Journalists roast Facebook's 'Meta' rebranding: 'A virtual reality where Mark Zuckerberg has a black friend'
Brad Reed
October 28, 2021

Screen cap

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday announced that his company would be rebranding as "Meta" and would have more focus on virtual reality in which people could connect more directly in a simulated digital space.

In a video released to demonstrate the concept, a virtual Zuckerberg walks onto a simulation of a space station in which he plays cards with some of his friends, who also appear as cartoon avatars.

Many journalists were not impressed, however, as they believe it's just as likely that the toxic experiences that have consumed Facebook for years would soon come to infect the company's giant virtual reality platform.

"If you hate 'Facebook,' you'll love 'Meta,' an immersive, unceasing universe of Facebook," wrote the New York Times' Amanda Hess.

Elaborating on this, journalist Justin Ling predicted that Meta would come to consist of getting "accosted by a group of neo-Nazi anti-vaxxers in the metaverse."

The Columbia Journalism Review's Mathew Ingram, meanwhile, predicted that the execution of Meta would face the same pitfalls that befell virtual reality platform Second Life.

"I assume Facebook -- er, Meta -- has already licensed the code from Second Life that tried to stop people from using giant penises as their virtual avatars," he wrote.

Freelance writer Neri Zilber took issue with the video demonstration of Meta and said that he was "recovering from food poisoning and this is just what my fever dreams were like."

Other journalists simply took the Meta announcement as an opportunity to post jokes at Mark Zuckerberg's expense.

"They had to spend billions to create a virtual reality where Mark Zuckerberg has a black friend," wrote Nation columnist Jeet Heer.

"I never thought I'd be physically pained with embarrassment for a billionaire, but here we are," wrote Discourse Blog's Rafi Schwartz.

Facebook Name Change Is Example Of Marketing Tactic Used By Companies Under Fire

Edward Segal
Senior Contributor
FORBES


This illustration photo taken in Los Angeles on October 28, 2021,

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement today that the company has changed its name to Meta — Greek for “beyond” —is an example of a marketing tactic that has been used to divert attention from an organization that has received negative publicity and is confronting a crisis situation.

Zuckerberg said the name change was made to “reflect who we are and what we hope to build...Building our social media apps will always be an important focus for us. But right now, our brand is so tightly linked to one product that it can’t possibly represent everything that we’re doing today, let alone in the future.

“Over time, I hope that we are seen as a metaverse company. I want to anchor our work and our identity on what we’re building towards,” he said.

Michael Grimm is vice president of national strategic communications firm Reputation Partners, “Conveniently, in the wake of intense scrutiny from Congress, whistleblowers, the media and public at large for the negative impact Facebook, Instagram, and its other social media websites may have on its billions of users, Facebook announced it is planning to rebrand the company with a new name,” he said.


“This is interesting because it is an apt example of an often-used marketing tactic to divert attention away from negative publicity by rebranding or introducing a new identity for the company.

‘Can Help Divert Negative Publicity’

Grimm noted that, “Introducing a new name that can act as a parent company overseeing subsidiary groups like Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus, and of course, Facebook, can help divert negative publicity to each business unit while trying to keep the overarching new brand name clean from blame and 

“We’ve seen other companies like Google do this with the creation of Alphabet. It will be up to “Meta” and Mark Zuckerberg to prove that this switch wasn’t an obvious crisis communication strategy to divert from the crises plaguing Facebook, and that it backs up its rebranding explanations for the switch with real value for consumers and shareholders,” he concluded.

‘Facebook Will Still Be Facebook’

Elie Jacobs, president of EJ Strategies, said, “The ‘meta-answer’ is that a name change will have no bearing whatsoever on the crisis situations Facebook is facing.

“Think of how few people refer to Google as Alphabet or how many people still call Altria Phillip Morris. Facebook will still be Facebook and each week will uncover yet another scandalous thing Zuckerberg & Co. have tried to cover up,” he said.

Jacobs observed that, Meanwhile the stock is likely going to continue to rise until the government takes real action. While there is a long-standing Jewish tradition to rename a person going through life-threatening medical challenges, I don't think Zuckerberg had that in mind. I don't think the lesson for business leaders here is renaming equals rebirth...”

‘Timing Feels Strange’

Business consultant Jeff Pedowitz said, “I think the timing feels strange given the recent scrutiny the company is under. Name change aside, the company has a lot of work to do to rebuild trust and confidence in consumers and demonstrate that it can really protect privacy while maintaining balanced and fair standards that are applied to everyone, not just select individuals.

“They need to take tangible steps to reaffirm the brand promise. Demonstrate real transparency and accountability. Right now they are papering over the issues and everyone sees right through it. They should consider replacing some of their key executives and invest in outside agencies to review and provide oversight of their changes. That would go a long way to demonstrating they are serious about improving their image and what they really stand for,”he predicted.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slams Facebook as 'a cancer to democracy' after Meta rebrand

Tim Levin
Thu, October 28, 2021,

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Photo by TOM WILLIAMS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called Facebook a "cancer to democracy."

She made the comments after Facebook announced it would change its name to Meta.

The name change came after numerous negative reports about Facebook's business practices.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York had some harsh words for Facebook after its name change to Meta on Thursday.

"Meta as in 'we are a cancer to democracy metastasizing into a global surveillance and propaganda machine for boosting authoritarian regimes and destroying civil society...for profit,'" Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response to the news.

Facebook on Thursday said it would change its name to Meta, which underscores its efforts to build a virtual space populated by digital avatars that Mark Zuckerberg calls the metaverse. The company's services, including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, will now exist under the Meta umbrella, but the company said it corporate structure wasn't changing.

Facebook will start trading under the new stock ticker MVRS in December.

The name change came amid a firestorm of revelations about Facebook's business practices detailed in thousands of pages of documents leaked to the press. The documents, provided to the media and US government by the former Facebook product manager Frances Haugen, paint a picture of a company that struggles to stem misinformation and illegal and dangerous activity on its platform, especially outside the US.

Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat, has been critical of Facebook and other tech giants in the past. Following Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' journey to space in July, she blasted the online retailer's low wages and "inhumane workplace." Earlier in October, she criticized Facebook's "monopolistic mission" as having "incredibly destructive effects on free society and democracy."

Seven-foot bronze Harambe statue stares down Zuckerberg's Facebook

Luke Gentile

Wed, October 27, 2021

A 7-foot bronze statue of Harambe, the gorilla shot and killed in 2016 at the Cincinnati Zoo, appeared outside Facebook's California headquarters Tuesday to reportedly protest the power the social networking giant wields.

The gorilla, which appeared with about 10,000 bananas, was placed at the base of the company's blue logo to "stare down the Facebook-Zuckerberg machine," according to a Twitter post from the Sapien Tribe, the group that installed the statue.

The group defines itself as "the first sovereign digital nation dedicated to putting the needs of human beings/our planet first."

The effigy of the fallen primate was last seen earlier in October facing down the Charging Bull statue on Wall Street in New York City, according to a report.

The Harambe statue is a temporary piece whose presence works to "show that the dominant power structures created by financial institutions like Wall Street and technology empires like Facebook have become wholly out of touch with the needs of everyday people," according to a press release by the Sapien Tribe.

The statue, which was taken down outside Facebook's headquarters, is a form of peaceful protest, the group said.

Despite its installation in New York City not being permitted by the city, the police there were "supportive" of the effort and "made accommodations," according to the report.

A statue of Harambe, the gorilla from the Cincinnati Zoo, faces Arturo Di Modica's "Charging Bull," surrounded by bananas, in New York's Financial District, Monday, Oct. 18, 2021. The gorilla statue and bananas were part of a protest against wealth disparity by Sapien.Network, who says that the fruit will later be distributed to local food banks. (AP Photo/Richard Drew) Richard Drew/AP

The Harambe statue is likely to appear in other cities across the nation, the group said.

Minnesota-based companies Outshaped and Wood + Metal Fabrications constructed the 7-foot statue, and the bananas have reportedly been provided by food banks.

Katie Porter uses elaborate visual props to school oil executives during congressional hearing

Matthew Chapman

RAW STORY
October 28, 2021

Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA).

On Thursday, Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) schooled oil company executives over their demand for greater access to federal lands for drilling — using some stark props as visual aids.

"How many acres of public land are already leased by fossil fuel companies and not even used yet?" asked Porter, standing in front of a car parked in a driveway. "Just available for drilling whenever you decide?"

"Congresswoman," said one of the oil executives in the hearing. "Again, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to how this process works and the time and resources—"

"Reclaiming my time," cut in Porter. "Reclaiming my time, the answer is 13.9 million acres. To visualize how much land that is, if each grain of rice were one acre, that would be 479 pounds of rice.

She then flipped open the trunk of the car to reveal several bags containing a combined 479 pounds of rice.

"The American Petroleum Institute even opposed pausing more leasing on our lands and even sued to stop it," she continued. "Because apparently, this acreage wasn't enough. Mr. Worth, you serve on the American Petroleum Institute's executive committee. Do you support a pause on new oil and gas leases on federal land?"

"Congresswoman, access to a resource in this country is essential to ensure the energy security of our country, and—" the executive began.

"Mr. Waller, do you support a pause?" asked Porter, turning to another executive.

"The administration — it's our hope that the pause ends soon," said the executive. "We think it's important to go forward—"

"I reclaim my time, thank you for your answer, the answer there is no," said Porter.

She then went around asking all of the executives the same question, and all of them responded they did not.

"You already have 13.9 million acres!" said Porter, holding up one of the bags of rice. "This is equivalent to Maryland and New Jersey combined. How much more do you need? How much more acreage? You have two of our 50 states at a price that makes the Louisiana Purchase look like a ripoff, and you're not even using it. What more do you need? Iowa? Colorado? Virginia? Our public land belongs to the American people, not to Big Oil. When you lobby and you sue so that you can take more of our public land, you're saying too much is never enough. The American people are tired of this charade."

Watch below:

Chicago just approved one of the US's largest basic-income pilots: $500 monthly payments for 5,000 people

Aria Bendix

Wed, October 27, 2021, 

Marquisha Byrd makes face shields for frontline responders at Dimo's Pizza in Chicago, April 16, 2020. Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP/Getty Images

• Chicago's city council voted Wednesday to approve one of the US's largest basic-income pilots.

• The city will give 5,000 low-income households $500 per month for one year.

• A similar program in Stockton, California, reduced participants' unemployment and improved their emotional wellbeing.

Chicago just became the latest city to offer residents monthly cash payments, no strings attached.

The city council voted Wednesday to approve one of the largest basic-income programs in US history - a pilot that will give 5,000 low-income households $500 per month for one year. Participants will be chosen at random, but individuals must earn less than $35,000 per year to qualify.

The council authorized nearly $32 million for the pilot as part of the city's 2022 budget. The program's funding comes from $2 billion in COVID-19 relief dollars allocated to Chicago through the Biden administration's American Rescue Plan.

The pilot specifically aims to relieve financial burdens on families hard-hit by COVID-19. Hundreds of thousands of Chicago residents lost their jobs during the first six months of the pandemic, and around 18% of Chicago residents live below the federal poverty line.

"Growing up, I knew what it felt like to live check to check," Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot wrote earlier this month on Twitter. "When you're in need, every bit of income helps."

Several other Democratic mayors similarly see cash stipends as a promising way to address poverty in their cities. More than 50 have joined the coalition Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, the members of which all pledge to start basic-income pilots in their cities. The founder of that coalition is the former mayor Stockton, California, Michael Tubbs. He launched one of the US's first guaranteed-income pilots in 2019, a program that gave 125 residents $500 per month for two years.

Other cities have followed his lead. Saint Paul, Minnesota, approved a basic-income pilot last year, in which 150 low-income families get $500 a month for up to 18 months. Oakland, California, is now accepting applications for its basic-income pilot, which gives $500 monthly payments to 600 low-income families for 18 months. In Compton, California, 800 residents are already receiving a guaranteed income of $300 to $600 a month for two years. And Richmond, Virginia, is distributing $500 per month to 18 working families.

Critics worry that basic income can't address large-scale poverty

People wait in line to receive a free turkey ahead of Thanksgiving in Chicago, November 23, 2020. Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP/Getty Images

Critics of basic income argue that free stipends would reduce the incentive for people to find jobs or encourage them to make frivolous purchases. Several studies, however, have suggested that cash benefits don't keep people from entering the workforce.

After Stockton's program ended in January, researchers found that it reduced unemployment and increased full-time employment among participants. Stipend recipients also reported improvements in their emotional wellbeing and decreases in anxiety or depression. Most of them spent their money on basic necessities like food and merchandise, including trips to Walmart or dollar stores.

Chicago Alderman Gilbert Villegas told The Washington Post that his city's pilot will monitor how participants spend their stipends for the first six months. Depending on the results, the city may direct the stipends toward specific uses, such as covering heating bills or food.

Still, some members of the Chicago City Council were hesitant to back the program. Members of the Chicago Aldermanic Black Caucus argued that the money could be better spent on violence prevention or a reparations program. Alderman Nick Sposato, meanwhile, told Politico earlier this month that basic income is "a socialist idea that doesn't consider the mainstream."

Critics of basic income also sometimes point to the mixed results seen in larger-scale attempts at cash-transfer programs. A 2018 report found that the Alaska Permanent Fund, which has been distributing cash to state residents since 1982, increased part-time work by 17%. But the cash transfers had no effect on overall employment numbers (the share of people who had jobs).

Finland's basic-income trial, meanwhile, also found that employment rates between stipend recipients and those in the control group were about even. But the results of that program, conducted from January 2017 to December 2018, were complicated by the fact that participants had to give up part of their standard conditional benefits - things like housing allowances and illness compensation - to receive the monthly stipends.

Proponents of basic income still think it has the potential to reduce poverty on a national level.

"I am so proud of all the pilots, but I'm ready for policy," Michael Tubbs told Insider in March. "I've got all the evidence I need."

Los Angeles is launching the US' biggest guaranteed income pilot. The scheme will pay $1,000 a month to 3,000 families.

Grace Dean
Wed, October 27, 2021,

California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Los Angeles is launching a universal-basic income program, set to be the biggest in the US so far. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images


Los Angeles is launching a guaranteed income pilot program with $1,000 monthly payments.


Around 3,000 families will get the money for a year, and there are no rules for how they spend it.


A council member said it would be the largest guaranteed income program in the US' history.

Los Angeles is launching a guaranteed income pilot program, set to be the biggest in the US so far.

The scheme will give about 3,000 families in poverty $1,000 a month for a year, and there are no rules for how the families spend the money.

To be eligible, applicants need to live in the City of Los Angeles, be at least 18 years old, have an income at or below the federal poverty level, have at least one dependent minor or be pregnant, and have experienced either financial or medical hardships related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The federal poverty level depends on the size of a household. For a four-person household, a family earning less than $26,500 would fall under the federal poverty line. Poverty affects two out of every 10 residents in the City of Los Angeles - most of them people of color, according to a website for the program.

The program is called the Basic Income Guaranteed: Los Angeles Economic Assistance Pilot (BIG LEAP).

It has nearly $40 million in funding, South LA Councilman Curren Price said at a City Council meeting Tuesday, where council members approved the program.

Price said that the program would be "the largest guaranteed income economic assistance pilot program in our nation's history," and called it a "life-changing initiative."

The city said that the program would consist of "unconditional, regular, and direct cash payments," with "no restrictions on how the money can be spent." The payments would supplement existing welfare programs, the city said.

The concept of a guaranteed level of income, often in the form of a universal basic income (UBI) dates back to at least the 16th century, when Spanish-born humanist Juan Luis Vives advocated for a system of unconditional welfare. Since then, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has declared his support for the concept, and it went on to become a cornerstone of Andrew Yang's run in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries.

More economists and lawmakers, including a coalition of US mayors, have been calling for the introduction of UBI schemes as the pandemic both exacerbated and exposed huge income inequalities.

"The idea of a guaranteed pilot program is one my office has been following for some time, and it gained momentum as we witnessed our country examine the racial disparities and social injustices during the COVID pandemic," Price said on Tuesday.

Other cities across the US have trialed UBI programs.

Stockton, California, ran a UBI scheme for two years which gave 125 residents $500 per month. After just a year, full-time employment among the participants had increased, and depression and anxiety had decreased, according to the results of the scheme.

Price told the City Council that the "positive results" from the Stockton program made it clear that one in Los Angeles was needed, too.

"It's my hope that following the conclusion of this pilot program, that it'll be replicated at the state and federal level," Price said.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti had said in his annual "state of the city" address in April that the city was looking at launching a $24 million UBI program to support the city's poor residents.

Applications open on Friday and close on November 7.

The recipients of the funding will be chosen at random from the eligible candidates by the Center for Guaranteed Income Research at the University of Pennsylvania, and will be contacted by the city in January.

GREENWASHING

Climate Skeptic CEO Says His Gas Company Is 'Carbon Negative'
Gerson Freitas Jr
Thu, October 28, 2021


(Bloomberg) -- There are few CEOs in the energy industry as vocal about their disdain for climate activism as Nicholas DeIuliis.Rarely a day goes by without DeIuliis, the head of U.S. natural gas producer CNX Resources Corp., taking a shot on Twitter at the politicians and celebrities urging quicker action to halt global warming.

So it came as something of a surprise when DeIuliis unveiled a 55-page report back in July that made one of the industry’s most audacious claims about curbing emissions. CNX, according to the report, is “net carbon negative” and has been for years. This means the company is removing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it emits, precisely the kind of environmental progress that CNX's big financial backers like BlackRock Inc. and The Vanguard Group Inc. have been demanding.

The problem is that the report isn't true for the full scope of CNX’s emissions.

The company bases its claim on the fact that it has a business that captures methane — a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂ — that would otherwise be released from coal mines and sells it as fuel for power generation. But it's still relying on the burning of coal, a fossil fuel that pollutes the air so badly that researchers say it causes thousands of premature deaths each year. What’s more, using gas for electricity produces emissions not just of carbon dioxide but often of methane itself. CNX still drills for gas in shale basins. And its greenhouse-gas accounting also doesn’t include its customers, a category that makes up the biggest share of the energy industry’s emissions by far.

In the parlance of climate scientists, CNX's claim is greenwashing — and an extreme case of it. And the fact that a CEO skeptical of man-made climate change is spearheading the campaign to prove his company's environmental bonafides highlights just how great the pressure from investors is on the fossil fuel industry to reform and just how great the risk of greenwashing is becoming as a result.

''That a company whose entire business model is based on fossil fuel extraction could be carbon negative is pretty laughable on its face,” said Tom Schuster, clean energy program director at the Sierra Club’s Pennsylvania chapter. ''Fracking and coal mining are simply not compatible with the urgent need to stabilize the climate, which requires us to be transitioning away from CO₂.”

DeIuliis, 53, dismisses the criticism of CNX’s carbon-negative assertion. Though investors didn’t shower the company with kudos for the claim and environmentalists were quick to poke holes in it, the CEO argues that CNX has been fully transparent about the “straightforward math” underlying it. What’s more, the company has stated publicly that it will likely never reach net-zero, let alone carbon negative, for emissions if customers are included. But DeIuliis is also convinced that no other company or industry — including wind and solar power — will ever be net zero if indirect emissions are part of the equation, and that only fossil fuel producers are being held accountable for them.

“That’s what is frustrating, going from bad to ugly, about ESG,” he said in an interview. There’s no universally accepted method of measuring corporate greenhouse-gas emissions, and capturing methane from coal mines is better for the environment than drilling new wells or letting methane leak into the atmosphere, said Rob Du Boff, an ESG analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. But that doesn’t mean CNX’s carbon-negative claim holds weight.

“At the end of the day, you are still bringing more gas to the market,” Du Boff said.

Publicly, at least, oil and gas executives increasingly are either embracing the narrative of the energy transition or simply keeping quiet on the subject. Not DeIuliis. Via Twitter, a podcast and personal website, he slams corporate green pledges, deems solar and wind power a bad idea and fiercely defends fossil fuels. In his crusade against what he calls “radical environmentalism,” the CEO targets everyone from Bono to Pope Francis. Climate activism is one of many subjects DeIuliis tackles in his book Precipice: The Left’s Campaign to Destroy America, to be published next year.

(Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, has committed $500 million to launch Beyond Carbon, a campaign aimed at closing the remaining coal-powered plants in the U.S. by 2030.)

Toby Rice, CEO of EQT Corp., the largest U.S. gas producer, is measured in his assessment of DeIuliis’s views. But he stresses that EQT is taking a different path.

“It's very brave to be vocal because you put yourself out there and there's a lot of critics,” Rice said in an interview. “But I will tell you more of the guys in this industry are like us, are like me, in having a balanced approach” that is “more aligned with the demands of the public” in shifting to carbon-free energy sources. EQT set a goal earlier this year to zero out its own emissions by 2025, but like CNX, the company excluded pollution from its customers from the plan.

DeIuliis has deep roots in coal country. The men of his family, descended from Italian immigrants, toiled in and around western Pennsylvania’s mines, mills and railroads. Living almost his entire life within a 5-mile (8-kilometer) radius of Pittsburgh, where CNX is based, he saw firsthand the steep declines in the city’s economy as steel and other heavy industries moved out, leaving thousands without jobs.

He joined CNX’s predecessor company, Consol Energy Inc., as an engineer three decades ago, when it was primarily focused on coal mining. DeIuliis became CEO of Consol in 2014, as the company worked to transform itself into a gas driller and capitalize on surging output of the fuel from shale basins. Three years later, its coal assets were spun off and the renamed CNX became a pure-play Appalachian gas producer. Key to CNX’s carbon-negative claim is the Buchanan mine in Virginia, now owned by Coronado Global Resources Inc.

BlackRock and Vanguard are among the largest CNX shareholders. The investors, who declined to comment for this story, have pushed companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. to disclose their climate risks and plans for how to adapt to a low-carbon economy, following guidelines that include those set by the Financial Stability Board, an international body that monitors the global financial system. That’s what CNX did for the first time in the report it released in July.

“We had a handful of owners who thought it was worth pursuing,” DeIuliis said of CNX’s move. The executive said he was initially concerned that the Financial Stability Board’s framework might be “another gimmick or ESG veneer.” But “once we studied it, we thought it was a good move for us.”CNX rose as much as 8.6% on Thursday after reporting quarterly results that beat analysts’ estimates, along with a program to buy back an extra $1 billion in shares.

DeIuliis’s rise at CNX coincided with the advance of fracking — the process that revolutionized the U.S. energy industry by making it possible to extract oil and gas from shale rocks — and Consol’s move into natural gas. The shale revolution had a major impact on Pennsylvania, where gas output soared to about 7 trillion cubic feet last year — 35 times the amount produced in 2008. The state now produces almost 20% of U.S. gas output, second only to Texas. The industry accounts for about 245,000 direct and indirect jobs in the state, according to a July study by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The gas industry “basically returned the middle class, the family-sustaining wages, the economic growth engines” for Appalachia, DeIuliis said.

While climate scientists warn of global warming’s world-destroying potential, DeIuliis says the Appalachian gas industry is facing an existential threat of its own — from the energy transition. He notes that the fuel has come under attack from environmental groups because of its impact on climate change, and in recent years, pipeline projects aimed at moving gas from Pennsylvania to markets such as New Jersey and New York have been killed because of such concerns, limiting the ability of CNX and other shale explorers to boost output. Unleashing the region's full production potential could help boost living standards in poor, energy-scarce countries, he added.

The energy crisis in Europe and Asia has left nations scrambling to secure reliable fuel supplies. A strained gas market contributed to Europe’s record-setting spike in electricity prices, though the energy transition amplified the volatility. Still, DeIuliis argues that underinvestment in natural gas will put the U.S. at risk of a similar energy crunch , boosting the risk of power outages.

“It’s inevitable that New York or Boston is going to face an energy crisis, if winter gets cold and if supply and demand is imbalanced in part because of these types of policies,” he said.

Regardless of rhetoric from climate-skeptical energy CEOs like DeIuliis, in the long term, companies that don’t heed investor demands to address climate change are likely to face a reckoning, Bloomberg Intelligence’s Du Boff said.

''Their personal beliefs are irrelevant as long as they act professionally in how they deal with these stakeholders,” he said. “It's the ones that continue to run their businesses counter to these demands that are problematic.”

(Updates with earnings results in 20th paragraph)

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek

European Corn Risks Being Left in Fields as Gas Crunch Bites

Megan Durisin and Volodymyr Verbyany
Thu, October 28, 2021


(Bloomberg) -- European corn farmers are facing the prospect of having to leave crops in fields because of the energy crunch, a fresh sign of how the crisis is heightening the risk of global food inflation.

The grain typically needs to be dried down after it’s collected to ensure the proper moisture content, a task that’s becoming more costly as gas prices surge. Most of the region’s harvest is collected through November, and the crop is in strong demand to vie against increasingly expensive wheat and offset shortages from Brazil.

But farmers in France, the European Union’s top producer, are being told by gas suppliers to prepare for shortages, use less of the fuel and even postpone collection if possible, growers group AGPM said Wednesday. In No. 4 exporter Ukraine, the gas rally is also contributing to a slower harvest than last year.

“It’s too expensive” for Ukraine’s farmers to dry corn after gathering it, said Mariya Kolesnyk, a deputy director at consultant ProAgro in Kyiv. “That’s why they seek to dry it, say, in a natural way, in a field.”

Runaway energy prices have already driven up fertilizer costs, while vegetable greenhouses in the Netherlands have cut back on lighting to reduce expenses. That’s threatening to curb future output or raise costs that could be passed onto consumers, and adding to inflation worries at a time when global food prices are at the highest in a decade.

Harvest Risk

Harvesting too late can deteriorate crop quality and reduce farmer incomes, which are already being hit by the “explosion” in drying costs, AGPM said. Winter is approaching, and wet or cold weather can also raise the risk of fungal problems like fusarium. Large Ukrainian farming companies are still opting to dry corn after harvesting, despite the high gas costs.

About a third of Ukraine’s corn has been harvested so far, versus more than 50% at the end of October 2020. French progress stood at 32% as of mid-October, down from 75% at the same time last year. Rains earlier on had also slowed collection.

Why Are Natural Gas Prices High? Because Fracking Isn’t Really Profitable.

By admin
- October 29, 2021

Pump jacks are seen at dawn in an oil field over the Monterey Shale formation near Lost Hills, California. Shale oil and fracking had not been profitable, even before the pandemic.
David McNew/Getty Images

About the author: Bianca Taylor is founder of Tourmaline Group, an ESG research boutique. She is also a Public Voices fellow with the OpEd Project and the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, and a member of the Bretton Woods Committee.

Natural-gas prices are skyrocketing globally, flummoxing policy makers. As parts of the world emerge from the pandemic, energy demand is up and supply down after the cold winter of 2020, worsening temperature extremes, severe drought in South America, and other shortages caused by geopolitical tensions. Here in the U.S.,natural gas prices are up about 100% from a year ago. In the U.K., they’re up about 500%.

Normally, a spike in prices induces energy companies to increase production, but not this time. Energy prices fell by as much as 70% early in the pandemic. According to a New York Times report, energy executives are not willing to increase production because they are still experiencing the trauma from the crash, and Wall Street is hesitant to fund exploration because of new pressures to meet climate and ESG (environmental, social, governance) goals.

But the truth is actually less complex: even before the pandemic, shale oil and fracking had not been profitable.

According to data from Credit Suisse’s HOLT database, North American energy companies had a return on investment below their cost of capital for 21 out of the last 30 years. In other words, 70% of the time, returns were disappointing.

Over the last 15 years, debt levels doubled as earnings stagnated, causing the probability of default to rise. This debt was underwritten to drill wells that produced less than would have been projected from initial data. Shale oil fields have what industry calls a “high depletion rate,” meaning that the fracking process itself impedes the capturing of the full amount of oil and gas in the fields.

In order to turn a profit, the drilling and extraction needs to be done slowly, but energy executives were being paid to show high revenue growth. As a result, many, including the industry darling Chesapeake Energy, went bankrupt.

North American “energy “has been a wealth destructive business in recent history,” a Credit Suisse analyst wrote in an August 2021 report. As a result, “many firms have shifted focus away from just growth to achieving an acceptable return on their investments.” Management is now being incentivized to focus on returns, the report notes.

This new slow-growth model is why sky-high prices will not induce energy executives to ramp up production. Energy executives’ incentives are now linked to profits, and that cannot be achieved with a sudden increase in drilling. Profits will have to come patiently, over time, by making the most of the wells in place today.

That said, it is possible to increase supply, without more drilling. One way is to plug the methane leaks that are rampant in gas pipelines. According to a study published in Science, the leaks in the largest natural gas producing region of the U.S., the Permian Basin in Texas, amount to 4% of the total natural gas produced in the region.

A 4% increase in supply in one region might not normalize prices, but it is nothing to sneeze at. It might even equate to a bump in executive bonuses. And they would be able to call it an ESG investment because methane emissions top the list of environmental and climate concerns.

Last month, the U.S. joined the Global Methane Pledge, which aims to cut one-third of global methane emissions by 2030. Capturing and marketing methane that would otherwise be lost to the atmosphere requires upfront investments and ongoing attention across a vast array of drill sites and pipelines. That’s why many companies have chosen to ignore the problem.

Natural gas is mostly methane. Methane is an odorless, flammable, toxic gas found in manure, decomposing swamplands and deep below the ground, where frackers try to capture it. Undetected, a methane leak could kill people who are exposed to the gas. There are other health risks, and long-term effects in communities with continual exposure that are not yet fully understood.

This greenhouse gas is also 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 20 year period. About 25% of the global warming we are experiencing is attributable to methane gas released into the atmosphere due to human actions—and over a third of those emissions come from oil and gas. A new report from the International Energy Agency, a respected authority on the global energy market, finds that the world’s climate goals are dependent on eliminating 75% of methane pollution from fossil fuels this decade.

The current spike in gas prices, though, is as much about investors’ concerns about the past as it is the future. After years of minimal or negative returns, U.S. producers are finally heeding the call not to chase growth at the expense of profits. For the past decade, gas has been artificially cheap due to an era of easy capital and minimal attention to its rampant climate pollution.

A methane clean-up is overdue. It is one of the fastest and easiest ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Oil and gas companies would be foolish not to take advantage of the high prices to invest in a clean-up. It would also help foster the slower, patient return on capital that energy investors want by stabilizing the climate, and thereby also the price volatility of energy.

Ancient DNA from Sitting Bull’s scalp lock confirms living great-grandson
Ernie LaPointe petitioned US gov't for permission to relocate his ancestor's remains.

JENNIFER OUELLETTE - 10/27/2021

Enlarge / Hair from Lakota Sioux leader Sitting Bull’s scalp lock, from which DNA was extracted for analysis.
Eske Willerslev

An international team of scientists has confirmed the lineage of a living descendent of the famous Lakota Chief Sitting Bull via a new method of DNA analysis designed to track familial lineage using ancient DNA fragments. According to the authors of a new paper published in the journal Science Advances, this is the first time that such an analysis has been used to confirm a link between deceased and living people—in this case, Sitting Bull and his great-grandson, Ernie LaPointe.

The team's method should be broadly applicable to any historical question involving even the limited genetic data gleaned from ancient DNA. “In principle, you could investigate whoever you want—from outlaws like Jesse James to the Russian tsar’s family, the Romanovs," said co-author Eske Willerslev of the University of Cambridge. "If there is access to old DNA, typically extracted from bones, hair or teeth, they can be examined in the same way."

Sitting Bull (Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake) was a Lakota leader who is best known for his defeat of Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer's 7th Cavalry at the Battle of the Little Big Horn (aka, the Battle of the Greasy Grass) on June 25-26, 1876. Various tribes had been joining Sitting Bull's camp over the preceding months, drawn by his spiritual leadership and seeking safety in numbers against US troops. Their number soon grew to more than 10,000. Custer's men were badly outnumbered when they attacked the camp and were forced to retreat. The Sioux warriors ultimately killed Custer and most of his men in what was later dubbed Custer's Last Stand.

Enlarge / October 1876: General Nelson Miles talking with Chief Sitting Bull after the army's defeat at Little Big Horn. Original Artist: Frederic Remington (1861-1909).
MPI/Getty Images

That victory proved to be short-lived. The US dispatched thousands more soldiers to the region, and over the next year, many tribes chose to surrender. Sitting Bull was not among them, preferring to lead his tribe to Canada's Northwest Territories instead (what is now Saskatchewan AND ALBERTA)

He stayed there for four years, despite offers of a pardon, until it became clear that his people couldn't survive, because the buffalo herds were too small to support their food needs. Sitting Bull and his people returned to the US and surrendered on July 19, 1881, to Major David H. Brotherton at Fort Buford. (The chief purportedly told Brotherton, "I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle.")

The group (some 186 people in all) was kept at Fort Yates, adjacent to the Standing Rock Agency, apart from a 20-month stint at Fort Randall. Sitting Bull gained a certain amount of celebrity in 1884 when he was allowed to tour the US and Canada with a show called the Sitting Bull Connection. He met Annie Oakley on that tour, in Minnesota, and was so impressed with her firearms skills that he symbolically "adopted" her as his daughter and dubbed her "Little Sure Shot." Oakley used the moniker for most of her career. In 1885, Sitting Bull toured with Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West show for four months, where his "performance" consisted of riding once around the arena each night as the audience gawked.

Meanwhile, tensions continued to increase between Sitting Bull and US Indian Agent James McLaughlin as the US government divided up and sold parts of the Great Sioux Reservation. By 1889, a religious "Ghost Dance" movement—which involved dancing and chanting for the resurrection of deceased relatives and the return of the buffalo herds—was gaining strength, alarming nearby white settlers. Sitting Bull wasn't a participant, but he did allow the dancers on his camping grounds, so McLaughlin ordered the chief's arrest.

Enlarge / Sitting Bull and Buffalo Bill Cody, photographed ca. 1880 in Montreal, Canada.
Bettmann/Getty Images

Sitting Bull did not go quietly when 39 police officers knocked on his door at 5:30 in the morning on December 15, 1890. The noise awakened his supporters, who were enraged at this treatment. One Lakota, Catch-a-Bear, shot an officer, who responded by shooting Sitting Bull in the chest. Another officer shot the chief in the head. All told, six officers, Sitting Bull, and seven of his supporters were killed in the skirmish. Sitting Bull was buried at Fort Yates for several decades, until Lakota family members exhumed his body and relocated the remains near his birthplace in Mobridge, South Dakota.

Enter Ernie LaPointe, president and founder of the Sitting Bull Family Foundation and great-grandson of the Lakota Sioux chief. LaPointe and his sisters—Marlene Little Spotted Horse Andersen, Ethel Little Spotted Horse Bates, and Lydia Little Spotted Horse Red Paint—have petitioned the US government for permission to relocate the remains yet again, this time to the Battle of Little Big Horn site, which they believe held more personal meaning for Sitting Bull.

Having DNA analysis to reinforce their familial claims would be enormously helpful in achieving that goal. "Over the years, may people have tried to question the relationship that I and my sisters have to Sitting Bull," said LaPointe. His claim until now had been based upon written historical records, birth and death certificates, and a family tree.

And a DNA source was readily available, with no need to exhume the body yet again. Before Sitting Bull was buried, the post surgeon at Fort Yates, H. Deeble, took a couple of souvenirs—without anyone's permission or authority, the authors note. Deeble kept the Lakota Sioux leader's cloth leggings and the hair lock at the crown of his head (known as a scalp lock) and subsequently loaned them to the Smithsonian Institution in 1896. They remained at the museum until 2007, when LaPointe requested that the items be repatriated. His request was granted, and news of the repatriation soon reached Willerslev.

Enlarge / Ernie LaPointe, now confirmed by DNA analysis to be the great-grandson of Sitting Bull, in November 2016.
Ingo Wagner/Getty Images

“Sitting Bull has always been my hero, ever since I was a boy," said Willerslev. "I admire his courage and his drive. That’s why I almost choked on my coffee when I read in a magazine in 2007 that the Smithsonian Museum had decided to return Sitting Bull’s hair to Ernie LaPointe and his three sisters, in accordance with new US legislation on the repatriation of museum objects."

Willerslev wrote to LaPointe explaining his admiration and his scientific expertise in analyzing ancient DNA. He requested permission to compare the DNA of LaPointe and his sisters with any DNA he was able to extract from the scalp lock, thereby providing strong evidence of their ancestry. LaPointe agreed and provided a small portion of the scalp lock for analysis.

Unfortunately, the task proved to be far more challenging than Willerslev had expected, because the DNA in the sample was so badly degraded. It took 14 years, in fact, for his team to figure out the best method for extracting the DNA and analyzing it. Most approaches to DNA analysis involve hunting for a genetic match between specific DNA passed down through either the paternal or maternal line. But these methods aren't always reliable.

"Since many human mitochondrial and Y-chromosome haplogroups are common, even unrelated individuals can have the same haplogroup just by chance," the authors wrote. "Therefore, these markers can be primarily used to rule out familial relationships. They rarely provide strong evidence supporting that two individuals are related or the determination of a specific familial relationship."


Enlarge / The grave of Sioux Chief Sitting Bull in South Dakota, where his remains were transferred after several decades from the original burial site in North Dakota.
Chris Melzer/picture alliance/Getty Images

Instead, Willerslev et al. employed a technique that searches for so-called "autosomal DNA" in the genetic fragments they were able to extract and sequence from Sitting Bull's hair sample. We inherit half such DNA from our fathers and half from our mothers, so one can check for genetic matches regardless of whether one is descended from the paternal or maternal line.

“Autosomal DNA is our non-gender-specific DNA," said Willerslev. "We managed to locate sufficient amounts of autosomal DNA in Sitting Bull’s hair sample, and compare it to the DNA sample from Ernie LaPointe and other Lakota Sioux—and were delighted to find that it matched."

There were some complications along the way. Since it's not possible to get sufficiently clear data just by looking at the DNA, Willerslev et al.'s argument is essentially based on statistics. "The new approach requires data from at least a few individuals from the same population as the individuals of interest," the authors wrote. "It also requires that none of the individuals included in the analysis are admixed or inbred, since it relies on having representative allele frequencies."Advertisement


Willerslev's team collected spit samples from LaPointe and 13 unrelated Lakota Sioux individuals and sequenced that genetic data for comparison to the Sitting Bull sample. But data from the latter was too limited to make a definitive call on LaPointe's lineage, and only five of the individuals (including LaPointe) met the requirement of no admixing; the others showed evidence of some European ancestry. So the team developed its own probabilistic method that could process both limited sequencing data from a historical figure and SNP chip data—DNA microarrays that test genetic variation at many hundreds of thousands of specific locations across the genome—from a living individual. They also conducted several simulations to verify the certainty of the results.

In the end, the team was able to determine that LaPointe is, indeed, Sitting Bull's great-grandson, thereby providing genetic evidence that "he and his sisters are the rightful recipients of the repatriated items from the Smithsonian Institution," the authors concluded. The next step is to analyze the remains buried at the Mobridge site to confirm that they are a genetic match to Sitting Bull.

DOI: Science Advances, 2021. 10.1126/sciadv.abh2013 (About DOIs).

Dems compare oil companies' climate change response to tobacco-cancer denial

Exxon, Chevron and other energy executives, as well as Republicans, say industry's pace toward renewables is spot on; AOC pushes on Hill influence

Provided by Dow Jones
Oct 28, 2021
Rachel Koning Beals

Democrats grilled the executives of oil majors ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and others for campaigns the lawmakers charged have misled the public on the dangerous effects of climate change in ways that mimic historic efforts by cigarette makers to disguise health concerns.

Republicans at the same committee meeting Tuesday stressed their view that withholding U.S.-generated energy sources, including natural gas NG00, will only cut U.S. jobs, risk U.S. security because of tenuous relationships with gas-giant Russia and certain Middle East governments, and drive up gasoline and home-heating costs at a time when global markets are experiencing a crisis of energy supply -- all while demand is increasing. The GOP members also used the hearing to repeat calls for tougher emissions expectations for China and India, which along with the U.S., round out the top three global polluters.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of New York, the Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Environment, told the oil executives that while the companies now acknowledge that the burning of fossil fuels drives climate change, have made emissions-reduction pledges and diversified their products to include renewables, such actions stand in contrast to their high lobbying expenses for efforts to push for new drilling and more. And, the Democrats charged, energy companies aren't as open with the public as they should be.

"Rather than admitting the truth about their product, the [tobacco] executives lied. This was a watershed moment in the public's understanding of Big Tobacco," said Mahoney. "I hope that today's hearing represents a turning point for Big Oil. I hope that today the witnesses will finally own up to the industry's central role in this crisis and become part of the change we need."

The committee's majority drew on decades-old reports containing red flags on global warming from scientists inside the oil companies. They pointed to old advertisements from the oil industry questioning the impact of climate change, as well as early 2000s statements undermining the science from one former Exxon (XOM) executive, and they tapped into a recent incident from earlier this year, in which an Exxon lobbyist was unknowingly taped saying that the company only used "talking points" on greener efforts to pacify lawmakers and the public. Exxon has disavowed the lobbyist's remarks.

Public policy and environmental groups noted the significance of bringing the oil leaders, as well as the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, under oath about charges of misleading the public as President Biden and other global leaders ready to converge on Glasgow for an ambitious climate summit and as Biden on Thursday reframed his Build Back Better initiative to include $555 billion for climate programs that include renewable tax incentives, a reduced amount from initial efforts.

During a question-and-answer period, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democrat from New York, prompted ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods to say he personally participated in calls with lawmakers on the Democrats' spending plan.

"I have," Woods replied. But he said political donations were not discussed during his calls.

History repeating?

"Twenty-seven years ago, similar hearings featuring tobacco industry executives led to litigation by 52 U.S. states and territories and industry restitution to the public. The stakes this time are at least as high: trillions of dollars in predicted loss and destruction from climate change. Big Oil is due its Big Tobacco moment," Patti Lynn, the executive director of nonprofit Corporate Accountability and Geoffrey Supran, a research fellow in the Department of the History of Science at Harvard University and director of climate accountability communication for the Climate Social Science Network, wrote in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times.

Read: Cigarette sales increased in 2020 for the first time in 20 years

In addition to Exxon and Chevron Corp.CVX, witnesses included the U.S. heads of European energy concerns BP PlcUK:BPBP and Royal Dutch ShellRDS.ARDS.B.

Mahoney said in a statement that the fossil fuel industry has had scientific evidence about the dangers of climate change since at least 1977. "Yet for decades, the industry spread denial and doubt about the harm of its products--undermining the science and preventing meaningful action on climate change even as the global climate crisis became increasingly dire, and its deadly impact on Americans increased," she said.

At least one historian has stressed that earlier action could have reduced the scramble to slow climate change now.

"Back in 1979, Exxon had privately studied options for avoiding global warming. It found that with immediate action, if the industry moved away from fossil fuels and instead focused on renewable energy, fossil fuel pollution could start to decline in the 1990s and a major climate crisis could be avoided," said Benjamin Franta, a history Ph. D student at Stanford University, in a paper on The Conversation.

"But the industry didn't pursue that path. Instead, colleagues and I recently found that in the late 1980s, Exxon and other oil companies coordinated a global effort to dispute climate science, block fossil fuel controls and keep their products flowing," he said.

'Views have developed over time...'

Republican members largely embraced opening comments from the energy executives that the companies themselves are doing plenty to fold in renewable energy with traditional fossil fuels, exploring hydrogen and nuclear sources, and spending on the technology that eventually will make carbon capture scalable. Critics of carbon capture and storage, say it does little to dissuade the pumping from new fossil fuel sources. The executives also largely support carbon markets, or the swapping of emissions permits, and electric-vehicle infrastructure, they stressed at the hearing.

At least two Republican members noted a group of Democratic lawmakers and President Biden have urged OPEC to keep the spigot open to hold down costs, a position these committee members said was in marked contrast to the committee leadership insisting that U.S. sources of oil and gas be shut off to meet U.S. emissions targets. Biden said last week that he predicts high gasoline prices into at least 2022.

"What does the gentleman want, $8 gasoline, $10 gasoline?" Rep. Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, said of a Democrat's comment.

Gasoline futures are up 66% in the year to date. West Texas Intermediate crude futures are up some 70% in the year to date, while natural gas futures are up 132% over the same span.

Khanna, the Democrat, meanwhile, pointed out the divide in the companies' pro-EV stance while supporting 600-member trade group the American Petroleum Institute, which has worked to limit EV expansion and has advertised against a methane-leak fee on industry on Facebook and elsewhere.

"Ms. Watkins, Mr. [Mike] Summers of API is on the panel with us. Will you take the opportunity today to tell him that his opposition to electric vehicles is wrong," Khanna asked Gretchen Watkins, president of Shell, who earlier confirmed the company backed EV growth.

"We are a member of API for a number of reasons... We have a number of conversations of course ongoing," Watkins said.

Michael Worth, chair and CEO of Chevron, refuted the idea that Chevron is misleading its shareholders and the public on climate change.

"While our view on climate change have developed over time, any suggestion that Chevron has engaged in an effort to spread disinformation and mislead the public on these complex issues is wrong," he said.

Exxon's Woods said his firm fully accepts that the combustion of fossil fuels is behind climate change, but that the energy market does not currently have adequate alternative sources to keep up with demand. He defended most past actions of his company as being in line with views on climate change at the time.

Exxon, he said, is pushing for carbon capture as one of the "biggest opportunities for innovation to address emissions."

Suzanne Clark, president of U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said lawmakers should not dwell on climate-change history but make way for market-based policies, including carbon markets, that are "practical, predictable and durable" enough to survive election changes.

David Lawler, head of BP America, told lawmakers that BP started a transition to include more renewables as far back as 2005.

"Our progress hasn't always been a straight line... but we view the path we're on as a business imperative," he said.

-Rachel Koning Beals


(END) Dow Jones Newswires

10-28-21 1649ET

StanChart sets new interim goals to reducing funding to CO2-emitting sectors


A man walks past a Standard Chartered bank in London

Lawrence White and Simon Jessop
Thu, October 28, 2021, 

LONDON (Reuters) -Standard Chartered set new targets for reducing its funding to carbon intensive sectors by 2030, as part of a broader goal to reach net zero emissions for itself and its clients by 2050.

The Asia, Africa and Middle East-focused bank on Thursday said it would stop funding companies that are expanding in thermal coal, and by 2030 only provide financial services to clients less than 5% dependent on the fuel for revenue.

The bank said it would also reduce its financing to the power, steel and mining, oil and gas sectors, as well as expecting clients in those sectors to have their own transition strategies in line with the goals of the Paris climate agreement.

The announcement from StanChart comes ahead of a gathering of world leaders in Glasgow next week aimed at saving the planet from the devastation wreaked by rising temperatures.

StanChart, in common with other global banks, has in recent years bowed to activist and investor pressure to reduce its financing to fossil fuel-related clients.

The lender left some loopholes in its fresh commitments announced on Thursday, such as saying that its cutting of financing to thermal coal applied only at an individual corporate entity, or subsidiary, level.

Group-level client firms that StanChart provides financial services to will instead be "subjected to enhanced due diligence", it said.

"We’re confident that we’re on a science-based trajectory toward net-zero financed emissions by 2050 that is consistent with the Paris Agreement," Chief Executive Bill Winters said.

In response, Lucie Pinson, executive director of Reclaim Finance, said StanChart was "finally acknowledging the need to stop supporting expansion in the coal sector", but that its new policy had a "gaping loophole".

"Having channelled $10 bln to the coal sector between October 2018 and October 2020, the bank has given itself enough wriggle room to protect its interests in giant coal companies like Glencore, which is currently developing new coal mines in Australia and South Africa," she said in a statement.

After the International Energy Agency (IEA) earlier this year said the world needed no new fossil fuel projects if it wanted to hit its climate goals by mid-century, StanChart said oil and gas companies would need a Paris-aligned strategy by 2022.

Pinson, however, said it was unclear what this meant.

"If Standard Chartered is genuinely intent on requiring Paris-aligned strategies, then it should clarify that this means a clear stop to new oil and gas fields, in line with the IEA’s position."

(Reporting by Lawrence White; Editing by Emelia Sithole-Matarise and Mark Potter)