I do not expect them to be ethical. I expect them to do everything they can to make money. Nothing wrong with that.
As a liberal, what I am concerned about is public policy. What I expect out of government is sane, liberal policy. Exxon (and petrochemicals, generally) needs careful regulation and government oversight to insure that its natural tendencies (to make money) serve the public interest (and, generally, they do--we need fuel). When their natural tendencies do not serve the public interest, I expect the government to step in. Their environmental practices, for example, need careful observation and correction from time to time. They do not need subsidies, imo. They do not need favorable tax policies, imo. That they get both subsidies and favorable tax policies seems counter-productive and wasteful to me. The fact is that we do not have the diligent, liberal government that I would prefer. That said, Exxon serves a vital national interest, and while, as a multinational, I don't think they have any loyalty to the United States, I don't really expect them to have any loyalty to anything other than their bottom line. To expect more from any company would be quite foolish.
As for the algae and biofuels, I think it's unwise to subsidize them. They are not cost-effective means of generating fuel, they do nothing (at present) to reduce CO2 emissions, and, as for corn-based ethanol, we need the land to produce food. In the long run, food is vastly more important. I do not blame Exxon for taking federal money to produce ethanol, nor do I blame big agricultural firms for taking the government's dime to produce ethanol. I merely think that both those subsidies are a waste of public money and bad public policy.
-Laelth
= new reply since forum marked as read