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
exxonmobil
ExxonMobil Plans to Keep an Entire Generation on the Hook for Its Climate Destruction
Public pensions must exit Exxon to protect workers' savings and retirement.
Nov 22, 2024
It is no secret that ExxonMobil poses some of the most powerful opposition to climate action at every level of government. Environmentalists have long pointed out that Exxon Knew about climate change, and instead of pivoting their business model to a more sustainable energy future, buried the evidence and began a decades-long disinformation campaign.
Leaders across the country have wisened up to the oil major's dirty politics, which is why the House Oversight Committee has been investigating Exxon and its peers, and state attorneys general have sued the company for damages. Most recently, California AG Rob Bonta, alongside environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, sued the company for lying to the public about the recyclability of plastics.
If the tide is turning against Exxon, why haven't investors caught on?
Unrestricted funding for companies engaged in fossil fuel expansion threatens workers' right to dignified retirement safety, a right that unions have fought hard to win.
ExxonMobil sparked headlines and investor outrage this spring when the company sued its own shareholders over a climate-related shareholder resolution. Public pensions representing trillions in worker savings across the country pushed back and mounted a vote-no effort against CEO Darren Woods and Director Joseph Hooley, but Wall Street asset managers watered down their efforts instead offering unwavering support of Exxon.
To add insult to injury, Woods made an appearance at the Council of Institutional Investors—a nonprofit dedicated to advocating for the investor rights of public, union, and private employee benefit funds—in September. There, he promised to continue to crack down on "extreme" investors who are concerned that the company's business model has loaded the economy with systemic financial risks and instability. Never mind that such a definition of extreme would describe many of the institutions present, which represent over 15 million workers and $5 trillion in assets under management.
But perhaps most indicative of ExxonMobil's commitment to business-as-usual pollution is the bonds they've issued this fall, with a maturity date of 2074.
These long-dated bonds represent unrestricted funds for ExxonMobil to continue to pursue fossil fuel expansion and plastic pollution well past most of the world's—and investors'—Net Zero by 2050 goals. This is an especially risky gamble for investors with long-term obligations, including public pension funds that manage millions of workers' retirement savings.
Not only is the future of oil and gas uncertain, but prolonged pollution wrought by disinformation and investor cash increases economy-wide systemic risks. Investors—and the everyday people who rely on institutions to manage their savings—will be left holding the purse strings as climate change wreaks havoc. Moreover, bond ownership does not come with the shareholder rights investors hope to use to influence company behavior. This gives Exxon complete freedom to use the funds however it wishes, even if that's out of alignment with investor interests.
This increasing risk is why we joined California Common Good and pension beneficiaries to testify during a recent CalPERS Board meeting to ask CalPERS to issue a moratorium on purchasing Exxon bonds.
The Sierra Club represents millions of members, many of whom are saving for retirement in the face of an uncertain future and working tirelessly to protect the communities and places they love. Whether relying on a public pension plan or a private asset manager, our members rely on investment professionals to keep their futures in mind. Unrestricted funding for companies engaged in fossil fuel expansion threatens workers' right to dignified retirement safety, a right that unions have fought hard to win. That's why we call on investors, particularly public pension funds, to refuse to participate in Exxon's bond issuances.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Newly Unearthed Docs Show Big Oil Knew of Climate Dangers as Early as 1950s
"Big Oil has been running public affairs campaigns to downplay the dangers of its products just as long as Big Tobacco," said one expert.
Nov 12, 2024
Documents uncovered from several academic and news archives shed light on what one climate disinformation expert on Tuesday called "one of the earliest and most brazen efforts by the oil industry to prop up" a front group with the aim of denying climate science and delaying action that would cut into the industry's profits by protecting the planet from steadily increasing fossil fuel emissions.
The Climate Investigations Center found a warning that came in 1954 from the head of the Air Pollution Foundation, a group funded by the Western Oil and Gas Association. According to DeSmog, which reported on the findings, the lobbying group, now known as the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), poured $1.3 million into the APF in the 1950s—the equivalent of $14 million in today's dollars.
APF was set up with the public-facing intent of confronting the worsening smog crisis in Los Angeles, where the number of cars had doubled between 1940-50 and the area was rapidly industrializing.
But with funding coming from Western Oil and Gas Association members including Shell and companies that were later bought by ExxonMobil, Chervon, and other oil giants, the foundation was meant to be "protective" of the industry, as meeting minutes from 1955 showed.
At the time of APF's founding, researchers had begun warning that air pollution was caused by vehicles and refineries, and officials in Los Angeles had begun proposing new ordinances to cut down on smog.
To counter this, the foundation asked the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) to submit a proposal determining the main source of air pollution. Caltech geochemistry professor Samuel Epstein submitted a proposal in November 1954, warning that the Earth's climate could be affected by burning fossil fuels.
The "concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere" was a matter "of well recognized importance to our civilization," wrote Epstein.
After the report was submitted, APF president Lauren Hitchcock, a chemical engineer who had been recruited to lead the group, began investigating oil and gas refineries and publicly demanding pollution controls across California—actions that didn't please the industry giants who were backing APF.
As DeSmog reported, leaders of the Western Oil and Gas Association "summoned Hitchcock to the California Club where they reprimanded him, spelling out in no uncertain terms exactly what they expected in return for their hefty financial contributions."
According to the report:
Over lunch, WSPA's oilmen criticized Hitchcock for supporting pollution controls across California, for drawing "attention" to refinery pollution, and for conducting "too broad a program" of research. Instead, they told him they had formed the Air Pollution Foundation to be "protective," that Hitchcock should serve as "the research director for the oil industry" and the foundation should publish "findings which would be accepted as unbiased" where the oil industry's findings were not seen as trustworthy. This frank exchange, reported in detail by Hitchcock in a never-before-seen memo, unmasks the strategic motivations behind Big Oil's sponsorship of air pollution research.
Hitchcock resigned from APF in 1956, after many of the group's research projects were scaled back and the organization took the official stance in reports that carbon dioxide emissions were "innocuous."
"This is where Big Oil's climate disinformation began," said Aimee Dewing, a communications strategist focusing on environmental justice.
APF and the intervention from its funders "helped lay the strategic and organizational groundwork for Big Oil's decades of climate denial and delay," Geoffrey Supran, a climate disinformation expert at the University of Miami, toldThe Guardian.
"The fossil fuel industry is often seen as having followed in the footsteps of the tobacco industry's playbook for denying science and blocking regulation," added Supran. "But these documents suggest that Big Oil has been running public affairs campaigns to downplay the dangers of its products just as long as Big Tobacco, starting with air pollution in the early-to-mid-1950s."
DeSmog's report comes nearly two years after Shell and ExxonMobil were revealed to have known about the impact of fossil fuels on the climate earlier than previously reported.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Who Should Pay for Climate Damage? Majority of the World Agrees: Big Oil
"As governments debate how to finance climate action, they can be confident that making polluters pay is not only fair, but also far more popular and effective than placing the burden on ordinary citizens."
Nov 04, 2024
A multinational survey commissioned by Greenpeace International and published Monday revealed that a majority of respondents favor making fossil fuel companies pay for being the main cause of the climate emergency.
Greenpeace International's Stop Drilling, Start Paying campaign commissioned the strategic insight agency Opinium Research to survey 8,000 adults in eight countries—Australia, Argentina, France, Morocco, Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States—ahead of this month's United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan.
"Asked about who should bear the most responsibility for climate change impacts, the most popular option across all eight countries in the survey was making oil and gas companies pay, with high-emitting countries and global elites ranked second and third," Greenpeace International said in a summary of the survey, adding that "60% of all surveyed countries see a link between profits of the oil and gas industry and rising energy prices."
The survey also found that two-thirds or more of respondents are angry about Big Oil CEOs getting huge bonuses even as their products exacerbate the planetary emergency; fossil fuel expansion; industry disinformation; and the "historic and ongoing role of oil and gas companies in conflict, war, and human rights violations."
Eight in 10 respondents said they were worried about climate change. However, more than twice as many people surveyed in the Global South said the climate emergency has personally affected them than respondents in the Global North.
According to Greenpeace International:
Imposing a fair climate damages tax on extraction of fossil fuels by OECD countries—proposed by the charity Stamp Out Poverty and supported by 100 NGOs, including Greenpeace International—is one example of a tax on big polluters. This could generate $900 billion by 2030... This would be key for annual climate-related loss and damage costs, estimated to be between $290-$580 billion by 2030 in low-income countries, as well as for reducing the emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and adapting to the impacts of the climate crisis in all countries.
"This research shows how taxing the wealthy polluters-in-chief—companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, Total, Equinor, and Eni—has become a mainstream solution among people, cutting across borders and income levels," said Stop Drilling, Start Paying co-chair Abdoulaye Diallo. "As governments debate how to finance climate action, they can be confident that making polluters pay is not only fair, but also far more popular and effective than placing the burden on ordinary citizens for a crisis for which they bear little or no responsibility."
The Opinium survey was published on the same day that Amnesty International called on the richer countries most responsible for the climate emergency to "fully pay for the catastrophic loss of homes and damage to livelihoods" in Africa.
"African people have contributed the least to climate change, yet from Somalia to Senegal, Chad to Madagascar, we are suffering a terrible toll of this global emergency which has driven millions of people from their homes," said Samira Daoud, Amnesty's regional director for West and Central Africa. "It's time for the countries who caused all this devastation to pay up so African people can adapt to the climate change catastrophe."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular