FOSSIL FUEL CEO FOIA

SEE FF BAK

https://oversight.house.gov/

https://oversight.house.gov/subcommittees/environment-117th-congress

purpose:

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/time-change-chairs-maloney-khanna-to-hold-landmark-hearing-with-top-fossil-fuel

see API on benzene coverup, also all FF

Shell Chief Executive Ben van Beurden royal dutch shell lost lawsuit to greenpeace FOE

sedition caucus:

...Earther pulled data directly from the Federal Election Commission for individual donations and aggregator site Open Secrets to see just how much corporate PACs of Chevron and Exxon, two of the largest oil companies in the U.S., and theAmerican Petroleum Institute, the main trade group, gave members of Congress who helped inspire Wednesday’s violence with their actions and rhetoric. We also reached out to these entities to see if they would continue to fund the campaigns of any members of Congress who challenged the election results.

In Chevron’s case, the company’s corporate PAC donated $745,000 to those House members over the past decade and more than $127,000 to the seditious senators. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, who led the push to challenge election results in states they don’t represent and cheered on protesters, each received $10,000 from Chevron’s PAC in 2018. Cruz also enjoyed a $15,000 donation from the company’s PAC for his Senate run in 2012.

API’s PAC is the smallest player of the three analyzed here(though to be fair, it’s not a multibillion-dollar company), spending $133,500 on House members who backed decertifying the election.

In 2012, Sessions voted against disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy.^[41] In August 2017, in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, which devastated parts of Texas, he called for disaster relief for its victims.^[41][42]

foxx? other nat'l disaster ca wildfire?

11/02

House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) issued subpoenas to four major oil companies and two leading trade groups on Tuesday, making good on a vow she made at a hearing last week.

In a Tuesday memo, Maloney said that Shell, BP, Exxon and Chevron, as well as the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, had failed to voluntarily provide information the committee requested before the hearing last Thursday.

The subpoenas demand the entities produce all materials and internal communications among senior executives and board members relating to climate science, their "role in contributing to climate change" and the impacts it could have on their businesses. It also calls for documents on funding to third-party entities, as well as their respective plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Echoing remarks Maloney made in the hearing, she said the entities — despite extensions — had not complied with most of the requests and had mostly produced irrelevant or publicly available documents.

Specifically, Maloney wrote, neither Exxon nor Chevron have provided requested internal communications between top executives or detailed information on third-party funding. Meanwhile, she wrote, BP America provided only incomplete email correspondence and did not disclose third-party funding information, while Shell did not provide either third-party funding information or board/senior executive materials.

Both API and the Chamber of Commerce, she wrote, failed to provide internal senior executive communications requested by the panel.

In the hearing, the committee’s Democratic majority repeatedly questioned witnesses representing the six groups on the extent to which the companies had allegedly promoted climate misinformation. All six acknowledged the reality of climate change and fossil fuels’ role in it, but none would commit to ending all funding for lobbying against climate action.

“Despite repeated effort by the Committee and staff to obtain the documents necessary for the investigation, the six entities have failed to substantially comply with the Committee’s September 16, 2021, document requests,” Maloney wrote in the memo. “As a result, subpoenas are now necessary."

In the memo, Maloney wrote that ranking member Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), who voiced his objection to the subpoenas at the hearing, continued his opposition. As a result, Maloney wrote, “it is clear that further consideration of the subpoenas at a Committee meeting would not serve any purpose. For all these reasons, I plan to proceed with issuing these subpoenas.”

Reached for comment, API, Exxon, Shell and BP confirmed receipt of the subpoenas.

An Exxon spokesperson said the company has already been cooperating with the committee and has provided nearly 130,000 pages of documents.

A Shell spokesperson, meanwhile, said the company "appreciate[s] the opportunity to share with the Committee our views on climate and the progress we’re making against our goal to become a [net-zero emissions] energy business."

And a spokesperson for BP said the company is "carefully reviewing the subpoena and will continue working with the committee." Comer, meanwhile, reiterated his objection to the subpoena, saying in a letter to Maloney that the documents already provided are "responsive to your overly broad requests."

Maloney and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), chair of the committee’s environmental subcommittee, announced the hearing after the summer release of a covert recording of Exxon lobbyist Keith McCoy. In the tape, recorded by a Greenpeace activist, McCoy says the company “[fought] against some of the science” on climate change, and that its endorsement of a carbon tax was a “talking point.”

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/ralph-norman

ZERO / 2% LIFE

2017 no lnx

Rep. James Comer (R-KY-01) Climate change denier"I do not believe in global warming. I'm the one person whose business and livelihood depends on Mother Nature, so I understand weather patterns. We've had a very severe winter this year with 12-inch snows, so there is no global warming."

https://khanna.house.gov/media/in-the-news/oil-giants-deny-spreading-disinformation-climate-change

oIL GIANTS DENY SPREADING DISINFORMATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

October 28, 2021

In The News

Matthew Daly

Associated Press

Top executives of ExxonMobil and other oil giants denied spreading disinformation about climate change as they sparred Thursday with congressional Democrats over allegations that the industry concealed evidence about the dangers of global warming.

Testifying at a landmark House hearing, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said the company “has long acknowledged the reality and risks of climate change, and it has devoted significant resources to addressing those risks.″

The oil giant’s public statements on climate “are and have always been truthful, fact-based ... and consistent” with mainstream climate science, Woods said.

Democrats immediately challenged the statements by Woods and other oil executives, accusing them of engaging in a decades-long, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the contribution of fossil fuels to global warming.

“They are obviously lying like the tobacco executives were,″ said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Oversight Committee.

She was referring to a 1994 hearing with tobacco executives who famously testified that they didn’t believe nicotine was addictive. The reference was one of several to the tobacco hearing as Democrats sought to pin down oil executives on whether they believe in climate change and that burning fossil fuels such as oil contributes to global warming.

Maloney said at the end of the nearly seven-hour hearing that she will issue subpoenas for documents requested by the committee but not furnished by the oil companies.

Republicans accused Democrats of grandstanding over an issue popular with their base as President Joe Biden’s climate agenda teeters in Congress.

Kentucky Rep. James Comer, the top Republican on the oversight panel, called the hearing a “distraction from the crises that the Biden administration’s policies have caused,” including gasoline prices that have risen by $1 per gallon since January.

“The purpose of this hearing is clear: to deliver partisan theater for primetime news,″ Comer said.

The hearing comes after months of public efforts by Democratsto obtain documents and other information on the oil industry’s role in stopping climate action over multiple decades. The fossil fuel industry has had scientific evidence about the dangers of climate change since at least 1977, yet spread denial and doubt about the harm its products cause— undermining science and preventing meaningful action on climate change, Maloney and other Democrats said.

“Do you agree that (climate change) is an existential threat? Yes or no?” Maloney asked Shell Oil President Gretchen Watkins.

“I agree that this is a defining challenge for our generation, absolutely,″ Watkins replied.

Watkins, Woods and other oil executives said they agreed with Maloney on the existence and threat posed by climate change, but they refused her request to pledge that their companies would not spend money — either directly or indirectly — to oppose efforts to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

“We’re pledging to advocate for low-carbon policies that do in fact take the company and the world to net-zero” carbon emissions, said BP America CEO David Lawler.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who leads a subcommittee on the environment, said he hopes “Big Oil will not follow the same playbook as Big Tobacco″ in misrepresenting the facts to Congress.

“As I’m sure you realize, that didn’t turn out too well for them,″ Khanna said. “These companies must be held accountable.”

The committee released a memo Thursday charging that the oil industry’s public support for climate reforms has not been matched by meaningful actions, and that the industry has spent billions of dollars to block reforms. Oil companies frequently boast about their efforts to produce clean energy in advertisements and social media posts accompanied by sleek videos or pictures of wind turbines.

Maloney and other Democrats have focused particular ire on Exxon, after a senior lobbyist for the company was caught in a secret video bragging that Exxon had fought climate science through “shadow groups” and had targeted influential senators in an effort to weaken Biden’s climate agenda, including a a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a sweeping climate and social policy bill currently moving through Congress.

In the video, Keith McCoy, a former Washington-based lobbyist for Exxon, dismissed the company’s public expressions of support for a proposed carbon tax on fossil fuel emissions as a “talking point.”

McCoy’s comments were made public in June by the environmental group Greenpeace UK, which secretly recorded him and another lobbyist in Zoom interviews. McCoy no longer works for the company, Exxon said last month.

Woods, Exxon’s chairman and chief executive, has condemned McCoy’s statements and said the company stands by its commitment to work on finding solutions to climate change.

Chevron CEO Michael Wirth also denied misleading the public on climate change. “Any suggestion that Chevron has engaged in an effort to spread disinformation and mislead the public on these complex issues is simply wrong,″ he said.

Maloney and Khanna sharply disputed that. They compared tactics used by the oil industry to those long deployed by the tobacco industry to resist regulation “while selling products that kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.″

Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., accused the oil industry of “greenwashing” its climate pollution through misleading ads that focus on renewable energy rather than on its core business, fossil fuels. Shell spends nearly 10 times as much money on oil, gas and chemical production than it does on renewables such as wind and solar power, Porter said, citing the company’s annual report.

“Shell is trying to fool people into thinking that it’s addressing the climate crisis when what it’s actually doing is continuing to put money into fossil fuels,″ she told Watkins.

While U.S. leaders and the oil industry rightly focus on lowering carbon emissions, the world consumes 100 million barrels of oil per day — an amount not likely to decrease any time soon, said Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s top lobbying group.

The industry group supports climate action, Sommers added, “yet legislative proposals that punitively target American industry will reverse our nation’s energy leadership, harm our economy and American workers, and weaken our national security.″

Former Mobil Oil VP's Scathing Open Letter to ExxonMobil CEO Who Is Suing to Stop Fracking Water Tank Near His $5 Million Texas Mansion

By BRAD blog FRIEDMAN on 2/28/2014,

As we discussed during Tuesday's Green News Report, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in the history of civilization, doesn't mind fracking --- nor the health concerns and property devaluation that come with it --- near your house.

But now he's suing to stop it near his house...or, rather, suing to stop the construction of a 15-story water tower, to be used for fracking, near his $5 million, 83-acre mansion and ranch in Bartonville, Texas.

It will "create a constant and unbearable nuisance to those that live next to it," the lawsuit contends, charging that water used for fracking will lead to "traffic with heavy trucks" that, Tillerson's attorney says, "devalues his property."

"Poor" fellow. Hope he wins the suit.

But, if not, as former Mobil Oil Corporation Executive Vice President Louis W. Allstadt points out in a scathing open letter to Tillerson sent on Tuesday, he can always afford to move away...unlike most of the less fortunate victims of fracking around the nation.

After more than 30 years at Mobil (and six months at ExxonMobil under Tillerson, after the two companies merged), Allstadt went on to become a foe of fracking and a vocal proponent of climate change action.

"No one should have to live near well pads, compression stations, incessant heavy truck traffic, or fracking water towers, nor should they have their water or air contaminated," Alstadt writes in his letter to Tillerson, who is otherwise a champion of fracking when its not in his own backyard. "You and I love the places where we live, but in the end, if they are ruined by fracking or frack water tanks, we can afford to pack up and go someplace else. However, many people can't afford to move away when they can no longer drink the water or breathe the air because they are too close to one of your well pads or compressor stations."

Read Alstadt's full letter to Tillerson below. Oh, and thank you for speaking up, Mr. Alstadt...

Open Letter to Rex Tillerson,....

12 21 email heated

[vid] Last month, the Washington Post obtained a recording of top Exxon lobbyist Erik Olsen telling a gathering of industry peers that he doesn’t believe climate change poses "catastrophic, inevitable risk.”

But Exxon’s own internal documents from the 1970s and 1980s acknowledge that climate change poses catastrophic risks, and climate scientists say catastrophic risks are inevitable if humans don’t rapidly transition away from fossil fuels, a joint investigation from HEATED and Documented has found.

Our findings show that one of the world’s top fossil fuel companies is still publicly downplaying the certainty of environmental and economic catastrophe if its core product isn’t rapidly wound down. They also add fuel to the ongoing House Oversight Committee investigation of Exxon and other oil majors over their role in spreading climate disinformation to the public.

“This is very disappointing,” Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, who is leading the investigation, said in an e-mailed statement. “Exxon owes a clear, public explanation for this.”

The audio recording of Erik Oswald’s comments representsExxon’s second lobbyist debacle of the year.The first came in June, when secretly recorded footage showed now-former Exxon lobbyist Keith McCoy admitting the oil giant “aggressively” fought climate science and funded “shadow groups” to confuse the public.

Exxon responded by disavowing McCoy’s statements and firing him. After that, Oswald became the company’s go-to spokesperson about the incident. The Vice President of Advocacy and the head of the company’s “Low Carbon Solutions” wing and a top lobbyist who has worked for Exxon for 30 years, Oswald called the McCoy tapes “gutting” and “a mischaracterization.” Now he finds himself the subject of tapes of his own.

In the recording, which was originally obtained by Documented and reported on by the Post the day before Thanksgiving,Oswald explained to a group of gathered oil industry executives and state-level oil regulators that Exxon’s policy strategy hinges on prioritizing shareholder profits, not preventing climate catastrophe—a catastrophe which, Oswald said, was not certain to happen at all.

“The way we think about this is, not as the crusaders for the climate fix,” Oswald said. “The way I look at it as a scientist is, all I need to think about is, is there risk? Yes, there’s risk. Is it a catastrophic inevitable risk? Not to my mind.”

But Exxon has privately acknowledged catastrophic climate risk for decades. In a memo from 1981, Roger Cohen, a top Exxon scientist, cautioned that climate change could "produce effects which will, indeed, be catastrophic, at least for a substantial fraction of the Earth's population."

Cohen’s memo was meant to rebut those within Exxon that, like Oswald decades later, refused to acknowledge the reality that climate catastrophe could occur.

In amemo later that fall, Cohen expounded on the existing scientific consensus that CO2 emissions would result in dangerous climate disruptions. “In summary, the results of our research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on climate.” In closing,Cohen added “our ethical responsibility is to permit the publication of our research in the scientific literature; indeed to do otherwise would be a breach of Exxon’s public position and ethical credo on honesty and integrity.”

A 1981 memo from M.B. Glaser, Exxon’s manager of environmental affairs.Link to whole memo here.

A month after Cohen’s memo, M.B. Glaser, Exxon’s manager of environmental affairs,wrote in a memothat "There are some potentially catastrophic events that should be considered."

“For example, if the Antarctic ice sheet which is anchored on land should melt, then this could cause a rise in sea level on the order of 5 meters. Such a rise would cause flooding on much of the U.S. East Coast, including the State of Florida and Washington, D.C.”

Glaser, however, warned that the report “should be restricted…and not distributed externally.”

Exxon and its lobbying partners have also understood for decades that the risk of catastrophic impacts is high, if not completely certain. In a report created by the American Petroleum Institute for an industry working group which included Exxon,API scientists found “Uncertainty in Estimates” for carbon cycle modeling to be “minor.” “Physical facts agree on the probability of large effects 50 years away” the report reads.

In a statement to the Post, Exxon disputed that it had ever mischaracterized the science. “ExxonMobil has long acknowledged that climate change is real and poses serious risks,” spokesman Casey Norton said in an email. Norton also said Oswald’s statements “lack appropriate context and are not representative of the company’s positions on important issues, including climate change and carbon capture.”

But climate scientists and disinformation experts tell HEATED and Documented that Exxon is still downplaying the severity of climate change—just as the company has done for many, many years.

Exxon has a history of making public statements that downplay the scientific certainty of climate change.In 1977, Exxon CEO Lee Raymondsaid “Many people, politicians and the public alike, believe that global warming is a rock-solid certainty…But it’s not.” Just last month, during a Congressional hearing on climate misinformation, current CEO Darren Woods would only say “greenhouse gasses can contribute to climate change.”

But global warming is a rock-solid certainty, and greenhouse gases are the indisputable cause. Exxon has known this for decades. A 1995 report by Lenny Bernstein of the Mobil Corporation, which would merge with Exxon three years later, says it best: “[The] scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” Bernstein wrote.

A 1995 report by Mobil’s Lenny Bernstein. Link to full memo here.

But now, Exxon is finding trickier ways to downplay the science. In interviews with HEATED and Documented, scientists noted that Oswald’s claim that climate change doesn’t pose “catastrophic, inevitable risk” is tough to scientifically assess.

“There is no scientific definition of the term ‘catastrophe,’” said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. “Saying climate change is not a catastrophic, inevitable risk is an opinion, not a scientific fact.”

Jane Zelikova, a soil carbon scientist at the University of Wyoming, agreed that “catastrophe” is a value judgment, and depends on your personal perspective and place in society. “‘Catastrophic and inevitable risk’ is in the eye of the beholder and some people have the privilege to not experience most of the impacts, while others will bear the brunt,” she said.

But do climate scientists believe the risk is catastrophic? “Yes, because I am not a sociopath and consider millions of preventable deaths to be a catastrophe,” said Kate Marvel, a research scientist at GISS and Columbia University.

Zelikova, too, said catastrophe would be an appropriate word for climate effects that have already occurred. “Extreme weather events are already more frequent and severe and they already bring catastrophic consequences and tons of personal, societal, and economic risk,” she said.

Zelikova also noted a recent paper showing climate change will lead to decreases in maize and soy crop productivity in many agricultural regions across the world. “Are these changes catastrophic? Probably for the farmers and likely consumers will feel the effects as prices for these major commodities increase,” she said. “Are they inevitable? Probably, since the effects of heat and drought can only be overcome with irrigation and most of these areas do not have access to irrigation during the summer months.”

Oswald and Exxon, however, may not consider these impacts catastrophic because they don’t affect the oil giant’s bottom line, said Jessica Green, a University of Toronto political scientist whose research focuses on how oil companies are responding to climate change.

“It's pretty obvious that the science is clear on ‘catastrophic, inevitable risk,” she said. “The issue for fossil fuel companies is that they are going to lose a lot of money, and so are slow walking climate policy any way they can.”

Indeed, Oswald’s comments are “straight out of theinactivist playbook,” said Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist and author of The New Climate War, a book about “how fossil fuel companies have waged a thirty-year campaign to deflect blame and responsibility for climate change.” That playbook, he said, allows industry representatives to appear like concerned climate activists, while not actually advocating for anything that would meaningfully address climate change.

And climate scientists all over the world have made it abundantly clear: the only way to meaningfully address climate change, and reduce catastrophic inevitable risk, is to eliminate greenhouse gas pollution—the majority of which comes from fossil fuels.

The Exxon recording and revelations from it come amid multiple lawsuits against Exxon and other oil majors over their role worsening the climate crisis. The House Oversight Committee has also subpoenaed Exxon, API, and other oil majors over their role spreading climate disinformation and policy delay.

The goalof the Oversight Committee’s hearing and subsequent subpoenas is to “examine the fossil fuel industry’s long-running, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.” The committee believes Exxon “took public stances in support of climate actions while privately continuing to block reforms.”

The glaring dichotomy between Exxon’s current public position on climate change and Oswald’s flippant denial of climate threats underscores the legitimacy of the Committee's concern, said Rep. Khanna.

“In the hearing, [Exxon CEO Darren Woods] said ‘our position . . . has been consistent with the general consensus in the scientific community,’” he recalled. But the new recording of Oswald “shows that Exxon continues to downplay the threat posed by climate change and contradicts the science,” Khanna said.

So far, the oil industry’s response to the Congressional investigation has been a familiar one. During the hearing, Exxon denied funding anti-science propaganda to mislead the public. The companies involved have also delayed turning over evidence to the Committee, and the documents that have been released seem to be purposefully confusing and inadequate.

All the while, Republicans on the Oversight Committee have vociferously defended their funders. Last week, they sent a letter to the Democratic majority, asking them to stop the investigation altogether. Calling the investigation “an abuse of Congress’ oversight authority,” the Republicans’ letter read, “This Committee needs to act now and use its authority to address the most pressing issues facing the country.” It appears they do not consider climate change catastrophic either.

ref 1

Climate & Environment

COP26

COP26 FAQ

Climate Solutions

Invisible project

2C project

Climate and Environment

House Democrats subpoena oil companies over climate disinformation

The requests for documents come after a first-of-its-kind hearing with Big Oil over its role in swaying public opinion on global warming science.

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, speaks at committee hearing on the role of fossil fuel companies in climate change.

By Dino Grandoni

November 2, 2021|

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued subpoenas Tuesday for documents from some of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies to build its case that Big Oil has for decades misled the public about climate change.

Complete coverage from the COP26 U.N. climate summit]

The committee is seeking records fromExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Dutch Royal Shell [not api coc?]concerning what Democratic lawmakers describe as a concerted effort by the petroleum industry to sow doubt about the scientific reality of global warming, according to a memo released by the panel.

More from

Dutch Climate Scientist Geert Jan Van Oldenborgh Dies At 59

Biden to Discuss Climate Change With Pope Francis at Vatican

UN’s Guterres Blasts Shipping, Aviation Climate Targets as Too Lax

Eskom Seeks Cheap Funding For $27 Billion Energy Plan]

The committee announced the probe in September and requested a trove of documents from the companies. Among them were communications from company executives on climate science, climate change, clean energy and the role of fossil fuels in causing climate change. The committee also said it was seeking documents regarding the influencing of public opinion and communications with the government and the White House.

“We are deeply concerned that the fossil fuel industry has reaped massive profits for decades while contributing to climate change that is devastating American communities, costing taxpayers billions of dollars, and ravaging the natural world,” committee leaders wrote to company executives. “We are also concerned that to protect those profits, the industry has reportedly led a coordinated effort to spread disinformation to mislead the public and prevent crucial action to address climate change.”

A committee spokeswoman didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

1021

For decades, the right-wing media and many of the Republicans they support have denied the reality of climate change — often echoing the talking points of companies who have insisted that there is no relationship between climate change and fossil fuels. But House Democrats have planned a hearing that is scheduled for later this month and will address those false claims. And executives from BP and Royal Dutch Shell, according to Bloomberg News' Ari Natter, are expected to testify.

"Thehearing planned for later this month by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee follows an investigation by the panel into what it termed a 'long-running, industry wide campaign' of climate disinformation," Natter explains. "The investigation comes as reports raise questions about the role of the oil industry and its allies in preventing action on global warming by sowing doubt about the dangers of fossil fuels, according to the Committee."

Dave Lawler, BP's top official in the United States, has agreed to testify, according to Natter — and Shell Oil President Gretchen Watkins is expected to testify as well.

In an official statement, BP said, "We are actively advocating for policies, such as carbon pricing and regulating methane, that will support the energy transition, the Paris climate agreement and help the world reach net zero carbon emissions."

The Democrat-led House Oversight Committee announced its investigation in September. In a strongly worded letter to fossil fuel executives, according to Natter, House Oversight leaders wrote, "We are deeply concerned that the fossil fuel industry has reaped massive profits for decades while contributing to climate change that is devastating American communities, costing taxpayers billions of dollars, and ravaging the natural world. We are also concerned that to protect those profits, the industry has reportedly led a coordinated effort to spread disinformation to mislead the public and prevent crucial action to address climate change."

===

no lnx

Big Oil CEO refuses to testify at Senate hearing — Sanders slams him for avoiding ‘tough questions’

04/09/2021 Common Dreams

By Brett Wilkins

In the latest example of Big Oil’s failure to face public scrutiny for a global crisis driven primarily by its products, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday that a fossil fuel CEO has refused an invitation to testify at a congressional hearing on climate change next week.

CBS News reports Sanders (I-Vt.) invited BP America chairman and president David C. Lawler, Chevron CEO and chairman Michael Wirth, and ExxonMobil chair and CEO Darren W. Woods to participate in next Thursday’s hearing, titled, “The Cost of Inaction on Climate Change.”

Sanders, who chairs the powerful Senate Budget Committee, told CBS News that Lawler declined the invitation, while the other two executives refused the network’s requests for comment.

Lawler’s refusal, said Sanders, “tells me these guys don’t want to answer tough questions.”

“These companies are producing a significant percentage of the carbon that we use, which is destroying our planet, and we want to know what they are doing to transform their companies away from fossil fuel,” he said.

Sanders noted the long history of fossil fuel corporations—some of which have known about the link between their products and climate change for decades—lying to the public about the dangers of oil, gas, and coal. He called their deception “one of the scandals of our lifetime.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders has challenged executives from major oil companies to come testify about how they're handling a transition from fossil fuels.

Will they show? (One has already said no.)https://t.co/cdqSR3V7DS

— Nicholas Kusnetz (@nkus) April 8, 2021

In the United States, the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heating, and transportation is the largest source of the greenhouse gas emissions that drive global heating. According to the World Resources Institute, the U.S. produces about 13% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, second only to China, at 26%.

Such emissions have been a primary driver of catastrophic global heating. The past decade was the warmest ever recorded, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warning of even hotter years ahead.

A warming planet is linked to more and worse climate-driven extreme weather events. CBS News notes there were 22 separate U.S. natural disasters causing more than $1 billion in destruction last year, for a total of more than $95 billion in damages.

Meanwhile, according to a statement from the Senate Budget Committee, “ExxonMobil made $22.4 billion in profits as CEO Darren Woods received a $15.6 million compensation package; Chevron made $5.43 billion in profits as CEO Michael Wirth received a $33 million compensation package; and BP made $20.7 billion in profits.”

2020 is on track to be 1 of the 3 warmest years on record.

The past decade was the hottest in human history.

A new @WMO report spells out how close we are to climate catastrophe.

We need urgent #ClimateAction now. https://t.co/BvB0clQnDI pic.twitter.com/N147rZ9abF

— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) December 3, 2020

“What the leading experts in the world are telling us is we have five or six years to move away from fossil fuel or else there would be irreparable damage in our country and on our planet,” said Sanders. “So we are up against an enormous crisis and we’ve got to move a lot more aggressively than we are today.”

Climate campaigners have long argued that a swift transition to a post-fossil fuel economy is imperative to avert a worst-case scenario in which global temperatures rise by more than 8ºF by 2100, melting vast swathes of polar ice sheets, raising sea levels by as much as three feet, and causing severe destruction and disruption of life on Earth.

Despite these risks, governments and most businesses have been slow to address the crisis. In the United States, fossil fuel companies receive tens of billions of dollars each year in bank financing, taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks, and other incentives.

President Joe Biden calls the climate crisis an “existential threat” and while campaigning last year proposed a $2 trillion green energy plan. His Made in America Tax Plan, unveiled last week, also proposes eliminating over $35 billion in tax credits and loopholes for the fossil fuel industry.

Activists and progressives who support a Green New Deal say these measures are not enough. Noting that “fossil fuel corporations receive $15 billion in direct subsidies from the federal government every year,” John Noël, a senior climate campaigner at Greenpeace, said Wednesday that “not a dime of our tax dollars should go towards corporations that poison our communities and wreck our climate.”

“Just treat the climate crisis like a crisis,”

“They have said themselves that this is an existential threat, and they’d better treat it accordingly, which they are not.” @GretaThunberg #ActOnClimate https://t.co/XIK1C42IFn

— Paul Dawson (@PaulEDawson) April 2, 2021

Sanders called Biden’s poposal a “thoughtful plan” but said he does not fully support it. When asked by CBS News climate reporter Cara Corte why he won’t vote to pass the plan and then press the president to act more urgently, the senator said that “it doesn’t really work like that.”

“The president makes that proposal and now Congress has got to take a hard look at it and see where we go with it,” he added.

Climate campaigners condemned Lawler’s refusal to testify in the Senate, while calling on the other two Big Oil executives to appear at next week’s hearing.

“BP routinely claims to be committed to climate solutions, but its U.S. CEO is now refusing to publicly discuss these immensely important issues with members of Congress,” Center for Climate Integrity executive director Richard Wiles said in a statement. “What is BP afraid of?”

“If the leadership of Exxon and Chevron is truly committed to working with policymakers on climate action, we expect them to quickly accept Sen. Sanders’ invitation to testify,” Wiles continued. “If they refuse, it will just be the latest example of their dishonesty and duplicity when it comes to climate.”

“The truth is that executives from BP, Exxon, Chevron, and other Big Oil companies have spent decades lying to the American people about their commitment to solving climate change and the catastrophic climate damages they knew their products would cause,” he added. “Refusing to testify just shines more light on their unwillingness to come clean on climate.”

This article is republished from Common Dreams under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/oversight-committee-launches-investigation-of-fossil-fuel-industry

Chairs Maloney, Khanna Invite Top Fossil Fuel Executives to Testify at Hearing

Washington, D.C. (September 16, 2021)— Today, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, Chairwoman of the Oversight and Reform Committee, and Rep. Ro Khanna, Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Environment, sent letters to the top executives at ExxonMobil Corporation, BP America Inc., Chevron Corporation, Shell Oil Company, American Petroleum Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, requesting documents on the reported role of the fossil fuel industry in a long-running, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming. The Chairs also requested that the executives testify at a Committee hearing on October 28, 2021.

“We are deeply concerned that the fossil fuel industry has reaped massive profits for decades while contributing to climate change that is devastating American communities, costing taxpayers billions of dollars, and ravaging the natural world,” the Chairs wrote. “We are also concerned that to protect those profits, the industry has reportedly led a coordinated effort to spread disinformation to mislead the public and prevent crucial action to address climate change.”

These strategies of obfuscation and distraction span decades and still :{:{:{continue today:(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}:. Between 2015 and 2018, the five largest publicly traded oil and gas companies reportedly spent :{:{:{$1 billion:(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}: to promote climate disinformation through “branding and lobbying.”

Fossil fuel companies increasingly outsource lobbying to trade groups, obscuring their own roles in disinformation efforts. Recently, an ExxonMobil lobbyist was :{:{:{caught on video:(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}: discussing the tactics employed by ExxonMobil to obstruct climate change legislation, including using API and other industry groups as the “whipping boy” to advocate for policy positions that ExxonMobil did not want to be associated with publicly.

“As worsening natural disasters linked to global warming devastate communities in the United States and globally, one of Congress’s top legislative priorities is combating the increasingly urgent crisis of a changing climate,” the Chairs added. “To do this, Congress must address pollution caused by the fossil fuel industry and curb troubling business practices that lead to disinformation on these issues.”

The Committee requests that the recipients produce documents and communications by September 30, 2021, related to their organization’s role in supporting disinformation and misleading the public to prevent action on the climate crisis.

Click :{here:(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}: to read today’s letter to ExxonMobil Corporation CEO Darren Woods.

Click :{here:(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}: to read today’s letter to BP America Inc. CEO David Lawler.

Click :{here:(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}: to read today’s letter to Chevron Corporation CEO Michael K. Wirth.

Click :{here:(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}: to read today’s letter to Shell Oil Company President Gretchen Watkins.

Click :{here:(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}: to read today’s letter to the American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers.

Click :{here:(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline-style:none !important"):}: to read today’s letter to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Suzanne Clark.

no lnx

Mr. Darren Woods

Chief Executive Officer

ExxonMobil Corporation

5959 Las Colinas Boulevard

Irving, TX 75039

Dear Mr. Woods:

We are writing to request information and documents regarding the reported role of

ExxonMobil in a long-running, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role

of fossil fuels in causing global warming, and to request your appearance at a Committee hearing

on Thursday, October 28, 2021.

We are deeply concerned that the fossil fuel industry has reaped massive profits for

decades while contributing to climate change that is devastating American communities, costing

taxpayers billions of dollars, and ravaging the natural world. We are also concerned that to

protect those profits, the industry has reportedly led a coordinated effort to spread disinformation

to mislead the public and prevent crucial action to address climate change.

Just four fossil fuel companies—BP, Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil—reported nearly

$2 trillion in profits between 1990 and 2019.

During this same period, the global climate crisis

became increasingly dire, and its deadly impact on Americans increased. The world experienced

19 of the warmest years on record between 2000 and 2020.

2 In each of the last six years, the

United States has faced more than ten weather and climate disasters—including storms,

wildfires, and heat waves—costing over $1 billion each. There were 22 reported billion-dollar

climate disasters across the country in 2020.3

Public reporting indicates that ExxonMobil and its allies in the fossil fuel industry have

worked to prevent serious action on global warming by generating doubtabout the documented

1 Revealed: Big Oil's Profits Since 1990 Total Nearly $2tn, The Guardian (Feb. 12, 2020) (online at

www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/12/revealed-big-oil-profits-since-1990-total-nearly-2tn-bp-shell-chevronexxon).

2 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Global Temperature (online at

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/) (accessed on July 20, 2021).

3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters:

Overview (online at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/) (accessed on July 23, 2021).

Mr. Darren Woods

Page 2

dangers of fossil fuels and misrepresenting the scale of your efforts to develop alternative energy

technologies—some of the same tactics the tobacco industry used to resist regulation while

selling products that kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Fossil Fuel Industry Spread Disinformation About Climate Science for Decades

Fossil fuel companies have been aware of the science of climate change for decades. In

1977, an ExxonMobil scientist warned the company’s management about the connection

between fossil fuel emissions and the “general scientific agreement that the most likely manner

in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the

burning of fossil fuels.”5

From 1979 to 1983, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and its oil

company members, including the companies that are now operating as or owned by ExxonMobil,

Shell, and Chevron, participated in a task force that shared climate science research and

discussed possible ways to reduce emissions.6

In 1988, Dr. James Hansen, then the director of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration’s Institute for Space Studies, testified before Congress that “it was 99 percent

certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon

dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere” and that the global warming effect was

already “starting to cause changes in climate and weather.” Dr. Hansen emphasized, “It is time

to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is

here.”7

In response to these developments, fossil fuel industry actors reportedly sought to

counteract prevailing scientific knowledge. A 1998 memorandumdeveloped with input from

representatives of Chevon, ExxonMobil, API, and other industry-funded front groups detailed

plans for a coordinated disinformation campaign targeting the media, the public, and

policymakers. In discussing actions around climate policy, the memorandum declared, “victory

[4 Big Oil Is the New Big Tobacco. Congress Must Use Its Power to Investigate, The Guardian (Jan. 20,

2020) (online at www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/20/big-oil-congress-climate-change); Doubt Over

Climate Science Is a Product With an Industry Behind It, The Guardian (Mar. 5, 2015) (online at

www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/mar/05/doubt-over-climate-science-is-a-product-with-anindustry-behind-it); Union of Concerned Scientists, The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry

Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation (July 2015) (online at

www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf).

5 Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago, Inside Climate

News (Sept. 16, 2015) (online at https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxons-own-research-confirmedfossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming/).

6 Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate News (Dec.

22, 2015) (online at https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-aboutclimate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco/).

7 Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate, New York Times (June 24, 1988) (online at

www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html).

Mr. Darren Woods

Page 3]

will be achieved when average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science”

and when “recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”8

Reports indicate that fossil fuel companies continued their climate “counter movement”

by contributing millions of dollars to academic and policy groups to influence third-party

promotion of climate misinformation.

Throughout the 1990s, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and

Shell all joined API and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in one such trade group, the Global

Climate Coalition (GCC), which lobbied the U.S. government in an effort to derail international

action to reduce carbon pollution emissions. The successful campaign led to the United States

leaving the Kyoto climate agreement in 2001. Documents prepared for then-Under Secretary of

State Paula Dobriansky’s 2001 meeting with the GCC stated, “POTUS rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.”10

One study found that between 2003 and 2010, 91 think tanks and advocacy organizations

that downplayed global warming were heavily funded by ExxonMobil, Koch Industries,

DonorsTrust, and other industry groups.

11 These organizations held out the appearance of

neutrality, while reportedly working to “identify, recruit, and train” scientists to publish research

aligned with industry, lobbying public officials to oppose efforts to address climate change, and

harassing scientists.

12 They pressed journalists to give media coverage to industry-backed

researchers, giving the misleading appearance of a division of opinion among climate

scientists.13

Fossil fuel industry actors reportedly paid over $1.2 million to Dr. Willie Soon, an

aerospace engineer with no climate science training. According to media reports, Dr. Soon

described his climate-science-denying papers and testimony before Congress as “deliverables” to American Petroleum Institute, et al., Global Climate Science Communications Plan 1998 (Dec. 2015)

(online at https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Global-Climate-Science-CommunicationsPlan-1998.pdf). When questioned by the New York Times, “[i]ndustry representatives confirmed that the

documents were authentic.” Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty, New York Times (Apr. 26, 1998)

(online at www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/industrial-group-plans-to-battle-climate-treaty.html).

9 How the Oil Industry Made Us Doubt Climate Change, BBC News (Sept. 20, 2020) (online at

www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382).

10 Some Like It Hot, Mother Jones (May/June 2005) (online at

www.motherjones.com/environment/2005/05/some-it-hot/); Revealed: How Oil Giant Influenced Bush, Guardian

(June 8, 2005) (online at www.theguardian.com/news/2005/jun/08/usnews.climatechange).

11 Robert J. Brulle, Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of U.S. Climate Change

Counter-Movement Organizations, Climatic Change (Feb. 2014) (online at

www.researchgate.net/publication/263114280_Institutionalizing_Delay_Foundation_Funding_and_the_Creation_of

_US_Climate_Change_Counter-Movement_Organizations).

12 Union of Concerned Scientists, The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos

Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation (June 29, 2015) (online at

www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf).

13 Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change (2011); Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the

Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right (2017).

Mr. Darren Woods

Page 4

his corporate donors.14 Fossil fuel interests amplified his studies in media stories, publications, and talking points.

Fossil fuel companies also publicly spread doubt themselves. For example, then-Chief

Executive Officer of ExxonMobil Corporation, Lee Raymond, said in 1997, “Currently, the

scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect

on the global climate.”16

The Disinformation Campaign Continues Today

We are concerned that these strategies of obfuscation and distraction continue today.

Reporting indicates that, facing weak market performance and investor pressure, some large

fossil fuel companies have taken public stances in support of action on global warming while

continuing efforts in private to block meaningful solutions and legislation.

17 ExxonMobil and Chevron publicly supported the Paris Agreement,

18 and BP and Shell have made “net-zero”

pledges for their direct emissions.

19 At the same time, fossil fuel companies continue to invest

overwhelmingly in fossil fuel extraction and to support efforts to extend the life of their

investments in fossil fuel, all while lobbying against reforms that would curb global warming.

In 2018, the fossil fuel industry supported efforts to roll back vehicle emission standards enacted

[14 Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher, New York Times (Feb. 21, 2015)

(online at www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-HockSoon.html).

15 How Big Oil Lost Control of Its Misinformation Machine, Inside Climate News (Dec. 22, 2017) (online

at https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122017/big-oil-heartland-climate-science-misinformation-campaign-kochapi-trump-infographic/); Researcher Helps Sow Climate-Change Doubt: Industry-Funded Cambridge

Astrophysicist Adds to Partisan Divide, Boston Globe (Nov. 5, 2013) (online at

https://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/11/05/harvard-smithsonian-global-warming-skeptic-helps-feed-strategydoubt-gridlock-congress/uHssYO1anoWSiLw0v1YcUJ/story.html); Union of Concerned Scientists, Smoke, Mirrors

& Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science (Jan.

2007) (online at www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/exxon_report.pdf).

16 Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty, Inside Climate News

(Oct. 22, 2015) (online at https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-ClimateScience-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty).

17 Revealed: ExxonMobil’s Lobbying War on Climate Change Legislation, Channel 4 News (June 30,

2021) (online at www.channel4.com/news/revealed-exxonmobils-lobbying-war-on-climate-change-legislation).

18 Chevron, Chevron Supports Well-Designed Climate Policy (online at

www.chevron.com/sustainability/environment/climate-policy) (accessed on Aug. 19, 2021); Energy Factor by

ExxonMobil, Reaffirming Our Commitment to the Paris Agreement (Jan. 20, 2021) (online at

https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/insights/partners/commitment-paris-agreement/).

19 Shell Sets Emission Ambition of Net Zero by 2050, with Customer Help, Reuters (Apr. 16, 2020) (online

at www.reuters.com/article/us-shell-emissions/shell-sets-emission-ambition-of-net-zero-by-2050-with-customerhelp-idUSKCN21Y0MW); BP’s New CEO Pledges Net Zero Emissions By 2050, CNN (Feb. 12, 2020) (online at

www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/business/bp-net-zero/index.html).

20 How the Oil Industry Has Spent Billions to Control the Climate Change Conversation, The Guardian

(Jan. 8, 2020) (online at www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-companies-climate-crisis-pr-spending);

How a Powerful US Lobby Group Helps Big Oil to Block Climate Action, The Guardian (July 19, 2021) (online at

www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/19/big-oil-climate-crisis-lobby-group-api).

Mr. Darren Woods

Page 5

by the Obama Administration.21 More recently, the industry has challenged the transition toward electric vehicles by opposing the installation of vehicle charging stations.22

Between 2015 and 2018, the five largest publicly traded oil and gas companies reportedly

spent $1 billion to promote climate disinformation through “branding and lobbying.”23

According to court filings by advocacy organizations, Chevron paid for advertising that

celebrates the company’s investments in renewable energy but spent only 0.2% of its annual capital expenditure budget on lower-carbon energy resources.

24 ExxonMobil has publicized its

investments in algaebiodiesel research, even though most scientists agree that algae biodiesel is not likely commercially viable.

25 In reality, ExxonMobil spent more money over the past ten

years on advertising than on algae research.26

Although ExxonMobil holds itself out as a climate champion, it has quietly proceeded

with investments in oil and gas.27 Between 2010 and 2018, ExxonMobil allocated a mere 0.22% of its capital expenditures to clean energy.

28 In 2018, you presented a plan to investors in which,

by 2025, ExxonMobil would increase its oil production by one million barrels per day.29

While ExxonMobil touted its small investment in green energy, internal documents from 2018 show

[21 The Oil Industry’s Covert Campaign to Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules, New York Times (Dec.

13, 2018) (online at www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html); Trump

Finalizes Rollback of Obama-era Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards, Reuters (Mar. 31, 2020) (online at

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-emissions/trump-finalizes-rollback-of-obama-era-vehicle-fuel-efficiencystandards-idUSKBN21I25S).

22 The Oil Industry vs. the Electric Car, Politico (Sept. 16, 2019) (online at

www.politico.com/story/2019/09/16/oil-industry-electric-car1729429?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202019-09-

16%20Utility%20Dive%20Newsletter%20%5Bissue:23009%5D&utm_term=Utility%20Dive).

23 InfluenceMap, Big Oil’s Real Agenda on Climate Change (Mar. 2019) (online at

https://influencemap.org/report/How-Big-Oil-Continues-to-Oppose-the-Paris-Agreement38212275958aa21196dae3b76220bddc).

24 Fossil Fuel Firms Face New Challenge over “Greenwashing” Ads, Reuters (June 22, 2021) (online at

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fossilfuel-climate-change-adverti/fossil-fuel-firms-face-new-challenge-overgreenwashing-ads-idUSKCN2DZ00B).

25 Exxon's Climate Fix Is Algae. Experts Say It Won't Work, E&E News (Nov. 2, 2020) (online at

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/1063717527).

26 Exxon's Climate Fix Is Algae. Experts Say It Won't Work, E&E News (Nov. 2, 2020) (online at

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/1063717527).

27 U.S. and European Oil Giants Go Different Ways on Climate Change, New York Times (Sept. 21, 2020)

(online at www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/business/energy-environment/oil-climate-change-us-europe.html).

28 Oil Firm Bosses’ Pay ‘Incentivises Them to Undermine Climate Action,’ The Guardian (Apr. 15, 2021)

(online at www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/15/oil-firm-ceos-pay-is-an-incentive-to-resist-climateaction-study-finds).

29 Exxon’s Internal Plans Reveal Rising CO2 Emissions, Scientific American (Oct. 7, 2020) (online at

www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxons-internal-plans-reveal-rising-co2-emissions/).

Mr. Darren Woods

Page 6]

that ExxonMobil “forecast that annual emissions from its operations would increase from 122 million metric tons in 2017 to 143 million metric tons in 2025.”30

Fossil fuel companies increasingly outsource lobbying to trade groups, obscuring their

own roles in disinformation efforts. Recently, an ExxonMobil lobbyist was caught on video discussing the tactics employed by ExxonMobil to obstruct climate change legislation, including using API and other industry groups as the “whipping boy” to advocate for policy positions that

ExxonMobil did not want to be associated with publicly. During the interview, the lobbyist said,

“Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes.” He added, “Did we join some of

these shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that’s true.”31 He also

detailed ExxonMobil’s lobbying efforts to include natural gas as a clean energy source in the event that Congress adopts a Clean Energy Standard, despite clear scientific evidence that natural gas is a major driver of climate change.[methane]

Requests for Information

As worsening natural disasters linked to global warming devastate communities in the

United States and globally, one of Congress’s top legislative priorities is combating the

increasingly urgent crisis of a changing climate. To do this, Congress must address pollution caused by the fossil fuel industry and curb troubling business practices that lead to disinformation on these issues. In March 2021, the White House proposed an investment of close to $2 trillion this decade through President Biden’s American Jobs Plan, with more than half of the investments potentially used to address the climate crisis.

33 Congress is contemplating wide-ranging climate-change legislation in connection with the President’s plan

and beyond it.

To inform these efforts, our Committee is investigating the role of the fossil fuel industry

and related entities in the unfolding crisis. In particular, we are seeking to understand

ExxonMobil’s role in contributing to climate change and ExxonMobil’s role in supporting

disinformation or misleading the public to prevent action to address this global crisis.

30 Id.

31 Revealed: ExxonMobil’s Lobbying War on Climate Change Legislation, Channel 4 News (June 30,

2021) (online at www.channel4.com/news/revealed-exxonmobils-lobbying-war-on-climate-change-legislation).

32 ExxonMobil Lobbyist Reveals Company’s Involvement with “Forever Chemicals”, Channel 4 News (July

1, 2021) (online at www.channel4.com/news/exxonmobil-lobbyist-reveals-companys-involvement-with-foreverchemicals); Explainer: Cleaner but Not Clean—Why Scientists Say Natural Gas Won’t Avert Climate Disaster,

Reuters (Aug. 18, 2020) (online at www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gas-climatebox-explainer/explainer-cleaner-butnot-clean-why-scientists-say-natural-gas-wont-avert-climate-disaster-idUSKCN25E1DR).

33 The White House, Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Plan (May 4, 2021) (online at

www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/); Center for

Strategic and International Studies, The American Jobs Plan Gets Serious About Infrastructure and Climate Change

(Apr. 2, 2021) (online at www.csis.org/analysis/american-jobs-plan-gets-serious-about-infrastructure-and-climatechange).

Mr. Darren Woods

Page 7

In order to assist the Committee with this investigation, please produce the following

documents and information by September 30, 2021. Unless otherwise specified, the applicable time period covered by these requests is from November 30, 2015, to the present:

All documents and communications sent, received, or created by key ExxonMobil

leaders and executives, including the chief executive officer, members of the

board, and the senior executives in charge of federal governmental affairs, U.S.

public affairs, marketing and advertising, and public relations, relating to the

following topics:

a. climate science, climate policy, or climate change;

b. clean energy;

c. the role of ExxonMobil, oil and gas companies, or the fossil fuel industry

in causing, mitigating, or responding to climate change;

d. marketing, advertising, social media, or lobbying activities tending to

influence public opinion on the issuesdescribed in Request 1(a)–(c),

including communications with public relations firms or social media

companies;

e. communications with the federal government, including the White House

and Congress, relating to any of the issues described in Request 1(a)–(c);

and

f. The impacts climate change or climate policy could have on ExxonMobil,

including impacts on facilities, operations, revenues, profits, net worth, or

financial interests;

Documents sufficient to show the total amount and itemization of anydirect or

indirect funding provided by ExxonMobil to any employees, contractors, or

entities,including funding that is subsequently distributed to other entities,

relating to any of the issues described in Request 1(a)–(d), and, for any such

funding provided by the company, documents sufficient to show:

a. what activity was funded; and

b. any results achieved;

All internal and external policy memos, data, talking points, communications,

leave-behind materials, and other documents that ExxonMobil provided to

Members of Congress, their staff members, or executive branch officials related

to climate policy and legislation;

Mr. Darren Woods

Page 8

Documents relating to ExxonMobil’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

including:

a. any feasibility, cost, financial, impact, or other analysis of the plan;

b. any documents or communications related to the implementation of the

plan; and

c. any documents or communications discussing questions or concerns about

the plan or any draft of the plan, including about its feasibility, cost,

financing, or implementation; and

A listing and description of any projects or actions undertaken by ExxonMobil to

protect company facilities or operations from the impacts of climate change,

including the dates the projects or actions were undertaken and the amounts

expended on the projects or actions.

In addition, please confirm by September 23, 2021, that you will appear at the

Committee’s hearing on October 28, 2021.

The enclosed Witness Instruction Sheet provides information for witnesses appearing

before the Committee. Please note the procedures for submitting written testimony at least two

business days prior to the hearing.

The Committee on Oversight and Reform is the principal oversight committee of the

House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under

House Rule X. An attachment to this letter provides additional instructions for responding to the

Committee’s request. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact

Environment Subcommittee staff at (202) 225-5051.

Sincerely

interesting to compare lists?

June 2016

The American Petroleum Institute (API) was among organizations named in a Massachusetts subpoena looking for communications between ExxonMobil and organizations denying climate change, reports The Washington Times. [58]

Organizations named in the Massachusetts subpoena include the following: [58]

The Centre for Industrial Progress

The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty

The American Enterprise Institute

Americans for Prosperity

The American Legislative Exchange Council

The American Petroleum Institute

The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University

The George C. Marshall Institute

The Heartland Institute

Mercatus Center at George Mason University

This latest inquiry by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is one in a series of investigations into what ExxonMobil knew about climate change and when, started by a coalition of attorneys general in the US. [59]

from desmog on api

}:}: