OPINIONS

Big oil dominates “Earth, Energy, and Environment Career Fair”

Op Ed

By: Op Ed

As a job-seeking senior with a deep interest in the environment, I was looking forward to discovering what organizations and companies would be represented at the Earth, Energy and Environment Career Fair this past Thursday. Unfortunately, what I discovered were dirty Big Oil companies that attempt to crush the progress of energy innovation across the board and continue to egregiously pollute the environment dominating the event. Nearly half of the employers at the event were some of the biggest climate offenders including Chevron, Shell, EOG Resources, Phillips 66 and Exxon-Mobil.

The ethics of these companies run directly against the stated environmental and energy sustainability positions our University likes to assert. Stanford as an institution, backed by a near entirety of its professors, states the absolute necessity that we move away from dirty fossil fuels that drive climate change. The administration reaffirmed this stance when it divested from coal last year. In order to maintain a consistent ethical stance on energy and the environment, Stanford should limit the presence of dirty energy at career events. It’s time that Stanford not only divest its dirty money but divest its students from dirty jobs.

Career fairs are created for students; the companies that attend should reflect the interest of the students first. However, there is no denying that the strength of the presence of companies at these events influences student interest. Employers pay to attend the event. Cash-strapped and under-staffed non-profits and clean tech startups do not have the resources to compete with Big Oil. At this event, the oil companies averaged four employers on hand, ready with slick, high-tech, presentations. By contrast, each pro-environment NGO was limited to one stretched representative. This discrepancy makes a big difference in each organization’s ability to draw interest. The CDC should make special outreach efforts to NGOs and clean-tech startups to pull the two opposing interests level, at minimum.

Many would point out that perhaps the best way to counter big oil is to work for these companies and change them from the inside. The jobs discussed at this career fair often have to do with environmental consulting and potential clean energy. However, this argument fails to recognize that these jobs are merely greenwashing efforts from these companies – they exist almost solely as PR moves. To find the truth, follow the money. Chevron and Shell historically lead the pack in terms of clean-tech investments with highs of 2.5 percent of overall expenditures. Now, as the clean-energy sector in general has grown exponentially, these companies’ investments have fallen below 2 percent. None of the others have yet broken 1 percent. The Career Development Center advertised that “this targeted career fair will feature public and private sector organizations that are pursuing sustainability, with a particular focus on clean technology.” These five oil companies are doing no such thing.

And don’t take this just from me. Nearly 100 students who attended the fair signed a petition expressing their disagreement with the presence of fossil fuel companies. Stanford and the Career Development Center have an ethical responsibility to back up their own stance on creating a clean energy future by setting up its students to be a part of it. As a collection of some the brightest members of our generation, Stanford should substantively promote our ability to change the future of our environment and move towards the future of clean energy – not push us back towards the status quo of environmental destruction. The Stanford Code of Honor holds its students to strict ethical standards. The University needs to apply its own principles to which companies it chooses to support.

Liam McSweeney ’15

Liam McSweeney is pursuing a degree in English and is a member of Fossil Free Stanford.

Bob

Poor baby, the world isn’t as you like it? But don’t worry, with your English degree you won’t be all that an attractive candidate for employment with big oil, little oil or even green tech. If you are so opposed to big, dirty oil, how do you rationalize the big, dirty oil based petrochemicals in your iPhone, laptop, flat screen and your basic transportation? If you feel very strongly about this you should divest yourself of all things associated with Big Fossil.
doubting_rich

“Career fairs are created for students; the companies that attend should reflect the interest of the students first.”

Who are you to decide what the interests of the students are?

You are a cookie-cutter leftie, doing the “right” (English – wow) degree, with the “right” opinions, arrogant and self-righteous, telling other people what to do. That a leftie is authoritarian is hardly surprising. That you make the assumption that this trait could be published in a news source read by people who are supposed to be intelligent and free-thinking without being condemned for your arrogance is horrifying. Once Standford was a respectable seat of learning and enquiry, encouraging open minds. People who would see you for what you are and mock you. 20 years ago when I was a student it was considered quite a good university. Is it no longer?

Of course given that you are doing a degree that has nothing to do with energy, oil or the environment (and indeed nothing to do with actually producing anything of value to others) it is puzzling that you attended and predictable that you as a leftie would use a news column object to oil companies’ presence. You are not looking to get a job there; they are no help to you.Your ill-informed opinion (just the words “Fossil Free Stanford” confirm that, even if they did not come from a computer powered by fossil fuel) is against them so their presence, important perhaps to Earth Sciences and engineering majors, must be condemned

That is the selfishness of the left. It doesn’t help you, and you don’t care about other people.

If other students don’t want to see the oil companies then they can visit other stands. In that case the oil companies would have wasted there money. That is the free market, but as a leftie I doubt you understand that.
LiberalReader

Hmm, all I’m reading in this comments is “I SEE THAT YOU’RE RIGHT BUT ALL YOU LIBERALS THINK YOU’RE RIGHT SO FUCK YOU…ENGLISH MAJOR”
stanford 16

I’m sympathetic to the author’s point of view, but at the same time he should consider all the students who are not as radically opposed. Many of us need jobs that pay well. We can’t afford (student loans, etc.) to work for NGOs expecting us to live in SF on 35k a year. There is a place for these big oil companies. Also, although you say that these are purely PR positions, this isn’t true. I know for a fact that people have gotten extremely valuable experience working in clean-tech at big oil, and then going back for a graduate degree at a top school, or transitioning to a clean-energy/tech startup.
StanfordSenior

Then don’t live in SF. Either mess up the planet for millions around the world in poor countries who will be disproportionately affected by climate change while you live a life of ease and relative wealth, or live somewhere else and feel good about the change you’re making in the world from the beginning. And for context, 35k for most normal Americans is a totally reasonable entry position for a 20-something.
stanford 16

Okay, please don’t lecture me on climate change. I was just stating an opinion that a lot of your fellow peers have. It’s not for you to decide how someone chooses to live their life. If they feel good about the “life of ease and relative wealth,” then that is up to them, not you. Stanford should give those students access to said employers if that’s what they want.

A better solution would be to have another career fair that is exclusive to climate friendly energy companies. This seems better for the student body than you telling them where they should or shouldn’t work.
2016

>how do you rationalize the big, dirty oil based petrochemicals in your iPhone, laptop, flat screen

I think he’s complaining about oil used for energy, not for other applications where it’s actually necessary.

>and your basic transportation?

Actually, he clearly isn’t okay with oil in his basic transportation, hence why he’s writing an article like this to try to change things (you can argue about whether his push to change things is effective, but that’s another story).
Guest

Sorry, honestly not trying to sound like I was pontificating. The issue here is that this WAS suppose to be that exact kind of career fair, with the CDC stating: “this targeted career fair will feature public and private sector organizations that are pursuing sustainability, with a particular focus on clean technology.” I wasn’t trying to tell anyone else where they should or shouldn’t work, I just wanted to go to a career fair that would feature companies where I want to work and which the CDC told me would be there. They misrepresented what the focus of the event would be and in so doing promoted companies instead that are actively working in both public and private arenas against the kinds of companies I want to work for.
Bob

And just how do you get the petrochemicals for the other applications if you do not first refine oil or dig coal? And what do you do with those nasty light products from the refining of oil? If he doesn’t like dirty oil for transportation, there is always Shanks Mare. But you should remember that the Mare’s Nikes are made from petrochemicals.

You should hope that the folks showing up at one of these fairs are actually looking for candidates to hire. NGO’s hire interns and appear to have a long line of candidates for free labor. Once you leave the academy, it’s a cold world out there.
slender-bones

Ok, so your argument is basically: if murder is ok in war, it should be ok in your home.
slender-bones

The truly striking thing is that a Stanford educated individual could write what you have written. You have basically constructed a string of insults, mashed it into the vague form of an argument, and then wrapped it all in a gift wrapping that says “you’re selfish for thinking that other students want what you want”. All of this, without realizing that his main point is that Big Oil is destroying the WORLD, and every act that assists this is, in fact, not just more selfish than any of this local nonsense, but completely insane.
doubting_rich

Given that the only unsupported insult I gave was to Stanford University (“it was quite good”) I would have thought that at least you would have realised that I was not educated there. I realise that most at Stanford are socialists who would not think for themselves long enough to write what I did, but I went to (at the time at least, and in my college at least) a less politically-homogeneous university than the major US institutions seem to be by the reports I read.

I made a perfectly coherent argument. I pointed out that the author was telling other people what to do in a field in which he is ignorant. Given that I could write a couple of thousand words about why the term “Fossil Free Stanford”demonstrates ignorance both of English and science it is rather beyond this forum, but I did point out that this is a source of my contention that the author has no idea what he is talking about. However in that I am no more remiss than the author who has rather more scope, in that he has made no case that there is anything wrong with oil companies. That of course supports my assertion that he is ignorant. The burden of proof is on him, as he introduced that hypothesis.

“his main point is that Big Oil is destroying the WORLD”

Hahahahahahahahaha. Hilarious.

it is so ironic that your complaint against me is that I have not made a case, yet you make this wild (and ridiculous) claim with no attempt to justify it.

He is clearly selfish and arrogant. I will put it in simple words you might understand. He wants to tell other people what to do. That is arrogant. Those things will not affect him negatively, but they will affect other people negatively. That is selfish. He doesn’t want other people to have a choice in these things. That is arrogant and self-righteous, especially in an English undergraduate (my degree is in Natural Sciences, by the way, from a university better than Stanford). Ergo (sorry, that word might be a bit beyond you; errrmmmmm “so”?) he is arrogant in thinking he must be right and he is the one who should make choices, and he is selfish in making those choices that harm other people not the choices that would harm him.

Did you know that using no fossil fuel or nuclear power society would not have the energy to run a society with an education system, by calculations in a recent study? We would only be able to have an agrarian society. Therefore in even being educated Mr McSweeney is, of necessity, using fossil fuels he condemns. Therefore he is selfish, demanding others give them up opportunities when he is not willing to do so. Of course I strongly suspect he also has a car, and takes flights and has a computer, uses air conditioning. In fact I would not be at all surprised if he uses more energy than I do, but he demands others sacrifice.
Makshya

Why is it so hard for you to communicate with a basic level of respect for the writer and his ideas?
Bob

I believe that’s called a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the discussion. Murder is against the Laws of War and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Check it out.
slender-bones

It’s an analogy. I believe you are not too stupid to figure it out.
Guest

First paragraph: “You are a cookie-cutter leftie, doing the “right” (English – wow) degree, with the “right” opinions, arrogant and self-righteous, telling other people what to do.” = pointless insult

“That is the selfishness of the left. It doesn’t help you, and you don’t care about other people.” – since global warming will presumably kill us all pretty soon thanks to big oil companies, I’d say it’s you that’s selfish. But hey, here we are simply making insults again.

“If other students don’t want to see the oil companies then they can visit other stands.” – Did you read the original post? The point is that Stanford supposedly has a policy against big oil, therefore they can’t also allow big oil companies to recruit its students with integrity. He isn’t writing about the students’ choices, he’s writing about the choices of the university.
Bob

Right over my head. The conversation was jobs and dirty big oil. Your response was murder ok in way making it ok in the home. Murder, war or home, had nothing to do with the conversation. If it was an analogy, it failed on supposing murder being ok in war or in the home. The logic failed on both, so it’s better that it is a non sequitur.
doubting_rich

The original article itself is the evidence for the first paragraph.

“… since global warming will presumably kill us all pretty soon…”

Hahahahahaha

No it won’t. That is just a made-up scare story. Even if the IPCC is right (which we have no reason for thinking it is) then this is not true.

The actions and decisions made in an attempt to stop “global warming” (which of course stopped of its own accord 18 years ago) are actually killing people, but of course they are desperately poor black people in Africa and brown people in Asia. You are not affected, you already have electricity from fossil fuel and you don’t care about black people in Africa or brown people in Asia.

“The point is that Stanford supposedly has a policy against big oil,
therefore they can’t also allow big oil companies to recruit its
students with integrity.”

Why not? You really are making yourself out to be another leftie, who cannot imagine anyone allowing free speech to someone with whom he disagrees. Stanford can say that it does not want to invest in a certain sector but still allow its students to choose to work in that sector.

The university has every moral right to choose how to invest its money (that it could not exist without “big oil” is kind of funny) so they can morally if hypocritically have a policy against big oil. It has no moral case for shutting them out of the campus when students wish to hear their pitch. That would be equivalent to the colleges that have refused conservatives, libertarians and ex-muslims the right to speak, a disgraceful attempt to control speech.
doubting_rich

Poor countries are already being affected by “climate change” long before it exists: because of selfish people like you who already have cheap (fossil-fuel) power who elect representatives who then prevent the use of foreign aid to build coal-fired power stations, and who vote for ethanol mandates that double the prices of some food crops.

People remain in grinding poverty, dying early due to lung disease from solid fuel burning in their huts. They cannot afford food. The economic development that would help them if (as you completely fail to demonstrate) they are going to be affected by changing climate which none of this will prevent.

You are the one living the life of ease and wealth while advocating that others die after lived of backbreaking toil. They are black people in Africa though, and brown people in Asia so you don’t have to try to understand their lives, you don’t actually care.
doubting_rich

You do realise that the oil companies are some of the biggest private investors in “climate change”/CAGW? That they use it to get subsidies from government to reduce their “carbon footprint” and develop new technologies that are nowhere near viable commercially?

Big companies love government grants. It is guaranteed profit, nbo need to compete or to even produce anything anyone wants. Just fill in some forms and money flows in!
doubting_rich

You really must struggle with English comprehension then. He is not right.
Candid One

Hey, folks, this is an op-ed piece, don’t waste too much energy on this comments thread where your opinion isn’t seen by many. Write a letter to the Daily’s editors and have it published. Otherwise, this author has “the big stage” and you’re a mere comment tucked away somewhere on the internet.