In a surprise vote on Wednesday, shareholders of the world’s biggest oil company ExxonMobil have urged the company to be more open about the impact on climate change on the business.

Some 62.3 per cent of shareholders reportedly voted for the resolution, going against Exxon’s own management during the company’s annual general meeting held in Dallas, Texas. It is one of a number of similar proposals passed by two energy companies in May alone.

The decision, which a Guardian journalist described as a “public rebuke” came as Donald Trump was widely reported to be preparing to pull out of the Paris climate accord, the agreement signed by nearly 200 countries to address climate change.

Shareholders have sent an unequivocal signal that the company must do much more to disclose the impact on its business of measures to combat climate change

Edward Mason, head of responsible investment for the Church Commissioners, which led the vote, said: “This is a historic vote – despite strong opposition from the board, the majority of Exxon’s shareholders have sent an unequivocal signal to the company that it must do much more to disclose the impact on its business of measures to combat climate change.

“We are grateful to all of the investors who supported the proposal, and we call on the company to begin urgent engagement with shareholders on how to bring its disclosures in line with those of its peers.”

Mason went on to tell the Guardian that Trump was “acting contrary to Wall Street and the world’s largest investors”.

“Climate change is a material financial risk and shareholders want to know how companies will manage the change to a low carbon economy,” he added.

Exxon’s management reportedly sought to head off the proposal that was championed by the pension funds of the Church of England, New York and California and other large shareholders. It will force the company to conduct an annual ‘stress test’ measuring how its oil assets will be affected by climate change regulation and new technology.

Trust in good news

As the first media organisation to take good news seriously, we are committed to rigorous standards. Plus we are a media co-op owned by readers and reinvest all profits into our journalism. Support inspiring, trustworthy journalism by subscribing to Positive News magazine.

The post Shareholders of the world’s biggest oil company defy board to urge better reporting on climate change appeared first on Positive News.

We know that so far…

and…

However…

and…

Read our article on how divestment is helping refuel progress here.

Main image: ‘UNSW students call on their university to divest from fossil fuels’ Kate Ausburn
Graphics: Studio Blackburn

The post Who’s stepping away from fossil fuels? Divestment in numbers appeared first on Positive News.

The global fossil fuel divestment campaign – a bid to urge institutions to move their money out of oil, coal and gas companies – has gained momentum.

In October 2014, when we first reported on the movement, a handful of universities had transferred their assets and Oxford had become the first UK city to divest. There has since been a wave of divestment commitments from major European cities including Paris, Copenhagen, Berlin, Stockholm and Oslo.

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has promised to “take all possible steps” to divest the city’s £4.8bn pension fund after his predecessor Boris Johnson refused to do so. The mayor of Amsterdam has also urged the Dutch national pension fund to halt investments in coal, oil and gas.

According to environmental campaign organisation 350.org, faith groups are responsible for a quarter of divestments to date. June saw the world’s first mayor joint Catholic divestment, when four Catholic organisations in Australia announced they were breaking ties with fossil fuel companies. Those at 350.org estimate the current global value of divestments made by all institutions, ranging from governmental organisations and NGOs to schools, to be around $3.4tn (£2.56tn).

But it is about more than the financial impact on companies, says Melanie Mattauch of 350.org Europe: “Divestment aims to bankrupt the fossil fuel companies morally, thereby weakening their political influence and creating the space for meaningful action on climate change.”

Following public pressure, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sold off its entire $186m (£140m) stake in BP, after having previously dumped its near $825m (£620m) interest in ExxonMobil in early 2015. The foundation has shrunk its total holdings in fossil fuel companies by 85 per cent since 2014.

Not with my money: divestment in history

Recent history holds examples of a handful of successful divestment campaigns, including those targeting violence in Darfur and tobacco advertising. But the largest so far focused on South African apartheid. Divestment from all over the world, including 90 cities and 150 universities and colleges in the US, heavily dented the multinationals that did business in the troubled country. This, in turn, helped weaken the apartheid government.

Main image: Saskia Uppenkamp

The post Refuelling progress: divestment in fossil fuels gathers pace appeared first on Positive News.

Following mediation with the UK government, Soco released a joint statement with environmental group WWF on 11 June, in which Soco committed “not to undertake or commission any exploratory or other drilling within Virunga National Park unless UNESCO and the DRC government agree that such activities are not incompatible with its World Heritage status.”

Anthony Field, campaigns specialist for WWF, said that it was a “huge success for conservation and for the three quarters of a million who signed the petition. Most importantly, it’s really good news for the park, and the wildlife and communities that rely on it.”

In a further development just six days afterwards, UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee carried out a regular review of the Virunga site and elected to maintain the heritage status and urged the DRC to revoke all oil permits. They also reiterated their position that “oil, gas and mineral exploration and exploitation are incompatible with World Heritage status globally.”

Like what you’re reading? Positive News depends on your support to publish quality inspiring content. Please donate to help us continue pioneering a more constructive news media.

Field said that before UNESCO made this decision, “the door was still open,” but now, “there is no way Soco can go back.”

However, the volatile political situation in the DRC still means the park is at risk. “Day in day out, the park wardens put their lives on the line to protect the park,” said Field. “We really need to see stability and peace in the region.”

Virunga, he said was “the mother of all national parks in Africa and it holds a very special place in the heart of the Congolese people.”

The post Conservationists celebrate as oil company vows to leave Africa’s oldest national park appeared first on Positive News.

Climate change and oil drilling pose a significant threat to the Arctic region say campaigners, but more than two million people are ready to stand up for its preservation.

Greenpeace describes the support for its Save The Arctic campaign so far as “incredible” and says it demonstrates the affection people have for this unique and fragile environment.

Those behind the campaign, which was launched in summer 2012, say the Arctic is under siege from the dual threats of climate change and oil drilling. Discovery of the world’s last untapped oil and gas resources in the region north of the Arctic Circle prompted a global resource race, spearheaded by companies such as Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Gazprom.

Their representatives argue that these resources, locked beneath the seas, are crucial to meet future global energy demand and say accessing them will boost the economies of places such as Alaska and Greenland by creating many jobs.

But Greenpeace says the search for hydrocarbons is misguided, insisting alternative energy solutions must now be prioritised, and that an oil spill in such a remote location would be “catastrophic.”

The environmental group wants the UN to protect the uninhabited area around the North Pole and is calling for a ban on offshore oil drilling in the Arctic, as well as a halt to unsustainable fishing practices in the region.

Sara Ayech, Arctic campaigner at Greenpeace, told Positive News: “People have a strong emotional attachment to the Arctic. It is a place of myth, explorers, somewhere you hear about as a child, and I think the fact that it is melting and we are on the verge of losing it is really resounding with people.

“Species which live there, like the narwhal and the polar bear, are nowhere else on the planet. So even people in countries nowhere near the Arctic feel strongly affected.”

In January 2013, Shell’s $5bn Arctic drilling plans were put at risk as two of the US President Barack Obama’s closest advisers called for a permanent halt to oil exploration there. It came after a series of safety and environmental lapses by Shell. Ayech says the decision was testament to campaigners’ actions and urged more people to get involved.

In April 2013, Greenpeace will add all the signatories’ names to an Arctic scroll and lower it through 4km of freezing water, planting it on the bottom of the ocean. The spot will be marked by a flag created by designer Vivienne Westwood and a winner of the organisation’s Flag for the Future competition, whereby young people worldwide are invited to design a flag to symbolise an international commitment to protect the Arctic for all life on Earth.

The post Two million back campaign to protect Arctic appeared first on Positive News.

The people of Ecuador’s Amazon region have achieved legal justice after an 18-year battle seeking damages for crude oil pollution.

The $8.6bn (£5.3bn) judgement, issued by a court in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, is the largest ever awarded for an environmental case, though sits below BP’s $20bn compensation fund for the impacts of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010. According to human rights groups, it also represents the first time indigenous people have sued a multinational corporation in the country where the crime was committed, and won.

The case was brought on behalf of 30,000 people affected by the environmental catastrophe. Chevron inherited the suit when it bought Texaco in 2001 and has denied the allegations of environmental damage.

The amount could be doubled in the event that Chevron do not formally apologise. A further 10% of the sum is to be paid in costs to the Amazon Defense Coalition, the group representing the plaintiffs.

Before being bought by Chevron, between 1972 and 1990, Texaco dumped 18.5 billions of gallons of toxic waste into rivers and water sources, the lawsuit claims. The company reportedly spilled millions of gallons of crude oil and left a vast quantity of waste pits behind, which continue to contaminate the soil and water. According to affected communities, the pollution has caused widespread ill-health including a spike in cancer rates.

“Justice does exist,” said Guillermo Grefa, of the Kichwa indigenous group. “I can now dream of drinking clean water, water with no oil residue, and that the Earth will begin to clean and heal.”

Pablo Fajardo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called it a “triumph of justice” but said the group have appealed because the damages weren’t high enough. A court-appointed expert recommended damages of $27bn (£16.5bn).

“This is a great victory,” said Emergildo Criollo, a plaintiff and Cofán leader who lives in the northern Amazon in Ecuador, but he added: “Our fight won’t stop until Chevron is held accountable and pays for all the damage it left in the Amazon Rainforest.”

Chevron is also appealing the decision, which it claimed was “illegitimate and unenforceable.” In a statement, the US-based company said: “It is the product of fraud and is contrary to the legitimate scientific evidence.” Enforcement of any financial judgement is currently suspended by a US court over concerns that attempts to collect Chevron’s assets would disrupt the economy. The company, which generated $19bn profit last year, no longer has assets in Ecuador.

The legal battle could potentially continue for months or years before plaintiffs see any compensation, but campaign groups hailed the judgement as a historic ruling for human rights, environmental justice and corporate accountability. Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network, which have spent years working to help the Ecuadorian people and protect the Amazon, said Chevron’s guilt for extensive oil contamination in the Amazon rainforest is now official.

In a statement, they said: “[It] proves overwhelmingly that the oil giant is responsible for billions of gallons of highly toxic waste sludge, deliberately dumped into local streams and rivers, which thousands depend on for drinking, bathing, and fishing.”

The organisations accuse Chevron of having waged unprecedented public relations and lobbying campaigns to avoid cleaning up the environmental and public health catastrophe. “It is time Chevron takes responsibility,” they said.

The case was initially filed in a US federal court in 1993 and transferred to Ecuador at Chevron’s request. But the company has now attacked Ecuador’s courts as evidence turned against it.
“It is a critical benchmark in a long struggle for justice,” said Han Shan of Amazon Watch, “a struggle that will not end until the affected communities get the cleanup, clean water, and critical health care they need and have sought for so long.”

The post Victory for Ecuador’s indigenous people as Chevron is fined $8.6bn for Amazon oil pollution appeared first on Positive News.