Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Barrister]

YOu can't just wave a magic wand and order the economy to "reduce CO2 emissions".  There's a whole series of hard policy choices that need to be made by governments.

Well I do find it amusing we keep revolving foreign policy and war around securing fossil fuel supplies while providing huge subsidies for fossil fuel companies on one hand, while giving them trouble on the other to reduce CO2. Either support fossil fuels or don't and let them sink or swim. Our policies make no sense.

AS an aside, I keep hearing about these "huge subsidies" we give to oil and gas companies.  There was a story in Alberta a month or two ago - but when they dug in most (almost all?) of the "subsidies" were tax credits or benefits given to all businesses.  For example last year - wage subsidies to prevent layoffs due to Covid.  Or orphan well remediation.  Or ordinary tax deductions that all companies use.

The googling I have done suggests that while in the past there were specific credits tied to exploration in Canada at least, but that now there are no specific benefits that go specifically to oil and gas companies.

[Valmy]

When I say "we" I mean the United States.

And when wind gets tax credits they are called subsidies so I don't see why tax credits for others are not also subsidies.

[Berkut]

A tax credit is definitely a subsidy, but it isn't that interesting a subsidy if it isn't unique to the particular industry, and it is downright dishonest to characterize a tax credit that everyone enjoys as a subsidy for a subset of those who are eligible for it.

[Valmy]

A tax credit is definitely a subsidy, but it isn't that interesting a subsidy if it isn't unique to the particular industry, and it is downright dishonest to characterize a tax credit that everyone enjoys as a subsidy for a subset of those who are eligible for it.

I have absolutely no idea how it works, but I have only ever heard tax credits as subsidies to declare that the government is unfairly trying to benefit wind. So if I was misled by people being downright dishonest in characterizing tax credits I was certainly bamboozled.

But still if the future of the world depends on moving away from fossil fuels, why give them tax credits?

[Berkut]

We definitely should not be, but the reason is the same reason all companies get tax credits. Because buying them off is often politically desired. Classic prisoners dilemna.

[crazy canuck]

Valmy the article states those things.  They are not my assumptions.  Don't go full internet asshat on me.  I was talking about the Seattle Vancouver Run.

Oh for fuck sake dude. I said those were assumptions, not your assumptions.

You disagreed with my post.

When did I disagree with any of your posts? I posted something, you asked for clarification, which I provided. Then you started attacking my reading comprehension. I don't recall ever disagreeing with anything you said, except for the reading comprehension part.

Assumptions?  There is pretty good data on how long it takes to drive from Seattle to Vancouver.  Go full languish and make your argument to your last breath, no matter how much you need to tie yourself in a knot doing it.

[jimmy olsen]

Good

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/26/business/exxon-annual-meeting-climate-oil/index.html

Activist investor ousts at least two Exxon directors in historic win for pro-climate campaign

By Matt Egan and Alexis Benveniste, CNN Business

Updated 1940 GMT (0340 HKT) May 26, 2021

New York (CNN Business)A hedge fund that's criticized ExxonMobil's climate strategy won enough shareholder support to oust at least two directors from the oil giant's board, a major loss for the once-mighty company.

For the first time in modern history, America's largest oil company faced a credible challenge from an activist investor, Engine No. 1. Upset with Exxon's financial performance and its foot-dragging on climate, the hedge fund sought to oust four directors at the company's annual shareholder meeting.

Engine No. 1 won two board seats in the shareholder vote. Two additional board seats were still too close to call Wednesday afternoon.

The vote is a major milestone in the climate battle because it's the first proxy campaign at a major US company in which the case for change was built around the shift away from fossil fuels.

The ouster of at least two Exxon (XOM) directors sends a loud message to other fossil fuel companies at a time when the International Energy Agency has warned the world it needs to immediately stop drilling for oil and gas to prevent a climate catastrophe. Engine No. 1 has criticized Exxon's reluctance to diversify into renewable energy and steps to maximize oil production.

"Investors are no longer standing on the sidelines. This is a day of reckoning," Anne Simpson, managing investment director at the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), said in a statement. CalPERS is among the prominent investors and pension funds that backed the activist campaign.

"Investors have sent a shot across the bow of Exxon, but its impact will ricochet across the boards of every major fossil fuel company," Mark Campanale, founder and executive chair of the Carbon Tracker Initiative, said in a statement.

Exxon's board will reconsider two shareholder proposals that received majority shareholder approval, according to the company. The proposals include Item No. 9, which calls for a report on lobbying, and Item No. 10, which requests a report on climate lobbying.

"We've been actively engaging with shareholders and received positive feedback and support, particularly for our announcements relating to low-carbon solutions and progress in efforts to reduce costs and improve earnings," Darren Woods, chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil said in a statement. "We heard from shareholders today about their desire to further these efforts, and we are well positioned to respond."
Stumbles opened the door to rebellion

Critically, this fight with activists comes after a period of dismal performance for Exxon.

The world's most valuable company as recently as 2013, Exxon has lost nearly $200 billion in market capitalization since its peak. It had enjoyed an unbroken run as a member of the Dow Jones Industrial Average from 1928 until it was kicked out of the exclusive index last summer.

During the five years prior to the pandemic, Exxon's total return (including dividends) fell by 17.5%, according to Engine No. 1. That was easily last among the five biggest oil companies over that span, with Exxon the only one suffering a loss. The S&P 500 surged nearly 80% during the same time frame.

However, Exxon has rebounded in 2021 as oil prices have climbed. The share price is up 41% this year, nearly quadrupling the S&P 500's advance. Still, Exxon remains far from the record highs hit in mid-2014.

'Questionable strategy'
Engine No. 1 argued the climate crisis poses an existential threat to Exxon — one the company hasn't taken seriously enough. Unlike BP, Royal Dutch Shell and other
European oil majors, Exxon has doubled down on oil and gas despite growing concern about the climate crisis.

"A refusal to accept that fossil fuel demand may decline in decades to come has led to a failure to take even initial steps towards evolution, and to obfuscating rather than addressing long-term business risk," Engine No. 1 wrote in its investor presentation.
Institutional Shareholder Services advised shareholders to vote in favor of three of Engine No. 1's candidates.

Citing Exxon's "questionable strategy" for the future and "diminishing returns," Glass Lewis, another influential advisory firm, urged shareholders to back two of the four candidates.

"We believe Engine No. 1 has presented a compelling case that, without a more concerted response and well-developed strategy ... related to the global energy transition, Exxon's returns, cash flow and dividend, and thus its shareholder value, are increasingly at threat," Glass Lewis wrote in its report.

Big Three hold the key

Engine No. 1 holds just 0.02% of Exxon's shares. However, the hedge fund won backing from major institutional investors, including the New York Common Retirement Fund, the Church of England, the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS).
But like most proxy fights, the battle hinges on which side gets the support of the Big Three asset managers. BlackRock, State Street (STT) and Vanguard collectively owned nearly 19% of Exxon's shares as of the end of March, according to Refinitiv.

That's why it's a very big deal that Reuters reported BlackRock has voted for three of Engine No. 1's four candidates to join the Exxon board. A BlackRock spokesperson declined to comment on the report, and it's not clear how the company voted.

BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, is under fire itself from activists demanding it live up to its own climate promises. The campaign is being led by BlackRock's Big Problem, a coalition that includes the Sierra Club, Rainforest Action network and Friends of the Earth.

"We question whether BlackRock is ready to hold the biggest oil and gas polluters — and their financiers — accountable. Anything less is lipservice — and greenwashing," Roberta Giordano, one of the organizers, wrote in a memo on Monday.
Beyond the board battle, Exxon also faces multiple climate-related shareholder proposals.

Both Glass Lewis and ISS recommend shareholders back three separate proposals calling for Exxon to issue reports detailing the financial impacts of the IEA's net zero 2050 scenario, on lobbying payments and policy and on corporate climate lobbying being aligned with the Paris climate agreement.

Exxon promises to keep refreshing its board
Exxon has defended its strategy by pointing to projections for continued demand for oil and natural gas, particularly in emerging markets. The company has also pointed to efforts to reduce emissions and invest in carbon capture and storage as well as hydrogen. Exxon has estimated carbon capture alone could be a $2 trillion market by 2040.

"We believe success in developing these technologies will be critical to both advancing society's ambitions for a lower-carbon future and in delivering long-term shareholder value," Woods and Exxon lead director Ken Frazier wrote in a letter to shareholders Monday.

However, Glass Lewis said it doesn't believe Exxon "has made a compelling case" that carbon capture will become economically viable or grow to the scale required to become the centerpiece of the company's energy transition strategy.
"We're left with the feeling Exxon isn't doing enough in terms of preparing or investing for the future," Glass Lewis wrote.

In a sign of the pressure facing Exxon, the company also promised to add two new directors over the next 12 months, one with energy industry experience and one with climate experience. That would be on top of the six new directors that have been added since 2017.

For its part, Engine No. 1 urged shareholders not to be swayed by what it called Exxon's "cynical, last minute maneuvering."

"This is the same company that for years has refused to take even gradual material steps towards being better positioned for the long-term in a decarbonizing world," Engine No. 1 said in a statement.

[Eddie Teach]

It is funny to see CC berate someone for "going full Languish".

[Valmy]

Assumptions?  There is pretty good data on how long it takes to drive from Seattle to Vancouver.  Go full languish and make your argument to your last breath, no matter how much you need to tie yourself in a knot doing it.

Dude I am not even disagreeing with anything you are saying. What would I be making an argument about?

[garbon]

It is funny to see CC berate someone for "going full Languish".

[crazy canuck]

It is funny to see CC berate someone for "going full Languish".

You and Eddie should really get a room sometime

[crazy canuck]

I don't know. That would only make sense if it is cheap.

But it might be cheap, I don't know.

It might also be more pleasant than a plane if you can move around and look at the views and do things during your trip.

Why would it have to be cheap.  I would be willing to pay a non cheap price to get to Seattle faster than driving.  Going city centre to city centre and not having to go through airports has its perks.

Because time is money. Paying more to go there slower doesn't make much sense, so maybe if it was pleasant with art deco and blackjack tables people might use it anyway.

On the other hand if it is cheaper than flying, and potentially driving, then it might be worth spending a few extra hours in the air.

Valmy, I guess the problem is you are not actually reading, or if you are reading, not understanding my posts.  Here I disagree I point out that the fare would not have to be cheap because I could get to Seattle faster than driving.  That is in fact what the article stated would be the case.  You then responded as if you had not read my post or the article when asserting that air travel would be slower and so would have to be cheaper.

This is a disconnect I frequently have with you.  I am not sure why.  But it often seems to me that you are not actually reading what I am writing. 

[garbon]

It is funny to see CC berate someone for "going full Languish".

You and Eddie should really get a room sometime

I'm a married man.

[viper37]

and it is downright dishonest to characterize a tax credit that everyone enjoys as a subsidy for a subset of those who are eligible for it.

Not all companies could claim benefits during the pandemic, only those that were susceptible to layoff.  Construction companies could not qualify for such subsidies before they were considered to be at risk of laying off employees during this time, given the boom in the industry over here.

Since I haven't seen demand for oil&gaz drastically reduced outside of the first few months of the pandemic when we literally shutdown everything, if they received up to 18 billion$ in help to "maintain operations and not layoff employees" while not everyone could claim it, it's definately a subsidy.

Aside that, being paid to repair environmental damages you caused in the first place is a subsidy.  Double more so if the company shuts down before the repairs and the govt still picks up the tab.  Something that seems to happen a lot for abandonned well leaking methane, or in another sector, abandonned mines.

[Jacob]

40% chance Earth will be hotter than Paris goal within 5 years, WMO forecasts

90% chance of new 'hottest year' record by 2025

There's a 40 per cent chance that the world will get so hot in the next five years that it will temporarily push past the temperature limit the Paris climate agreement is trying to prevent, meteorologists said.

A new World Meteorological Organization forecast for the next several years also predicts a 90 per cent chance that the world will set yet another record for the hottest year by the end of 2025 and that the Atlantic will continue to brew more potentially dangerous hurricanes than it used to.

For this year, the meteorologists say large parts of land in the Northern Hemisphere will be 0.8 C warmer than recent decades and that the U.S. Southwest's drought will continue.

The 2015 Paris climate accord set a goal of keeping warming to a few tenths of a degree warmer from now. The report said there is a 40 per cent chance that at least one of the next five years will be 1.5 C (2.7 F) higher than pre-industrial times — the more stringent of two Paris goals. The world is already 1.2 C (2.2 F) warmer than pre-industrial times.

Last year, the same group forecasted a 20 per cent chance of it happening.

The doubling of the odds is due to improvements in technology that show it has "actually warmed more than we thought already," especially over the lightly-monitored polar regions, said Leon Hermanson, a climate scientist at the United Kingdom's Met Center who helped on the forecast.

"It's a warning that we need to take strong action," Hermanson said.

Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann, who wasn't part of the report, said he is "almost certain" the world will exceed that Paris warming threshold at least once in the next few years. But he said one or two years above 1.5 C (2.7 F) isn't as worrisome as when the overall trend of temperatures stays above that level.

Mann said that won't happen probably for decades and could still be prevented.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wmo-forecast-1.6042309