#NODEATHPENALTY

Michigan man exonerated of murder after 32 years in prison

DETROIT (AP) — A man was exonerated Wednesday after 32 years in prison when authorities agreed that he was wrongly convicted of a fatal stabbing in suburban Detroit based on faulty evidence, including a bite mark on the victim.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

For years, Gilbert Poole Jr. had challenged his first-degree murder conviction with expertise from the Innocence Project at WMU-Cooley Law School.

An Oakland County judge dismissed the conviction at the request of the Michigan attorney general's office, clearing the way a few hours later for Poole's release from a prison in Jackson.

“I spent decades learning, reading, studying law, but none of that was working for me,” Poole, 56, said in court. “It wasn’t until I surrendered to a higher power and God stepped in and sent me a band of angels to look past the rules and regulations and looked to see who was standing in the furnace. I was standing in the furnace. I didn’t belong here."

Poole was convicted in the fatal stabbing of Robert Mejia, whose body was found in a Pontiac field.

Poole’s girlfriend told police that he had confessed to her that he met Mejia in a bar and later killed him during a violent robbery attempt. A dentist linked Poole to a bite mark on the victim.

Poole repeatedly denied any role. In 2015, the Michigan Court of Appeals ordered DNA testing of biological material gathered by police in 1988. There was evidence of type A blood at the scene, which didn’t match Mejia’s or Poole’s blood.

“Someone else fought with Robert Mejia in the woods that early morning and someone else killed him,” Assistant Attorney General Robyn Frankel told the judge.

Attorney General Dana Nessel said the county prosecutor’s office, which handled the case in 1988-89, had no objection to vacating Poole’s conviction.

Bite mark evidence “has been widely debunked. It's not reliable anymore,” Nessel said. “Then you have here not just that but the advent of very reliable types of testing such as DNA.”

Poole's lawyer, Marla Mitchell-Cichon of the law school's Innocence Project, said an exoneration seemed out of reach at times.

“But we are thrilled that the truth has finally been established,” she said.

Nessel said Poole will be eligible for a variety of post-prison services, including housing assistance. She didn't address whether he would qualify for $1.6 million under Michigan's wrongful conviction compensation program.

The law grants $50,000 for each year spent in prison if someone is exonerated, typically because of new evidence.

___

Follow Ed White at http://twitter.com/edwritez

Ed White, The Associated Press

It’s All Coming Together for Floating Wind Turbines

Everything’s coming up floating wind turbines. On Tuesday, the Biden administration announced plans to open up the waters off California to wind energy, signalling that the new technology is going to emerge.

© Photo: Jeff J Mitchell (Getty Images) A general view of The European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre located in Aberdeen Bay on September 7, 2018 in Aberdeen, Scotland.

Dharna Noor 

“Today’s announcement reflects months of active engagement and dedication between partners who are committed to advancing a clean energy future,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement.

The proposal allows developers to site commercial-scale offshore wind farms in two locations, one in Morro Bay off central California and another off the coast of Humboldt near the state’s northern coast. Together, the administration said the locations could generate enough electricity to power 1.6 million homes. Remarkably, the scheme received support from the military, which uses California’s coast for testing and operations and has previously dismissed such plans. But though it cleared that major barrier, erecting offshore wind farms in the Pacific could also come with physical difficulties.

Globally, most offshore wind has been constructed in shallow waters where turbines can be attached to the seafloor with concrete or steel. But the underwater topography along the West Coast drops off more quickly, which rules out anchored wind towers. So developers will have to come up with new ways to harness the power of the wind there.

Enter floating wind turbines, which are tethered with cables instead of stiff pilings. To stop them from drifting too far away, chains and weights can be added to anchors which can latch onto the ocean floor. In Wednesday’s announcement, the White House said “new floating offshore wind technology will be deployed in offshore California waters.”

This technology can allow developers to access faster and more consistent wind energy than their more fixed counterparts. It could also increase the world’s capacity to generate wind power since only an estimated 40% of offshore wind resources can be captured with fixed-bottom turbines.

This technology is relatively new. The world’s first floating wind farm started producing power in late 2017 off the coast of Scotland. Since then, roughly 20 more have been brought to fruition, but none are in the U.S. or operating at a commercial scale. Developers in Maine are currently pushing to bring a floating wind farm online, but it’s been a real uphill battle, so California might end up being the first in the nation to deploy this technology.

“While interest from the global industry will be unprecedented, West Coast development requires American ingenuity and innovation in next generation technologies that will create opportunities for engineering firms and skilled labor,” Liz Burdock, president and CEO of the Business Network for Offshore Wind, said in an emailed statement.

Developers are ready for the floating turbine future. In fact, several have already shown their interest in the region. A coalition including Magellan Wind and Orsted North America is gunning to construct turbines in California waters. And Trident Winds and EnBW North America have proposed a 1,000-megawatt floating farm near Morro Bay, though the companies have encountered opposition from the fishing industry, similar to what’s played out in Maine.

This week during a summit hosted by the Department of Energy, General Electric also announced that its researchers are working on a concept for a 12-megawatt floating farm. If the firm’s models and simulations pan out to provide proof of concept for the project, it may move forward with partners to build a prototype.

The floating wind market is expected to take off in the coming years, and the Biden administration wants to help it along. In a Tuesday statement, the White House said the Department of Energy “has invested more than $100 million in researching, developing, and demonstrating floating offshore wind technology.”

Once the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management officially sets aside the areas off the California coast for development and conducts an environmental analysis, the agency plans to auction off leases for the area to developers in mid-2022. If this new technology becomes a reality in the U.S., it could mean California becomes one of the largest global generators of wind power, and bring the U.S. closer to the Biden administration’s goal of reaching 100% no-carbon electricity by 2035.

Antarctic seals are helping scientists learn more about melting glaciers

By Rebecca Cairns, CNN 

Known as the Earth's "thermostat," Antarctica plays a vital role in regulating the planet's complex climate system.

© Courtesy Guilherme A. Bortolotto The team sedate the seal with a blow dart and glue a smartphone-sized device to the fur on the back of its head. When the seal comes to the surface for air, the device transmits the information via satellite.

Scientists are investigating how environmental changes in Antarctica will impact the rest of the world, but the continent's remote location and hostile climate, with winter temperatures that plummet to well below -100°F, make it an incredibly challenging environment for humans.

That's why a team from the Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of St Andrews, in Scotland, enlisted the help of some of Antarctica's permanent residents: seals.

The furry, aquatic mammals thrive year-round in the freezing climate and can dive up to 3,000 feet below the water's surface says Lars Boehme, an oceanographer and one of the project's leaders.

© Courtesy James Kirkham Antarctica, the world's fifth largest continent, is home to millions of seals and seabirds.

By fitting the seals with sensors, the researchers gain insight into the seals habits and ecology, while also gathering data from inaccessible parts of the ocean.

Scientists around the world are now drawing on this data to learn more about the Antarctic environment and how it could impact climate change.

Animal assistants

Researchers have been tagging seals since 2004 to gather environmental information from around Antarctica. However, little was known about the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica, where two of the continent's fastest melting glaciers -- Pine Island Glacier and Thwaites Glacier -- are located. So in 2014, Boehme led a team to tag seals there.

While six seal species live in Antarctica, only Weddell and southern elephant seals dive into the deeper layers of the ocean -- the main reason these species were chosen for data collection, says Boehme. The seals are hunted by orcas and other seals in the water, but have no land predators, so the scientists can approach them easily. "They're not running away," says Boehme.

© Courtesy James Kirkham Between 1992 and 2017, Antarctica lost around 2.7 trillion tons of ice. West Antarctica, where Pine Glacier and Thwaites Glacier are located, has been particularly badly affected.

The team members sedate the seals with a blow dart and glue a smartphone-sized sensor to the fur on the backs of their heads. The process doesn't hurt the animals or impact their social lives, says Boehme. Seals molt annually, so the device falls off after a year.

Boehme says the team are careful to minimize their interactions with the seals. Tagging up to 14 seals per trip in 2014, 2019, and 2020, the team have got the process down to just 10 minutes per seal he says, and are working to reduce the size of the devices.

Read: Emails from the edge -- Svalbard's polar bears are sending messages to scientists

As the seals swim through the ocean, the device collects information about the depth, temperature, and salinity of the water at different locations. When the seals come to the surface for air, the "data profiles" are transmitted via satellite.

When the project started in 2014, Boehme says there was less than 1,000 data profiles available for the Amundsen Sea area. Now, with the help of the seals, the team has more than 20,000 data points from thousands of locations around Antarctica.

This information is compiled by Marine Mammals Exploring the Oceans Pole to Pole (MOEP), an international consortium that runs a giant online database. The data is incorporated into daily reports by weather forecasting organizations such as the UK's Met Office and European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and is being analyzed by scientists from multiple disciplines.

In hot water

Yixi Zheng, who is undertaking a PhD in environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia, in the UK, has used data collected by seals in the Amundsen Sea in 2014 to investigate melting at Pine Island Glacier.

© Courtesy Lars Boehme The project run by the Seal Mammal Research Unit at St. Andrews University tags Weddell and southern elephant seals.

Previously, it was thought that the "meltwater" that flows out beneath the ice shelf at around 1,470 feet (450 meters) below the surface stays there, in the deep twilight zone of the ocean.

But Zheng's study, published in March this year, found that some meltwater actually rises to the upper sunlight zone of the ocean, around 650 feet (200 meters) below the surface. The meltwater has a unique "fingerprint" that makes it easily traceable in the surrounding seawater, says Zheng: it is nearly 3°C warmer than the water around it and contains less salt.

Moving from the lower to upper zone of the ocean, this warm meltwater causes the surface water's temperature to rise, which leads to more sea ice at the surface melting. The meltwater forms relatively warm lagoons, called polynyas.

While melting ice contributes to rising sea levels, the polynyays do have some environmental benefits, says Zheng.

Rich in nutrients and minerals from the land, the meltwater promotes growth of algae, which absorbs CO2 and attracts tiny creatures like krill, that form the basis the ocean food chain.

Zheng says the exact size and numbers of polynyas is difficult to pin down, but that permanent polynyas are forming in front of Pine Island Glacier, where this data was collected.

Related: Blue Nature Alliance aims to restore 7 million square miles of ocean in five years

Pine Island Glacier, where this data was collected, is one of the fastest melting ice shelves in the region and could be a major contributor to global sea levels rising. Zheng's discoveries about glacial meltwater rising suggest that the rising meltwater could be exacerbating the melting of surface sheet ice. However, Zheng says that more study is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn about its impact of melting at Pine Island Glacier and the climate at large.

Precise predictions

Antarctica boasts 90% of the world's ice and 80% of the planet's freshwater. But since the 1950s, temperatures in Antarctica have increased by 3°C and in February 2020 the continent logged its highest temperature since records began. The rising temperatures are causing rapid ice loss: between 1992 and 2017, the continent lost around 2.7 trillion tons of ice at an accelerating rate.

Scientists know melting ice will have a knock-on effect on the global environment -- but there's a lot of debate and uncertainty about what that will look like. For example, sea levels are expected to rise in the next century due to melting ice in the polar region and sea water expanding as it gets warmer, but estimates range between one to eight feet, depending on the levels of future greenhouse gas emissions.

Using seals to collect data and analyzing it, as Zheng has, can help narrow those predictions, and give scientists a clearer idea of what we're up against, Boehme tells CNN.

"For me, that's the exciting bit: when Yixi started to talk about what she found, then we begin to better understand these processes that might impact the melting of these glaciers," he says.

Undocumented and unvaccinated yet still essential

Dana McLaughlin and Paul Spiegel, opinion contributors 

When the COVID-19 pandemic first swept through the U.S., the public learned of a new labor category: essential workers. These are people who work in low-wage high visibility positions in health care facilities, educational institutions, food production facilities, even grocery stores.

© Getty Images Undocumented and unvaccinated yet still essential

But what we did not learn was that over 5.5 million of the workers in essential industries in the U.S.- one out of every 20 - are undocumented immigrants. And these people - so vital in how our country made it through the pandemic's first year - face difficult if not insurmountable hurdles in getting vaccinated.

Undocumented immigrants have faced immense risks, burdens and obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S.'s distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine - which has fostered confusion, contributed to vaccine hesitancy and perpetuated health inequities - has not helped. As states continue to accelerate the rollout of vaccines, undocumented immigrants of all races and ethnicities are being systematically overlooked.

If the Biden administration and state governments are committed to reaching herd immunity in the U.S. population by the end of 2021, undocumented individuals must have equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines.

In February 2021, the Biden administration joined the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to call for all individuals in the United States and its territories to receive the COVID-19 vaccine irrespective of their legal status. The Biden administration instructed vaccination sites across the country to ensure undocumented migrants are able to receive COVID-19 vaccines, calling their inclusion in vaccine distribution a moral and public health imperative.

Each state, however, sets their own requirements regarding who can be vaccinated and what identification they must show - and enforcement of these regulations vary considerably. Instances of undocumented immigrants being denied access to vaccines in Florida and elsewhere contradicts the Biden administration's promise. We examined the current COVID-19 vaccination plans for the 50 states and the District of Columbia and found that 31 states (62 percent) require individuals to demonstrate that they are either a resident or a worker in the state where they are receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Six states require individuals to be residents of the state.

As states continue to require government issued IDs and fail to communicate which documents will be required for undocumented immigrants to receive the vaccine, undocumented immigrants will continue to lag behind.

Tellingly, while the majority of undocumented workers are found in the construction, grocery and food services and agricultural industries, 25 percent of the state COVID-19 vaccination distribution plans have failed to prioritize workers in these industries. Similarly, while individuals who are detained in U.S. prisons and jails have been prioritized in 71 percent of state vaccine plans, immigration detention facilities are absent in all but two state vaccine prioritization plans.

Even in the states where workers in these industries were included in vaccine priority groups, residency requirements, fear of legal repercussions, and uncertainties about what documents must be provided to demonstrate eligibility have continued to hamper vaccinations.

The U.S. must do a better job of prioritizing. The inclusion of undocumented immigrants is fundamental to the overall success of the U.S.'s vaccination effort and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. States leaders must work with immigrant community leaders and organizations and meet their needs. If the 13 million undocumented immigrants who currently reside in the U.S. continue to be excluded and left behind in the vaccination efforts, immigrant communities will continue to bear a disproportionate burden of COVID-19 cases and deaths.

As states across the country open up access to vaccines to the wider adult population, each state must make a renewed effort to explicitly state what types of identification are necessary to demonstrate eligibility. The CDC should reinforce the Biden administration's commitments by mandating that states cannot require undocumented immigrants to demonstrate citizenship or residency in order to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

The pandemic has taught us that our health is inextricably linked to the health of all of our neighbors. Prioritizing undocumented and detained immigrant communities' access to the COVID-19 vaccine should be a priority for state and federal governments alike. Immigrants in detention facilities and undocumented workers in industries such as construction, agriculture and food services should have a spot at the front of the line for the COVID-19 vaccine. Until these essential members of our communities and country are protected from this virus and provided with the resources they need to stay healthy, no state or community will be able to fully recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dana McLaughlin, MPH, is a global health associate at the United Nations Foundation and a research assistant at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Center for Humanitarian Health.

Paul Spiegel, MD, MPH, is a professor of the practice at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health

Shell: Netherlands court orders 

oil giant to cut emissions

Published

IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS

image captionActivists hugged in court after the judge delivered the verdict

A court in the Netherlands has ruled in a landmark case that the oil giant Shell must reduce its emissions.

By 2030, Shell must cut its CO2 emissions by 45% compared to 2019 levels, the civil court ruled.

The Shell group is responsible for its own CO2 emissions and those of its suppliers, the verdict said.

It is the first time a company has been legally obliged to align its policies with the Paris climate accords, says Friends of the Earth (FoE).

The environmental group brought the case to court in 2019, alongside six other bodies and more than 17,000 Dutch citizens.

Though the decision only applies in the Netherlands, it could have wider effects elsewhere. BBC Netherlands correspondent Anna Holligan tweeted that it was a "precedent-setting judgement".

A Shell spokesperson said they "fully expect to appeal today's disappointing court decision" and added that they are stepping up efforts to cut emissions.

"Urgent action is needed on climate change, which is why we have accelerated our efforts to become a net-zero emissions energy company by 2050," the spokesperson said, adding that Shell was investing "billions of dollars in low-carbon energy, including electric vehicle charging, hydrogen, renewables and biofuels".

"This is really great news and a gigantic victory for the earth, our children and for all of us," FoE director Donald Pols said in a statement. "The judge leaves no doubt about it: Shell is causing dangerous climate change and must now stop it quickly."

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.View original tweet on Twitter

Under the terms of the Paris Agreement on climate change, nearly 200 nations agreed to keep global temperatures "well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels.

The legally binding treaty came into force on 4 November 2016. The US withdrew under former President Donald Trump but has since rejoined under President Joe Biden.

• Why did the US rejoin the Paris climate agreement?
• A really simple guide to climate change

A number of groups around the world are now trying to force companies and governments to comply with the accords through the courts.

Shell has previously said it wants net zero emissions for itself and from products used by its customers by 2050.

In December its defence lawyers told the Dutch court the company was already taking "serious steps" to move away from fossil fuels, and said there was no legal basis for the case.

Other major oil companies are also making changes amid a greater global focus on cutting emissions.

On Wednesday Chevron investors voted in favour of a proposal to cut its customer emissions, while shareholders at Exxon elected two climate activists to its board after months of wrangling over its business direction.

The Shell verdict is a massive win for environmental campaigners, and other industrial giants will be scrambling to figure out how it could affect them.

Because suddenly it's not good enough for firms to comply with the law on their emissions - in an extraordinary case like this, they have to comply with global climate policy too.

The company's defence is that if people feel progress towards cutting emissions is too slow, they should lobby governments - not Shell - to change policies and introduce financial incentives.

The judges have clearly decided that Shell should be taking responsibility itself for cutting emissions much faster.

The firm will surely appeal - and it might well win the case in a higher court.

But this verdict alone will be a warning to companies round the world that the battle against climate change may be spelling the end of anything resembling "business as usual".

Shell - full name Royal Dutch Shell - is a British-Dutch multinational. Because its headquarters are in The Hague, FoE was able to bring a case to a Dutch court.

Earlier this year another Dutch court ruled that Shell was responsible for damage caused by oil leaks in the Niger Delta, and ordered the company to pay compensation to farmers.

Shell, however, has said the leaks were the result of "sabotage".

  

Court orders Royal Dutch Shell to cut net emissions by 45%

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — A Dutch court on Wednesday ordered Royal Dutch Shell to cut its carbon emissions by net 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels in a landmark case brought by climate activism groups, which hailed the decision as a victory for the planet.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The Hague District Court ruled that the Anglo-Dutch energy giant has a duty of care to reduce emissions and that its current reduction plans were not concrete enough.

The decision could set a precedent for similar cases against polluting multinationals around the world. Activists gathered outside the courtroom erupted into cheers as the decision was read out loud.

“The climate won today,” said Roger Cox, a lawyer for the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth, which was one of the organizations behind the case.

“This ruling will change the world. Worldwide, people are in the starting blocks to take legal action against oil companies following our example,” Cox added.

The Hague court did not say how Royal Dutch Shell should achieve the ordered cutback, saying the energy giant's parent company “has complete freedom in how it meets its reduction obligation and in shaping the Shell group’s corporate policy.”

In a written reaction, Shell said it expects to appeal the "disappointing court decision.”

The company said it is already “investing billions of dollars in low-carbon energy, including electric vehicle charging, hydrogen, renewables and biofuels. We want to grow demand for these products and scale up our new energy businesses even more quickly.”

At a hearing in December, Shell lawyer Dennis Horeman said a ruling against the company could create a situation “in which countless parties can hold each other accountable for their role in that (energy) transition through the courts” and give judges “a central role in an active and delicate political process.”

Shell says it has set “an ambition to be a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050, or sooner.”

The court said in an English language summary of its ruling that Shell was not currently in breach of its obligation to reduce emissions, as the environmental groups had argued, because the parent company was tightening its emissions policy.

But it ruled that Shell's policy “is not concrete, has many caveats and is based on monitoring social developments rather than the company’s own responsibility for achieving a CO2 reduction.”

“Therefore, the court has ordered RDS to reduce the emissions of the Shell group, its suppliers and its customers by net 45%, as compared to 2019 levels, by the end of 2030, through the corporate policy of the Shell group.”

A group of seven environmental and human rights organizations and some 17,000 Dutch citizens filed the case in 2018, calling on the court to order Shell to cut emissions in line with the global goals set out in the Paris climate agreement. That equates to Shell cutting emissions 45% by 2030.

The court ruled on the claims by six of the groups.

The case in the Netherlands is the latest in a string of legal challenges filed around the world by climate activists seeking action to rein in emissions, but it is believed to be the first targeting a multinational company.

One of the first successful climate cases also was in the Netherlands, where the Supreme Court two years ago upheld a 2015 ruling requiring the government to cut emissions at least 25% by the end of 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels.

In February, a Paris court ruled that the French government had failed to take sufficient action to fight climate change in a case brought by four nongovernmental organizations. Last month, Germany’s top court said the federal government must set clear goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions after 2030.

Donald Pols, director of Friends of the Earth Netherlands, called the ruling in The Hague, “a monumental victory for our planet, for our children and a big leap towards a livable future for everyone."

___

Follow AP’s climate coverage at https://apnews.com/Climate

Mike Corder, The Associated Pre

Exxon shareholders elect two outsiders to board; shake up insular culture
By Jennifer Hiller and Jessica Resnick-Ault 

© Reuters/Jim Young FILE PHOTO: An Exxon sign is seen at a gas station in the Chicago suburb of Norridge

HOUSTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The first Exxon Mobil directors not appointed by the company include an executive versed in renewable fuels and a "prudent" risk taker and disrupter poised to challenge the oil company's ways, said people familiar with his career.

Activists pressing Exxon to cut spending, boost returns and prepare for a lower-carbon future got a victory on Wednesday when shareholders elected Gregory Goff, a 64-year-old former top executive at Marathon Petroleum and Andeavor, and former Neste Oyj executive Kaisa Hietala. The vote followed a bruising battle led by a hedge fund.

The two face an insular corporate culture renowned for slow-to-change ways. Goff and Hietala will be two voices among a 12-person board that has had six directors handpicked by Exxon's current chief executive Darren Woods.

Goff was unavailable to comment according to spokeswoman for hedge fund Engine No. 1. Hietala could not be immediately reached.

Both have extensive backgrounds in oil refining, a business where Exxon posted a $1.1 billion loss last year. Hietala got Finish refiner Neste into renewables and has been on the boards of investment giant Carlyle Group and paper and packaging firm Smurfit Kappa Group.

Goff in 2010 took over the predecessor to U.S. oil refiner Andeavor, built it through deals and expanded the business internationally. He later sold it to Marathon, giving investors a 1,200% return during his 8-year tenure.

Goff "understands the business very well, both the operational side and the commercial side, said John Auers of refining consultants Turner, Mason & Co. "He's a very sharp, astute guy who takes prudent risks," he said.

In 2013, Goff bought a BP refinery in Carson, California, integrating it with a nearby refinery his company previously purchased from Royal Dutch Shell. Both happened as competitors were exiting the West Coast.

Four years later, he jumped into Mexico's fuel market through terminals, storage, and a retail network fed by its U.S. production. It was a bet that was rivaled that year by BP, Chevron and Exxon.

"His reputation is exceptionally high among investors," said analyst Paul Sankey of Sankey Research. Goff will be "far more concerned with Exxon Mobil’s management structure and lack of entrepreneurship than some misguided attempt to target net-zero," he wrote.

Goff also can succeed as an outsider at Exxon, said a person who has known him for many years but declined to be named for business reasons.

"He is disruptive in a pragmatic and constructive way," this person said. "He's not stuck in the status quo."

(Reporting by Jennifer Hiller in Houston and Jessica Resnick-Ault in New York; editing by Gary McWilliams and David Gregorio)

An activist investor with a 0.02% stake in Exxon ousted 2 of the oil giant's board members in a historic win

mfox@businessinsider.com (Matthew Fox) 2 hrs ago

©Mark Schiefelbein/Getty; Skye Gould/Business Insider

Activist investor Engine No. 1 was victorious in winning at least two board seats on Exxon Mobil's board of directors.

The win was historic given that the first time activist investor built a tiny 0.02% stake in the company.

The proxy fight between the activist investor and Exxon Mobil signals the increased investor attention towards green energy initiatives.

Activist investor Engine No. 1 scored a historic win on Wednesday after it won two board seats on Exxon Mobil's board of directors.

A bitter proxy fight between the major oil company and the small activist investor circled around green energy initiatives, executive pay, and the diversification of Exxon's fossil fuel business.

The win took many by surprise given that Engine No. 1 is a first time activist investor with just a 0.02% stake in Exxon. Typical activist investor campaigns have been led by well-known Wall Street figures who buy a position upwards 10% in the targeted company.

The win by Engine No. 1 highlighted the growing appetite among investors for corporations to tackle climate change and green energy initiatives head-on. Many top institutional investors view addressing the climate as essential for a successful long-term business, including BlackRock founder and CEO Larry Fink.

Exxon was staunchly against Engine No. 1's two board nominees, Gregory Goff and Kaisa Hietala. Exxon CEO Darren Woods refused to meet with the nominees and told shareholders that voting for them would "derail our progress and jeopardize your dividend," according to Bloomberg.

Just two-days before today's annual shareholder meeting, the company pledged that it would add two new directors to its board to counter-balance the potential addition of Goff and Hietala.

Other fossil-fuel companies have seen a revolt among shareholders in vote proposals. Chevron, DuPont de Nemours, and ConocoPhillips have all seen their shareholders issue rebukes to management by voting in favor of various proposals centered on climate change, Bloomberg highlighted.

Two board seats on Exxon remain undecided, and one or both of them could still potentially be awarded to Engine No. 1. Whether Woods will take the advice of the new board members and pivot towards a greener future remains to be seen.

Climate advocates win seats on Exxon's board

BY RACHEL FRAZIN -THE HILL- 05/26/21 


© iStock

Climate advocates gained influence at oil giant ExxonMobil after two candidates nominated by an activist firm won seats on the company’s board on Wednesday.

Preliminary votes showed two of Engine No. 1's candidates winning seats after being elected by company shareholders, Exxon said in a statement.

Those two, Gregory Goff and Kaisa Hietala, could be joined by a third, as vote results for Engine No. 1 nominee Alexander Karsner were among those that were too close to call.


Engine No. 1 has called for the company to make more significant investments in clean energy, using stricter approval criteria for new expenditures and an “overhaul” of management compensation.

In a presentation outlining its case, the firm argued that Exxon did not position itself for creating long-term value and that its rhetoric doesn’t address long-term business risks from emissions.

The small firm’s victories come after it was reported that their bid would have support from larger firms like BlackRock, the company’s second-biggest shareholder.

The election serves as a blow to the company’s leadership, who have opposed their campaign.

“To put it bluntly, we have a plan that will grow earnings and cash flow, pay and grow the dividend, fund future growth and position the company to have a meaningful role in the energy transition. Engine No. 1 does not,” CEO Darren Woods and lead director Kenneth Frazier wrote in a letter to shareholders earlier this year.

OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Climate advocates win seats on Exxon's board | EPA...
Republican state treasurers say they'll weigh banks' fossil fuel...

The Exxon statement also said that the board will reconsider proposals from shareholders that got approval of the majority, including one requesting a report on lobbying and another requesting a report on climate lobbying.

In the statement, Woods welcomed all of the board members who were either elected or reelected, and said the company has "been actively engaging with shareholders and received positive feedback and support, particularly for our announcements relating to low-carbon solutions."

—Updated at 4:14 p.m

New hedge funds bask in Exxon's climate spotlight

By Ross Kerber and Svea Herbst-Bayliss 

© Reuters/Brendan McDermid 

 Darren Woods, Chairman & CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation attends

 a news conference at the NYSE

(Reuters) - The successful board challenge against Exxon Mobil Corp casts a spotlight on two recently launched sustainability-focused investment firms that took opposite sides in the high-stakes battle: Engine No. 1 and Inclusive Capital Partners.

Engine No. 1 set the spark in January by formally nominating four directors to Exxon's board, accusing it of not moving fast enough to diversify away from fossil fuels. Inclusive Capital Partners sided with Exxon after its founder Jeffrey Ubben joined the energy giant's board in March, and argued it was already working with the company to improve its technology in areas such as carbon capture.

Both funds were launched less than a year ago. Their quick ascendance to Exxon's board underscores how Wall Street's new focus on environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) is opening doors for activist hedge funds at some of the world's largest companies.

Engine No. 1 was launched by hedge fund veterans Charles Penner and Chris James in December 2020. Penner spent much of his career at activist hedge fund Jana Partners, where he quarterbacked a campaign to get iPhone maker Apple Inc to create tools for parents to track and limit the use of children's' smartphones.

Engine No. 1 reported as of the end of March owning 917,400 Exxon shares valued at $51 million - a sum that traditionally would barely get a phone call returned from a company like Exxon, whose current market capitalization stands around $250 billion. Yet thanks to the backing of some of the biggest Wall Street fund managers such as BlackRock, it has won at least two seats on Exxon's board.

Lawyers and industry analysts who worked with Penner said he had immersed himself for years in researching how to take on the oil giant and speaking to other Exxon shareholders.

Engine No. 1 "did an effective job of making their case, and it appears that investors are saying that with their votes," said Tim Youmans, engagement leader for EOS at Federated Hermes, which advises clients how to vote.

Ubben founded Inclusive Capital in June of last year after leaving ValueAct Capital, the activist hedge fund he launched in 2000. He had a built a reputation for pushing for change outside the limelight and working more collaboratively with management than many other activists.

He has described Inclusive Capital as a return-driven environmental and social activist firm and raised concerns about the sustainable products being sold by big index funds. In a recent regulatory filing the firm said it owned 1.6 million share of Exxon, valued at $93.6 million.

Ubben defended Exxon against Engine No. 1's criticism, and as of Wednesday morning Ubben was still calling top Exxon investors to make the company's case, according to people familiar with the matter. While the result is a setback for Ubben, he gets to keep a board seat at Exxon he may not have gained if the oil major was not seeking to defend itself against Engine No. 1 in the first place.

Representatives for Ubben did not immediately comment for this article.

A spokesman for Penner referred to his statement at Wednesday's annual meeting in which he said the firm has "learned that change can happen anywhere. It will always be a long shot, but it will always be worth it."

In a statement on its website on Wednesday a top Exxon investor BlackRock Inc said it backed three of the four dissident nominees.

Those directors, "together with Mr. Ubben, bring the fresh perspectives and relevant transformative energy experience to the Board that will help the company position itself competitively in addressing the risks and opportunities presented by the energy transition," BlackRock said.

(Reporting by Ross Kerber in Boston; Additional reporting by Svea Herbst-Bayliss in Boston; editing by Edward Tobin)