ExxonMobil’s destination: a world with more energy supplies … and fewer greenhouse gas emissions

November 21, 2007 at 10:42 am | Posted in Ads, Advertising, airports, Banners, Billboards, Emissions, ExxonMobil, Fewer greenhouse gas emissions, Ghg, Greenhouse gases, Heathrow, LHR, London, Marketing, Signs | 2 Comments

Two new ExxonMobil advertisements adorn the billboards at London Heathrow airport. This is on the approach to Terminals 1, 2 and 3 from the M4 before the tunnels:

ExxonMobil advertisement on billboard at LHR 21 November 2007

A bit hazy and with traffic lights blocking my view, sorry.  Fortunately there was a second billboard the other side of the tunnels.

On leaving Terminals 1, 2 and 3, heading towards the tunnels that would take us back to the M4, I was passenging.  That offered a better photo opportunity (click for larger version).  This is the very sign that puzzled me last week combining two ideas in a misleading way ~ ExxonMobil and fewer greenhouse gas emissions:

ExxonMobil advertisement on billboard at LHR 21 November 2007

I wonder if these signs are up at the access to Terminal 4 and at other international airports too?



RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. When I last looked, Exxon still hadn’t admitted that GHGs were a bad thing – has that changed? Because if it hasn’t, why emit fewer?

  2. Green veneers are good for business: dead-easy to do, and rife.
    ExxonMobil still do not specifically connect rising global temperatures with CO2 emissions. They provide a sentence or two on each in the same paragraph, ExxonMobil’s energy climate views, but do not concede that GHGs cause climate change. They do, however, believe that business opportunities to reduce GHGs are viable, feasible and necessary, while spreading doubt about the risks and spreading confusion by adding other problems in the world for people to worry about.
    Skimming it quickly, I would suggest that this phrase explains their approach in a nutshell:

    While this long-term objective is pursued, near-term objectives should include supporting climate research while pacing policy responses

    Pacing means delaying until ExxonMobil is ready to take advantage. Basically they want to maintain control of policies for their corporate benefit. They have the power to do so.
    Funding of marketing operations and contrarians could be a tiny percentage of funding for climate research (I don’t know the figures, am just guessing), yet yield much greater profits for ExxonMobil in the near future. In other words, for every penny the company spends supporting climate research, the key to understanding the way they operate is in the phrase “while pacing policy responses” because that’s how they control current and near-term revenue streams..
    In the long run, of course, climate change is a risk to their business, whether they will admit that or not in public, but they will have funded enough research to take on the competition by then, if they are allowed to continue to delay things for a few more years. It is all a matter of timing, risk assessment and investment decisions. Instead of competing now, ExxonMobil are holding the world back deliberately. (Same goes for U.S. automakers.)
    Policies are needed for business to work within frameworks. The reason other world-class multinational companies are collaborating is that they cannot wait any longer for policymakers to come up with the necessary frameworks, so they are working as best they can in a U.S. emissions-reduction policy vacuum.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: