Gorebal Warming Measure “Narrowly” Voted Down by Shell Oil Company Shareholders

Guest ayyy! by David Middleton

Shell investors vote down global-warming proposal

By Sarah Kent

Published: May 22, 2018 10:37 a.m. ET

THE HAGUE–Royal Dutch Shell PLC RDSB shareholders voted down Tuesday a proposal requiring the company align its strategy with efforts to limit global warming, signaling support for steps the company has already taken on climate change.

The resolution, put forward by Dutch activist shareholder group Follow This, won just 5% of the shareholder proxy vote. It called on the company to set emissions targets in line with international ambitions to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.


At Tuesday’s meeting, a group of 27 investors with nearly $8 trillion under management put their names to a statement calling on the company and others in the industry to do more.

“We applaud the ambition stated…and indeed challenge all other oil-and-gas companies to follow suit; but we call for this ambition to be translated into firm medium- and short-term targets,” the statement said.

Signatories included Legal & General Investment Managers, Aviva Investors and UBS Asset Management, which count among the company’s top twenty shareholders, as well as the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest pension fund in the U.S.



Over the past week there have been several articles about this bit:

At Tuesday’s meeting, a group of 27 investors with nearly $8 trillion under management put their names to a statement calling on the company and others in the industry to do more.

So what?

When only 5% of shareholders are willing to vote for nonsense like this, who gives a rat’s ass about what a group of x investors with nearly $y trillion under management have to say about anything?

This post meets the approval of the real Arthur Fonzerelli…


94 thoughts on “Gorebal Warming Measure “Narrowly” Voted Down by Shell Oil Company Shareholders

    • Excellent. You invested to make money as do all investors. Green skinned zealots don’t seem to comprehend that.

      • Quite so. David does ask the question about who cares, but we should care about the “investment managers” that are pushing virtue signaling over making money for their clients. (Used to be in the industry; when I was, shenanigans like that were a fast ticket to SEC/NASD/State audit, shutdown, and appearances in court.)

    • Same here.
      I’m seriously peeved by Shell’s continual appeasement of the climate nutters. I wish the company would just tell ’em to bugger off.

      • “Appeasement” and “Self destruct” are closely allied ideas, whether applied to companies or even countries (T. May, please note). The old maxim “never sell Shell” may not be wise much longer.

        • Never sell Shell by the seashore. If Sally sold Shell by the seashore… Sorry, I just couldn’t resist… 😎

  1. It would be against the fiduciary duty of the management to accept it. Doing something suicidal for the current business would seem to fit.

  2. The 8 trillion ‘under management’ is at great risk if this is what their thinking is. Check and see if any of your investments are their management and shift it into another financial group. Hmm…97% of climate troughers believe in dangerous human caused global warming and only 5% of investors. Want a free evaluation of this kind of investment group? Look how activists have P155ed away trillions to no discermible benefit on a ‘problem’ that so far has yet to declare itself.

    • As long as Shell pays a 5% dividend there will be plenty of investors out there, including me, to take up the slack.

  3. A consensus gave us catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And a consensus took it away.

  4. Idiots. What oil company in their right mind would vote to put limitations on itself or its’ product for appeasement of an issue that hasn’t been proven? This seems like the new Progressive tact to get what they want. Like convincing white people they’re all racist because of their color.

  5. The usual suspects (eg. Guardian) are spinning this as though activists are holding Shell’s feet to the fire. In fact no institutional investors (even Norway’s wealth fund) voted for this resolution. I suspect they also don’t want shareholders setting operational targets displacing management’s discretion and accountability.
    But the season of Climate Proxy Wars is just starting, and maybe they will get lucky with another target. A caveat from some observers:
    “This trend, while relatively new, is alarming and it differs significantly from traditional activism. While traditional activist shareholders used the proxy proposal process to advance views that differed from management on what was best for the company, they never did anything that would undermine the reason for their investment, which was to maximize shareholder value. In contrast, the new wave of shareholder activists, have a fundamentally different goal; to exploit the proxy proposal process to drive wider societal change.”
    More at https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/climate-proxy-fighting-season-and-first-result/

  6. What gets me is that these so called investors, at least in the case of Aviva and Legal & General, are public companies owned by real investors. Have the directors of these companies consulted their shareholders before embarking on this action? Until recently I owned Aviva shares – I don’t recall being asked to vote on any climate related issues

  7. What a bunch of dimwits. How the hell can an oil company reduce emissions in any meaningful way except by selling less oil? That’s economic suicide. I wouldn’t want my money managed by any investment company that couldn’t understand why this would be a bad thing.

  8. Instead of money, they should pay investors like this GVC dividends — green vanity credits.

  9. “Signatories included … the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest pension fund in the U.S.”
    CALPER’s constituents are the retirees of the state governments. However this is not much of a risk to them, because the state’s taxpayers are on the hook for the difference if investment returns don’t cover the costs (and they don’t and won’t). So the ultimate losers on this kind of investment policy are the people who pay high taxes in this people’s republic.

    • So they are making a STATEMENT through the retirement system?
      Isn’t that SPEECH?
      Isn’t there a free speech violation of all the people covered who never licence anyone to make such statement?

    • Perhaps surprisingly, one of the votes against the motion was the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund who, despite conflating political virtue signalling with making money on an investment portfolio of late, decided that “…the companies are best positioned to set the specific targets in-line with their long-term strategy…”,meaning it’s not up to slacktivist shareholders to dictate how a company runs its affairs.
      It’s not all indicative of the SWF seeing sense though, they still maintain that “…boards should integrate relevant climate change challenges and opportunities in their business management…”.
      Jesus Wept.

  10. Shell isn’t likely be in the retail business much longer if they don’t get their prices at the pump under control.

      • I paid $2.59 per gallon for gasoline yesterday.
        According to some experts I saw on CNBC, an increase of $0.80 per gallon will lower the GDP of the U.S. by one percent. A decrease of that amount would increase U.S. GDP by one percent.
        The lower we can keep gasoline prices the better. It’s better for our economic progress and it is better for poor people.

      • I’d be happy to pay the average.
        In central Washington State, the price is usually 7% higher — regular today was $3.18 to $3.30.
        We voted for higher taxes just 2 years ago. There are many road improvements in progress, and the roads are getting better. That’s a good thing.
        Shell, and others like it, are always higher and I can’t tell the difference, so skip them.

      • TA, it’s worse than that. If the average goes up 80 cents that would be mega inflationary which would trigger the fed to raise interest rates. That in turn would commence our next recession. (all one need do is look at what happened a decade ago) Inflation already stands at 2.5% in this high growth economy. Too much more and it’s bye, bye economy…

      • I think we’re paying around £12.00 per Gallon in the UK.
        Price advertised in Litres of course, so about £3.00 per Litre, just cos’ we’re all stupid in the UK and couldn’t possibly tell the difference between a gallon and a Litre.
        I also understand around 70% is tax.

      • Asset inflation can’t cause general inflation.
        The reason is simple. When people spend more money on gas, they have less money to spend on other things. The drop in demand for those other things means those other things go down in price and cancel out the increase in gasoline.
        Only the federal reserve printing too much money can cause general inflation.

      • Thanx, TA, i really appreciate that. Not only has DM got my mug shot at the top of the post, but i just got a compliment (i’m all choked up!)
        Marko, whatever the hell yer smokin’ over there, pass it over to me…

  11. Just enough people who understand the importance of making a return on their investment. Naturally the gang will call for a taxpayer bailout of the mislead retirees. The Mike things change the more they stay the same

  12. Those people with trillions under management have a legal responsibility to maximise the returns on those funds. Investors in those funds are within their legal rights to sue fund managers who take actions that do not maximise returns. Such laws are pretty standard across the Western world.

  13. In Australia we pay about US$3.80 (per US gallon). Should be about the say as US.
    Our fuel is overpriced for one reason – profit motive. I think Europe is much worse however.

      • We have a saying in Norway: There are only two things to be sure of in life – either the gas prices go up or they do not go down……

      • you should had been more precise: this include only specific tax.
        All ordinary taxes that every business have to pay are in “price excluding tax”…

        • Yep. In 2009 ExxonMobil paid $25.9 billion in “sales-based taxes” and $34.8 billion in “other taxes and duties.” These taxes were accounted for as “Costs and Other Deductions” and subtracted from their gross revenues, leaving XOM with $34.8 billion worth of “Income before income taxes.” XOM paid $15.1 billion in income taxes on the $34.8 billion, leaving them with $19.7 billion in net income.
          Out of XOM’s gross revenue of $301.5 billion, government entities received $75.8 billion. After expenses and taxes, XOM was left with $19.7 billion.
          Government entities made $3.84 for every $1 XOM made… And XOM bore the full costs of generating that income.
          And this doesn’t count the billions in royalties and revenue-sharing paid out to governments around the world.

          • Sobering. “Legal” taxes on oil were almost 4x what the company earned.

            Governments made $3.84 for every $1 Exxon-Mobil (XOM) made… And XOM bore the full costs of generating that income.

            And every one of their employees paid an additional 25-35% in combined state-local-federal-sales-gas-and “fees” on all of THEIR income.
            But you still forgot those hideous subsidies to the evil oil companies! /sarchasm

          • Subsidies? Like only being taxed 35% on earnings, rather than 35% on gross revenue? 😉

    • In Australia the excise tax payable on both diesel and unleaded petrol (gasoline) is currently around $0.41/litre, GST is around $0.12/litre i.e. taxes make up about 38% of a typical current pump price of $1.36/litre. In 2016 Australian passenger cars and light commercial vehicles consumed almost 25,000 megalitres of diesel and petrol fuel combined, presumably this means that in 2018 the Federal Government will be pocketing around $13billion in taxes paid on fuel for passenger cars and light commercials.

    • In what passes for your mind, are you saying that oil companies in the US don’t make a profit?
      Regardless, only a few pennies of the cost of that gasoline is profit.

  14. Shell did the smart thing and asked OTHER shareholders to vote. The non-institutional investors, not the gazillionaires, ruled the day. If I had money in a fund that was as foolish as those mentioned, I’d move it very quickly and loudly to something more sensible.
    Those turkey CAGWers are going to try all the tricks they can, you know.

    • Royal Dutch Shell’s (RDS-A & RDS-B) ownership is complicated. Institutional investors own anywhere from 12% to 67% of the shares, depending on how you define institutional investors.

    • They may own those shares, David Middleton, but if they vote to do something that makes the stock price tank, then they have many shares of nothing. RDShell can be broken up and sold off to other companies. How many times have we seen this?

      • The point is that a very small percentage of shareholders of all varieties voted for this nonsense.

  15. I always get amused with this religious phrase “…set emissions targets in line with international ambitions to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.”
    I would like to know sound evidente that support this…

  16. Can someone tell me
    * why the plural, “levels”?
    * the plural implies the existence of several, different levels. Which ones are the reference to compute the +2°C limit? the average, the higher, the lower, some combination… ???
    * how is the +2°C limit computed?
    * how much higher of these levels are we currently? +1? +1.99? +3?

  17. I have shares managed by Aegon, and they misused their position as my broker to vote FOR this nonsense on my behalf – Which action I had not agreed to.
    I wrote to them this morning explaining why I was DIVESTING myself of them as my fund manager.

  18. Wouldn’t it be awesome if Eco-Fascists could be evicted from their lofty positions in “management” in the organizations they control by shareholders revolting against this type of economic value-destroying activity?! Sounds like a great way to launch a “counter-offensive” against Eco-Fascism.

  19. So, in 2017 the rebellion was 6.3% and this year it was 5%
    Could support be mirroring the drop in global temperatures these ast two years?

  20. David, you’re cooler than Elvis !!! Thanks for the add on, my dad ‘ll really luv it. Sorry for the delay in my show of appreciation. These days the fonics sometimes comes a little slow. (didn’t come up with elvis ’til the mornin’ light)…

  21. David, you’re cooler than Elvis !!! Thanks for the add on, my dad ‘ll really luv it. Sorry for the delay in my show of appreciation. These days the fonics sometimes comes a little slow. (didn’t come up with elvis ’til the mornin’ light)…

  22. Shell “knows ” it will never be enough . The climate charlatans want to bully their agenda .
    Well done Shell you got my vote .
    Thanks for helping to produce the highest standard of living by finding and producing fossil fuels .
    You don’t need to be apologists .
    Tell the hypocrite eco – anarchists to go invest in cow dung and bird blenders .

Comments are closed.