Climate activists rally to urge politicians to stand against climate denial on Jan. 9, 2017 in New York. DON EMMERT / AFP via Getty Images
The attorney general for Washington, DC filed a lawsuit on Thursday against four of the largest energy companies, claiming that the companies have spent millions upon millions of dollars to deceive customers in about the calamitous effect fossil fuel extraction and emissions is having on the climate crisis, according to The Washington Post.
<p><br/></p>
<p>The suit names ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Chevron as the defendants, and argues that the companies "systematically and intentionally misled consumers in Washington, DC ... about the central role their products play in causing climate change," according to The Hill.</p><p>Karl A. Racine, the DC attorney general, said in a news conference on Thursday that the four companies painted a false picture of what effect their products had and therefore violated consumer protection laws.</p><p>"For decades, these oil and gas companies spent millions to mislead consumers and discredit climate science in pursuit of profits," Racine said in a <a href="https://oag.dc.gov/release/prepared-remarks-exxon-mobilbpchevronshell-lawsuit" target="_blank">statement</a>, as <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/dc-sues-exxonmobil-and-other-companies-deceiving-public-about-product-harm" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported. "OAG filed this suit to end these disinformation campaigns and to hold these companies accountable for their deceptive practices."</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/exxonmobil-climate-lawsuit-2641328126.html" target="_self">New York</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/massachusetts-sues-exxon-mobil-2641105588.html" target="_self">Massachusetts</a> have both sued ExxonMobil for fraud related to the climate crisis, though New York lost its case against the energy giant. California and Baltimore have filed similar suits. On Wednesday, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ExxonKochAPI_Complaint.pdf" target="_blank">complaint</a> in state court accusing ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, Flint Hills Resources and the American Petroleum Institute of consumer fraud, failure to warn, deceptive trade practices, and fraud and false advertising, as <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/minnesota-sues-oil-giants-over-climate-change-effects/amp/" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a> reported.</p><p>Ellison's complaint said that Minnesota was already feeling the effects from the climate crisis as droughts, flooding and crop failures have damaged the state's economy. That has all happened while the companies named in the suit invested in public relations campaigns that denied the climate crisis and even promoted increased CO2 as a solution to world hunger, according to <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/minnesota-sues-oil-giants-over-climate-change-effects/amp/" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a>.</p><p>"Impacts from climate change hurt our low-income residents and communities of color first and worst. The impacts on farmers in our agricultural state are widespread as well," Ellison said in a statement. "Holding these companies accountable for the climate deception they've spread and continue to spread is essential to helping families to afford their lives and live with dignity and respect."</p>
<p>The two suits drew praise from environmental activists and the science community.</p><p>In a statement Thursday, Greenpeace USA climate campaign director Janet Redman said, "<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">Climate denial</a> is not a victimless crime. Now, one by one states and local governments are stepping up to hold the perpetrators accountable," as <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/25/dc-sues-fossil-fuel-giants-decades-spending-millions-mislead-consumers-and-discredit" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a> reported. "Just yesterday it was Minnesota Attorney General Ellison standing up to big oil, today it's D.C. Attorney General Racine."</p>
<p>The Union of Concerned Scientists also issued a <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/dc-sues-exxonmobil-and-other-companies-deceiving-public-about-product-harm" target="_blank">statement</a> noting that the fossil fuel industry long knew about the devastating impacts of burning fossil fuels, but followed the Big Tobacco playbook and waged a disinformation campaign.</p><p>"When scientists, including some employed by ExxonMobil, warned that burning fossil fuels could catastrophically alter the climate, ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and Shell funded decades-long disinformation campaigns designed to undermine climate science, while simultaneously unleashing an army of lobbyists to block state and federal policies that sought to limit global warming emissions to protect communities across the country," said Rachel Licker, senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in a <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/dc-sues-exxonmobil-and-other-companies-deceiving-public-about-product-harm" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p><p>"As a result, the nation's capital and communities across the country and world now have to battle worsening floods, heat waves, wildfires and many other avoidable climate impacts," she added.</p>
<p>In the DC suit, Racine specifically mentioned the fossil fuel companies' strategy lifted from Big Tobacco. "The companies not only employed the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition — a fake grassroots citizen group created by Big Tobacco as part of the industry's misinformation campaign — they also funded and promoted some of the same scientists hired by tobacco companies," he said in a <a href="https://oag.dc.gov/release/prepared-remarks-exxon-mobilbpchevronshell-lawsuit" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p><p>The lawsuit also alleges that the companies have recently exaggerated their investments and commitments to renewable energy.</p><p>"Defendants have shifted their advertising strategies to mislead DC consumers into believing that buying Defendants' products supports companies committed to reducing and reversing the effects of climate change," the lawsuit asserts, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/dc-attorney-general-sues-oil-and-gas-companies-alleging-industry-misled-public-about-climate-change/2020/06/25/7b633584-b705-11ea-a8da-693df3d7674a_story.html" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported. "In fact, the opposite is true."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 'Fossil Fuel Companies Knew': Honolulu Files Lawsuit Over Climate ... ›
- Climate Crisis Lawsuits Expanding Worldwide: 'A Global ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Greenpeace activists protest Congress taking campaign contributions from big oil in 2010. Tom Williams / Roll Call / Getty Images
By Julia Conley
The Canadian digital watchdog group Citizen Lab reported Tuesday that a hack-for-hire group targeted thousands of organizations around the world, including climate advocacy groups involved in the #ExxonKnew campaign.
<p>Groups that have asserted ExxonMobil knew about and hid data linking fossil fuel extraction to the climate crisis for years were among those that faced phishing attempts by a group dubbed "Dark Basin" by Citizen Lab. According to the research, numerous progressive groups—including Public Citizen, Greenpeace, 350.org, and Oil Change International—were among those targeted.</p><p>After an extensive multi-year investigation, Citizen Lab reported that it has linked Dark Basin "with high confidence" to BellTroX InfoTech Services, a technology company based in India which has publicly stated its hacking capabilities.</p><p>In 2017 when Citizen Lab began its investigation, the group believed Dark Basin could be state-sponsored, but soon determined it was likely a hack-for-hire operation. Its targets—which also included journalists, elected officials, and digital rights groups that have lobbied for net neutrality—"were often on only one side of a contested legal proceeding, advocacy issue, or business deal." </p>
<p>The watchdog has not been able to definitively link Dark Basin's phishing efforts to particular entities which would have an interest in threatening the #ExxonKnew campaign and net neutrality advocates.</p><p>"That said, the extensive targeting of American nonprofits exercising their First Amendment rights is exceptionally troubling," wrote Citizen Lab in its report.</p><p>A global hack-for-hire scheme, Citizen Lab wrote, "is a serious problem for all sectors of society, from politics, advocacy, and government to global commerce," particularly because the targets have little recourse without a robust investigation by law enforcement.</p>
<p>"Many of Dark Basin's targets have a strong but unconfirmed sense that the targeting is linked to a dispute or conflict with a particular party whom they know," the report reads. "However, absent a systematic investigation, it is difficult for most individuals to determine with certainty who undertakes these phishing campaigns and/or who may be contracting for such services, especially given that Dark Basin's employees or executives are unlikely to be within the jurisdiction of their local law enforcement."</p><p>350.org responded to the report, noting that Citizen Lab's ongoing investigation could eventually uncover the fossil fuel industry's involvement. While acknowledging the evidence does not exist to directly implicate Exxon or any specific corporate actor behind the effort, the group said it would be deeply troubled to find out the company would behave in such a manner.</p><p>"If the investigation demonstrates that Exxon is behind these attacks, it only shows how far the fossil fuel industry will go to silence critics and avoid accountability for fueling climate change," said 350.org.</p>
<p>Net neutrality advocates are accustomed to seeing "an uptick in breach attempts whenever we're engaged in heated and high-profile public policy debates," Tim Karr of Free Press <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/indian-cyber-firm-1.5604376?cmp=rss" target="_blank">told</a> <em>CBC</em> Tuesday. Free Press was targeted by Dark Basin in 2017 as President Donald Trump's FCC was working to repeal net neutrality rules.</p><p>"When corporations and politicians can hire digital mercenaries to target civil society advocates, it undermines our democratic process," Evan Greer, deputy director of digital rights group Fight for the Future, told <em>CBC. </em></p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/10/exceptionally-troubling-researchers-show-hack-hire-operation-targeted-groups" target="_blank"> Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Lee Raymond testifies before a joint hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee on energy pricing and profits on Capitol Hill Nov. 9, 2005 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
By Andrea Germanos
Author and climate activist Bill McKibben welcomed Friday evening what he called "a milestone moment in the history of climate action" after JPMorgan Chase announced it was ousting former Exxon Mobil CEO Lee Raymond from his longtime leadership position on the bank's board of directors.
<p>"A truly huge win today," McKibben said in an earlier tweet. "Power is starting to shift."</p>
<div id="fbd62" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f722a76597c810d7454fc49cb687fdec"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1256606012724805632" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING! #LeeRaymond DEMOTED but not DUMPED - take action now to get him OFF #JPMorgan #Chase's board:… https://t.co/pssU0dISJ0</div> — Stop the Money Pipeline (@Stop the Money Pipeline)<a href="https://twitter.com/StopMoneyPipe/statuses/1256606012724805632">1588433194.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The change was revealed in new SEC filing <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/19617/000001961720000288/proxysupplementalmaterials.htm" target="_blank">documents</a> in which JPMorgan touts its "focus on refreshment" that includes having a new lead independent director by the end of this summer.</p><p>Raymond, who's earned the monikers "<a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-change/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline" target="_blank">the Darth Vader of global warming wars</a>" and "<a href="https://addup.sierraclub.org/campaigns/tell-jpmorgan-chase-remove-americas-1-climate-denier-from-your-board-of-directors" target="_blank">America's #1 climate denier,</a>" was a <a href="https://addup.sierraclub.org/campaigns/tell-jpmorgan-chase-remove-americas-1-climate-denier-from-your-board-of-directors" target="_blank">target</a> of the Stop the Money Pipeline climate coalition, which <a href="https://stopthemoneypipeline.com/earth-day-wall-street/" target="_blank">urged</a> the bank's biggest shareholders to vote Raymond off the board entirely when they meet later this month.</p><p>Their demand was buoyed by New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer.</p>
<p>"On Earth Day last week, we launched a campaign urging JPMorgan Chase & Co shareholders to vote against the re-election of Lee Raymond to the board, based on his role as lead 'independent' director, long tenure on the board, and ties to fossil fuels," Stringer said in a <a href="https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/statement-from-new-york-city-comptroller-scott-m-stringer-on-behalf-of-nycers-trs-and-bers/" target="_blank">statement</a> Friday.</p><p>Raymond's removal as independent leader of the board marks "a tremendous victory for shareholders and for the planet," Stringer said, adding that it stands to "ensure improved oversight of the board and the company's long-term strategy when it comes to transitioning to a low carbon economy."</p>
<p>"But our work does not stop here," he continued. "JPMorgan has been the largest global lender and underwriter to the fossil fuel sector, providing $269 billion in financing to fossil fuel expansion from 2016 to 2019. The company needs to move away from financing the dirty fossil fuels of the past and toward the big, strategic clean energy investments of the future. There must be no place for a climate change denier and former Exxon CEO on JPMorgan's board."</p>
<div id="00dfc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="69ff3095032b1b09869054cde09ee5ff"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1256606978278936576" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Send an email directly to #BlackRock, #StateStreet & #Vanguard -- tell them to vote #LeeRaymond off #JPMorgan… https://t.co/JsCqTTIZHC</div> — Stop the Money Pipeline (@Stop the Money Pipeline)<a href="https://twitter.com/StopMoneyPipe/statuses/1256606978278936576">1588433424.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Eli Kasargod-Staub, executive director of shareholder advocacy organization Majority Action, concurred.</p><p>"Shareholders have demanded that JPMorgan Chase be held accountable for its failure to address the systemic risks presented by climate change, and the announcement to remove Raymond from the lead independent director position is a clear victory for long-term shareholder value and the mitigation of climate risk," said Kasargod-Staub.</p><p>But, he stressed, "JPMorgan Chase shareholders will be best served when Raymond is removed from the board entirely."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/05/02/milestone-moment-jpmorgan-chase-announces-former-exxon-ceo-no-longer-be-lead" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>. </em><em></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Shell protesters. Dana Drugmand
Two years after internal documents surfaced showing that Royal Dutch Shell, like ExxonMobil, knew about climate dangers decades ago, the oil giant released its latest annual report outlining its business strategy and approach to addressing climate change. Despite clear warnings from scientists, global health experts and even central banks of impending climate-driven crises, Shell's report largely sends a message that everything is fine and the company's "business strategy is sound."
<p>That is not to say that Shell is ignoring the challenges facing it and other oil majors. But overall Shell appears to be toeing the line between saying it is responding to the climate challenge and inevitable energy transition on the one hand, and maintaining its core oil and gas business model on the other.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/19/shell-s-latest-annual-report-more-greenwashing">DeSmog</a>.</em></p>
<p>Shell's <a href="https://reports.shell.com/annual-report/2019/servicepages/downloads/files/download2.php?file=shell_annual_report_2019.pdf" target="_blank">2019 Annual Report</a> is filled with statements that reveal the company's perspective on the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Paris-agreement" rel="noopener noreferrer">Paris agreement</a>, the energy transition, and climate litigation and regulatory risk to its business. A few of these statements seem contradictory, and it is important to keep in mind the context of #ShellKnew when the company says now, in 2020, that it is committed to being part of the solution.</p>
Shell’s Strategy
<p>According to the report, there are three parts to Shell's overall strategy going forward: to thrive in the energy transition, to provide a world-class investment case, and to sustain a strong societal license to operate. That may sound good on paper, but in reality significant challenges are mounting for each of these pillars.</p><p>In terms of the energy transition, Shell appears to be paying lip service to it more than actually revamping its portfolio or overhauling its business model. Its core business remains oil and gas. Period.</p><p>The company may be ahead of some other oil giants like Exxon and Chevron in terms of adding alternative energies to its energy mix, but overall its commitment to clean energy is minimal.</p><p>Shell notes in its report that it spends "$1-2 billion a year until 2020 in different services and products from a range of cleaner sources," and "investments in power could grow to $2-3 billion a year on average" from 2021 to 2025. The vast majority of the company's capital expenditure ($24bn to $29bn in 2020) goes into oil and gas, and failure to replace proved reserves could have a "material adverse effect." Instead of aligning with the energy transition, Shell's business model is based on continual hydrocarbon exploitation.</p><p>In terms of a "world-class investment," the oil and gas sector is particularly vulnerable at the moment to financial pressure and investors are increasingly turning away from fossil fuels. Jim Cramer infamously dubbed fossil fuels "<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/02/01/cnbc-jim-cramer-fossil-fuel-industry-death-knell-phase" target="_blank">in the death knell phase</a>." Shell acknowledges this risk. It notes in its report that fossil fuel divestment "could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities and our ability to access capital markets."</p><p>Shell also recognizes its vulnerability to an eroding social license as the public and particularly younger generations start to scorn Big Oil.</p><p>"In 2019, many protested about climate change, sometimes directly targeting Shell," Shell CEO Ben Van Beurden wrote in the report. The company includes challenges to its reputation as a risk factor, noting, "There is increasing focus on the role of oil and gas in the context of climate change and energy transition. This could negatively affect our brand, reputation and licence to operate."</p><p>Shell did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the risk to its social license.</p>
Shell Claims to Support Paris Agreement, Plans for Gradual Energy Transition
<p>In its report, Shell says it fully supports the Paris agreement goal to limit warming well below 2 degrees C, and supports "the vision of a transition towards a net-zero emissions energy system." But, in <a href="https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bernard-looney-announces-new-ambition-for-bp.html" target="_blank">contrast to fellow European oil major BP</a>, Shell is not committing its own business to net zero emissions.</p><p>Shell says it has "no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our investment horizon of 10-20 years." Instead, Shell's Net Carbon Footprint "ambition" is to reduce emissions (including its customers' and suppliers' emissions) of its energy production and products by 20 percent by 2035 and by 50 percent by 2050. This is not aligned with climate science guidelines that say complete decarbonization or "net zero" is necessary by 2050 at the latest.</p><p>Shell's own business is therefore not aligned with the goal of the Paris agreement, and the company is <a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/04/05/shell-sued-in-the-netherlands-for-insufficient-action-on-climate-change/" target="_blank">facing a lawsuit</a> over this in its home country of the Netherlands. Current emissions reduction plans or "Nationally Determined Contributions" (NDCs) submitted by countries under the Paris agreement are also inadequate. As Shell notes in its report, current NDCs amount to about 3 degrees C of warming. "In coming decades, we expect countries to tighten these NDCs to meet the goals of the Paris agreement," the report states. Shell's view appears to be that the world has decades to get its act together.</p><p>In that view, Shell says it is fully on board with the energy transition and plans to transform its own business "over time." The report includes statements like "Shell aims to become an integrated power player and grow, over time, a material new business", and, "for us, protecting the environment also means working to transform our product mix over time, for example, by expanding the choice of lower-carbon products we offer customers."</p><p>Yet, in a seeming contradiction to these statements, Shell says it "agrees with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5°C special report," which clearly warned that limiting warming to 1.5°C would require, as Shell notes, "an even more rapid escalation in the scale and pace of change."</p><p>While Shell claims to fully support the Paris agreement, in another seeming contradiction, the company states in its report that the government action necessary to meet Paris targets could harm its business: "Policies and regulations designed to limit the increase in global temperatures to well below 2°C could have a material adverse effect on Shell – through higher operating costs and reduced demand for some of our products."</p><p>Shell also says it is wary of governments actually taking climate action: "we believe measures taken by governments to control national energy transitions may also have unintended consequences." </p><p>Yet, at the same time, Shell says it expects to be subject to increasing regulation. "We also expect that <span style="background-color: initial;">GHG</span> regulation, as well as emission reduction actions by customers, will continue to result in suppression of demand for fossil fuels, either through taxes, fees and/or incentives to promote the sale of lower-carbon electric vehicles or even through the future prohibition of sales of new diesel or gasoline vehicles, such as the prohibition in the United Kingdom (<span style="background-color: initial;">UK</span>) beginning in 2035. This could result in lower revenue and, in the long term, potential impairment of certain assets," the report states.</p>
Climate Litigation Risk
<p>Shell, like other fossil fuel companies, has long been concerned about governments imposing climate policies or regulations that would affect its business. Shell and its industry peers are already facing climate lawsuits, and Shell is explicitly identifying climate litigation as part of a broader risk factor associated with "rising climate change concern."</p><p>In its report, Shell acknowledged the lawsuits could negatively impact its financial condition: "In some countries, governments, regulators, organisations and individuals have filed lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for costs associated with climate change. While we believe these lawsuits to be without merit, losing any of these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition."</p><p>Shell actually foresaw climate-related lawsuits as a possibility more than 20 years ago. One of the internal documents that a Dutch news organization first uncovered (and published on the site Climate Files) is a <a href="http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1998-shell-internal-tina-group-scenarios-1998-2020-report/" target="_blank">1998 document of Shell planning scenarios</a> where the company hypothetically envisions a series of violent storms battering the eastern U.S., which then spur environmental <span style="background-color: initial;">NGO</span>s to bring "a class-action suit against the <span style="background-color: initial;">US</span> government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years: that something must be done."</p>Shell Knew
<p>One statement from Shell's annual report rings particularly true: "Shell has long recognised that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of fossil fuels are contributing to the warming of the climate system." </p><p>Indeed, Shell has <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/04/here-what-shellknew-about-climate-change-way-back-1980s" target="_blank">long known</a> that fossil fuels are warming the planet and that the consequences would be of a huge magnitude.</p><p>One internal Shell document from 1988 called "The Greenhouse Effect" warned that GHG emissions would lead to warming over the next century, likely ranging from 1.5 C to 3.5 C. According to that document, "The changes may be the greatest in recorded history." Some parts of the planet may become uninhabitable, and there may be "significant changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather," it says. Impacts could be severe and "could have major social, economic, and political consequences."</p><p>What did Shell do with that knowledge? It started introducing doubt and giving weight to a 'significant minority' of 'alternative viewpoints' as the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/17/shell-knew-charting-thirty-years-corporate-climate-denialism" target="_blank">full implications for the company's business model</a> became clear.</p><p>Shell was a member of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/global-climate-coalition" target="_blank">Global Climate Coalition</a>, a fossil fuel industry-funded group that worked to undermine climate science and block climate policy internationally. The group formed in 1988 and Shell was a member throughout much of the 1990s.</p><p>During that time Shell was <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/20/exclusive-company-docs-show-shell-secretly-studied-climate-risks-10-years-warning-investors" target="_blank">not exactly upfront with its own shareholders</a> about potential risks climate change posed to its business. The first time Shell even mentioned climate change was in a 1991 annual report. But it wasn't until 2004 that Shell made a clear warning in its annual report about financial risk associated with fossil fuel investment.</p><p>Critics have for many years accused Shell's <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/11/how-shell-greenwashed-its-image-internal-documents-warned-fossil-fuels-contribution-climate-change" target="_blank">of greenwashing</a> — acknowledging the climate threat and touting its "commitment" to being part of the solution, despite continuing to spend heavily on oil and gas with only minimal investment in alternative energy. Shell's latest annual report suggests the company isn't deviating far from that strategy.<span></span></p>From Your Site Articles
- A New Golden Age for Big Oil or a Golden Goodbye? - EcoWatch ›
- Shell Shareholders Vote Down Climate Change Proposal But Signal ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Crude oil extraction pump pulling crude oil up to the surface and pushing it into pipelines in the Permian Basin in West Texas on May 27, 2018. ©Studio One-One / Moment / Getty Images
ExxonMobil is a company capable of contradictions. It has been lobbying against government efforts to address climate change while running ads touting its own efforts to do so.
<p>And while the oil giant has been responsible for massive methane releases, Exxon has now proposed a new <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Global/Files/newsroom/publications-and-reports/Mitigating-Methane-Emissions-from-the-Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Model-Regulatory-Framework.pdf" target="_blank">regulatory framework</a> for cutting emissions of this powerful greenhouse gas that it hopes regulators and industry will adopt. As Exxon put it, the goal is to achieve "<a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/121215-exxonmobil-urges-energy-industry-policymakers-to-embrace-methane-oversight" target="_blank">cost-effective and reasonable methane-emission regulations</a>."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/16/exxon-write-rules-regulating-methane-emissions">DeSmog</a>.</em></p>
<p>So, why is Exxon asking to be regulated?</p><p>The answer may be simply that Exxon is very good at public relations. As industry publication <a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/121215-exxonmobil-urges-energy-industry-policymakers-to-embrace-methane-oversight" target="_blank">Natural Gas Intelligence reported</a>, this announcement "comes as energy operators face increasing pressure from lenders and shareholders to engage in decarbonization by following environmental, social, and governance standards."</p>
<div id="3031e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="A0CFO81584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1234997313581375490" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">ExxonMobil is proposing new rules to cut methane emissions. We think it makes sense for industries to work together… https://t.co/NnLNZ2yO5O</div> — ExxonMobil (@ExxonMobil)<a href="https://twitter.com/exxonmobil/statuses/1234997313581375490">1583281279.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Exxon's proposed regulations have three main objectives: finding and detecting leaks, minimizing the direct venting of methane as part of oil and gas operations, and record keeping and reporting.</p><p>Casey Norton, Exxon's Corporate Media Relations Manager, explained to DeSmog that Exxon's proposal was not expected to be adopted as-is by regulatory agencies. "This is a starting point for conversations with policy makers and other regulators," he said. "For example, New Mexico, Argentina, the EU, who are all considering new regulations for methane emissions."</p><p>Under President Trump, the federal government last year rolled back Obama-era rules for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/climate/trump-methane-rollback.html" target="_blank">for restricting these emissions during drilling</a> on public lands.</p><p>This isn't Exxon's first foray into voluntary regulations of methane. The corporation's natural gas subsidiary XTO started a <a href="https://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-expands-methane-emissions-reduction-program" target="_blank">voluntary methane emissions</a> program in 2017. In June 2018, XTO noted that the voluntary program, which was mostly about replacing leaking valves, had reduced <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180625005080/en/ExxonMobil%25E2%2580%2599s-XTO-Energy-Announces-Progress-Methane-Emissions" target="_blank">methane emissions by 7,200 metric tons since 2016</a>.</p>
<p>However, leaking valves are not the biggest source of methane emissions. In February 2018, four months before XTO was touting the success of its methane reduction program, the company experienced the second largest methane leak in U.S. history. A gas well it operated in Ohio suffered a blowout, releasing huge amounts of the heat-trapping gas.</p><p>Did XTO's voluntary program accurately report this? As The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/climate/methane-leak-satellite.html" target="_blank">New York Times reported</a>, "XTO Energy said it could not immediately determine how much gas had leaked."</p><p>But a group of scientists using satellite data eventually did pin down the amount released — 120 metric tons an hour for 20 days. That adds up to roughly 50,000 metric tons more released than the 7,200 metric tons in reductions XTO was claiming months later. That one leak was estimated to be more than the methane emissions of the total oil and gas industry of countries like Norway.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/11/future-exxon-permian-flaring-crisis-air-pollution" target="_blank">DeSmog reported</a>, XTO is also <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/29/fracking-industry-gas-flaring-problem" target="_blank">flaring </a>the most natural gas of any company in the Permian oil field (natural gas is almost 90 percent methane). While flaring isn't as bad for the climate as directly venting the methane into the atmosphere, it is increasing the levels of carbon dioxide and toxic air pollutants and is another problem the industry is saying it will address even as the practice <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-11/permian-s-gas-burning-black-eye-is-30-worse-than-thought" target="_blank">continues on a large scale</a>.</p>
<p>And now the same company is recommending that the rest of the industry and regulators <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Global/Files/newsroom/publications-and-reports/Mitigating-Methane-Emissions-from-the-Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Model-Regulatory-Framework.pdf" target="_blank">adopt their approach</a> to regulating methane emissions.</p><p>"It is not target-based, it is not volume-based," Exxon's Norton said. "Again, it's starting a conversation, saying these are things that you can look at."</p><p>Robert Howarth, <a href="https://ecologyandevolution.cornell.edu/robert-warren-howarth" target="_blank">a biogeochemist at Cornell University</a> whose work focuses on methane emmissions in the oil and gas industry, drew attention to areas of Exxon's framework he thought were lacking. For starters, he pointed out that the proposed framework does not mention emissions from "imperfect well casings and from abandoned wells," which Howarth says "can be significant." He also noted that the proposal does not describe "a methodology for characterizing any of these emissions; there are techniques for doing so, but there is not much demonstrated use of these techniques by industry."</p><p>Finally — and this is the real danger with any sort of industry self-regulation — Howarth said there must be some type of independent oversight to assess actual emissions instead of relying on the industry to self-report. XTO's well blowout in Ohio is an excellent example of why this third-party verification is critical. Without oversight, the "system is ripe for abuse," according to Howarth.</p><p>Sharon Wilson of environmental advocacy group Earthworks <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/30/sharon-wilson-methane-leaks-permian-basin-oilfields" target="_blank">documents</a> the oil and gas industry's current widespread practices of <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/14/methane-sharon-wilson-earthworks-permian-basin-fracking" target="_blank">flaring and venting methane. </a>Sharing her concerns about Exxon's methane emissions proposal, she told DeSmog,"Exxon's recent announcement is too little too late when it comes to the climate crisis they've help cause and are still making worse. Reducing methane emissions by any percentage is not enough when Exxon continues to expand sources of the same climate pollution." </p><p>Wilson called for the company to support federal and state rules to cut methane.</p>
Trump Administration Reversed Existing Methane Regulations
<p>Methane emissions have become <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/08/14/fracking-shale-gas-drilling-methane-spike-howarth" target="_blank">a much bigger issue</a> in the last decade since the <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> boom in shale <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-and-gas">oil and gas</a> produced by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fracking" rel="noopener noreferrer">fracking</a>. Despite <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/21/investing/trump-energy-plan-obama-oil-boom/index.html" target="_blank">overseeing a huge rise in oil and gas production</a>, the Obama administration acknowledged the methane problem and <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/05/12/administration-takes-historic-action-reduce-methane-emission-oil-and-gas-sector" target="_blank">proposed and adopted new methane emissions regulations</a>, which the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/09/10/key-facts-trump-epa-plan-obama-methane-leaks-rule" target="_blank">Trump administration has since repealed</a>.</p><p>The Trump administration has staffed regulatory agencies with former industry executives and lobbyists who have been quite successful at rolling back environmental, health, and safety rules.</p><p>Last August former coal lobbyist and current administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/andrew-wheeler" target="_blank">Andrew Wheeler</a> <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-updates-air-regulations-oil-and-gas-remove-redundant-requirements-and-1" target="_blank">explained the reasoning</a> for removing the Obama methane rules.</p><p>"EPA's proposal delivers on President Trump's executive order and removes unnecessary and duplicative regulatory burdens from the oil and gas industry," Wheeler said. "The Trump administration recognizes that methane is valuable, and the industry has an incentive to minimize leaks and maximize its use."</p><p>The problem with this free-market assumption is that Wheeler is wrong about the industry's financial incentive to limit methane emissions.</p><div id="8445e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="72W83E1584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1113551571755982855" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The unreal natural gas prices in the #Permian get even more unreal:
Nat gas at the Waha hub (near El Paso) have ho… https://t.co/Zfj0XfXIJh</div> — Javier Blas (@Javier Blas)<a href="https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/statuses/1113551571755982855">1554326358.0</a></blockquote></div><p><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/11/us-natural-gas-lng-export-chesapeake-financial-struggle" target="_blank">There is too much natural gas</a>, aka methane, flooding world energy markets right now. Current prices to buy it are lower than the costs to produce it. The methane currently produced in Texas' Permian Basin spent a good portion of last year at negative prices. There is no financial incentive for producers in the Permian to voluntarily cut methane emissions in the current market environment.</p><p>That is why Permian producers <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/29/fracking-industry-gas-flaring-problem" target="_blank">are flaring</a> (openly burning) it at record levels as well as directly releasing (venting) methane into the rapidly warming atmosphere. So much for letting the free market address the issue.</p>
Even the Remaining Regulations Are Controlled by Industry
<p>While the Trump administration has rolled back many regulations for the oil and gas industry, the regulatory system in the U.S. was already designed to protect industry profits — not the public or environment. When the federal government creates regulations, the process can be heavily influenced by industry lobbyists, and if they don't agree with the regulations, there are many ways they can get them revised to favor their companies.</p><p>While Exxon <a href="https://www.axios.com/exxon-epa-regulate-methane-emissions-oil-gas--0befdde6-e0fe-49db-a200-38299853b43d.html" target="_blank">did publicly say </a>in 2018 that it didn't support repealing the existing methane regulations, the company also wrote to the <span style="background-color: initial;">EPA</span> voicing support for certain aspects of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-petroleum-institute" target="_blank">American Petroleum Institute's</a> (<span style="background-color: initial;">API</span>) comments on the issue, and the <span style="background-color: initial;">API</span> <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/08/oil-gas-lobby-split-by-trump-rollback-of-methane-rules/" target="_blank">approved removing the regulations.</a> In that letter Exxon used the same language it is now using with its propsed regulations, saying any rules need to be "cost-effective" and "reasonable." But if the regulations are cost-effective, will they actually be effective in reducing methane emissions in a meaningful way?</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjg4MDY3NS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjAyNjM1NH0._FkQjtD7IdxsBjyG4C48LKbFNnq5d0dj7n6kYoadYjw/img.png?width=980" id="ef457" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6a80e7ae5ddbf00618b6efbabd60441f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Excerpt from Exxon letter to EPA about methane regulations. ExxonMobil
<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-safety-rules-on-oil-drilling-were-changed-some-staff-objected-those-notes-were-cut-11582731559" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a> recently highlighted the influence that the oil and gas industry and its major U.S. trade group the American Petroleum Institute can have over regulations. After the deadly 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government put into place new safeguards known as the "well control rule" in order to prevent another disaster during deepwater offshore drilling.</p><p>In 2019, the Trump administration revised the rule, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/05/03/720008093/trump-administration-moves-to-roll-back-offshore-drilling-safety-regulations" target="_blank">weakening it</a>, even though, as the Journal reported, federal regulatory staff did not agree "that an industry-crafted protocol for managing well pressure was sufficient in all situations, the records show." The staff was ignored. (And the move is <a href="https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/suit-filed-over-well-control-rule-repeal" target="_blank">undergoing a legal challenge</a>.)</p><p>Industry crafted protocol. Just the thing Exxon is now proposing.</p><p>This type of industry control over the regulatory process was also brought to light after two Boeing 737 MAX planes crashed and killed 346 people. Boeing had fought to make sure that pilots weren't required to undergo expensive and lengthy training to navigate the new plane.</p><p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max/designed-by-clowns-boeing-employees-ridicule-737-max-regulators-in-internal-messages-idUSKBN1Z902N" target="_blank">Reuters reported </a>on internal communications at Boeing which revealed the airplane maker simply would not let simulator training be required by regulators:</p><p>"I want to stress the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to MAX," Boeing's 737 chief technical pilot said in a March 2017 email.</p><p>"Boeing will not allow that to happen. We'll go face to face with any regulator who tries to make that a requirement."</p><p>Boeing got its way. And 346 people died.</p><div id="384c1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BGIMBL1584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1236300589262405632" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Nearly a year after a second crash of a Boeing 737 MAX that led to its grounding, the full extent of the company’s… https://t.co/uUHyItbBrD</div> — The Daily Beast (@The Daily Beast)<a href="https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/statuses/1236300589262405632">1583592004.0</a></blockquote></div><p>For the past six years, I have reported on the failed regulatory process governing the moving of dangerous crude oil by rail (and even <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/07/09/bomb-trains-oil-rail-threat-book" target="_blank">wrote a book about it</a>). The only meaningful safety regulation that resulted from a multi-year process was requiring oil trains to have modern electronically controlled pneumatic brakes.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/10/trump-admin-repeal-oil-train-safety-rule-electronically-controlled-pneumatic-brakes" target="_blank">I reported</a>, shortly after this regulation was enacted, Matthew Rose, CEO of the largest oil-by-rail company BNSF, told an industry conference that "the only thing we don't like about [the new regulation] is the electronic braking" and "this rule will have to be changed in the future." As per the wishes of Matthew Rose, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/10/trump-admin-repeal-oil-train-safety-rule-electronically-controlled-pneumatic-brakes" target="_blank">that rule was repealed </a>despite the substantial evidence clearly showing this modern braking system greatly increases train safety. </p><p>A recent op-ed from an editor at the trade publication Railway Age referred to these oil trains as a "<a href="https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/double-trouble-in-saskatchewan/" target="_blank">clear and present danger</a>." Nevertheless, these trains hauling volatile oil through North American communities are still operating with braking systems engineered in the late 1800s.</p>
Exxon Touts 'Sound Science' Despite Its History
<p>Exxon's methane proposal states that any regulations should be based on "sound science." This statement is coming from a company whose scientists <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken" target="_blank">accurately predicted the impacts of burning fossil fuels</a> on the climate decades ago and yet has spent the time since then <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/09/03/study-finds-exxon-misled-public-withholding-climate-knowledge" target="_blank">misleading the public</a> about that science.</p><p>The current regulatory system in America does not protect the public interest. Letting Exxon take the lead in the place of regulators doesn't seem like it's going to help.</p><p>Megan Milliken Biven is a former federal analyst for the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal agency that regulates the oil industry's offshore activity. Milliken Biven explained to DeSmog what she saw as the root cause of the regulatory process's failure.<br><br>"Regulatory capture isn't really the problem," Milliken Biven said. "The system was designed to work for industry so regulatory capture isn't even required."</p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Motorway A8 with a wind farm in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. The European commission's effort to transition from a high-carbon to a low-carbon emitter received input from ExxonMobil. imageBROKER / Lilly / Getty Images
The European commission's effort to transition the 27-country economic bloc from a high-carbon to a low-carbon emitter in a few decades received input from the fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil in the weeks prior to its passage, according to a watchdog that monitors lobbying activity, as The Guardian reported.
<p>As Common Dreams reported, a <a href="https://influencemap.org/report/An-InfluenceMap-Note-ExxonMobil-Lobbies-the-EU-Commission-add01200dc694b00e9ac4bebf660227b" target="_blank">report</a> released last week by InfluenceMap revealed that Exxon lobbyists met with commission officials in November to request an extension of the Green Deal's carbon pricing policy, known as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), to tailpipe emissions.</p><p>The report revealed that just ahead of the December announcement of the Green Deal, Exxon lobbyists met with Frans Timmermans, a member of the commission's cabinet, after the company avoided penalties for failing to attend a hearing on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">climate denial</a>, as the <a href="https://euobserver.com/green-deal/147646" target="_blank">EU Observer</a> reported.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://influencemap.org/report/An-InfluenceMap-Note-ExxonMobil-Lobbies-the-EU-Commission-add01200dc694b00e9ac4bebf660227b" target="_blank">InfluenceMap</a> wrote in its <a href="https://influencemap.org/report/An-InfluenceMap-Note-ExxonMobil-Lobbies-the-EU-Commission-add01200dc694b00e9ac4bebf660227b" target="_blank">report</a>:<span></span></p><blockquote>"In the meeting, the lobbyist for ExxonMobil tried to stall an overhaul of the transportation sector. ExxonMobil representatives pushed for the EU Commission to change its approach to climate regulation in the transport sector, including removing the EU's strict CO2 vehicle tailpipe standards, in what appears to have been an effort to stall a push towards <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles">electric vehicles</a>. A direct extract from the meeting notes indicate the un-named ExxonMobil officials argued that the EU should: 'Give serious consideration to extending ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) beyond stationary sources. Tail pipe emission legislation should be substituted with power plant to wheel emission regulation.'" </blockquote><p>According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/06/exxonmobil-tried-to-get-european-green-deal-watered-down-claims-climate-lobbying-watchdog" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>, the maneuver aimed to tamp down knowledge about the carbon footprint of driving a combustion engine running on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuels</a>. And the lobbying effort seems to have worked, since the European Commission did not include plans to phase out combustion engines. It also did not include cars running on fossil fuels in its carbon-pricing plan.</p><p>Furthermore, the move aims to create unrest that would be politically unfeasible. The only way for a carbon-pricing plan for tailpipe emissions to be influential is for it to make greenhouse gas emissions very expensive. Yet, that type of action that transfers costs to consumers has been the bedrock of protests like the Yellow Vests protests in France, which stemmed from a proposed tax on diesel and gasoline, as the <a href="https://euobserver.com/green-deal/147646" target="_blank">EU Observer</a> reported.</p>
<p>Edward Collins, a director at InfluenceMap, said the document "represents yet another evidence piece" of ExxonMobil's efforts to protect its profits by thwarting meaningful regulatory action and shifting the focus to long-term technical solutions, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/06/exxonmobil-tried-to-get-european-green-deal-watered-down-claims-climate-lobbying-watchdog" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.<br></p><p>The lack of decisive and meaningful regulatory actions that would change the transportation sector and the energy infrastructure of Europe in the immediate future drew the ire of climate activists, as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/greta-thunberg-eu-climate-law-2645391457.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1">EcoWatch</a> reported. The Green Deal requires that European countries reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, which many scientists say is too late to stop the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis">climate crisis</a>.</p><p>"Net zero emissions by 2050' for the EU equals surrender. It means giving up," Greta Thunberg and 33 other youth climate activists wrote in an open letter published Tuesday and reported by <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-eu-law/eu-unveils-climate-law-thunberg-calls-it-surrender-idUKKBN20R1OC" target="_blank">Reuters</a>. "We don't just need goals for just 2030 or 2050. We, above all, need them for 2020 and every following month and year to come."</p><p>As <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/06/exxon-lobbyists-pushed-european-officials-water-down-green-deal-carbon-pricing-plan" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a> pointed out:</p><blockquote>"Exxon's attempt to further weaken the European Green Deal represents 'a shift from the propagation of climate science denial towards a range of more subtle tactics and narratives to distract policymakers and the public away from an urgent and robust policy intervention on climate on the scale recommended by the IPCC's 2018 special report on 1.5 [degrees Celsius] warming,' said InfluenceMap."</blockquote>
Related Articles Around the Web
- Unlike the U.S. Democrats' Green New Deal, the EU's Version Is ... ›
- Three questions EXXON doesn't want you to ask - Greenpeace ... ›
- Oil and gas giants spent 250m on EU lobbying since 2010: green ... ›
- Your guide to Europe's 'Green New Deal,' the continent's new plan ... ›
- Exxon lobbyists allowed to keep EU access badges – EURACTIV.com ›
Read More
Show Less
BP CEO Bernard Looney speaks during an event in London on Feb. 12, where he declared the company's intentions to achieve "net zero" carbon emissions by 2050. DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS / AFP / Getty Images
British-based oil and gas giant BP set the most ambitious climate goal of any company in its industry yesterday when it announced that it will eliminate or offset all of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to The New York Times. Its ambitious plans included offsetting the burning of oil and gas it takes out of the ground.
<p>The company's chief executive Bernard Looney, who stepped into the top job this month, said the 111-year-old company must "reinvent" itself, a strategy that will eventually include more investment in alternative energy, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51475379" target="_blank">according to the BBC</a>.</p>
<p>"The world's carbon budget is finite and running out fast," CEO Bernard Looney said in a statement, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/business/bp-net-zero/index.html" target="_blank">CNN reported</a>. "We need a rapid transition to net zero. We all want energy that is reliable and affordable, but that is no longer enough."</p>
<p>The pledge is a tacit acknowledgement of the pressure that fossil fuel producers face from the public and from investors who are either divesting or demanding action to stop the global <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a>. While the move is significant, Looney did not detail a plan for how BP would hit its ambitious target, as The New York Times reported.</p>
<p>"We are aiming to earn back the trust of society," Looney said at a news conference in London, as The New York Times reported. "We have got to change, and change profoundly." </p>
<p>While the details are scant, Looney did acknowledge that much of BP's business model and its priorities will have to change in response to the climate crisis and to the changing demands of the market economy, which is looking for affordable <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/renewable-energy">renewable energy</a>.</p>
<p>"This will certainly be a challenge, but also a tremendous opportunity. It is clear to me, and to our stakeholders, that for BP to play our part and serve our purpose, we have to change. And we want to change - this is the right thing for the world and for BP," Looney said as the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51475379" target="_blank">BBC</a> reported.</p>
<p>"Providing the world with clean, reliable affordable energy will require nothing less than reimagining energy, and today that becomes BP's new purpose," he added. "Reimagining energy for people and our planet. We'll still be an energy company, but a very different kind of energy company: leaner, faster moving, lower carbon, and more valuable."</p>
<p>Looney said that details would be revealed at a presentation in September. As CNN noted, the commitment is the most ambitious of any oil company. Shell set targets to rein in emissions while <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Chevron" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chevron</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ExxonMobil" rel="noopener noreferrer">ExxonMobil</a> are still far behind. </p>
<p>"They really are setting a new standard for what leadership looks like in the industry," Andrew Logan, senior director of oil and gas at Ceres, a nonprofit that lobbies for companies to take action on climate change, said as CNN reported.</p>
<p>Logan noted how important it was that BP acknowledged that it needs to offset the oil and the gas that consumers use, as <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-giant-bp-is-latest-to-pledge-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-2020-02-12" target="_blank">MarketWatch reported</a>. "There is no reason that Exxon and Chevron can't follow suit," he said. </p>
<p>The carbon footprint of the oil and gas that BP and other companies sell is massive. In its <a href="https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/who-we-are/reimagining-energy.html" target="_blank">own reporting</a>, BP said that the company emits about 55 million tons of greenhouse gases each year directly from its extraction operations and refineries. However, an additional 360 million tons each year is released when their extracted oil and gas is burned in vehicles or to heat homes, as The New York Times reported.</p>
<p>The plans drew a tepid response from environmental groups and even criticism from some who see fossil fuel extraction as something that needs to stop immediately. </p>
<p>"Unless BP commits clearly to stop searching for more oil and gas, and to keep their existing reserves in the ground, we shouldn't take a word of their P.R. spin seriously," Ellen Gibson, a campaigner for fossil-fuel divestment with the environmental group <a href="https://350.org/" target="_blank">350.org</a> in Britain, said as The New York Times reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Oil and Gas Operations Release 60 Percent More Methane than ... ›
- New U.S. Oil and Gas Emissions Could Nearly Erase Environmental ... ›
- Deepwater Horizon Also Spilled 'Invisible Oil,' Harming Far More Marine Life Than Previously Known - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Site of December 2019 CP oil train accident site, with the derailment looking south. Transportation Safety Board of Canada / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Early in the morning of Feb. 6, an oil train derailed and caught fire near Guernsey, Saskatchewan, resulting in the Canadian village's evacuation. This is the second oil train to derail and burn near Guernsey, following one in December that resulted in a fire and oil spill of 400,000 gallons.
<div id="e7562" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KBG0C51581095662"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1225492433120759811" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Drone footage of today's CP crude oil train derailment east of Guernsey, courtesy of Philippe Gaudet. #sask… https://t.co/MhqnJscBej</div> — Guy Quenneville (@Guy Quenneville)<a href="https://twitter.com/gqinsk/statuses/1225492433120759811">1581015139.0</a></blockquote></div><p>According to the <span style="background-color: initial;">CBC</span>, eyewitness Kyle Brown reported that "he saw a huge fire after the train derailed."</p><p>"It looks like an inferno," <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/sask-train-derailment-1.5453942" target="_blank">said Brown</a>. "Like a war zone, really. It is pretty bad."</p><p>The Canadian Pacific (CP) train was carrying crude oil and reportedly derailed approximately 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles) from town. News reports indicate that the train crew escaped without harm.</p>
<div id="68927" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KP3Q3K1581095662"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1225502367854071812" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">CP train that derailed in Saskatchewan had 104 cars; 31 went off the tracks. As of about 1 pm ET, 12 were still on… https://t.co/viHqzQjyzw</div> — CBC News Alerts (@CBC News Alerts)<a href="https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/statuses/1225502367854071812">1581017507.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Local resident Blaine Weber spoke to the Global News after this second derailment and expressed frustration that Canadian Pacific Railway, the rail company operating the trains, has not been forthcoming with answers <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/6514826/train-derailment-saskatoon-saskatchewan-guernsey/" target="_blank">about the derailments.</a></p><p>"CP doesn't seem to be answering any questions from either the public or the authorities," Weber said.</p><p>Canadian Pacific also is under scrutiny over a potential cover up of the details surrounding a <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cp-derailment-investigation-coverup-alleged-1.5436018" target="_blank">runaway freight train accident</a> in 2019 that resulted in the death of all three crew members.</p>
Huge Increase in Canadian Oil-by-Rail Brings More Accidents
<p>A month ago <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/07/oil-trains-risks-fires-spills-lng-rail" target="_blank">I wrote </a>that the forecast for oil by rail for 2020 would include more trains, fires, and spills. The Canadian oil industry is moving record volumes of oil by rail to the U.S. and with that increase, expect to see more accidents.</p><p>Last week, Reuters reported that the CEO of Imperial Oil, a Canadian subsidiary of <a href="http://ecowatch.com/tag/ExxonMobil">ExxonMobil</a>, which <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/15/oil-rail-reality-watch-what-they-do-not-what-they-say" target="_blank">lobbied against new oil-by-rail regulations</a> in the U.S., was eager to ship more oil by train.</p><p>"We see with the current differentials and arbitrage, it makes good economic sense for us to ship barrels on the rail," said Brad Corson, <a href="https://in.reuters.com/article/us-imperial-oil-results/imperial-oil-says-it-makes-good-economic-sense-to-move-crude-by-rail-idINKBN1ZU1RR" target="_blank">CEO of Imperial.</a></p><p>As <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/oil-rail-following-bomb-trains" target="_blank">DeSmog has reported in detail</a>, these trains are currently unsafe to operate. The new tank cars that regulators and the rail industry promised were a safety improvement for reducing <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-spill">oil spills</a> and explosions have now failed in five out of five major derailments.</p><p>U.S. regulations requiring oil trains to have modern braking systems, known as electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes — which Canadian operators would have had to comply with as well — <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/10/trump-admin-repeal-oil-train-safety-rule-electronically-controlled-pneumatic-brakes" target="_blank">were repealed in 2017.</a></p><p>And the volatile mixture of Canadian bitumen with condensate that is being moved in these Canadian trains has proven to ignite in derailments just like the volatile Bakken oil from North Dakota that was involved in the deadly <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/12/21/what-have-we-learned-lac-megantic-oil-train-disaster" target="_blank">Lac-Megantic, Quebec, accident in 2013.</a></p><p>With oil companies like Imperial making plans to greatly increase the use of rail to move Canadian oil to <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> ports and refineries, my early predictions for 2020 are already coming true.</p><div id="0707a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="PBQ5FQ1581095662"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1225436149293826049" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Smoke visible from the train fire and derailment near Lanigan Saskatchewan. CP has confirmed it was their train. It… https://t.co/F1B0qFY8Pf</div> — Alicia Bridges (@Alicia Bridges)<a href="https://twitter.com/aliciaebridges/statuses/1225436149293826049">1581001720.0</a></blockquote></div><p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/02/06/guernsey-canada-evacuated-second-cp-oil-train-derail-fire" rel="noopener noreferrer">DeSmog</a>.</em></p>
<p><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- 250,000 Liters of Crude Spills off Newfoundland Coast - EcoWatch ›
- Risky Move: Canada Shipping More Tar Sands Oil by Rail - EcoWatch ›
- Oil Leaks From Train Derailment in Canada ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
By Sabrina Kessler
Far-reaching allegations about how a climate-sinning American multinational could shamelessly lie to the public about its wrongdoing mobilized a small group of New York students on a cold November morning. They stood in front of New York's Supreme Court last week to follow the unprecedented lawsuit against ExxonMobil.
<p>The case is not about the damage to the planet the energy giant has caused. Instead, ExxonMobil is being forced to answer allegations that it played down the consequences of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate change</a> to consumers and investors for decades.</p><p>What looked like a clear victory for the Attorney General's Office, however, now threatens to turn into a damp squib. The prosecution quickly admitted it had failed to prove that the company deliberately deceived shareholders and a few days ago, Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Zweig dropped one of the main allegations — investor fraud.</p><p>The state of New York had wanted to prove that the Texas-based oil giant knowingly misled shareholders. ExxonMobil is said to have built a "long-standing fraudulent system" to cover up the true impact of climate change. All this to push up the stock price. Similar allegations were once made against the tobacco industry, which publicly denied the risk of cancer, even though it knew better. What followed were penalties in the billions.</p>
<h2>Allegations 'False'</h2><p>ExxonMobil did not respond to a request from DW. The Group's website contains a statement from last month in which the company promised it would be exonerated in court: "The allegations of the New York Attorney General are false," it said.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA3ODYzNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMjEyNzEzN30.WGFd5hrtSrGDFplvZ-PSJmJ2lTgpdkOhtbvZ9u9-kVA/img.jpg?width=980" id="76052" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="99953d9ed59fd0d9e06f95f71670bae5" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The student protest is one of several held outside the New York Supreme Court during the trial.
<p>Investors had been informed through regular announcements about how the company responds with climate-related risks, the company added. "The New York attorney general's case is misleading and deliberately misrepresents a process we use to ensure company investments take into account the impact of current and potential climate-related regulations."</p><p>However, this remaining lawsuit is not just against any company, but one built by the man once considered to be the richest American of all time. ExxonMobil's roots go back to John D. Rockefeller, the U.S. oil magnate who built one of the country's first oil refineries in 1863. His company, the Standard Oil Company, grew so powerful that within a few decades the U.S. Supreme Court ordered it to be broken up into more than 30 companies, two of which grew into today's ExxonMobil.</p><p>This company, in turn, rebuilt itself into one of the largest in the world: the oil multinational recorded sales of $279 billion (€253 billion) last year alone. By way of comparison, Apple achieved $266 billion in 2018.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA3ODYzOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMDI2ODM1MX0.tTCurI0dQJDLcwLYM4FXN4OfHJNY-ddbifs3sR26aRc/img.jpg?width=980" id="da51e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a8727b8d888d455d936ddba394e2ed44" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Former U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson previously had a decade-long tenure as Exxon Mobil's chair and CEO.
<h2>Impact Known for Years</h2><p>Success does, however, have its negatives. ExxonMobil is one of the largest global climate sinners. Not only are forests being cleared and waters and soils polluted to unearth more than 4 million barrels a day of black gold, the oil giant also contributes almost 2% to global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, according to calculations from the UK-based Carbon Disclosure Project. Over the last 50 years, it has created 42 billion tons of CO2.</p><p>The oil companies know only too well how much they endanger the climate. Exxon Mobil, for example, is said to have known since the 1970s about the impact the oil business was having on the planet. However, these findings never reached the outside world. "Exxon Mobil is a climate criminal," alleges 350.org, a nonprofit environmental organization that supports students in their protests.</p>
<p>Despite this, the state of New York has not yet been able to prove ExxonMobil's culpability. Not a single shareholder who testified in court claimed to have been deceived. The prosecution now has to prove that the oil giant was wrong to assure its investors that it was adequately preparing its own business for a decarbonized future. A ruling is expected in the coming weeks.</p><p>ExxonMobil's biggest challenge, however, is a different one. A glance at Wall Street data reveals that the energy sector is increasingly losing its standing. Today, the industry represents less than 5% of the total market value of all companies indexed in the S&P 500. Five years ago, it was still over 15%.</p><h2>Oil Price Remains Low</h2><p>ExxonMobil is struggling with its greed for profits. Since its all-time high five years ago, the stock price has collapsed by a third. It has long been clear that coal, gas and oil can no longer earn as much as they used to. Coal, for example, is increasingly being replaced by natural gas, which is much cheaper. Oil is also being fractured in such quantities that the market is literally flooded. Not even the <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/us-to-send-troops-to-saudi-arabia-after-oil-strike/a-50523237" target="_blank">military attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil fields in September</a> caused a lasting rise in the price of oil. It has lost 20% since January.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA3ODY3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDU0NzM5OH0.u0CHdiwyH_44kekrSkkapCzkRSI806jie2oCzCPsew8/img.jpg?width=980" id="49274" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2b3a48d64b533683b4c78285e23eceb3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Exxon Mobil has the 14th-largest oil and gas reserves and is the largest refiner in the world.
<p>For analysts, one thing is clear: ExxonMobil needs new ways to revive itself. "The Stone Age didn't end because the stones ran out," analyst Stewart Glickman of CFRA Research told DW. In other words, it will not be the lack of oil that will put a spoke in the wheel for the oil giants, but the lack of profitability. Competitors like Royal Dutch Shell have long been experimenting with <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energies</a> in order to do justice to the zeitgeist. ExxonMobil is years behind.</p><p>The company's future strategy is still heavily reliant on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuels</a>. This includes the production of shale oil (fracking) in the West as well as natural gas plants in Papua New Guinea, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/venezuela-and-guyana-spar-over-exxon-mobil-oil-seismic-vessel/a-46850770" target="_blank">oil wells in South American Guyana</a> and the development of new fields in Brazil and Mozambique.</p><p>The Group intends to invest $230 billion in these projects in the coming years. However, only a fraction of this is for environmentally friendly technologies. The oil giant has committed just $10 billion to these types of projects — in the last twenty years.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/exxon-mobil-oil-giant-prosecuted-over-climate-lies/a-51223044?maca=en-VAM_volltext_ecowatch-28485-html-copypaste" target="_blank">DW</a>.</em></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
Activists in support of his investigation of ExxonMobil on Feb 22, 2017. Erik McGregor / Pacific Press / LightRocket / Getty Images
Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil Thursday over the company's misinformation campaign to delay action to address climate change.
<p>Attorney General Maura Healey told reporters in a press conference Thursday that "Exxon has fought us every step of the way," and was "completely uncooperative," noting that the company failed to comply with requests for documents and depositions.</p><p>"Exxon has yet to produce to our office a single document. They have yet to provide to our office a single witness. So they have been completely uncooperative with our investigation," Healey told reporters.</p><p>ExxonMobil misstated facts and failed to disclose important information to both consumers and investors, according to <a href="https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/10/24/Complaint%20-%20Comm.%20v.%20Exxon%20Mobil%20Corporation%20-%2010-24-19.pdf" target="_blank">the complaint</a>, filed Thursday in Suffolk Superior Court by the attorney general's office.</p><p>"Exxon has known for decades about the catastrophic climate impacts of burning fossil fuels—its chief product," said AG Healey. "Yet, to this day, Exxon continues to deceive Massachusetts consumers and investors about the dangerous climate harms caused by its oil and gasoline products and the significant risks of climate change—and efforts to address it—to Exxon's business."<br><br>"Contrary to its shareholder representations and deceptive advertising and marketing, Exxon's products are a leading cause of climate change, not a solution. That deception, we allege, violates Massachusetts law, and that's why we are suing. Our goal here is simple – to stop Exxon from engaging in this deception and penalize the company for this misconduct," Healey said.</p>
<p>"In order to increase its short-term profits, stock price, and access to capital, ExxonMobil has been dishonest with investors about the material climate-driven risks to its business and with consumers about how its fossil fuel products cause climate change―all in violation of Massachusetts law," the complaint asserts. "[I]nternal ExxonMobil and other documents made public by the media and/or obtained during the course of the Attorney General's investigation reveal a systematic effort by the Company, reminiscent of the tobacco industry's long denial campaign about the dangerous effects of cigarettes, to mislead both investors and consumers in Massachusetts."</p><p>The complaint goes beyond ExxonMobil's activities decades ago. "ExxonMobil now tells investors all the time that climate change risks are a management priority for the Company," it continues. "And yet, ExxonMobil deceptively disseminates long-term forecasts of future growth in demand for fossil fuels."</p><p>This pattern of deception, the AG argues, potentially wronged every driver who filled their tank at an ExxonMobil gas station and every investor who took the company's assurances as made in good faith. For each individual consumer violation, Massachusetts law carries damages of up to $5,000. Healey's office did not clarify precisely how much Thursday's lawsuit will seek from the oil giant in total.</p><p>"Exxon's unlawful conduct, the complaint alleges, contributed to decades of delay in market recognition of the climate dangers of fossil fuel products and the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," the attorney general's office added in a statement.<br><br>In the 1980's, the complaint alleges, Exxon, Mobil Oil and other corporations and oil, coal and car trade associations started to organize their response to a crisis that one Exxon consultant had warned could "bring world economic growth to a halt" by 2025.<br><br>Their collective response to climate science? To emphasize uncertainty and keep fossil fuels flowing.</p><p>Related: Read DeSmog's revelation about Exxon's advanced knowledge of climate impacts from fossil fuels.</p>
<p><em>Additional reporting by Sharon Kelly.</em><br/></p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/10/24/massachusetts-sues-exxonmobil-climate-disinformation-greenwashing" target="_blank">DeSmog Blog</a>.</em>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
ExxonMobil Could Be Banned From EU Parliament After Failing to Show at Climate Hearing
22 March 2019
Energy
The ExxonMobil Torrance Refinery in Torrance, California. waltarrrr / Flickr
ExxonMobil could be the second company after Monsanto to lose lobbying access to members of European Parliament after it failed to turn up to a hearing Thursday concerning whether or not the oil giant knowingly spread false information about climate change.
The call to ban the company was submitted by Green Member of European Parliament (MEP) Molly Scott Cato and should be decided in a vote in late April, The Guardian reported.
<div id="3f0b9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="HCXOZV1576662682"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1109011013918228480" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">ExxonMobil faces EU parliament ban after no show at climate hearing.
It could become the second multinational – af… https://t.co/BNjEto9CXy</div> — CEO (@CEO)<a href="https://twitter.com/corporateeurope/statuses/1109011013918228480">1553243804.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>"This is the company that denied the science, despite knowing the damage their oil exploitation was causing; which funded campaigns to block action on climate and now refuses to face up to its environmental crimes by attending today's hearing," Cato said in a <a href="https://mollymep.org.uk/2019/03/21/exxonmobil-hearing-lobbyists/" target="_blank">statement</a> released Thursday. "We cannot allow the lobbyists from such corporations free access to the corridors of the European parliament. We must remove their badges immediately."<br></p><p>The only other company to be denied lobby access to MEPs is Monsanto, which was <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/eu-parliament-monsanto-lobbyists-2490626188.html" target="_self">banned for similar reasons</a> in 2017 after it failed to turn up to a hearing on whether it had improperly influenced studies on the safety of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a>, the active ingredient in its <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup" target="_self">Roundup</a> weedkiller.</p><p>ExxonMobil contended it could not attend the hearing because of ongoing climate litigation in the U.S. It was concerned that any comments made at the hearing "could prejudice those pending proceedings," according to a letter obtained by <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/eu-parliament-urged-to-strip-exxonmobil-lobbyists-of-access-badges/4841118.html" target="_blank">AFP</a>.</p><p>Evidence presented at the hearing Thursday suggested that ExxonMobil had known since 1959 that global warming caused by the burning of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a> "was sufficient to melt the ice cap and submerge New York," Harvard University researcher Geoffrey Supran told AFP.</p><p>Supran presented the findings of a peer-reviewed study he had co-authored looking at almost 200 company documents over a period of decades. Four-fifths of internal documents acknowledged the science behind climate change, while a similar percentage of paid newspaper editorials in the U.S. cast doubt on that same <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/" target="_self">science</a>.</p>
<div id="2fd2f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="MI8GPD1576662682"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="900341744344027136" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Exxon challenged us to "read all the documents". We did. Here's what we found using peer-reviewed content analysis:… https://t.co/AujIE5XErq</div> — Geoffrey Supran (@Geoffrey Supran)<a href="https://twitter.com/GeoffreySupran/statuses/900341744344027136">1503493174.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>"It is the overwhelming consensus of experts studying the history of fossil fuel funding that companies, including ExxonMobil, have orchestrated, funded and perpetuated climate misinformation to mislead the public and politicians, and stifle action," Supran said, as reported in The Guardian. "Unfortunately, they largely succeeded."</p><p>ExxonMobil continues to deny charges that it spread climate denial.</p><p>"We reject the false allegation that ExxonMobil suppressed scientific research on climate change. News reports that claim we reached definitive conclusions about the science of climate change decades before the world's experts are simply not accurate and have long since been debunked," the company wrote in a statement provided to The Guardian.</p><p>However, another study released Friday suggests that ExxonMobil's climate denialism isn't just a matter of history. The <a href="https://influencemap.org/report/How-Big-Oil-Continues-to-Oppose-the-Paris-Agreement-38212275958aa21196dae3b76220bddc" target="_blank">InfluenceMap</a> report found that the five largest publicly traded oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, had invested more than $1 billion of shareholder funds on misleading climate-related lobbying and branding in the three years since the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris agreement</a>.</p>
<div id="1a460" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8S8DDV1576662682"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1109015929520832512" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING Our new report finds oil majors have spent over $1bn on climate lobbying and misleading branding since the… https://t.co/nN9pvm8aBw</div> — InfluenceMap (@InfluenceMap)<a href="https://twitter.com/InfluenceMap/statuses/1109015929520832512">1553244976.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>During that three year period, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP and Total invested $110 billion in new fossil fuel production while they are projected to spend only $3.6 billion on climate friendly alternatives such as <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" target="_self">renewable energy</a>. Meanwhile, they spent $195 million a year to market themselves as green leaders and $200 million a year to lobby on climate policy, the <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/oil-industry-climate_n_5c940962e4b0a6329e144e6c?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFxk_pgxLdCra7mvrpuvxlbdi0RZuq50wGd3UDlUxJs3uUTgdrPeyhJ3upW_-VUsMhxMUHAcCPNpF1LN9yYibGZfppAxrSGcA5oq8ByxRVW4K2vuERV4EjkmdThGNPjGUPM16QSFoUSUV7aoWTW2usO7XsOgsd12-fEse1F5omul" target="_blank">Huffington Post reported</a>. Those lobbying efforts included the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/washington-carbon-tax-big-oil-2616808725.html" target="_self">spending blitz</a> by BP and Chevron that helped defeat a carbon tax in Washington State during the 2018 midterm elections, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>.</p><p>"Oil majors' climate branding sounds increasingly hollow and their credibility is on the line," report author Edward Collins told The Guardian. "They publicly support climate action while lobbying against binding policy. They advocate low-carbon solutions but such investments are dwarfed by spending on expanding their fossil fuel business."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTMwNDgzNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMzk2MzI5Mn0.ASDhZziN-IRG2hONNyjg2DKf3lLajbuasSQwUVI3Fww/img.jpg?width=980" id="e3016" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c756d4b5c34f754bbdb997f5e7a3b37e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Shorebirds on a sandy beach looking across the Houston Ship Channel to the ExxonMobil Refinery in Baytown, Texas.
<div id="07414" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0QE2XX1576662683"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="993547857323061250" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Report Uncovers 88 Revolving Door Cases Between European Public Servants and Fossil Fuel Companies… https://t.co/zCseTtOPB8</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/993547857323061250">1525715243.0</a></blockquote></div>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less