October, 27 2021, 12:09pm EDT
Five Questions Big Oil CEOs Must Answer Tomorrow
In anticipation of tomorrow's House Oversight Committee hearing on Big Oil's ongoing campaign to spread disinformation and manipulate Americans against widely-popular, commonsense climate soluti
WASHINGTON
In anticipation of tomorrow's House Oversight Committee hearing on Big Oil's ongoing campaign to spread disinformation and manipulate Americans against widely-popular, commonsense climate solutions, government watchdog Accountable.US called on the CEOs who will testify to finally be honest with lawmakers and the American people.
"For too long, oil companies have skirted responsibility for their harmful campaign of disinformation aimed at swaying Americans against commonsense policies to protect public lands and fight the climate crisis," said Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US. "It shouldn't have taken several dodged hearings and a subpoena threat for these executives to come before Congress. With the American people watching, will these executives own up to their misinformation, or keep trying to hide behind lies and spin?"
Thursday's hearing is one part of the committee's larger investigation into leading oil and gas companies' efforts to misinform the American public. Accountable.US called on the CEOs who will testify to answer the following questions about their companies' demonstrated history of hypocrisy:
1. The oil and gas industry has repeatedly claimed that it didn't need any bailouts during the pandemic. But in reality, its lobbying groups demanded tax breaks for the industry in the CARES Act, and reports show that oil and gas companies got at least $3.1 billion in pandemic bailout money. Why do you continue to argue that your industry did not receive federal pandemic support when the facts clearly prove otherwise?
In March 2020, major oil industry lobbying group the American Petroleum Institute (API) claimed the oil industry didn't need any pandemic bailouts, with the group's CEO, Mike Sommers, even going as far as to write an op-ed in the Washington Examiner to underscore the point. As recently as last month, Sommers was still hammering this line, stating during a podcast appearance that "even in the worst parts of that pandemic, you didn't see our industry, you know, asking for bailouts. In fact, we were fighting bailouts."
But this is far from the truth: API lobbied for CARES Act tax breaks in the early days of the pandemic, and government watchdog Accountable.US found that API's member companies got $3.1 billion in value from various pandemic aid programs.
2. Oil and gas company shareholders have repeatedly sought to vote on climate change initiatives within the company and have been met with opposition from companies. How can you claim to care about fighting climate change while opposing efforts to do so from your own shareholders?
Even as major oil and gas companies have attempted to greenwash their reputations to the public, behind the scenes, these companies are working to fight even their own shareholders on supporting climate initiatives and making substantive changes to their operations.
Exxon, BP, Chevron, and Shell all opposed shareholder initiatives to combat climate change, including efforts to bring their companies' policies in line with goals and standards set by the Paris Climate Agreement. Exxon went so far as to get the SEC to bar the company's shareholders from voting on a proposal that would have required it to disclose its emission reduction goals.
3. Oil and gas companies have a decades-long history of denying climate science and refuting the link between air pollution and its detrimental effects on people's health -- especially those in majority-Black and Native communities who are disproportionately affected by extractive activities. Do you acknowledge the increased health risk posed by fossil fuel pollution?
A scientist commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute testified before Congress in 1997 calling the link between air pollution and mortality "weak." Around the same time, Exxon published a study claiming there was "no substantive basis" for believing small particle pollution was leading to more deaths despite internal memos noting the dangers of fossil fuel pollution in 1967.
Importantly, this pollution, that continues to this day, disproportionately harms communities of color, especially Black and Native communities. A VICE report earlier this year revealed that over 70% of Chevron and Exxon's air pollution is dumped on people of color. Such exposure to pollutants can lead to adverse and life-threatening health consequences including increased risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, asthma, and more.
4. With more and more research showing that oil, gas, and coal development must be curbed in order to reach emissions goals essential to avoiding a climate catastrophe, how do you square your claims to care about the environment with your plans to increase fossil fuel production?
The International Energy Alliance released a report this year stating there must be no new oil, gas, or coal development to achieve net-zero goals by 2050. The UN released a report calling for fossil fuel production to rapidly fall if we want to avoid "severe climate disruption."
But regardless of the science and evidence, from 2019 to 2030, ExxonMobil is planning the largest increases in oil and gas production, increasing by 52% and 27% respectively -- even as it attempts to publicly paint itself as a climate steward.
5. Big Oil companies have repeatedly fought for "voluntary" emissions reduction strategies despite ample evidence proving that they aren't nearly as effective in curbing emissions as government mandates. Looking at the industry's record, how can you expect the American people to allow oil and gas companies to continue using voluntary climate mitigation methods when they have consistently proven ineffective?
The American Petroleum Institute proudly touts the effectiveness of voluntary emissions reduction strategies and plans in lieu of government action in order to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis. Yet companies on API's board have been responsible for nearly $38 billion in environmental penalties -- API has rewarded companies days after they have caused environmental disasters.
Additionally, voluntary pledges to reduce flaring have proven ineffective as companies, including BP and Exxon, continued to flare regularly after pledging to stop. Flaring increased annually from 2017 to 2019.
Accountable.US is a nonpartisan watchdog that exposes corruption in public life and holds government officials and corporate special interests accountable by bringing their influence and misconduct to light. In doing so, we make way for policies that advance the interests of all Americans, not just the rich and powerful.
LATEST NEWS
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'An Act of Retaliation': EPA Suspends 140+ Employees for Signing 'Declaration of Dissent'
The employees were put on leave after they signed a letter saying the Trump EPA's actions "endanger public health and erode scientific progress."
Jul 04, 2025
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put 144 employees on leave after they signed a letter criticizing the Trump administration's "harmful" policies.
EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch accused the employees of "undermining, sabotaging, and undercutting the administration's agenda." But the union that represents these employees is calling it an act of illegal "retaliation."
The "declaration of dissent", published by Stand Up for Science Monday, had been signed by 620 people as of Thursday. Addressed to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the letter accused the administration of "recklessly undermining" the agency's mission under his watch. It accused the administration of "ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters."
"This administration's actions directly contradict EPA's own scientific assessments on human health risks, most notably regarding asbestos, mercury, and greenhouse gases," the letter said.
Since Trump retook office, the administration has eviscerated policies meant to contain pollution, slashing funding for green energy production and electric vehicles while championing increased fossil fuel drilling and consumption. It has also rolled back the enforcement of limits on cancer-causing "forever chemicals" in water.
The signatories also pointed to the Trump EPA's "undermining of public trust" by using official channels to trumpet "misinformation and overtly partisan rhetoric."
They called out EPA press releases, which have referred to climate science as a "religion," EPA grants as "green slush funds," and "clean coal" as "beautiful." The letter also suggested the EPA had violated the Hatch Act by promoting political initiatives like Trump's tariffs and the Republican budget reconciliation bill.
"Make no mistake: your actions endanger public health and erode scientific progress—not only in America—but around the world," the letter said.
The employees also accused the administration of "promoting a culture of fear." They cited comments by top Trump officials, such as Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, who has said he wanted to put EPA employees "in trauma" and make them unable "to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains."
While some signatories signed their names, many others chose to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. That retaliation came Thursday, when—according to The New York Times—144 employees received an email putting them on leave for the next two weeks "pending an administrative investigation."
The decision was widely criticized as a violation of the employees' First Amendment rights.
Tim Whitehouse, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has previously represented EPA and other employees, said federal employees are allowed to publicly criticize the administration they work for.
"The letter of dissent did really nothing to undermine or sabotage the agenda of the administration," Whitehouse told The Washington Post. "We believe strongly that the EPA should protect the First Amendment rights of their employees."
Bill Wolfe, a former environmental policy professional with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said that the letter "was a classic form of whistleblowing that is protected by federal whistleblower laws and the 1st Amendment, as upheld by federal courts."
Justin Chen, the union representative for EPA employees under the American Federation of Government Employees, told the Times that the agency's actions were "clearly an act of retaliation" and said the union would "protect our members to the full extent of the law."
Despite the punishment, one of the signatories anonymously told The Post that they had no regrets.
"I took the risk knowing what was up," the employee wrote. "I'll say it before, and now it rings even more true … if this is the EPA they want me to work for, then I don't want to work for the EPA."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular