Energy Companies Are Finally Backtracking On Their Absurd Green Goals

[Cow Poke]

Energy Companies Are Finally Backtracking On Their Absurd Green Goals

Is the public finally waking up to the inherent absurdities taking place in the energy space in the U.S. and across the Western world in recent years? Recent votes taken on ESG and climate change-related shareholder initiatives at major oil company annual board meetings indicate that may well be the case.

Though it has received scant attention across the legacy news media in general, the Financial Times reported recently that such shareholder initiatives were overwhelmingly rejected by shareholders of both ExxonMobil and Chevron, with most receiving less than 10 percent support. Similar initiatives in the previous few years would typically generate support in the 30-40 percent range, with a handful even gaining majority support.

The Financial Times reports that a petition requiring ExxonMobil to set emissions goals consistent with the 2015 Paris Climate Accords garnered just 11 percent of the vote, while Chevron’s shareholders gave a similar proposal less than 10 percent support. The same initiatives presented last year garnered 33 percent and 28 percent support, respectively, at the two companies.

“It’s incomprehensible that most investors still accept the US super majors’ refusal to cut emissions this decade,” Follow This founder Mark van Baal was quoted by FT after the votes were taken.

While it all may be incomprehensible to Mr. van Baal, there is no question that a palpable shift is underway. It is important to remember that it was only two years ago when ExxonMobil’s shareholders were so consumed with ESG mania that they voted to put three ESG-focused candidates sponsored by ESG investment house Engine No. 1 on the company’s board of directors. Apparently, that mania has now faded among ExxonMobil and Chevron investors, leading to speculation that the shift in investor sentiment could be reflective of a shift in the population at large.

It is a trend among shareholders that is not isolated to U.S.-based majors. Sentiment among investors at this year’s board meetings held by both Shell and BP produced similar results. Despite vocal and near-violent protests that broke out at the beginning of Shell’s annual meeting, during which some protesters attempted to rush the stage where Chairman Andrew Mackenzie was speaking, Shell’s proposed transition plan received 80% support from shareholders. In April, only 17 percent of BP shareholders supported an initiative that would have forced the company to adopt a plan to cut emissions more rapidly than already planned.

[Starlight]

I saw a video analysis of this yesterday...

The analysis was basically:
- In recent years solar has become the cheapest form of energy
- Competition in the solar industry is fierce
- Profit margins in the industry are low due to high competition
- Big investor firms typically look to invest their money for the highest profit
- Hence big Wall St investors typically avoid investing in low-profit highly-competitive industries, and prefer high-profit near-monopoly industries (and as shareholders vote for businesses they've put their investors money into to behave in the same way)
- Similarly most big energy companies who talked about green investments said they would only do it if they could achieve high profits from it, and are now seeing they can't

So it's an interesting case of the profit-motive directing investment toward monopolies and away from competition. The investors seek out high-profit industries rather than high-efficiency industries.

It may be a case where government intervention and investment is required because the free market is behaving badly.

[JimL]

Energy Companies Are Finally Backtracking On Their Absurd Green Goals

Is the public finally waking up to the inherent absurdities taking place in the energy space in the U.S. and across the Western world in recent years? Recent votes taken on ESG and climate change-related shareholder initiatives at major oil company annual board meetings indicate that may well be the case.

Though it has received scant attention across the legacy news media in general, the Financial Times reported recently that such shareholder initiatives were overwhelmingly rejected by shareholders of both ExxonMobil and Chevron, with most receiving less than 10 percent support. Similar initiatives in the previous few years would typically generate support in the 30-40 percent range, with a handful even gaining majority support.

The Financial Times reports that a petition requiring ExxonMobil to set emissions goals consistent with the 2015 Paris Climate Accords garnered just 11 percent of the vote, while Chevron’s shareholders gave a similar proposal less than 10 percent support. The same initiatives presented last year garnered 33 percent and 28 percent support, respectively, at the two companies.

“It’s incomprehensible that most investors still accept the US super majors’ refusal to cut emissions this decade,” Follow This founder Mark van Baal was quoted by FT after the votes were taken.

While it all may be incomprehensible to Mr. van Baal, there is no question that a palpable shift is underway. It is important to remember that it was only two years ago when ExxonMobil’s shareholders were so consumed with ESG mania that they voted to put three ESG-focused candidates sponsored by ESG investment house Engine No. 1 on the company’s board of directors. Apparently, that mania has now faded among ExxonMobil and Chevron investors, leading to speculation that the shift in investor sentiment could be reflective of a shift in the population at large.

It is a trend among shareholders that is not isolated to U.S.-based majors. Sentiment among investors at this year’s board meetings held by both Shell and BP produced similar results. Despite vocal and near-violent protests that broke out at the beginning of Shell’s annual meeting, during which some protesters attempted to rush the stage where Chairman Andrew Mackenzie was speaking, Shell’s proposed transition plan received 80% support from shareholders. In April, only 17 percent of BP shareholders supported an initiative that would have forced the company to adopt a plan to cut emissions more rapidly than already planned.

Huh, David Blackman, 40 year consultant for the fossil fuel industry. Finally backtracking Get a clue

[Cow Poke]

Huh, David Blackman, 40 year consultant for the fossil fuel industry. Finally backtracking Get a clue

Jim, if there's something you'd actually like to discuss, you're welcome to stay. But if all you're going to do is continue your rank hostility, please take it somewhere else.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I've seen a couple articles in my local paper (certainly not a conservative or conspiratorial paper) wondering where all the green energy is going to come from. Right now, there isn't enough green electricity to power the state and it gets worse as you add more items like electrical cars to the grid.

I've seen the topic discussed before. This is the first I've seen it more mainstream media.

Green energy may be the way to go. I just don't like the overly optimistic politicians who think we can get there quickly. Sounds like electricity is going to become an item elites get all the time and the rest of us get when there is enough to spare.

[oxmixmudd]

Energy Companies Are Finally Backtracking On Their Absurd Green Goals

Is the public finally waking up to the inherent absurdities taking place in the energy space in the U.S. and across the Western world in recent years? Recent votes taken on ESG and climate change-related shareholder initiatives at major oil company annual board meetings indicate that may well be the case.

Though it has received scant attention across the legacy news media in general, the Financial Times reported recently that such shareholder initiatives were overwhelmingly rejected by shareholders of both ExxonMobil and Chevron, with most receiving less than 10 percent support. Similar initiatives in the previous few years would typically generate support in the 30-40 percent range, with a handful even gaining majority support.

The Financial Times reports that a petition requiring ExxonMobil to set emissions goals consistent with the 2015 Paris Climate Accords garnered just 11 percent of the vote, while Chevron’s shareholders gave a similar proposal less than 10 percent support. The same initiatives presented last year garnered 33 percent and 28 percent support, respectively, at the two companies.

“It’s incomprehensible that most investors still accept the US super majors’ refusal to cut emissions this decade,” Follow This founder Mark van Baal was quoted by FT after the votes were taken.

While it all may be incomprehensible to Mr. van Baal, there is no question that a palpable shift is underway. It is important to remember that it was only two years ago when ExxonMobil’s shareholders were so consumed with ESG mania that they voted to put three ESG-focused candidates sponsored by ESG investment house Engine No. 1 on the company’s board of directors. Apparently, that mania has now faded among ExxonMobil and Chevron investors, leading to speculation that the shift in investor sentiment could be reflective of a shift in the population at large.

It is a trend among shareholders that is not isolated to U.S.-based majors. Sentiment among investors at this year’s board meetings held by both Shell and BP produced similar results. Despite vocal and near-violent protests that broke out at the beginning of Shell’s annual meeting, during which some protesters attempted to rush the stage where Chairman Andrew Mackenzie was speaking, Shell’s proposed transition plan received 80% support from shareholders. In April, only 17 percent of BP shareholders supported an initiative that would have forced the company to adopt a plan to cut emissions more rapidly than already planned.

Oil companies voting against green initiatives - who'd have thought it could ever happen!

[Cow Poke]

Oil companies voting against green initiatives - who'd have thought it could ever happen!

I'm sure you know the difference between oil companies and shareholders, Jim.

Did you miss the fact that shareholders were suckered into ESG, and now they're backing away from that insanity?

[oxmixmudd]

I'm sure you know the difference between oil companies and shareholders, Jim.

Did you miss the fact that shareholders were suckered into ESG, and now they're backing away from that insanity?

I did. And I'm not at all surprised oil shareholders whose profits depend on the market for oil would decide a green initiative that will reduce the market for oil would reduce their income from their shares.

In other news, Toyota, the lone holdout among automakes wrt electric vehicles, has now fully embraced them. And a new battery bench mark of over 700w/kg with charge times of 10 minutes has been achieved. The ice sheets are melting faster than predicted, raising sea levels faster than expected and reducing planetary aldebo faster than expected.

[oxmixmudd]

I've seen a couple articles in my local paper (certainly not a conservative or conspiratorial paper) wondering where all the green energy is going to come from. Right now, there isn't enough green electricity to power the state and it gets worse as you add more items like electrical cars to the grid.

I've seen the topic discussed before. This is the first I've seen it more mainstream media.

Green energy may be the way to go. I just don't like the overly optimistic politicians who think we can get there quickly. Sounds like electricity is going to become an item elites get all the time and the rest of us get when there is enough to spare.

It will take time, and it is important to make the transition in ways that do not leave the population hanging, as happened when Texas tried to save $:by not putting heaters in its wind turbines to prevent ice buildup during ice storms.

One of the more difficult problems right now is not as much capacity but charging infrastructure.

[Sparko]

As soon as they can make electric cars as cheap as gas cars, and they can be charged as fast as gas cars can be filled, people will start buying electric cars. The government can't and shouldn't force people to buy them by taking away gas cars. The biggest problem is that the technology to make the batteries right now isn't green itself. Lithium mines are dangerous hell pits dug with slave labor. And we don't want to be dependent on materials that have to be imported from our enemies like China. We need technology that we can control ourselves.

[Cow Poke]

I did. And I'm not at all surprised oil shareholders whose profits depend on the market for oil would decide a green initiative that will reduce the market for oil would reduce their income from their shares.

The point was they got duped into ESG then, apparently, woke up.

In other news, Toyota, the lone holdout among automakes wrt electric vehicles, has now fully embraced them. And a new battery bench mark of over 700w/kg with charge times of 10 minutes has been achieved. The ice sheets are melting faster than predicted, raising sea levels faster than expected and reducing planetary aldebo faster than expected.

Have you ever done a deep dive into the environmental impact both of providing the technology for electric vehicles, for properly disposing of the aftermath, and the need to produce the electricity to charge all of these batteries?

[oxmixmudd]

The point was they got duped into ESG then, apparently, woke up.



Have you ever done a deep dive into the environmental impact both of providing the technology for electric vehicles, for properly disposing of the aftermath, and the need to produce the electricity to charge all of these batteries?

I have. It's an issue to be concerned about that is exaggerated by big oil and other anti-climate change sources to push back against the efforts to make the switch from GHG drivers of climate change like fossil fuels.

And those doing the research are doing a lot to find greener ways of being green. Some promising alternatives to lithium ion for batteries have been in the recent news, as well as ways to reduce waste from wind turbine blades after their useful life is up. I seem to recall some better/greener magnet technology showing up - there the issue is mining the rare earth's they require.

Nothing wrong with raising the issue and exploring it. But there are multiple reasons we need to get off of oil as an energy source, not the least of which is limited supply. Peak oil was something Glenn Morton was very concerned about. So while we could continue to make electricity with coal for quite some time if we didn't care about meters of sea level rise, drought, and higher temperatures over the next few centuries, our cars trucks and airplanes would still need to develop alternative fuels and/or efficient electric.

The reality is once the battery technologies have sufficient power density and charging speed, and the mechanisms for extract hydrogen from water are sufficiently developed, there will be no more reason for oil. Electric cars and trucks are cleaner, simpler, longer lasting. They have more torque, power, and are easier to make autonomous.

Charging infrastructure will take time to meet demand, as will power generation. But we could even continue to use coal for that with sufficient technology for carbon capture to make sure we are in using it not continuing to drive up atmospheric CO2 levels.

but coal has other environmental impacts than the CO2 It produces so we need to just march on and get off fossil fuels.

Hydrogen as a fuel produces H2O when burnt, and H2O is a GHG. But since the hydrogen came from water already on the planet and part of the hydrological cycle, burning hydrogen itself can never be a climate change driver.

[Cow Poke]

I have. It's an issue to be concerned about that is exaggerated by big oil and other anti-climate change sources to push back against the efforts to make the switch from GHG drivers of climate change like fossile fuels.

And those doing the research are doing a lot to find greener ways of being green. Some promising alternatives to lithium ion for batteries have been in the recent news, as well as ways to reduce waste from wind turbine blades after their useful life is up. I seem to recall some better/greener magnet technology showing up - there the issue is mining the rare earth's they require.

Nothing wrong with raising the issue and exploring it. But there are multiple reasons we need to get off of oil as an energy source, not the least of which is limited supply. Peak oil was something Glenn Morton was very concerned about. So while we could continue to make electricity with coal for quite some time if we didn't care about meters of sea level rise, drought, and higher temperatures over the next few centuries, our cars trucks and airplanes would still need to develop alternative fuels and/or efficient electric.

The reality is once the battery technologies have sufficient power density and charging speed, and the mechanisms for extract hydrogen from water are sufficiently developed, there will be no more reason for oil. Electric cars and trucks are cleaner, simpler, longer lasting. They have more torque, power, and are easier to make autonomous.

Charging infrastructure will take time to meet demand, as will power generation. But we could even continue to use coal for that with sufficient technology for carbon capture to make sure we are in using it not continuing to drive up atmospheric CO2 levels.

OK, thanks. I figured you had.

[Thoughtful Monk]

It will take time, and it is important to make the transition in ways that do not leave the population hanging, as happened when Texas tried to save $:by not putting heaters in its wind turbines to prevent ice buildup during ice storms.

One of the more difficult problems right now is not as much capacity but charging infrastructure.

The problem is in my state I have politicians determined to rush the process. I see rolling blackouts when the infrastructure capacity can't get enough green energy to where it's being used.

I will admit there is some NIMBY also as upstate counties don't want to have the power lines from Canandian hydropower running through them on the way to NYC.

[JimL]

Hey guys, whether you understand, believe in, or care about climate change, the world is running out of fossil fuels anyway. Had the world taken on this problem 50 years or so ago when Jimmy Carter made it an issue then we'd be a lot better off today.
It's estimated that the world has only 52 years of oil reserves left, 53 years of natural gas and some 100 years or so of coal. Some estimates are less than that.