Citing Fracking and Climate, Shareholders Question Fossil Fuel Investments
By Kieran Cooke
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
Shareholders in the U.S. are showing growing concern about their investments in companies exposed to climate change-related risks, according to new data released by Ceres.
The annual round of corporate shareholder meetings—referred to in the U.S. as the proxy season—has recently ended. Ceres says that at those meetings a total of 110 shareholder climate change and environmental sustainability-related resolutions were filed with 94 U.S.-based companies. Issues included concerns about fracking, flaring and both the environmental and financial risks of further exploitation of fossil fuel reserves.
Some of the U.S.’s largest public pension funds were among those filing resolutions, including the California State Teachers’ Retirement System and the New York State and New York City Comptrollers’ Offices. Ceres estimates that along with other large institutional investors these groups manage funds worth in excess of $500 billion in assets.
“The strength of this year’s proxy season shows unwavering investor concern about how companies, especially energy companies, are managing the profound climate-related risks of fossil fuel production, including traditional and unconventional oil and gas extraction,” says Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres.
“Investors saw especially important progress in tackling flaring, hydraulic fracturing [fracking] and methane emission impacts, all key contributors to climate change,” Lubber continued.
A resolution questioning the activities of Continental Resources, a large oil producer, was withdrawn after the company agreed to reduce or eliminate flaring at its well sites. Similar resolutions filed with three companies involved in the booming hydraulic fracturing industry—EOG Resources, Ultra Petroleum and Cabot Oil & Gas—were also withdrawn after management agreed to increase disclosure of their activities, including steps being taken to reduce the environmental risks of fracking.
“Companies are responding to the growing calls for transparency and accountability,” says the head of a major investment fund. “Without qualitative reporting, shareholders cannot be assured that a company is taking real steps to minimize these risks and protect shareholder value.”
According to Ceres data, the number of investor resolutions relating to climate change and environmental sustainability has increased significantly in recent years—from around 30 a decade ago to more than 100 last year.
While some companies are responding to investor concerns on climate change and the environment, others are more hesitant.
Shareholder resolutions asking two of the U.S.’s biggest coal companies—CONSOL Energy and Alpha Natural Resources—to disclose how their extensive coal reserves might be affected by proposed new carbon regulations were defeated.
Recent analyses have indicated that if targets to limit the rise in global temperature are to be met, then vast amounts of proven fossil fuel reserves need to remain unexploited.
Such reserves can account for between 50 and 80 percent of the market value of coal, oil and gas companies. If regulations are brought in to support meeting targets on limiting global temperatures, those reserves could become "stranded" underground, having the knock-on effect of exposing companies and investors to significant financial risk.
Visit EcoWatch’s CLIMATE CHANGE page for more related news on this topic.
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›