Tag: Exxon

Climate Action, Climate Change, climate justice, Health, heat February 15, 2022March 20, 2022

Acclaimed Climatologist Blasts Big Oil’s Sham Climate Pledges

Washington (GGM) Analysis | February 15, 2022, by Noreen Wise, Founder & CEO of Gallant Gold Media, and author; Image Credit: Noreen Wise

Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State and climatologist, Dr. Mchael E. Mann, provided cold, harsh facts to the House Oversight and Reform Committee in his opening testimony on Tuesday morning February 8, 2022. These chilling details, that were televised live on C-Span across the globe, continued for 3 hours and 30 minutes as Mann and his fellow witnesses (Ms.Tracey Lewis, policy counsel for Public Citizen’s climate program; Ms. Katie Tubb, senior policy analyst for energy and environmental issues, Heritage Foundation; and Mr. Mark van Baal, Founder, Follow This) answered questions posed by each Representative on the Committee.

Continue reading →

Climate Action, Climate Change, Supreme Court October 16, 2020October 16, 2020

Amy Coney Barrett Unsure of Climate Change, a Scientific Fact

Washington (GGM) Analysis | October 16, 2020 by Michael Wells, Attorney @slnc01

On October 14, 2020, Trump Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, told Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) she could not say whether climate change exists because it is a “politically contentious issue.” She also confessed to Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) she has no firm view on climate change. A skeptic might ask what her view on climate change has to do with cases that might come before her when she sits on the Supreme Court. Quite a bit, actually, especially in light of the lawsuits filed by a number of States’ Attorneys General against Exxon in the past few years.

The New York State Supreme Court in 2019 considered whether Exxon lied to investors about the company’s contribution to climate change and thus violated securities law. The Court ruled in Exxon’s favor, according to NPR, stating there was no evidence Exxon hid evidence of climate change.

This should signal alarm bells across the globe. Climate change exists, and of course the oil companies knew and know about it. It is the greatest danger any of us will face in our lifetimes.

Moreover, when juxtaposed with Barrett’s testimony, that she could not comment on climate change even to acknowledge it exists, it does not bode well for the environment. Given the lawsuits against Exxon and other energy giants, it stands to reason that climate change is a major legal issue.

Barrett claimed she is not a scientist, but one does not need to be a scientist to accept climate change as a fact. And, if it is accepted as a fact, then that certainly affects how she would consider a case.

It is entirely possible (likely even) that, if Biden prevails, the Justice Department will pursue these climate change cases, thereby forcing Barrett to rule on this issue.

Hypothetically speaking, assume the previous New York case made it to the Supreme Court, and at the heart of the case was whether an oil company was committing fraud by hiding climate change from investors. If Barrett were to believe climate change does not exist or was unsure it existed, then her view of fraud would be very different. Then she might rule in favor of the oil giant thus allowing them to continue to pollute, destroy the environment, and unleash a further parade of horribles, possibly another COVID-19 type pandemic.

Again, this is just speculation, but is it not all speculation as to what kinds of cases Barrett will hear? It is a question or probability. She will hear cases about abortion, birth control, searches and seizures, voting rights, climate change, and myriad other issues none of us ever hear about. In all likelihood, she will hear a case on climate change and likely very soon.

In fact, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit on behalf of the citizens of Minnesota against Exxon, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute, in the Spring of 2020, alleging the fossil fuel industry knew the damage these fossil fuels would cause the environment.

The cases are coming. It is only a matter of time before a case goes before the Supreme Court.

Climate change affects everyone on the planet, and it is a problem that everyone will need to work together to solve. We can do our part such as reducing our carbon footprint and also by planting trees. But we also need to be able to count on a nominee to the Supreme Court to accept this established science because, if she does not, what hope do any of us ever have that climate change will ever get under control?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is gallantarcher_3d_socialmedia.jpg

Climate Action, Climate Change, Environment, National Security October 30, 2019January 7, 2020

ExxonMobile | The Long Term Consequences of Short Term Greed

Washington (GGM) Analysis | October 30, 2019
by Noreen Wise

The New York state fraud trial against ExxonMobile of Irving, TX,
kicked off on October 22, 2019 and a week later is still underway. The issues are now so heated, they’ve become as toxic as Exxon itself.

Texas is responsible for 12.7% of US carbon emissions, yet is 1 of 50 states. This
staggering percent alone indicates the significant increase in US and world carbon emission levels that oil production generates. It’s unimaginable that such a massive and profitable public company like ExxonMobile, can receive all the benefits and yet not be required to bare the burden of the negatives, meanwhile millions of innocent victims can lose their homes, all their personal possessions as well as their livelihoods, and potentially their lives, without any redress… until now.

Texas’ per capita carbon emissions is 24 metric tons, while California is only 9 metric tons, and NY of all states has the lowest per capita carbon emissions reading of a mere 8 metric tons, one third that of Texas. The District of Columbia is the lowest overall at 4 metric tons, but is not considered one of the 50 states. Coal state West Virginia, with the highest per capita carbon emissions of states whose population is more than one million, has a per capita carbon emissions reading of mind-numbing 52 metric tons.

TX – 28 million people, 12.7% of US carbon emissions
CA – 39 million, 7% US carbon emissions
FL – 21 million, 4.5% US carbon emissions
PA – 13 million, 4.2% US carbon emissions
NY – 20 million, 3.2% US carbon emissions

Louisiana is another huge oil producing state, and is on the heels of West Virginia’s per capita carbon emissions, with a per capita reading of 45. There are two interesting outliers that haven’t been factored in, North Dakota and Wyoming, with 2019 populations so tiny — 757,952 and 585,501 — that their per capita carbon emissions appears criminal: North Dakota at 72 metric tons and Wyoming at 104. These two states seem to emphasize the significant impact cattle production has on global warming. For example, the state of North Dakota has 1.8 million cattle for it’s population of 585,501.

If these state carbon emission readings are readily available through wikipedia, and the ability to draw connections between oil production, carbon emission levels, and global warming is so blatant and clear, how is it possible for the corporate executives to turn a blind eye to the global impact? Do the majority of us do that in our own lives and/or professions? It doesn’t appear that we do. Take parenting toddlers for example.

Parents baby proof homes to keep their children safe. Gates go up. Special locks are attached to doors and drawers. Children are strapped into every kind of seat imaginable. Warnings are placed on every product catering to children. All of these precautions are soon ingrained in us. We’re able to assess our homes, connect dots, and buy products that meet the needs of ensuring safety. With this standard in mind, it thus makes Exxon’s willful disregard for doing the same type of assessment, and creating an action plan to address the dangers, that much more maddening.

According to Courthouse News Service, in Manhattan court today, Rex Tillerson testified that he “lobbied the previous administration for a carbon tax and pushed for the landmark Paris Climate Accords.” The fact that his lobbying efforts didn’t work, or that Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement, appears to make Tillerson believe that he therefore did everything he could and isn’t responsible for any damage that Texas’ 12.7% carbon emission reading has on the world.

Interestingly, there are 22 states that chose to stay in the Paris Agreement, despite Trump pulling the US out. Texas wasn’t one of them. But 22 is nearly half the US states, three of which are red states. So it’s unclear why Tillerson would try and use Trump’s leaving the Paris Agreement as an excuse for doing nothing, when so many others in the same situation, rallied to protect their states and citizens and moved forward with creating and executing climate action agendas to meet the target goals outlined in the Paris Agreement, regardless of whether the US was in or not.

Not only is Tillerson’s Paris Agreement excuse a non-starter, which serves to further validate the NY Attorney General’s claim of investor fraud, and underscore the willful disconnect between Exxon’s CEO and the reality of climate change, but when the extra level of sociopathic behavior of “lobbying for a carbon tax” is added in, which was followed by doing nothing when the carbon tax didn’t pass in Congress, the excuse becomes so lame it seems fraudulent for Tillerson to even mention it during his testimony today.

If a CEO truly does passionately believe in a carbon tax — because he understands that global warming and destructive climate events harm millions and millions, possibly billions of innocent victims — wouldn’t he have nobly used this would be carbon tax money to assist victims of traumatic climate events?

Exxon gave $500,000 during the 2017 Hurricane Harvey aftermath in Houston, and according to Google, nothing since to any other climate victims following catastrophic weather events. The microscopic Harvey amount is unfathomably pathetic when a company earned $19.7 billion that same year, compared to $7.8 billion the preceding year. The stunning increase in Exxon’s 2017 earnings during Tillerson’s first year as Secretary of State (should that be investigated?), with only a few tiny pennies to help with Harvey destruction? No, sorry, Mr. Tillerson. Your testimony today underscores your apathy and indifference to the global community that you’ve shattered.

The facts are plain as day. True leaders with a conscience know how to proceed and navigate a responsible path forward to protect the innocent in this type of quagmire (a quagmire that Exxon seemed to intentionally create so it wouldn’t be forced to act), but you, Sir, took advantage of the foggy conditions, and used it as an opportunity to maximize your profits and net worth. May justice be served. Hundreds of thousands have already died, millions of lives have been ruined. Short term greed has resulted in long term catastrophic global ruin. There’s hell to pay.

Climate Action, Climate Change, Environment June 7, 2019February 2, 2020

Exxon In Pitched Battle With the World

Washington (Gallant Gold Media Hill Report | Analysis | June 7, 2019)
by Noreen Wise

A growing number of world leaders, and state attorney generals, are taking off their gloves and flexing their muscles in an effort to drive home the point with Exxon that they aren’t backing down. In fact, they plan to ramp up their resolve, and persevere through to the next level and pry the appropriate climate action commitment from Exxon. Not only that, the world’s prepared to continue bringing charges against Exxon for climate fraud.

ExxonMobile Corp is the world’s largest publicly traded oil company. Back in 2015, during the build up to the 2016 presidential election, documents leaked revealing that Exxon had intentionally kicked off a misinformation campaign for the purpose of undermining climate science in the hopes it would steer decision makers to continue with the massive use of oil for automobiles and energy. Since the 1970’s, Exxon has known that oil production causes global warming and has continued to mislead consumers, failing to warn of the hazards.

Now, 40 years later, we see Exxon’s misinformation campaign worked. Carbon levels have risen significantly – 335 PPM to 415 PPM. Thousands of innocent people have died as a result.

The state Attorney General’ who have and/or will be filing climate fraud charges against Exxon:

Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
Washington DC – tentative

Foreign Nations are leveling penalties against Exxon through the European Parliament.

Climate Action, Climate Change May 30, 2019February 2, 2020

Exxon Shareholder Majority Rejects Climate Action Responsibility | Votes for High Profit at World’s Expense

Washington (Gallant Gold Media Hill Report | Analysis | May 30, 2019)
by Noreen Wise

American publicly traded global fossil fuel companies are in for a turbulent next twelve months. Exxon was feeling this rough ride at it’s annual shareholders meeting Wednesday May 29, 2019. Two of its largest shareholders were demanding climate action accountability and threatened to wrangle the support of fellow shareholders and vote the directors out.

The New York State Common Retirement Fund, led by Thomas DiNapoli, the New York State Comptroller, along with The Church of England led the proxy fight. And although they may have missed their targeted goal of outright removal, they successfully increased shareholder support for climate responsibility. More eyes will now be closely following decision makers, and tweeting about their objections.

The Church of England, another large Exxon shareholder, believes in ethical finance. They’ve made their shock and frustration with Exxon’s refusal to act on #climatechange very public.

“This has been a very difficult AGM for Exxon and a warning shot to management.” ~Edward Mason, Church of England

Climate Action 100+ is a force to be reckoned with. This powerful group of 324 #climate focused international investors, control $33.4 trillion in assets. They have a reach far beyond America’s political divide with a proven ability to move mountains. American conservative investors who aren’t paying attention may find their political allegiance selling them short in the long run, maybe even the short run depending on where the next Category 4 or 5 hurricane or tornado strikes.

Exxon’s press release, following their shareholder’s meeting on May 29, 2019, stated: “ExxonMobil expects to increase annual earnings potential more than 140 percent and double potential annual cash flow from operations by 2025 from 2017 adjusted earning, assuming a 2017 oil price of $60 per barrel adjusted for inflation based on 2017 margins.” Seeing numbers like 140% and a doubling of “potential cash flow” without a concrete plan for climate action, is a clear statement that Exxon views profits as far more important than cutting carbon.

The climate action world does not agree with Exxon’s disregard for their responsibility to decrease Exxon’s carbon footprint. The climate focused public will happily avoid Exxon gas stations, and instead choose Shell and BP. If dollars are the only way to connect with Exxon’s decision makers, the public will accept this and send our objections using dollars. No problem.

Climate Action, Climate Change May 28, 2019August 20, 2019

Will Exxon Shareholders Revolt on May 29? | Climate Action

Washington (Gallant Gold Media Hill Report | Perspective | May 28, 2019)
by Noreen Wise

Several large Exxon shareholders demanded that a climate proposal be included on the ballot for the 2019 annual meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 29, but Exxon failed to comply.

The Church of England, and New York State Common Retirement Fund led by Thomas DiNapoli, the New York State Comptroller, initiated a proxy fight against the Exxon directors on Friday, May 3, claiming that Exxon’s “inadequate response to climate change constitutes a serious failure of corporate governance.”

The band of pro climate action Exxon shareholders, are aligned with Climate Action 100+, a group of investors who command $32 trillion in assets and are using their strength to leverage change amongst resistant companies like Exxon. They asked fellow Exxon shareholders to vote against all existing Exxon directors at Wednesday’s annual meeting.

Of particular concern, is that Exxon competitors are creating effective climate action game plans that curb carbon emissions for this notoriously irresponsible industry. For example:

BP Plc
Chevron
Royal Dutch Shell Inc
Total SA

Will the dawning of Wednesday May 29, 2019, when Exxon finds itself with their back against the wall in Houston, TX, prove to be the much needed turning point for the US fossil fuel mega corporations, who have been the main drivers in global warming across the globe for more than three decades? We’ll soon find out.