Tag Archives: ExxonMobil

The Claim ‘Exxon Knew’ Their Products Induced ‘Catastrophic Climate Impacts’ In The 1970s Is Bunk

Company logo made against sky background, conceptual editorial 3D

From NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard

In the 1970s and 1980s ExxonMobil did not know that their reports would be so wrongly misinterpreted in the 2010s.

Since 2015, when “investigative journalists” uncovered reports written in the late 1970s by ExxonMobil’s Science Advisor J.P. Black, it has been a common talking point in alarmist circles to insist that “Exxon Knew” about the looming climate catastrophe imposed by continuing to use their petroleum products.

“ExxonMobil had known that burning fossil fuels would lead to potentially catastrophic climate impacts as early as the late 1970s.” – ExxonKnew.org

“Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better.“

The accusation is that Exxon was pushing their products knowing full well – with certainty – how much damage they caused.

Exx0nMobil 1977 Report

But if one were to actually read these internally published scientific reviews, it would be difficult to find even a hint of this definitive certainty pertaining to the science of climate change in the 1970s.

In the most notorious 1977 review (the written report was published in 1978), J.P. Black emphasized there is considerable uncertainty whether the increase in CO2 was all or even mostly due to fossil fuels. The fundamental claim that fossil fuels drive CO2 level changes was still considered a never-validated assumption, as nature may contribute more to CO2 increases than human  fossil fuel emissions do.

“The CO2 increase measured to date is not capable of producing an effect large enough to be distinguished from normal climate variations.”

“A number of assumptions and uncertainties are involved in the predictions of the Greenhouse Effect. At present, meteorologists have no direct evidence that the incremental CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil carbon.”

“There is considerable uncertainty regarding what controls the exchange of atmospheric CO2 with the oceans and with carbonated materials on the continents.”

“The conclusion that fossil fuel combustion represents the sole source of incremental carbon dioxide involves assuming not only that the contributions from the biosphere and from the oceans are not changing but also that these two sources are continuing to absorb exactly the same amount as they are emitting. The World Meteorological Organization recognized the need to validate these assumptions…”

“…biologists claim that part or all of the CO2 increase arises from the destruction of forests and other land biota.”

“…a number of other authors from academic and oceanographic centers published a paper claiming that the terrestrial biomass appears to be a net source of carbon dioxide for the atmosphere which is possibly greater than that due to fossil fuel combustion.”

Image Source: Black, 1977 (ExxonMobil Science Advisor)

The report also says that if the globe warms as predicted by models of doubling the CO2 concentration:

“…there will probably be no effect on the polar ice sheets.”

The Greenland ice sheet will experience “increased precipitation and actually result in the growth of this ice sheet.”

For East Antarctica’s ice sheet, doubled CO2 “would not affect this very large glacier and…it too might increase in size.”

Climate models are “primitive” and incapable of handling important aspects of climate.

“Modeling climatic effects is currently handicapped by an inability to handle all the complicated interactions which are important to predicting the climate. In existing models, important interactions are neglected.”

And there are benefits of a warmer climate around the world.

In a warmer world, “precipitation would increase. On a global scale, this should result in the lengthening of the growing season. Growing seasons are expected to increase about ten days for every 1°C increase in temperature.“

Exx0nMobil 1982 Report

The 1982 ExxonMobil report continued to express uncertainty about the origins of the CO2 increase, saying nature may be a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

There was also no consensus on the detection of a CO2-induced temperature warming, as a majority of climatologists at the time thought CO2’s impacts would not be detectable until 2000.

“A number of climatologists claim that they are currently measuring a temperature signal (above climate noise) due to a CO2 induced greenhouse effect, while the majority do not expect such a signal to be detectable before the year 2000.”

And most importantly, Exxon still did not know climate catastrophe was the inevitable consequence of using petroleum products in the 1980s. They suggested otherwise, saying we can adapt to the changes. The consequences of fossil fuel burning are uncertain and in need of further study. No “specific actions” need be taken until we learn more.

“…society can adapt to the increase in CO2 and this problem is not as significant to mankind as nuclear holocaust or world famine.”

“Given the long term nature of the potential problem and the uncertainties involved, it would appear that there is time for further study and monitoring before specific actions need be taken.”

Image Source: Glazer, 1982 (ExxonMobil Manager, Environmental Affairs)
James-Black-1977-PresentationHerunterladen

1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-EffectHerunterladen

Business Roundtable Does a 180 on Stakeholder Capitalism in ExxonMobil Lawsuit

From Watts Up With That?

By Brent Bennett

May 28, 2024

On Wednesday, ExxonMobil, the largest energy company in the U.S., will face yet another challenge to its leadership. The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest state public pension fund in the U.S., is leading a group of pension funds to vote against all of Exxon’s directors. Glass Lewis, one of the largest proxy advisory firms in the world, is recommending voting against Exxon’s lead independent director.

The reason for the latest uproar is Exxon’s recent lawsuit against two activist investors, Arjuna Capital and Follow This, for continuing to push shareholder resolutions that require Exxon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, over time, stop producing oil and gas, no matter the cost to the firm and its shareholders.

Exxon argues that its lawsuit is necessary because the Securities and Exchange Commission, which by law is supposed to act as a neutral arbiter in determining whether shareholder resolutions can be dismissed or must put to a vote, changed its policy to allow resolutions unrelated to the company’s ordinary business purposes but that had “broad societal impact.” Without the SEC as a gatekeeper, Exxon will have to spend millions every year to defeat activist proposals that would destroy billions of dollars of shareholder value if implemented.

A remarkable development is the public support that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, which have retained the law firm of Lehotsky Keller¾known for its efforts (so far successful) to stop the SEC’s climate disclosure rule¾to write a brief of amicus curiae supporting ExxonMobil’s lawsuit.

The brief contains some pointed rebukes of environmental, social and governance (ESG) activism, concluding that until the courts weigh in, activist investors have free rein to “push an ideological agenda divorced from the success of the corporation—or worse, as in this case, directly antagonistic to it.” As the brief makes clear, “success” refers to financial success and sustainability, not to success in achieving environmental or social goals.

What’s remarkable is not the brief itself, but how far it departs from the recent positions the Chamber and the Roundtable have taken on this issue. In August 2019, the Roundtable issued the first update since 1997 to its policy statement on the purpose of a corporation. Signed by about 200 CEOs of America’s largest companies, it concluded that “Each of our stakeholders is essential. We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country.”

The new statement represented a marked shift in the Roundtable’s stance, which previously focused solely on delivering value to the company’s shareholders. Two years later, in May 2021, one of the signers of that document, Darren Woods of ExxonMobil, had three of his board members replaced because of a dispute over the company’s stance on climate change and its reluctance to invest in low carbon businesses. It seemed that “stakeholder capitalism” was becoming de rigueur for corporate America. Those companies not on board with it could expect a challenge to their leadership from activist shareholders and a growing set of powerful institutional investors.

But now the tables have turned. Exxon, fresh off a couple of the most profitable years in its history, is taking the fight to the ESG activists. The SEC is in retreat, having pulled its climate disclosure rule until the lawsuit over that rule is resolved. The Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber, which appeared to be in a headlong rush to support stakeholder capitalism, are now speaking out against ideological agendas that are “divorced from the success of the corporation.”

At Exxon’s annual meeting on May 29, the ball will be in the court of the big institutional investors, especially the Big Three asset managers¾BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street¾who hold a large portion of Exxon’s stock. A vote against Exxon’s leadership will show a continuation of their past support for climate change activists pushing to force oil and gas companies to change their business models. A vote in favor of Exxon’s leadership would signal that Wall Street is reaching a limit in its embrace of ESG principles and its willingness to capitulate to political activists.

If the statements in the Business Roundtable’s amicus brief are an indication of changing attitudes within corporate America toward ESG activists and their public pension allies, it is likely that Exxon’s leadership will come out on the winning side of this battle. The biggest winners will be millions of Exxon shareholders, who want the company to generate the best financial returns for them, and the vast majority of Americans, who want corporations to leave politics to the politicians and to focus on creating products and services that improve lives and increase prosperity.

Brent Bennett, Ph.D., is the policy director for Life:Powered, an initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation to raise America’s energy IQ, and a senior fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

444,000 semi-loads of food? Just another day on planet earth

From The BOE Report

 Terry Etam

A friend of mine, always with a keen eye on interesting things, passed on an interesting quote from the CERA Week energy conference the other week. The head of the International Energy Forum mentioned a surprising statistic, as quoted by Javier Blas on Twitter: “Heathrow airport in London uses more energy than the whole African nation of Sierra Leone [population ~8.5 million].” Yikes!

Here’s another one that turned up randomly in the feed by a credible source: “If we keep growing our energy usage (2.9% CAGR last 350 years) we will use more energy in the next 25 years than in all prior human history. 3x in 39 years and 9x by the end of the century.”

Energy is an amazing topic, both sources and uses. The sheer scale of what we require for our present lifestyle is mind-blowing when placed in concrete contexts like above. In the abstract, the numbers don’t mean anything. The world consumes over 100 million barrels of oil per day. So what? Is that a lot? Sure it’s a big number but so is 8 billion people. Either stat is hard to wrap one’s head around.

Consider the following with respect to oil consumption/production: ExxonMobil made waves recently for a large oil discovery offshore Guyana, in an era when there aren’t that many discoveries being made (the flip side of the demand for oil/gas companies to return money to shareholders means exploration generally takes a back seat). Reuters picked up the story: ExxonMobil announced a new discovery, one of 30 since 2015, in a 6.6 million acre area that to date has been found to hold 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil, which also equals the country’s total. The results are significant, moving Guyana up to 17th on the world’s petroleum reserve rankings, similar to Norway, Brazil, or Algeria.

Now compare that number to consumption. At 100 million b/d, the world consumes a billion barrels of oil every ten days. Eleven billion barrels of recoverable reserves will meet the world’s needs for about 110 days, or just under four months. And global demand continues to grow.

The scope of this discussion goes far beyond oil demand. It is imperative that people understand energy demand, and particularly so on a global scale.

Look at this history of global energy consumption chart from Our World in Data:

It’s nuts. But it coincides very well with the rising standard of living attained by humanity, particularly in the west, an increase the rest of the world wants to emulate.

Consider the following statistics if you think that trajectory is going to slow down or reverse any time soon.

Africa has about 1.2 billion people, or roughly 15 percent of the earth’s population. Yet Africa accounts for 2 percent of global air traffic. By contrast, Europe has a population of about 740 million, and accounts for 31 percent of global air traffic.

What if Africans decide they want to live like Europeans, air-travel-wise, which is not just justified on moral grounds but actually more functionally logical, because Europe covers only 1/3 of Africa’s size of 30 million square kilometres?

What if the rest of the world wants to enjoy air conditioning to the extent the US does (and why on earth wouldn’t they)? According to the US Energy Information Agency, nearly 90 percent of US households use air conditioning, and virtually every office building does as well. The US has about 130 million households for 330 million people, or about 2.5 people per household. If Africa had a similar ratio, they would have 480,000 households, and if a similar proportion had AC there would be 430,000 households with AC. It’s safe to say that today in Africa the number of households with AC is far closer to zero than 90 percent. (Even communists/hardcore socialists support near-universal air conditioning, though they call it a ‘right’ by way of that fuzzy but firm ‘gimme that’ appropriation way of theirs.)29dk2902lhttps://boereport.com/29dk2902l.html

Now add in India, with another 1.4 billion people, and do the same math. A billion air conditioners worth of global demand is not a ridiculous estimate, not when considering Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, parts of South America… in addition to Africa, India…

Consider even food, and the logistical magnum opus required to keep countries food-riot-free. A typical western website says that the average person consumes 3-4 pounds of food per day. Let’s say the rest of the world isn’t so lucky, and we’ll call it 2.5 pounds per day for a global average (each new cruise ship drags the world average up considerably). There are 8 billion of us schlepping around planet earth. A semi trailer can carry about 45,000 pounds of cargo. So every day, the equivalent of about 444,000 semis full of food are forklifted out of trucks and down the gullets of 8 billion upturned mouths. Every freaking day, without a break.

And that’s just food. What about IKEA. And Costco. And Home Depot. And Walmart. And all the other stuff in our world.

And billions more people are striving to fill up the SUV (yes, everywhere you go, SUV) at their local Costco/Home Depot/Walmart, as soon as one arrives in their community.

Ah hell, I give up. The scale of all this stuff is unfathomable. And yet it all gets where it needs to go, every day, as long as there’s energy.

Any singular household staple must be there, in abundance, or all hell breaks loose. Remember Covid > toilet paper? What happens as soon as there is even a rumour of a shortage? Social deviants, which are harder to eradicate than (and just as useful as) STDs, get into gear and begin hoarding in order to resell at a profit. It just happens, one of the unfortunate costs of living in a free society. (I’m not suggesting that those people should be found and beaten with a tire iron, but then again I’m not suggesting that they shouldn’t.)

When we think of energy consumption, we tend to think of our hilariously comfortable lives in western nations, where supermarkets are perpetually full, where gasoline and heating fuels are available 24/7/365 at reasonable prices, where flying wherever and whenever we want, with minimal hassle, is one step away from being viewed as a human right. We are correct in that our energy consumption per capita in the west is very high. But on an outright total consumption basis, individual country statistics are pretty wild. And saddening, in some ways.

First the wild part: You would expect (or I did anyway) the US to be either at the top of the consumption pile or close; it is and has been an economic juggernaut for a century. But not even close: in 2022, the US consumed about 96 exajoules of energy, which is a lot – that number equals the consumption of India, Russia, Japan and Canada combined. But way out in front is China, with 2022 consumption of 159 exajoules. No one should be surprised China leads the world in renewables installation and coal fired power plant construction. They need it all.

Where it gets sad is to wander further down the list to the lowest consumers. The site linked above shows a graphic of the world, with each country colour-coded for total energy consumption. The lowest on the colour scale is a pale yellow representing 20 exajoules per year. The scale rises up through blues and towards a dark navy which represents China at the top of the heap.

Most African countries, and some South American ones, do not even warrant a definition in the legend at all, and are simply greyed out. They have so little energy consumption they hardly even make it onto the raw data table. Hundreds of millions of people live like that. But only as long as they have to.

It is very sobering to see how much of the world lives, and how very far they are from the West’s standard of living. The West’s leaders push the concept of ‘electrify everything’, a concept that only makes sense if one is looking no further than their backyard and has zero feel for the true global situation. In much of the world, they would just as happily get behind the slogan ‘electrify anything’.

It is hard to imagine this energy consumption trajectory falling; we’d be very lucky if it stayed flat. But that seems like an unrealistic hope. The developing world clearly has every incentive and right to advance towards the West’s standard of living, and if they get close global energy consumption will head off further into the stratosphere. Here in the West, we play cute little games like a forced switch to EVs, while ignoring almost totally any common sense commentary on the subject (For example, Toyota’s 1:6:90 rule which states that for the same amount of raw materials to manufacture one EV, Toyota can make six plug-in hybrids or 90 hybrids, and in doing so would achieve 37 times the emissions reduction of a single EV. Yet Toyota is scorned for such logic on the grounds that “Toyota’s reluctance to fully embrace EVs can hinder innovation in the EV industry.” Note that there is no challenge to the facts themselves, just a bruising of the ego of the think tanks.)

Anyone that provides energy of any kind should roll up their sleeves, there’s a lot of work to be done, and those who wish to hunt for energy villains will get run over, in due course.

Energy conversations should be positive, grounded in reality, and as funny as possible. Life depends on it, both the energy and the humour. Find out more in “The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity” at Amazon.ca, Indigo.ca, or Amazon.com. Thanks!

Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here, or email Terry here.

Climate Alarmist as ExxonMobil Whistleblower

A view of the Exxon Mobil refinery in Baytown, Texas September 15, 2008. A big chunk of U.S. energy production shuttered by Hurricane Ike could recover quickly amid early indications the storm caused only minor to moderate damage to platforms and coastal refineries. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi ( UNITED STATES) – RTR30K4U

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“There is a strong intellectual case against the view that ExxonMobil ‘knew’ that CO2 was a threat to human betterment versus the continuous growth of consumer-desired, taxpayer-neutral oil and natural gas. In fact, Enron, not Exxon, was the bigger culprit in the climate-change-and-business saga.”

Geoscientist Lindsey Gulden speaks for the Climate Industrial Complex, not the average person who depends on oil and gas every minute of every day, when she portrays herself as a martyr for the cause of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation.

It is not easy to get fired by ExxonMobil, but there are underperformers and just bad apples in every batch. Lindsey Gulden appears to be one. On social media, she tells of just this experience, invoking climate alarmism.

But she does note one thing of interest: the company’s overhyped political play of carbon capture and storage, which is correct. But it is climate exaggeration that has created the political winds to allow ExxonMobil to get its piece of the taxpayer-subsidy pie. Dialing back politics would right-size the very technology she decries.

Her Story

“It may not be advisable to talk on LinkedIn about the time I was fired by #ExxonMobil,” she begins. “But here goes.”

I am a #climate scientist…. I started out as Ms Rebecca Grekin, a climate scientist who earnestly, naively believed that the ExxonMobil of today is a trustworthy actor in the energy transition. I spent more than a decade working for ExxonMobil, occasionally (but not often enough) advocating for combatting #climatechange .

In 2020, I was fired—yes, fired—by ExxonMobil because I reported what amounted to a $10 billion fraud. To put it mildly, that experience fundamentally altered my opinion of whether present-day ExxonMobil can be considered an honest broker in anything, but most especially in the realm of the energy transition, which is a far-greater-than-$10-billion threat to the Exxon’s bottom line….

What is good for oil and gas re ExxonMobil is good for energy consumers worldwide. And the less climate politics, the better. But Gulden will have none of this.

Despite what smooth-talking spokespeople will tell you, ExxonMobil continues to fund and be an active member of organizations that are—today—working to decrease political support for government action to curb climate change and decrease the public’s access to and trust in readily available replacements for #oilandgas.

They fund PhDs and national labs to burnish their reputation and influence what questions researchers address. 

Then a very good point is made by Gulden: the rent-seeking and greenwashing of ExxonMobil with carbon capture and storage, a mistake in the making.

#industry lobbyists have convinced large swaths of the public (and most of their own well-meaning employees) that technologies like carbon capture and storage are legitimate recipients of billions of taxpayer dollars earmarked for combatting climate change.

Those taxpayer dollars are urgently needed for existing, proven, ready-right-now solutions but instead are funding a massive campaign to enhance oil recovery. Carbon capture and storage is, at its core, a technology for producing more oil. It requires more carbon to be expended to inject #co2 at pressure than it keeps out of the atmosphere. It is not and will not be a viable solution to climate change.

She blames herself with her half-truth conscience.

ExxonMobil executives can continue this deception in large part because so many useful idiots, myself included, willingly lend their personal reputations to the propping up of a lie. They can continue this deception because they make an example of people like me (I’m not the only one) to ensure that their employees are afraid to truly challenge the ethics of the company line.

She concludes:

I wish I could tell my younger self that the cynical Mr Yannai Kashtan is right. That idealism and/or a paycheck can lull you into trusting those who say one thing and do another. That we must stop allowing ourselves to be used by a few people who care more about their reserve shares than about doing the right thing. And, most important, that we must, without delay, find the unflinching political will to turn off the #fossilfuels tap as fast as we possibly can. 

Social injustice and carnage on a global, massive scale, Ms. Gulden? If she is in turmoil about her time at ExxonMobil and the way forward, a fundamental rethink is in order. Whole new ideas to quell ‘climate anxiety’ as the world’s energy needs continue to be met, increasingly so, by oil, natural gas, and coal.

Exxon and ExxonMobil: The Road Not Taken

More fundamentally, Exxon and (after 1997) ExxonMobil abandoned the moral high ground when it substituted appeasement for principle, which began around the time of President Obama’s election in 2008.

There is a strong intellectual case against the view that Exxon – ExxonMobil “knew” that CO2 was a threat to human betterment. Just the opposite, the company smartly understood that continued growth of consumer-desired, taxpayer-neutral oil and natural gas was good business and morally imperative. (“Big Oil, Exxon Not Guilty as Charged” offers a six-part rebuttal to the simplistic, errant arguments of the ExxonKnew legal campaign.)

In fact, Enron, not Exxon, was the bigger culprit in the climate-change-and-business saga. Read and laugh (or cry) at Enron’s Kyoto memo of 1997 in terms of green-as-in-money.

What about employees at ExxonMobil whose take is opposite of that of Lindsey Gulden? Glen Lyons offers an opposite take:

Here’s my two cents on the general concept of “What Exxon Knew” as a retired employee with more than 36 years of experience there. 

First, Exxon doesn’t “know” anything. It’s a collection of people and just like any other organization with many people, there are many views and understandings on almost every topic imaginable. I worked with Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, and Libertarians. 

I worked with people who believed 25 years ago that climate change was a concern and I worked with people who still don’t believe that climate change is a concern. One of the great features about working at ExxonMobil is that it gives employees a fair amount of latitude to think “outside the box” by studying and proposing ideas that their management may not agree with. 

There was always disagreement and tension among talented people. Lyons continues:

I did plenty of that during my career, and sometimes it was well received by my management and sometimes not. Just because I made a presentation on a particular topic of my choosing doesn’t mean that my management was fully aligned on the front end or after the fact.

One thing is very true about ExxonMobil – the company has a long history of hiring brilliant people who are original and creative thinkers. Sometimes the output of these people finds broad support among management and sometimes it doesn’t. No one who knows ExxonMobil is surprised to learn that some employees were studying the link between CO2 emissions and global temperatures. However, that does NOT mean that his/her management agreed with the findings.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Glen Lyons has a maturity and open-mindedness that a Lindsey Gulden does not.

DAVID BLACKMON: The Billionaire Class Is Fueling The War Against Abundant American Energy

From The Daily Caller

DAVID BLACKMON

DAVID BLACKMON IS AN ENERGY WRITER AND CONSULTANT BASED IN TEXAS. HE SPENT 40 YEARS IN THE OIL AND GAS BUSINESS, WHERE HE SPECIALIZED IN PUBLIC POLICY AND COMMUNICATIONS.

It has been an open secret for years now that big foundations funded by billionaire families like the Gates, Getty, and Rockefeller clans have played a big role in funding the various climate alarmist campaigns to vilify so-called “fossil fuels.” Lesser known until recently is the role these billionaire foundations play in convincing various government entities to travel down the same path.

Fox News reported this week that several billionaire interests, led by the Rockefeller Family Fund, put pressure on the New York Attorney General’s office during 2015 to target ExxonMobil with a subpoena for records related to an investigation into the company’s early research related to global warming. A series of leaked emails between Lee Wasserman, long-time director for the RFF, and then-New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman’s office first pitched the idea in early 2015. Schneiderman ultimately responded to the pressure, sending an initial subpoena to ExxonMobil in November that same year.

The RFF’s involvement in the push to pursue ExxonMobil extended into influencing and paying for media coverage. In September, 2015, Inside Climate News published the first in a series of articles under what it called its “Exxon Knew” series. The RFF funded that effort via multi-million-dollar grants to ICN and its parent, Lost Light Projects, as reported in the Daily Caller in 2016. In October that same year, RFF grants were also behind a series of articles jointly published by the Los Angeles Times and the Columbia School of Journalism, demonizing ExxonMobil. (RELATED: DAVID BLACKMON: Another Green Vehicle Pipe Dream Explodes Like The Hindenburg)

“We’ve spent years tracking the nexus between left-wing environmental groups and their billionaire funders, and this once again proves the connection between the financial, ideological, and political influences on the widespread legal attacks on the American energy industry,” Tom Pyle, president of the Institute For Energy Research, said in an email. “It’s clear that anti-oil sentiment in this country is being driven by this network of billionaires, activists, and politicians who show little concern for how their political campaigns hurt everyday Americans.”

The strategy behind the New York AG’s investigation evolved out of a meeting of climate activist organizations held in La Jolla, CA in 2012. There, a playbook was developed to attack the oil and gas industry using the same tactics that had been deployed against the tobacco industry starting in the 1980s. The plan’s success hinged on identifying and co-opting a “sympathetic state attorney general” willing to play the lead role in kicking off what would become an ongoing series of lawsuits targeting the industry.

The activists ultimately landed on Schneiderman as their most likely and most willing partner. When Schneiderman was forced to resign due to a personal scandal, his successor, current AG Letitia James, eagerly took up the torch. But the case was ultimately thrown out of court by the New York state Supreme Court, which characterized its claims as “hyperbolic.”

The RFF was in the news earlier this month when, on Feb. 8, The Wall Street Journal reported it and other left-wing billionaire interests – including Michael Bloomberg – were instrumental in pressuring the Biden White House to implement its January “pause” on the permitting of proposed new liquefied natural gas export facilities. 

Citing sources “familiar with the effort,” the WSJ writers detail a billionaire-backed campaign that began four years ago to co-opt and organize local community activist groups to oppose new LNG export capacity even as U.S. LNG became such a crucial supply source for American allies in Europe in the wake of Russia’s war on Ukraine. The activists then worked to “buttonhole” administration officials at conferences and meetings around the world, pressuring them to freeze the process based on flimsy, hyperbolic climate alarm arguments similar to those behind the case against ExxonMobil.

“They got our attention,” one unidentified White House official is quoted as saying by the Journal. 

Well, yes, they did, but to what end? While they are all promoted using lofty propaganda depicting these campaigns as efforts to curb the malleable concept of “climate change,” what these and other efforts by the RFF and their billionaire collaborators invariably boil down to is increasing the cost of energy for the masses, diminishing U.S. energy security, and making our country increasingly reliant on China.

Eventually, the only reasonable conclusion to make is that those outcomes are in fact the plan.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

DAVID BLACKMON: ExxonMobil Just Set The Climate Alarm Lobby On Fire Again

From The DAILY CALLER

DAVID BLACKMON

ExxonMobil set the climate alarm lobby afire last week when it filed a lawsuit against a pair of activist investor groups challenging manifestly frivolous shareholder initiatives which they hope to bring up at the company’s impending annual meeting in May. The suit was filed in a Texas court January 21 against Massachusetts-based investment firm Arjuna Capital and Amsterdam-based investor group Follow This.

Reports filed by the AP, Reuters, CNBC and other legacy media sites warned that a win by Exxon in the lawsuit could have a “chilling effect” on the bringing of other climate alarm and ESG-related initiatives in the future. The reasoning supporting that claim seems somewhat specious, given that Exxon’s complaint is based on the fact that initiatives virtually identical to the ones sought by Arjuna and Follow This have been brought repeatedly in prior years and were resoundingly rejected in shareholder votes. Raising them again this year is an obvious waste of time and resources and amounts to little more than harassment.

These specific questions, in other words, have been asked and answered several times, leaving little point in raising them again just for the sake of raising them. That hardly would mean that a favorable decision for ExxonMobil in this lawsuit would chill activist investors from raising other, valid questions in the future, but that is the narrative the alarmist lobby and their supportive media have settled on. (RELATED: DAVID BLACKMON: The Biden Admin And Its Buddies Are Waging Foolish War Against Abundant Clean Energy)

Readers may wonder why the company decided to file suit against these two activist investors rather than pursue the more regular appeals process governed by the Biden SEC. The answer is pretty simple: President Biden’s appointees to the SEC decided to change up a decision process that had worked well for decades in order to make it far more difficult and bias the expected outcome in favor of the activist investors. Thus, as Reuters and other outlets note, fewer and fewer companies have pursued their appeals with the SEC over the past few years.

Here is what ExxonMobil said about it in an email to CNBC:  “The breakdown of the shareholder proposal process, one that allows proponents to advance their agendas through a flood of proposals, does not serve the interests of investors. We are simply asking the court to apply the SEC’s proxy rules as written to stop this abuse and eliminate the significant resources required to address them.”

Reuters quotes one of the SEC’s own commissioners, Mark Uyeda, as saying, “Companies could always go to court on shareholder proposals, but historically viewed the SEC as a fair arbiter. This perception may have changed due to recent policy changes.” Oh. You don’t say.

So, here’s the moral of this story: When a radical president brings in appointees who destroy a system that was seen as fair by all stakeholders for decades on end and render it a basic kangaroo court, stakeholders are going to seek ways to work around the system.

There is nothing at all wrong with ExxonMobil’s decision to file a lawsuit to block these frivolous proposed resolutions that serve no one’s interests and waste everyone’s time. The company has an absolute right to pursue all remedies available to it, including within the federal courts, even if it upsets the virtue signaling gentry in the climate alarm lobby.

This is neatly analogous to the situation at the Texas border with Mexico, where Biden came into office and immediately issued a series of executive orders that blew up a system of securing the border that had been working quite well and replaced it with a system that basically and intentionally opened the country up to unchecked mass illegal immigration. Now, the administration bemoans the fact that Texas and other states are finding ways to work around his refusal to do anything constructive to slow the flow.

When any presidential administration destroys a system that work and replace them with systems intentionally designed to fail, stakeholders are going to exercise their rights to seek other remedies. That’s all ExxonMobil is doing here, and it should not come as a surprise to anyone.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Zero chance of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, says the U.S. Energy Information Agency; ExxonMobil and OPEC agree

Fossil fuels will not be replaced anytime soon. Clean energy sources, including wind and solar, will grow between 75% and 120% by 2050, but they will at best represent approximately half the energy supply stemming from fossil fuels by 2050.

From Substack

By ED IRELAND

The U.S. Energy Information Agency, EIA, projects that global consumption of fossil fuels will increase by as much as 40% by 2050. In their “International Energy Outlook 2023,” released October 11, 2023, EIA said,

Global population growth and higher living standards push growth in energy consumption beyond advances in energy efficiency, resulting in increased energy emissions despite global targets of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 (emphasis added).

You read that correctly. The EIA, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, says world fossil fuel use will continue on its upward trajectory until at least 2050. EIA does not project beyond 2050, but its forecast shows no sign of the upward trend in fossil fuel consumption changing after 2050.

With this latest projection, EIA says that wind, solar, and other alternate energy will continue to grow, but they will not come close to replacing fossil fuels:

Clean energy sources, including wind and solar, will grow between 75% and 120% by 2050, but they will at best represent approximately half the energy supply stemming from fossil fuels by 2050.

The EIA report flies in the face of the Administration’s goals of net zero by 2050, which are described on the website of the “Office of the Federal Chief Sustainability Officer, Council on Environmental Quality:

President Biden’s Executive Order 14057 on catalyzing American clean energy industries and jobs through Federal sustainability and accompanying Federal Sustainability Plan (collectively referred to as “The Federal Sustainability Plan”) outlines an ambitious path to achieve net-zero emissions across Federal operations by 2050.

The “Key Actions” described on the Administration’s sustainability website are:

  • Use 100% percent carbon pollution-free electricity by 2030
  • Achieve 100 percent zero-emission vehicle acquisitions by 2035
  • Achieve net-zero emissions buildings by 2045
  • Achieve net-zero emissions procurement by 2050

The Administration’s policy goals of eliminating fossil fuels and achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 have now been confirmed by the government’s own Energy Information Administration as totally unachievable.

On the same day EIA released its bullish forecast of continued growth in crude oil and natural gas, ExxonMobil announced they are buying its rival, Pioneer Natural Resources, for 59.5 billion dollars. Pioneer is one of the largest acreage owners in the Permian Basin, the largest oil and gas field in the U.S., and one of the most significant in the world.

This deal will double ExxonMobil’s presence in this very productive oil and gas region. Karr Ingham with the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers said:

If the Permian Basin were its own country, it would be among the top five oil producers in the world.

We just tend to look past this how important this little part of Texas is down there. The production increase is spectacular.

ExxonMobil’s CEO, Darren Woods, seemed to agree with EIA’s bullish outlook for fossil fuel consumption in an interview with CNBC:

I think fossil fuels, as the world looks to transition and find lower sources of affordable energy with lower emissions, fossil fuels oil and gas are going to continue to play a role over time. The rate of that is, I think, not very clear at this stage. But it will be around for a long time.

Even OPEC agrees with EIA and ExxonMobil and has increased its forecast for oil demand through the middle of the century, saying that oil consumption will climb 16% over the next two decades to reach 116 million barrels a day in 2045, about 6 million a day more than previously predicted.

OPEC’s top official even warned against abandoning fossil fuels, saying that cutting out hydrocarbons would “lead to energy chaos on a potentially unprecedented scale, with dire consequences for economies and billions of people across the world.”

My Take: The goal of eliminating fossil usage in order to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions worldwide by 2050 has proven to be unachievable. Everything in the world that humans eat, wear, or use depends on fossil fuels. Components of everything are made directly from petroleum refined products or natural gas or oil, or the transportation of the products to the end users depends on oil and gas. Electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels are all made from and depend on oil and natural gas to mine and refine their components.

Unfortunately, the fact that the goal of eliminating fossil fuels is a fool’s errand will not likely change anti-fossil fuel policies anytime soon. Rather, the reactions are likely to be to double down on the efforts to control and eliminate fossil fuels and expand the grift that propels the wind and solar industries.

The economy-killing, inflation-boosting expenditures contained in the ridiculously titled “Inflation Reduction Act” will continue unabated, and the war on coal and natural gas will intensify. Still, nothing will change the reality that fossil fuels cannot be replaced anytime soon.

Eventually, the policies that have destabilized the economy and threatened the integrity of our power grids will be forced to recognize the reality that fossil fuels cannot be eliminated and, in fact, are necessary for human flourishing and economic growth. The sooner this happens, the better.

No Supreme Ruling on Deadbeat Cities‘ Climate Lawsuits

From Science Matters

by Ron Clutz

Denver Business Journal reports US Supreme Court rejects Boulder’s $100M climate lawsuit against Suncor, Exxon.  That headline is misleading in that SCOTUS declined to rule on the motion to restrict such lawsuits to federal courts.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The United State Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a lawsuit Boulder and two other local governments filed against oil refiners Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil and deemed similar climate change-related lawsuits matters for state courts.

The nation’s highest court issued orders Monday rejecting oil companies’ request to take up the Boulder case and similar lawsuits filed against other oil industry giants such as BP, Sunoco and Shell by the governments of Baltimore, Maryland; San Mateo County, California; and Honolulu, Hawaii.

Boulder city and county governments and San Miguel County, home to Telluride, joined together in 2018 and sued Calgary-based Suncor Energy and Irving, Texas-based ExxonMobil. The plaintiffs argued the communities face at least $100 million in costs over 30 years “to deal with the impacts of climate change caused by the use of fossil fuel products like those made and sold by Suncor and Exxon.”

Oil companies and local governments bringing similar legal cases have been jostling over whether state courts or the federal bench should have jurisdiction. Monday’s denial by the Supreme Court settles the jurisdictional matter, but doesn’t end the cases.

“We will continue to fight these suits, which are a waste of time and resources and do nothing to address climate change,” said Todd Spitler, a spokesperson for ExxonMobil. “Today’s decision does not impact our intention to invest billions of dollars to lead the way in a thoughtful energy transition that takes the world to net zero carbon emissions.“

Justice Samuel Alito took no part in the consideration and decision, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh would’ve taken up Boulder’s case at the Supreme Court, the order noted.

Suncor owns the three oil refineries in Commerce City, the only refineries in Colorado.  A jurisdictional fight arose about which level of court — state or federal — is appropriate for such cases.

Local governments and the U.S. Department of Justice argued the cases belonged in state courts.  Oil companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the Boulder case and settle issues the companies said are common among more than a dozen lawsuits working their way through lower courts.

Allies of the oil and gas industry expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s decision.  Having state courts handle the cases could lead to a patchwork approach to policy questions that are inherently federal or international in scope, said Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, in a statement issued Monday.

The good news is that state courts likely will, after the substance of the liability claims is heard, dismiss them like a New York City lawsuit against Exxon was two years ago, he said.

“The challenge of our time is developing technologies and public policies so that the world can produce and use energy in ways that are affordable for people and sustainable for the planet,” Goldberg said.

“It should not be figuring out how to creatively plead lawsuits that seek
to monetize climate change and provide no solutions.”

The Boulder and San Miguel County case was called a stunt by the state oil and gas industry when it was first filed.  Companies shouldn’t face legal liability for “doing nothing more than engaging in the act of commerce while adhering to our already stringent state and federal laws,” said Dan Haley, president and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, at the time.

But supporters of community claims point to evidence that’s shown oil companies understood but did not publicly disclose the potential ramifications of carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere. [There is again the lie of labelling the harmless trace gas plant food as “pollution.”]

They argue that climate-change-inducing emissions are at the root of incidents like the unusual, deadly deluges of September 2013, and out-of-season wildfires, like those that destroyed over 1,000 Superior and Louisville-area homes on New Year’s Eve, 2021, and have forced communities to bear the costs of responding to such disasters .[Yet in the UN report they say there is virtually no evidence of a relationship between extreme events and climate change.]

Q:  Why These Lawsuits?  A: Deep Pockets

Background Previous Post: Supremes Will Soon Rule on Deadbeat Cities’ Climate Lawsuits

Caleb Johnson writes at New York Post The Supreme Court will soon decide on cities pushing an extreme climate agenda.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.  H\T John Ray

On one hand, cities are suing oil and gas companies for alleged climate-related damages.
On the other, the same cities write in their municipal-bond disclosures
they cannot attest to the effects of climate change.

This makes Friday’s Supreme Court conference on Suncor v. Boulder critical. The nation’s highest court will decide if it will take up the case to rule on whether these climate suits should be heard in state or federal court.

No matter where they proceed, these cases not only lack merit but deserve greater scrutiny given the plaintiffs’ companion bond disclosures.  Municipalities like Boulder, San Francisco and Baltimore, among others, have been filing claims against oil and gas companies, seeking damages they allege are directly attributable to the firms’ actions.

But holders of these cities’ bonds could be forgiven for being surprised by these lawsuits.  Because the ambiguous claims these cities made to their bondholders belie the specific nature of the claims they later made to courts.   

In their bond disclosures, these cities all acknowledge they’re unable to forecast
with any degree of certainty climate change’s adverse effects
and the science underlying their assumptions is evolving.

Fair enough. But contrast this with the incredibly specific claims in these cities’ lawsuits.  In 2017, San Francisco’s city attorney, Dennis Herrera, filed a lawsuit in state court against five energy companies, alleging they are responsible for very specific effects of climate change and should pay for infrastructure such as sea walls to deal with its ongoing and future consequences.

The lawsuit’s claim about predicting the effects of climate change comes into serious question when the city attorney’s bond-issuing employer has stated it cannot accurately determine the extent of climate change for its investors.

In a 2018 petition in Texas state court, Exxon alleged the “stark and irreconcilable conflict” between the municipalities’ allegations in the lawsuits and their disclosures in bond offerings indicated the suits were brought “not because of a bona fide belief in any tortious conduct by the defendants or actual damage to their jurisdictions, but instead to coerce ExxonMobil and others operating in the Texas energy sector to adopt policies aligned with those favored by local politicians in California.”

Its petition was denied, but the concern about the “stark and irreconcilable conflict”
has quietly simmered ever since — and for good reason.

Disclosures in other areas have been a source of angst for muni bondholders.  In 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a cease and desist order against the City of Boulder for misstating that it had complied with prior agreements to provide continuing disclosure to its investors.

What prompted renewed interest in this issue was not just the reexamination of bond risks after Credit Suisse’s failure but also the solicitor general’s recent recommendation to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to reject ExxonMobil and Suncor’s petition for their case to be heard in federal rather than state court.

Credit Suisse’s AT1 investors have reason to be upset but not necessarily all that surprised.  After all, those bonds were yielding 9.75%, suggesting the risks were high.  For comparison, the average yield on ostensibly much safer 10-year muni bonds is about 2.49%.

But what if, in addition to the risks laid out in disclosure documents, Credit Suisse had been aware of other material risks it had failed to disclose to its bondholders?  Well, that would be securities fraud.

Might the same hold true for these municipalities doing the bidding
of trial lawyers pushing an extreme climate agenda?

To the extent that these cities have a much greater degree of certainty about the risks they face, have those risks been adequately described to all audiences, investors and the courts alike?

The question remains.  And while these lawsuits seem meritless, one hopes the Supreme Court concludes at least that they ought to remain in federal court — where they belong.