WEBVTT - Is this Exxon’s new climate delay tactic? 0:00:00.560 --> 0:00:19.960 Welcome to zero. I am Akshatrati Today Egxon at COP thirty. 0:00:20.960 --> 0:00:23.280 It's been a year of bad news for climate policies. 0:00:23.680 --> 0:00:27.280 The biggest force has been Donald Trump, who, in his 0:00:27.320 --> 0:00:31.640 second term as US president, has systematically dismantled climate action 0:00:31.840 --> 0:00:36.320 at home and made concerted efforts to attack climate initiatives abroad. 0:00:37.200 --> 0:00:40.840 He has championed fossil fuels and single handedly slowed down 0:00:40.920 --> 0:00:45.440 the energy transition, at least in the US. Trump's actions 0:00:45.600 --> 0:00:49.280 have also given license to many to ignore and deny 0:00:49.320 --> 0:00:54.000 climate change. But the CEO of Exon Mobile, Darren Woods, 0:00:54.400 --> 0:00:58.800 isn't quite following suit. Darren spears the CEOs of other 0:00:58.920 --> 0:01:02.400 international oil companies have stopped coming to COP climate summits, 0:01:02.960 --> 0:01:06.040 but Darren came to a side event here at COP thirty, 0:01:06.720 --> 0:01:11.039 his third COP in a row. For context, Egxon is 0:01:11.120 --> 0:01:13.920 one of the world's largest oil and gas companies, and 0:01:14.040 --> 0:01:17.200 Darren is in charge of overseeing its operations and what 0:01:17.319 --> 0:01:21.479 areas of the energy transition the company pursues or ignores. 0:01:22.560 --> 0:01:24.840 Last year, at COP twenty nine in Baku, I got 0:01:24.840 --> 0:01:27.720 a chance to ask him questions about how Egxon, which 0:01:27.800 --> 0:01:30.600 has a long history of sowing doubt about climate science 0:01:30.920 --> 0:01:34.119 can be trusted to now be acting in good faith 0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:37.959 to tackle climate change. I quized him on Exon's lobbying 0:01:37.959 --> 0:01:41.920 efforts on the oil industry's favorite climate solution, carbon capture. 0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:44.560 I also talked to him about the millions of dollars 0:01:44.560 --> 0:01:48.400 Exon spent advertising algaebio fuels without ever scaling up the 0:01:48.440 --> 0:01:52.400 technology for commercial use. If you haven't listened to that conversation, 0:01:52.600 --> 0:01:55.400 I recommend that you do. We link the episode in 0:01:55.440 --> 0:01:58.520 the show notes because this year I wanted to ask 0:01:58.600 --> 0:02:01.080 him different questions and follow up on some of the 0:02:01.120 --> 0:02:04.640 answers he gave me last year. Why is EGXON backing 0:02:04.680 --> 0:02:08.520 a new carbon accounting idea which many climate advocates worry 0:02:08.680 --> 0:02:12.440 is yet another delay tactic. What is his plan now 0:02:12.480 --> 0:02:15.080 that many of the tax credits under the Inflation Reduction 0:02:15.200 --> 0:02:18.720 Act for low carbon solutions have been gutted? And how 0:02:18.800 --> 0:02:21.320 is he planning to deal with the tactics that Trump 0:02:21.480 --> 0:02:25.000 is using to go after businesses, the same tactics that 0:02:25.080 --> 0:02:29.040 could be weaponized against his industry by a future administration. 0:02:30.440 --> 0:02:32.760 As you will hear, it was a good conversation with 0:02:32.840 --> 0:02:35.680 a healthy amount of disagreement. These are the kinds of 0:02:35.720 --> 0:02:39.800 conversation I'd like to see happen more often where we 0:02:39.840 --> 0:02:43.200 aren't questioning the accepted science of climate change, but debating 0:02:43.200 --> 0:02:51.200 the ways in which we should act quickly. Welcome back 0:02:51.200 --> 0:02:51.880 to zero, Darren. 0:02:51.960 --> 0:02:52.840 It's good to be back. 0:02:53.200 --> 0:02:53.280 So. 0:02:53.800 --> 0:02:55.640 I know your schedule is always very tight. 0:02:55.840 --> 0:02:57.360 Yeah, but you are in Brazil. 0:02:57.720 --> 0:02:59.760 Have you been to the Amazon ever before? Have you 0:02:59.800 --> 0:03:01.120 been to a rainforest before? 0:03:01.400 --> 0:03:03.600 I've been to a rainforest before, but not the Amazon. 0:03:04.320 --> 0:03:06.520 Maybe next time, maybe, next time. Yeah, I like that. 0:03:06.919 --> 0:03:11.119 So it's been a year since Donald Trump's election. He's 0:03:11.160 --> 0:03:13.720 been in office for ten months and there's been a 0:03:13.840 --> 0:03:18.480 radical shift in policies, obviously in the US, away from 0:03:18.600 --> 0:03:23.000 climate action and in favor of fossil fields. What changes 0:03:23.000 --> 0:03:23.560 have you liked? 0:03:23.800 --> 0:03:26.720 Well, I think, to me, what I focus on is 0:03:27.680 --> 0:03:30.280 the dialogue that's occurring in the fact that there's a 0:03:30.320 --> 0:03:33.640 debate and I'd say a challenge to some of the 0:03:33.680 --> 0:03:35.960 paradigms that have been established as to how best to 0:03:36.200 --> 0:03:39.880 accomplish this objective. If you think about the whole effort 0:03:39.960 --> 0:03:43.320 in this space, it's been defined, frankly by a set 0:03:43.320 --> 0:03:46.160 of solutions that have been proposed by a lot of 0:03:46.200 --> 0:03:49.400 ideologues primarily on the left, that this is the way 0:03:49.440 --> 0:03:51.640 we're going to solve the problem with this set of solutions. 0:03:52.080 --> 0:03:54.800 And I think unfortunately the problem and the challenge of 0:03:54.840 --> 0:03:57.839 climate change has then been defined by this solution set, 0:03:57.880 --> 0:04:00.800 and either you're for these solutions or against. And I 0:04:00.840 --> 0:04:03.560 think what we need to do is focus less on 0:04:03.960 --> 0:04:08.160 the proposed solutions. Some of them are valid and have merit, 0:04:08.240 --> 0:04:10.240 and they're necessary, but they're not sufficient. 0:04:10.320 --> 0:04:13.200 We need a broader aperture, and so less. 0:04:13.040 --> 0:04:16.000 Focus on that set of solutions, more focused on the 0:04:16.040 --> 0:04:19.320 opportunity to address the real challenge here, which is emissions. 0:04:19.320 --> 0:04:21.719 And so I actually like the fact there's a debate 0:04:21.800 --> 0:04:24.359 going on both sides of the argument. And I think 0:04:25.040 --> 0:04:28.760 generally speaking, when you have people debating about how best 0:04:28.800 --> 0:04:33.839 to achieve an outcome or to balance one challenge or 0:04:33.880 --> 0:04:37.240 issue with the other challenges and issues, that's an important 0:04:37.240 --> 0:04:38.360 dialogue and debate to have. 0:04:38.440 --> 0:04:40.559 And I feel more that's happening today in the US 0:04:40.560 --> 0:04:41.240 and in the past. 0:04:41.560 --> 0:04:43.560 Well, there are ideologues on the left, but there are 0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:45.599 idea logues on the right too, because. 0:04:45.440 --> 0:04:47.520 Are on both sides. Absolutely many of. 0:04:47.440 --> 0:04:49.880 The things that have happened under the Trump administration are 0:04:49.920 --> 0:04:52.040 things that the oil and gas industry as a whole 0:04:52.080 --> 0:04:55.279 doesn't like. You know, the API came out in support 0:04:55.320 --> 0:04:58.520 of keeping the greenhouse gas reporting, which the EPA wants 0:04:58.520 --> 0:05:01.159 to get rid of, for example. But you told me 0:05:01.240 --> 0:05:03.479 last year that you liked a lot of what was 0:05:03.480 --> 0:05:07.240 there in the Inflation Reduction Act, and obviously under the 0:05:07.279 --> 0:05:10.520 Trump administration that's been gutted, almost all of the incentives 0:05:10.560 --> 0:05:14.760 that were there are gone. Does that change your thesis 0:05:14.800 --> 0:05:17.640 on the investments that you were looking forward to making 0:05:17.720 --> 0:05:21.200 and all sorts of low carbon solutions like carbon capture, 0:05:21.279 --> 0:05:21.960 like hydrogen. 0:05:22.120 --> 0:05:23.840 So I think what we talked about last year is 0:05:24.040 --> 0:05:26.040 what we've been very focused on is how can we 0:05:26.080 --> 0:05:30.000 contribute to the challenge of emissions and reducing emissions based 0:05:30.040 --> 0:05:33.920 on our capabilities and our core competitive advantages. And that's 0:05:34.040 --> 0:05:36.239 very much focused on the molecule side of the equation, 0:05:36.400 --> 0:05:40.040 so carbon capture and storage, low carbon or virtually carbon 0:05:40.080 --> 0:05:44.160 free hydrogen, biofuels. We ended up moving into lithium based 0:05:44.240 --> 0:05:49.000 on our ability to process produced water, brine water, all those. Frankly, 0:05:49.040 --> 0:05:51.240 if you look at the changes the Trump administration is 0:05:51.240 --> 0:05:54.479 made to the IRA have not reduced the incentives for 0:05:54.520 --> 0:05:56.960 those but I will tell you that as you look 0:05:57.000 --> 0:06:00.600 at those different areas that were focused on, always said 0:06:00.600 --> 0:06:02.880 that our investment in the space was a function of 0:06:03.600 --> 0:06:07.000 good policy policy that incentivizes that in the short term, 0:06:07.440 --> 0:06:10.800 but very importantly for markets developing and for there to 0:06:10.880 --> 0:06:13.640 be a customer demand, because ultimately any of these policies 0:06:13.960 --> 0:06:17.200 to be successful are going to have to evolve into 0:06:17.320 --> 0:06:22.000 market driven forces. Government can afford to subsidize these solutions 0:06:22.000 --> 0:06:25.520 in perpetuity, and so markets have to develop, and technology 0:06:25.560 --> 0:06:27.360 needs to evolve so that we can get the cost down, 0:06:27.440 --> 0:06:30.720 because today in some of these areas the cost are 0:06:30.760 --> 0:06:33.200 too high for the long term, and so those three 0:06:33.240 --> 0:06:35.760 things have to happen. They have to improve, and we're 0:06:35.800 --> 0:06:38.440 going to pace the investments associated with what we see 0:06:38.440 --> 0:06:41.599 in the development there. Frankly, with our largest project, the 0:06:41.600 --> 0:06:44.880 Baytown Blue Hydrogen project, one of the big challenges there 0:06:44.960 --> 0:06:48.360 is customers buying the product, and so we are potentially 0:06:48.400 --> 0:06:50.880 going to pace that based on our ability to sign 0:06:50.920 --> 0:06:54.080 customers up, much less a policy issued in that case. 0:06:54.520 --> 0:06:57.360 But you started by saying, in terms of getting climate 0:06:57.400 --> 0:07:01.839 solutions or solutions that would reduce a missions being technology neutral, 0:07:02.600 --> 0:07:06.719 starting point having policies is helpful. In the US, you 0:07:06.800 --> 0:07:08.800 get this swing to the left and to the right. 0:07:09.480 --> 0:07:11.320 How much does that war do you well? 0:07:11.360 --> 0:07:14.360 Your point about their ideologues on either side of the 0:07:14.640 --> 0:07:16.920 aisle is I definitely agree with that. That's why we 0:07:16.920 --> 0:07:21.280 shouldn't be trying to solve this problem through ideology. I mean, 0:07:21.360 --> 0:07:23.360 ideology only takes you so far and then you hit 0:07:23.400 --> 0:07:25.320 the reality of the real world and need to practical 0:07:25.440 --> 0:07:27.920 constraints and how you manage through those. And I think 0:07:28.080 --> 0:07:30.560 from our perspective, we're trying to keep a very clear 0:07:30.640 --> 0:07:33.040 view on what is the problem statement, which is trying 0:07:33.040 --> 0:07:36.760 to find ways to productively reduce emissions that don't slow 0:07:36.800 --> 0:07:40.640 economic growth, they don't impact people's standards of living, find 0:07:40.680 --> 0:07:42.760 ways to do that based on what we're good at 0:07:43.160 --> 0:07:45.760 and achieve both. We refer to it as the end equation, 0:07:45.880 --> 0:07:48.440 and we're absolutely convinced that we can do that. And 0:07:48.600 --> 0:07:50.640 that dialogue that I have and the work that we're 0:07:50.680 --> 0:07:54.840 doing is consistent whether it's you know, a left administration 0:07:54.960 --> 0:07:57.160 or a right administration, or whether it's an ideologue or 0:07:57.160 --> 0:08:01.320 somebody who center. The foundational fundamental of how we address 0:08:01.400 --> 0:08:04.920 this issue over time do not change with political cycles 0:08:05.200 --> 0:08:06.120 or who get selected. 0:08:06.280 --> 0:08:08.600 You told me last year that given the scale of 0:08:08.600 --> 0:08:13.560 the energy transition, no single president in any country can 0:08:13.600 --> 0:08:17.160 do much to detail or to accelerate the energy transition. 0:08:18.400 --> 0:08:22.080 Do you still feel the same given how effective Trump 0:08:22.160 --> 0:08:26.280 has been at stifling clean energy projects. This is not 0:08:26.520 --> 0:08:30.440 just clean hydrogen projects, but also carbon capture projects. Obviously 0:08:30.560 --> 0:08:34.080 lots and lots of offshore wind projects that were canceled. 0:08:35.480 --> 0:08:39.240 Are you still of the same view that one president 0:08:39.320 --> 0:08:42.160 cannot shift the pace of the energy transition? 0:08:42.240 --> 0:08:45.679 What I would say is the energy industry, the basis 0:08:45.679 --> 0:08:48.600 on which we make decisions, the time frame that those 0:08:48.640 --> 0:08:53.520 decisions play themselves out, and the duration of those investments 0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:56.720 exceed any political cycle. So my point is that we 0:08:56.840 --> 0:08:59.640 have to look beyond the political cycle in terms of 0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:02.600 making these decisions. I think one of the things the 0:09:02.600 --> 0:09:07.560 Trump administration is challenging is a parameter that frankly has 0:09:07.600 --> 0:09:09.600 not been given the intention it needs, which is the 0:09:09.600 --> 0:09:12.080 affordability of these things. And you know, is it a 0:09:12.120 --> 0:09:14.960 productive use of money? You know, the challenge today is 0:09:14.960 --> 0:09:17.319 there's not a policy banker around that can tell you 0:09:17.360 --> 0:09:19.679 what is the cost for the benefit of a ton 0:09:19.720 --> 0:09:23.840 of carbon removed? And every government has its constraints and limits. 0:09:23.840 --> 0:09:27.120 Every organization has its constraints. We don't have unlimited budgets, 0:09:27.520 --> 0:09:30.360 and so I think every government around the world should 0:09:30.360 --> 0:09:32.640 be focused on how do you get the biggest bang 0:09:32.679 --> 0:09:35.160 for the buck. How do I remove the most emissions 0:09:35.200 --> 0:09:38.720 for the least spend. You can't do that today without 0:09:39.040 --> 0:09:41.559 because we have no carbon accounting mechanism, no mechanism to 0:09:41.679 --> 0:09:43.200 understand the benefits. 0:09:42.720 --> 0:09:44.000 Of the policy. 0:09:44.120 --> 0:09:47.559 So as a result, we get very expensive solution sets 0:09:47.600 --> 0:09:51.080 that frankly aren't sustainable. And so I think stepping back 0:09:51.559 --> 0:09:54.959 and trying to understand what are the economics, the underlying 0:09:55.120 --> 0:09:57.439 cost and the affordability of some of these solutions is 0:09:57.480 --> 0:10:01.480 a critical part to laying the right foundation for the future, 0:10:01.800 --> 0:10:04.080 and I think challenging that today to try to get 0:10:04.120 --> 0:10:06.119 to better solutions is appropriate. 0:10:06.679 --> 0:10:10.839 Specifically, though, how do you feel about Trump canceling offshore 0:10:11.160 --> 0:10:15.679 win permits projects that were fully permitted, some were under construction. 0:10:16.760 --> 0:10:21.760 There's a risk another president comes in who's left leaning, 0:10:21.800 --> 0:10:26.840 whose for clean energy, and uses the kind of policy 0:10:27.040 --> 0:10:29.200 weaponizes it against ail and gas projects. 0:10:29.280 --> 0:10:31.080 Well, we've certainly seen that with Biden came in and 0:10:31.120 --> 0:10:33.880 canceled the pipeline coming from Canada. So you're absolutely right 0:10:34.280 --> 0:10:37.040 that challenge sets on both sides of the aisle. And 0:10:37.080 --> 0:10:41.719 I think frankly, for businesses to be successful, particularly businesses 0:10:41.760 --> 0:10:44.080 like ours that invest very large sums of money over 0:10:44.120 --> 0:10:47.719 a very long horizon, you need stability, you need predictability, 0:10:47.760 --> 0:10:50.160 and so I think that's one of the challenges that 0:10:50.200 --> 0:10:52.400 we have today with permitting is the way it can 0:10:52.440 --> 0:10:55.160 be challenged, the way it can be changed, challenged, the 0:10:55.240 --> 0:10:57.320 legal system, and so I think a reform of that 0:10:57.360 --> 0:11:01.240 whole area is very appropriate. Focused as you advance these things, 0:11:01.280 --> 0:11:04.000 you advanced projects, you get the permit that you have 0:11:04.080 --> 0:11:06.720 to have confidence that those permits are going to continue 0:11:06.720 --> 0:11:08.760 to exist and allow you to make those investments. I 0:11:08.800 --> 0:11:11.520 think that's critical for every industry, every business, and for 0:11:11.600 --> 0:11:12.240 every government. 0:11:12.600 --> 0:11:14.960 You had also told me last year that if the 0:11:15.080 --> 0:11:20.439 energy transition provides opportunities outside the US, you will pursue those. 0:11:21.120 --> 0:11:23.400 In the US. It's pretty clear the energy transition is 0:11:23.400 --> 0:11:25.880 going to slow down. It's not going to stop. We 0:11:25.920 --> 0:11:28.080 know that electric car sales are going to rise, just 0:11:28.120 --> 0:11:30.640 not as much as it was predicted. Solar and wind 0:11:30.640 --> 0:11:35.480 projects will get deployed. But if you look outside the US, 0:11:35.880 --> 0:11:38.959 even there the Trump administration is having an impact. So 0:11:39.200 --> 0:11:43.040 one thing that Exon has long supported is carbon pricing. Ideally, 0:11:43.040 --> 0:11:45.040 you would want a global carbon price that would be 0:11:45.800 --> 0:11:49.360 level playing field for everybody. We were about to get that. 0:11:49.440 --> 0:11:51.960 You know, the politics have been very difficult around carbon pricing. 0:11:51.960 --> 0:11:55.400 But at the International Maritime Organization there was a vote 0:11:55.440 --> 0:11:59.400 to have a global carbon tax on shipping. Were you 0:11:59.440 --> 0:12:01.559 supportive of the net zero framework there? 0:12:01.960 --> 0:12:04.960 So just to the first point that you made around 0:12:05.160 --> 0:12:07.600 things have slowed down. If you actually look at what 0:12:07.600 --> 0:12:10.280 the Trump administration did with the build and the legislation, 0:12:10.720 --> 0:12:14.600 incentives for carbon capturing storage remain. In fact, they increased 0:12:14.640 --> 0:12:17.520 them for enhanced oil recovery, and so there is a 0:12:17.559 --> 0:12:21.400 scenario that says more carbon is captured in sequestered through 0:12:21.480 --> 0:12:24.400 enhanced oil recovery as well as seequestration under the Trump 0:12:24.400 --> 0:12:27.200 administration because the incentive for that has gone up, and 0:12:27.320 --> 0:12:30.640 for a low carbon hydrogen the incentive remains there. It's 0:12:30.679 --> 0:12:33.240 just a shorter time horizon. So I don't think you 0:12:33.280 --> 0:12:36.359 can jump immediately to there's going to be less investments 0:12:36.360 --> 0:12:38.959 made in low carbon. It's not as I think, black 0:12:39.000 --> 0:12:40.960 and white, as you point out. 0:12:40.920 --> 0:12:45.280 On carbon capture specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency wants to 0:12:45.320 --> 0:12:48.360 get rid of the greenhouse gas reporting at asset level, 0:12:48.520 --> 0:12:51.120 which is crucial to get your forty five Q tax 0:12:51.160 --> 0:12:54.680 credit that would enable carbon captured projects to go forward. Yes, 0:12:54.840 --> 0:12:57.640 doesn't that change your investment thesis if you're not able 0:12:57.679 --> 0:13:00.400 to tap into the forty five Q tax credit even 0:13:00.440 --> 0:13:02.680 if it's available to you, because you can't do the 0:13:02.679 --> 0:13:03.360 carbon accounting. 0:13:03.440 --> 0:13:04.160 Yeah, I think that's right. 0:13:04.200 --> 0:13:07.280 But I think also the Trump administration is supportive of 0:13:07.360 --> 0:13:09.920 forty five Q and so I think the question is 0:13:10.120 --> 0:13:13.800 what mechanism gets put in place to allow that to happen. 0:13:13.840 --> 0:13:16.760 And that story hasn't been written yet, but we're very 0:13:16.880 --> 0:13:18.880 actively involved in terms of how can we do this. 0:13:18.960 --> 0:13:21.720 We were supportive of continuing to report emissions. We think 0:13:21.760 --> 0:13:24.360 it's important if that happens, and so we've got to 0:13:24.360 --> 0:13:28.000 find an alternative if not that, to ensure that we 0:13:28.040 --> 0:13:29.240 can report on those emissions. 0:13:29.240 --> 0:13:30.320 So, yeah, that is critical. 0:13:30.720 --> 0:13:33.360 And on the energy transition slowing down, this is not 0:13:33.440 --> 0:13:36.360 my analysis. This is analysis done by different groups, Rodium Group, 0:13:36.360 --> 0:13:40.480 Bloomberg Enif it's more to do with the speed at 0:13:40.480 --> 0:13:43.640 which low carbon stuff will get deployed, and so you 0:13:43.679 --> 0:13:46.320 know emissions reductions, which is what matters, which is what 0:13:46.559 --> 0:13:48.320 you know. A lot of the low carbon work that 0:13:48.360 --> 0:13:51.320 you do is aimed at is going to slow down 0:13:51.440 --> 0:13:53.560 as a result of the policies that have been brought in. 0:13:53.640 --> 0:13:56.240 So maybe carbon capture doesn't get affected because forty five 0:13:56.320 --> 0:13:59.160 Q will be sorted out, but so many solar and 0:13:59.240 --> 0:14:02.000 wind projects have been canceled, so the energy transition does 0:14:02.040 --> 0:14:03.040 slow down in the US. 0:14:03.240 --> 0:14:04.600 I think it slows down in Europe as well. 0:14:04.640 --> 0:14:06.720 I think actually what you see happening around the world 0:14:07.400 --> 0:14:10.120 is that the incentives that people have put in place, 0:14:10.760 --> 0:14:15.360 and frankly, some of the impractical aspects of the policy 0:14:15.400 --> 0:14:17.000 that put in place and it's been rolling out is 0:14:17.040 --> 0:14:19.920 starting to be manifest itself. And so you see even 0:14:19.960 --> 0:14:22.120 in Europe that the cost of energy has gotten so 0:14:22.240 --> 0:14:24.960 high that they're stepping back and rethinking what needs to 0:14:25.000 --> 0:14:28.320 happen in order to achieve their missions reductions while continuing 0:14:28.360 --> 0:14:32.680 to provide affordable energy and reliably available energy. So there's 0:14:32.960 --> 0:14:36.640 a broader recognition that's needed that these solution sets that 0:14:36.680 --> 0:14:40.360 are out there today have their limits, and to blindly 0:14:40.440 --> 0:14:42.680 follow those and to assume that that is the only 0:14:42.720 --> 0:14:45.320 solution and not step back and think more broadly about 0:14:45.520 --> 0:14:48.600 what else can be done to address the issue is 0:14:48.640 --> 0:14:50.240 going to slow it down everywhere in the world the 0:14:50.280 --> 0:14:54.920 practical aspects of the problems associated with some of the 0:14:54.920 --> 0:14:58.160 solutions being proposed. The deeper you penetrate it, the more 0:14:58.200 --> 0:15:01.160 manifest those become going to slow things down. 0:15:01.280 --> 0:15:04.120 But one of those was having a global carbon price, 0:15:04.200 --> 0:15:07.520 at least on shipping, which the International Maritime Organization in 0:15:07.560 --> 0:15:10.680 the countries in it were going to vote for. Were 0:15:10.720 --> 0:15:11.600 you supportive of that? 0:15:12.080 --> 0:15:16.200 Yeah, Actually as a concept having a price on carbon, 0:15:16.280 --> 0:15:18.760 we've always thought that at global price on carbon is 0:15:18.760 --> 0:15:21.720 an effective way to control the emissions to the extent 0:15:21.800 --> 0:15:25.560 that governments around the world want to control those emissions. 0:15:25.560 --> 0:15:28.360 I think with climate change in particular, as you think back, 0:15:28.560 --> 0:15:31.440 the governments are put in place, are elected to represent 0:15:31.480 --> 0:15:33.800 their people, and so that's what you see happening around 0:15:33.800 --> 0:15:36.480 the world. I don't have a perspective on what government 0:15:36.480 --> 0:15:39.520 shooter shouldn't be doing. Their obligation is to their people. 0:15:39.840 --> 0:15:42.280 What I focus on is not the what, but the 0:15:42.320 --> 0:15:43.400 how best to achieve it. 0:15:43.560 --> 0:15:45.480 But it's part of the industry which is not just 0:15:45.600 --> 0:15:49.880 you exonmobile, but you support a lot of lobbying organizations 0:15:49.920 --> 0:15:52.880 that speak the voice of the industry as a whole. 0:15:53.440 --> 0:15:57.800 Was the industry supportive of the carbon tax in shipping. 0:15:57.520 --> 0:15:59.960 Because we were not advocating against it. 0:16:00.080 --> 0:16:03.600 What we saw was an extraordinary attempt by the US administration. 0:16:03.800 --> 0:16:06.280 This is again not my words, but we've spoken to 0:16:06.440 --> 0:16:09.040 lots of diplomats who were there in the room who 0:16:09.160 --> 0:16:12.920 said that those activities were extraordinary. That there were not 0:16:13.040 --> 0:16:15.400 just threats made at the country level, which were public 0:16:15.440 --> 0:16:17.840 and were published on the White House website, but also 0:16:17.920 --> 0:16:23.480 personal threats, visa restrictions or individual sanctions, which caused many 0:16:23.480 --> 0:16:26.640 of them to then really rethink whether they would go 0:16:26.720 --> 0:16:30.360 forward with the vote. If you get another chance to 0:16:30.440 --> 0:16:34.320 have a global carbon price, how would you speak to 0:16:34.680 --> 0:16:37.760 the Trump administration and how would you get them to 0:16:37.840 --> 0:16:40.600 change their mind on something that they currently aren't supportive of. 0:16:40.920 --> 0:16:43.520 Yeah, I'm not familiar with all the things you talked about, 0:16:43.560 --> 0:16:45.480 so I don't know if that happened or not. And 0:16:45.560 --> 0:16:48.080 I certainly wasn't involved in the Trump administration and their 0:16:48.120 --> 0:16:50.840 dialogue on this, so I can't pretend to know the 0:16:50.880 --> 0:16:53.560 complexity of the discussions that were happening. What I would 0:16:53.560 --> 0:16:57.320 tell you is what we have consistently advocated for with 0:16:57.360 --> 0:17:01.920 the Miid administration, with the Trump administration is what thoughtful 0:17:01.960 --> 0:17:04.960 policies can be put in place to help reduce emissions 0:17:04.960 --> 0:17:09.320 that don't compromise economic growth, that don't penalize people's standards 0:17:09.320 --> 0:17:11.679 of living. We've been very consistent with that, and there 0:17:11.680 --> 0:17:13.800 are opportunities to go do that. In fact, you know 0:17:13.920 --> 0:17:16.880 today at this Action Agenda that there is a drive 0:17:16.960 --> 0:17:20.199 for carbon accounting. That is a critical first step in 0:17:20.359 --> 0:17:25.120 establishing a more uniform approach to how we address emissions 0:17:25.160 --> 0:17:28.520 and getting from carbon accounting to carbon intensity standards, so 0:17:28.600 --> 0:17:31.240 you can start specifying that on products and letting every 0:17:31.280 --> 0:17:34.760 government around the world establish what those specs should be. 0:17:35.320 --> 0:17:39.359 Is a very flexible approach that allows every government to 0:17:39.359 --> 0:17:42.720 tailor that to the needs of their constituency and to 0:17:43.160 --> 0:17:47.840 their specific economic conditions. That's an approach that I think 0:17:47.880 --> 0:17:51.440 has very broad application and can be very effective. 0:17:51.720 --> 0:17:55.080 I'm definitely coming to coboniccounting because that's an interesting change 0:17:55.080 --> 0:17:57.640 since we last talked about it. But before we get there, 0:17:58.160 --> 0:18:00.520 you to only last year that you want the Trump 0:18:00.520 --> 0:18:04.000 and administration to stay in the Paris Agreement. I understand 0:18:04.040 --> 0:18:07.360 that you've even delivered that message directly to the president. 0:18:07.800 --> 0:18:10.040 Why did they not listen to you? 0:18:10.040 --> 0:18:13.200 You'll have to ask President Trump that there are a 0:18:13.200 --> 0:18:14.520 lot of people that don't listen to me. 0:18:16.440 --> 0:18:19.600 So, now that the US is officially going to be 0:18:19.640 --> 0:18:22.679 out of the Paris Agreement by January, what kind of 0:18:22.720 --> 0:18:24.960 harm does that do to the US is the only 0:18:25.000 --> 0:18:26.520 country that is leaving. 0:18:26.600 --> 0:18:28.840 You know, I look at the challenge here over a 0:18:28.920 --> 0:18:32.840 very long horizon, and again, our action here, the work 0:18:32.880 --> 0:18:35.280 that we do, the engagements that we have with governments 0:18:35.280 --> 0:18:38.760 all around, remain consistent. We're going to continue trying to 0:18:38.800 --> 0:18:41.280 do that because our view is there is something that 0:18:41.320 --> 0:18:43.200 needs to be done in this space, and that we 0:18:43.280 --> 0:18:45.560 have a role to play and can contribute, and we 0:18:45.600 --> 0:18:48.639 will work with whatever administration comes in and continue to 0:18:48.960 --> 0:18:51.119 drive in an agenda that we think makes sense, that 0:18:51.200 --> 0:18:53.919 doesn't compromise economic growth or people standards of living. We 0:18:53.920 --> 0:18:56.080 think there's an option to do that and open the 0:18:56.119 --> 0:18:58.960 aperture to the solution set. You're framing all of this 0:18:59.040 --> 0:19:01.320 as a US Trump, I think you should frame it 0:19:01.359 --> 0:19:04.840 more as an opportunity to open the aperture for a 0:19:04.880 --> 0:19:08.040 broader set of solutions to achieve the real objective, which 0:19:08.080 --> 0:19:11.560 is lowering emissions, versus the objective that people have been 0:19:11.600 --> 0:19:13.639 working to, which is getting rid of oil and gas. 0:19:14.119 --> 0:19:16.080 And I think that's one of the big challenges is 0:19:16.119 --> 0:19:19.240 that we've gotten the objective statement wrong, or the problem 0:19:19.240 --> 0:19:21.320 of statement wrong, and we've got to go back to 0:19:21.600 --> 0:19:25.320 how do we best reduce emissions? And the approach being 0:19:25.359 --> 0:19:30.320 taken today is centrally controlled government's dictating what the solutions 0:19:30.359 --> 0:19:33.600 need to be and then trying to force companies to 0:19:33.800 --> 0:19:38.280 implement their solutions. We've seen how controlled economies work, the 0:19:38.320 --> 0:19:44.640 Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, East Germany plan. Centralized government 0:19:44.680 --> 0:19:47.320 control does not work. You need the markets to be engaged. 0:19:47.320 --> 0:19:49.679 There hasn't been a solution set out there that engages 0:19:50.000 --> 0:19:53.680 the markets. That's absolutely needed. Ideology only takes you so far, 0:19:54.440 --> 0:19:57.800 and then you need practical systems that deal with the 0:19:57.800 --> 0:20:00.600 real market constraints and the challenges of making things happen. 0:20:00.920 --> 0:20:01.919 That's what we got to get to. 0:20:02.520 --> 0:20:05.840 You didn't raise the exception China, where things are working. 0:20:06.040 --> 0:20:07.919 I would tell you that that's a mix of things. 0:20:07.920 --> 0:20:08.400 You do need. 0:20:08.480 --> 0:20:11.080 Some government has a role. Don't get me wrong, not 0:20:11.080 --> 0:20:14.240 suggesting government doesn't have a role, but picking the solutions 0:20:14.800 --> 0:20:18.400 as a function of ideology versus a function of i'd 0:20:18.400 --> 0:20:21.520 say strategy, are two very different set of circumstances. I 0:20:21.520 --> 0:20:23.840 think the Chinese government operates a little differently than some 0:20:23.880 --> 0:20:26.600 of the democratically elected governments around the world, so it's 0:20:26.640 --> 0:20:28.480 a different decision making process. 0:20:28.600 --> 0:20:30.520 So one way in which you think you can address 0:20:30.560 --> 0:20:33.320 that is through carbon accounting. Last year you talked about 0:20:33.359 --> 0:20:36.760 the idea, but today you have the initiative in front 0:20:36.760 --> 0:20:39.679 of you. It's called Carbon Measures, right. It's based on 0:20:39.760 --> 0:20:42.359 a concept that's been developed academics at Harvard University and 0:20:42.400 --> 0:20:45.720 Oxford University. The goal is to make carbon emissions work 0:20:46.000 --> 0:20:50.960 almost like financial liabilities, that once you sell the goods, 0:20:51.080 --> 0:20:55.880 you pass on the liabilities emissions liabilities that come with it. 0:20:56.480 --> 0:20:59.680 And you wanted that system so that you could get 0:20:59.720 --> 0:21:04.440