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.
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.
Comment