Exxon Blasts Movement to Divest From Fossil Fuels

The oil giant seeks to counter the campaign that urges investors to dump stock in petroleum and coal companies.

BURBANK, CA - FEBRUARY 01: An Exxon gas station advertises its gas prices on February 1, 2008 in Burbank, California. Exxon Mobil Corp. has posted an annual profit of $40.6 billion, the largest ever by a US company, and set a new US record for the highest quarterly profit, $11.7 billion for the last three months of 2007. The previous annual profit record, $39.5 billion, was set by Exxon in 2006. The company's revenue also rose 30 percent in the fourth quarter, from $90 billion a year ago to $116.6 billion. Yearly sales were up from $377.64 billion in 2006 to a new company record of $404.5 billion. Exxon was particularly benefited by historic crude prices at the end of the year. Exxon Mobil is the world?s largest publicly traded oil company. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)
National Journal
Ben Geman
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Ben Geman
Oct. 13, 2014, 1:38 p.m.

Ex­xon Mo­bil is wield­ing its pub­lic re­la­tions might against the fossil-fuel di­vest­ment move­ment, sig­nal­ing that cli­mate-change act­iv­ists have struck a nerve at the world’s biggest pub­licly traded oil and gas com­pany.

Ex­xon Mo­bil’s blog, titled “Per­spect­ives,” pos­ted a lengthy at­tack Fri­day about the di­vest­ment move­ment, which urges uni­versit­ies, churches, pen­sion funds, and oth­er big in­sti­tu­tion­al in­vestors to dump their shares of oil and coal com­pan­ies as part of the fight against glob­al warm­ing.

But the blog post calls the move­ment “out of step with real­ity,” say­ing it’s at odds with the need for poor na­tions to gain bet­ter ac­cess to en­ergy, as well as the need for fossil fuels to meet glob­al en­ergy de­mand for dec­ades to come.

So far, the cli­mate ad­voc­ates’ pro­gress at get­ting a grow­ing num­ber of in­sti­tu­tions to shed hold­ings in fossil fuel com­pan­ies re­mains pretty small com­pared with the scale of the in­dustry they’re bat­tling.

Con­sider that the roughly 1,700 oil-and-gas and coal com­pan­ies lis­ted on stock ex­changes are worth nearly $5 tril­lion, notes the re­search com­pany Bloomberg New En­ergy Fin­ance.

But the di­vest­ment move­ment has been grow­ing— just last week the Uni­versity of Glas­gow be­came the first European uni­versity to an­nounce di­vest­ment plans. And the move­ment also has a num­ber of high-pro­file ad­her­ents, in­clud­ing Arch­bish­op Des­mond Tutu, the South Afric­an No­bel Prize-win­ning anti-apartheid lead­er. (The fossil fuel di­vest­ment move­ment takes its cues from the 1970s and 1980s move­ment ur­ging di­vest­ment from apartheid South Africa.)

An­oth­er sup­port­er is Chris­ti­ana Figueres, the United Na­tions of­fi­cial shep­herd­ing in­ter­na­tion­al ne­go­ti­ations aimed at reach­ing a new glob­al cli­mate pact in late 2015.

But Ex­xon calls di­vest­ment a mis­placed solu­tion to cli­mate change.

“Di­vest­ment rep­res­ents a di­ver­sion from the real search for tech­no­lo­gic­al solu­tions to man­aging cli­mate risks that en­ergy com­pan­ies like ours are pur­su­ing,” writes Ken Co­hen, Ex­xon’s VP for pub­lic and gov­ern­ment af­fairs.

Co­hen’s post ar­gues that the move­ment ig­nores the scale of glob­al en­ergy de­mand for power, trans­port­a­tion, and oth­er needs, as well as “the in­ab­il­ity of cur­rent re­new­able tech­no­lo­gies to meet it.”

“Al­most every place on the plan­et where there is grind­ing poverty, there is also en­ergy poverty. Wherever there is sub­sist­ence liv­ing, it is usu­ally be­cause there is little or no ac­cess to mod­ern, re­li­able forms of en­ergy,” Co­hen writes.

Di­vest­ment ad­voc­ates will find plenty of ma­ter­i­al to ar­gue about in Ex­xon’s post. In one case, Ex­xon cites es­tim­ates that re­new­able en­ergy’s share of the total glob­al mix will be about 15 per­cent in 2040.

But the act­iv­ists push­ing for di­vest­ment, such as Bill McK­ib­ben’s 350.org, ad­voc­ate for more ag­gress­ive policies that pro­mote low-car­bon en­ergy, and ana­lysts say that would change the glob­al mix a lot more and a lot faster.

While the In­ter­na­tion­al En­ergy Agency has fore­cast that without policy changes, re­new­ables will meet about 15 per­cent of total en­ergy needs in 2035, IEA and oth­er agen­cies have also modeled vari­ous oth­er scen­ari­os in which low-car­bon en­ergy takes a far lar­ger share.

For in­stance, in late Septem­ber, IEA re­leased a “roadmap” of policies ex­plain­ing how sol­ar power alone could be­come the world’s biggest source of elec­tri­city by 2050 or even earli­er.

Di­vest­ment ad­voc­ates have already cri­ti­cized Ex­xon’s post.

“This is the oil in­dustry say­ing ‘please don’t be mean to me’ after bul­ly­ing vul­ner­able com­munit­ies around the globe for dec­ades,” said Ana­stas­ia Schemkes, a cam­paign rep­res­ent­at­ive with the Si­erra Stu­dent Co­ali­tion.

Rev­er­end Fletch­er Harp­er, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the pro-di­vest­ment group Green­Faith, took is­sue with Ex­xon’s as­ser­tions that the di­vest­ment move­ment is out of touch. “Di­vest­ment ad­voc­ates have been clear from the start that the di­vest­ment cam­paign is about call­ing in­to ques­tion the in­dustry’s ‘so­cial li­cense’ to op­er­ate. In this re­gard, di­vest­ment is a highly ap­pro­pri­ate de­bate, and highly real­ity-based,” he said in an email.

Harp­er also said that ad­voc­ates agree with the im­per­at­ive of bring­ing en­ergy to na­tions where ac­cess is now lack­ing. “I be­lieve that these en­ergy needs must be met, to the greatest de­gree pos­sible, with clean, re­new­able en­ergy. The [Ex­xon] blog post does not reck­on with the fact that coal, oil, and gas com­bus­tion are re­spons­ible for a large num­ber of deaths an­nu­ally world­wide,” Harp­er said.

It’s not the first time Ex­xon has tussled with di­vest­ment ad­voc­ates.

In re­sponse to share­hold­er act­iv­ists, Ex­xon re­leased a re­port in late March that re­buts ad­voc­ates’ claims that its fossil fuel re­serves are at risk of be­com­ing “stran­ded as­sets” in a car­bon-con­strained world.

What We're Following See More »
ANOTHER NUCLEAR OPTION?
Byrd Rule Could Trip Up Health Legislation
16 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”

Source:
ONE WEEK
Senate Votes To Fund Government
19 hours ago
BREAKING
ON TO SENATE
House Passes Spending Bill
20 hours ago
BREAKING

The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.

PRESIDENT CALLS MEDICAID FUNDS A “BAILOUT”
Puerto Rico Another Sticking Point in Budget Talks
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."

Source:
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN?
Democrats Threaten Spending Bill Over Obamacare
1 days ago
BREAKING

Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login