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
scope 3 emissions
Emissions From Just 5 Oil Giants Could Kill 11.5 Million People Prematurely by 2100
"Heat isn't a new phenomenon," said Global Witness. "But as the planet gets hotter because of human-caused emissions, scientists are detecting more heat-related deaths."
Mar 21, 2024
A new report released Wednesday details how the emissions of just five big fossil fuel companies could lead to 11.5 million premature deaths by 2100 as continued oil and gas extraction and consumption heats the planet and sparks extreme heatwaves across the globe.
The analysis by Global Witness focused on the emissions of Shell, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, BP, and Chevron—all of which have "defied calls from scientists to rapidly reduce emissions and continue to increase oil and gas production."
ExxonMobil and Chevron have announced investments of more than $100 billion in new oil and gas reserves in recent months, even as the companies eye 2050 as the year they'll reach net zero emissions. The United Nations' Global Stocktake last September showed the five companies targeted in the report "are forecast to spend a staggering $3.1 trillion by 2050, on both existing and new oil and gas extraction"—despite the fact that the U.N. and the International Energy Agency have both warned that no new extraction is compatible with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C.
Global Witness cross-referenced the oil companies' plans with research out of Columbia University, which estimated that every 1 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted in 2020 will cause 226 excess heat-related deaths over the next 80 years.
The analysis "suggests that these five companies will dig up oil and gas, which when burned, will add 51 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere between now and 2050," said Global Witness. "Using Columbia's mortality cost of carbon methodology, we calculate that emissions from the supermajors' oil and gas would kill an additional 11.5 million people due to heat by 2100."
Global Witness focused on heat-related deaths specifically; a study by Greenpeace Southeast Asia and the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air in 2020 found that air pollution from fossil fuel combustion was responsible for 4.5 million premature deaths worldwide each year.
Global Witness notes that the deaths of at least 61,000 people were linked to "searing heat across Europe" in 2022, and recent heatwaves have proven deadly in the United States, China, and South America in the past two years.
"Heat isn't a new phenomenon," said Global Witness. "But as the planet gets hotter because of human-caused emissions, scientists are detecting more heat-related deaths."
Extreme heat puts people—particularly children, elderly people, pregnant people, and outdoor workers—at risk for heat stroke, heart attacks, and exhaustion.
"Behind these figures are people," noted the group, pointing to the deaths of 72-year-old Gwendolyn Osborne in Chicago during a record-breaking heatwave in 2022 and of a 13-year-old girl who suffered deadly heat stroke in Japan last summer. "These are just a few stories from the massive and growing wave of heat-caused deaths around the world. Unless the supermajors change course quickly, the death toll will be comparable to some of history's most brutal wars."
The companies have an opportunity to save millions of lives, Global Witness noted, as the Columbia research found that with dramatically reduced emissions, the death toll from the oil giants' emissions would be cut by more than half.
Global Witness included in its analysis the companies' scope 3 emissions, which are produced when people and entities use the firms' products.
When approached by the organization, TotalEnergies objected to the inclusion of scope 3 emissions, saying fossil fuel companies are only responsible for scope 1 (the direct emissions from their facilities) and 2 (emissions from the company's use of electricity, heat, and other utilities).
The companies' net zero pledges for 2050 pertain only to scopes 1 and 2.
Global Witness compared TotalEnergies's claim to those of drug dealers who say "they aren't to blame for drug addictions" or arms dealers who "claim that they don't kill people—that they're simply supplying people with products they want."
"Oil and gas companies are solely responsible for digging up these fossil fuels, and they're doing it eyes wide open in the face of a mountain of evidence documenting the suffering and death that fossil fuels cause, while failing to make even the most basic investments in green energy," said the group.
The analysis came as The Guardianreported on consumer advocacy group Public Citizen's campaign to hold fossil fuel companies legally liable for people's deaths from extreme temperatures, climate-related hunger and disease, flooding, and wildfires.
Public Citizen has been holding events at Yale, Harvard, and New York University to discuss the idea with legal experts, and has reportedly gained some traction.
"Once I read it, I thought that it was more compelling than I had guessed it would be," former Department of Justice prosecutor Cindy Cho told The Guardian of Public Citizen's proposal. "I think that prosecutors should actively consider pursuing the theory, especially if they walk into the investigation with an understanding of the intense challenges."
Global Citizen compared the millions of deaths the oil firms are projected to cause to a chemical spill.
"When a company spills lethal chemicals into a river, and harms people, we hold it legally responsible," said the group. "The American chemical company DuPont has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars for polluting drinking water with chemicals. Will this responsibility extend to carbon emissions, which we can increasingly link to the deaths of millions of people? Certainly, it's an argument the supermajors and their legal teams will be extremely concerned about."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Exxon Lawsuit Forces Pro-Climate Investors to Drop Shareholder Resolution
"Given Exxon's preference to fight a battle in court rather than allow shareholders the freedom of a vote at its annual meeting, we decided to withdraw the climate proposal," said the head of an activist investor group.
Feb 02, 2024
In what one journalist called "big news for shareholder activism" at powerful companies, a climate-focused investor group said Friday it was withdrawing its proposed resolution for more ambitious emissions reductions at ExxonMobil, which had been submitted under federal guidelines for a vote at the oil giant's upcoming annual meeting, following the company's lawsuit filed in right-wing court.
Dutch group Follow This and investment firm Arjuna Capital had planned a shareholder vote on an expansion of Exxon's emissions targets, which would have included "scope 3," requiring the company to reduce emissions produced by those who use its products.
Other fossil fuel companies have adopted targets including scope 3 as well as scopes 1 and 2—emissions from their infrastructure and operations.
Exxon has said it plans to reach net-zero emissions from scopes 1 and 2 by 2050, but made clear last month it had no intention of allowing its investors to decide whether it should broaden that plan.
The company sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asking a judge to exclude the climate proposal from its proxy statement and arguing that Follow This and Arjuna have failed to garner enough support in previous votes to resubmit the resolution.
Just over 27% of Exxon shareholders supported the proposal in 2022, while the number dropped to 10.5% last year.
Exxon also said in its court filing that Follow This and Arjuna were "driven by an extreme agenda," despite the fact that nearly half of large companies surveyed by Morning Consult last year said they were prepared to publicly report their scope 3 emissions, which climate advocates have said are key to reducing a company's overall impact on planetary heating.
Follow This did not say specifically why it decided to pull the resolution, but suggested it was not prepared to get involved in a legal battle with Exxon, which reported one of its largest profits of the last decade—$36 billion—in 2023.
"Given Exxon's preference to fight a battle in court rather than allow shareholders the freedom of a vote at its annual meeting, we decided to withdraw the climate proposal. Now that we have withdrawn, the company has no reason to continue the lawsuit," said Mark van Baal, founder of Follow This.
Exxon surprised observers by filing its lawsuit in Texas' Northern District; the company is based in Houston, within the jurisdiction of the state's Southern District.
Some critics posited the choice was made so the case could be heard by right-wing U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor, who declared the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional in 2018 and blocked married same-sex couples from exercising their rights under the Family Medical Leave Act.
Without even proceeding to trial, Exxon's lawsuit "worked," said Financial Times journalist Tom Wilson.
Pranav Putcha, a sustainable finance researcher at the European University Institute advised shareholders in other powerful companies to "beware."
Arjuna accused Exxon of "silencing investors that voice climate-risk concerns" as climate scientists and energy experts alike warn that fossil fuel extraction must be rapidly phased out to mitigate planetary heating as much as possible.
"Not only is the company sidestepping a critical corporate accountability mechanism that has upheld shareholder freedoms for decades," said Natasha Lamb, chief investment officer at the firm, "this amounts to tactics of intimidation and bullying."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Remarkable Step': Exxon Sues to Block Investor Climate Resolution
"Apparently," said the founder of an activist shareholder group, "the board fears shareholders will vote in favor of emissions reductions targets."
Jan 22, 2024
As the only major U.S. oil company that still hasn't set emissions-reduction targets for all of their operations and products, an activist shareholder group said Monday that ExxonMobil has likely seen "the writing on the wall" and is making a last-ditch effort to avoid new pollution requirements, leading it to file a lawsuit to stop investors from voting on a climate resolution at its next annual meeting.
Exxon filed a complaint on Sunday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas—outside the district where the firm usually files cases—asking a judge to exclude a climate proposal from its proxy statement, which investors will vote on at the company's annual general meeting (AGM) in May.
The proposal was put forward by Dutch activist shareholder group Follow This, which has introduced motions at other fossil fuel companies' investor meetings, and investment firm Arjuna Capital. The groups are calling on Exxon to set "Scope 3" emissions targets, which would require the company to reduce emissions produced by those who use its products.
Exxon said last year it plans to reach net zero emissions by 2050, but included only direct emissions from its own infrastructure (Scope 1) and indirect emissions from its operations (Scope 2) in its pledge.
Going to court to stop a similar vote from going forward, said Follow This founder Mark van Baal, is a "remarkable step" by the firm.
"ExxonMobil clearly wants to prevent shareholders using their rights," said van Baal.
An Exxon spokesperson told The Guardian the company is trying to stop "the breakdown of the shareholder proposal process, one that allows proponents to advance their agendas through a flood of proposals," and said the proposal requiring Scope 3 emissions targets "does not serve the interests of investors."
"We are simply asking the court to apply the [Securities and Exchange Commission's] proxy rules as written to stop this abuse and eliminate the significant resources required to address them," the spokesperson said.
But as Reutersreported, Follow This—which says it filed its proposal in accordance with SEC rules—has said that investing in a transition to renewable energy sources is in fossil fuel company investors' best interests, as it would "prevent risks of losing access to capital markets, of facing policy interventions, and incurring in losses associated with stranded assets."
"ExxonMobil appears to interpret reducing emissions as decreasing business even though fossil fuels can be replaced by renewable energy," said van Baal. "The resolution leaves the strategy of how to achieve emissions reductions entirely up to the board. ExxonMobil's interpretation shows a lack of imagination beyond oil and gas."
Follow This urged Exxon to listen to the growing number of shareholders who "want to tackle the climate crisis."
"They realize Big Oil has a key role to play, like the 27 institutional investors who recently co-filed a similar climate resolution at Shell alongside Follow This," said van Baal.
A coalition of investors controlling about 5% of Shell's shares plan to back a resolution requiring the company to align its Scope 3 targets with the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
Some observers noted that Exxon filed its complaint in the Northern District of Texas, despite the fact that the company is based in the Houston area and the Southern District usually hears its cases.
Exxon's case will be heard by U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush who has a record of ruling in favor of right-wing causes. He declared the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional in 2018, ruled last year that "ghost guns" are exempt from background checks, and blocked married same-sex couples from exercising their rights under the Family Medical Leave Act.
Van Baal said Exxon likely took the step because it "is afraid of its shareholders."
"Apparently," he said, "the board fears shareholders will vote in favor of emissions-reductions targets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular