House Democrats took aim at major oil companies’ climate pledges during an Oversight Committee hearing on Tuesday after company board members declined to appear.
The hearing replaced the committee’s initial plans to have board members from ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and Shell testify after the committee said last week that four out of five invitees declined to appear on the scheduled date.
Instead, the lawmakers brought in experts and advocates, who criticized the companies’ promises as insufficient as they anticipate continued use of fossil fuels.
The lawmakers, too, criticized the companies, saying that plans to continue and in many cases expand fossil fuel production are incompatible with fighting climate change.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, burning fossil fuels is the biggest contributor to climate change.
The companies have said that they want to reduce the “carbon intensity” of their fossil fuels — meaning that the fuels themselves will release less carbon dioxide into the air.
Panel witness Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University atmospheric science professor, said that with increased production, doing this would be similar to eating more potato chips but selecting a lower-fat variety.
“They love to talk about how they are going to decrease the carbon intensity of their fossil fuels. That’s sort of like your doctor telling you that you need to cut fat from your diet and so you switch to 40 percent reduced fat potato chips, but you eat twice as many of them,” Mann said.
“That doesn’t help … and that’s effectively what fossil fuel interests are doing,” he added.
Chevron and Exxon particularly came under fire for including releases of planet-warming gasses only from their operations, and not from the burning of their products to power cars or generate electricity, in their carbon neutrality pledges.
The fuels’ use, not their production, is responsible for the vast majority of their emissions.
“That would be like an automaker pledging to eliminate emissions from their manufacturing, but doing nothing to improve their cars’ fuel efficiency,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)
Meanwhile, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) criticized Shell for a 2020 company statement, saying that its operating plans, outlooks, budgets and pricing assumptions “do not reflect” its emission reduction targets.
“How can we take Shell’s climate mitigation goals seriously when they do not even consider these goals in their current budgets, outlooks and prices?” he asked.
And Rep. Ayanna Presley (D-Mass.) expressed criticism about the companies’ plans involving the use of carbon capture technology to prevent emissions from their products from going into the atmosphere.
She asked Mann if there had been enough advancements proving that the technology would “perform as advertised.”
“I don’t see any evidence at this point. There hasn’t been a proof of concept that shows you can use [carbon capture and storage] and produce energy without producing carbon pollution,” he said.
Republicans, meanwhile, criticized their Democratic colleagues, characterizing the hearing as an attack on fossil fuel companies.
“Their investigation hasn’t turned up anything, no smoking gun, because there is not one. No matter what these companies do, it will never be enough to please the Democrats,” said the committee’s ranking member, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.).
Originally, the committee invited a member each from Chevron, Shell and BP’s boards of directors and two members of Exxon’s board.
In a statement last week, the committee said that four of the five refused to appear at Tuesday’s hearing, so it was being pushed back.
“The Big Oil companies should consider the March hearing their last chance to cooperate. If their board members refuse to appear, they should expect further action from this Committee,” Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said in the statement at the time.
Shell spokesperson Curtis Smith said that its board member, Jane Holl Lute, was the one witness who would have attended the hearing originally scheduled for today and indicated that she will attend the rescheduled hearing.
Matt Herrington, a lawyer representing BP board member Melody Meyer said via email that Tuesday “was not a workable date,” but added that next month, “Melody will be happy to appear with other industry representatives at the rescheduled hearing.”
Casey Norton, Exxon’s spokesperson, said the company’s board members, Susan Avery and Alexander Karsner, would also appear voluntarily when both are available.
On the hearing in general, Norton said via email that over the next six years, the company plans to invest more than $15 billion in emissions-lowering initiatives including “scaling carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and biofuels.”
BP spokesperson JP Fielder highlighted that the company plans to reach carbon neutrality across its both sales and operations by 2050 when asked for comment.
Spokespeople for Chevron did not respond to The Hill’s requests for comment.
The effort comes as part of a broader push by Democrats to investigate the oil companies. Top executives from each firm testified before the House in October, during which they largely downplayed early knowledge of climate change.
Following the October hearing, Maloney issued subpoenas to the companies, saying they failed to provide requested financial documents and internal communications.