Former U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson leaves the courthouse after testifying in the Exxon Mobil trial on Oct. 30, 2019 in New York. DON EMMERT / AFP via Getty Images
A judge in New York's Supreme Court sided with Exxon in a case that accused the fossil fuel giant of lying to investors about the true cost of the climate crisis. The judge did not absolve Exxon from its contribution to the climate crisis, but insisted that New York State failed to prove that the company intentionally defrauded investors, as NPR reported.
<p>In fact, the judge seemed to lay the groundwork that Exxon could face litigation for its role in contributing to the climate crisis.</p><p>"Nothing in this opinion is intended to absolve ExxonMobil from responsibility for contributing to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gasses in the production of its <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> products," wrote Justice Barry Ostrager of the New York State Supreme Court, as <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/780317799/exxon-wins-new-york-climate-change-case" target="_blank">NPR</a> reported. But, he added, "this is a securities fraud case, not a climate change case."</p><p>The case that New York State built took four years of investigations and millions of pages of internal documents, including emails from Exxon's former CEO and Trump's first Secretary of State <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rex-tillerson" target="_self">Rex Tillerson</a>. The case sought a penalty of $476 million to $1.6 billion to be returned to shareholders for the alleged fraud. As <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-trial-climate-crisis-fraud-2641061957.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" target="_self">EcoWatch</a> reported, the state alleged that Exxon kept two sets of numbers to assess the risk it faced from the climate crisis — one set, showing less vulnerability, was presented to investors, while another showing a more accurate risk assessment was kept by the company.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/climate/exxon-climate-lawsuit-new-york.html?searchResultPosition=1" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported, the judge seemed particularly engaged in Tillerson's testimony, but unimpressed and impatient with New York State's presentation of its case throughout the 12 days of the trial.</p><p>"We provided our investors with accurate information on the risks of climate change," Exxon said in a statement, according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/4f1ed81a07d678a46532f807a407da87" target="_blank">AP</a>. "Lawsuits that waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money do nothing to advance meaningful actions that reduce the risks of climate change."</p><p>New York Attorney General Letitia James touted the lawsuit for what it did accomplish.</p><p>"For the first time in history, Exxon Mobil was compelled to answer publicly for their internal decisions that misled investors," James said in a statement, as <a href="about:blank" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported. She added, "Despite this decision, we will continue to fight to ensure companies are held responsible for actions that undermine and jeopardize the financial health and safety of Americans across our country, and we will continue to fight to end climate change."</p><p>Scientists and environmental activists insisted that Exxon and other fossil fuel companies will one day have to answer for their contribution to the climate crisis.</p><p>"Exxon and its friends will eventually have to take responsibility for the decades of deception about knowingly contributing to climate change," said Vicky Wyatt, senior climate campaigner at Greenpeace USA, in a statement reported by <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/business/exxon-climate-change-ruling/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. "The people will not stop. We're seeing a wave of frontline communities, political leaders and investors demanding accountability and bold action as climate impacts worsen and become costlier."</p><p>The Union of Concerned Scientists also said that this will not deter people from holding the fossil fuel industry accountable. "The fossil fuel industry's day of reckoning will come," said group President Ken Kimmell, adding that several other lawsuits continue, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/4f1ed81a07d678a46532f807a407da87" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p><p>The Massachusetts attorney general filed a similar lawsuit in October that accused Exxon of misleading both consumers and investors for decades about the contribution fossil fuels made to the climate crisis, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-lawsuit-factbox/exxon-wins-climate-change-lawsuit-as-cases-over-global-warming-proliferate-idUSKBN1YE29T" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported.</p><p>Additionally, Rhode Island, Baltimore and about a dozen local governments have filed suits against several oil and gas companies, claiming that the companies created a public nuisance by adding so significantly to the climate crisis. The lawsuits ask the companies to pay for seawalls and other infrastructure designed to protect municipalities from climate crisis-induced <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/extreme-weather" target="_self">extreme weather</a> and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-level-rise" target="_self">rising sea levels</a>, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-lawsuit-factbox/exxon-wins-climate-change-lawsuit-as-cases-over-global-warming-proliferate-idUSKBN1YE29T" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Massachusetts Sues ExxonMobil For Climate Disinformation ... ›
- ExxonMobil Accused of Pressuring Witnesses in Climate Fraud Case ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Polling Experts Bash Koch-Funded Electric Car Survey as 'Highly Biased' and 'Highly Misleading'
30 October 2019
Politics
Senior Airman Alec Cope plugs in a hybrid vehicle at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts on June 2, 2016. U.S. Air Force photo / Linda LaBonte Britt
By Dana Drugmand
Fossil fuel interests appear intent on swaying public opinion about the electric vehicle tax credit, based on recent polling on the policy. A deeper look at these efforts reveals oil and gas funding behind the groups conducting the polls and blatant bias in the polling methodology, according to experts.
<p>Survey results commissioned and publicized by the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Energy_Alliance" target="_blank">American Energy Alliance</a> (AEA) seem on their surface to indicate that a majority of respondents are not thrilled about subsidizing EVs purchased by other consumers, particularly wealthy Americans. However, according to polling experts who reviewed the survey for DeSmog, the questions were designed to solicit a certain response and produce results to serve a predetermined narrative that supports the oil industry's interests. According to polling expert <a href="https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/portfolio-view/edward-maibach-4/" target="_blank">Ed Maibach</a>, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, the surveys relied on "highly biased questions designed to elicit highly misleading answers."</p>
<h2>Who Is Behind the 'Highly-Biased' Anti-Electric Vehicle Poll?</h2><p>The organization that commissioned the surveys, AEA, is funded by oil interests including the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-network-database" target="_blank">Koch network</a> and the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-fuel-petrochemical-manufacturers-afpm" target="_blank">American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)</a>, the nation's leading trade group of oil refiners. The group is touting these findings from recent polls in Maine, Michigan and South Dakota, saying the results are consistent with those from surveys they commissioned in nine other states.</p><p>"This is further evidence that efforts to compel taxpayers, ratepayers, workers, and consumers to pay for the choices of others, and the preferences of government bureaucrats, are doomed and will lead directly to voter resistance," <a href="https://www.americanenergyalliance.org/2019/10/voters-to-congress-make-a-u-turn-on-special-vehicle-preferences/" target="_blank">said</a> <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/thomas-pyle" target="_blank">Thomas Pyle</a>, president of AEA. "The citizens of Maine, Michigan, and South Dakota see an expansion of the electric vehicle tax credit exactly for what it is: a giveaway to rich Californians and large, already prosperous corporations."</p><p>Pyle's statement, and the survey questions themselves, are loaded with misleading information. The tax credit's stated purpose is to lower the cost of electric vehicles, which is critically important for low-to-moderate income Americans. Automakers don't claim the credit, consumers do, including those who <a href="https://www.kochvsclean.com/electric-car-tax-credit-facts/" target="_blank">opt to lease an electric vehicle</a>. But Pyle appears to disregard these points in an attempt to drum up opposition to the policy.</p><p>Pyle's approach makes sense within the context of his and his organization's backgrounds and former lobbying clients, as well as those of the firm conducting the surveys.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-energy-alliance-aea" target="_blank">American Energy Alliance</a> is a 501(c)(4) organization — meaning it is not required to disclose its donors — and is the advocacy arm of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/institute-energy-research" target="_blank">Institute for Energy Research</a>. IER supports "free-market energy and environmental policy" and was formed in 1989 from a predecessor organization <a href="https://www.republicreport.org/2014/charles-koch-personally-founded-group-protecting-oil-industry-hand-outs-documents-reveal/" target="_blank">founded</a> by petrochemical billionaire <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/charles-koch" target="_blank">Charles Koch</a>. Donors to IER include oil and gas interests such as the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-family-foundations" target="_blank">Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation</a> and Charles Koch Institute as well as ExxonMobil and the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-petroleum-institute" target="_blank">American Petroleum Institute</a>. The AFPM oil refiners trade group is also a major donor, having given three times as much to the American Energy Alliance compared to any other organization, according to the most recently available tax records.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA0ODM5Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0ODU4MDUwNH0.4Y7WPEqFoYN3_seKIUZN1sLudDlDQLAjbRZA_gwrItQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="b1b68" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="097598073b46d21b7c856d6d40b9ec50" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Charles Koch at a conference in Aspen in 2016. Fortune Brainstorm TECH, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
<p><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/thomas-pyle" target="_blank">Thomas Pyle</a>, president of <span style="background-color: initial;">IER</span> and <span style="background-color: initial;">AEA</span>, is a former lobbyist for <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-industries-inc" target="_blank">Koch Industries</a>, the largest privately owned energy company in the <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> Pyle has also lobbied for the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-oil">Big Oil</a> trade association formerly called the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, which is now <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-fuel-petrochemical-manufacturers-afpm" target="_blank">AFPM</a>. Both <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/koch-network">Koch</a> Industries and the members of <span style="background-color: initial;">AFPM</span> like <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon">Exxon</a> make billions in profits from fueling internal-combustion engine vehicles, so policies supporting vehicles not fueled by their products, like the <span style="background-color: initial;">EV</span> tax credit, threaten their bottom lines.</p><p>MWR Strategies, the firm conducting the surveys on the EV tax credit, is a research, communications and lobbying company whose clients include electric utility and energy companies with clear fossil fuel interests. For example, <a href="https://www.tecoenergy.com/company/businesses/" target="_blank">TECO Energy</a> — owner of natural gas businesses in Florida and New Mexico — paid MWR <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=F226732&year=2019" target="_blank">$80,000 just this year</a>. Among other energy and utility corporations <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=F226732&year=2018" target="_blank">paying</a> MWR are ENGIE, Public Service Enterprise Group/PSEG Power, and Southern Company. Notably, Koch Industries has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the firm from 2008 to 2016, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=F226732&year=2008" target="_blank">OpenSecrets data</a> reveals. Other petroleum corporations and trade associations like El Paso Corp. and AFPM's predecessor National Petrochemical & Refiners Association have previously retained MWR. </p><p>Michael McKenna, president of MWR Strategies, is an <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060046020/" target="_blank">energy lobbyist</a> who led Trump's Energy Department transition team, and, as <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060046020/" target="_blank">E&E reported</a>, is "well-known in Republican energy circles" and was recently tapped to serve in the White House as an advisor to the president. McKenna previously worked at several other research and communications firms including Luntz Research Companies, founded by notorious <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">climate denier</a> Frank Luntz (who only recently announced he was wrong and has shifted his views).</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA0ODQwMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMjM4NzUzNX0.BhN7nNF-nBGdvQfOixKessHgwkMHkSVBlC1QRBnEDoU/img.jpg?width=980" id="f5176" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a39be50a952cc3ec5971564d283b97e5" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Mike McKenna of MWR Strategies / CleanSkiesNews / YouTube screenshot
<p>The MWR Strategies website does not have information about current work, rather the <a href="http://mwrstrat.com/current/default.htm" target="_blank">"current" section</a> is a list of links to polling on climate and energy topics dating back to 2008 and earlier. These "polls" are structured in much the same way as the polls about EV tax credits, with questions focused on the (debunked) premise that addressing <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate change</a> is too expensive and even asking about the "certainty" of climate science (exploiting scientific uncertainty has been a key strategy of the fossil fuel industry's well-documented disinformation campaign).</p><p>MWR's polling strategy appears to be posing misleading questions, some with inaccurate information, in order to garner a particular response. For example, in the firm's <a href="http://mwrstrat.com/current/documents/topline2.doc" target="_blank">March 2008 poll</a> on global warming, one question asked which is more important, addressing global warming or reducing reliance on foreign energy sources — which is a false choice given that renewable energy sources like solar and wind would do both. In another <a href="http://mwrstrat.com/archive/documents/topline_001.doc" target="_blank">survey from 2006 on energy</a>, the statement "liquefied natural gas cannot explode like gasoline" was posed to respondents. This is also misleading because while the liquid itself won't explode, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blast-at-liquified-natural-gas-site-casts-spotlight-on-industry-safety/" target="_blank">blasts can occur at LNG sites</a> and associated vapors are combustible.</p>
<h2>How MWR's EV Tax Credit Survey Misleads Respondents and Deceives the Public</h2><p>In the recent <a href="https://www.americanenergyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Michigan-Survey-19.pdf" target="_blank">surveys</a> MWR conducted on the EV tax credit, one of the statements that respondents could agree or disagree with was, "It is not right for GM to ask taxpayers for a tax credit." General Motors is lobbying to extend and expand the electric car tax credit, but the automaker would not actually claim the credit — consumers would.</p><p>Another question claims that "the average buyer of an electric car makes more than 150 thousand dollars per year," a claim that is <a href="https://www.kochvsclean.com/electric-car-tax-credit-facts/" target="_blank">demonstrably false</a>. When pressed by DeSmog for a citation or clarification, McKenna responded through a media relations contact, pointing to the often-debunked <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/manhattan-institute-policy-research" target="_blank">Manhattan Institute</a> report by Jonathan Lesser called "<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/short-circuit-high-cost-electric-vehicle-subsidies-jonathan-lesser-debunked" target="_blank">Short Circuit: The High Cost of Electric Vehicle Subsidies</a>."</p><p>That report actually cites a <a href="https://merritt.cdlib.org/d/ark:%252F13030%252Fm56692z3/1/producer%252F2013-UCD-ITS-RR-13-02.pdf" target="_blank">2013 UC-Davis study</a> that examined "the characteristics of 1,200 households who actually purchased a new plug-in vehicle in California during 2011-2012," finding that "46 percent of electric car drivers in California alone had incomes above $150,000." This study, now six years old, does not translate to the statement regarding an "average buyer" that was presented in the survey. In effect, the survey question was premised on a falsified statistic from an outdated data set that only included California.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA0ODQyNy9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTEwOTM3OH0.CFatQwKWhy-EBnq26vOQGupSYUa9GA7cIbeIiT2wjp8/img.png?width=980" id="c2c94" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0911cea288d49dd2f20425e89a72414d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Excerpt of misleading questions from the MWR poll about consumer attitudes toward the electric car tax credit.
<p>Polling and communication experts told DeSmog that these EV tax credit surveys should not be considered legitimate measures of public opinion. Many of the questions are actually statements that respondents can agree or disagree with. But according to polling expert <a href="https://www.uml.edu/FAHSS/Political-Science/faculty/Dyck-Joshua.aspx" target="_blank">Joshua Dyck</a>, associate professor of political science at UMass Lowell and director of the <a href="https://www.uml.edu/research/public-opinion/default.aspx" target="_blank">Center for Public Opinion</a>, "Agree/disagree items are not a legitimate way to determine public opinion on policy issues."</p><p>"There is a well known response bias for respondents in surveys to agree to prompts in questions structured as agree/disagree items," he said. "This is known to survey researchers by the term 'response acquiescence.' In order to get at how respondents actually feel, you should allow respondents to pick from balanced options. I wouldn't put much stock in the agree/disagree items in this survey."</p><p><a href="https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/portfolio-view/edward-maibach-4/" target="_blank">Ed Maibach</a>, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, also said these surveys were designed to be misleading.</p><p>"Unbiased survey questions intended to elicit people's opinions about or support for a proposition (such as a proposed public policy) can be done in one of two ways. The proposition can be stated in neutral, factual terms with or without the leading arguments both for and against the proposition," he explained. "The questions on AEA surveys did not state the facts about the propositions, but instead made negative claims about the consequences of the propositions. Therefore, people were responding to the negative statements made about the proposition, not the proposition itself."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA0ODQzNC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMzgyMDY2M30.mdto4AxlNPQmjVSQDOr9Grq626cnU_1QEIraq61FcIY/img.png?width=980" id="f15ae" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e34cd4e1f88071e12e6422e042564c42" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Ed Maibach, a climate change communication researcher at George Mason University. greenmanbucket / YouTube screenshot
<p>This response to negative statements gives the misleading appearance that there is little public support for the EV tax credit. "Elected officials who are concerned about voter opinion should probably think twice before expanding favorable tax treatment for electric vehicles. Voters in each of the 12 States we examined are very skeptical of them," MWR's McKenna <a href="https://www.americanenergyalliance.org/2019/10/voters-to-congress-make-a-u-turn-on-special-vehicle-preferences/" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement about the poll.</p><p>But as Maibach explained, this is probably not true. "The poll done for AEA was not intended to determine how people actually feel about public policies in support of EVs, rather it was done to give the impression that people do not support use of public resources to support EVs," he said.</p><p>Maibach's Center for Climate Change Communication, along with Climate Nexus and the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, did a poll in July of 820 registered voters in Michigan on their attitudes towards various climate policies. <a href="https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Michigan_Voters_Support_Climate_Action.pdf" target="_blank">According to the results</a>, "Michigan voters favor expanding the tax credit for those who purchase EVs — close to two-thirds (66 percent) agree the federal tax credit for EVs should extend beyond each manufacturer's first 200,000 vehicles."</p><p>Pyle, AEA's president and former Koch lobbyist, <a href="https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/10/16/stories/1061289531" target="_blank">told E&E News</a> he stands by his surveys finding little support for the tax credit, adding that he is "not concerned about what the greens think about our work."</p><p>But Maibach pushed back against this statement. "The problem with his poll is not that 'the greens' don't like the findings," he said. "The problem is that his findings are bogus, because they asked highly biased questions designed to elicit highly misleading answers."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/10/29/koch-american-energy-alliance-electric-car-poll-biased-misleading" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
- Survey Shows Strong Support for Electric Vehicles | Union of ... ›
- More Americans Want Electric Cars | AAA Survey - Consumer Reports ›
- Survey: Half of young people want electric cars - BBC News ›
- New Poll Shows Widespread Bipartisan Interest in Electric Cars ... ›
- Electric cars increasingly appealing to Americans, AAA study finds ›
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson arrives at Travis Air Force Base, California on June 2, 2017. U.S. Air Force / Louis Briscese
The case New York State has brought against ExxonMobil for defrauding investors about the the true cost of the climate crisis is in its second week and is seeing a star witness take the stand Wednesday.
<p><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rex-tillerson"></a><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rex-tillerson">Rex Tillerson</a>, the company's former CEO and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a>'s first secretary of state, will testify about his role in pricing the value of Exxon's assets as governments around the world ramp up regulations to combat the global climate crisis, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/climate/rex-tillerson-exxon-climate-change-case.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate&action=click&contentCollection=climate&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>Tillerson was <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon">Exxon</a>'s CEO from 2006 until he left the post to join Trump's cabinet in 2017. During his tenure as CEO, Exxon communicated to investors that it had created a robust system of "proxy costs" to assess the future impact of climate crisis regulations, valuing it at $80 per ton of carbon emissions. However, that was fraud, alleges the State of New York, since Exxon used internal figures as low as $40 per ton of carbon, and sometimes used no figures at all, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-lawsuit/former-exxon-chief-rex-tillerson-to-testify-in-climate-change-fraud-trial-idUSKBN1X912M" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>New York says the difference in numbers cost investors to overvalue the company's stock by $476 million to $1.6 billion, as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-trial-climate-crisis-fraud-2641061957.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2">EcoWatch</a> reported when the trial began last week.</p><p>The fuzzy math "exposed the company to greater risk from climate change regulation than investors were led to believe," according to the <a href="http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20181024_docket-4520442018_complaint-1.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuit</a>, and it occurred under Tillerson's watch. The case leans heavily on Tillerson's public comments, including a remark from a 2016 shareholder meeting in which he claimed that the company accounted for climate crisis regulation. "We have accommodated that uncertainty in the future and everything gets tested against it," said Tillerson at the shareholder meeting, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/climate/rex-tillerson-exxon-climate-change-case.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate&action=click&contentCollection=climate&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported. "[That cost] gets put into all our economic models when we make investment decisions as well."</p><p>Exxon said the case is false and politically motivated. Theodore Wells, a lawyer for the company, explained the price differential in his opening statement. He said that the $80 per ton proxy cost reflected a macroeconomic, global assessment of the cost, while the lower figures were assigned to particular capital projects. He added that Exxon never said the two numbers were the same to investors, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-lawsuit/former-exxon-chief-rex-tillerson-to-testify-in-climate-change-fraud-trial-idUSKBN1X912M" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>Well said in his opening statement that Tillerson "put in place a robust system to manage the risk of increasing climate change regulations," <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/climate/rex-tillerson-exxon-climate-change-case.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate&action=click&contentCollection=climate&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported.</p><p>One of the stranger parts of Tillerson's testimony is likely to focus on an on-line pseudonym that Tillerson used, Wayne Tracker. Tillerson had a separate email account at Exxon issued to Wayne Tracker (Wayne is his middle name). Even though New York State issued a subpoena for all of the emails in the Wayne Tracker account, which Tillerson did use for company business, Exxon destroyed all of the Tracker emails prior to mid-August 2015 — almost a decade's worth of emails, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/climate/rex-tillerson-exxon-climate-change-case.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate&action=click&contentCollection=climate&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>Wells claimed destroying the emails was just part of how the company's system was configured and that not only would any information in them be insignificant, but it would also be through the recipients' accounts.</p><p>"It's hard to understand how Tillerson's emails could not be highly relevant here," said Stephen Gillers, a professor at the New York University School of Law, to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/climate/rex-tillerson-exxon-climate-change-case.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate&action=click&contentCollection=climate&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. "He spent a decade as CEO and chairman. To the extent that some emails are not available from his account or the accounts of others, the court loses information and information is the cornerstone of accurate verdicts."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Exxon Goes on Trial for Lying About the Climate Crisis - EcoWatch ›
- ExxonMobil Accused of Pressuring Witnesses in Climate Fraud Case ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
An Exxon station in Florida remains open despite losing its roof during Hurricane Katrina on Aug. 29, 2005. Florida Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Shaun Withers
The country's largest fossil fuel company goes on trial today to face charges that it lied to investors about the safety of its assets in the face of the climate crisis and potential legislation to fight it, as the AP reported.
<p>The lawsuit against <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon" target="_self">ExxonMobil</a>, the country's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/fossil-fuel-companies-carbon-emissions-2640901723.html" target="_self">second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses</a> after Chevron, accuses the oil behemoth of using fuzzy math to assess its readiness for government regulations to combat the climate crisis. It valued its readiness at two different prices: a high number to investors, but a lower number in internal documents, according to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/exxon-climate-change-lawsuit-kicks-off-in-new-york/" target="_blank">CBS News</a>.</p><p>This practice, which Exxon Mobil insists is perfectly legitimate, created the appearance that its oil investments would be more profitable than the company actually thinks they will be. Additionally, the numbers made <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" target="_self">renewable energy</a> appear like a less attractive investment, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/exxon-climate-change-lawsuit-kicks-off-in-new-york/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> explained.</p><p>New York calls that fraud.</p>
<p>"Exxon in effect erected a Potemkin village to create the illusion that it had fully considered the risks of future climate change regulation and had factored those risks into its business operations," the <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint_0.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuit</a> claims, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/exxon-climate-change-lawsuit-kicks-off-in-new-york/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported. "As a result of Exxon's fraud, the company was exposed to far greater risk from climate change regulations than investors were led to believe."</p><p>The lawsuit contends that the revenue the company reported to investors should have been billions of dollars lower, alleging that the difference in numbers cost shareholders between $476 million and $1.6 billion, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/exxon-climate-change-lawsuit-kicks-off-in-new-york/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported.</p><p>"By representing that it was applying higher projected carbon costs than it was actually using, ExxonMobil made its assets appear significantly more secure than they really were, which had a material impact on its share price," the state wrote, as the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50132400" target="_blank">BBC</a> reported.</p><p>"It's a big no-no to tell your investors one thing and do another," said Pat Tomaino, director of socially responsible investing at Zevin Asset Management, to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/exxon-climate-change-lawsuit-kicks-off-in-new-york/" target="_blank">CBS News</a>.</p><p>ExxonMobil says its numbers were truthful and the lawsuit is politically motivated, according to the <a href="https://www.apnews.com/0232a46d7ecb4498bbb3fbc4ac0f25b1" target="_blank">AP</a>.</p><p>"The New York Attorney General's allegations are false," Exxon said in a statement, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-lawsuit/exxon-to-face-trial-in-new-york-investor-fraud-lawsuit-idUSKBN1X1181" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported. "We tell investors through regular disclosures how the company accounts for risks associated with climate change. We are confident in the facts and look forward to seeing our company exonerated in court."</p><p>The trial kicks off in Manhattan today and is expected to last a couple of weeks. It is also expected to hear testimony from former CEO and former U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who the suit alleges knowingly ignored the alleged fraud. The trial is at the forefront of a number of cases brought against fossil fuel firms.</p><p>"It's a major milestone as a part of a growing wave of cases that Exxon and other major oil companies are facing, not only here in the United States, but in fact in jurisdictions around the world," said Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law, to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50132400" target="_blank">BBC</a>.</p><p>Two weeks ago, Massachusetts filed suit against ExxonMobil for violating the state's Consumer Protection Act — "by engaging in unfair or deceptive acts" regarding the sale and branding of fossil fuel products, according to the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-10-21/oil-companies-exxon-climate-change-denial-report" target="_blank">Los Angeles Times</a>. Rhode Island has filed claims against Exxon and BP for damage to its coastline. Investigators in Canada and the Philippines are also exploring legal avenues for holding fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis, according to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50132400" target="_blank">BBC</a>.</p><p>"Regardless of the outcome [of the New York case] the reality that is clear and not inescapable is that the future of Exxon and [other fossil fuel] companies is filled with litigation and it's only going to grow," said Muffet to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50132400" target="_blank">BBC</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ExxonMobil Accused of Pressuring Witnesses in Climate Fraud Case <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BigOilKnew?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BigOilKnew</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EcoWatch</a> <a href="https://t.co/T7h3TKmhTc">https://t.co/T7h3TKmhTc</a></p>— The YEARS Project (@YEARSofLIVING) <a href="https://twitter.com/YEARSofLIVING/status/1160267090076557312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 10, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Read More
Show Less
Scientists Show How Fossil Fuel Industry Deceived the Public About the Climate Crisis
21 October 2019
Energy
An international group of scientists released a report today detailing how the fossil fuel industry actively campaigned to sow doubt about the climate crisis and what steps need to be taken to undo the damage, as the Los Angeles Times reported.
<p>The <a href="https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/america-misled/" target="_blank">report</a> may be particularly damaging for oil and gas giant <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon" rel="noopener noreferrer">ExxonMobil</a>, which will head to court on Wednesday to defend itself against New York State's allegations that it defrauded shareholders by downplaying the expected risks of climate change to its business.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 415 PPM: We Are All Part of Exxon's Unchartered Climate ... ›
- Indigenous Group Sues Exxon, Energy Majors Over Fracking Waste ... ›
- New York Sues Exxon for Deceiving Investors on Climate Change ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
$20 Billion Fund in Denmark Divests From 10 Major Oil Companies, Citing 'Poor Returns'
06 September 2019
Energy
Aerial view of Denmark's Baltic Sea Coast. schneider_photografie / Pixabay
A Danish pension fund has said it would sell its stake in major oil companies as their business models are incompatible with the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement.
<p>MP Pension, a $20 billion pension for Danish M.A's, M.Sc.'s and Ph.D's who are employed in public sector universities and upper secondary schools, said it would dump its stakes in 10 of the world's largest oil companies, including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, PetroChina, Rosneft and Royal Dutch Shell.</p><p>The divestments amount to nearly $100 million, or 0.5 percent of the fund's total portfolio.</p><p>"We found that none of the oil majors has a business model that is compatible with the goals of Paris Agreement and thus we decided to sell them all," Anders Schelde, the fund's chief investment officer, told DW. "We put them all on our blacklist, our exclusion list."</p><p>The fund reviewed the corporate strategies of the companies to figure out how serious they were about tackling climate change, their capital expenditure to see if they were building new <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" rel="noopener noreferrer">fossil fuel</a> projects and finally their lobbying efforts to ensure they remained in sync with the climate goals.</p><h2>Dirty Investments</h2><p>MP Pension's decision comes as asset managers across the world review their investments in oil and gas and coal companies at a time the world is struggling to limit the global average temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial times as agreed in Paris in 2015.</p><p>In March, Norway's <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/norways-1-trillion-wealth-fund-to-remain-invested-in-big-oil-stocks/a-47824733" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">$1 trillion asset manager</a> — the world's biggest sovereign fund — said it would shed its stakes in oil and gas explorers and producers. But the fund fell short of expectations that it would dump all its oil and gas investments for good. It said it would remain invested in Big Oil companies such as Shell, BP, Total and ExxonMobil, in which it owns significant stakes.</p><p>The Norwegian government stressed the move was based solely on financial considerations rather than <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate concerns</a> and that it did not reflect any particular view of the oil industry's future prospects.</p><p>MP Pension's latest announcement is part of a decision the fund made in 2016 that its investment strategy should be aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement.</p><p>But the fund's latest move is not only based on climate concerns.</p><p>"Our first and foremost concern is future investment returns," Schelde said. "The companies that we are divesting in have delivered poor returns in the past 4-5 years and we feel for the next 10-20 years they would continue to be poor."</p><h2>Sticking With Fossil Fuels</h2><p>MP Pension does not plan to completely move away from investments in fossil fuel companies.</p><p>"We are not ditching fossil fuels entirely. For example, we do not exclude companies that focus on gas because we feel gas is an intermediary fuel that we will be needing to replace for instance <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" rel="noopener noreferrer">coal</a>, which has a carbon intensity roughly double that of gas," Schelde said.</p><p>"We realize that fossil fuels will remain part of the energy mix for many years, even 100 years. But we need to bring down the amount of carbon that we emit in the atmosphere."</p><p>The company has also prepared an "inclusion" list that would include fossil fuel companies making good progress toward a greener future.</p><p>"So far there are no companies on that list. It's still empty. But I hope it grows as we move forward," Schelde said.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/danish-pension-fund-dumps-oil-majors-on-climate-change-concerns/a-50288283?maca=en-VAM_volltext_ecowatch-28485-html-copypaste" target="_blank">DW</a></em>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
More than 200 people demonstrated in January 2017 against the appointment of former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson for secretary of state. Eman Mohammed / 350.org
By Jessica Corbett
New York state prosecutors last week accused ExxonMobil of trying to discourage witnesses from testifying against the company in a climate fraud case, leading the head of the environmental group 350.org to declare Thursday that "we won't be intimidated."
<p>In a statement, May Boeve, the avocacy group's executive director, also charged that "Exxon is polluting these proceedings just like it has polluted our communities."</p><p>Last October, following a three-year probe and amid growing demands that the dirty energy industry be held accountable for the impacts of its products, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/24/wow-wow-wow-huge-news-new-york-sues-exxonmobil-defrauding-investors-hiding-climate" target="_blank">sued</a> ExxonMobil for defrauding investors about the financial threat of efforts to combat the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate</a> emergency.<br></p><p>Boeve's statement came in response to allegations from the current state attorney general's office Friday that the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> giant is attempting to intimidate third-party witnesses by demanding they disclose all contact they have had with various experts and environmental groups, including 350.org.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ExxonMobil is after us again. <a href="https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NewYorkStateAG</a> is currently suing them for fraud.<br><br>Now, ExxonMobil is attempting to intimidate witnesses from testifying by making them disclose all contact they’ve had with 350. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/exxonknew?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#exxonknew</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MakeThemPay?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MakeThemPay</a><a href="https://t.co/Artfvfev8z">https://t.co/Artfvfev8z</a></p>— 350 dot org (@350) <a href="https://twitter.com/350/status/1159477723909230593?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>InsideClimate News<em> </em>— which exposed ExxonMobil's decades of climate deception with a damning investigative series in 2015 — <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06082019/exxon-climate-fraud-investigation-witness-pressure-investors-new-york-attorney-general?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social" target="_blank">reported</a> on the allegations Tuesday:</p><blockquote>New <a href="https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=weCXFZGO0IpZFl9K7eGbPw==&system=prod" target="_blank">court filings</a> reveal that Exxon sent letters to a group of investment advisers and shareholder activists who prosecutors want to put on the stand, informing them they will be subject to subpoenas from the company seeking documents relevant to the case if they choose to testify.<br>Because of their roles investing in and engaging with Exxon over climate change, these witnesses' testimony could prove critical to the state's case.<br>With opening statements scheduled to begin Oct. 23, a lawyer in New York Attorney General Letitia James's office <a href="https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=weCXFZGO0IpZFl9K7eGbPw==&system=prod" target="_blank">wrote</a> that the request would "impose disproportionate burdens on these witnesses in a transparent attempt to discourage them from testifying voluntarily, and threatening to upend the trial schedule."<br>The attorney general's office has asked Justice Barry Ostrager of New York Supreme Court to order Exxon to halt its requests for documents.<br></blockquote><p>Aaron Caplan, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and expert in legal ethics, told the outlet that Exxon's letter "tiptoes right up to the line of impropriety ... And whether it crosses that line is up to interpretation."</p><p>Climate Liability News, which also <a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/08/06/exxon-climate-fraud-new-york-attorney-general/" target="_blank">reported</a> on the filings from James's office Tuesday, spoke to one expert who characterized Exxon's move as part of a broader legal strategy.</p><blockquote>Yale law professor Douglas A. Kysar, who is not involved in the suit, said the <a href="https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=nOHJZgKfTFEYoTuekGjozg==&system=prod" target="_blank">document request</a> feeds into Exxon's narrative of an "anti-carbon conspiracy" involving liberal academics, foundations, non-governmental organizations, and plaintiffs' lawyers. The request includes "all communications concerning ExxonMobil between you and Matthew Pawa, Peter Frumhoff, Naomi Oreskes, Geoffrey Supran, the Rockefeller Family Foundation, Sharon Eubanks, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Richard Heede, Sher Edling, LLP, 350.org, or the Union of Concerned Scientists."<br>"The third party witnesses won't necessarily take this request literally as a threat by Exxon — but they will have to consider the vast expense and inconvenience that would follow from being dragged into the 'anti-carbon conspiracy' narrative," Kysar said.<br></blockquote><p>"The line between 'normal legal maneuvering' and 'intimidation-style tactics' is a fine one that is almost always pushed by litigants in high-stakes battles like this one," added Kysar. "Still, the timing and the breadth of the document request by Exxon's lawyers raises even my cynical eyebrows."</p><p>350.org's Boeve wrote in an email to supporters Thursday that it is "clear" that "ExxonMobil executives are scared of the power of our movement and the strength of our numbers."</p><p>"This could be the greatest case of corporate fraud in history," she noted. "This lawsuit is a huge opportunity to set a precedent around the world for holding fossil fuel executives accountable and making them pay for a just transition to a 100 percent <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" rel="noopener noreferrer">renewable energy</a> economy."</p><p>In her statement, Boeve thanked James "for her vigilance in standing up for our communities" and vowed that Exxon's legal maneuvers won't deter the movement to make polluters pay for fueling the global climate emergency.</p><p>"As communities bear the costs of Exxon's lies, millions of people led by youth, frontline communities, workers, and more are mobilizing towards the September 20 climate strikes to build a world that works for all of us," said Boeve. "Together, all of us will hold accountable fossil fuel executives most responsible for the climate crisis, and make them pay for their climate destruction."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"415 PPM: We Are All Part of Exxon’s Uncharted Climate Experiment Now" via <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EcoWatch</a>: <a href="https://t.co/UtSZk1Iu81">https://t.co/UtSZk1Iu81</a></p>— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) <a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1129036771772252160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 16, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/08/we-wont-be-intimidated-declare-campaigners-after-exxonmobil-accused-pressuring" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
415 PPM: We Are All Part of Exxon’s Unchartered Climate Experiment Now
16 May 2019
Insights + Opinion
NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii', where researchers measured atmospheric carbon dioxide levels of 415 ppm. Christopher Michel / CC BY 2.0
By Andy Rowell
Earlier this month, we collectively walked into the unknown.
We are all now a living experiment. Never before in human history have carbon dioxide levels reached 415 parts per million.
<p>These levels were last seen maybe some 2.5 to 5 million years ago, during the Pliocene, but then the earth was much warmer than it is today and it was way before us.</p><p>Back then, there was no Greenland and trees grew near the South Pole. Sea levels were much, much higher. Maybe 25 meters (approximately 82 feet) higher.</p><p>415 ppm is a grim number. It signals we are in deep, deep trouble. And in the words of <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/climate-change-mauna-loa-carbon-dioxide-measurement-834627/" target="_blank">Rolling Stone</a><em> </em>magazine: "Further evidence (as if further evidence were needed) of just how hell-bent we are on cooking the planet we live on."</p><p>To show you how much we are <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">changing the climate</a>: Every year another 2 to 3 ppm of carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere. Before the industrial revolution it was 280 ppm. And now it is 415 ppm.</p><p>We could have stopped the relentless rise of carbon dioxide, but we did not. In part the reason we collectively have failed to do so is the power of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-oil">oil companies</a> and one of the most sophisticated public relations exercises ever undertaken to deny and obfuscate the truth.</p><p>The oil companies could have acted and kickstarted the renewable revolution, but they did not. But they knew. #ExxonKnew.</p><p>As <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-predicted-high-carbon-emissions-954e514b0aa9/" target="_blank">Think Progress</a> noted this week, one of the documents obtained by InsideClimate News into its investigation into what <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon">Exxon</a> knew about climate science decades ago was an internal 1982 document from the Exxon Research and Engineering Company.</p><p>In this document the oil company mapped the "growth of atmospheric CO2 and average global temperature increase" over time.</p><p>Amazingly, as <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-predicted-high-carbon-emissions-954e514b0aa9/" target="_blank">Think Progress</a><em> </em>highlights, "the company predicted that that, by 2020, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would reach roughly 400 to 420 ppm. This month's measurement of 415 ppm is right within the expected curve Exxon projected under its "<a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf" target="_blank">21st Century Study-High Growth scenario</a>."</p><p>Exxon not only predicted the future, it also knew how bad it could be.</p><p>Not only did Exxon predict the rise in emissions, it also understood how severe the consequences would be, including warning of "considerable adverse impact" of rising carbon dioxide levels, including flooding and the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet.</p><p>Exxon knew all this, but instead of acting, went on to pour tens of <a href="https://exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php" target="_blank">millions of dollars into a massive disinformation</a> campaign that we still see today being spouted by President Trump and Fox News.</p><p>No wonder climate scientists are alarmed at us reaching 415 ppm.</p><p>Professor Michael Mann told <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-predicted-high-carbon-emissions-954e514b0aa9/" target="_blank">Think Progress</a><em>,</em> "If you do the math, we'll cross 450 ppm — which likely locks in dangerous planetary warming of more than 2°C/3.5°F — in just over a decade".</p><p><a href="https://www.inverse.com/article/55792-keeling-curve-hits-its-highest-point-to-date?refresh=89" target="_blank">Peter Gleick</a>, the president emeritus at the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security added: "Not that we need it, but the latest numbers are further evidence of the massive impact humans are having on our atmosphere and climate … We are entering an era never before experienced by humans."</p><p>Meteorologist and journalist Eric Holthaus noted on Twitter:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is the first time in human history our planet's atmosphere has had more than 415ppm CO2.<br><br>Not just in recorded history, not just since the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago. Since before modern humans existed millions of years ago.<br><br>We don't know a planet like this. <a href="https://t.co/azVukskDWr">https://t.co/azVukskDWr</a></p>— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/1127681719216353280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>We don't know a planet like this. We don't know what will happen, except that climate chaos will get worse. We do know the answers, though.</p><p>As <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2019/05/15/report-uk-oil-gas-drilling-incompatible-with-climate-emergency/" target="_blank">Oil Change International</a> pointed out yesterday, in yet another groundbreaking report, we have to stop drilling. It really is that simple. Not tomorrow. Not today. But yesterday. We need a just transition now.</p><p>Predictably, the denial in the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/15/interior-secretary-david-bernhardt-c02" target="_blank">Trump Administration</a> continues: This week, Donald Trump's interior secretary said he had not "lost sleep over" over the 415 ppm figure.</p><p>David Bernhardt, who is a former oil and gas lobbyist, said, "I believe the United States is number 1 in terms of decreasing CO2." He added: "I haven't lost any sleep over it."</p><p>Meanwhile, just as Exxon warned that Antarctica would be in trouble, there is new research published showing just how bad things are.</p><p>According to new academic research published in <em><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/16/thinning-of-antarctic-ice-sheets-spreading-inland-rapidly-study" target="_blank">Geophysical Research Letters</a>, </em>warming of the Southern Ocean now means that ice is being lost from Antarctic <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glaciers">glaciers</a> five times faster than in the 1990s.</p><p>It is yet another sign we are in deep, deep trouble.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Global Banks, Led by <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JPMorganChase?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JPMorganChase</a>, Invested $1.9 Trillion in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FossilFuels?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FossilFuels</a> Since Paris Climate Pact <a href="https://t.co/wpqF2b6Myb">https://t.co/wpqF2b6Myb</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/DeSmogBlog?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DeSmogBlog</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/BusinessGreen?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BusinessGreen</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1108940125986119680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 22, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2019/05/16/415-ppm-we-are-all-part-of-exxons-unchartered-climate-experiment-now/" target="_blank">Oil Change International</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- New York Sues Exxon for Deceiving Investors on Climate Change ... ›
- Yes, ExxonMobil and Chevron Are Still Distorting Climate Science ... ›
- Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Are at Their Highest in 23 Million Years - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
'Victory': Supreme Court Rejects Exxon's Appeal, Time to Fork Over Climate Docs
07 January 2019
Energy
Activists representing more than 350 environmental, civic, and college student organizations in Downtown Manhattan in February 2017.
Pacific Press / Contributor / LightRocket / Getty Images
Massachusetts' Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey declared "victory" on Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected ExxonMobil's attempt to derail her office's probe into whether the fossil fuel giant misled investors and the public about its knowledge of climate change.
The justices declined to hear Exxon's appeal of an April ruling by Massachusetts' highest court, Reuters reported.
<p>
The decision effectively affirmed Healy's authority to investigate Exxon and to order the company to hand over decades of internal records related to the company's understanding of global warming.
</p><p>
This victory "clears the way for our office to investigate Exxon's conduct toward consumers and investors," Healey
<a href="https://twitter.com/MassAGO/status/1082309405914353664" target="_blank">tweeted</a> after the ruling.
</p><p>
<span></span>"The public deserves answers from this company about what it knew about the impacts of burning fossil fuels, and when," she added.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="38ccd" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="QCHOVG1576683776"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1082309405914353664" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Today’s #SCOTUS victory clears the way for our office to investigate Exxon’s conduct toward consumers and investors… https://t.co/XMCd8EFLt9</div> — Maura Healey (@Maura Healey)<a href="https://twitter.com/MassAGO/statuses/1082309405914353664">1546877645.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
Healey
<a href="https://www.mass.gov/lists/attorney-generals-office-exxon-investigation" target="_blank">first issued a civil investigative demand on Exxon</a> in April 2016 in order to seek "information regarding whether Exxon may have misled consumers and/or investors with respect to the impact of fossil fuels on climate change, and climate change-driven risks to Exxon's business."
</p><p>
The oil company repeatedly tried to block the AG's investigation in lower courts but never prevailed. Today's rejection from the nation's top court likely means that Exxon must comply with Healy's demands.
</p><p>
Environmentalists, including
<a href="https://350.org/" target="_blank">350.org</a> U.S. communications manager Thanu Yakupitiyage, celebrated the news.
</p><p>
"This latest decision brings great momentum in the fight to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for causing the climate crisis," Yakupitiyage said in an issued statement. "We thank Attorney General Healey for her vigilant leadership in standing up for people over polluters."
</p><p>
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/new-york-sues-exxon-2614883066.html" target="_blank">In October</a>, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood officially filed a <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint_0.pdf" target="_blank" title="">lawsuit</a> against Exxon alleging the company defrauded shareholders and downplayed the risk of climate change to its business.
</p><p>
Underwood's office said in a
<a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-underwood-files-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil-defrauding-investors-regarding-financial" target="_blank">press release</a> that a years-long investigation uncovered an alleged fraudulent scheme to systematically and repeatedly deceive investors about the significant impact that future climate change regulations could have on the company's assets and value. The alleged fraud reached the highest levels of the company, including former chairman and CEO <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rex-tillerson" target="_self">Rex Tillerson</a>.
</p><p>
<span></span>The probes from the Massachusetts and New York attorneys general were launched after groundbreaking investigations by <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken" target="_blank">InsideClimate News</a> and <a href="http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/" target="_blank">The Los Angeles Times</a> in 2015, which reported that Exxon scientists and executives understood for decades that its products drive global warming.
</p><p>
"Today's decision is yet another defeat for Exxon in their fight to hide the fact that they have known for 50 years that their products cause climate change," Richard Wiles, executive director of the
<a href="http://www.igsd.org/initiatives/the-center-for-climate-integrity/" target="_blank"> Center for Climate Integrity</a>, said in an issued statement. "Deception and delay are Exxon's core climate strategies. Today the court dealt the company yet another defeat in their fight to hide the fact that they have known for 50 years that their products cause climate change."
</p><p>
<span></span>Exxon has dismissed these allegations as "meritless," <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-exxon-mobil/us-supreme-court-rejects-exxon-in-climate-change-document-fight-idUSKCN1P11ES" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="5f916" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="HODQFC1576683776"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1055185754140393478" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#BREAKING: New York Sues #Exxon For Climate Deception @newyorkstateag @sierraclub @billmckibben @desmogblog… https://t.co/WTJZ2o6aGY</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1055185754140393478">1540410862.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Groundbreaking Harvard Study Confirms #ExxonKnew ›
- NY Top Court Rejects Exxon's Bid to Keep Critical Files Sealed in ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
ExxonMobil refinery in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. WClarke / CC BY-SA 4.0
The world's largest oil company is being pressured by major shareholders to take action on climate change.
Institutional investors with an estimated $1.9 trillion under management, led by the New York State Common Retirement Fund (NYSCRF) and the Church Commissioners of England (CCE), filed a shareholder resolution calling on ExxonMobil to set targets for lowering its greenhouse gas emissions, covering emissions from both its operations and the use of its products.
<p>
The NYSCRF is the third largest public pension fund in the U.S., with assets of $207.4 billion as of March 31, and the Church of England's investment fund manages investable assets of some £8.3 billion ($10.5 billion),
<a href="https://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/dec18/121718.htm" target="_blank">according</a> to the comptroller's office.
</p><p>
<span></span>Their move—made a day after the
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/cop24-paris-agreement-2623636645.html" target="_blank">critical COP24 climate summit in Poland wrapped up</a>—is similar to the direct shareholder pressure applied to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/shell">Royal Dutch Shell</a>. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/shell-shareholders-climate-proposal-2571433144.html">After some hard resistance</a>, Shell became the first energy giant <a href="https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2018/leading-investors-back-shells-climate-targets.html" target="_blank">earlier this month</a> to set short-term greenhouse gas reduction targets, linking them to executive pay.
</p><p>
In a
<a href="https://www.churchofengland.org/more/media-centre/news/church-commissioners-and-new-york-state-comptroller-call-exxonmobil-set" target="_blank">press release</a> on Sunday, NYSCRF and CCE called on Exxon to disclose short, medium and long-term targets for greenhouse gases. The goals align with the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement">Paris agreement</a> to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit increases to 1.5°C.
</p><p>
"ExxonMobil's lack of greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets puts it at odds with its industry peers that have taken such steps," said New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who heads the state's retirement fund, in the press release. "The world is transitioning to a lower carbon future and Exxon needs to demonstrate its ability to adapt or risk its bottom line along with investors' confidence."
</p><p>The California Public Employees' Retirement System, HSBC Global Asset Management, Presbyterian Church USA and SHARE on behalf of Fonds de Solidarité des Travailleurs du Québec (FTQ) also joined the call led by NYSCRF and CCE.</p><p>The resolution is expected to be considered at ExxonMobil's annual shareholder meeting in the spring of 2019.</p><p>"We want to see ExxonMobil develop a clear strategy for long-term sustainability," the CCE's head of responsible investment, Edward Mason, also said in the press release. "Our request would bring Exxon in line with its biggest European peer, Shell, and we believe the board can and should support it."</p><p><iframe src="https://www.ecowatch.com/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1074408175942680577&created_ts=1544993845.0&screen_name=edwardcmason&text=.%40churchofengland+press+release%3A+Church+Commissioners+%E2%80%9Cwant+to+see+ExxonMobil+develop+a+clear+strategy+for+long-ter%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fw1m1QT91z3&id=1074408175942680577&name=Edward+Mason"></iframe></p><p>The resolution was developed in line with the global <a href="http://www.climateaction100.org/" target="_blank">Climate Action 100+</a> investor initiative that calls on companies to take climate action and curb emissions. The Exxon resolution comes just weeks after Shell and Climate Action 100+ signatories agreed to new climate goals, the press release noted.</p><p>"Global investors are increasingly calling on the companies that they own to demonstrate that they are prepared for a carbon-constrained future," said Andrew Logan of the nonprofit <a href="https://www.ceres.org/" target="_blank">Ceres</a>, one of Climate Action 100+'s founding partners, in the press release. "Setting ambitious goals consistent with the Paris agreement to reduce heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions—and taking concrete steps to actualize those goals—would be a sign to investors that Exxon is taking this issue seriously."</p><p><span></span>In October, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood filed a <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint_0.pdf" target="_blank" title="">lawsuit</a> against <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon" target="_self">Exxon</a> alleging the company defrauded shareholders and downplayed the risk of climate change to its business.<br></p><p>In response to the NYSCRF and CCE resolution, the climate action group <a href="http://350.org/" target="_blank">350.org</a>—one of the leaders of the ongoing fossil fuel <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/divestment" target="_self">divestment</a> movement—urged DiNapoli to stop negotiating with Exxon and to formally cut ties with the company.</p><p>"As long as he invests New Yorker's money into rogue oil corporations like ExxonMobil, Comptroller Tom DiNapoli dangerously remains inertia's avatar on climate," said Betámia Coronel, New Yorker and organizer with <a href="http://350.org/" target="_blank">350.org</a> in a statement provided to EcoWatch. "UN reports warn that we must rapidly transform our economy to 100 percent renewable energy and keep fossil fuels in the ground, yet DiNapoli touts 'talking to Exxon' while failing to reduce the state pension fund's climate footprint. Tom DiNapoli is failing New Yorkers and his fiduciary duty until he divests from all fossil fuels."</p><p>A recent report by 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben revealed that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/divestment-fossil-fuel-industry-trillions-dollars-investments-carbon?CMP=share_btn_tw" target="_blank">more than 1,000 institutions around the world</a> representing nearly $8 trillion in assets have committed to divest from carbon-intensive companies.<br></p><p><iframe src="https://www.ecowatch.com/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1055185754140393478&created_ts=1540410862.0&screen_name=EcoWatch&text=%23BREAKING%3A+New+York+Sues+%23Exxon+For+Climate+Deception+%40newyorkstateag++%40sierraclub+%40billmckibben+%40desmogblog%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FWTJZ2o6aGY&id=1055185754140393478&name=EcoWatch"></iframe></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Max Pixel
By Dana Drugmand
Koch Industries is calling for the elimination of tax credits for electric vehicles (EVs), all while claiming that it does not oppose plug-in cars and inviting the elimination of oil and gas subsidies that the petroleum conglomerate and its industry peers receive.
Outgoing Nevada Republican Senator Dean Heller introduced a bill in September that would lift the sales cap on electric vehicles eligible for a federal tax credit, and replace the cap with a deadline that would dictate when the credit would start being phased out.
<p>Under the current tax credit for EVs, once a manufacturer sells 200,000 EVs in the U.S. the amount of the credit gets slashed in half, then halved again. The full credit amount is $7,500. <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/tesla">Tesla</a> has already hit the 200,000 cap and GM will soon reach it, so both companies would benefit from a tax credit extension via eliminating the sales cap. Heller's <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s3582/text" target="_blank">bill</a> lifts the 200,000 vehicle limit and substitutes a phase-out period starting in 2022.</p><p>But the conservative senator's bill is <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-25/koch-targets-endangered-gop-senator-s-car-credit-that-aids-tesla" target="_blank">facing opposition</a> from the conservative billionaire <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/koch-brothers">Koch brothers</a>.</p><p>In a <a href="https://news.kochind.com/media-resources/On-The-Issues/Koch-Urges-Senate-to-Allow-Innovation-and-Consumer" target="_blank">letter</a> to senators dated Oct. 24, Koch Industries lobbyist Philip Ellender urges opposition to the expansion of EV tax credits through 2022. Ellender claims that the tax credits primarily benefit wealthy consumers and that subsidization interferes with "innovation and consumer choice."</p><p>The letter cites two studies, each by a right-wing think tank. One study comes from the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/pacific-research-institute" target="_blank">Pacific Research Institute</a>, which has received <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> funding—including more than $1.7 million from Koch-related foundations and $615,000 from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon">ExxonMobil</a>. The <a href="https://www.pacificresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CarSubsidies_final_web.pdf" target="_blank">PRI study</a>, "Costly Subsidies for the Rich: Quantifying the Subsidies Offered to Battery Electric Powered Cars," emphasizes that "the majority of the dollar benefits from energy and electric car subsidies are paid to tax filers in the higher income tax brackets."</p><p>The other study is from the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/manhattan-institute-policy-research" target="_blank">Manhattan Institute</a>, another "free market think tank" that takes in money from the Koch network and Exxon. The <a href="https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/short-circuit-high-cost-electric-vehicle-subsidies-11241.html" target="_blank">study</a> paints a misleading picture of EVs and their subsidies.</p><p>In addition to citing biased studies by groups tied to Koch money, Ellender claims in the letter, "We do not oppose electric vehicles."</p><p>This sentiment echoes <a href="https://www.kochvsclean.com/koch-industries-all-for-electric-cars/" target="_blank">the company's 2016 advertorial</a>, in which Koch Industries claimed to be "all for electric vehicles."</p><p>Ellender also claims that Koch Industries is against any and all energy subsidies, even ones that benefit the company. According to the letter:</p><blockquote>Instead of expanding this subsidy for wealthy EV owners, Congress should eliminate it along with all other energy incentives—including eliminating any incentives given to us and our competitors where we may participate. We are focused on long-term value creation, not short-term windfalls.</blockquote><p>In reality, while Koch Industries is claiming publicly to support ending fossil fuel subsidies (along with EV and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">clean energy</a> incentives), Koch lobbyists have long worked to ensure that the petroleum industry continues to get subsidized.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.kochvsclean.com/koch-industries-all-for-electric-cars/" target="_blank">Koch vs. Clean</a> previously pointed out, "In a <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/04/06/3936/kochs-web-influence" target="_blank">detailed 2011 report on Koch Industries, the Center for Public Integrity wrote</a>: 'Oil is the core of the Koch business empire, and the company's lobbyists and officials have successfully fought to preserve the industry's tax breaks and credits.' The report documented that Koch lobbyists have worked to preserve billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies, including the Section 199 manufacturing tax deduction and the 'last-in, first out' accounting rule."</p><p>In fact, according to the International Business Times, <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/charles-koch-blasts-subsidies-tax-credits-his-firm-has-taken-195-million-worth-them-2034949" target="_blank">Koch Industries has itself directly secured subsidies totaling more than $195 million</a>.</p><p>The Koch network also lobbied for the Trump tax cuts that became law late last year. The corporate tax cut is not specific to energy, but it benefits giant corporations including <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-oil">Big Oil</a> and Koch Industries nonetheless. <a href="https://americansfortaxfairness.org/koch-brothers-1-billion-tax-cut/" target="_blank">Americans for Tax Fairness estimated</a> that the Kochs would save more than $1 billion just this year from the tax cut—a significant windfall for a corporate behemoth that claims, <em>"</em>We are focused on long-term value creation, not short-term windfalls."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="3cd3f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ANYGUQ1576662656"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="984081334950875136" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Koch vs. California: These Groups Want Pruitt to Undo the State’s Right to Regulate Auto Emissions… https://t.co/QqVojSadKD</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/984081334950875136">1523458248.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><i>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/09/koch-industries-lobbies-against-electric-vehicle-tax-credit" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</i><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less