SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 06 2016, 01:30pm EDT
Contact:
Lisa Nurnberger, Media Director, lnurnberger@ucs.org
New Study Ranks Eight Major Fossil Fuel Companies on Their Climate Change Actions
ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell and Others Assessed on 30 Metrics, Including Statements on Climate Science, Support for Climate Deception and Disclosure of Climate Risks
WASHINGTON
An in-depth analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) of eight leading fossil fuel companies found significant variations in how they are addressing global warming, but none has made a clean break from disinformation on climate science and policy. Likewise, none is adequately planning for a world free from carbon pollution, as laid out by the international climate agreement expected to take effect this year.
The "Climate Accountability Scorecard: Ranking Major Fossil Fuel Companies on Deception, Disclosure, and Climate Action" used 30 metrics to examine Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, CONSOL Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy and Royal Dutch Shell. The top score, "advanced," reflected best practices. "Egregious" was the lowest score, indicating a corporation was acting very irresponsibly. No company scored better than the others in all categories, and several were relative leaders in some areas and laggards in others.
"Across the board, these eight companies continue to disparage the science and undermine the urgency of action--either directly or through the trade associations and industry groups they support," said Kathy Mulvey, lead author of the report and Climate Accountability Campaign manager at UCS. "In the wake of numerous exposes that revealed companies' records of working to deceive the public about global warming, many of the companies now insist that they no longer promote denial and accept the reality of climate change. This study belies those claims." The analysis revealed:
- Only two of the eight companies (BP and Shell) consistently affirm in their direct public statements the legitimacy of climate science and the consequential need for swift and deep reductions in fossil fuel emissions. Shell received a score of "advanced;" BP scored "good." At the opposite end of the spectrum, ExxonMobil scored "egregious" for its climate science statements after CEO Rex Tillerson cast doubt on the accuracy and competency of climate models as recently as this year.
- All eight companies belong to key trade associations or industry groups that spread disinformation and seek to block climate action. All five oil companies in the study are members of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), a trade group that used misleading claims and scare tactics as part of a multi-million dollar campaign to block key provisions of a clean energy bill enacted in California. Yet several of these companies have proven that they can distance themselves from industry groups that misrepresent climate science. BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell have left the American Legislative Exchange Council, with Shell stating that it disagreed with the lobby group's climate denial and opposition to climate action.
- Only half of the companies have begun to disclose climate risks to investors. Four companies scored "fair" (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and CONSOL Energy) and four companies scored "poor" (Arch Coal, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy and Shell).
- Two companies were found to be "good" (BP and ConocoPhillips) in supporting fair and effective climate policies, a category that takes into consideration companies' disclosure, policies, and oversight related to political spending in general.Three companies were "fair" and three "poor" (Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy, and Peabody Energy).
- Seven out of eight companies have not begun to plan for a world free from carbon pollution, even since countries worldwide committed to ambitious targets to reduce emissions in the international climate agreement reached in Paris last December. Shell received a "fair" ranking; all other companies ranked "poor" (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil) or "egregious" (Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy and Peabody Energy).
The study comes at a time when fossil fuel companies are facing increased scrutiny and pressure. At least two state attorneys general are investigating whether ExxonMobil intentionally misled its shareholders and the public about the threat of climate change, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating how the company has valued its oil reserves in anticipation of potential carbon emission cuts. Meanwhile, shareholders at five of the eight companies filed resolutions related to climate change this year.
"Now that the nations of the world have committed to address climate change, investors and policy makers need information about how all companies are reducing their climate impacts and managing their climate risks--including the physical, regulatory, and market risks that climate change poses to their businesses," said Paul Dickinson, Co-founder and Executive Chair of CDP. "Reports and analyses such as this one are a vital resource for decision makers, including the senior leadership of major fossil fuel companies."
In addition to calling for disclosure of climate risks that could affect companies' bottom lines, investors also want to know whether companies continue to fund climate disinformation. The report highlights just how much further these companies need to go to disavow their decades-long efforts to confuse the public about the realities and risks of climate change and block policies to address it--work that continues today. Since 1988--after major fossil fuel companies unequivocally should have known about the risks of their products--more than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released into the atmosphere. The products of the eight companies analyzed are responsible for nearly 15 percent of industrial carbon emissions since 1850.
"It's time for these major corporations to steer their companies and trade groups away from denying climate change and toward engaging constructively in policy discussions," said Mulvey. "To evolve as energy companies, they must align their businesses with the Paris Agreement goals and help keep the global temperature increase well below two degrees Celsius."
The report calls on major fossil fuel producers to accept their role in contributing to the problem of climate change and take action in several areas:
- Stop spreading or supporting the spread of disinformation on climate science and policy: The corporations should leave groups that spread disinformation or publicly distance themselves from those groups' climate-related positions.
- Fully disclose climate risks: The corporations should disclose how climate change is putting at risk their infrastructure, reserve assets and future profits.
- Plan for a world free from carbon pollution: The corporations should align their business models with a carbon-constrained world consistent with the international climate agreement's goal of keeping the globe's average temperature well below a 2 degrees Celsius increase above pre-industrial levels.
- Support fair and effective climate policies: The corporations should consistently and actively advocate for fair and effective state, federal and international policies to reduce global warming.
- Pay their share of climate costs. No fossil fuel company has even begun to pay its share of the costs of climate damages and adaptation, so the report did not assess company performance or make specific recommendations in this area.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
Appealing SNAP Ruling, Trump Is Determined to Make Sure Poor Americans Don’t Get Food Assistance
"The administration’s legal maneuver sends a clear and devastating message: that the well-being of America’s most vulnerable is not important," said the president of the Food Research & Action Center.
Nov 07, 2025
The Trump administration will not give poor Americans food assistance without a fight.
Instead of following a federal judge’s ruling Thursday that ordered officials to release Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds to 42 million Americans by the next day, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked an appeals court to immediately block the ruling on Friday.
The Trump administration has argued that due to the government shutdown, the SNAP program, which provides food assistance to those making 130% of the federal poverty line or less, functionally does not exist.
In an emergency request to the 1st Circuit Court of the United States, the DOJ called the lower court's ruling, "unprecedented" and argued that it makes "a mockery of the separation of powers.”
Furthering what has been widely interpreted as an effort to pressure Democrats to cave on their demands in the government shutdown, the appeal stated that the lapse in SNAP funding was caused by “congressional failure, and... can only be solved by congressional action.”
US District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island, in his second ruling against the administration's efforts to choke off SNAP benefits, wrote the previous day that the administration's plan to partially fund the program was insufficient. The previous week, McConnell had ruled that the administration had to tap a $5 billion contingency fund to fund the program and make up for the shortfall by drawing from other sources.
The administration agreed to use the contingency fund but offered a plan that fell several billion dollars short of fully funding the program and would have amounted to a 61% benefit cut for the average SNAP recipient, leaving millions without benefits altogether, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
While the administration has sought to pin the blame for funding lapses on Democrats in Congress and has asserted that its hands are tied, McConnell described the administration's maneuvering as a deliberate political stunt.
"This is a problem that could have and should have been avoided," McConnell said. “The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP... It’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here."
He added that Trump had essentially telegraphed his plan to defy the court order over the weekend, writing on Truth Social that “SNAP payments will be given only when the government opens.”
This, along with messages on the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) website blaming Democrats for the lapse in funding, McConnell suggested, was evidence that “SNAP benefits are being withheld for political reasons.”
“Children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” McConnell said. “This should never happen in America.”
More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the SNAP program, 39% of whom are children. As the CBPP report explained, families with children would likely be those hardest hit under Trump's partial funding proposal.
"Nearly 1.2 million SNAP households with roughly 4.9 million people—roughly 1 in 9 SNAP recipients—will receive zero benefits because their normal benefit amount is less than the planned benefit reduction," it says. "Only one-or two-person households receive a minimum benefit under SNAP rules, leaving some households with three or more members—which are primarily households with children—at risk of receiving nothing."
The USDA has also issued a warning to grocery stores telling them it is illegal for them to offer special discounts to SNAP recipients hurt by the freeze, even though the government is allowed to grant them waivers. On Thursday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a bill that would allow grocery stores to voluntarily offer discounts to SNAP recipients whenever their benefits are affected by a government shutdown.
“Donald Trump is the most powerful person in the world,” Wyden said. “Only a monster would use that power to deny help to millions of families that don’t know where their next meal is coming from.”
As the CPBB has noted, contrary to its claims, nothing is stopping the Trump administration from transferring funds from other food assistance programs to fund SNAP fully. It has already done this twice to sustain the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which a court ruled was legal.
"Instead of using the funding that has been readily available to feed people, this administration continues to fight to deny tens of millions from accessing the nutrition they need," said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center. "For some unfathomable reason, the Trump administration wants to punish the 42 million people, including children, working parents, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans, who rely on SNAP to put food on the table."
She added that "at a time when food insecurity is rising due to increasing grocery prices, the administration’s legal maneuver sends a clear and devastating message: that the well-being of America’s most vulnerable is not important."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare Advantage, Privatized Medicaid Could Cost Americans $2 Trillion Extra Over Next Decade
"If the administration were serious about curbing waste and inefficiency, it would start by reducing the diversion of public funds to these corporate intermediaries," argues a new paper.
Nov 07, 2025
US President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress took a sledgehammer to Medicaid over the summer, justifying the unprecedented cuts by falsely claiming the program that provides health coverage to tens of millions of low-income Americans is overrun with waste and abuse.
But a new paper published Friday in the journal Health Affairs argues that if the administration actually wanted to target waste, fraud, and abuse, it would have been much better off taking aim at Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicaid privatization.
The paper's authors estimate that overpayments to MA plans—which are funded by the government and run by for-profit insurers—and private Medicaid managed care will likely cost US taxpayers a total of $1.92 trillion over the next 10 years.
"Ending that waste would inflict losses on private insurers' shareholders and executives (the CEO of the largest MA firm made $26.3 million last year). But patients, not just government coffers, might gain," wrote Adam Gaffney, Danny McCormick, Steffie Woolhandler, and David Himmelstein.
"Even Congress' trillion-dollar cuts to Medicaid and food assistance amount to little more than half of the potential savings from de-privatizing Medicaid and Medicare," they added. "Reclaiming those funds would require reversing the decades-long trend of outsourcing to profit-seeking intermediaries and restoring Medicare and Medicaid as efficiently administered public programs."
Far from aggressively taking on Medicare Advantage fraud, the Trump administration handed MA plans a major gift earlier this year by approving an average federal payment increase of roughly 5.1%—more than double the 2.2% increase proposed by the Biden administration in January.
The authors of the new paper noted that the huge raise for MA plans, which are notorious for denying necessary care in pursuit of ever-larger profits, will add $25 billion in waste to the US healthcare system next year alone.
"If the administration were serious about curbing waste and inefficiency," they wrote, "it would start by reducing the diversion of public funds to these corporate intermediaries."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Army of 5,000+ Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Has 'Stranglehold on Climate Action' at COP30: Report
"We must dismantle the corporate architecture of impunity and kick these big polluters out of policymaking," said one campaigner. "Our future cannot be written by those who profit from its destruction."
Nov 07, 2025
Big polluters led by the fossil fuel industry—which knowingly caused the climate crisis—are expanding their outsize presence and influence at the key event meant to tackle the planetary emergency, a report published ahead of this month's United Nations Climate Change Conference in Brazil revealed.
The report, published Friday by the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition, notes that "over 5,350 fossil fuel lobbyists have attended UN climate negotiations in just four years, with 90 of the corporations they represent responsible for nearly 60% of all global oil and gas production."
The analysis sounds the alarm on the "staggering scale of fossil fuel industry presence at the very negotiations that must urgently phase out their products" in order to meet the goal of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5°C as promised in the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement.
The world is failing to deliver upon that promise, and according to the report, "the primary reason for this failure is no secret—big polluters continue to be granted outsized presence, access, and influence at the very negotiations meant to address the crisis they knowingly caused."
"COP30 is set to proceed with effectively zero protections against interference in place."
"Among the world's largest fossil fuel corporations, Shell sent a total of 37 lobbyists to COP26-COP29, BP sent 36, ExxonMobil sent 32, and Chevron sent 20," according to KBPO. "These figures do not account for additional lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry's associated trade groups."
"As a result, they maintain a carefully orchestrated stranglehold on climate action, which consequently continues to fall way short of the strong and just global response we know we urgently need," the report states.
KBPO warned: "Despite the scale of fossil fuel industry presence revealed by this data, COP30 is set to proceed with effectively zero protections against interference in place. Ahead of COP30 happening in Belém from November 10-21, more than 225 organizations and networks around the world wrote to the COP30 presidency asking them to commit to a polluter-free COP by ensuring no fossil fuel ties or sponsorship and by advancing an Accountability Framework that protects the integrity and legitimacy of the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change].
"In response," the report's authors lamented, "little to no meaningful action has been taken to protect these talks from the fossil fuel industry and other big polluters."
KBPO partner Fiona Hauke of Urgewald, an environmental and human rights advocacy group based in Germany, said in a statement Friday that “over the last three years, oil and gas companies that lobbied at COP have spent more than $35 billion each year looking for new oil and gas fields, exacerbating the problem the nations of the world had gathered to solve."
“These companies have defended their fossil interests by watering down climate action for years," Hauke added. "As we head towards COP30, we demand transparency and accountability: Keep polluters out of climate talks and make them pay for a just energy transition.”
Nerisha Baldevu, a KBPO member from groundWork/Friends of the Earth South Africa, asserted: "Corporate power is at the root of the climate crisis. Fossil, mining, and agribusiness giants are seizing our global institutions and turning climate negotiations into trade expos for polluters."
"For climate justice, we must dismantle the corporate architecture of impunity and kick these big polluters out of policymaking," Baldevu stressed. "Our future cannot be written by those who profit from its destruction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular