Big Oil turns on Trump over Paris accord exit for all the wrong reasons



One of Donald Trump’s priorities upon returning to the Oval Office in January is to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. This move is welcome news for those who oppose the decarbonization agenda, which undermines freedom, prosperity, and mobility. Given that petroleum the bête noire of the global climate cult, you might expect major oil companies would support U.S. withdrawal from the agreement. That doesn’t appear to be the case.

Soon after Trump’s intentions for the Paris agreement became clear, major oil companies signaled their opposition to his decision. Instead, they favor continuing down the path of heavy regulation and government subsidies for their industry, aligned with the priorities of the global climate community. As reported by Fox News, “Big Oil is calling on President-elect Donald Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement after withdrawing from the treaty during his first term.”

It’s disheartening to see a once-iconic American oil company transform into a post-capitalist entity that depends heavily on government funding for its revenue.

Why would companies whose primary business is extracting and selling petroleum align themselves with an unelected body openly hostile to oil and committed to achieving "net zero" production within a generation?

Unfortunately, this approach is a betrayal to those who have long defended Big Oil as a pillar of capitalism. Big Oil’s actions now appear to be in direct conflict with free-market principles.

By supporting government-mandated climate compliance, major oil companies can eliminate competition from smaller players in the short term, consolidating their market dominance. In the long term, they aim to secure government grants and subsidies for carbon-related initiatives, positioning these as a significant revenue stream.

ExxonMobil has made it clear that it sees the government as its future largest customer, carbon-related initiatives as its primary product, and government funding as its main revenue source. In the short term, the company seeks to leverage government power, under the Paris Climate Agreement, to eliminate competition from independent oil producers.

The Wall Street Journal reports that ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods opposes Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw from the climate accord. According to the article, Woods argues against the withdrawal, citing ExxonMobil’s efforts to expand outreach to government officials and advocate for “global carbon accounting measures.”

While the specifics of “global carbon accounting” remain unclear, it seems far removed from real-world generally accepted accounting principles. It is reasonable to assume that this concept involves government officials distributing taxpayer money to favored entities — a group Woods clearly intends for ExxonMobil to join.

The WSJ story goes on to say that ExxonMobil and other major oil companies are lobbying the incoming GOP leadership to preserve tax credits included in Joe Biden’s “signature climate law,” the Inflation Reduction Act. These credits reward technologies like carbon capture, in which the companies are heavily invested.

The IRA is a boon for Big Oil’s carbon-related projects. During an energy conference last March, Woods voiced his support for the legislation, stating, “I was very supportive of the IRA — I am very supportive of the IRA …”

In plain terms, ExxonMobil wants more taxpayer money and federal tax credits to fund its carbon mitigation initiatives. Meanwhile, you better believe small, independent drillers in West Texas are left out of these taxpayer subsidies. ExxonMobil, by contrast, is angling to make taxpayer subsidies a major source of revenue.

The Guardian in August highlighted how ExxonMobil has pivoted its business strategy to heavily rely on government subsidies for its carbon capture and storage operations. The company launched its Low Carbon Solutions division in 2021 and began lobbying for direct government funding. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, ExxonMobil secured a subsidy of $85 per ton of captured carbon. Dan Ammann, head of the Low Carbon Solutions unit, said the carbon capture business could eventually become “larger than ExxonMobil’s base business.”

It’s disheartening to see a once-iconic American oil company transform into a post-capitalist entity that depends heavily on government funding for its revenue.

Trump’s selection of Chris Wright as energy secretary offers a glimmer of hope for the American petroleum industry.

In the oil patch, Wright’s appointment has been met with much rejoicing. As the founder and CEO of Liberty Energy, Wright understands well the challenges faced by independent oil producers. Unlike major oil company executives who apologize for their industry and align themselves with climate activists, Wright unapologetically defends the petroleum sector. Described as a “dedicated humanitarian on a mission to better human lives by expanding access to abundant, affordable, and reliable energy,” Wright has earned respect across the industry.

But Wright’s fight to protect American oil won’t just involve battling left-wing advocates of net-zero policies. He will also face opposition from major oil company executives who have aligned with radical climate agendas, working to suppress independent producers while ceding control of the oil business to the government. He’ll need all the help he can get.

Chevron leaves anti-fossil fuels California, plans move to Texas



The Chevron Corporation announced Friday that it plans to relocate its headquarters, which are currently located in California, to Texas.

The company stated that its senior leaders, including Chevron chairman and CEO Mike Wirth and Vice Chairman Mark Nelson, will move to Houston by the end of 2024.

'Difficult place to invest.'

The relocation should not immediately impact its employees based in San Ramon, the site of its current headquarters. However, according to a company press release, Chevron plans to move "all corporate functions" to Houston over the next five years.

"Positions in support of the company's California operations will remain in San Ramon," Chevron stated.

The company already has approximately 7,000 employees based in Houston and roughly 2,000 in San Ramon.

A December report from Fortune explained that Chevron was decreasing its oil-refinery investments in California, citing an "adversarial business climate."

Andy Walz, president of Chevron's Americas Products business, said at the time, "California's policies have made it a difficult place to invest so we have rejected capital projects in the state."

A spokesperson for California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) told the Daily Caller News Foundation, "This announcement is the logical culmination of a long process that has repeatedly been foreshadowed by Chevron."

"We're proud of California's place as the leading creator of clean energy jobs – a critical part of our diverse, innovative, and vibrant economy," the spokesperson added.

Many businesses have decided to pack their bags and head to red states over California's progressive policies.

Last month, Musk announced plans to move both SpaceX and X headquarters to Texas after Democrats passed AB1955, a law prohibiting schools from requiring parental notification regarding their children's gender and sexual orientation.

Musk wrote on X, "This is the final straw. Because of this law and the many others that preceded it, attacking both families and companies, SpaceX will now move its HQ from Hawthorne, California, to Starbase, Texas."

In a separate post, he said, "And 𝕏 HQ will move to Austin."

"Have had enough of dodging gangs of violent drug addicts just to get in and out of the building," he added.

Musk already moved Tesla headquarters to Austin earlier this year.

Several insurance carriers have also fled the state.

In response to Chevron's announcement, Texas Governor Greg Abbott wrote on X, "WELCOME HOME Chevron! Texas is your true home. Drill baby drill."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Government Lawyers Are Redefining ‘Public Nuisance’ To Enrich Friends And Punish Foes

Government officials who hire friends from the private sector to profit off of bogus public nuisance cases erode our fragile legal system.

How Democrats Like Gavin Newsom Got Away With Devastating The Greatest State In America

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Screenshot-2023-12-14-at-11.24.43 AM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Screenshot-2023-12-14-at-11.24.43%5Cu202fAM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]Gavin Newsom wasn’t the first leftist to destroy California, but he has undoubtedly been the most successful.

California Passes Bill To Control Gas Prices

Grants the governor greater oversight

House Democrats Dragging Oil Giants Into Show Trial Benefitted From Industry Profits

House Democrats dragging oil giants before lawmakers in an upcoming show trial have benefitted from industry profits, public financial records show.