Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Exxon Mobile has courageously rejected suggestions that it should include the impact of the Paris Accord on its business model, in its financial disclosures to shareholders, by dismissing the possibility of meaningful global action to curb CO2 emissions.
ExxonMobil has challenged a shareholder resolution that calls for the company to show how its business will be affected by the global commitment to dramatically slow global warming.
The resolution—filed by the New York State comptroller’s office and four co-filers—also seeks an explanation of how Exxon will address those impacts. Exxon notified the Securities and Exchange Commission that it wants to block a vote on the proposal at its annual meeting in May. The fossil fuel giant argued that it’s unlikely that strict emissions restrictions will be imposed to meet the goal of holding global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius that world governments agreed to in last year’s Paris climate accord.
By challenging the resolution, Exxon positioned itself as an outlier in the oil industry’s growing acceptance of the consequences of burning fossil fuels and the urgency to halt global warming, some industry analysts said. The SEC recently denied a request by AES Corp., a generating company in Virginia, to block a similar shareholder resolution.
“It’s a little bit like a toddler putting their fingers in their ears and saying if I can’t hear you then what you’re saying isn’t true,” said Shanna Cleveland, manager of the Carbon Asset Risk Initiative at the nonprofit sustainability advocacy group Ceres. Exxon’s position signals that while nearly 200 countries around the world agreed to the Paris accord, Exxon remains on the sidelines, she said.
The bullying sometimes works; AES corp, referenced in the quote above, as a company which complies with green demands, included the following statement in its most recent annual report;
Regulators, politicians, non-governmental organizations and other private parties have expressed concern about greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions and the potential risks associated with climate change and are taking actions which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
As discussed in Item 1.— Business , at the international, federal and various regional and state levels, rules are in effect and policies are under development to regulate GHG emissions, thereby effectively putting a cost on such emissions in order to create financial incentives to reduce them. In 2015 , the Company’s subsidiaries operated businesses which had total CO 2 emissions of approximately 67.6 million metric tonnes, approximately 27.4 million of which were emitted by businesses located in the U.S. (both figures ownership adjusted). The Company uses CO 2 emission estimation methodologies supported by “The Greenhouse Gas Protocol” reporting standard on GHG emissions. For existing power generation plants, CO 2 emissions data are either obtained directly from plant continuous emission monitoring systems or calculated from actual fuel heat inputs and fuel type CO 2 emission factors. The estimated annual CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel electric power generation facilities of the Company’s subsidiaries that are in construction or development and have received the necessary air permits for commercial operations are approximately 7.8 million metric tonnes (ownership adjusted). This overall estimate is based on a number of projections and assumptions which may prove to be incorrect, such as the forecasted dispatch, anticipated plant efficiency, fuel type, CO 2 emissions rates and our subsidiaries’ achieving completion of such construction and development projects. However, it is certain that the projects under construction or development when completed will increase emissions of our portfolio and therefore could increase the risks associated with regulation of GHG emissions. Because there is significant uncertainty regarding these estimates, actual emissions from these projects under construction or development may vary substantially from these estimates.
The non-utility, generation subsidiaries of the Company often seek to pass on any costs arising from CO 2 emissions to contract counterparts, but there can be no assurance that such subsidiaries of the Company will effectively pass such costs onto the contract counterparties or that the cost and burden associated with any dispute over which party bears such costs would not be burdensome and costly to the relevant subsidiaries of the Company. The utility subsidiaries of the Company may seek to pass on any costs arising from CO 2 emissions to customers, but there can be no assurance that such subsidiaries of the Company will effectively pass such costs to the customers, or that they will be able to fully or timely recover such costs.
Foreign, federal, state or regional regulation of GHG emissions could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial performance. The actual impact on the Company’s financial performance and the financial performance of the Company’s subsidiaries will depend on a number of factors, including among others, the degree and timing of GHG emissions reductions required under any such legislation or regulation, the cost of emissions reduction equipment and the price and availability of offsets, the extent to which market based compliance options are available, the extent to which our subsidiaries would be entitled to receive GHG emissions allowances without having to purchase them in an auction or on the open market and the impact of such legislation or regulation on the ability of our subsidiaries to recover costs incurred through rate increases or otherwise. As a result of these factors, our cost of compliance could be substantial and could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.
Read more: Yahoo Finance
NOTE – this is NOT the complete AES statement on climate risk, it is just the part I found interesting.
If a company complies with green bullying, they seem to end up spending ridiculous amounts of management time and effort producing environmental financial impact reports. If they fight the bullies, they risk spending ridiculous amounts of management time and effort, challenging government backed climate zealots in the courts. Either way, companies lose – the only question is by how much.
I applaud Exxon’s brave decision to fight this lunacy; but on a macroeconomic level, you have to wonder how much harm this utter waste of corporate time and effort is doing to the US economy, to the reputation of the USA as a good place to invest, and to US jobs growth.
Asteroid impacts can have an impact on the business if they fall on or near an oil rig.
And a possible law against apples would hurt the apple businesses…
Dane-Geld
A.D. 980-1016
It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: —
“We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane
-Kipling
Now use “Green-geld” instead of “Dane-geld” and you have an idea as
to what this is about..
It is a Knight Fork. Either they tumble to the threat, or they get sued for not submitting. No win for the target. The only effective response is a counter attack so brutal the Knight is killed along with attacking the King…
‘…the shores of Tripoli;’ is probably the best solution to this sort of piracy.
It is pretty clear that CO2 is having an adverse affect on the health of human brains and the ability to think clearly. I have noticed it myself …
On Energy:
I have worked in the energy industry for most of my career.
When challenged on the global warming question by green fanatics, I explain that that fossil fuels keep their families from freezing and starving to death.
Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.
Furthermore, I suggest that recognition of this reality is an ethical and a professional obligation.
The following numbers are from the 2015 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, for the year 2014:
http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2015/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2015-primary-energy-section.pdf
Global Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel is 86% Fossil Fuel (Oil, Coal and Natural Gas),
4% Nuclear,
7% Hydro,
and 2% Renewables.
That 2% for Renewables is vastly exaggerated, and would be less than 1% if intermittent wind and solar power were not forced into the electrical grid ahead of cheaper and more reliable conventional power.
This is not news – we have known this energy reality for decades. As we published in 2002.
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
On Grid-Connected Wind and Solar Power:
Wind Power is what global warming alarmists typically embrace – trillions of dollars have been squandered on worthless grid-connected wind power schemes that require life-of-project subsidies and drive up energy costs.
Some background on grid-connected wind power schemes:
The Capacity Factor of wind power is typically a bit over 20%, but that is NOT the relevant factor.
The real truth is told by the Substitution Capacity, which is dropping to as low as 4% in Germany – that is the amount of conventional generation that can be permanently retired when wind power is installed into the grid.
The E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005 is an informative document:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
(apparently no longer available from E.ON Netz website).
Figure 6 says Wind Power is too intermittent (and needs almost 100% spinning backup);
and
Figure 7 says it just gets worse and worse the more Wind Power you add to the grid (see Substitution Capacity dropping from 8% to 4%).
Same story applies to grid-connected Solar Power (both in the absence of a “Super-Battery”).
This was obvious to us decades ago.
Trillions of dollars have been squandered globally on green energy that is not green and produces little useful energy.
On Global Warming Alarmism:
We also write in the same 2002 article, prior to recognition that the current ~20 year “Pause” (actually a Plateau) was already underway:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
I (we) now think global cooling will commence after the current El Nino runs its course, prior to 2020 and possibly as soon as 2017. Bundle up!
Regards to all, Allan
You make a much better argument for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors than you do for oil and gas. As I am sure you are aware, nuclear energy has a million times the energy density of a carbon-hydrogen bond. We would never have to worry about peak thorium.
Hello davidgmills
Energy density is all very good, but there is a practical point of diminishing returns. For example, gasoline is an adequate transportation fuel but hydrogen is much less so. Moving from gasoline to uranium does not get you much incremental benefit, unless you are operating a nuclear warship.
For stationary applications like power stations, the incremental benefit of greater energy density is even less – natural gas is as good (or better) than nuclear.
The more important issue that energy density is intermittency, and in this regard both wind and solar power have a huge deficiency for power grid applications, and this deficiency is very difficult to overcome.
One honest question:
IF thorium reactors are so good, why are they not in greater use worldwide?
Is it development cost, or some technological problem or what?
Regards, Allan
Add this site to your list: http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
It may be listed somewhere above as I have only scanned the above responses.
Green loco. Green loco. Send them through the windmill gauntlets. Roast them in the solar ovens. Dip them in the green, toxic material sludge. Resuscitate them between renewable wind bursts and solar flares.
Nature likes oil, but hates green technology. People like green technology, but hate oil?
When China goes…
Green loco you say.
Here’s one.
Hi, Eric Worrall
I posted the link below in Tips & notes but thought I should link it again. Its not just EXXON but some of the States themselves. (Yes I know its West Virginia but it has to start samewhere)
michael
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/global-warming-doubts-spur-push-block-science-standards-37227532
Sorry, but Tips and Notes is far too long to load. Waited fifteen minutes, and still did not finish.
Anyway, Al Gore has released a new Ted Talk, full of nonsense.
https://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_case_for_optimism_on_climate_change#t-363498
Never ever bet against the Tiger.
Losing is not an option for The Tiger.
The Greens clearly don’t know these facts
It’s about time they started standing up to these thugs, I only wish they go a lot further and start shutting the fuel off the shakedown artists and troublemakers.
need the public stock wind industry companies (and the like) to include detailed and honest plans for:
The end of guaranteed sales rates,
The possibility of the “magic” (economically feasible fusion, etc) energy source,
The end of the AGW scare (through measured global cooling),
The end of the politically driven federal EIA bs.
And lots of other stuff that will make their business plan realistic and their stock worthless.
This is surreal. Groups think/act in a predictable manner. Groups will repeat the same astonishing errors that occurred in the past. The future is predictable.
What important near future issues should Exxon warn their shareholders about? The general public and the general media are absolutely clueless as to what is going to happen next as surely as the sun rises in the east.
As the majority of the idiots (sheep) believed the message that climate change is an end of the world problem, they supported government policies to spend and act like it was the end of world.
Live for today, spend like it is the end of the world. If the ethos is that climate change is an end of the world problem, white lies and suppression of information that disproves CAGW is OK as the public/politicians need a scary story to force action.
Helped by the climate wars’ ethos, the Obama bellwether machine pushed and got caught up with the crazy idea that deficits do not matter (see series of astonishing books pushing that goofy idea) and started actively supporting the suppression of the truth (politically correct) and fraudulent analysis. Real in your face problems have gotten lost in the noise and are not discussed by the politically media.
Issue 1: Fraudulent UN IPCC scientific analysis? Climate models that are known to be comically incorrect? Incompetent, fraudulent analysis is different than we could not figure out how to solve a problem.
Suppression of analysis that disproves CO2 CAGW? Has there ever been massive fraudulent analysis and suppression of analysis that disproves a paradigm, in other fields? What conditions supports, almost forces, a group to suppress analysis to push an incorrect/fraudulent paradigm?
Imminent cooling of the planet? Possible or not possible?
No less than 66% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 due to natural causes? Green scams are a colossal waste of money? No more money to spend on green scams that do not work, due to issue 2. Anyone heard about issue 2?
There are unequivocal observational and analysis results to support the implied assertions (the questions were rhetorical) in issue 1.
Issue 2: Imminent US currency collapse? What was QE1? What was QE2? What has been going on 2008 to 2016, in the US in particular and in almost every developed and developing country (different flavors, same basic problem)? What happens when a country prints massive amounts of money, borrows massive amounts of money, and spends massive amounts of money now that is required for future entitlements?
Why is the Economist magazine suddenly talking about an unsolvable unavoidable financial ‘slowdown’, the end of the road for ‘financial stimulus’, and the end of the road for borrowing?
Why are the same guys that warned us about the 2008 mortgage collapse talking about a US currency collapse?
The movie entitled ‘The Big Short’ is based on a true story. A small group of financial specialists found in 2007 that basic analysis indicated that the US mortgage bundles were fraudulently overpriced and that the mortgage bundle market has imminently going to crash.
They (a group of about 7 guys) made a presentation in 2007 to a couple of thousand financial specialists at a financial conference in Vegas. They presented at the conference very basic unequivocal evidence that supported the assertion that the Mortgage bundle market was fraudulent overpriced and was going unavoidablely to crash sometime in 2008.
The couple of thousand financial specialists who attended the Vegas conference were senior independent financial analysis staff, Bank employees/analysis staff, senior government employees/analysis staff, and employees/analysis staff of all of the major Stock broker companies.
They (the group of 7 guys making the presentation) asked for funds to short the Mortgage bundle market.
The weird thing is the Mortgage bundle market did crash in 2008 and yet almost none of the 2000 specialists who attended the conference believed and/or would speak up (including senior media representatives), in 2007 that the mortgage bundle market was fraudulent overpriced and eminently going to crash.
Even though the evidence presented was unequivocal, not difficult to understand, and completely supported their assertions – The financial community almost completely tuned them out. Almost no financial specialists would believe that it was possible that a massive market could be comically, fraudulently, over priced and about to collapse.
For some complex weird reason specialists have some an unexplainable block to considering that some of their most fundamental beliefs are fraudulently incorrect and will cause significant damage to the world economy. i.e. To admit to the fact that their fundamental beliefs are incorrect, is also to admit that there is massive incompetence in their field and/or fraudulent analysis in their industry/government agencies/and so on. To speak up is to be a denier, to not be a team player.
While the surreal climate wars has been going on all the governments of the world have been spending more than they take in taxes and spending money (which should be set aside for future forced entitlements) which they take in that is required for future liabilities such as for government pensions and social security.
Yes. See the evidence in Nina Teicholz’s thoroughly researched book – The Big FAT Surprise. Sixty years of scientific fraud very similar to the climate change issue has produced immense damage to the health of the population of the United States.
ABC News TV did a series on warning about investing in real estate and that the bubble would burst.
“For some complex weird reason specialists have some an unexplainable block to considering…”
I think simple facts are sometimes only obvious to
– outsiders
– machine wash-resistant insiders
of course they have to fight, being eaten by Gangrene is not an option.
And this particularly noxious version of gaseous Gangrene is a cultured product provided by our Kleptocracies.
CAGW created,promoted and protected from investigation by our bureaucrats and politicians.
The Gangrene, these gangs of “Green”, new environmentalists, emotionally unstable tools… they are genuine astroturf mobs, funded with tax payers money either directly or through charitable status scams.
Ask yourself, how is it possible for the money laundering operations such as Tides Canada, to persist?
Without policy collusion within our governments.?
With charity status money can be moved around tax free between countries.
Money was brought into Canada to shut down oil production in Alberta oil sands. Canada had its own bashers that encouraged this activity including a well known journalist.
Canadians will just have to do without the Alberta oil revenue sharing.
Anyway the whole idea is to destroy fossil fuel companies. So they are made worthless by those pushing renewable energy.
There is no appeasing the bullies engaged in activities against fossil fuel companies. This was tried but didn’t work.
It’s easy for marketeers to demonize fossils. Most people are removed from where their power comes from because they live in major cities. The power magically comes in the same way the groceries do. Much like they did with coal, other fossils are easily demonized for being dirty and destructive towards the environment.
A number of realities can change that perception but for now marketeers have the upper hand. On the other hand, it’s interesting to watch Japan have its “oh sh_t” moment and decide that they actually need reliable coal fired plants.
These next 2 years will see some fascinating choices (and perhaps reversals) made by various governments concerning energy.
For heavens sake, if they had some balls, why didn’t they just say “We will consider action when someone produces evidence that burning oil effects global temperature. We will give further consideration if it can be shown that this effect is negative.”
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/climate-witch-hunt-the-hypocritical-plot-to-execute-exxon
Unfortunately bullying often works, which is why it persists Companies are induced or persuaded to waste ridiculous amounts of management time and money producing environmental financial impact reports. Bullying also now comes from all sorts of sources, governments, Islamists, Warmistas, Greenies, Socialists, Totalitarians, and other funding aspirants. Fighting the bullies, risks companies huge amounts of legal and running costs. Challenging government backed Greenies in the courts is very costly either way.
The increasing signs of fight-back from industry is very welcome and I hope that it spreads to government.
The Trial Lawyers Association is one of America’s largest lobbying orgs and source of political donations. Much like a stock broker they are happy as long as their is some action.
http://www.opensecrets.org
Exxon,
There is actually a much more entertaining argument with which to turn such activist mewlings completely on their head:
“The possible explanation as to why we are still in an interglacial relates to the early anthropogenic hypothesis of Ruddiman (2003, 2005). According to that hypothesis, the anomalous increase of CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere as observed in mid- to late Holocene ice-cores results from anthropogenic deforestation and rice irrigation, which started in the early Neolithic at 8000 and 5000 yr BP, respectively. Ruddiman proposes that these early human greenhouse gas emissions prevented the inception of an overdue glacial that otherwise would have already started.”
conclude Muller and Pross (2007) http://folk.uib.no/abo007/share/papers/eemian_and_lgi/mueller_pross07.qsr.pdf
Pass that through the Precautionary Principle and you find yourself on some very unstable climate change ground indeed. The possibility exists that Exxon’s present business model is supporting the maintenance of the only presently known speedbump to glacial inception. Greenhouse gases……
“The most common articulation of the precautionary principle is the Wingspread Statement on the
Precautionary Principle, a consensus document drafted and adopted by a group of environmental
activists and academics in January 1998. The statement defined the precautionary principle thus:
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary
measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully
established scientifically.
“In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of
proof.
“The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic
and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full
range of alternatives, including no action.”
(“The Problems with Precaution: A Principle without Principle”, Jonathan H. Adler, The American, The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute, Wednesday, May 25, 2011)
The “proponent of an activity”, thus becomes “the New York State comptroller’s office and four co-filers” whom also seek “an explanation of how Exxon will address those impacts”. Based on far more than the citation above, Exxon’s initial response might take the form of:
“We have examined all of the data put forth on anthropogenic climate change. We have also considered when we live. We have concluded that if the proponents of the activity of removing anthropogenic greenhouse gases from the late Holocene atmosphere are correct about the efficacy of carbon dioxide/methane/etc., then the burden of proof falls on the proponents to prove that “the activity” of limiting or removing GHGs from said late Holocene atmosphere will not lead to “inception of an overdue glacial that otherwise would have already started.”
Tables neatly turned.
Just sayin’
“some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically”
This sentence suggests that there is such clear separation between “fully established scientifically” and “not fully established scientifically”.
But there is only weight of evidence. (In physics, the evidence is often hyper-mega-huge.)
Correct. Keep in mind that you are reading a quote from the “Wingspread Statement”. These are the words of the precautionistas themselves.
The term precautionary principle is deeply tied to the concept of emergency powers due to an imminent and substantial endangerment. America’s emergency management plan is found in the National Response Framework (NRF).
Beware. Once you start researching the above you will not see daylight for days.
Correct again. Keep in mind the source article for the quote entitled “The Problems with Precaution: A Principle without Principle”.
Shouldn’t the “regulators” (those producing “regulations”) inform their “shareholders” (employees) that if (or when) a law is passed against idiotic “regulations”, they’d better update their CV?
As first mentioned, it will “entirely” depend on who the next President is.
I remain unconvinced that there will be a “next” President.
If I were Exxon, I would respond by saying simply…”We plan to do nothing.”
It is not really standing up to the Eco bullies unless it takes Eco protesters to court in civil actions for damages. It could then demand that the claims of the climate scientists are externally validated by comparing their claims to actual events. They could also demand that no adjustment of the data made after the first claims for the science beyond question should be permitted as clearly Either the modification or the original claim has to be criminal deception. Without first being tried in court no claim of greater crime should be allowed to use as a defence against charges of vigilante actions.
It you haven’t visited it, Exxon has a nice blog to address all the attacks they face. I would encourage WUWT to send some of their best posts and articles their way. I’ve been promoting the idea of an source temperature reconstruction contest to expose the fraud that is the Hockeystick. progressives on the defense is the best offense.
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2016/02/24/significant-differences-of-opinion/
Iowahawk does it for you. Even walks you thru it.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html
Good for them.
Next would be for them to cut off all contributions to the “Go Green” things that vilify them.
For example, Decades ago, before “CAGW”, I noticed PBS in the US would have programs that vilified this or that political view or industry in the show but they then thanked this or that industry for their financial support.
I hope Exxon has “reached out to pet the dog and pulled back a bloody stump” one too many times.
DON’T trust Trump on the Climate file, basically Trump has said nothing of substance about anything of substance. TRUMP IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE, Donald Trump belongs to the “Donald Trump Party” and that party is a LIBERAL as they get.
Yes, But we know Rubio is an open borders whore and Cruz is an H1B whore. So… let’s try something new.
Really stupid shareholders…
How will they deal with current MidEast Price war is much more compelling… Oil is all about supply and demand… When there is oversupply or less demand, the supplies get shut off until the price corrects. It’s that simple.
This is perplexing to say the least. I can understand that an EXXON shareholder might want to be assured that the company strategic planning was taking full account of all important risks. In this case, however, the shareholders’ demands seem to be to accept at face value that the political agreement reached at COP21 in Paris will definitely result in governments taking action to sharply reduce GHG emissions, even at the cost of major damage to the economies of the world and therefore EXXON’s clients. TE COP21 agreement however is a hollow shell; the only commitment is to produce a plan and to submit periodic reports, with all countries given wide latitude as to exactly what they will include in the plan. By what perverse logic that constitute a threat to EXXON’s core business to which they must adjust. What possible basis is there in law to sue the company? With every passing day the CAGW thesis becomes more of an instrument of radical environmentalist bullying and undermining of the public interest.