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.

Vermont lawmakers want fossil fuel companies to pay for damages caused by weather events: 'Climate Superfund'



The Vermont Senate voted 21-5 on Friday to advance the Climate Superfund Act, which would force fossil fuel companies to pay into a fund covering weather event-related damages.

If passed into law, Senate Bill 259 would create a "Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program" to finance "climate change adaptive or resilience infrastructure projects" in Vermont.

"Under the Program, an entity or a successor in interest to an entity that was engaged in the trade or business of extracting fossil fuel or refining crude oil between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2019 would be assessed a cost recovery demand for the entity's share of fossil fuel extraction or refinement contributing to greenhouse gas-related costs in Vermont. An entity would only be assessed a cost recovery demand if the Agency determined that the entity's products were responsible for more than one billion metric tons of covered greenhouse gas emissions," the bill read.

The fund would be used to "avoid, moderate, repair, or adapt to negative impacts caused by climate change," such as "implementing nature-based solutions and flood protections; upgrading stormwater drainage systems; making defensive upgrades to roads, bridges, railroads, and transit systems; preparing for and recovering from extreme weather events; undertaking preventive health care programs and providing medical care to treat illness or injury caused by the effects of climate change."

Additionally, the program would cover the costs of relocating sewage treatment plants, installing cooling systems in public and private buildings, upgrading that state's electrical grid, addressing toxic algae blooms, and managing the loss of topsoil.

The legislation is sponsored by Sens. Anne Watson (D), Dick Sears Jr. (D), Christopher Bray (D), and 17 other Democratic senators.

According to Sears, the legislation is "built on the long-standing principle that the polluter pays," Mountain Times reported.

"The damage that fossil fuels are causing in our communities continues to grow, with flooding in the last year alone resulting in massive costs to our state," Sears claimed.

Sen. Nader Hashim (D) told lawmakers on Friday, "In order to remedy the problems created by washed out roads, downed electrical wires, damaged crops and repeated flooding, the largest fossil fuel entities that have contributed to climate change should also contribute to fixing the problem that they caused."

"We can place the burden on Vermont taxpayers or we can keep our fingers crossed that the federal government will help us or we can have fossil fuel companies pay their fair share," Hashim said.

Under the legislation, the Vermont state treasurer would provide a report detailing the cost imposed on residents as a result of the "emission of greenhouse gases for the period that began on January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2019." The report would assess the impact of fossil fuels on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, and flood preparedness.

The American Petroleum Institute stated that it opposes the bill and shared objections to the legislation in a letter to the state Senate last week, the Associated Press reported.

The group is concerned that the bill "retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal, violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large; and is preempted by federal law."

"Additionally, the bill does not provide potentially impacted parties with notice as to the magnitude of potential fees that can result from its passage," the API added.

Similar bills have also been introduced in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York.

ExxonMobil did not respond to the AP's request for comment.

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

ExxonMobil CEO predicts oil market turbulence will go on for years: 'A lot of volatility and discontinuity'



ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods predicted Tuesday the global oil market will continue to be "tight" for years to come, indicating cost relief at the gas pump is not on the horizon.

What did Woods say?

Speaking at the Bloomberg Qatar Economic Forum in Doha, Woods predicted that turbulence within the global oil market will not subside for three to five years.

"You are probably looking at three to five years of continued fairly tight markets," Woods said. "How that manifests itself in price will obviously be a big function of demand, which is difficult to predict."

Woods added that protection from market volatility will require governments and oil companies to enact "more thoughtful policies."

"We are going to see a lot of volatility and discontinuity in the market place if we don't get to more thoughtful policies," he explained.

Woods also responded to accusations from President Joe Biden that ExxonMobil has "made more money than God." Woods dismissed the remarks as "political rhetoric," explaining his company looks "past" such rhetoric from politicians.

Last week, ExxonMobil responded to a threatening letter that Biden wrote executives at seven oil companies by advising the solution to the gas price crisis lies partially in "clear and consistent policy" from the government "that supports U.S. resource development, such as regular and predictable lease sales, as well as streamlined regulatory approval and support for infrastructure such as pipelines."

The problem that ExxonMobil hinted at is the Biden administration's hostility toward fossil fuels. Through his presidency, Biden has demonized oil and gas. Now, however, he is demanding they produce more oil while accusing them of profiteering.

Anything else?

Woods' dire prediction came one day before Biden called on Congress to temporarily suspend the federal gas tax.

The measure, according to economists, would worsen inflation and probably not benefit Americans who are struggling with record-high gas prices.

Ironically, former President Barack Obama slammed a so-called "gas tax holiday" in 2008 as a "gimmick."

"For us to suggest 30 cents a day for three months is real relief, that that’s a real energy policy, means that we are not tackling the problem that has to be tackled," Obama said at the time.

The national average cost of gas continues to hover around $5 per gallon.

Climate activists elected to board of ExxonMobil after hedge fund's push



Climate change activists will sit on the board of oil industry giant ExxonMobil in a historic first, after a hedge fund's successful campaign to push the energy firm toward renewables.

What are the details?

The New York Times reported that Exxon shareholders voted Wednesday to elect "at least two board candidates nominated by activist investors who pledged to steer the company toward cleaner energy and away from oil and gas."

A hedge fund dubbed Engine No. 1 put forward a slate of independent board candidates, and was successful in its campaign to switch out board members. CNBC reported that Engine No. 1 "has a 0.02% stake in Exxon," and "has been targeting the company since December over the oil giant's need to shift away from fossil fuel dependency."

The Hill reported that "the activist hedge fund, which has a minor stake in Exxon at just $50 million, was formed last year with the goal of shifting Exxon's approach to climate change." Exxon has a market value of roughly $250 billion.

But Engine No. 1 was able to gain the support of Exxon's top shareholders in its climate change initiative, winning "the backing of the three biggest U.S. pension funds, the two biggest advisory services, and at least one of the three biggest fund managers," The Washington Post reported.

The outlet noted that those three fund managers are BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, who altogether "hold more than 20 percent of ExxonMobile's shares."

Exxon announced in a press release that preliminary vote estimates indicate that shareholders elected Engine No. 1 nominees Gregory Goff and Kaisa Hietala to the board. According to Axios, "Hietala is a a former renewables executive with the refining company Neste and Goff is the former CEO of the refiner Andeavor."

"We welcome all of our new directors and look forward to working with them constructively and collectively on behalf of all shareholders," Exxon chairman and CEO Darren Woods said in a statement.

"We've been actively engaging with shareholders and received positive feedback and support, particularly for our announcements relating to low-carbon solutions and progress in efforts to reduce costs and improve earnings," he continued. "We heard from shareholders today about their desire to further these efforts, and we are well positioned to respond."

Political opponents accuse Trump of felony after viral tweet falsely claims he admitted to quid pro quo



President Donald Trump was accused of admitting to a "quid pro quo" on Monday after a viral tweet grossly misrepresented remarks that Trump made during a campaign stop.

As it turned out, Trump made no such admission.

What happened?

During a campaign rally in Prescott, Arizona, on Monday, Trump illustrated a quid pro quo while explaining why he doesn't make fundraising calls to CEOs of major companies.

But if you saw a tweet by Vox journalist Aaron Rupar — which millions of Americans saw, in fact — you may think that Trump was admitting to an actual quid pro quo. That's because Rupar pulled Trump's words out of context to make it appear that Trump admitted to engaging in a quid pro quo with Exxon CEO Darren Woods.

Cementing his tweet with the hashtag "#QuidProQuo" — making very clear the allegation he was levying against Trump — Rupar quoted Trump as saying:

I call the head of Exxon. I'll use a company. "How, how are you doing, how's energy coming? When are doing the exploration? Oh, you need a couple of permits, huh?" But I call the head of Exxon, I say, "You know, I'd love you to send me $25m for the campaign."

The complete misrepresentation of Trump's words ignited a firestorm on social media, resulting in the president's detractors to literally accusing him of a felony.

"The conduct described by @realDonaldTrump is a felony and punishable with prison time," Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Hawaii) said.

The conduct described by @realDonaldTrump is a felony and punishable with prison time.#QuidProQuo https://t.co/Qz2KG31JPH
— Ted Lieu (@Ted Lieu)1603144502.0

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) joined in the pillaging. "So @exxonmobil & friends, care to tell us the end of this story? Did you coordinate the $25 million?" she said.

So @exxonmobil & friends, care to tell us the end of this story?Did you coordinate the $25 million? https://t.co/0YI5VhWYzS
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)1603144618.0

What's the truth?

As even Washington Post fact-checker Daniel Dale explained, Trump was not, in fact, admitting to a crime.

"Again, the clip that's circulating has a misleading caption; Trump's point was that it compromises a president to make personal fundraising calls to big CEOs, so he won't," Dale explained. "Once more: A) Trump *does* do lots of high-dollar fundraising, but B) He was clearly not admitting here to corruption or an actual deal with Exxon. Carry on."

Once more: A) Trump *does* do lots of high-dollar fundraising, but B) He was clearly not admitting here to corrupti… https://t.co/cjttdByJnq
— Daniel Dale (@Daniel Dale)1603142494.0

Even Exxon was forced to respond.

"We are aware of the President's statement regarding a hypothetical call with our CEO…and just so we're all clear, it never happened," the company said.

How did Rupar respond?

Rupar eventually deleted his misleading tweet. He claimed that he thought his tweet clearly represented that Trump was discussing a hypothetical, but said he deleted the tweet because "folks are interpreting in a more literal way."

But again, Rupar's tweet contained zero context and literally used the hashtag #QuidProQuo."

Deleted this because the quote reads too much like something Trump actually said to Exxon when he was talking about… https://t.co/a2Sn1V0ggb
— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar)1603161165.0