CFACT attended both the ExxonMobil and Chevron shareholder meetings to hold the energy companies accountable to sound science and policy decisions. Unfortunately, both companies seem to be doing nothing to fight the influence of radical environmentalists on their operations.
At the ExxonMobil shareholder meeting, climate activists came up empty on several attempts to push the oil giant further onto the climate bandwagon.
In the first instance, shareholders voted against a resolution filed by a leftist group called “Follow This.” Their proposal called for setting medium and long-term targets to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions as well as reducing hydrocarbon sales. It was voted down by a 72-28% margin. A second proposal calling for a report on low carbon business planning also crashed and burned, receiving only a scant 10.5% of the vote in favor.
CFACT, of course, also voted against these resolutions.
A proposal by one of CFACT’s allies also went down, unfortunately, to defeat at the meeting. It was offered by CFACT friend Steven Milloy of Junkscience.com and called for Exxon to “amend its bylaws to no longer permit shareholders to submit precatory (non-binding or advisory) proposals for consideration at annual shareholder meetings, unless the board of directors takes specific action to approve submission of such proposals.”
This dovetailed well with CFACT’s question to the board: “What has Exxon done to ensure future left-leaning activists aren’t able to use shareholder meetings to push radical agendas at the expense of the company’s fiduciary responsibilities to its shareholders?”
Despite CFACT’s question and a spirited presentation by Milloy to protect the company from future activist shenanigans at its shareholder meetings, such as last year when the Greens succeeded in replacing 2 board members with their shills, the company came out opposed to it. Their reasoning: “The Board respects the rights of shareholders to have their perspectives heard” and “recognizes that shareholder proposals can be a constructive element of corporate governance.”
At Chevron’s annual meeting of shareholders, the energy company continued to pursue the same old, failed strategy of trying to compromise with radical environmentalists.
While Chevron opposed many environmental proposals presented at the meeting, it decided to formally support one regarding a report on methane emissions.
The proposal, despite CFACT voting “no,” passed with 98% voting in favor after Chevron’s formal endorsement.
CFACT was quick to call Chevron out on the hypocrisy, asking:
“Why does Chevron recommend voting for Resolution 7 on methane disclosures when Chevron also opposes Res 5 and 6 on GHG and Net Zero? It makes it look like Chevron is ‘greenwashing’ – simply embracing the least harmful ‘green’ resolution as a way to appease climate activists who have no interest in the company’s long-term health?”
Indeed, in addressing its opposition to other proposals, Chevron stated that “Chevron views IEA’s Net Zero 2050 Scenario as unlikely.” Why then, would Chevron compromise on methane disclosures?
As stated above, it is because Chevron foolishly thinks it can navigate the tumultuous waters of climate regulations to maintain its business and even leverage it to come out on top.
Yet environmentalists have no desire to allow Chevron to keep operating. Their goal is to destroy the fossil fuel industry, and companies like Chevron, by supporting proposals like the one on methane, and allowing the enemy into the gates via a not-so-well-disguised Trojan Horse.