May, 28 2019, 12:00am EDT
Shareholders Press ExxonMobil and DowDuPont on Climate Resiliency Risks; Petrochemical Giants Double Down on Operations in Flood Zones
Oakland, California
Shareholder proposals brought by As You Sow will challenge two of the world's largest oil and chemical producers, ExxonMobil and DowDuPont at annual meetings on May 29 and June 25, respectively, to issue a report assessing the public health risks of expanding their petrochemical operations and investments in areas increasingly prone to climate change-induced storms, flooding, and sea level rise, and the risks such operations pose to public health. Major hazardous chemical leaks from existing petrochemical operations have already occurred during extreme weather events like Hurricane Harvey, which are becoming more frequent and intense as a result of climate change.
Petrochemical operations include ethane cracking plants ("crackers") and other facilities that produce dangerous pollutants, including benzene, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and sulfur dioxide. Such plants can become inundated during extreme weather events and release toxic chemicals as they experience upsets and malfunctions.
During Hurricane Harvey, roughly two million pounds of hazardous air pollutants were emitted from local oil refineries and chemical plants. Following the storm, local community members reported health impacts such as respiratory illness, nausea, and headaches, among others. Some health impacts may be long-term and worse than captured by initial incident reports.
A recent report found that Exxon and DowDuPont experienced some of the largest chemical releases during the event, indicating that their existing risk management systems are proving inadequate. Such practices must evolve to meet the new challenges and risks climate change brings including litigation, financial penalties, clean-up costs, loss of social license to operate, and reputational damage, all of which negatively impacts shareholder value. Financial institutions like BlackRock are increasingly warning that financial assets are underpricing the impacts of weather events like hurricanes.
"Petrochemical industry giants like ExxonMobil and DowDuPont are demonstrating that they are alarmingly underprepared to deal with the increasing severity of extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change," said Lila Holzman, energy program manager of As You Sow. "More must be done to assure stakeholders that community health will not be sacrificed as a result of poor planning and insufficient risk management."
Available disclosures from both companies lack sufficient information on if and how the companies are considering evolving climate change-related threats in their decision-making regarding where and how to invest in the buildout of sensitive infrastructure. Exxon and DowDuPont currently have significant operations on the Gulf Coast in Texas and Louisiana and are intending to spend tens of billions of dollars over the next decade on expanding petrochemical operations in this region. Climate change is already impacting the area, and impacts will continue to intensify. Houston has experienced an increase of 167 percent in heavy downpours since the 1950s and three 500-year floods in three years from 2015 to 2018. Reports show that land loss from sea level rise in Louisiana is occurring at an alarming rate, threatening up to $136 billion in infrastructure. Moreover, proposed petrochemical operations will further contribute to the problem of climate change, as they involve highly energy- and carbon-intensive processes.
"As industry puts its foot on the gas to accelerate buildout of expensive petrochemical infrastructure, investors are asking: what are the risks?" said Holzman. "Shareholders are concerned that companies are allocating significant resources to risky petrochemical investments at a time when trends show that plastic use must be limited and high-carbon operations must reduce their footprint. This concern is heightened when companies do not clearly account for increased storms, flooding, and sea level rise in their planning processes, thereby exposing themselves, their shareholders, and their communities to preventable and unacceptable risks."
The reporting requested by shareholders will help investors assess to what extent the companies are evaluating and mitigating critical risks posed by climate change to their operations and the communities where they are located.
As You Sow is the nation's non-profit leader in shareholder advocacy. Founded in 1992, we harness shareholder power to create lasting change that benefits people, planet, and profit. Our mission is to promote environmental and social corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy, coalition building, and innovative legal strategies.
LATEST NEWS
Citing Ethnic Cleansing, US Army Major Resigns Over Israel's Assault on Gaza
"As the descendant of European Jews, I was raised in a particularly unforgiving moral environment when it came to the topic of bearing responsibility for ethnic cleansing," wrote Maj. Harrison Mann.
May 13, 2024
An American Army officer on Monday described months of being increasingly disturbed by the images and news of Israel's U.S.-backed bombardment of Gaza, which culminated in his public resignation from his position at the Defense Intelligence Agency to avoid further complicity in Israel's "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians.
Army Maj. Harrison Mann published his resignation letter on LinkedIn, saying he had distributed it internally on April 16 to announce his resignation from the agency.
As an officer at the DIA, Mann said, he has been unable to escape the fact that his place of work "directly executes policy" for the Biden administration, including its "nearly unqualified support for the government of Israel, which has enabled and empowered the killing and starving of tens and thousands of innocent Palestinians."
"My work here—however administrative or marginal it appeared—unquestionably contributed to that support," wrote Mann.
He described wrestling with the question of whether he could continue working at the DIA, reasoning with himself that, "I don't make policy and it's not my place to question it."
"However, at some point it became difficult to defend the outcomes of this particular policy," Mann wrote. "At some point—whatever the justification—you're either advancing a policy that advances the mass starvation of children, or you're not."
At the time Mann sent his letter to his colleagues, Israel was conducting airstrikes and preparing its ground invasion of Rafah, the southern Gaza city that over 1 million Palestinians have been forcibly displaced to since October.
Israel has continued to block aid to Gaza even after saying in early April it would open a crossing and a port, and has now pushed the enclave into what the United Nations World Food Program chief said earlier this month was a "full-blown famine." Dozens of people have died of starvation. At least 35,091 people who have been killed in Israel's military assault—two-thirds of those killed have been women and children, despite Israel's claim it is targeting Hamas fighters.
Mann wrote that as the bombardment dragged on and U.S. President Joe Biden's defense and funding of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) continued, his mind turned to his European Jewish relatives.
"As the descendant of European Jews, I was raised in a particularly unforgiving moral environment when it came to the topic of bearing responsibility for ethnic cleansing—my grandfather refused to ever purchase products manufactured in Germany—where the paramount importance of 'never again' and the inadequacy of 'just following orders' were oft repeated," wrote Mann. "But I also have hope that my grandfather would afford me some grace; that he would still be proud of me for stepping away from this war, however belatedly."
Mann publicized his letter about six weeks after foreign affairs officer Annelle Sheline resigned from her position at the U.S. State Department, saying her work in the human rights realm in the Middle East had become "impossible" in light of Biden's material and political support for Israel's assault on Gaza.
Education Department official Tariq Habash, a Palestinian American, also resigned in protest earlier this year, and a top official who oversaw arms transfers at the State Department, Josh Paul, stepped down in October, citing the Biden administration's decision to send more arms to Israel as the war began.
In February, U.S. Air Force member Aaron Bushnell died after self-immolating in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., having said he was engaging "in an extreme act of protest" to avoid being complicit in genocide.
On LinkedIn, Mann wrote Monday that he "received an unexpected outpouring of support" when he distributed his letter internally, and appeared to address other federal employees who may be questioning their complicity in Biden's policies.
"I am sharing [the letter] now in the hope that you too will discover you are not alone, you are not voiceless, and you are not powerless," wrote Mann.
Feds United for Peace, which includes employees across 30 federal agencies who have advocated for a cease-fire in Gaza, called Mann's letter "incredibly significant."
The New York Timesreported that it is not known "whether other military officers have resigned in protest of U.S. foreign policy" since the Hamas-led attack on Israel in October and the IDF's deadly retaliation, "but the resignation of an active-duty officer in protest of U.S. foreign policy is likely uncommon—especially one in which the officer makes public the reasons for doing so."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Banks Have Funded Climate Crisis With Nearly $7 Trillion Since Paris Agreement
"Banks that profit from climate chaos invent new greenwash every year, but we have the receipts that show how much money they put into fossil fuels," said one report author.
May 13, 2024
The world's 60 biggest banks funded fossil fuels to the tune of $6.9 trillion in the eight years following the Paris agreement.
That's the conclusion of the 15th annual Banking on Climate Chaos report, which was published Monday and also found that the financial institutions lavished $705 billion on oil, gas, and coal in 2023—the hottest year on record.
"Financiers and investors of fossil fuels continue to light the flame of the climate crisis," Tom BK Goldtooth, report co-author and executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, said in a statement. "Paired with generations of colonialism, the fossil fuel industry and banking institutions' investment in false solutions create unlivable conditions for all living relatives and humanity on Mother Earth."
U.S. financial giants JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America topped the "dirty dozen" list of the banks that gave the most to fossil fuels since 2016, at $430.9 billion, $396.3 billion, and $333.2 billion respectively. In 2023, U.S. banks provided 30% of total fossil fuel finance, the largest share of any country. JPMorgan also topped the 2023 list at $40.88 billion, with Japanese bank Mizuho Financial overtaking the No. 2 spot with $37.04 billion, and Bank of America remaining in third place with $33.68 billion.
"The science shows that over half of fossil fuels in existing fields and mines must stay underground to limit global warming to 1.5°C, and our Big Oil Reality Check analysis finds that none of the major oil and gas companies we analyze plan to do anything even close to what is needed to hold global warming to 1.5°C," report-co-author David Tong, the global industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, said in a statement. "By injecting a staggering $70[5] billion into fossil fuel financing in 2023 alone, the world's largest banks fund the climate chaos fossil fuel companies wreck on communities worldwide."
The report also tracks how much the financial institutions spent on companies that had fossil fuel expansion plans, according to the Global Oil and Gas Exit List and the Global Coal Exit List. The banks spent $3.3 trillion since 2016 and $347.5 billion in 2023 alone on these companies, or nearly half of total expenditures. Report co-author April Merleaux, research and policy manager at Rainforest Action Network, called the 2023 expansion finance figure "dangerous and inconsistent with real climate commitments."
Overall, Citibank has spent the most on fossil fuel expansion since 2016 at $204 billion, while JPMorgan was the top funder of expansion in 2023 with $19.3 billion.
"As this report is worth nothing if it doesn't turn into action, we call on the banks to finally become fossil free banks, and on the wider climate justice movement to use this data to mobilize for a fossil free banking world."
The researchers also looked at what fossil fuel companies and activities the banks were financing. All told, they considered funding to 4,228 companies. Clients with major expansion plans in 2023 included the pipeline companies Enbridge, TC Energy Corp, and Sempra as well as NextDecade Corp and Rio Grande Valley LNG, which are developing new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity.
Fossil fuel financing did decrease in 2023, down from $778.7 billion in 2022.
"The trend of decreased financing from traditional banks to fossil fuel companies is good news, tempered by the reality that financing for fossil fuel expansion should be zero," the report authors wrote. "But there is little evidence that the decline is driven by voluntary commitments by the banks, especially given the policy rollbacks among major banks."
Indeed, in 2023, Bank of America rolled back commitments to not fund Arctic drilling, thermal coal, or coal-fired plants. Instead, the report authors suggested the downturn in finance was due to external economic and geopolitical factors.
"Unless banks take action to rule out finance for such clients, the decline may not be permanent," they warned.
When it came to the funding of individual high-risk fossil fuel activities, funding for overall expansion, fracking, tar sands, coal- and gas-power plants, and Amazon, Arctic, and deepwater oil and gas all declined. At the same time, funding for metallurgical coal, coal mining, and methane LNG all increased, with LNG funding rising from $116 billion in 2022 to $121 billion in 2023.
"In a year with record climate impacts, I am shocked to see financing for any category of fossil fuels increase. And yet in 2023 this report shows a big increase in financing to companies developing methane gas terminals and related infrastructure," Merleaux said. "Banks should be listening to those on the frontlines and stepping away from these projects."
This year the report—which is a collaboration between Rainforest Action Network; BankTrack; the Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development; Indigenous Environmental Network; Oil Change International; Reclaim Finance; Sierra Club; and Urgewald— features updated methodology that primary sources revealing the role of banks in corporate financial deals. The banks were given a chance to review the data and respond.
"Wall Street's top concern is its profit. Our top concerns are the climate and human rights. Banks that profit from climate chaos invent new greenwash every year, but we have the receipts that show how much money they put into fossil fuels," Merleaux said. "Our new methodology uncovers previously unreported details on banks' support for fossil fuels and gives campaigners new tools to hold them accountable."
Accountability is the report's main goal, according to co-author Diogo Silva, who leads the banks and climate campaign at BankTrack.
"As this report is worth nothing if it doesn't turn into action, we call on the banks to finally become fossil free banks, and on the wider climate justice movement to use this data to mobilize for a fossil free banking world," Silva said. "Later might just be too late. Fossil banks, no thanks!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Madness Is Taking Over the West': US Senator Suggests Israel Nuke Gaza
"A nuclear attack on Gaza would be catastrophic with unimaginable consequences," said the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, adding that casual talks of using such arms "shouldn't be normalized."
May 13, 2024
Anti-war voices on Monday fiercely condemned U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham's suggestion that Israel would be within its rights to drop nuclear weapons on the Gaza Strip, seven months into an assault that has killed at least 35,091 Palestinians and injured another 78,827.
"Why did we drop two bombs—nuclear bombs—on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? To end a war that we couldn't afford to lose. You don't understand apparently what Israel is facing," Graham (R-S.C.) toldNBC News' Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press" Sunday.
"So when we were faced with destruction as a nation after Pearl Harbor, fighting the Germans and the Japanese, we decided to end the war by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons. That was the right decision," Graham said of World War II. "Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war they can't afford to lose and work with them to minimize casualties."
As the pair discussed U.S. President Joe Biden's effort to use arms shipments to try to push Israel to more precisely target Hamas, Graham added: "Why is it okay for America to drop two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end their existential threat war? Why was it okay for us to do that? I thought it was okay. To Israel, do whatever you have to do to survive as a Jewish state."
Responding on social media Monday, Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis declared that "madness is taking over the West."
CodePink pointed to the pro-Palestine protests at U.S. colleges and universities and said that "it is despicable that a sitting senator can go on live TV to support nuclear bombing Gaza, but students protesting a genocide are made out to be a threat."
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) on Monday called out Graham's comments as "utterly unacceptable."
ICAN warned that "any use of nuclear weapons wouldn't 'end' a war; it would solely lead to mass murder, immense sufferings for hundreds of thousands of people that would last for decades and beyond generations, and cause devastating harm to the environment."
"A nuclear attack on Gaza would be catastrophic with unimaginable consequences, including for Israelis given how radioactive fallout is no respecter of borders," the group emphasized. "Statements like that by Lindsey Graham justifying these weapons plus suggesting they're used shouldn't be normalized."
"Nuclear weapons are illegal under international law, civilians and civilian infrastructure must never be targeted in warfare. This is a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law," ICAN added, also pointing to the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)—the passage of which led to the group receiving the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.
ICAN also highlighted that Graham has previously referenced Hiroshima and Nagasaki while discussing U.S. arms for Israel, including at a Senate hearing, which Japanese Foreign Minister Kamikawa Yōko was asked about last week.
"I believe those remarks about Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not appropriate. Japan is aware that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took so many precious lives and caused an extremely regrettable humanitarian situation in which people suffered indescribable hardships due to illness and disabilities," the foreign minister said.
"As the government has been saying for a long time, we believe the use of nuclear weapons does not match the spirit of humanitarianism, which is the ideological foundation of international law, because of their tremendous destructive and lethal power," she added.
Israel and the United States are two of the nine nations known to have nuclear weapons; the others are China, India, France, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia—which is currently waging war on Ukraine—and the United Kingdom. None of them support the TPNW.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular