darren woods ceo exxon
replace rex 2016?
gop donor
oops see main
---
telling the main guy doing damage control?
---
 |
As I was doom-scrolling through the graveyard of takes formerly known as Twitter on Friday, a video popped into my feed that caught my eye — probably because of the big banner that read “Eat Shit Darren.”
ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods was at the Chemical Marketing & Economics (CME) gala in New York City, about to receive a “STEM leadership award” for “harnessing the transformative power of chemistry to advance humanity” Just as his award was being announced, Woods was confronted by a group of besuited climate activists who carried a banner that told him to “eat shit.”
“Darren Woods is a climate criminal,” declared Teddy Ogborn, an organizer with the group Climate Defiance, who unfurled the banner with two colleagues. “How can scientists be honoring this man who increases production of oil and gas every year? As long as production goes up, Darren, we’re fucked. We’re fucked because of you.”
“Exxon lies and people die,” the group chanted, before everyone cleared out of the room.
CME’s ceremony would have been the latest in a series of platforms, awards, and open doors oil executives have received this year, all politely inviting them to play the part of saviors to a crisis they’ve knowingly caused. Climate Defiance, a youth-led group that uses direct action to protest fossil fuels, engineered the disruption of the event honoring Woods.
I spoke with Ogborn, the lead architect of Friday’s action, about the strategy and future of these actions. Our interview, edited for length and clarity, is below.
---
So you all had a banner that said “Eat Shit Darren.” How did you decide on that one?
It's kind of a funny story actually. If you look at a lot of Climate Defiance's videos, we have these beautiful banners that are made by a wonderful artist friend in D.C. They have our logo on them and they often say things like ‘business as usual is climate disaster,’ or it'll have someone's name on them specifically for that action. But this opportunity came up in almost a last minute way — so when I realized I wasn't able to get a hold of this artist in time, I sort of took matters into my own hands. We had to come up with something to go on there really quickly. And part of the logic of it is, a lot of our targets are political — people that we sincerely hope will turn a new leaf, and we’re pushing for them to. But when it comes to the CEO of ExxonMobil, his job and entire reason for being is to increase production and burning of oil and gas. So strategically, the purpose was not to sway Darren Woods. We're not going to do that, but we can certainly humiliate him in front of his rich friends and in front of now over 5 million viewers on Twitter. It does seem to be one of the contributing factors to how widespread it's gotten.
How did you get into the room?
Well, I don't wanna give away our industry secrets if you will. But suffice it to say that it took a little bit of infiltration posing as someone that would be at this conference. I wore a name tag that said Tyler Edward from Edward Consulting, which, I know, sounds like it wouldn't work. That was another impulse decision but I went through with flying colors with four other ‘consultants’. We sat at a table with some folks who did belong in that space. And so there was a whole three course meal that was served beforehand and we had to either rudely ignore or briefly engage with the people at the table. It was kind of funny, my friend was asked by this man at the table where she went to school and she just made up in the moment that she went to Colombia for chemistry. So he goes, ‘Oh, that's great. I got my PhD in chemistry from Columbia.’ So she went to the bathroom to Google some facts about the chemistry department there. There's such a filter on these events where I think they're really not expecting anyone there to be like us, to be concerned about what's happening in that room. I just talked about confronting Woods himself, but part of the purpose too is to kind of pull the mask off of these spaces that the corporate elite, political elite, the oil and gas billionaires make for themselves. What I like to tell people is that we want to capture the moment, not just where we're confronting this person, but the moment that we change the vibe — it's the crassness of the banner, it's the fact that we're yelling, but it's also the fact that there's these red curtains behind us and there’s clearly the remnants of desserts on peoples’ tables and things like that. It's all kind of a part of the setting, the scenery. But also I think something that is very political is manifested in that space.
Do you consider the action a success?
For sure. I think the purpose is that we want an environment whereby these so-called corporate leaders cannot show their faces in public without being confronted. This should be the kind of work that gets you essentially ostracized, where people recognize that you are tanking their futures, putting their children at risk, harming people, especially people of color in the global South first and worst. That's what this guy does and he was about to be handed a trophy. So it’s a tiny glimpse of what the world should look like.
When this protest happened Darren Woods had only just come back from his debut at COP28, where he was one in droves of fossil fuel interests that may have successfully prevented a phase-out of fossil fuels in spite of scientists and policymakers across the globe calling for their end. Did you have that in mind when you planned this?
Of course. I think that was something that was driving us all a little crazy, especially seeing some business publications saying, ‘oh, this maverick oil CEO is showing up to COP’ — obviously some people still think that being at COP means you have any kind of commitment to a phase out of fossil fuels. What Darren Woods is attempting to do is, in a word, greenwashing — but specifically, he's going there and saying, ‘well, we need to reduce emissions.’ But he’s talking about addressing scope one and scope two emissions from his industry [under 15% of total energy-related greenhouse gas emissions], which means it would not touch the fossil fuels that leave these refineries. It’s miniscule and it's a way for them to continue to delay. I'm really encouraged by seeing protests at COP itself, but Darren Woods doesn't get confronted like this very often and he should — there needs to be consequences for him showing up to places like that and lying. This is a through line from the company all the way back to the mid-1970s when their own scientists reported that their continued production and burning of fossil fuels would lead to planet-ending global warming — and they buried that. And while Darren Woods wasn't at the head of the company at that time, he very much carries the spirit of that kind of behavior.
The U.S. and other countries across the globe have become increasingly hostile to the right to protest — at COP, in fact, activists said there were a lot more restrictions on protestors than in previous years, even while fossil fuel lobbyists were allowed to swarm the event. Why do you think protest and direct actions are important right now?
I think that kind of response that we're seeing means that it's working, it means that they know the power that we hold — that protest has the power to sway voters and people in power. That kind of repression tells us that we are on the cusp of something really big. I think people need to see that it's possible. When I started doing climate organizing work about two years ago, I had really no experience in any kind of campaign and organizing work. I'm always looking to bring someone into the fold. I think it's super crucial, especially with an action like this one that went so smoothly and has gotten so much attention, I think that should show people what's possible if you just get five friends together, make up a fake name, go in a room and now you're able to call out somebody who is absolutely torching your future.
Is there anything else you’d like our readers to know?
This kind of disruption is only gonna happen more and more until we witness change. So on the micro level, I would hope that CME rethinks awarding someone like Darren Woods in the future. We've made it very clear to people in that room why we were there. And because it was a science-minded crowd, we had more sympathy at this than almost any other disruption we've done. People were coming up to us individually, both inside the room and once we were outside, saying, you know, it takes a lot of guts to do that and he should be called out, and things like that. Although of course all it takes now is to see a video of a climate disaster, if you have an advanced degree in science, you know that it's undeniable what fossil fuels and what Darren Woods is doing to the planet. So that was certainly encouraging.
C CI 12 23 y
kert WSJ inside exxon strat many docs in discovey finder 1988 frank sprow
https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/exxon-climate-change-documents-e2e9e6af
"Inside Exxon’s Strategy to Downplay Climate Change" | SEJ
no lnx
WSJ NEWS EXCLUSIVE
Inside Exxon’s Strategy to Downplay Climate Change
Internal documents show what the oil giant said publicly was very different from how it approached the issue privately in the Tillerson era
By Christopher M. Matthews
and Collin Eaton
Sept. 14, 2023
2487 RESPONSES
Exxon Mobil issued its first public statement that burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change in 2006, following years of denial. In public forums, the company argued that the risk of serious impact on the environment justified global action.
Yet behind closed doors, Exxon took a very different tack: Its executives strategized over how to diminish concerns about warming temperatures, and they sought to muddle scientific findings that might hurt its oil-and-gas business, according to internal Exxon documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and interviews with former executives.
Exxon’s public acceptance in 2006 of the risks posed by climate change was an early act of Rex Tillerson, an Exxon lifer who became CEO that year. Some viewed him as a moderating force who brought Exxon in line with the scientific consensus.
The documents reviewed by the Journal, which haven’t been previously reported, cast Tillerson’s decadelong tenure in a different light. They show that Tillerson, as well as some of Exxon’s board directors and other top executives, sought to cast doubt on the severity of climate change’s impacts. Exxon scientists supported research that questioned the findings of mainstream climate science, even after the company said it would stop funding think tanks and others that promoted climate-change denial.
Exxon is now a defendant in dozens of lawsuits around the U.S. that accuse it and other oil companies of deception over climate change and that aim to collect billions of dollars in damages. Prosecutors and attorneys involved in some of the cases are seeking some of the documents reviewed by the Journal, which were part of a previous investigation by New York’s attorney general but never made public.
One of the lawsuits is from Hawaii’s Maui County, where wildfires killed more than 100 people in August. The lawsuit, filed in 2020, alleged the island faced increased climate-related risks, including more dangerous wildfires, caused by fossil-fuel companies. Some of the lawsuits may go to trial as soon as next year.
:{“I know how this information looks—when taken out of context, it seems bad,” Exxon CEO Darren Woods said in response to the Journal’s inquiry about the documents. “But having worked with some of these colleagues earlier in my career, I have the benefit of knowing they are people of good intent. None of these old emails and notes matter though. All that does is that we’re building an entire business dedicated to reducing emissions—both our own and others—and spending billions of dollars on solutions that have a real, sustainable impact.”}:
Under Woods, who became CEO in 2017, Exxon has committed to spend $17 billion over five years on emissions-reducing technologies. Exxon didn’t address detailed questions sent by the Journal.
WHAT’S NEWS
Exclusive: Exxon’s Strategy to Downplay Climate Change
Tillerson declined to comment through a representative.
Exxon turned millions of pages of documents over to the New York attorney general during that office’s yearslong investigation, announced in 2015, into whether the company misled investors about the impact of climate regulation on its business. The Journal reviewed summaries of the documents that Exxon’s lawyers had determined were the most significant. After the attorney general narrowed the focus of the case, the documents weren’t made public.
The documents summarize emails between top executives, board meetings and Tillerson’s edits of speeches, among other things.
After a nearly three-week trial in 2019, Justice Barry Ostrager of the New York State Supreme Court ruled the New York attorney general failed to prove its case.
“Nothing in this opinion is intended to absolve Exxon Mobil from responsibility for contributing to climate change,” Ostrager wrote.
Throughout Tillerson’s tenure between 2006 and 2016, Exxon executives in their internal communications attempted to push back against the notion that humans needed to curtail oil and gas use to help the planet—despite the company’s public statements that action was needed.
In 2012, after the pre-eminent scientific authority on climate change warned of global calamity if carbon emissions continued unabated, Tillerson disagreed and directed Exxon researchers to “influence” the group.
As pressure mounted to stop drilling in the Arctic due to rapid glacial melting and other environmental impacts, Exxon fretted about a key project in Russia’s far north and worked to “de-couple climate change and the Arctic.”
July 2013
Exxon’s deal to explore the Arctic with Russia’s Rosneft came amid
growing public concern about melting polar ice caps. In an email discussion
with other executives about how to protect the project, a corporate issues
adviser wrote:
“
As this shapes up, part of the moral argument for leaving the Arctic alone
will be based on this notion that it is fundamentally unjust for the people
who prompted the ice melt to then profit from development. It’s one reason
I think we will need to push back hard- albeit in a nuanced way- against this
notion that the whole area is ‘pristine’ and untouched by the hand of man.”
“The general perception is that Tillerson was softer and stopped funding the bad guys” that were espousing climate change denial, said Lee Wasserman, the director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, a charity that partly focuses on environmental issues. “This is the first X-ray into Tillerson’s head and shows he wanted to throw climate mitigation off the rails. It’s obituary-changing.”
The fund has issued grants financing litigation and other support for around two dozen cases against Exxon, whose predecessor, Standard Oil, was founded by family patriarch John D. Rockefeller. The fund has invested millions of dollars in a broader campaign against big oil companies.
Seminal warning
A study published earlier this year in the journal Science determined Exxon’s climate modelers had predicted warming temperatures with precision since the 1970s, in line with the scientific consensus. The study was funded, in part, by a grant from the Rockefeller Family Fund.
In the summer of 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen issued what’s now seen as a seminal warning on climate change when he testified before Congress that Earth was warming dangerously and humans were causing it.
Frank Sprow, then Exxon’s head of corporate research, sent a memo to colleagues a few months later articulating what would become a central pillar of Exxon’s strategy.
“If a worldwide consensus emerges that action is needed to mitigate against Greenhouse gas effects, substantial negative impacts on Exxon could occur,” wrote Sprow. “Any additional R&D efforts within Corporate Research on Greenhouse should have two primary purposes: 1. Protect the value of our resources (oil, gas, coal). 2. Preserve Exxon’s business options.”
Sprow’s memo was adopted by Exxon as policy, he said in a recent interview.
Exxon stopped most internal climate research, instead funding it through university and research organizations, Sprow said. Exxon’s corporate research division was redirected from broader scientific study to focus on “science to support our business.”
Sprow said he and former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond acknowledged the climate was changing but questioned to what extent human activity was causing it and how serious and rapid the impacts would be. The January study in Science said that Exxon’s climate modelers mostly attributed the changes to humans.
Martin Hoffert, who worked as a consultant to Exxon on climate science in the 1980s, said Sprow’s memo sent another message: “It’s an oblique way of saying we’re in the oil business and we’re not going to get out of the oil business, and we’ll do everything we can to make money on the oil business.”
By the time Tillerson became CEO in 2006, Exxon’s positions on climate change had become a public-relations nightmare, according to Sprow, who retired from the company in 2005.
Public shift
Exxon’s public shift on climate change came after the Royal Society, a British scientific academy, criticized the company for spreading “inaccurate and misleading” views on climate science in 2006. Exxon responded in a letter that it recognized “the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere poses risks that may prove significant for society and ecosystems.”
An Eagle Scout and a civil engineer by training, Tillerson spent his entire career at Exxon before becoming CEO in 2006. He left in 2017 to become then-President Trump’s Secretary of State.
His views on climate change were influenced by the previous generation of Exxon executives, said former company executives who worked with him. During his tenure, Tillerson took little action to curb the company’s emissions and instead believed the onus was on governments to push companies to address climate change, they said.
In 2011, scientists working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, convened by the United Nations, warned of global calamity if carbon emissions caused temperatures to rise more than 4 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels by 2100, its worst-case scenario.
Tillerson told a top Exxon climate researcher the scenario was “not credible,” the documents show. Tillerson was “dissatisfied with media coverage,” the researcher, Haroon Kheshgi, told colleagues in a 2012 email about the findings. Further, Tillerson wanted to engage with IPCC “to influence [the group], in addition to gathering info.”
Chris Field was the co-chair of an IPCC working group during Tillerson’s tenure at Exxon. He rejected Tillerson’s criticism that the worst-case scenario laid out by the group wasn’t credible. Though emissions reductions are preventing the worst case, Field said, the science has held up over time.
“I’m honestly flattered that he thought IPCC was consequential enough to want to influence it,” said Field, who is now director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. He added that the IPCC process is structured to prevent undue influence from individual businesses or other entities and that the Exxon scientists he’d dealt with were professional.
While Tillerson and others played down the risks posed by climate change, Exxon’s scientists were themselves modeling alarming increases in carbon emissions without dramatic reductions in fossil-fuel consumption.
“It’s almost reluctantly that we address C02 emissions,” Scott Nauman, a corporate planning manager, wrote in a January 2009 email as the company was preparing its annual energy outlook. “It is not a positive story. Global emissions continue to rise throughout the outlook timeframe – that’s clearly a cause for concern.”
Exxon routinely pushed back against the idea that dramatic curtailment of fossil-fuel consumption was necessary. Instead, it suggested that technological solutions, including making cars and other machines more efficient, were the most effective measure to halt global warming. Fossil fuels are responsible for more than 75% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the IPCC.
Before giving a speech at an event hosted by Stanford University’s Global Climate & Energy Project in February 2009, Tillerson appeared to make edits to avoid embracing positions that would hurt Exxon’s business.
In one part of the draft speech he crossed out “oil, natural gas and coal will not meet all of the world’s needs to the year 2030.” Later, he added, “the most cost effective steps we can take to address this energy and environmental challenge is to extend our energy efficiency gains.”
Weeks earlier, Nauman had concluded in his January email that emissions would increase through 2030 despite such gains.
“We would like them to be lower, but given the state of technology, given the need for energy, given the practical choices for energy, emissions rise despite aggressive efficiency gains,” Nauman wrote.
‘Skeptic arguments’
In 2008, Exxon announced it would stop funding think tanks and other groups that questioned climate science, saying their positions “could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”
Exxon researchers continued to support scientific research that cast doubt on climate science and its impacts, documents show.
Later in 2008, Gene Tunison, a manager of global regulatory affairs and research planning, said Exxon should direct a scientist to help the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s influential lobbying group, write a paper about climate science uncertainty.
“I support [Exxon] co-authoring a paper on uncertainty in measuring GHGs,” Tunison wrote in an email.
May 2012
Exxon researchers met regularly about developments in climate science
but continued to discuss doubts about the scientific consensus. Ahead of
a meeting dubbed ‘Friday climate overview’ among Exxon’s top climate
scientists, one researcher said:
“Under ‘some skeptic arguments disproven’ - my question is, are there any
‘skeptic’ arguments that we consider to be not yet disproven, or credible
and worthy of further investigation?”
Tillerson also pushed back against some of the dire consequences of rising temperatures predicted by climate scientists. After a 2011 meeting, Tillerson’s chief of staff, William Colton, emailed colleagues about the CEO’s feedback on a draft disclosure about carbon emissions. Tillerson wanted the words “weather extremes and storms” deleted.
“His view was that even mentioning a possible connection between climate change and weather was possibly giving the notion more credibility than he would like,” Colton wrote.
During a 2012 board meeting about “Developments in Climate Science and Policy,” Exxon board member Peter Brabeck-Letmathe said there was “still uncertainty in predicting future climate changes and impacts.”
“Money and effort spent on climate change is misplaced,” said Brabeck-Letmathe, the former CEO of Nestlé.
In December 2015, Exxon publicly stated its support of the just-signed Paris climate agreement, a nonbinding United Nations treaty that commits countries to work to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius. Climate scientists have warned that if Earth warms more than 2 degrees it could cross irreversible climate tipping points. During his Senate confirmation hearing to become Secretary of State in 2017, Tillerson said he supported staying in the agreement.
Months before the treaty was signed, Tillerson had expressed skepticism about its aims.
Following a presentation on climate science to Exxon’s board of directors in April 2015, Tillerson called the 2 degrees target “something magical,” according to a summary of the meeting.
“Who is to say 2.5 is not good enough,” said Tillerson, noting that it was “very expensive” to cut the emissions needed to meet such a target.
June 2015
Tillerson received regular updates on climate science from Exxon’s chief
researchers and in some instances asked about uncertainty in
climate-change modeling. An Exxon executive wrote Kheshgi:
“Rex called this afternoon with a couple of pretty detailed questions on
climate science: [1] Do climate scientists understand and are they able to
quantify the radiative forcing/GHG/climate impacts of events like
volcanos and forest fires. If so, how and how well? Is there differentiation
between major events like Mt Pinatubo and other much smaller events?
[2] Does the climate modeling community include these events and
effects in their climate models and projections of future temperatures and
impacts? If so, how and how well? Are these types of events/impacts a
major or minor source of uncertainty?”
“When people like Tillerson argue that 2 degrees is magical, it’s in the context of how you try,” said Field, the former IPCC co-chair. “Two degrees can be affordable with the right costs and benefits globally, even if it is not the right costs and benefits for Exxon.”
Last week, the United Nations warned countries are far from meeting the Paris agreement’s goals. Exxon said in August that the world isn’t currently on track to reach the targets of the agreement, which it continues to support publicly.
Shortly after replacing Tillerson in 2017, Darren Woods spread the word that he was in search of transformative new ideas. A plan to invest in offshore wind projects made its way to the most senior levels of the company, according to people familiar with the proposal. Karen Hughes, a former top official in the George W. Bush administration and an adviser to Exxon, said she counseled that investing in renewable energy would be good for the environment and improve the company’s reputation.
To date, Woods hasn’t invested in renewable energy, arguing it’s a low-return business outside Exxon’s skill set. Instead the company has vowed to spend about $3.4 billion a year on average through 2027 curbing its emissions and helping other companies do the same, and investing in areas including carbon capture, biofuels and lithium mining. It also recently struck a deal to buy Denbury, which operates a large network of pipelines that move carbon dioxide, for about $5 billion.
Exxon currently plans to spend as much as $25 billion a year in capital expenditures through 2027, mostly on oil and gas.
Write to Christopher M. Matthews at christopher.matthews@wsj.com and Collin Eaton at collin.eaton@wsj.com
: 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8}:
Appeared in the September 15, 2023, print edition as 'Inside Exxon’s Climate Two-Step'.
---
omg going on offense?! std/key API talking pt?
jj comm dr an 12 22
Fresh off posting the highest quarterly profit in its history, the U.S.-based fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil sued the European Union on Wednesday in an attempt to stop the bloc from imposing its recently approved windfall tax targeting major oil and gas companies.
The Financial Times, which first reported the new lawsuit, noted that the challenge takes aim at the European Council's "legal authority to impose the new tax—a power historically reserved for sovereign countries—and its use of emergency powers to secure member states' approval for the measure."
:{"The new tax is due to take effect from December 31 and will apply a levy of at least 33% on any taxable profits in 2022-23 that are 20% or more above average profits between 2018 and 2021," the newspaper explained.
}:
In a statement, Exxon spokesperson Casey Norton insisted the company recognizes that sky-high energy costs are "weighing heavily on families and businesses" but claimed the tax would "undermine investor confidence, discourage investment and increase reliance on imported energy."
Reuters reported Wednesday that Exxon's chief financial officer has estimated the E.U.'s windfall tax could cost the corporation around $2 billion through the end of next year—a fraction of the company's 2022 profits.
Approved in late September amid a mounting cost-of-living crisis across Europe, the windfall tax was presented as an effort to generate additional revenue to "provide financial support to households and companies" struggling with high energy costs.Oil and gas companies like Exxon have been accused of exploiting global energy market chaos spurred by Russia's war on Ukraine to hike prices and pad their bottom lines.
In late October, Exxon announced it brought in $19.7 billion in profits from July to September, its largest-ever quarterly haul. The company also announced it would raise its dividend and expand its share buyback program, rewarding wealthy investors as consumers continue to face elevated prices at the pump.
According to a recent filing, Exxon has also been rewarding its top executives,boosting the annual salary of CEO Darren Woods from $1.70 million to $1.88 million for the coming year.
---
executives-due-at-gas-price-hearing-gave-1-million-to-parties-candidates
APR 2022
The six oil and gas executives scheduled to testify on price gouging before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Wednesday morning have together given more than $1 million in personal contributions to candidates and political parties since the 1990s, skewing heavily toward Republican causes, federal records show.
A CQ Roll Call review of Federal Election Commission filings on the six executives found Scott Sheffield, who is CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources and a board member of the Williams Companies, a natural gas company, has given the most of the group: about $469,000 to political campaigns and committees since 1993.
Of that total, he gave approximately $346,000 to Republican candidates for offices or GOP-aligned committees, such as the National Republican Senatorial Committee or the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Chevron CEO Michael Wirth gave about $255,000 since 2003, while Exxon CEO Darren Woods donated roughly $197,000 since 2014 and Richard Muncrief, the president and CEO of Devon Energy, contributed approximately $115,000 to federal candidates and political campaigns since 2012.
Donations from the other two witnesses, BP America Inc. Chairman and President David Lawler (about $25,700 since 2017) and Shell USA President Gretchen Watkins ($6,700 since 2012), are far smaller than what the other four witnesses gave.
All six are witnesses in a hearing scheduled for 10:30 a.m. Wednesday on price gouging and gasoline prices, a subject that has drawn significant Capitol Hill attention following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and multiple planned sales of U.S.-held crude oil from the country’s national reserve of petroleum.
Four of the six executives — Woods of Exxon, Lawler of BP, Wirth of Chevron and Watkins of Shell — appeared in October before a House Oversight subcommittee to answer questions about the role of large oil companies in muddling the science of climate change.
President Joe Biden unveiled a series of steps Friday that he said would lower gasoline prices, including the release of 1 million barrels of oil a day on average for 180 days from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the top Republican on the full committee, said Monday afternoon that H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser to former President Donald Trump, will appear as a GOP witness at the Wednesday hearing.
Spokespeople for Democrats on the committee did not respond when asked what criteria were used to call these six witnesses.
Taken together, the executives have given about $1.10 million since the 1990s, CQ Roll Call found in its review, which used all available FEC data.
Personal contributions
CQ Roll Call reviewed only personal contributions and did not consider donations the executives’ companies made through political action committees, or PACs, in federal campaigns.
While none of the executives appear to have donated to members of the subcommittee, some have donated to several of the election campaigns of members of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.
Shell’s Watkins has given $5,700 to Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, D-Texas, since 2020, while Lawler gave $2,000 to committees associated with Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., in 2018.
“Shell does not make political contributions,” said company spokesman Curtis Smith. “Any contributions made by Gretchen Watkins to an individual candidate would be considered personal in nature, as would her rationale for doing so.”
Josh Hicks, a BP spokesman, declined to comment. Lawler has given about $26,000 since 2017, but about $22,000 of that went to his parent company’s political action committee.
“Chevron employees at all levels of the company are free to participate in the political process, including through donations to candidates of both major U.S. parties,” Chevron spokesperson Braden Reddall said.
Representatives of the other three companies did not respond to emails and a voicemail seeking comment.
In 2015, Sheffield gave $10,800 to a joint fundraising committee established by Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, a high-ranking Republican on the full committee, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Sheffield also gave $5,400 to Upton’s reelection in 2016.
In 2020, Sheffield gave $5,000 to Texas Reloaded, a joint fundraising effort for Rep. Daniel Crenshaw, R-Texas, and $833 to Crenshaw’s campaign. Crenshaw is a full committee member.
Sheffield also donated $12,700 to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Total donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2022 election cycle, including money from individuals, PACs and what’s known as “soft money,” are skewing sharply toward Republicans, drawing 76 percent of donations versus 24 percent for Democrats, according to campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.
That percentage is higher for Democrats than it was in the election cycles of 2014, 2016 and 2018, when Republicans drew 87 percent of the donations, and 2020, which saw GOP candidates and causes get 84 percent of cash from this industry.
Soft money is the term for contributions meant to support general political parties rather than a specific candidate.
While many of the group’s donations went to Republicans, oil-state Democratic senators and House members, including former Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, were on the receiving end of some donations.
Sheffield donated to all three, as well as to Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., who got $5,800 in donations in 2021 for his campaign.
Out of all of Woods’ donations, none went to Democrats and about $156,300 went to Republican campaigns or committees.
Since 2013, Woods has donated $42,500 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, which raises money for Republican House candidates and describes itself as “a political committee devoted to increasing the number of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.”
---
mar 2020
no lnx
Exxon Mobil dismissed long-term pledges by some of its Big Oil rivals to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as nothing more than a “beauty competition” that would do little to halt climate change.
Energy companies need to focus on global, systemic efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, rather than just replacing their own emissions-heavy assets with cleaner ones to make themselves look good, Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said in New York on Thursday.
“Individual companies setting targets and then selling assets to another company so that their portfolio has a different carbon intensity has not solved the problem for the world,” Woods said at Exxon’s analyst day. Exxon is focused on “taking steps to solve the problem for society as a whole and not try and get into a beauty competition.”
Woods’ remarks, which echo those made by Chevron Corp. CEO Mike Wirth earlier this week, underscore the divide between U.S. and European oil explorers in their approach to addressing climate change. Both American companies see oil and gas demand growing for decades and refuse to compete in a crowded market for renewables where they have little expertise.
Much-derided plastic even came in for some praise, with Exxon Senior Vice President Jack Williams arguing that it’s “a net benefit to society and to the environment.”
ALSO READ: Climate crisis: CEOs beware, shareholders want you to go green fast
By contrast Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Repsol SA and Eni SpA have pledged to make large reductions in carbon emissions over the long term, while last month BP Plc went a step further with a target to become carbon neutral by 2050.
Companies changing their production mix “doesn’t change the demand” for oil and gas, Woods said. “If you don’t have a viable alternative set, all you’re doing is moving out from one company or one country to someplace else. It doesn’t solve the problem.”
Exxon sees world demand for oil and gas growing substantially out to 2040, even under the goals of the Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.Renewables such as wind and solar won’t be enough to meet demand growth on their own, according to Exxon.
In any case, it remains to be seen whether oil giants can generate big profits by producing carbon-free energy. Solar, wind and battery storage projects haven’t shown they can fund the huge dividends that underpins the industry’s investment case. To underscore his point, Woods said that global emissions have risen 4 per cent since the Paris Agreement was signed four years ago and energy demand is up 6 per cent.
For the energy industry to truly address climate change, Woods believes major technological breakthroughs are needed in the fields of carbon capture, alternative fuels in transport and re-thinking industrial processes. The company is investing in all of these fields but admits that progress will take time.
Exxon is also taking steps to reduce emissions from its own operations including reducing methane emissions and gas flaring.
:{
}:
aLSO READ
World leaders come up short at UN summit as millions demand climate action
With 2081 deaths last year, India 5th most vulnerable to climate change
India among top 10 nations on climate change performance: Report
10 things that reminded us in 2019 it was time we acted on climate change
New York judge sides with Exxon Mobil in environmental fraud case
darren woods business roundtable BBB better
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/10/7/2056681/-In-these-last-precious-moments-for-climate-action-we-have-been-betrayed-by-Amazon-Apple-and-Disney
no lnx
In these last precious moments for climate action, we have been betrayed by Amazon, Apple and Disney
Pakalolo
Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
ThursdayOctober 07, 2021
An aurora is a natural electric phenomenon that creates bright and colorful light displays in the sky. They are common at higher latitudes, mostly within the Arctic and the Antarctic Circles. In, Antarctica they are named aurora australis or the southern lights.
Joe Biden and the Democratic party are walking a tightrope on implementing meaningful changes to save the biosphere. The QOP party joined by two Democratic senators provides strong headwinds to derail that action. The action is the Build Back Better Plan; it is without a doubt the most substantial effort to fight the good fight with bold climate legislation ever.
Accountable Now,the U.S. compiled data revealing our corporate allies such as Microsoft and Apple and others have been secretly meeting with corporate interests that only want to maintain the fossil fuel economy. Some prominent companies that publically support climate action do not do so with business interests such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Better Business Bureau.
Bezos has stated that the climate crisis is the “biggest threat to our planet,” and all companies should be at net-zero by 2040. Disney and Microsoft also pledge significant action within that timeframe.
However, they support business lobbying groups and steer those groups towards killing Biden's critical climate plans.
Oliver Milman writes in The Guardian:
“Hiding behind these shady groups doesn’t just put our environment at risk – it puts these companies’ household names and reputations in serious jeopardy,” Herrig said.
The US Chamber of Commerce has vowed to “do everything we can to prevent this tax raising, job killing reconciliation bill from becoming law”. The leading business lobby group’s board includes executives from companies including Microsoft, Intuit, United Airlines and Deloitte, which have all expressed concern over climate change – Deloitte even includes teaching the climate crisis to employees in its staff training – and have made various promises to reduce emissions.
Another group, the Business Roundtable, has said it is “deeply concerned” about the passage of the bill, largely because it raises taxes on the wealthy. The organization is made up of company chief executives, including Apple’s Tim Cook, who has called for stronger action on the climate emergency from governments and businesses. Other members include Andy Jassy, chief executive of Amazon, Sundar Pichai, who heads Google’s parent company Alphabet, and Darren Woods, chief executive of the oil giant Exxon.
Below are the groups that these “woke” companies support.
...
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group that includes Bayer and AstraZeneca among its members, has run adverts attacking the proposed bill. The Rate Coalition, another lobby group that hasDisney, FedEx and Verizon as members, is also planning an advertising blitz to help kill off the legislation while the National Association of Manufacturers – backed by Johnson&Johnson, Dow and Goodyear – has said it is attempting to upend the bill “in every way you can imagine”.
These organizations are also showering Senator Sinema and Joe Manchin with all kinds of goodies. Will they betray the 81 million people that voted for Joe Biden?
From Time:
“People’s worst fear is that while President Biden is well intentioned and means it when he says that America is back, the political system in the United States can’t deliver,” says Rachel Kyte, dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University and a longtime climate policy expert.
Not delivering the infrastructure package would have a ripple effect—and with climate talks set to take place in Glasgow next month, the clock is ticking. International climate talks are structured around voluntary commitments combined with diplomatic pressure campaigns. Countries are supposed to look around at their counterparts and see the world moving in the direction of decarbonization. That observation, combined with some nudging, is in turn supposed to give these countries the confidence to be more ambitious themselves. Empty promises from the U.S. could lead to inaction elsewhere.
The writers in Climate Brief work to keep the Daily Kos community informed and engaged with breaking news about the climate crisis worldwide while providing inspiring stories of environmental heroes, opportunities for direct engagement, and perspectives on the intersection of climate activism with spirituality politics, and the arts.
an 10 21
no lnx
There it is': Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gets energy exec to admit his efforts to influence Congress
Alex Henderson October 28, 2021
Sen. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York City, a major proponent of green energy, has been arguing that the fossil fuel industry has way too much influence on lawmakers — and she found evidence of that influence when questioning ExxonMobile CEO Darren Woods during a recent hearing.
Referring to the Build Back Better Act of 2021, Ocasio-Cortez asked Woods, "Have you participated in any calls with members of Congress throughout this process of reconciliation and infrastructure?" — to which Woods responded, "I have."
AOC: Have you participated in any calls with members of Congress throughout this process of reconciliation and infr… https://t.co/RxBSQyC5u4
— Acyn (@Acyn) 1635447796.0
Following the hearing, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted:
And there it is. https://t.co/JNLmLEBC2L
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) 1635447321.0
from api page?
see darren woods
Business Positions
ExxonMobil Oil and gas exploration, production, and marketing
• President and CEO (Jan 1 '17→?)* entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">[+1]
• Position ('92→'01)entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical, BVBA Belgian subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corp.
• Senior Vice President (?→'15)entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
• Vice President (?→'15)entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
• Vice President (?→'15)entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company
• President (Aug 1 '12→?)entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
Saudi Aramco Mobil Refinery Company Ltd. Crude oil refining facilities in Saudi Arabia
• Board Member (past)entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
Other Positions
American Petroleum Institute Oil and natural gas industry association
• Chairman*entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
US-China Business Council The US-China Business Council, Inc. (USCBC) is a private, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of roughly 220 American companies that do business with China
• Board Memberentity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
Bloomberg New Economy Forum Policy Discussions Joining East and West
• Advisory Board Member*entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
Memberships
National Petroleum Council Advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy composed of oil & gas executives
• Memberentity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
Business Roundtable Conservative-leaning pro-business policy group of leading chief executives
• Memberentity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
Donation/Grant Recipients
Exxon Mobil Corporation Political Action Committee (Exxonmobil PAC)
• 32 contributions · 12,069 USD (Jul 31 '13→Jun 30 '16)entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
National Republican Congressional Committee
• 3 contributions · 10,000 USD (Mar 11 '13→Mar 24 '16)entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
John Cornyn Republican US Senator from Texas
• 1 contribution · 2,600 USD (Aug 27 '14)entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
Charter Communications Inc PAC
• 4 contributions · 40 USD (Oct 23 '15→Dec 18 '15)entity-page#toggleRelationship" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-left: 10px; cursor: pointer;">
Other Affiliations
Proponents of Tax on Carbon Individuals and organizations in favor of a Tax on Carbon
---
many pages
:{
}:
:{
People in Common Orgs
People with positions in the same orgs as Darren W Woods
}:
woods
many pages
Donors to Common Recipients
Recipients of donations from Darren W Woods also received donations from these orgs and people
data
| Position | Chairman | (current) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Position | Advisory Board Member | ||
|
Conservative-leaning pro-business policy group of leading chief executives | Membership | Member | |
| Celtic Exploration Ltd | Position | Vice President | ? - 2015 |
| Charter Communications Inc PAC | Donation/Grant | 4 contributions · 40 USD | ? - 2015 |
| Exxon Company International | Position | Position | ? - 2001 |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation Political Action Committee (Exxonmobil PAC) | Donation/Grant | 32 contributions · 12,069 USD | ? - 2016 |
| Exxonmobil Canada | Position | Vice President | ? - 2015 |
| Position | Senior Vice President | ? - 2015 | |
| ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company | Position | President | (past) |
| Position | Senior Vice President | (past) | |
| Position | President and CEO | (current) | |
| Donation/Grant | 1 contribution · 2,600 USD | ? - 2014 | |
|
Advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy composed of oil & gas executives | Membership | Member | (current) |
| National Republican Congressional Committee | Donation/Grant | 3 contributions · 10,000 USD | ? - 2016 |
| Generic | includes | (current) | |
| Position | Board Member | (past) | |
| Position | Board Member | (current) |
https://influencemap.org/influencer/American-Petroleum-Institute-API
sum:
Climate Lobbying Overview: The American Petroleum Institute appears to be broadly hostile to progressive climate policy. It does not seem to fully support the need to drastically cut emissions to limit global temperature increase to below 2C and seems to have pushed a deregulatory agenda over ambitious climate action. It does not seem to support the transition of the energy mix, emphasizing the importance of oil and gas to the American economy and opposing measures to limit fossil fuel development. Furthermore, it also appears to not support several other policies intended to cut emissions such as renewable fuel standards and carbon taxation.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: The American Petroleum Institute appears to be broadly unsupportive of progressive climate policy in its top-line messaging. Although in various comments throughout 2020, it has indicated general support for unspecified levels of emissions reductions to respond to climate change, this does not appear to be aligned with IPCC advice. For example, in July 2020, it appeared to question the feasibility of reaching net-zero emissions, following statements in December 2019 that the technology “does not yet exist” to limit temperature rise to well below 2°C.
It appears to emphasize that climate policies should not compromise economic growth, as well as appearingto prioritize market-based mechanisms over other kinds of policy. In March 2021, it was reported that the API would change its position and start to support carbon pricing as the "primary government climate policy instrument to reduce CO2 emissions", while still appearing to not support other "prescriptive regulatory action".
Comments from CEO Mike Sommers in December 2020 also appear to suggest that government regulation to respond to climate change is unnecessary. In his keynote speech for the API's annual State of American Energy report in 2021, Sommers said 'Mandates get us nowhere', and that the surest way to bring recovery to a stop following COVID-19 was with 'more regulations, more taxes, more restrictions on access' to federal lands and waters for oil and gas development.
The American Petroleum Institute has not taken a formal position on theParis Agreement but in December 2019 stated it supported the “ambition” of the agreement. This position was repeated in its 2021 State of American Energy report, however, in the same report, API called the goals of the Paris Agreement ‘aggressive’ and seemed to be ambiguous as to whether the U.S. should participate in meeting the goals.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: The American Petroleum Institute appears to be highly opposed to specific climate-related regulations and since the 2016 US election, the group seems to have promoted a deregulatory agenda in the country over ambitious policy to respond to climate change. API has continued to promote this deregulatory agenda in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 crisis, advocating President Trump waive testing and reporting requirements for a range of policies, including those relevant for GHG emissions.
The API has also continued to oppose specific policies intended to cut emissions. In October 2020, it stated it would oppose any carbon tax that would increase the price of US oil and gas exports, following comments from February 2019 submitted to the Pennsylvania House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee that “New and increased taxes… can only slow growth and investment.”In March 2021, the API announced an apparent change in its position to support carbon pricing, but still stopped short of explicitly endorsing a carbon tax. In addition, the API has heavily criticized the Renewable Fuels Standard, tweeting in April 2020 that “it is time to get rid of this broken mandate”. Furthermore, in November 2019, the API directly advocated against the EPA’s proposed increases in biofuel blending requirements under the Renewable Energy Standard. API has again called for the repeal of the RFS in January 2021.[ETHANOL?]
Until January 2021, the API appeared to strongly oppose regulation of methane emissions, supporting the EPA rollback of methane regulations in August 2020, reportedly having previously met with White House and EPA staff in an attempt to loosen these regulations. In addition, in the first quarter of 2020, API appears to have opposed more ambitious oil well bonding legislation that would require industry to commit more money to fix methane leaks from abandoned wells. In January 2021, however, the API appears to have reversed its position on the federal and direct regulation of methane and has now stated it supports such a policy. This follows Total S.A revoking its membership to API after the industry association's State of American Energy address. In its communications on methane regulation, API has stated it would support 'sensible' and 'workable' regulations. It remains unclear at this point what API deems sensible and workable with regard to methane regulation. In May 2021, the API appeared to not fully support an ambitious implementation of methane regulation under the PIPES Act, stating in a submission to that "stringent regulatory mandates... must consider the cost to ratepayers and the ability of utilities to effectively comply". In September 2021, the API coordinated with other oil and gas industry groups to send a joint letter to the Committee on Environment and Public Works opposing the Methane Emissions Reduction Act of 2021, which would introduce a tax on methane emissions from oil and gas operations.
Positioning on Energy Transition: API does not appear to support the transition of the energy mix. In its public messaging, it has repeatedly stressed the importance of oil and gas to the US economy and US national security and in June 2019 argued that oil and gas “will supply more than half of America’s energy needs for decades to come”.[ROWE] API’s preferred method of reducing emissions appears to becoal-to-natural-gas switching, which it also claimsis essential to support renewable energy expansion. However, it shows mixed support for government measures to actually phase coal out of the energy mix. In August 2019, it appeared to oppose government intervention to prohibit new or expanded coal mines, but in May 2019, it opposed legislation in Ohio that would introduce subsidies for coal power plants and in July 2018, it appeared to oppose federal plans to bailout uneconomic coal plants.
It appears to have lobbied heavily in favor of measures that will help maintain a high GHG energy mix, for example in November 2020, supporting the removal of restrictions on oil and gas production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as well as suggesting punitive measures, such as preventing access to Covid-19 relief funding, for banks that have chosen not to fund Arctic-drilling projects.
API appears to oppose government interventionthat will limit fossil fuel development. For example, in September 2020, API opposed an expanded moratorium on offshore oil and gas development off the coast of Florida and in November 2020, CEO Mike Sommers stated that API would use ‘“every tool at its disposal” including legal action’ to block a proposed ban on fracking on federal land and water.
Furthermore, statements from August 2020 suggest API appearsto support continued subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, arguing these are “tax loopholes and deductions available to all industries”. These positions have been repeated in its 2021 State of American Energy Report, in which API argues against a ban on fracking, opposing restrictions on federal waters and land for oil and gas production, the weakening of the National Environmental Policy Act and renewalof the Nationwide Permit 12 program– both of which serve to make permitting approval processes for oil and gas infrastructure quicker and easier.
In addition, API does not appear to support the electrification of transport. In the first half of 2020, API launched the Transportation Fairness Alliance, a coalition described by Desmog as intended “to counter policies designed to accelerate the transition away from petroleum-powered transportation”. API appears to have opposed several specific policies to encourage the electrification of transport in 2020, including the rebate for drivers who trade in ICE vehicles for EVs as well as financial incentives for electric vehicles. In its 2021 State of American Energy report, API again opposed policies designed to incentivize the uptake of electric vehicles, arguing that subsidies, credits and sales mandates, that favor electric vehicles, like those in California, would ‘hinder America’s progress’.
InfluenceMap
Score F
Performance Band
:{
}:
24%
Organisation Score
47% Scores under 50 indicate increasingly significant misalignment between the Paris Agreement and the detailed climate policy engagement of the company’s industry associations,
Engagement Intensity 47%?
omfg
msnbc? calls it rommney exxon bill, not the bipart infra
https://www.alternet.org/2021/07/senior-exxonmobil-lobbyist/
raw story
Channel 4 in the U.K. published a startling expose on ExxonMobil's lobbyists who revealed the top most important U.S. Senators who are the ones behind any legislation that might hurt the oil industry.
While many oil companies are diversifying with natural gas, it appears ExxonMobil is going all-in battling to keep "big oil" alive and well.
"Keith McCoy is a senior ExxonMobil lobbyist on Capitol Hill and has represented the company in its liaison with the U.S. Congress for the last eight years," explained the report.
"Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes. Did we hide our science? Absolutely not," said McCoy on camera. "Did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that's true. But there's nothing, there's nothing illegal about that. We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders."
McCoy compared his work with elected officials to fishing with ExxonMobil who supplies the "bait" before it "reels in" the official on issues like a carbon tax, electric cars, taxation and infrastructure.
"When you have an opportunity to talk to a member of Congress, I liken it to fishing, right? You know you have bait, you throw that bait out. And they say: 'Oh, you want to talk about infrastructure, yeah,'" McCoy continued. "And then you start to reel them in and you start to have these conversations about federal leasing programs, you start to have these conversations about a carbon tax.You know, it's all these opportunities that you use and to use the fishing analogy again just to kind of reel them in."
"I make sure I get them the right information that they need so they look good. And then they help me out. They're a captive audience. They know they need you. And I need them," McCoy also said.
He went on to explain that lobbyists aim to have close relationships with officials.
"You want to be able to go to the chief… and say we need congressman so and so to be able to either introduce this bill, we need him to make a floor statement, we need him to send a letter. You name it, we've asked for everything," he said.
But it was the shocking revelation that he has 11 U.S. Senators on the hook.
"Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Maggie Hassan, Senator John Barrasso, Senator John Cornyn, Senator Steve Daines, Senator Chris Coons, Senator Mark Kelly and Senator Marco Rubio," were all cited.
He went on to explain that the last thing they want is to appear in a public hearing before Congress where the American people can see.
"We don't want it to be us, to have these conversations, especially in a hearing. It's getting our associations to step in and have those conversations and answer those tough questions and be for, the lack of a better term, the whipping boy for some of these members of congress," McCoy confessed.
"There was something we were working on earlier this week where we, where our CEO was invited to a hearing from a member of congress who we know is just going to rip him to shreds when he goes there. So, we look at it and we say: well, why us?" he asked.
See the video below and read the full story at Channel 4:
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/exxon-lobbyist-duped-by-greenpeace-says-climate-policy-was-ploy-ceo-condemns-2021-06-30/
wASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - A lobbyist for Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) said the company supports a carbon tax publicly because the plan to curb climate change would never gain enough political support to be adopted, according to an interview aired on Wednesday.
Britain's Channel 4 network aired the interview ofsenior Washington-based lobbyist Keith McCoy it obtained from an investigative arm of environmental campaigner Greenpeace UK, in footage that drew the ire of Exxon's chairman and chief executive.
Greenpeace activists posed as headhunters to conduct separate Zoom interviews with McCoy and a former Washington lobbyist for Exxon, Dan Easley.
"There is not an appetite for a carbon tax. It's a nonstarter," McCoy said to the Greenpeace activists. "And the cynical side of me says, 'Yeah, we kind of know that.' But it gives us a talking point."
McCoy did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He said on LinkedIn he was "deeply embarrassed by my comments and that I allowed myself to fall for Greenpeace’s deception." He apologized to colleagues at Exxon in that post.
Darren Woods, Exxon's chairman and chief executive, had sharp words on McCoy's comments. "We condemn the statements and are deeply apologetic for them, including comments regarding interactions with elected officials," Woods said in a release.
"We were shockedby these interviews and stand by our commitments to working on finding solutions to climate change," Woods said.
Asked whether McCoy faces disciplinary action, Exxon spokesperson Casey Norton declined to comment saying it was a private personnel matter.
The footage comes a month after Exxon shareholders, frustrated by weak returns and the U.S. oil company's record on climate change, shook up the company when they elected three of four nominated directors from activist shareholder Engine No. 1 to Exxon's board. read more
ExxonMobil in 2018 touted its investment of $1 million over two years into a carbon tax advocacy campaign in Congress. Its annual lobbying budget is $12 million.
Exxon Director Ursula Burns said at a Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas virtual event this month that the company's response to environmental criticisms "has not been well done." read more
McCoy and Easley spoke candidly to the Greenpeace activists on their strategies and positions on a range of issues,including President Joe Biden's initial $2 trillion infrastructure package, which they said they worked on to remove major climate provisions and push back against proposals to raise corporate taxes.
Easley said the Biden infrastructure plan contained clean energy measures that would "accelerate the transition that I think four years from now - it is going to be difficult to unwind them."
Easley, whose LinkedIn page says he started a new job in February, could not immediately be reached for comment.
Reporting by Valerie Volcovici and Timothy Gardner in Washington; Editing by Matthew Lewis and William Mallard
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
https://books.google.com/books?id=APDGDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
after oreskes, kocks, darren wood ceo exxon promised 180 eboy trump
defectors
fear of lawsuits (B/c of discovery eg tobacco files?)
https://www.c-span.org/video/?469372-1/the-triumph-doubt
The Triumph of Doubt
Former Obama and Clinton administrations official David Michaels talks about the use of “science for hire” in the creation of public policy.
oxford up oct 2020
https://stonefortgroup.com/ceo-darren-woods-exxonmobil-committed-environment-clean-energy/
no date
EO Darren Woods: ExxonMobil is committed to environment and clean energy
HOUSTON – ExxonMobil’s new CEO renewed his company’s commitment to environmental compliance and clean energy at the CERAWeek conference in Houston.
“I believe the assumption that affordable energy and a cleaner environment are a zero-sum game is mistaken,” explained Woods. “It underestimates the power of technology. The zero-sum view is a static one, and the world of energy is anything but static. But technology changes the equation. It makes a dream – growing the economy while reducing emissions – a reality.
Woods then outlined a series of progressive steps that ExxonMobil is taking in the clean energy sector:
- Take carbon capture and storage. It is a technology we have invested in – and will continue to. We currently have an interest in about one-quarter of the world’s carbon capture and storage capacity.
- Last year, we announced a technology partnership to research whether carbonate fuels cells can be used to more economically capture carbon dioxide at scale – enabling widespread use.
- By capturing CO2 in gas-fired power generation before it is emitted, this potential game-changer enables us to envision a future in which hydrocarbon use and de-carbonization go hand-in-hand.
- In the manufacturing process area, we recently announced a new technology we call “cMIST” that enables us to more efficiently dehydrate natural gas. cMIST reduces the surface footprint for this process by 70%. It also reduces energy use and emissions.
- Our scientists are working with MIT, Princeton, Stanford, the University of Texas and Georgia Tech – among others – to advance fundamental research that could significantly reduce emissions and profoundly shape our energy and environmental future.
- Through our work with Georgia Tech, we have pioneered a new membrane for the process of reverse osmosis that enables us to convert oil and natural gas to higher-value fuels and chemicals. If we can scale it, this breakthrough could reduce global carbon-dioxide emissions up to 45 million tons, annually.
- We are incorporating fuel-saving technologies into a portfolio of innovative products that enable cars and trucks to go further with less, including advanced synthetic lubricants, improved tire liners and lightweight plastic body parts. If these existing technologies and others were applied to a third of the vehicles in this country, it would avoid greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to removing 8 million cars from the road.
- Our new polymers can make plastic films that are strong but light and thin. This helps to safely preserve food for longer, reducing spoilage, and ultimately reducing emissions.
- We are a leader in cogeneration – a technology that uses waste heat to generate steam and reduces the need to burn fuel and emit more. ExxonMobil’s cogeneration capacity worldwide is the equivalent of the annual energy needed to power 2.5 million U.S. homes. That’s a sizeable environmental savings.
- In addition, we are deploying an entire suite of technologies at our refineries and chemical plants to strengthen our environmental performance: new systems to recover gas that would otherwise be flared; specialized cameras to detect fugitive emissions so that they can be stopped; advanced burners to minimize emissions.
- In the area of climate regulation, policies fostering transparent, uniform carbon prices that allow market forces to drive effective solutions, minimize administrative burdens and promote global participation can be effective.
- We worked with Stanford to develop new software for estimating the potential impact injection wells could have on seismic fault lines.
methane emssisions capt?
==
Meet Darren Woods, the Man Who Will Replace Exxon CEO ...
/13 › meet-exxons-next-ceo
1.