crust by weight. Its not like oil where there are limited reservoirs. Anybody with a little capital can create their own high grade silicon.
          • jmpeagle, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1then why is their a shortage and why have prices gone through the roof. It's a very expensive process and that requires patented technology.

            Oil can be made from any hydrocarbon including coal for example. Yes the industry is highly consolidates. Silicon will be no different.
          • shig, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1The silicon needed for a high efficiency solar panel is grown in a lab. The pure silicon in this form is called an "ingot" and has to have a contamination factor in the parts per billion. These cost several thousands of dollars depending on quality, etc.

            If you are looking to power more than an LED you are going to need a commercial panel.
      • shig, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Wind and Micro-Hydro are your best bets. Copper wire, magnets, wood, MacGyver instinct, and a clear definition of monopoly, lead to independence in the alternative energy market.
    • dcollins, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Wow, these people who have huge control over oil, are coming out and speaking on behalf of clean alternatives to oil, and people are bitching about their motives? If these resolutions pass it will be a huge step forward in solving global warning. STFU already people. Sometimes I think people just WANT something to bitch about.
  • OwdenBowden, on 04/30/2008, -5/+4If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is.
  • postalblowfish7, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Christopher Rocancourt?
  • Kreigster, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5Its always helpful to own the patents on the technologies that can reduce the size of your market.
    • Spire3660, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1Patent protection can only take you so far. If a sufficiently cheap, reliable, inexhaustable and plentiful way of producing energy was made and locked up by patents, those patents would become null very quickly.
  • rpfinley, on 04/30/2008, -3/+17Why don't the Rockefeller's start their own company and invest in alternative energy? The answer is that it doesn't make money so they aren't going to waste their own.
    • insanebrain, on 04/30/2008, -2/+30- "Why don't the Rockefeller's start their own company. . ."
      They already have their own company .. it's called America.
    • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Why don't they invest in Steve Meyers Water fuel device.
      • insanebrain, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Water is free. .. selling it doesn't give them money nor power.
    • swiftideas, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0Doesn't make money?! Tell that to FPL - http://www.fplenergy.com/about/contents/about_us.s ...
    • shig, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2They did back in 1870. It was called Standard Oil, and it sought to produce, refine, market, and transport the alternative resource of it's day; Petroleum.

      If you know anything about anyone named Rockefeller, it should be that.
  • redxninja, on 04/30/2008, -2/+21 million dollars to invest in new turbine generator powered by mutant hamsters with frickin laser helmets.
    • insanebrain, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2mutant hamsters. . .laser helmets. .. I like the way you think ;)
  • shyboy2008, on 04/30/2008, -8/+1Invest in ass flatulence
  • PacketScan, on 04/30/2008, -2/+39Hemp Contains 4 times the cellulose as corn or soy for ethanol type gasolines. Hemp grows faster than corn or soy. And is resistant to many bugs requiring less pesticides. Why is it banned? because it was a threat to the businesses, so they lobbied and got it banned.AND THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL
    Did you know that alcohol producing companies are number one when it comes to anti-drug(marijuana) commercials? Don't forget the paper companies either.
    • insanebrain, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2hemp is illegal . ..
      // yes. . sarcasm.
    • Infidelcastr0, on 04/30/2008, -0/+10When you think about it, legalization could solve many of america's problems, which is why it will never happen.
    • rlh1, on 04/30/2008, -4/+3Hemp is grown in Germany, France, Canada, England, Russia.
      Do any of them have a significant ethanol gasoline program that is based on hemp ?
    • boxoman, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Or we could just use sugar cane, which produces much better Ethanol and you don't have to legalize it first (too bad we don't grow sugar cane in the states)
    • rockrapdude, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3And the cotton companies.
    • rlh1, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Yeah,

      How come he has +27 diggs on this statement ?
      Hemp is legally grown in lots of countries in the world. If is was all that they say, why would they not grow it to alleviate some of their imported fuel costs ? And as far as getting banned in the US because of the farm lobby ??? Sure. Were there only a few people with hemp seeds? It is is such a wonderful fuel crop, then those who had the power to stop it being grown could have grown it too and made more money growing the hemp instead of corn !!
    • BevansDesign, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3Or just ***** ethanol completely. We need to build more nuclear power plants and use those to power electric cars.
    • Ebjius, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Increase the price of weed?, I can't agree with this.
  • shauncorleone, on 04/30/2008, -4/+5There isn't an argument as to whether or not renewable energy will eventually (i.e. not in our lifetimes) be of benefit to society, but nobody can convince me that it is the oil companies' job to invest in it. This akin to forcing Take Two to invest in anti-gun programs.
    • masterm1nd, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6I always thought it would be in their best interest to lead the industry in progress. For the same reasons Sony or whoever develops new TV technology, to stay ahead of the competition.
  • Dralite, on 04/30/2008, -0/+8...cause ruling the world is pointless if the world is all used up
  • vexingmodstwo, on 04/30/2008, -1/+22I'd like to point out that their motivation is this: $$$$$

    They're a smart bunch. They know where the money is in the long run. And that, my friends, is how it is supposed to work...
    • AbsurdParadox, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5Yep. Things will never EVER "go green" if theres no profit incentive.
    • shig, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1God Bless Capitalism.
  • Chimone, on 04/30/2008, -4/+3About damn time you rich bastards
  • Digger1218, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Decision rests with the shareholders and Exxon's board of directors. The Rockefellers (shareholder) might be able to make this happen.
  • redxninja, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4i wonder how much energy is store in American fat? We could put down some money and figure out how to tab into this energy resource.
    • lukemann, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0I'm seeing a possibility for Fight Club 2 with this....
    • deviantsteve, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1America should farm fatties! We're already half way there...
  • KaiSe7eN, on 04/30/2008, -8/+6This can't be true!! It contradicts the conspiracy theorists!

    /s
    • temjrpgh, on 04/30/2008, -1/+14It doesn't contradict anything. Power is predictable. Energy follows the path of least resistance. The Rockefellers are mobilzing to control the next paradigm. The power wants to remain in power, I don't think you can dismiss a statement like that as 'conspiracy theory'.
    • mCanada, on 04/30/2008, -5/+1No kidding. If these people found a cure for cancer Alex Jones et. al would claim it was for some nefarious, evil purpose.
      • dmjarrington, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4you're a sheep.
        • mCanada, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Why is that? Because I don't blindly assume that every rich person is out to get "us" ? Or that Alex Jones might have a few inconsistencies. Is that what makes me a sheep? Asking questions? Get off your high horse.
        • shig, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1I didn't see any question marks, mCanada. I wouldn't make any definitive statements on how any particular person would react to a hypothetical future event, such as you did, but Alex Jones would probably question the cancer cure. You would probably not. You are a sheep. Bleet Bleet.
    • Railz, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Or they could be just saying it for the public to hear. /shrug
  • insanebrain, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3The financial owners of America are changing their ideas ?? Whow. . .
    • lukemann, on 04/30/2008, -2/+0More likely they wish to dominate biofuel and alt energy so they can rape us on that also. I'd prefer they just stay with oil and get pwned by a start up.
      • insanebrain, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5I'd rather get pwned by nobody and kick the rockefellers into another dimension.
  • iAlex, on 04/30/2008, -3/+17Rockefellers, the profiteers of evil. Your United Nations New World Order will fail because justice and truth shall defeat you.
  • uselessexpert, on 04/30/2008, -6/+1First ExxonMobil..then Shell...then BP...the Conoco Phillips...then Citgo....then Texaco.... and on and on and on.... And eventually alternative energy will become as expensive to put in your house as gasoline is for your automobile.
  • codehkr77, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5Bunch of hypocrites....
    "Rockefeller kept his stock and as gasoline grew in importance, his wealth soared and he became the world's richest man and first U.S. dollar billionaire, and is often regarded as the richest person in history."

    I guess they are buying alternative energy stocks...
  • musntSurfatWork, on 04/30/2008, -2/+0I like oyster rockefellers
  • bbqsalad, on 04/30/2008, -2/+8Evil *****.
  • Acronym, on 04/30/2008, -5/+0like the governor of california would say: STOP WHINING
    • insanebrain, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Whine. . .hmmm .. that could also be a good fuel.
  • elamr, on 04/30/2008, -5/+4Wait, I thought the Rockefellers were part of a plan to subjugate all of mankind. Maybe I should re-think my conspiracy theories.
  • deadheadmon, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1A nice gesture, but really? Just because you are a Rockefeller doesn't mean that the country is going to hang on every word you utter over the AM waves while fathers sit by their radios wondering how they are going to survive The Depression. I'm not against Exxon investing in alternative energy solutions, but this is about a paradigm shift in this country that is going to happen over the next 25 years. When we went from coal to electricity, the coal companies fought hard to stay relevant but lost. Now, on the verge of another energy revolution, oil companies are doing the same thing. Everything changes, everyone falls- even Exxon. Get over yourself.
    • TJ11240, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Just to let you know, coal is used to MAKE electricity, and is currently the leading source of it.
  • nabhanc, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0The way I see it is that oil companies know better than anyone else just how much oil is out there. It makes sense for them to allow oil to increase in price and therefore maximize profits, but I hope (and maybe for once it helps to believe that corporations and government are sinister as opposed to simply incompetent) that the incentive for profit will mandate that they secretly invest in alternative fuels so that when oil runs out they have an alternative planned out, thus ensuring their own continued existence.
    A kid can dream.
  • pstroll, on 04/30/2008, -4/+7Americans insist on unsustainable lifestyles then Americans deserve to be raped at the pump.

    • Ryanr14, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0This is the major oversight by us Americans. We want the higher ups to make the changes for us, when really it starts with us. If we had realistic lifestyles i.e. saved our money, didn't drive as much, didn't create so much trash, half of the problems we are in right now would be better under control and panic wouldn't set in so easily.
  • TJ11240, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3BP is already a huge name in photovoltaics. Would it be that surprising if Exxon followed suit?
  • tierpinho, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2scum bag treasonists, now thy want to corner the alt-fuels market
  • boonesfarm, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2More shots at Exxon. Do you think that Exxon (who offers the same product/service as dozens of other companies who are not criticized) should sell gasoline to you for less than the station across the street? Don't hold them accountable for selling more... or doing it more profitably. Exxon sells you gasoline at market price. Be glad you live in a free market. If you don't like the price of gasoline, you can :
    1) use less (travel less or buy a more efficient vehicle)
    2) urge state and federal government to ease their taxes
    3) support the construction of refineries in the US. We're importing GASOLINE from other countries for christsakes
    Exxon is under no obligation to make it cheap for you to burn gasoline. If they feel like building solar plants and charging us market price for kilowatts, that'd be great too.
    • short, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1One problem with "using less". If that becomes widespread enough, taxes could go up because local/state/federal government won't be receiving as much income from gas taxes, and you know they won't cut spending.
    • swiftideas, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0The Exxon shots are because Exxon is Rockefeller owned. It's contextually relevant.
      Besides Exxon drill the Arctic, fund junk science, spent $14 million lobbying last year, made $36 billion in profit and despite claims, still have outstanding debt from the Valdez Oil spill.
      Unless you're a shareholder, don't defend them.
  • snichael, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2My "pornographic memory" is sure that it recalls having heard Lee Raymond, former CEO of ExxonMobil, appearing on Charlie Rose about 4 or 5 years ago, saying that the company was already spending @ $1 Billion annually on "alternative energy research." So...either he was lying, or these Rockefellers are playing loose with the facts for some reason.
    • soomprimal, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Or it's just a well-timed PR stunt.
  • JohnGalt72, on 04/30/2008, -0/+11Maybe we should ask the Rockefeller's what they think of cutting off the hundreds of millions of our tax dollars used to subsidize their industry every year? Aren't they supposed to use these subsidies for R&D on alternative fuels and technology already? Or do they like this money because it creates an uneven playing field and stifles competition?

    The Rockefeller's aren't going to do anything until they've bled the Earth of all oil profits, they don't have to as they know no competition will come around with alternative fuels and undercut them, as long as they still have the subsidies.

    In a true free market, I believe we'd already have alternative fuels competing with oil...
  • soomprimal, on 04/30/2008, -0/+7Right or wrong, the Rockefellers can go ***** themselves.
  • radink360, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4***** these guys. They are owners in the federal reserve. You know. the bank that is ruining our country so they can get rich.
    • SambaNoodles, on 05/01/2008, -1/+0sorry to tell you this, but THEY OWN YOU (and me too for that matter). YOU WILL DO AS YOUR TOLD.
  • cheeseysynapse, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1hey, if and when we run out of oil exxon won't pay them any dividends anymore. they'll actually have to buy stock instead of having it handed to them.
  • CallMeASeeker, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0why is this so suprising? Ther's tonnes of money in alternative energy but no vertical and horizontal integration of systems and infrastructure to get this going. The govt is not going to get their act together anytime. Following in the steps of John D's consolidation of the oil industry is something that will have to happen for the clean energy industry. The govt or large corporations have to get in on this to make it happen.Yes you can demonize John D all you want - why Bill gates who did pretty much the same thing to the software industry is lauded while John D is not beats me - what we are waiting for today is the John D of green tech. There is plenty of green technology around folks if you look for it . The problem is integration and systems - that was John D contribution to oil - monopolist yes sure he was but would you just give it away if you were in John D's place....i think not!! Someone's got to do the ground work folks and if its the Rockefellers who get it started once again - so be it. This aint the 1920s - they cannot own the whole industry like grandpa did. Besides lets remeber that oil being up now helps the Rockefeller's make piles of cash - far more than they are likely to see anytime soon from and investment in green tech
    (yourmoneyourworld.blogspot.com - monetary policy, economics and finance)
  • JebBlack, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Who do you think owns Big Oil? This story should read "Rockefeller's tell themselves to invest in alternative energy"
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.