- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Financial firms lead shareholder rebellion against ExxonMobil climate change policies
Posted on 6/1/17 at 5:39 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 5:39 am
LINK
Curious about the opinions of the board on this. When major investment firms start joining with state pension funds to influence major corporations to take action on climate change, you're not discussing fringe studies conducted by lab rats, you are dealing with real world implications of the science of climate change having an impact on the economy.
Does this trend disturb you guys in any way?
quote:
The shareholder vote on climate change came on a day when President Trump appeared to be nearing a decision on whether to exit the Paris climate agreement, underlining the deep political and economic divisions over how to deal with the global challenge. Even as the Trump administration’s commitment to the climate accord wavered, the Exxon vote showed that climate concerns were gaining ground in the business world.
quote:
BlackRock and Vanguard are the biggest shareholders in ExxonMobil, owning 13 percent, or $43.6 billion worth, of the company’s stock. State Street Global Advisers, another big financial advisory firm that has called for greater climate disclosures, is close behind with 5.1 percent of the stock. The vote by them against management marked an important step for groups that have been trying to force corporations to adopt greater disclosure and transparency about the financial fallout of climate change.
quote:
The prospect of major financial management firms joining pension funds such as California’s and New York’s that have backed social and environmental resolutions in the past is already putting some companies on the defensive.
Curious about the opinions of the board on this. When major investment firms start joining with state pension funds to influence major corporations to take action on climate change, you're not discussing fringe studies conducted by lab rats, you are dealing with real world implications of the science of climate change having an impact on the economy.
Does this trend disturb you guys in any way?
15
Posted on 6/1/17 at 5:43 am to CollegeFBRules
I'm just not understanding the play here. They are stockholders in an oil company wanting them to use less oil? Or is there something they want them to do that drives up oil prices?
Posted on 6/1/17 at 5:44 am to CollegeFBRules
quote:
When major investment firms start joining with state pension funds to influence major corporations to take action on climate change, you're not discussing fringe studies conducted by lab rats, you are dealing with real world implications of the science of climate change having an impact on the economy.
It's fascinating to watch. That's for sure. Must be a lot of money to be made in carbon swaps.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 5:45 am to CamdenTiger
They want them to stress test their assets through 2040 to see what financial impact the regulation to limit climate change will have on the company.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 5:49 am to CollegeFBRules
FYI
Big Oil is and has been heavily invested in renewable energy because he who finds the worlds next big source of energy becomes King. Big Oil wants to stay on top and they have the money to do it.
Big Oil is and has been heavily invested in renewable energy because he who finds the worlds next big source of energy becomes King. Big Oil wants to stay on top and they have the money to do it.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:19 am to LSUKNUT
I thought only the Democrats were invested in renewable energy. That's why they're in on the conspiracy
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:30 am to CollegeFBRules
It doesn't seem surprising at all that large corporation would see the potential money to be made from the scam that is "climate change", and push for measures involving it. Government mandates for people to buy your products! Just like ObamaCare and mandatory purchases of insurance.
Big business buying into it does not validate a bullshite hoax like "climate change". Snake oil salesmen.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:32 am to CollegeFBRules
I am just about tired of anything to do with California.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:33 am to Dale51
You're giving an opinion without bothering to read the link.
Exxon wanted nothing to do with this.
quote:
ExxonMobil management was defeated Wednesday by a shareholder rebellion over climate change, as investors with 62.3 percent of shares voted to instruct the oil giant to report on the impact of global measures designed to keep climate change to 2 degrees centigrade.
Exxon wanted nothing to do with this.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:34 am to CollegeFBRules
Leftists are like termites
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:37 am to CollegeFBRules
In the first paragraph:
This tells me the 62% just want to know the costs, not that they agree something needs to be done.
quote:
as investors with 62.3 percent of shares voted to instruct the oil giant to report on the impact of global measures designed to keep climate change to 2 degrees centigrade.
This tells me the 62% just want to know the costs, not that they agree something needs to be done.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:40 am to CollegeFBRules
quote:
You're giving an opinion without bothering to read the link.
You're right..I didn't read the link.
I still don't see it as "the people" voted down big oil. The owners of the majority of shares are most likely ExxonMobil execs.
It wasn't the majority of investors, it was whatever number of people who held 62% of shares.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 6:44 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:41 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
This tells me the 62% just want to know the costs, not that they agree something needs to be done.
You really think this is just a fact finding mission without intent to expect actionable items for a path forward once that information is gathered?
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:44 am to CollegeFBRules
If any of those entities mentioned have anything in mind other than maximizing shareholder wealth I got a big problem with it
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:49 am to CollegeFBRules
quote:I'd hope so.
You really think this is just a fact finding mission without intent to expect actionable items for a path forward once that information is gathered?
I'd hope firms which themselves are publicly owned, would not do something to undercut stock value of an entity in which they hold large stakes. That could create huge legal issues for the firms involved.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:50 am to CollegeFBRules
quote:
You really think this is just a fact finding mission without intent to expect actionable items for a path forward once that information is gathered?
I think it's about whether or not the cost to implement a program concerning global warming is worth the money. I took the article to mean if the program is not too costly then "we'll think about it".
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:50 am to CollegeFBRules
At last.
It was predicted that ceo's would unite the world (wto) and define both war and climate change as counter to profit and the long term health of business.
This is the first wave.
It was predicted that ceo's would unite the world (wto) and define both war and climate change as counter to profit and the long term health of business.
This is the first wave.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:51 am to CollegeFBRules
The science indicates climate change is happening and investors want to know how Exxon will address that risk.
Maersk is changing its shipping routes because of it.
Investors want to know how an investment vehicle like Exxon will manage itself.
Isn't complicated at all.
Maersk is changing its shipping routes because of it.
Investors want to know how an investment vehicle like Exxon will manage itself.
Isn't complicated at all.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:58 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
I'd hope firms which themselves are publicly owned, would not do something to undercut stock value of an entity in which they hold large stakes. That could create huge legal issues for the firms involved.
My expectation is it's a way for investors to force Exxon to provide analysis on whether or not to keep investing in the company moving forward barring some change in fundamental operation for an economy beyond oil. I'm not trying to stack the deck of this conversation, I'm just curious of opinions from the board, especially individuals like you, who's opinion I greatly respect.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:00 am to mahdragonz
quote:
Maersk is changing its shipping routes because of it.
Maersk is seeking ways to more efficiently transport payloads. As that coincides with a politically correct albeit scientifically flawed narrative, bully for Maersk in taking advantage of the stupid people willing to swallow its PR.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News