You are on page 1of 2



Douglas Grandt

Get in step with COP21
December 25, 2016 at 7:04 AM
Malcolm Farrant, Darren W. Woods, Rex Tillerson
Cc: Suzanne M. McCarron, Max Schulz


Dear Rex Tillerson, Darren Woods and ExxonMobil Irving employees,


Friday, Dr. James Hansens responded bullshit twice in an interview. He normally does not
express his thoughts this way, so this is a milestone in the escalating vehemence of
scientists, the public, Senators and world nations opinions about U.S. climate inaction.

The group of people included in the vilified group includes not only members of Congress in
the climate denial camp, but industrialists like yourselves who are said to "put profits before
people. Like it or not, you and your ilk are increasingly the object of their vitriol.

The only remedy for your survival is to begin taking transparent, decisive action.

For the sake of all humanity, especially my own progeny, I implore you to immediately get in
step with the COP21 195-nation 'aspirational' target of 1.5C. Immediately announce your
intentions to create a plan to reduce your production 6% per year, and then get to work
implementing and tracking progress.

Sincerely yours,

Doug Grandt

Will We Miss Our Last Chance to Save the World From Climate Change?
Jeff Goodell | December 22, 2016 | (selected responses)
"I'm sorely distressed by [Al Gore's] most recent TED talk [which was optimistic in outlook],
where Gore made it sound like we solved the climate problem. Bullshit. We are at the point
now where if you want to stabilize the Earth's energy balance, which is nominally what you
would need to do to stabilize climate, you would need to reduce emissions several percent a
year, and you would need to suck 170 gigatons of CO2 out of the atmosphere, which is more
than you could get from reforestation and improved agricultural practices. So either you have
to suck CO2 out of the air with some method that is more effective than the quasi-natural
improved forestry and agricultural practices, or you leave the planet out of balance, which
increases the threat that some things will go unstable, like ice sheets."
"Right now, the Earth's temperature is already well into the range that existed during the
Eemian period, 120,000 years ago, which was the last time the Earth was warmer than it is
now. And that was a time when sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than it is now. So that's what
we could expect if we just leave things the way they are. And we've got more warming in the
pipeline, so we're going to the top of and even outside of the Eemian range if we don't do
something. And that something is that we have to move to clean energy as quickly as
possible. If we burn all the fossil fuels, then we will melt all the ice on the planet eventually,
and that would raise the seas by about 250 feet. So we can't do that. But if we just stay on this
path, then it's the CO2 that we're putting up there that is a burden for young people because
they're going to have to figure out how to get it out of the atmosphere. Or figure out how to
live on a radically different planet."
"I think that our government has become sufficiently cumbersome in its support of R&D that
I'd place more hope in the private sector. But in order to spur the private sector, you've got to
provide the incentive. And that's why I'm a big supporter of a carbon fee."
"[An 'aspirational' target of 1.5C] would require a six-percent-a-year** reduction in emissions,
which may be implausible without a large amount of negative emissions that is, developing
some technology to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere." [**Reference:]

A lot of people say you are a great scientist, but when it comes to policy, that's a whole other thing
and something you should leave to politicians. "Bullshit. What scientists do is analyze problems,
including energy aspects of the problem. I got started thinking about energy way back in 1981,
when I published a paper that concluded that you can't burn all the coal, otherwise you end up
with a different planet. There's nothing wrong with scientists thinking about energy policy, in
my opinion. In fact, if you have some scientific insights into the implications of different
policies, you should say them. It's the politicians who try to stop you."