The new documents, Muffett said, show that oil companies clearly preferred to invest in research to explain away the climate risks, instead of on technologies to reduce emissions.Burn off oil fume flames are seen on an offshore oil platform.There is no doubt that increases in fossil fuel usage and decreases of forest cover are aggravating the potential problem of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.The research included burning oil to clear areas of fog and smog, and constructing massive artificial heat mountains out of asphalt to increase rainfall.Bigger drilling rigs, Muffett said, are an example of the profound distinction of how these companies were protecting their own interests and not the public s.This week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that April 2016 was the 12th consecutive month to set a global temperature record.For now, the group s new searchable database allows users to identify connections between companies, research institutes and individuals.
The documents released by the Center for International Environmental Law CIEL revealed that many oil companies, including the precursors to ExxonMobil, had filed patents for technologies that would explore alternate fuel sources and electric cars as early as the 1960s.A committee was formed to face the challenges, including fueling research into the effects of fossil fuels in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and lasted for two decades.Throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, scientists from companies such as Esso, along with Shell, the Phillips Petroleum Company and Chevron worked to explore technologies that could help curb this threat.This not only included looking into ways to minimize air pollutants with vehicles, but also looking into new Arctic drilling technologies and manipulating the weather.According to CIEL, however, the API issued a response to the Robinson Report in 1969 that was more skeptical on the findings.In 1967, the organization told Congress, according to the Guardian: We take exception to the basic assumption that clean air can be achieved only by finding an alternative to the internal combustion engine.
The documents released by the Center for International Environmental Law CIEL revealed that many oil companies, including the precursors to ExxonMobil, had filed patents for technologies that would explore alternate fuel sources and electric cars as early as the 1960s.A committee was formed to face the challenges, including fueling research into the effects of fossil fuels in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and lasted for two decades.Throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, scientists from companies such as Esso, along with Shell, the Phillips Petroleum Company and Chevron worked to explore technologies that could help curb this threat.This not only included looking into ways to minimise air pollutants with vehicles, but also looking into new Arctic drilling technologies and manipulating the weather.According to CIEL, however, the API issued a response to the Robinson Report in 1969 that was more sceptical on the findings.In 1967, the organisation told Congress, according to the Guardian: We take exception to the basic assumption that clean air can be achieved only by finding an alternative to the internal combustion engine.
If you try to imagine the most pathetic gathering of humans ever, it would probably look a lot like this group of people who have amassed their fortunes by stripping the Earth of its fossil fuels and are desperately trying to squeeze the last gasp of relevance out of a backwards-thinking, planet-strangling industry.This morning, ExxonMobil held its annual shareholder meeting at the Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center in Dallas, Texas.Still, here they are, the most disturbing and outrageous outcomes from Exxon s fossil fuel lovefest.There s no need to reduce emissions At Exxon meeting, 81 percent of investors voted against a policy to limit global warming to 2-degrees Celsius; 18 percent voted for it.ExxonAGMAnd the CEO doesn t seem to really get itExxon CEO: We need breakthroughs in energy tech, "but until we have those, just saying 'turn the taps off' is not acceptable to humanity"Sadly, this seems to happen annuallyHey, as has happened every year since 1990, all climate resolutions at Exxon annual mtg resoundingly voted down.It means that shareholders with a minority stake could eventually work together to nominate a climate scientist to become a director.
Still winning hearts and minds.AP Photo/StapletonIf you try to imagine the most pathetic gathering of humans ever, it would probably look a lot like this group of people who have amassed their fortunes by stripping the Earth of its fossil fuels and are desperately trying to squeeze the last gasp of relevance out of a backwards-thinking, planet-strangling industry.This morning, ExxonMobil held its annual shareholder meeting at the Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center in Dallas, Texas.No, we re good There s no need to reduce emissions Nah, we don t need a climate expert Meanwhile, some shareholders appeared especially progressiveAnd the CEO doesn t seem to really get itThen he said: The world is going to have to continue using fossil fuels, whether they like it or not.Sadly, this seems to happen annuallyThere was one good thing, thoughEven though the move to put a climate expert on the board was voted down, in a rare moment of clarity, voters approved what s called a proxy access measure, which is actually very good.It means that shareholders with a minority stake could eventually work together to nominate a climate scientist to become a director.
If you try to imagine the most pathetic gathering of humans ever, it would probably look a lot like this group of people who have amassed their fortunes by stripping the Earth of its fossil fuels and are desperately trying to squeeze the last gasp of relevance out of a backwards-thinking, planet-strangling industry.This morning, ExxonMobil held its annual shareholder meeting at the Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center in Dallas, Texas.Still, here they are, the most disturbing and outrageous outcomes from Exxon s fossil fuel lovefest.There s no need to reduce emissions At Exxon meeting, 81 percent of investors voted against a policy to limit global warming to 2-degrees Celsius; 18 percent voted for it.ExxonAGMAnd the CEO doesn t seem to really get itExxon CEO: We need breakthroughs in energy tech, "but until we have those, just saying 'turn the taps off' is not acceptable to humanity"Sadly, this seems to happen annuallyHey, as has happened every year since 1990, all climate resolutions at Exxon annual mtg resoundingly voted down.It means that shareholders with a minority stake could eventually work together to nominate a climate scientist to become a director.
The one proposal that passed, at 62 percent of the vote, allows shareholders who hold 3 percent or more of the company s shares for more than three years to nominate up to a quarter of the board s directors every year.Other proposals included calls for more transparency on Exxon s hydraulic fracturing activities, lobbying, diversity and makeup of the board, and its plans to adapt to a renewable energy economy.The shareholder resolutions came from the New York City s comptroller s office, religious groups, and investing firms demanding the company prepare for a future of climate change regulations.Exxon Mobil has a chance to restore the public s trust, it s a time for conversion.Many of the world s largest investors are voting against the Exxon management today, said Edward Mason, head of responsible investing for the Church of England.For many years now, ExxonMobil has held the view that the risks of climate change are serious, and do warrant thoughtful action, said Exxon CEO and chair Rex Tillerson during the shareholder s call Wednesday morning.
This story originally appeared on Mother Jones and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.That s the subject of a high-stakes legal battle playing out between dozens of state attorneys general, members of Congress, corporate executives, and activists.Last fall, investigations by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that the oil giant has decades of internal documents showing that its own scientists and executives knew fossil fuels contributed to climate change.Publicly, the company argued that the threats posed by global warming were far from certain, presumably as part of an effort to fight off regulations.Walker specifically pointed to a state racketeering statute that prohibits obtaining money by false pretenses.Exxon prevailed on Wednesday, when Walker agreed to withdraw the subpoena.
Things keep looking worse and worse for the oil industry.After documents dating back as far as the 1940s revealed companies coordinated to cover up the industry s role in climate change, several corporations, including ExxonMobil, now face a fraud probe and mounting public outrage.Many have said the climate change cover-up rivals that of big tobacco s decades-long scheme to mislead the public about the health risks of smoking ― assertions the oil industry continues to shrug off.The latest batch, which includes dozens of documents pulled from an archive of some 14 million tobacco industry documents maintained by the University of California at San Francisco, shows that big oil s strategies were effective enough that another industry ― the global poster child for consumer fraud ― took these strategies to carry out its own deception campaign, according to Muffett.In June 1957, representatives of tobacco powerhouse Philip Morris visited Shell Oil and Humble Oil now Exxon Mobil facilities in Texas to learn more about mass spectrometry, a technology the petroleum industry was using to test for hazardous air pollutants.The oil companies, because of their smog research, had developed unique expertise in detecting minute toxins in air quality, Muffett said.
NEW YORK -- Stocks are mostly higher in afternoon trading Friday, as investors worked through another mixed batch of corporate earnings, this time from positive results from Google's parent company Alphabet and Amazon, and disappointing results from oil giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil.The Bank of Japan disappointed investors with stimulus plans that didn't go as far as many had hoped.An earlier slump in oil prices reversed, helping the broader market.KEEPING SCORE: The Dow Jones industrial average lost 14 points, or 0.1 percent, to 18,442 as of 2:25 p.m. Eastern.The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose five points, or 0.2 percent, to 2,175 and the Nasdaq composite rose 10 points, or 0.2 percent, to 5,165.Exxon Mobil had its smallest quarterly profit in 17 years, well below what analysts were looking for.
Amazon on Monday became the world s fourth-most valuable company by market capitalization, usurping scandal-struck oil giant Exxon Mobil.The internet giant s stock price rose by just over 1 percent, bringing its value up to about $366 billion.Hobbled by plummeting oil prices, shares of the world s biggest oil company fell by more than 2 percent, dragging their total value down to about $356 billion.The change marks two simultaneous shifts in the global economy, as internet companies gain more dominance and dirty energy stocks continue their long-term slide as the world inches closer to weaning itself off environmentally disastrous fossil fuels.Amazon, famous for spending so much on growth that it frequently fails to turn profits, has soared in recent years as its footprint over the digital economy widens.Amazon Web Services serves as the backbone of the internet, with a 31 percent share of the world s web-hosting industry.
ExxonMobil, America s largest oil company, was in strange territory this morning: number 6.As in, the sixth largest company in the United States.The company has been in the top five annually since 1980.The companies that squeezed ExxonMobil out?That means that the five largest companies in the US are now all technology-based.The size of the largest companies is based on market capitalization.
The government is now a little more open.This week, the White House released its first official federal source code policy, detailing a pilot program that requires government agencies to release 20 percent of any new code they commission as open source software, meaning the code will be available for anyone to examine, modify, and reuse in their own projects.As recently as a decade ago, the worlds of both government and business worried that using open source software would open them up to bugs, security holes, and countless lawsuits.Financial giants like the London Stock Exchange Group, JP Morgan, and Wells Fargo are among the companies backing Hyperledger, open source software that could reinvent the stock market.But despite this mainstream success, many crucial open source projects—projects that major companies rely on—are woefully underfunded.Some open source developers struggle with burnout, while others have trouble working their way into the open source community.
PERRYTON, Texas—The oil-and-gas well BP PLC BP 1.00 % is drilling here in the Texas Panhandle looks ordinary enough from the surface.Yet a mile-and-a-half underground, horizontal pipes shoot off for at least a mile in three directions, like a chicken s foot.The multibillion-dollar projects they specialize in—giant offshore oil rigs and gas-export projects—are often prohibitively expensive in a world of $45-a-barrel oil.U.S. wells are a tempting option, but major oil companies have yet to prove they can master the techniques pioneered by shale drillers, whose innovations fueled a rebirth in U.S. energy production.Six years after the Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico caused the worst offshore spill in U.S. history, BP is turning again to America.Mr. Lawler, a former college football linebacker turned engineer, is in charge of the push into shale oil and gas.
the fall in Oil prices in recent years have predicted the investor refused to touch a single energy shares.investment company Morgan Creek Capital Management founder and ceo Mark yus did predict last year that crude oil prices will collapse to $ 30 a barrel.yus you invest in currently the american channel CNBC, according to the energy companies, but with the energi syhtiöön yus did refuse however to touch.This energy company is Exxon Mobil.He called ExxonMobil "today's most dangerous share , thanks to the ETF-funds.Exxonmobil p/e coefficient was 12 up to 35 years.
The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing Wednesday seemingly with the goal of affirming that chairman Lamar Smith R-Texas has the authority to subpoena those investigating whether the oil industry covered up what it knew about climate change.But Democrats on the committee used the hearing to slam Smith and the GOP for what they say are embarrassing efforts to defend the oil industry.Before a lengthy back-and-forth in which many, including three expert legal witnesses, came to Smith s defense, ranking committee member Eddie Bernice Johnson D-Texas blasted the longtime climate change denier, calling his actions embarrassing, ironic and a brazen attempt to help ExxonMobil.Since being established 58 years ago, Johnson said, the House committee has effectively and appropriately used its oversight authority.Today the majority party seems to view its oversight powers as a political tool, and the committee s investigative authority as unbounded, Johnson said.In July, Smith subpoenaed the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general, along with several environmental groups who are investigating whether companies like Exxon Mobil committed fraud by covering up the risks of carbon emissions and climate change.
The email was allegedly sent to fool the Tesla chief financial officer into giving sensitive information to someone who he thought was his boss Elon MuskWe have noticed you are using an ad blockerTo continue providing news and award winning journalism, we rely on advertising revenue.To continue reading, please turn off your ad blocker or whitelist us.Tesla is suing an oil industry executive for allegedly sending an email to the electric car maker's financial officer pretending to be Elon Musk, in a bid to extract confidential information.Todd Katz, the chief financial officer of Quest Integrity Group, a company which provides services to BT, Chevron and ExxonMobil, is alleged to have sent the email from the address '[email protected]'.
One of the companies responsible for politicizing climate change is ExxonMobil, which for years funded climate change denial groups despite its own research confirming that greenhouse gases cause global warming.Now, the battle to hold them accountable has become a proxy war between a lead denier in the US House of Representatives and groups that are working to make Exxon legally responsible for its actions.Yesterday, Texas Republican Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Science Committee, heard arguments from a panel of experts—two of whom work for Exxon-funded think tanks—on why his committee has the authority to intervene in the investigations into Exxon s denialism.And it drags out the spurious narrative that science isn t in consensus about climate change, its causes, and effects.Last year, Inside Climate News published a massive exposé detailing how Exxon had suppressed its own science—among the first to confirm that greenhouse gas emissions would lead to climate change—in order to promote an anticlimate agenda.Sidebar: That s not how science works.
The environmental advocacy group Conservation Law Foundation has made good on its threat to sue Exxon Mobil Corp., filing what it says is the first U.S. legal action aimed at holding the oil giant accountable for its well-documented climate change cover-up.The complaint also accuses the company of failing to fortify the facility to withstand climate change, including extreme weather events and rising sea levels.The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified civil penalties and injunctive relief, comes as Exxon Mobil faces numerous investigations into whether the company lied to investors and committed fraud by covering up the risks of climate change for decades.Communities were put in danger and remain in danger, all to cut costs for one of the most profitable corporations in the world, Bradley Campbell, president of Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation, said in a statement.It s time to make Exxon answer for decades of false statements to the public and to regulators and ensure that its Everett facility meets its legal obligation to protect thousands of people and the Boston Harbor estuary from toxic water pollution.The lawsuit alleges the company continues to violate the Clean Water Act and other federal laws by discharging toxic pollutants.
Prepare to abandon your comfort zone, discover some of the world s most disruptive minds and explore the trends of tomorrow – WIRED s annual two-day conference is back.The first commercial oil well was struck by two businessmen in Pennsylvania 157 years ago.The act set in motion a multi-billion dollar industry that has powered the world.But now, faced with the stark realities of climate change and dwindling supplies of fossil fuels, the industry is being disrupted.We re in the middle of a vast democratisation of energy in the developed and developing world, where small startups are pushing out the so-called supermajors – the likes of BP, Shell, Chevron and ExxonMobil – from parts of the energy supply chain.Traditional network assets like distribution systems – the pipes that bring your oil and gas from underground to your heating system, and the wires and cables that take electricity from the power plant to your light bulb – aren t going to go away, explains Farah Saeed, an energy consultant at Frost & Sullivan.
More

Top