John Jankowski, Sacramento Valley, Exxon discussed on Science Friday


On the market, offering concise takes on current events and their implications for financial markets. Three minutes and episode five times a week. Thoughts on the market and buy the listeners of KQED. Mostly sunny skies Today, Heisman fifties to upper seventies and we're heading into a warming trend. It should be relatively warm on Memorial Day. In fact, may see triple digits. They'll be an excessive heat Watch for parts, the Sacramento Valley area that'll starts Sunday afternoon. This is science Friday. I'm John Jankowski in for Ira Flatow Later this hour, we'll talk about the 15 to 20% of Americans who are still in wait and see mode about getting the Koven vaccine. And we'll look at how drought in the Southwest is affecting the Colorado River basin. But first, depending on your perspective, Wednesday was a bad day to be an oil company or a good day to be a climate activist. Three major oil companies had climate change pushed higher on their agendas. Shell was ordered by a Dutch court to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, Chevron was told by shareholders To reduce not just its emissions from oil production, but also those of its customers and it Exxon's annual shareholder meeting, a small climate advocacy group managed to score seats on its board of directors. So where did these climate Koos come from? And what could come next box staff writer who mirror Fong is here to talk about this big story? Welcome back to the program of Mayor. Thanks for having me. So I just ran through these oil companies. Story's pretty quickly Maybe you can dig into them in a bit more detail. Ah, what happened on this one Big day? Yeah, That's right. You know, the one of the biggest ones was at shell. This is major international oil company and a Dutch court ruled that essentially they have to control their greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement. Now Shell did put out a plan a few years ago, saying that they were going to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. But crucially, this ruling said that they have to account for what's going on a scope three, which is basically not just the emissions that they produce. But emissions that are produced from burning their product by their customers. And so that means that they have a much larger scope of responsibility here. And what this ruling will likely mean is that they'll have to actually stop, you know, combusting and also drilling for more oil. So this is a fundamental change their business model. Ah, fundamental change. They're coming from the courts. In some ways, though, these other moves that are really shareholder based Might make even more of an impact. Talk us through those right. So these shareholder owned companies mean that you know, investors have a say in how these companies are run, and more recently, a climate activists have found that they could get a seat at the table by buying stock in these companies. And in the case of Exxon this week, Yes, there was an investment firm that literally got seats on their board, and they have to move potentially get up to three seats. On dis is a way that they've been able to, you know, make their voices heard. Essentially, they have these big meetings at these companies are required to hold. They can make their case for why actually addressing climate change is a good business decision, but also that continue to drill for oil is a bad decision, And that's kind of what's interesting here with both ConocoPhillips and Chevron is that they're making the case that this is a business. Benefit to address and mitigate climate change and that it's causing harm if they don't what are some of the limitations of the power that shareholders actually have to force any change in these companies,.

Coming up next