Karsner mofo & Avery

bali 2007 cop 13 10 yrs after kyoto

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/dec/17/comment.world

george m

16 dec

We've been suckered again by the US. So far the Bali deal is worse than Kyoto

George Monbiot

America will keep on wrecking climate talks as long as those with vested interests in oil and gas fund its political system

after 11 days of negotiations, governments have come up with a compromise deal that could even lead to emission increases. The highly compromised political deal is largely attributable to the position of the United States, which was heavily influenced by fossil fuel and automobile industry interests. The failure to reach agreement led to the talks spilling over into an all-night session."

These are extracts from a press release by Friends of the Earth. So what? Well it was published on December 11 - I mean to say, December 11 1997. The US had just put a wrecking ball through the...Kyoto protocol. George Bush was innocent; he was busy executing prisoners in Texas. Its climate negotiators were led by Albert Arnold Gore...The European Union had asked for greenhouse gas cuts of 15% by 2010. Gore's team drove them down to 5.2% by 2012. Then the Americans did something worse: they destroyed the whole agreement.

Most of the other governments insisted that the cuts be made at home. But Gore demanded a series of loopholes big enough to drive a Hummer through. The rich nations, he said, should be allowed to buy their cuts from other countries. When he won, the protocol created an exuberant global market in fake emissions cuts. The western nations could buy "hot air" from the former Soviet Union. Because the cuts were made against emissions in 1990, and because industry in that bloc had subsequently collapsed, the former Soviet Union countries would pass well below the bar.Gore's scam allowed them to sell the gases they weren't producing to other nations. He also insisted that rich nations could buy nominal cuts from poor ones. Entrepreneurs in India and China have made billions by building factories whose primary purpose is to produce greenhouse gases, so that carbon traders in the rich world will pay to clean them up.

The result of this sabotage is that the market for low-carbon technologies has remained moribund. Without an assured high value for carbon cuts, without any certainty that government policies will be sustained, companies have continued to invest in the safe commercial prospects offered by fossil fuels rather than gamble on a market without an obvious floor.

By ensuring that the rich nations would not make real cuts, Gore also guaranteed that the poor ones scoffed when we asked them to do as we don't. When George Bush announced, in 2001, that he would not ratify the Kyoto protocol, the world cursed and stamped its foot. But his intransigence affected only the US. Gore's team ruined it for everyone.

The destructive power of the American delegation is not the only thing that hasn't changed. After the Kyoto protocol was agreed, the then British environment secretary, John Prescott, announced: "This is a truly historic deal which will help curb the problems of climate change. For the first time it commits developed countries to make legally binding cuts in their emissions." Ten years later, the current environment secretary, Hilary Benn, told us that "this is an historic breakthrough and a huge step forward. For the first time ever, all the world's nations have agreed to negotiate on a deal to tackle dangerous climate change." Do these people have a chip inserted?

In both cases, the US demanded terms that appeared impossible for the other nations to accept. Before Kyoto, the other negotiators flatly rejected Gore's proposals for emissions trading. So his team threatened to sink the talks. The other nations capitulated, but the US still held out on technicalities until the very last moment, when it suddenly appeared to concede. In 1997 and in 2007 it got the best of both worlds: it wrecked the treaty and was praised for saving it.

Hilary Benn is an idiot. Our diplomats are suckers. American negotiators have pulled the same trick twice, and for the second time our governments have fallen for it.

There are still two years to go, but so far the new agreement iseven worse than the Kyoto protocol. It contains no targets and no dates. A new set of guidelines also agreed at Bali extend and strengthen the worst of Gore's trading scams, the clean development mechanism. Benn and the other dupes are cheering and waving their hats as the train leaves the station at last, having failed to notice that it is travelling in the wrong direction.

Although Gore does a better job of governing now he is out of office, he was no George Bush. He wanted a strong, binding and meaningful protocol, but American politics had made it impossible. In July 1997, the Senate had voted 95-0 to sink any treaty which failed to treat developing countries in the same way as it treated the rich ones. Though they knew this was impossible for developing countries to accept, all the Democrats lined up with all the Republicans. The Clinton administration had proposed a compromise: instead of binding commitments for the developing nations, Gore would demand emissions trading. But even when he succeeded, he announced that "we will not submit this agreement for ratification [in the Senate] until key developing nations participate". Clinton could thus avoid an unwinnable war.

So why, regardless of the character of its leaders, does the US act this way? Because, like several other modern democracies, it is subject to two great corrupting forces. I have written before about the role of the corporate media - particularly in the US - in downplaying the threat of climate change and demonising anyone who tries to address it. I won't bore you with it again, except to remark that at 3pm eastern standard time on Saturday, there were 20 news items on the front page of the Fox News website. The climate deal came 20th, after "Bikini-wearing stewardesses sell calendar for charity" and "Florida store sells 'Santa Hates You' T-shirt".

Let us consider instead the other great source of corruption: campaign finance. The Senate rejects effective action on climate change because its members are bought and bound by the companies that stand to lose. When you study the tables showing who gives what to whom, you are struck by two things.

One is the quantity. Since 1990, the energy and natural resources sector - mostly coal, oil, gas, logging and agribusiness - has given $418m to federal politicians in the US. Transport companies have given $355m.The other is the width: the undiscriminating nature of this munificence. The big polluters favour the Republicans, but most of them also fund Democrats. During the 2000 presidential campaign, oil and gas companies lavished money on Bush, but they also gave Gore $142,000, while transport companies gave him $347,000. The whole US political system is in hock to people who put their profits ahead of the biosphere.

So don't believe all this nonsense about waiting for the next president to sort it out. This is a much bigger problem than George Bush. Yes, he is viscerally opposed to tackling climate change. But viscera don't have much to do with it. Until the American people confront their political funding system, their politicians will keep speaking from the pocket, not the gut.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh**/jacobson**/vita/

Comparative effects of vehicle technologies and fuels on climate and air pollution. On the Road to Bali:Strengthening the Transatlantic Climate Cooperation, German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Heinrich Boell Foundation, San Francisco, California, Nov. 16, 2007

Briefing on renewable energy and the environment to Assistant Secretary of Energy for Renewable Energy, Andy Karsner, Oct. 19, 2006.

2007?

"U.S. delegates on the sidelines of the conference said America had spent more than any other country -- $37 billion -- since 2001 on climate change-combating activities..."

"Alexander Karsner, the U.S. assistant secretary of energy, said such criticism ignored what the United States is already doing.

For example, U.S. ethanol production has increased by 250 percent since 2000, he said, and new energy capacity coming on line from renewable sources has gone from 2 percent in 2004 to 22 percent in 2006.

The numbers for renewable energy additions were comparable to Germany and Japan, he said, and higher than many other European nations.

"I get a little confused when I hear the United States isn't doing much. There is an enormous amount going on in the United States," Karsner said. "Something is going terribly right in the United States with respect to the growth of renewable energy technology."

Then we have these hypocrital participants, the ones that are flying to Bali, wasting huge amounts of jet fuel instead of an internet conference, accusing the US administration of being a hypocrite. "They accused the Bush administration of hypocrisy..."

2007 bali [not carbon tax panel]

Han Seung-soo, Special Envoy on Climate Change of the UN Secretary-General, noted that developing countries had hoped for stronger debates on technology transfer in Bali. Alexander Karsner, US Department of Energy, emphasized the need to consider how a growing “demand pull” for clean energy technologies in the developed world will impact the supply base available to the developing world. Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, Minister of Environment and Protection of Land and Sea, Italy, said combined use of markets and planning can connect climate policies and sustainable development. Zhenhua Xie, National Development and Reform Commission, China, stressed the need for technology transfer, especially in key sectors, to prevent lock-in of carbon-intensive infrastructures in China. Elizabeth Thompson, Minister of Energy and Environment, Barbados, underscored that climate change and sustainable development must be mainstreamed throughout national macro-policy frameworks. Halima Tayo Alao, Minister of Environment, Nigeria, emphasized that capacity enhancement, technology transfer and financial assistance are essential for addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation. Feng Gao, UNFCCC Secretariat, reiterated the urgency of technology transfer to ensure that global GHG emissions peak in the next 10-15 years. Karsner stressed the need to: protect any individual’s right to capitalize on their innovations; and develop a policy regime that encourages development and diffusion of these innovations. Participants further discussedintellectual property rights.

nYT friedman

Happily, Gore is still seeing around corners. We had a few minutes to chat in a hallway and he spent most of it telling me with great excitement about a data science project he was backing — Climate TRACE, which uses sensory data from satellites and artificial intelligence to do real-time monitoring of CO₂ emissions, especially those that never get reported by governments and business.

With 24/7 satellite coverage provided by the start-up Planet, whose hundreds of tiny satellites image Earth’s land mass every day in high resolution, we will be able to watch a logging truck go into the Amazon rainforest and cut a road and then count each tree chopped down. Or, conversely, we’ll be able to count trees that are planted and put a price on the carbon that each one is saving — instead of just a price on the lumber taken from the forest.

“The era of radical climate transparency is about to be born,” said Andrew Zolli, Planet’s chief impact officer. Everyone — your customers, your competitors, your employees and activists — will soon know exactly what you are emitting with one click. That is a big deal.

“You can have a scale impact on the climate when you can measure, monitor, manage and monetize the value of saving a forest or a watershed,” said Andy Karsner, who was the principal U.S. climate negotiator in Bali in 2007 and whose Elemental Labsis now building more tech tools for market-based solutionsfor climate change.

“We humans don’t have big claws or razor-sharp teeth to survive,” Karsner told me. “Instead, we were endowed with large brains, and I still believe the enlightened self-interest of our species will drive us to come together and use our collective brains to develop anddeploy the tools [OF CAPITALISM]” we need to thrive on this planet.

Is There Anything I, Just One Person, Can Do?

Yes! Plant a tree — or prevent one from being chopped down — by supporting Indigenous communities,

no lnx  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/01/opinion/exxon-mobil-board.html

OPINION

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

The ‘Mean Greens’ Are Forcing Exxon to Clean Up Its Act

June 1, 2021

Opinion Columnist

Since the 1990s, the wisest oil-producing countries and companies have regularly reminded themselves of the oil patch adage that the Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones; it ended because we invented bronze tools. When we did, stone tools became worthless — even though there were still plenty on the ground.

And so it will be with oil: The petroleum age will end because we invent superior technology that coexists harmoniously with nature. When we do, there will be plenty of oil left in the ground.

So be careful, wise producers tell themselves, don’t bet the vitality of your company, community or country on the assumption that oil will be like Maxwell House Coffee — “Good to the last drop” — and pumped from every last well. Remember Kodak? It underestimated the speed at which digital photography would make film obsolete. It didn’t go well for Kodak or Kodachrome.

Alas, though, not every oil company got the memo.

One that most glaringly did not is the one that in 2013 was the biggest public company in the world! It’s ExxonMobil. Today, it is no longer the biggest. As a result of its head-in-the-oil-sands-drill-baby-drill-we-are-still-not-at-peak-oil business model, Exxon lost over $20 billion last year, suffered a credit rating downgrade, might have to borrow billions just to pay its dividend, has seen its share price over the last decade produce a minus-30 percent return and was booted from the Dow Jones industrial average.

But last week — finally — Exxon got the memo, in the form of a shareholder revolt in what was one of the most consequential weeks in the history of the oil and gas industry and shareholder capitalism.

I’ve long argued that if environmentalists want to have an impact on the climate they can’t be “nice greens.” They have to be “mean greens.” They have to be as mean and tough, as diligent and vigilant, as the industry they’re trying to change.

Well, last week a little hedge fund called Engine No. 1 delivered an unprecedented master class in mean green using the tools of democratic capitalism. A plucky, purpose-driven investment fund, Engine No. 1 set out to force Exxon to improve its financial returns by getting much more serious about gradually transitioning — through innovation and acquisitions — into being an energy company, not just an oil and gas company.

At Exxon’s annual meeting, Engine No. 1 offered up a slate for four new members of Exxon’s 12-member board. The four represent deep energy expertise and climate solutions. The slate committed to push the oil giant to a net-zero emissions strategy by 2050, more investments in clean energy systems and more transparency about Exxon’s energy transition, with metrics and milestones, as well as disclosure of its lobbying payments and partners, suspected of undermining the science around climate change.

And darn if half the slate — Gregory Goff and Kaisa Hietala — wasn’t immediately elected by wide margins, and at least one other member might be as well when ExxonMobil finishes counting the votes from its very, very bad day.

Engine No. 1 was successful because it got three of the four biggest pension funds in America — fed up with Exxon’s relentless value destruction — to vote for its nominees. We’re talking about the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System and the New York State Common Retirement Fund. Also, three of the world’s biggest fund managers, Vanguard, State Street and Black Rock, which together own more than one-fifth of all Exxon stock, each voted for part of the dissident slate.

[OPINION CONVERSATION

The climate, and the world, are changing. What challenges will the future bring, and how should we respond to them?

What does climate change look like around the world?

From “Postcards From a World on Fire,” these 193 stories show how climate change is reshaping reality.

What should our leaders be doing?

Al Gore, the 45th vice president of the United States, finds reasons for optimism in the Biden presidency.

What are the worst climate risks in your country?

Select a country, and we'll break down the climate hazards it faces.

Where are Americans suffering most?

Our maps, developed with experts, show where extreme heat is causing the most deaths in the U.S.]

And if you are keeping score at home — on your Stone-Age-ending-before-we-run-out-of-stones scorecard — on the same day that Engine No. 1 landed at least two energy/climate experts on the Exxon board, Barron’s reported: “A Dutch court ordered European energy giant Royal Dutch Shell to slash its carbon emissions by a net 45 percent by 2030. And, at Chevron’s annual meeting, shareholders supported a nonbinding proposal to ask the company to cut carbon emissions generated by the use of its products.”

Engine No. 1 and its allies are not playing around, and for good reason. As CNN reported a few days earlier, citing a newly published Harvard study, “For decades, ExxonMobil has deployed Big Tobacco-like propaganda to downplay the gravity of the climate crisis.”

“The study used machine learning and algorithms to uncover trends in more than 200 public and internal Exxon documents between 1972 and 2019,” according to CNN, which quoted this statement from the study: “These patterns mimic the tobacco industry’s documented strategy of shifting responsibility away from corporations — which knowingly sold a deadly product while denying its harms — and onto consumers.”

Exxon’s existing board was noteworthy for one thing: Other than the C.E.O., it had one member — appointed only this year — who I would call an energy expert, and none steeped in climate expertise that could help the company adapt.

The two new directors will definitely help, but getting the third —conservationist Andy Karsner— would really shake things up. Exxon says the voting results are too close to call, and it needs more time to certify if Karsner won a seat.

Bloomberg reported: “Exxon telephoned investors the morning of the ballot — and even during an unscheduled, hourlong pause during the virtual meeting — asking them to reconsider their votes, according to several of those who received calls. Some said they found the last-ditch outreach and halt to the meeting unorthodox and troubling.”

I first got to know and respect Karsner watching him in action in 2007, when he was an assistant secretary of energy for George W. Bush. He oversaw the U.S.’s National Laboratories’ applied science programs and negotiated America’s re-entry into the U.N.’s Convention on Climate Change at the Bali conference,which laid the pathway for the Paris global climate deal. Before that, Karsner built [FF?] power plants in Pakistan and solar plants in Morocco.

He has been a longtime member of the board of Conservation International, as was my wife. In full disclosure, Karsner and I are now friends, but it’s his experience and outlook that recommend him here. If there were a picture in the encyclopedia of a “mean green,” it would be Karsner: tough as nails and green as grass.

Karsner, the other Engine No. 1 nominees and Engine No. 1 itself are out to strengthen Exxon, not destroy it. They view it as one of the world’s greatest collections of scientific and engineering talent.They welcome Exxon’s sudden enthusiasm for the idea of creating a $100 billion public-private carbon-capture facility along the Houston Ship Channel to sequester planet-warming carbon dioxide. They also know that demand for oil and gas for transportation, power generation and plastics is not disappearing overnight. Wisely managed money will be made there.

But in a world where Ford just unveiled an all-electric version of its F-150 full-size pickup truck, one of its top-selling vehicles, and says that it envisages electric cars and trucks making up 40 percent of its production by the end of the decade, they think Exxon has got to stop betting that the good ole days of oil and gas profits will return — and start becoming a more diversified energy company. That means not only investing more in future carbon capture, batteries and other renewables, but also using its engineering prowess to invent that future — while it still has an income stream from oil and gas.

Everyone knows it won’t be easy. Making the kind of profits that Exxon once piled up from oil and gas will be very, very hard as a more diversified energy company. But it beats becoming a corporate fossil by betting the house on increasingly unprofitable, increasingly obsolete, increasingly unhealthy fossil fuels.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Thomas L. Friedman is the foreign affairs Op-Ed columnist. He joined the paper in 1981, and has won three Pulitzer Prizes. He is the author of seven books, including “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” which won the National Book Award. @tomfriedman • Facebook

https://www.cfr.org/conference-calls/conference-call-assessing-paris-climate-talks

12/15

...

Well, one could say it was different because it was successful. That’s the first demarcation. And then you’d say, well, successful at what? Wasn’t Kyoto successful? Wasn’t Berlin successful? Wasn’t Bali successful?

You know, over 23 years you had a process, beginning in Rio, that has—that never anticipated a 23-year journey to a durable implementation agreement. And so, very early on in Berlin, as I mentioned, we began to bucket the nations of the world, unfortunately, in a very static way, between developed or developing. And we didn’t assume any dynamic or account for anything like what would transpire in China or India or BRIC nations that would account for their growth and their role in the world and the dynamics of their economy and their role in technology, and, of course, most importantly, their dominant role in being largest emitters, and fastest-growing emitters in the case of China.

So we had to back up and reverse course from Kyoto, which solidified these static buckets and really sort of implied a wealth-transfer mechanism that was unrealistic and non-commensurate with the nature of the world and developing nations’ aspiration and true growth and contribution to both emissions and economy.

And as you may recall, over the course of the Bush administration there was much consternation over the rejection of Kyoto. And there was a bit of a stalemate for a period of years over to Kyoto or not to Kyoto. How do we succeed this? How do we build upon it? Was it sort of the Europeans’ position?

Ultimately, that deadlock was broken in Bali, although at the time many of the principles that were accepted in Paris were largely reviled as seditious to Kyoto or undermining the original intent. And what we established in Bali was precisely the change of a top-down mechanism of implementation, mandates from the U.N., forced wealth transfer from static buckets. And we moved into the mechanism that ultimately evolved into Paris, which was a bottom-up fix of national voluntary targets contributed in the aggregate that nations could monitor with some regularity of basis, and have enforcement through mutual accords of measurement and verification while we infuse technology and finance.

That got stalled a bit, if not derailed, in Copenhagen, which was a very messy and unfortunate underperformance of expectations. But, cleverly, the Obama administration moved into deep bilateral relationships, both in the diplomatic track and establishing Track II relationships with China and India, which culminated in the U.S. bilateral with China, the two countries themselves constituting approximately 50 percent or more of global emissions, let alone economic output. And that was fundamental in setting the benchmark that we would be returning to nationally devised bottom-up voluntary best efforts plans, which are really the core of this agreement.

And I would add that this agreement really—Paris was really the last stop for this process. In many ways, we distilled out almost everything that could be contentious and got to a place that said, if the world doesn’t agree now on this document with this level of voluntary contribution, with this level of non-enforceable aspiration, then we—it is unlikely we will find agreement at all. And I think after a very long-winding journey, everybody wanted to see an agreement and ultimately subscribe to the thesis that we need a universal global framework in place that agrees to acknowledge the problem, agrees to acknowledge the solution and objectives and acknowledges that we don’t have all the answers here, but we can set forth a process and turn the corner on problem identification and move into mechanisms of problem-solving....

KARSNER: Yeah, so I’d answer that a slightly different way while at the same time agreeing with what Michael has said about the sort of indispensable role in policy, particularly domestic policy, under this construct of catalyzing—being the greatest catalyst for a signal. We saw that yesterday when we renewed, you know, the Bush investment tax credits for solar that had been eight years—I think now we’re into a six-year re-up. People didn’t actually predict that that was likely to occur between the Congress and the president. Now that it has occurred, most of the solar stocks yesterday rose by as much as 25 to 30 percent in a single day. So there is no question that domestic policy, as Michael has stated it, remains a prime catalyst....

c suite grn person]  You know, you have Rex Tillerson endorsing a carbon tax. These things were sort of unthinkable a decade ago.

...GOODMAN: Thank you, Andy. And let’s follow up on that by asking, what—will the Paris talks lead now in the U.S., and on our domestic politics, to helping break the logjam on climate change in the U.S. Congress, and lead to any of these concepts, like the carbon tax?

LEVI: So that’s a large bridge to cross, but I do think we’re seeing significant action in the United States, or at least the potential for significant action. Just this week we have a proposed budget deal that has come out and that trades removal of the ban on oil exports for a pretty big extension—essentially a five-year extension of the investment tax credit that supports solar installation, and basically a four-year—three-to-four-year extension of the production tax credit that supports wind. A colleague of mine and I have an analysis that we’re just wrapping up that we hope to get out later today.

We’re pretty confident that this is a trade that is a net win for climate change. It’s something where two sides have been able to come together. I actually think that it is the first serious trade of something on the fossil fuel side for something on the zero-carbon energy side since Andy was driving the show back in 2007. That’s eight years. So the potential for—if this is—if this goes through and signals a new period where we can actually make bipartisan deals on climate change, then I think we’re going to have to rethink what’s actually—what’s actually possible.

Now, I mean, the Paris deal tilts the politics of that at the margin. I mean, this budget deal has been in the works for ages and it’s not really affected by Paris, but as we go forward—and it’s going to be harder for people to say we can’t take action because China and India aren’t. We’ll still have the rest of the domestic political barriers to action. Anything significant will result in large dislocations within the economy—winners, losers. That always makes things politically difficult. But on the margin, this reduces the—this should reduce, particularly if we implement the transparency measures properly, and these are central to the agreement, it should reduce fears that we’re the only ones doing something and China is just taking advantage of it.

KARSNER: Yeah, I couldn’t possibly say that, you know, better than Michael. And I will tell you that it came to me with some surprise that, you know, if you’re—if you’re looking at the backwards lens of dysfunction that something this intelligent and functional emerged from this Congress. And so it’s almost a shocking signal that the adults are somewhere back in the room influencing the crafting of intelligent legislation and compromise. And I—so I take that to heart and say, well, what else might we be doing? Is this an aberration, or is this a new—the first steps on a journey back to the business of legislation, rather than deferring to executive orders and judicial action?

I am a strong believer that this agreement, which is the derivative of a ratified treaty, ought to be subject to ratification. I think the Constitution make it rather clear, notwithstanding the strategic efforts to craft the language and the words just right to avoid the process of ratification. If it’s not ratified, it will end up remaining to some degree of contentiousness through time, because it’s not going to go away. However, this is—I indicated quite publicly that this is the cheapest price the Republicans could possibly pay for endorsing a climate accord of any kind, because functionally these are the principles that originated in a Republican administration to reverse Kyoto, to which the Republicans had so much objection.

And with non-enforceable national aspirations recognizing the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States to determine its course, in the way that it did with legislation yesterday, it really should be an easy lift to say, OK, we’re in. We will do our part to do what we have always done, assess our best future by investing in science and technology, and research and development, and deployment and commercialization, to enhance our energy system and our conservation. It’s almost just an affirmation of U.S. policy, with an added incentive to pay attention and to talk globally about it.

So I don’t think it’s beyond the realm that we may ultimately send this for ratification and ultimately get it ratified. I don’t see a plausible way that that happens in the next—at least until the lame-duck period post-election, but probably into the new presidency. But in the meanwhile, I suspect that there will be lots of conversations, dialogue, and education curves with the Hill, beginning with calls like this and discussions elsewhere, that say this isn’t—this isn’t, you know, your father’s climate treaty. This isn’t sort of a Bush v. Gore dynamism. This is really turning the page on the U.N. process that was set up 23 years ago, and beginning to say: How are we participating in the world based on things we already do, and with heightened attention.

LEVI: Let me add one small thing to what Andy said. I’m not—I’m not in quite the same place on ratification, although I agree fundamentally that the more buy-in we have from a broad spectrum, the more effective this agreement will be around the world. I was struck by a piece that former Senator Chuck Hagel wrote a few weeks ago. For those of you steeped in the lore of climate change, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution passed by Congress in July 1997, 95 to zero, was essentially what set up Kyoto to fail before Kyoto even existed. It set conditions for a climate agreement that Kyoto could not meet.

And Chuck Hagel wrote a piece a couple weeks ago saying that the Paris agreement is now heading in a direction that would meet the Byrd-Hagel standard that the Senate established. So it makes sense for the Senate to now reconsider this in the context that they themselves laid out. And I think it’s good to see some convergence among—some convergence between what Congress has been demanding and what the administration is actually doing.

GOODMAN: OK. Thank you both. My last question before we open it up for Q&A is what does this agreement mean for U.S. global leadership?

gizmodo

no lnx many

Exxon’s Newest Activist Investor Is a 'Space Cowboy'

ByMolly Taft

6/03/21

Exxon's logo visible at the New York Stock Exchange.

Exxon announced Wednesday that a third new member has been appointed to the company’s board, following a week of vote counting after the company was caught by surprise by a shareholder insurrection last week led by activist investor Engine No. 1. The new board member, Alexander “Andy” Karsner, currently works as a “Space Cowboy” for X, Alphabet’s famous moonshot company. Not totally sure what a “Space Cowboy” does, but it sounds exciting!

The other two Engine No. 1 board members are good news only because Exxon has been so bad at managing its finances and making any strides at all towards thinking about a low-carbon future. While you may hear “activist investor” and conjure up a certain Greenpeace-y image, both the other new picks, Gregory Goff and Kaisa Hietala, mostly have experience working with oil and gas companies. (Goff, in particular, seems staunchly in the camp of keeping the fossil fuel status quo and once apparently announced “I am the best oil executive in the world” to a bunch of Wall Street types gathered at a steakhouse.)

Compared to these two, Karsner definitely has bona fides that make us feel a little more hopeful about Exxon’s future. While being a “Space Cowboy” (“Senior Strategist” appears to be his official title at X) is one of his current gigs, Karsner worked as the assistant secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy during the last years of George W. Bush administration. He went on to work on a bunch of Silicon Valley and energy world-adjacent ventures, including forming the energy group atEmerson Collective, Laurene Powell Jobs’s half-nonprofit, half-venture capital engine. Karsner was a principal negotiator at international climate talks in Bali in 2007 and served on the board of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as well as the board of Conservation International. Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist who is a Big Climate Guy, apparently knows Karsner, and wrote some glowing praise of him in his column on the Exxon vote, calling him ”tough as nails and green as grass.” All sounds great!

Per Karsner’s LinkedIn (which is impressively, and appropriately, exhausting), he was also a director and member of the board at the Gas Technology Institute for eight years; he also was a member of the National Petroleum Institute between 2009 and 2018. It’s clear Karsner has spent a lot of time working with oil and gas companies. Since he’s joining the board of Exxon, this is admittedly a good point to have on a resume, but it’s also a sign he’s not getting invited to an Extinction Rebellion meeting anytime soon.

[Related Stories

Germany Blocks Russian Natural Gas Pipeline

California Will Stick Solar Panels Over Canals to Fight Two Disasters at Once

Coal-Loving Australia Just Hit Wind and Solar Power Records]

Venture capitalists (or, if you’d like, Space Cowboys) like Karsner have a tendency to put stock in exciting new technologies and ideas like carbon capture. Friedman, ever the techno-optimist, notes that Karsner and the other Engine No. 1-backed board members want Exxon to become a “more diversified energy company. That means not only investing more in future carbon capture, batteries, and other renewables, but also using its engineering prowess to invent that future—while it still has an income stream from oil and gas.”

It is worth noting, though, that many of X’s publicly-announced moonshot renewable projects acquired and developed during Karsner’s tenure, like making wind projects out of kites or fuel out of seawater, have failed; Wired reports that the company “once earnestly debated laying a giant copper ring around the North Pole to generate electricity from the Earth’s magnetic field.”

There are also a plethora of low-tech strategies like just stopping oil and gas exploration that could start us on that path ASAP. And glamorizing technofixes ignores the fact that a lot of technology needed to decarbonize the world already exists, we just need a regulatory structure that prioritizes installing it rather than trusting Big Oil to save us.

Exxon, if you’ll recall, lags far behind even other oil companies in investing in renewables or making plans to lower emissions. It’s hard to have faith a company that so furiously put energy into denying climate science for decades and has stubbornly indicated it will keep up new exploration to suddenly heed the siren call of a low-carbon future.

The best thing for the planet would be if Exxon just died, not transformed into a techno-futuristic capitalist wet dream. That’s not going to happen anytime soon, so on some level at least, I’m glad Karsner is coming aboard. It remains to be seen what he and the other three members are going to do with their time there, and if a Space Cowboy can rein in one of the world’s biggest polluters.

mar 2020

https://www.climateone.org/audio/big-ideas-dan-esty-andy-karsner

BIG IDEAS WITH DAN ESTY & ANDY KARSNER

March 6th, 2020

Does solving climate change mean re-thinking old top-down approaches and embracing big change at high speed? A half-century after the first Earth Day, some environmental advocates argue it’s time to challenge some of our basic assumptions about climate action.

“The original environmental framework... was designed in the 1970s in a world that was information poor,” says Daniel Esty Professor of Environmental Law and Policy at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, and editor of the new book, A Better Planet: Forty Big Ideas for a Sustainable Future. “We’re now in an information rich world and one of the things that we can do differently today is track those harms and make people pay for them.”

Esty was part of the U.S. team that produced one of the first international climate agreements at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Nearly 30 years later, he and others have revised their thinking about top-down, government-centred approaches to climate action.

“Presidents and prime ministers don't actually have their hands on the steering wheel of a lot of the elements of society that determine a society's carbon footprint,” notes Esty. “There are lots of ways to go forward ahead of certainly national governments may be even ahead of what city and state governments can do.”

Both Esty and Andy Karsner, who served as Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewables under President George W. Bush, believe in the need to build an environmental coalition that can get majority support in Congress and the population at large.

“You're not ever going to get them to join a national coalition by saying, if only you had as much access to education resources tech companies and wealth as we had, you'd be as educated and you wouldn’t be running my life,” says Karsner. “That is not a winning argument politically.”

Like Esty, Karsner laments the polarization that has attached itself to climate over the last decade, particularly over the role of markets in nurturing climate solutions.

“We as humans have the opportunity in our collective communities to impose rules on the market for the market to serve us,” he says. “We are going to democratize the way people have access to problem-solving and enable bottom-up solutions to accelerate at an unprecedented pace.”

Related Links:

A Better Planet: Forty Big Ideas for a Sustainable Future

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies

Hip Hop Forestry by RaShad Eas

Planet (formerly Planet Labs)

andy

Alexander Karsner (born April 5, 1967) is an American technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and energy and environmental policymaker.

Karsner was most recently Managing Partner at Emerson Collective, where he founded and led Elemental, its environmental practice.^[1] He is a Senior Strategist and Space Cowboy at X and a Precourt Energy Scholar at Stanford University.^[2] From 2006 to 2008, Karsner served in the United States Department of Energy as Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.^[3]

In 2021 it made headlines when he was elected to the ExxonMobil Board of Directors^[4] as one of the first environment-friendly board members of this Big Oil company.^[5]

Early life and education

Karsner was born on George Air Force Base in Victorville, California – the youngest of four children – to David and Blanche Karsner. Each child was born on a separate Air Force base across three continents. The family ultimately settled in Fort Worth, Texas (Carswell Air Force Base, then southern wing of Strategic Air Command, 7th Bomb Wing) during the waning years of the Vietnam War and at the height of the Cold War.

Karsner's father was responsible for nuclear weaponry and played a key role in fulfilling the secret terms of the Kennedy-Khrushchev disarmament pact that resolved the 1963 “Missiles of October” Cuban Missile Crisis. Consequently, his father was deployed abroad, away from the family, for extended tours of duty. The family only learned the details of his assignments once they were declassified at the conclusion of the Cold War.

His mother, who was at the center the family and community life, was a well-regarded chef and caterer, and specialized in her native Moroccan cuisine. In addition to growing up during an era of mandatory bussing and desegregation, the Karsner home was multilingual and multicultural. As the child of a career military family, Karsner testified during his nomination to the Bush administration that he was imbued with an ethic that “our liberty comes with responsibilities and our opportunities imply an obligation” and “an appreciation of service above self.”^[6]

Before entering college, Karsner was a student of only public schools. He worked at night to save for college and attain academic scholarships, enabling him to be the first member of his family to graduate from a four-year institutions. He attended Southwest High School and was known for his political activism, both in student politics and in community and national affairs. He focused on nuclear arms reduction and addressing Soviet human rights violations. In 1984, he was elected by his peers as Youth Governor of Texas and was invited to meet President Ronald Reagan and other national leaders as part of the YMCA Youth and Government program.

Karsner attended Rice University, where he majored in political science and religious studies and graduated with honors in 1989. He then went on to study international Finance at the University of Hong Kong, earning a master's degree in Comparative Asian Studies.

Career

Early years

Karsner began his career in energy in 1988 as an energy analyst and project manager for international development at Tondu Energy in Houston, Texas, a pioneering independent power producer. In 1994, he was hired as Senior Development Manager for Wärtsilä Power Development, based in Hong Kong. In 1999, Karsner moved to London, where he became founder and CEO of Enercorp, a wind power development firm and international agent of Vestas. In this capacity, Karsner was involved in project development, management, and financing of energy infrastructure.

In 2002, Karsner led Enercorp to win a global competition to develop the world's largest private wind farm outside the United States.He has also worked with prominent multinational energy firms and developers including ABB of Sweden, RES of the UK, and Tacke of Germany (now known as GE Wind).^[7]

Karsner was CEO of Manifest Energy, a firm committed to energy development, investment, and financing. Having experienced senior leadership roles in large corporations, entrepreneurial startups, government, finance, and diplomacy, he founded Manifest Energy Advisors to offer select clients in industry, utilities, manufacturing, and finance, timely strategic thought leadership in energy resources, technology, and policy.

United States Department of Energy (DOE)

On December 21, 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Karsner to the position of Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy.^[8][9] Karsner was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 16, 2006.^[10]

On March 23, 2006, Karsner was sworn in as the ninth Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. In that role, Karsner managed the approximately $2 billion annual federal applied science, research and development portfolio for clean energy technologies. He also helped assemble significant bipartisan coalitions to implement or enact the Energy Policy Act, the Energy Independence and Security Act and the America COMPETES Act, all of which remain the foundation of comprehensive energy policy today.^{[11] according} ^to ^his ^own ^bs ^bio]

Late in 2007, Karsner was approached by Maurice Kaya and William Parks, Jr., officers of the Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism in Hawaii, about increasing the DOE's support role in Hawaii. Karsner was sympathetic to the request, and in January 2008, signed a comprehensive memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Governor Linda Lingle. This MOU established the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI) as a partnership between the state and the DOE. The HCEI's objective was to reduce Hawaii's oil dependence by 70% through substitution of renewable energy and energy-efficiency measures.^[12]

Karsner directed the U.S. Department of Energy and the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries toward an agreement calling for the two federal agencies to find ways to promote energy efficiency within their respective offices and facilities. Daniel J. Basta, director of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, and Karsner signed the agreement in Honolulu, expanding cooperative efforts to promote and increase energy efficiency at the country's national marine sanctuaries.^[13]

In diplomacy, Karsner was a principal contributor to the U.N.-sponsored climate change negotiations, the major economies meetings, and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on behalf of the U.S. He helped establish the "Bali Road Map" toward achieving a post-2012 global framework accord on energy security and emissions reduction. Karsner was also an original architect of the Major Economies Process.^[14][15]

Exploration

Karsner visited Antarctica from January 7–14, 2008, through the National Science Foundation's U.S. Antarctic Program, to promote wind and solar power. He dedicated a new scientific station at the geographic South Pole – the third since 1957 – officially ushering in a new support system for sophisticated large-scale experiments in disciplines ranging from astrophysics to environmental chemistry and seismology. This marked his second trip to South Pole station, as he also honeymooned there with his wife.^[16]

Other affiliations

In 2009, Karsner received the official insignia and designation of Royal Commander of the Polar Star - First Class from King Carl Gustav of Sweden, which is highest honor that the Kingdom of Sweden can bestow upon foreign nationals. The recognition was for "outstanding and unprecedented expansion of the historic ties" between the United States and Sweden in the fields of energy R&D, technology collaboration and commercialization, environment conservation and addressing climate change for Karsner's work at the DOE.^[17]

In 2012, Karsner attended the Bilderberg Meeting.^[18] This annual forum for informal discussions is designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Karsner also chairsAspen Energy Week – an annual convening of thought leaders across the energy industry – with Ernest Moniz, former United States Secretary of Energy.^[19] These two forums follow Chatham House Rules, in which participants agree not to reveal exactly what was said or who said it.

Karsner sits on several boards including Applied Materials (Nasdaq: AMAT),^[20] Conservation International,^[21] Nia Tero,^[22] the advisory council of the Natural Capital Project,^[23] the advisory board of the Energy Futures Initiative,^[24] the advisory board of MIT Media Lab.,^[25] and the Board of Directors of ExxonMobil.^[26]

Karsner's 2021 election to the ExxonMobil Board of Directors made headlines because he was one of four candidates put forward by a coalition of activist investors led by Engine No. 1 with the aim of redirecting ExxonMobil's focus away from fossil fuels more toward less pollutive sources of energy.^[27][28]

Honors

• Henry Crown Fellow, The Aspen Institute (2012)
• [](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SWE_Order_of_the_Polar_Star_%28after_1975%29_-_Commander_Grand_Cross_BAR.png) Royal Commander of the Order of the Polar Star – First Class, Sweden (2009)
• President's Award, U.S. Green Building Council (2008)
• Life Member, Council on Foreign Relations
• Fellow, Rotary International
• Hugh Scott Cameron Award as Outstanding Alumnus, Rice University

References

...

1. ExxonMobil, https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/About-us/Who-we-are/Corporate-governance/ExxonMobil-board-of-directors
2. ^ Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/06/19/exxon-board-karsner-engine1/
3. ^ The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/magazine/exxon-mobil-engine-no-1-board.html

...

bush killed kyoto but we are supposed to think this guy help on Bali?

After the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference held on the island of Bali in Indonesia in December 2007, the participating nations adopted the Bali Road Map as a two-year process working towards finalizing a binding agreement at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. The conference encompassed meetings of several bodies, including the 13th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 13) and the third Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP 3 or CMP 3).

The Bali Road Map includes the Bali Action Plan (BAP), which was adopted by Decision 1/CP.13 of the COP-13. It also includes the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP)^[1] negotiations and their 2009 deadline, the launch of the Adaptation Fund, the scope and content of the Article 9 review of the Kyoto Protocol, as well as decisions on technology transfer and on reducing emissions from deforestation.^[2]

• :{:{Bali Action Plan:(style="display:table-cell"):}::(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}:
  • :{1.1:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Cutting emissions:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
  • :{1.2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Mitigation:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
    • :{1.2.1:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Forests:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
  • :{1.3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Adaptation:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
  • :{1.4:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Technology:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
  • :{1.5:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Finance:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
• :{2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Ad Hoc Working Groups:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
• :{3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Timescales:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
• :{4:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{See also:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
• :{5:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{References:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
• :{6:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{External links:(style="display:table-cell"):}:

Bali Action Plan

Cutting emissions

The participating nations acknowledged that evidence for global warming was unequivocal,and that humans must reduce emissions to reduce the risks of "severe climate change impacts". The urgency in addressing climate change was accepted. There was a strong consensus for updated changes for both developed and developing countries. Although there were not specific numbers agreed upon in order to cut emissions, the decision recognized that there was a need for "deep cuts in global emissions" (several countries proposed 100% reductions by 2050) and that "developed country emissions must fall 10-40% by 2020".^[3]

Mitigation

Enhanced action on mitigation of climate change includes, inter alia:

• Nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions by all developed countries.
• Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) by developing countries.
• Cooperative sectorial approaches and sector-specific actions (CSAs).
• Ways to strengthen the catalytic role of the convention.

Forests

See also: REDD-plus

The nations pledge "policy approaches and positive incentives" on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in developing countries; and enhancement of forest carbon stock in developing countries This paragraph is referred to as “REDD-plus”.^[4]

Adaptation

Participants agreed on enhanced co-operation to "support urgent implementation" of measures to protect poorer countries against climate change, including National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs).

Technology

In technology development and transfer, the nations will consider how to facilitate the transfer of clean and renewable energy technologies from industrialised nations to the developing countries. This includes, inter alia:

• Removal of obstacles to, and provision of financial and other incentives for, scaling up the development and transfer of technology to developing country Parties in order to promote access to affordable environmentally sound technologies (renewable energies, electric vehicles).
• Ways to accelerate the deployment, diffussion and transfer of such technologies.
• Cooperation on research and development of current, new and innovative technology, including win-win solutions.
• The effectiveness of mechanism and tools for technology cooperation in specific sectors.

Finance

Provision of financial resources and investment includes:

• Improved access to predictable and sustainable financial resources and the provision of new and additional resources, including official and concessional funding for developing country Parties (dcP).
• Positive incentives for dcP for national mitigation strategies and adaptation action.
• Innovative means of funding for dcP that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change in meeting the costs of adaptation.
• Incentivisation of adaptation actions on the basis of sustainable development policies.
• Mobilization of funding and investment, including facilitation of climate-friendly investment choices.
• Financial and technical support for capacity-building in the assessment of costs of adaptation in developing countries, to aid in determining their financial needs.

Ad Hoc Working Groups

The Conference decided to establish two subsidiary bodies under the Convention to conduct the process, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) ^[5] and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), which were to complete their work in 2009 and present the outcome to the COP15/MOP 5.

The AWG-LCA and AWG-KP presented draft conclusions to COP15 and CMP5, which contained many unresolved issues. The working groups were subsequently asked to report to COP16 and CMP6 in Cancun, Mexico.

Timescales

Four major UNFCCC meetings to implement the Bali Road Map were planned for 2008, with the first to be held in either March or April and the second in June, with the third in either August or September followed by a major meeting in Poznań, Poland in December 2008. The negotiation process was scheduled to conclude at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen.

See also

• Agenda 21
• Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS)
• Carbon financing
• Climate Technology Initiative (CTI)
• Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT)
• Flexibility mechanism
• Global Environment Facility (GEF)
• Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
• LULUCF
• Monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV)
• Private Financing Advisory Network (PFAN)
• Risk assessment
• Technology Needs Assessment (TNA)
• UNDP
• Zero-carbon economy

References

1. ^ "Ad Hoc Working Group, AWG-KP". Unfccc.int. 18 December 2009. Archived from the original on 5 January 2010. Retrieved 16 February 2010.
2. ^ "United Nations Climate Change Conference, 3–14 December, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, (COP 13 and CMP 3)". Unfccc.int. Archived from the original on 4 February 2010. Retrieved 16 February 2010.
3. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 4 November 2008.
4. ^ "REDD: An introduction". REDD-Monitor. 23 January 2009. Archived from the original on 9 January 2010. Retrieved 16 February 2010.
5. ^ "Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA)". United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved 29 December 2012.

External links

• Part of the UNFCCC site dedicated to the Bali Roadmap
• BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | At a glance: Bali climate deal
• Bali Action Plan (.pdf) on United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change gateway
• Full text of the Framework Convention, agreed 9 May 1992
• Conference official blog
• Video clips of key moments on the last session of the Conference and interviews with Hilary Benn and Myron Ebell on Channel4 News: Bali: a deal of sorts
• Draft report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol on its tenth session
• Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. Draft conclusions proposed by the Chair.

Categories: 

• Climate change conferences
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
• 2007 in the environment
• Climate change policy

2 4 22

The House Oversight and Reform Committee is extending a new deadline for a group of five Big Oil board members to testify as part of its investigation of fossil fuel misinformation.

In letters sent Wednesday, the committee said board members from Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC, and Chevron Corp. declined to appear at a planned hearing on Feb. 8. Jane Holl Lute, a member of Shell’s board of directors, said she would be willing to testify but “declined to participate on that date after other invited board members refused to appear,” according to the committee.

The panel will reschedule the hearing for March 8, wrote full committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Environment Subcommittee Chair Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). The full committee will hold a separate hearing with climate science experts on the original Feb. 8 date.

“The Big Oil companies should consider the March hearing their last chance to cooperate,” Maloney said in a statement. “If their board members refuse to appear, they should expect further action from this Committee.”

The Oversight Committee first called the oil company board members to testify in another round of letters late last month. In addition to Lute, the other invitees are Alexander Karsner and Susan Avery of Exxon,Melody Meyer of BP, and Enrique Hernandez of Chevron.

Some of the companies and board members indicated that they are indeed willing to participate.

Brad Wine, counsel for Exxon’s Karsner, said that his client informed the committee that he will “cooperate with their investigation and will testify voluntarily but that he was unavailable to participate in a hearing on Feb. 8,” due to “family commitments.”

The hearings are part of a larger investigation into the industry’s past science denial and obstruction of climate policy, a probe that has been on the environmental community’s wishlist for years.

Top executives from all four companies testified before the committee in October, alongside officials from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute (E&E Daily, Oct. 29, 2021). Maloney subpoenaed all six organizations for documents a few days later.

This week’s letters asked the companies to turn over all relevant documents by the March 8 hearing, or face “further action by the Committee.”

The panel’s Democrats are looking to question board members on the companies’ various net-zero emissions pledges and whether they go far enough.

The companies pushed back on the idea that their board members are refusing to cooperate with the committee. Rather, they said it’s a scheduling issue.

The October hearing with chief executives was formally requested more than a month in advance, whereas board members were given less than three weeks after the initial round of letters from the committee on Jan. 20.

“Our chairman and CEO voluntarily appeared at an earlier hearing, and the committee was informed that Dr. Avery and Mr. Karsner would also appear voluntarily when both are available,” Exxon spokesman Casey Norton said in an email. “We have been in regular communication with the committee since last summer and have provided staff with hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, including board materials and internal communications.”

A BP spokesperson said of its board member: “we understand that Melody is working with the committee on a mutually agreeable time to testify.” A Shell spokesperson said the company “will continue to cooperate with the committee.”

A Chevron spokesperson did not return a request for comment. Lawyers for Avery and Meyer did not respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Hernandez declined to comment.

Khanna said he hopes the eventual testimony will be revealing because the board members are involved in sustainability efforts at their respective companies.

Avery, for instance, is a climate scientist, while Karsner joined Exxon’s board last year as part of a bid by activist firm Engine No. 1 to overhaul the company’s climate strategy.

“Their answers will provide a behind the scenes look at the internal discussions occurring at these companies,” Khanna said in a statement. “If the members do not provide them voluntarily, all options are on the table.”

This story also appears in Climatewire and Energywire.

ref ltr

Mr. Alexander A. Karsner c/o Alex Iftimie Morrison & Foerster 

425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Mr. Karsner: On January 20, 2022, we invited you to testify before the Oversight Committee at a February 8 hearing to examine whether oil and gas companies’ climate pledges are adequate to reduce emissions and avert a looming climate disaster. You declined to participate on the date requested. The Committee plans to move forward with our hearing on February 8, to learn the truth about the fossil fuel industry’s climate pledges.

We will hear from witnesses who have studied these pledges and will explain whether they will truly reduce global warming—or instead are simply another effort by oil and gas companies to deceive the public and “greenwash” the industry’s destructive impact on our planet. In light of your role on the board of directors of Exxon, a major source of carbon emissions, the Committee continues to require your testimony on this topic.As we previously explained, boards of directors of fossil fuel companies have a key role to play in holding management accountable for meaningful actions to reduce emissions.

As an accommodation to you, we plan to divide this hearing into two panels on different

dates, and we will reschedule your testimony for March 8, 2022. This will be your last

opportunity to appear voluntarily before the Committee. Please confirm by February 7 that you

will comply with this request.

Because the Committee is postponing your testimony for four weeks, we expect that

Exxon will complete production of all records responsive to our November 2, 2021, subpoena in

advance of your testimony. This subpoena was issued four months ago, and the remaining

documents are long overdue.

Among other documents, Exxon must produce in full and without redaction all

responsive board materials,including those previously placed inside a restrictive electronic

reading room without the Committee’s consent.Failure to produce these documents in advance  ...

June 3, 2021, ExxonMobil Board announced that, Engine No. 1 nominee Alexander Karsner will join fellow candidates Gregory Goff and Kaisa Hietala on the board of ExxonMobil.

:{

}:

:{

}:

Engine No. 1 Nominee Alexander Karsner Will Join ...

:{https://www.marketscreener.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › quote › stock › EXXON-MOBIL-CORPORATION-4822 › news › Engine-No-1-Nominee-Alexander-Karsner-Will-Join-ExxonMobil-Board-35508122:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

On, June 3, 2021, ExxonMobil Board announced that, Engine No. 1 nominee Alexander Karsner will join fellow candidates Gregory Goff and Kaisa Hietala on the board of ExxonMobil. | January 27, 2022

Company report: EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

:{https://cz.products.erstegroup.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › modules › res › PdfRenderer.php?f=US30231G1022-2022-02-19.pdf&u= › modules › res › company_profile › download.php?LANG=cs&MARKET=cz&ISIN=US30231G1022:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION ISIN: US30231G1022 WKN: 30231G102 Asset Class: Stock Company 2022/02/18 22:02:16 Price ... Susan Avery Member of Board of Directors Alexander Karsner Member of Board of Directors Angela Braly Member of Board of Directors

Alexander Karsner - Insider of Exxon Mobil Corp | XOM

:{https://cdn-macroaxis.netdna-ssl.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › invest › manager › XOM › Alexander-Karsner:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Alexander Karsner is Director of Exxon Mobil Corp. Alexander Karsner corporate profile, background and performance evaluation including other Exxon executives

Alexander Karsner - XOM / Exxon Mobil Corporation ...

:{https://fintel.io:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › n › us › xom › karsner-alexander:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Alexander Karsner This page shows the track record and history of Karsner Alexander insider trades in Exxon Mobil Corporation. The SEC defines Insiders as officers, directors, or significant investors (greater than 10% ownership) in a company.

Exxon Mobil : Susan Avery Elected to ExxonMobil Board ...

:{https://www.marketscreener.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › quote › stock › EXXON-MOBIL-CORPORATION-4822 › news › Exxon-Mobil-Susan-Avery-Elected-to-ExxonMobil-Board-23755213:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Exxon Mobil Corporation announced today the election of Dr. Susan K. Avery to its board of directors, effective February 1, 2017. Avery, an atmospheric scientist, is... | October 31, 2021

Exxon Mobil Actually Put A Climate Scientist On Its Board ...

:{https://www.huffpost.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › entry › exxon-mobil-susan-avery_n_588a409be4b061cf898d6e35?v4gl092spw0v5z5mi=:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

But for environmentalists, this may be too little too late.

Karsner Alexander (EXXON MOBIL) SEC Filings

:{https://docoh.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › person › 1446059 › karsner-alexander:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Karsner Alexander is a director of Exxon Mobil Corp. Person profile. Roles. Exxon Mobil Director Applied Materials Director Broadscale Acquisition Director Address. Santa Clara, California. Employees. SEC CIK. 0001446059. Calendar. 2 Jan 22. Recent insider trades. Karsner Alexander ...

Susan Avery | News Break

:{https://www.newsbreak.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › channels › p-susan-avery:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Susan K. Avery (born 1950) is an American atmospheric physicist and President Emerita of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts, where she led the marine science and engineering research organization from 2008-2015. She was the ninth president and director and the first woman to hold the leadership role at WHOI.

Susan Avery elected to ExxonMobil board - OEDigital.com

:{https://www.oedigital.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › news › 447344-susan-avery-elected-to-exxonmobil-board:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

ExxonMobil has elected Susan K. Avery to its board of directors, effective 1 February 2017. Avery, an atmospheric scientist, is the former president and director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Susan Avery elected to ExxonMobil Board - F&L Asia

:{https://www.fuelsandlubes.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › flo-article › susan-avery-elected-to-exxonmobil-board:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

IRVING, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM) announced today the election of Dr. Susan K. Avery to its board of directors, effective February 1, 2017. Avery, an atmospheric scientist, is the former president and director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.