Evil ‘Polluter’ ExxonMobil Sues California Over New Laws Requiring Corporate ‘Climate Disclosures’

“Polluters” sue California over the state’s new Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, which requires companies with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion that conduct business in California to report their greenhouse gas emissions to the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

It’s another California climate shakedown given that the requirements would apply to approximately 5,400 companies, including Walmart, Apple, ExxonMobil and Chevron, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The “polluter,” energy company ExxonMobil, has filed suit in federal court challenging two California laws that would require the oil giant to report the greenhouse emissions resulting from the use of its products globally.

SB 253 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), passed in 2023, “is a first-in-the nation measure to require all large corporations that do business in California to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas (emissions) in line with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the longstanding gold accounting standard established by the environmental and business communities,” according to Sen. Wiener. “These disclosures will include corporate supply chains (scope 3), which can include in excess of 90% of a corporation’s carbon emissions. By requiring this disclosure, the public, investors, and others will better understand which corporations are walking the talk when it comes to climate action.”

The goal is to impose California’s outlandish climate regulations well beyond California by forcing some of the world’s biggest companies to disclose their emissions publicly, and requiring other states to adopt similar climate laws.

In Senate Floor Analyses, under the “Purpose of Bill,” According to the author Wiener, “California, like the rest of the world, is already deeply impacted by climate change, with worsening droughts, floods, and the unforgettable devastation brought on by an influx of massive wildfires – the top five largest wildfires in the state’s history have all occurred in 2018 or later. We no longer have the time to rely on massive corporations to voluntarily report their emissions, and cannot afford any possibility that the emissions we are being told about have been altered or manipulated to ensure a positive public-facing appearance for a particular company. Rather, these corporations must be required to transparently report their activities and the emissions associated with them. Californians are watching their state get irrevocably harmed by climate change, and they have a right to know who is at the forefront of the pollution causing this. SB 253 would bolster California’s position as a leader on climate change, will allow for consumers to make informed decisions regarding their patronage of these corporations, and will give policymakers the specific data required to significantly decrease corporate emissions.” [emphasis Globe]

This is how little Senator Scott Wiener thinks of businesses. I wonder where he buys his Prius, bicycles and suspenders? Or is it all political theater?

If the goal is destruction of energy and manufacturing companies, job well done. In an article Saturday at Watts Up With That, titled Net Zero is Killing British Manufacturing, we read that in the UK, manufacturing is buckling under sky-high energy bills. The solution? Closely regulate price-gouging gas plants or take ownership of supply. “The report claims gas plant operators would be fairly compensated based on the economic value of their assets, but given fossil fuels allegedly face imminent Net Zero enforced shutdown, that measure of “fair value” would probably be a long way from the value such assets would enjoy were they allowed to operate for their full planned life, and were not forced to withdraw from the market every time the wind blows or the sun shines,” says author Eric Worrall.

Sen. Wiener continued his explanation:

“In recent months, fossil fuel interests have continued to escalate attempts to coerce investors to stop moving away from fossil fuels and towards a clean energy system through practices like ESG investing. States like Texas and West Virginia have cracked down on ESG investing and moved state funds away from banks that stopped investing in new fossil fuel development. While red states attempt to use their markets to prop up the harmful fossil fuel system of the past, the Climate Accountability Package upholds California’s legacy as an environmental leader by helping empower investors to propel the state into a clean energy future. The package empowers investors with essential transparency into major risks to their portfolios, protects their freedom to invest according to their values, and aligns public investments with California’s ambitious climate goals.”

According to SB 253 bill analysis, it “Requires, on or before January 1, 2025, CARB to develop and adopt regulations to require a reporting entity (the corporation) to annually disclose to the emissions reporting organization (CARB) and verify all of the reporting entity’s scope 1 emissions, scope 2 emissions, and scope 3 emissions. Requires CARB to ensure that the regulations establish specified requirements, including conformance with the GHG Protocol standards and guidance, and obtainment of an assurance engagement performed by an independent third-party assurance provider.”

SB 253 is a shakedown and potential takeover of companies. SB 253 “Authorizes CARB to adopt or update any other regulations that it deems necessary and appropriate.”

Look! Here’s who developed the “Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions” reporting:

Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. The “scope” framework was introduced in 2001 by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development as part of their GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. 

The World Resources Institute, located at 10 G Street NE, Suite 800, Washington DC 20002, opposes the use of zero carbon nuclear energy. So right away you know we are not dealing with sincere saviors-of-the-climate.

Influence Watch reports that WRI receives hundreds of millions of dollars a year via grants from government agencies, private foundations, and corporations. Some of these donors include the European Climate Foundation, the Shell Foundation, Facebook, the Toyota Mobility Foundation, the Walmart Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

And The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), with offices in Geneva, New York, Chicago, Amsterdam, London, Singapore, and Wuhan, is a global network of 250+ leading companies driving sustainability as a key driver of competitiveness. Most of WBCSD’s member companies are headquartered in Europe.

This is who is defining California’s climate legislation while attacking multi-national corporations?

According to bill analysis, “The goal was to create a universal method for companies to measure and report the emissions associated with their business. The three scopes allow companies to differentiate between the emissions they emit directly into the air, which they have the most control over, and the emissions they contribute to indirectly.”

“Scope 1 covers direct emissions from owned or controlled sources, such as fuel combustion, company vehicles, or fugitive emissions. Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, steam, heating and cooling consumed by the reporting company. Scope 3 includes all other indirect emissions that occur in a company’s value chain.”

These corporations are being charged and taxed for even existing. They are charged a climate tax for using vehicles and using fuel. Then they are climate taxed for using energy to run their businesses. They are charged a climate tax for heating and cooling their buildings.

“We need the full picture to make the deep emissions cuts that scientists tell us are necessary to avert the worst impacts of climate change,” said Senator Wiener.

Wiener only listens to certain climate alarmist scientists seeking power and control. There are plenty of other scientists issuing papers debunking his radical claims and legislation. In July, the Department of Energy published a report entitled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate. “The report concludes that carbon dioxide (CO₂)-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial,” Climate Realists reports. “Additionally, the report finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.”

From the DOE report – this should be mandatory reading for Senator Scott Wiener:

Elevated concentrations of CO2 directly enhance plant growth, globally contributing to “greening” the planet and increasing agricultural productivity [Section 2.1, Chapter 9]. They also make the oceans less alkaline (lower the pH). That is possibly detrimental to coral reefs, although the recent rebound of the Great Barrier Reef suggests otherwise [Section 2.2].

Carbon dioxide also acts as a greenhouse gas, exerting a warming influence on climate and weather [Section 3.1]. Climate change projections require scenarios of future emissions. There is evidence that scenarios widely-used in the impacts literature have overstated observed and likely future emission trends [Section 3.1].

The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration ranging from 1.8°C to 5.7°C [Section 4.2]. Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range [Section 4.3]. Global climate models generally run “hot” in their description of the climate of the past few decades − too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower- and mid-troposphere [Sections 5.2-5.4]. The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming.

Notably, they conclude, “Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial.”

Next: ExxonMobile’s lawsuit.