tv Exxon BP Shell Chevron Executives Testify on Climate Change - Part 1 CSPAN November 19, 2021 8:33pm-2:18am EST
the committee will come to order. this is a historic hearing. for the first time top fossil fuel executives are testifying together before congress under oath about the industry's role in curbing climate change and their efforts to cover it up. for far too long big oil has escaped accountability for its central role in ringing our planet to the brink of a climate catastrophe that. ends today. big oil has known the truth about climate change for decades. in the 1970s and '80s, exxon's own scientists privately told top executives that burning fossil fuel was changing the global climate. exxon and other big oil companies have the opportunity to tell the truth and lead the way to find alternative energy
sources. but instead big oil doubled down on fossil fuels. working with the american petroleum institute and the chamber of commerce and other front groups and pr firms t industry ran a coordinated campaign to mislead the public, hide the dangers of its own product and derail global efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions. at the same time they were lining their own pockets between 1990 and 2019 the four oil companies here today reported nearly $2 trillion in profits. but the cost of inaction on climate has been far higher. the american people lost more than 30 years, when we could have curbed climate change. today we face stronger hurricane, dangerous wild fires and destructive floods. as the efforts of climate change have become undeniable, big oil
has changed its record. and its rhetoric. now they say they believe in climate change, and they support the paris agreement and a price on carbon. they promise they will reduce their carbon emissions and even aspire to net zero emissions. and they have spent billions of dollars on pr firms to paint themselves as climate champions. but big oil's actions tell a different story. these companies not only continue to sell millions of barrels of oil every day, they are also investing in new oil fields. their lobbying also tells a different story. today the committee is releasing a new staff analysis, showing that over the past ten years, these four companies have dedicated nearly, only a very tiny fraction of their immense
lobbying resources to enact the policies they publicly claim are key to addressing climate change, while spending tens of millions to protect their profits from oil and gas. earlier this year a senior lobbyist at exxon admitted the truth. he was caught on video saying that exxon support for a carbon tax was merely, a quote, talking point which would never become reality. and even today lobbyists from american petroleum institute and other industry groups are fighting tooth and nail against key climate provisions in the build back better act. but we must act. just this week the united nations release ad new report stating that nations current climate pledges fall far short of what is necessary to advert catastrophe. these experts agree that we will still have a narrow and fast
disappearing window to prevent the worst outcome from climate change. to do that we need to immediately cut fossil fuel emotions by 3-4% each year and rapidly transition to net zero carbon emissions. 27 years ago executives appeared in this room before congress. rather than admitting the truth about their product, the executives lied. this was a water shed moment in the public's understanding of big tobacco. 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. that also means cooperating with this committee's investigation. we ask each of these companies
for documents six weeks ago but they have not come close to producing the key internal documents about climate change and the money trail we asked for. so let me be clear, we are at the beginning of this investigation. i assure you, we will not stop until we get to the truth. and if we need to call the ceos back to testify again, we will. after four decades of deception and delay, it is time for the fossil fuel industry to finally change its ways. thousands of companies have already recognized the eminent threat of climate change and are working with community to bring emissions. it's time for big oil to finally join the rest of us in this fight. we can prevent a climate
disaster while keeping energy costs low and creating good paying jobs. but only if big oil acknowledges its central role in this crisis and commits to meaningful and immediate action. i now recognize the distinguished ranking member, mr. comer, for an opening statement. >> thank you, chairwoman maloney. and i want to thank the witnesses for their willingness to testify before the committee today. however i have concerns about today's hearing and the legitimacy of democrats' so-called investigation of america's oil and gas companies. first, let me remind chairman maloney and committee democrats that the oversight and reform committee exists to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal bureaucracy. when are we going to hold a hearing with a biden administration cabinet member so we can hold the federal
government accountable? it's critical that this committee examine the pressing concerns of american citizens. inflation caused by the biden administration's economic policies is sitting at 5.4%. gas prices are at a seven-year high. and heating bills are expected to rise as much as 54% this winter. the biden administration continues to allow illegal immigrants to pour over the southern border. questions remain about the disastrous handling of the afghanistan withdrawal. all while the white house fails to manage the covid-19 pandemic they said would be over by july 4. instead of convening hearings on any of these topics and holding biden administration accountable for its actions, committee democrats have called this hearing because they watched a deceptively reported and edited eight-minute video clip of an exxon lobbyist.
committee democrats won't tell the american people that the basis of their misguided inquiry appears to be a multimonth operation launched by activist group greenpeace uk involving fake linkedin profiles, false job opportunities, and deceptive emails and interviews. given the questionable activities undertaken by greenpeace uk to obtain the so-called information at the heart of this investigation, the american people must question the legitimacy of the democrats' action. when committee republicans asked carolyn maloney to join us in requesting the full video on august 12, 2021, they refused. ironically, just yesterday, over two months later, the democrats wrote saying they now would like to join our request. i don't know what took so long. but they apparently didn't want the full video to be shown at today's hearing. in reality, they don't want to see it and they don't want the american people to see it.
democrats didn't invite the person who was secretly recording to the hearing today because they're more interested in a spectacle. instead committee democrats took this questionable information and wrote letters to the ceos who are appearing today. they requested internal documents and communications that these entities had with the federal government and lawmakers. they struck at the very heart of the first amendment protections that exist for these groups and any american to petition their government. we raised objection to chairwoman maloney about the protected nature of these communications and the chilling effect these requests would have on the ability of entities to petition their government. however democrats have not bothered to respond to our concerns. the purpose of this hearing is clear. to deliver partisan theater for prime time news. subcommittee chairman khanna went to the media threatening subpoenas months before any of
the witnesses were even invited to testify. now despite receiving well over 100,000 pages of documents from today's witnesses, democrats are complaining that no one is cooperating with them. chairwoman maloney, this hearing is simply a distraction from the crises that the biden administration's policies have caused for the american people. just last week, president biden admitted that he had no solution for the skyrocketing gas prices. he said prices will not go down until 2022. that's a problem for all americans, especially low income households. meanwhile, hours after president biden took office, he canceled the keystone pipeline and put 11,000 workers out of a job overnight, including the republican witness neal crabtree who is still looking for work. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and i yield back.
>> the gentleman yields back. i now present chairman ro khanna for his opening statement. >> thank you, madam chair. representative comer and i have a good relationship. this isn't about partisanship. this is about getting at the truth. today the ceo's of the largest oil companies in the world have a choice. you can either come clean, admit your misrepresentations and ongoing inconsistencies, and stop supporting climate disinformation, or you can sit there in front of the american public and lie under oath. now, let me remind you of a fact that i'm sure your many lawyers have brought to your attention. in 1994, the ceos of the seven largest tobacco companies appeared right here before our
committee. they too faced a choice. they chose to lie under oath, denying that nicotine was addictive. as i'm sure you realized, that didn't turn out too well for them. i hope big oil will not follow the same playbook as big tobacco. you are powerful leaders at the top of the corporate world at a turning point for our planet. be better. spare us the spin today, really we have no interest in it. spin doesn't work under oath. we have all heard your spokespeople's talking points. speak from the hearts today. you will tell us your countries have contributed to academic research on climate science. that is true. but that is not the issue at hand. despite your early knowledge of climate science, your companies and the trade associations you
fund chose time and again to loudly raise doubts about the science and downplay the severity of the crisis. in short, the question is not did you prevent academic research on climate science. no one says you prevented that. but did any of your executives at any point mislead the american public? you will say you've now seen the light. you will say you're for a carbon tax to have, quote, a talking point, even though a former exxon lobbyist tells us you believe, quote, it's not going to happen. you will say you're for the paris accords. of course, most of you will say you're working to reduce emissions. though noably one of you will say not the 80 to 90% of emissions from the gas you sell, just the 10% arising from your operations. you say carbon capture, even though all of the captured carbon is being used to enhance
oil extraction and actually increasing co2 emissions in the world. even though there is no economically proven way to store co2 indefinitely. here is the problem. this hearing will show that your actions continue to be inconsistent with the climate goals you now espouse. i wish they were consistent. my goal, honestly, is not to embarrass you. it's not to have a gotcha moment. that doesn't help any of us. you actually have a moment to shine today. you could commit to changing course and taking actions that would avert a climate catastrophe or you can continue to deny and deceive out of a sense of institutional loyalty to your companies' past. the choice is really yours. as you make it, think of the indigenous-led demonstrations last week and the five young activists from the sunrise movement who have been outside the white house on a hunger
strike for nine days and counting. they're putting their lives on the line because they know that countless thousands will suffer and die if we continue on our current path. don't think of yourselves as the ceos. just think of yourself as human beings. and i have this question. what will you do to end the hunger strike? what do you have to say to america's children born into a burning world? find it in yourself today to tell the truth. it will be better for your companies' futures and it will be better for humanity's future. thank you. >> i now recognize congressman norman for an opening statement. >> thank you, chairwoman maloney. and i want to thank the witnesses for their willingness to testify before the committee today.
today committee democrats have contrived yet another hearing to demonize the oil and gas industry. the folks represented before us today run organizations that are providing good paying jobs and secure, affordable, and clean energy for all americans. something this administration is attempting to dismantle. instead of conducting actual oversight, as congressman comer mentioned, oversight that shows the disastrous decisions the biden administration has made this year. the democrats are focused on destroying an industry and the jobs it provides to distract us from the fact that they have no plan to recoup our engine workforce or energy independence. i assume that's why they canceled the keystone pipeline. i assume that's how they justify buying gas and oil from countries that don't like us. i assume they do not understand the effects of the colonial pipeline shutdown, what it had on this country.
now we're begging opec to make more oil and make it affordable. member of this committee need to start focusing on the issues that are impacting everyday americans and the consequences of an overly ambitious and unrealistic climate agenda. i don't know about the rest of y'all on this committee but the people of south carolina did not send me to washington to bankrupt our country. and even the phrase "build back better" needs to be changed to "bankrupt america quicker." we should have a hearing about some of the proposals of democrats to spend hard working american taxpayers' money on liberal pipe dreams. i would love to learn more about the proposal to spend $3.5 billion for the green new deal youth patrol aimed at helping jobless climate activists. does anyone really believe the youth patrol will reduce the impacts of climate change? will the youth patrol make china and india less of a polluter
than they are now? china continues to pollute at record levels while the united states continues to reduce emissions. do democrats really believe that putting the oil and gas industry out of business will suddenly make china less of a polluter? i'm afraid extreme proposals by democrats will do nothing but destroy good paying american jobs and ruin our economy. what democrats will not -- won't discuss and how president biden and his administration's policies have caused a litany of issues for the american people. this administration's out of control spending is causing inflation to skyrocket. as a result americans are now paying more for goods and services while taking homeless money in their paychecks. everyone can see that. and look on your screen. the price of gasoline today is $1.22 more per gallon than it was this time last year under the trump administration. as we enter the upcoming holiday
season, the price of a thinking dinner will be a minimum of 5% more expensive than it was last year. americans are feeling the effects of inflation in their wallets and i fear it will only get work. chairwoman maloney, we'll be getting you a letter to hopefully have the democrats' expert, john kerry, fly over here, i assume in his private jet on fossil fuel, to participate in a debate with him the expert for the democrat side and we'll let us have another expert that will contradict many of his statements. mr. kerry has a large contingent from the biden administration and i'm sure he can bring them in to help him out. the biden administration is headed to attend this conference this year on climate change without a clear mandate from the u.s. congress to make vague commitments that will never be met. and while the top leaders from the largest polluters in the
world, as i mentioned, china, president xi, refuse to participate while the biden administration is in the united kingdom, back here in america our constituents are dealing with the growing crisis related to the supply chain, gasoline prices, the rise in prices at every level. it is truly sad that the american people are being abandon by their leaders at such a critical moment. this crisis is not democrat, it's not republican, but it's intentionally caused by the democratic party of today. the oil and gas industry provides good paying jobs that will help americans reliably heat their hours, power their cars and keep their lights on through the storm when the sun doesn't shine. folks, we're heading down a dangerous path with the biden administration's policies. i fear this winter going into 2022 will only continue to get worse. it was recently reported that the home heating costs this winter would rise as much as 54%. the biden administration, as it
has done on all the crises it has had over the last nine months, has no plan to confront these mounting problems that affect everyone but especially low income americans. we must use our natural resources to advance america's interests while continuing to lead the world in emission reduction. this is the path forward yet democrats want to block it every chance they get. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. our first witness today is mr. darren woods who is the ceo of exxonmobil. then we will hear from michael worth who is the ceo of chevron. next we will hear from david lawlor who is the ceo of bp america. next, ms. gretchen watkins, the president of shell oil. next, we will hear from mr. mike
summers who is the president of the american petroleum institute. next, we will hear from ms. suzanne clark who is the president and ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce. next, we will hear from neal crabtree, a former welder. thank you. the witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them. please raise your right hands. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> i do. >> let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. >> madam chair. >> thank you, and without objection, your written statements will be made part of the record. with that, mr. woods, you are recognized for your testimony. >> madam chair. >> who seeks recognition? >> right here. i have a question.
i'm curious. is there a reason why none of the witnesses traveled here to washington today to represent their respective companies? >> they elected to appear remotely and they have that right. >> thank you, madam chair. >> mr. woods, you are now recognized. >> thank you, chairman maloney, ranking member comer, chairman khanna, ranking member norman, and members of the committee on oversight and reform. my name is darren woods. i'm the chairman and chief consecutive officer of exxonmobil corporation. on behalf of the company i welcome the opportunity to participate in this important discussion today. exxonmobil provides an essential component of modern society. affordable, reliable, and abundant energy. for more than 150 years, oil and gas has played a critical role in our society, improving human
lives, raising standards of living, enabling unprecedented economic growth. without them, the living standards that we enjoy today would not be possible. those of us fortunate enough to live and work in the united states and other developed countries often take for granted our ready access to energy. that is not the case for billions of people around the world. many still lack basic electricity or clean cooking facilities for their homes. access to reliable and affordable energy is more than a convenience. energy delivers longer, healthier lives, better education, greater mobility, and improved living conditions. it's one of the basic requirements that power economies and societal progress. exxonmobil has roughly 70,000 employees. we're proud of the contributions
we make every day to improve the lives of people across the world. exxonmobil has long recognized that climate change is real and poses serious risks. but there are no easy answers. as the international energy agency has said, oil and gas will continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future. we currently do not have the adequate alternative energy sources. at the same time, we know the combustion of oil and gas releases greenhouse gases and that the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change has concluded that increased greenhouse gases can contribute to the effects of climate change. that's one of the issues we must address and one that we are well-positioned to continue our work on, reduced the emissions that result from the combustion of oil and gas. this hearing comes at an
important time, as the world is challenged with how to meet the growing need for energy while reducing emissions to mitigate climate change. the recent disruption of energy supplies in parts of the world has resulted in outages, fuel lines, and manufacturing shutdowns. the very real impact on families and businesses demonstrates how critical it is to thoughtfully manage the transition to a lower emissions future. exxonmobil is committed to being part of the solution. our scientists and engineers are applying their expertise to help responsibly meet the world's need for energy, while working to find ways to accelerate the transition to a world with fewer emissions. starting with our own operations, we reduced emissions by 11% between 2016 and 2020. our plans through 2025 are consistent with the goals of the paris agreement. they are expected to deliver
significant additional reductions in both emissions intensity and absolute emissions. we launched a low carbon solutions business to commercialize carbon capture and other technologies such as hydrogen and biofuels, reduce emissions in parts of the economy that are hardest to decarbonize. as the international energy agency recognize ethic year, carbon capture contributes to net zero in multiple ways and represents one of the biggest opportunities for innovation to address emissions. exxonmobil is the world leader in this technology, has a share of approximately one fifth of global ccs capacity and is responsible for approximately 40% of all the captured co2 in the world. we are working on several projects in heavy industry and
power generation. in addition we are investing in breakthrough research to develop the next generation of lower emission fuels and fuels technologies, including advanced biofuels. we do that through research and development by our own scientists and by collaborating with leading universities, governments, and private companies around the world. finally, exxonmobil has been engaged in policy discussions related to the energy and environment for years. our views on policy and its implications have been guided by our understanding of the science. we've been vocal and transparent in our support for governments to implement policies that are cost effective and achieve the greatest emission reductions at the lowest overall costs to society. we have advocated for an economy-wide revenue neutral price on carbon for more than a decade and have publicly supported the paris agreement since its inception. i hope that today's hearing
stimulates thoughtful discussion and a greater understanding of the need for meaningful action from all of us, governments, businesses, and individuals. all of us use and depending on today's energy system. we all have a role to play in finding solutions to climate change that will reduce emissions while meeting the growing need for energy in order to improve lives around the world. i welcome your questions. >> thank you. mr. worth, you are now recognized for your testimony, mr. worth. >> chairwoman maloney and ranking member comer, subcommittee chairman khanna and ranking member norman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. my name is michael worth and i am the chair and ceo of chevron. for more than 140 years, chevron has proudly delivered energy that drives the world forward. light, heat, mobility, mechanized agriculture, modern medicine. quite literally the food we eat,
the clothes we wear, and the standard of living we enjoy are made possible by affordable, reliable, and ever-cleaner energy. in many ways, our story and that of our industry track the history of human progress. these are stories of extraordinary achievements over the past century plus, achievements that were once believed impossible. today, we're one of the world's leading integrative energy companies. we contribute to the communities we operate by creating jobs, sourcing from local suppliers and giving back to the community. just as when we were founded in 1879, we continue to believe in the power of human ingenuity to overcome obstacles and find responsible solutions for meeting the world's growing energy needs to deliver a better future for all. the issue we're here to discuss today, climate change, is one of the biggest challenges at our
time. at chevron, we've been very clear about where we stand. we accept the scientific consensus. climate change is real. and the use of fossil fuels contributes to it. we are committed to helping address this challenge. i also want to address directly a concern expressed by some of those calling for today's hearing. while our views on climate change have developed over time, any suggestion that chevron is engaged in an effort to spread disinformation and mislead the public on these complex issues is simply wrong. in recent years, conversations about climate have intensified. innovation and technology have accelerated. and the energy system that underpins our global economy has continued to evolve. so has chevron. we believe the future of energy is lower carbon, and we're committed to being a leader in making that future a reality. we set ambitious targets for our
own greenhouse gas emissions. we announced a net zero aspiration for our upstream scope 1 and scope 2 emissions. and we intend to invest more than $20 billion to reduce emissions and grow new energy businesses. our strategy is straightforward. we'll continue to be a leader in efficient and lower carbon production of the traditional energy the world uses today while growing new, lower carbon businesses that will be a bigger part of the future. i look forward to sharing the actions we're taking and more details about those actions are included in my written testimony. we welcome a thoughtful discussion about the path ahead and how we can achieve a lower carbon energy future while at the same time avoiding supply disruptions and preserving american leadership in energy. as part of this discussion, the undeniable reality is that oil and gas remain an important part of the energy equation. honest, thoughtful climate
policy discussions should account for that. chevron is a proud american company. the affordable, reliable energy that the more than 35,000 men and women at our company produce everyday has created a higher standard of living for people around the world. our products fuel hospitals, stores, restaurants, and homes. they enable the movement of goods around the world and right to our very doorsteps. they create good-paying jobs that support families across the country and they enhance our national security by reducing dependence on foreign energy. this should all be part of the conversation as we seek an orderly and predictable energy future that works for everyone. confronting the climate challenge requires critical thinking about investment, technology, haste, goals, and
timetables. this must be a comprehensive effort. no one company, no one industry, and no one country can meet this global challenge alone. this is a conversation necessarily about both supply, which chevron helps to provide, and demand, driven by consumers worldwide. at chevron we believe government action in partnership with the private sector is essential to enable evolution of the energy system and we stand ready to work with you. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. mr. lawlor, you are now recognized for your testimony. >> chairwoman maloney, ranking member comer, chairman khanna, ranking member norman, and members of the committee, i'm dave lawlor. thank you for the opportunity to speak today about bp's low
carbon transformation and our ambition to get to net zero by 2050 or sooner and to help the world get there too. i first joined bp in 2014 as head of our oil and gas operations in the continental united states. i was named chairman and president of bp america last year. our u.s. operations are part of the economic fabric of this country. we directly employ some 10,000 people, for nearly a quarter million jobs, and contributed $60 billion to the national economy last year. almost a quarter century ago, bp was among the first major companies in our industry to recognize publicly the scientific consensus about the human contribution to climate change and supported policies to address it. that recognition has guided many of our decisions since then.
these decisions include launching a separate low carbon energy business in 2005 which invested more than $8 billion over ten years. by 2007, bp publicly supported carbon pricing. when we announced our net zero ambition in february 2020, we recognized it wouldn't be easy. but we believed it was vital for both society and the success of our business. we know that the world's carbon budget is finite and we've set clear, verifiable short and longer term targets on our path to net zero. by 2025, we aim to grow our low carbon investments to 3 to $4 billion per year and then to $5 billion per year in 2030. this would represent nearly a third of our projected capital expenditures.
at the same time, by 2030, we expect to reduce our global oil and gas production by 40% from a 2019 baseline. beyond capital investment and reduced production, we plan to eliminate routine flaring in our onshore operations. we also have a target of 0.2% based on our industry leading measure the approach. i recognize that some may doubt how serious we are about our net zero ambition. i get it. our progress hasn't always been a straight line. but we've learned a great deal and we view the path we're on an as a business imperative. that's one reason we continue to report regularly on our progress. and we've already taken concrete steps to meet our targets. through the first half of 2021,
we more than doubled our 2019 low carbon investments to $1.1 billion, undertaken transformative offshore wind and solar energy power generation projects in the united states. this doesn't mean bp is getting out of the oil and gas business. as we transition our oil and gas business will continue providing the energy the world needs while funding our investments in wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. as we work to make bp a net zero company, we're trying to help the world get there too. we've redoubled our advocacy in support of policies to address climate change. we've advocated directly and with a range of partners to advance carbon pricing at the state and federal level. we're advocating for the direct regulation of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. we aim for alignment between our positions and those of the trade
associations to which we belong. we recognize the associations' positions are often a compromise of various perspectives and we advocate within them for our views on climate change. with world leaders on the verge of important international climate gathering in glasgow, it's more critical than ever that governments and industry work together to find solutions to this challenge. we know we have a hard road ahead. but it's also filled with opportunities. along the way, we welcome debate and public scrutiny, because succeeding in the energy transition is critical both for bp and for the world. thank you for this opportunity. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. ms. watkins, you're now recognizd for your testimony. >> chairwoman maloney, chairman khanna, ranking member comer,
ranking member norman, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the urgent need for action on climate change and shell's effort to advance society's transition to a lower carbon future. through shell's global strategy we are working with our customers across sectors to accelerate our own progress and support the transition to net zero emissions in the united states and globally, in step with society. shell has been and remains vocal about the needed energy transition and we continue to advocate for sound carbon policies that support the transition to renewables and lower carbon energy sources, including seeking to ensure a transition that is fair and equitable. this kind of challenge is not new to americans. we have tackled enormous challenges before and we can do it again.
i lead shell oil company, the u.s. subsidiary of royal dutch shell in the netherlands. shell's position on climate change has been publicly documented for nearly three decades. as early as 1991, our annual reports discussed concerns about climate change. our first sustainability report in 1998 noted that human activity and the use of fossil fuels could affect the climate. shell has issued a sustainability report every year since, and the subsequent reports have discussed climate change and the challenges that it poses. shell has long advocated for governmental policies that will reduce fossil fuel demand, stimulate innovation in cleaner energy technologies and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and ensure access to reliable and affordable energy. shell strongly advocated for the united states to remain in the paris climate agreement and later to rejoin it. shell has a long history of advocating for carbon pricing such as waxman/markey which
passed the house in 2009. shell supports a number of provisions in the pending infrastructure legislation related climate change and we support reconciliation including electric vehicle infrastructure, hydrogen, carbon capture storage, and a methane feed. in 2017 shell was the first energy business to announce reducing net carbon intensity and in the years since shell's ambitions have developed. in 2020, we announced our intention to be a net zero by 2050 company in step with society. we have short, medium, and long term intensity-based reduction targets. and today, in announcements made early this morning in europe, we've announced our intent to reduce our soap 1 and 2 absolute emissions by 50% by 2030 on a net basis. shell companies have invested
billions in lower carbon energy including solar and wind, electric vehicle charging and infrastructure. for example, we've purchased a large base in silicon ranch, a leading solar farm developer in nashville, tennessee, with more than 145 operating facilities coast-to-coast. and we acquired a california based company that provides electric vehicle charging solutions. meeting the demand for reliable energy while simultaneously addressing climate change is a huge undertaking and one of the defining challenges of our time. fuel powers airplanes and ships that moves people and commerce around the globe. petrochemicals are needed for everything from clothing to cellphones, from hand sanitizers to the fibers in the masks we're accustomed to wearing. for this reason shell will continue to develop fossil fuel energy sources yet even here we're seeing transition.
shell's production in the gulf of mexico is among the lowest in the world in greenhouse gas intensity and we do not anticipate frontier exploration for new oil and gas repositories after 2025. we are committed to a leadership role in the energy transition and continuing to provide the life-sustaining and life-enabling products that america's need. shell is proud of its history of providing energy to consumers in the united states and around the world and we look forward to enabling a future where we all move to net zero emissions. thank you for the opportunity to be here and i would be happy to answer your questions. >> thank you. mr. summers, you're now recognized for your testimony. >> chairwoman maloney, ranking member comer, chairman khanna, ranking member norman, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
my name is mike summers and i am president and chief executive officer of the american petroleum institute. api is the national trade association representing all segments of america's oil and natural gas industry. our nearly 600 members from large, integrated companies to small, independent operators provide much of our nation's energy and develop safe, responsible operational standards. api's mission is to promote safety across the industry globally and to advocate for public policy in support of a strong, viable u.s. oil and natural gas sector. i would like to focus on three points. first, our member companies make products that enable modern
life. every day, the men and women of america's oil and natural gas industry provide the energy to maintain our quality of life, power our economy, and improve the condition of people here at home and around the globe. this industry please america's needs with a strong commitment to safety, reliability, and environmental performance. and it is my high honor to work in this essential industry. second, we meet today at a defining moment, one where energy demands are rising. and the focus on a cleaner environment has never been greater. climate change is real. industrial activity contributes to it. and the challenges of ushering in a lower carbon future are massive and intertwined yet
fundamental. it is the opportunity of our time to address climate change while meeting the world's growing need for energy. api released a theories of policy proposal, industry action, and initiative in our climate action framework to make a measurable difference in advancing energy and environmental progress. this plan is centered around advancing innovation and technology to tackle this challenge. the five main actions are, one, accelerating technology and innovation to reduce emissions while meeting growing energy needs. two, further mitigating emissions from operation to advance additional environmental progress. three, enendorsing a carbon pri policy by government to drive
economy-wide, market-based solutions. four, advancing cleaner fuels to provide lower carbon choices for consumers. five, driving climate reporting to provide consistency and transparency. in the meantime, api and its members are not waiting for a government mandate to address the real and serious challenge of climate change. our view is that innovation is the foundation of meaningful action and as such, our industry is making significant investments in carbon capture, hydrogen, and cleaner fuels. api companies are actively reducing methane emissions from their operations. through technologies and other solutions. more work remains.
but one area where experts agree is that oil and natural gas will continue to be the leading energy sources for decades to come. and it is important that we take action to reduce emissions while providing that energy. in closing, api supports climate action. governments, industries, and consumers must accelerate policy and technology solutions together. yet legislative proposals that punitively target our industry will harm the economy and american workers and weaken national security. we look forward to working with congress and others to shape and advance effective energy and climate policy. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. and i look forward to your questions.
>> thank you. ms. clark, you are now recognized for your testimony. >> chairwoman maloney, ranking member comer, chairman khanna, ranking member norman, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. since march, i had the privilege to serve as the president and ceo of u.s. chamber of commerce. and i appreciate this opportunity to discuss our efforts to address climate change. the chamber's position is clear that climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes. addressing the climate challenge with bold solutions and advancing economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive. we can achieve both goals and the chamber is dedicated to doing so. the chamber's message on climate is also clear. inaction is not an option. we advocate for market-based solutions to reduce emissions
while supporting u.s. competitiveness, national security, and working people across america. we have focused on effective climate solutions and we see ample common ground for all sides to come together to advance policies that are practical, predictable, and durable. the american business community is essential to developing, financing, building, and operating the solutions needed to effectively combat climate change. businesses are already taking action by investing in technology and enhancing their efficiency. their actions are good for business, the economy, and our planet. the government also plays a critical role in our country's efforts to address climate change. we believe congress must enact durable climate policies with bipartisan support. this will help ensure the policies withstand the changing priorities of different administrations and reduce uncertainty. the chamber supports policies that encourage innovation in market-based climate solutions.
we believe in transparent, well-defined market mechanisms that reduce emissions while supporting economic growth and jobs creation. our implementation of these principles has led to meaningful progress over the past few years. let me share a few examples. the chamber played a leading role in the 2020 passage of the energy act, the most significant climate and energy legislation adopted in more than a decade. over several years we mobilized support, partnered with ngos and others to get the bill enacted. we worked closely with policymakers on both sides of the aisle to ensure it contained measures that promoted climate change and fostered economic growth. the chamber played a leading ro he will in bipartisan implementation to phase down hydrofloor r hydrofluoro carbons.
we've worked with congress to improve disaster mitigation. we supported the biden's decision to rejoin the paris climate agreement and we provided principles for consideration for emission reduction. finally this year we organized a coalition in support of bipartisan efforts that decarbonize the economy. building smart, modern, resilient infrastructure has long been a goal of the chamber. the chamber and its members are proud to support it as standalone legislation. our country has made positive strides forward and could build greater momentum with bipartisan cooperation on the solutions before us, and we must. more needs to be done to protect our planet for future generations. earlier this year, president
biden's climate envoy, former secretary of state john kerry, stated that 50% of the reductions we have to make to get to net zero are going to come from technologies we don't yet have. whether or not 50% is the right figure, secretary kerry's central point is correct. we must take urgent action now to develop the technologies necessary to meet our climate goals. i'll say it again. inaction is not an option. for more than 100 years, the chamber has advocated for policies that help businesses of all sizes create jobs, strengthen communities, and grow our economy. there is broad consensus across our member and the business community that combating climate change is an urgent issue requiring citizens, government, and business to work together. the chamber remains dedicated to working with congress to identify solutions that improve our environment. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. mr. crabtree, you are now recognized for your testimony. mr. crabtree.
>> thank you, chairwoman maloney and ranking member comer and all the distinguished committee members. it's definitely not something that i'm proud of, but i may have been the first casualty of the build back better plan. three hours after president biden's inauguration, i lost my job on the construction of the keystone pipeline. now, i realize this was only one project. but what i really feared was the consequences the decisions would have on my future. and now i see those fears being realized. not only did i lose an opportunity for employment on the keystone but i'm losing employment opportunities because of energy companies seem to be hesitant to plan other needed projects that we need in this country. and all this is happening while the demand for energy is rising.
the build back better shouldn't mean total neglect and destruction of our energy infrastructure as we know it. people from coast to coast are feeling the pain of rising energy prices and there seems to be no thought given to the hundreds of thousands of workers in this industry or the millions of products that we use every single day that, you know, are provided by fossil fuels. there shouldn't be a fear of a heating shortage in the northeast this coming winter, but yet here we are. and americans need to know that there isn't a fuel shortage. that's not the cause of the rising prices. rising prices are a direct result of the lack of infrastructure that it takes to get the products moved to where they're needed mostly. it's mainly pipeline construction. the construction of the atlantic coast pipeline, the constitution, would have all taken much-needed energy to the
northeast this year. instead of being built and being in service, they're now canceled. and they were canceled because of overregulation and a push for a green new energy sector that just isn't capable or reliable enough to provide the energy that we need right now. every penny in the increase of energy on americans, it takes about a billion dollars out of the pockets of americans over a year's time. and i can't see how that's a popular decision right now. and i believe that elections in the coming years are going to prove that point. the ceos and the presidents of the companies that are gathered here today have provided this country with something that we've all demanded, and that's clean, affordable, reliable energy. we've built military bases in
other countries to protect resources. our government has contributed to this. and to treat the ceos as villains, i don't agree with it. the disruption of the colonial pipeline earlier this year should have proven just how important the work that myself and these companies do really is. i mean, we took one pipeline that was down for one week and we've seen the panic it caused. i was hoping we would shed a light on the bigger problem. why do we only have one pipeline servicing such an important part of this country? and the answer is simple. it's because of it costs right now more to permit and plan a new pipeline than it does to actually build one. and neglecting to add to the capacity with new pipelines is a dangerous thing for our country, just like neglecting roads and bridges. i believe it's going to take an all of the above approach for
our energy future. renewables are going to play a part. carbon technology needs to be developed. but we can't demonize the fossil fuel industry. it's only going to hurt the economy and the country. now, i belong to a union that specializes in pipeline construction. and i've spent over 25 years, you know, developing the skills that i have and i'm compensated well for it. and the government's idea of shutting down my industry and retraining me in another career is not realistic. i'm too far in life to be starting over at an entry level position. it's just not realistic for me. there's a whole generation of workers coming up that if they want to pursue careers in the green energy, then i support that, just like i support private companies' rights to develop green energy. what i don't support is a
government limiting my employment opportunities in my chosen field, especially when the product is in huge demand. to sum this up, the administration is having a direct negative impact on energy price in this country. they're having an impact on my ability to find work right now. my crisis right now isn't climate. my crisis is the mortgage payments i have due every month. it's the food i need to put on my table. and it's the health care i need to provide to my family. and instead of demonizing these ceos and presidents that are here today, i would like to thank them for the opportunities they've provided me and my family and my union to work in these past few decades. and i look forward to any questions you might have. >> thank you so much. pursuant to rule 9c, the chair authorizes an hour of extended questioning to be equally
divided between the majority and the minority for this hearing. i have consulted with the ranking member and we have agreed to divide up the hour of extended questioning in four 15-minute blocks. first, the chair will ask questions. then the ranking member. then mr. khanna. and then mr. norman. the ranking member intends to yield a portion of his time to mr. brady and mr. graves. without objection, both members are authorized to participate in today's hearing. with that, i now recognize myself for 15 minutes and i want to start with a few simple questions. and i would appreciate a yes-or-no answer on each of them. mr. woods, ceo of exxon, do you agree that climate change is real? >> yes. >> thank you. mr. lawlor, ceo of bp america, do you agree that climate change
is caused by human activities? >> yes. >> mr. worth, ceo of chevron, do you agree that burning fossil fuels as a significant cause of climate change? >> chairwoman, we've been clear on where we stand, and we accept the scientific consensus that the use of fossil fuels contributes to climate change. >> so that i'm taking as a yes. ms. watkins, president of shell, the intergovernmental panel on climate change released a new report in august concluding that climate change is widespread, rapid, and intensifying. the secretary general of the united nations called the report, quote, and i'm quoting, a code red for humanity, end quote, and said, quote, the alarm bells are deafening and
the evidence is irrefutable, end quote. ms. watkins, do you agree that addressing climate change is now a code red for humanity, yes or no, please. >> chairwoman, shell agrees that this is an urgent issue that needs addressing by companies, governments, and society. >> and it's not just the united nations that called it a code red. last week, the defense department issued a report calling climate change, quote, an existential threat to our nation and the world. ms. watkins, do you agree climate change is a threat to our existence? >> chairwoman, i agree that climate change is one of the biggest challenges that we have in the world today, which is why at shell we're in action on providing lower and no-carbon products to our customers. we believe this is something we're all in together.
we need to work in collaboration with society, with government, with other companies and other industries. >> but do you agree that it's an existential threat, yes or no? >> i -- >> yes or no? >> i agree that this is a defining challenge for our generation, absolutely. >> well, let me put it another way. does anyone on the panel disagree with the statement from the united states defense department that climate change as an existential threat to our existence? does anyone disagree? so the truth is clear. climate change is real. burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of this crisis. and it is urgent that we fix it. this is the first time each of you has told congress this. and the companies that you represent. and it is significant and important.
thank you. but it's also true that if it weren't for the actions of the big oil companies, we might have taken action to fix this problem decades ago. mr. woods, i want to ask you about some public statements that your predecessor lee raymond made in 1996 and '97 as the world was debating an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions known as the kyoto protocol. here is what mr. raymond said in 1996, and i quote. currently the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate, end quote. and i would like to place his statement in the record. without record without objection. and this was no slip of the tongue. in 1997, he gave another speech where he denounced the effects in kyoto and said, quote, the
case for global warming is far from airtight, end quote. mr. wood, when exxon's ceo made these remarks about the inconclusive nature of the scientific evidence, were they consistent with the views of exxon's own scientists? >> chairwoman, thank you for the question. i appreciate the chance to address that. all of our science has been aligned with the consensus of the scientific community as far as 20 years ago when you referenced to our chairman at that time a comment. as science has developed, our science has developed. >> well, as you make your statement, i'm reminded of
another hearing that we had with the tobacco industry. we had all the executives seated in this room and they were asked about their statement from their companies that the science was uncertain. and they said they did not believe that nicotine was addictive. well, it came out that they lied. tobacco, nicotine was very addictive. now i'm hearing from you that the science that was reported publicly where your executives were denying climate change, we know that your sciences internally were saying that it's a reality. so i was hoping that you would not be like the tobacco industry was and lie about this.
and i was hoping that you would be better than the tobacco industry and that you would come out with the truth, and i'm disappointed with the statement that you made. james black was an exxon scientist, and i'd like to put up on the screen what he told the company top executives in a secret briefing back in 1978, more than 40 years ago, and he said, and i quote, there is a general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels, end quote. and mr. black was not the only exxon scientist to recognize that burning fossil fuels would cause dangerous climate change.
in 1972, one of exxon's most senior scientists wrote a letter to the management. he said, quote, there is scientific consensus about the impact of increased carbon dioxide on the climate, and there was, quote, unanimous agreement in the scientific community, end quote, that doubling carbon dioxide levels would lead to significant climate change. i'm asking you, mr. wood, do you agree there is an inconsistency between what mr. raymond, the exxon ceo, told the public, and what mr. black and mr. cohen, both exxon scientists, told top executives? >> no, ma'am, i do not agree there was an inconsistency. if you examine the whole report,
you will see the comments in that report to a management meeting, which was not a secret meeting, was entirely consistent on what the science was in the scientific community. i think our involvement has been with the scientific community. our message has been this is a complex problem that will require thoughtful solutions. >> reclaiming my time. i think the quotes speak for themselves. i'm putting them in the record. there is a clear conflict between what exxon scientists put in the record and what exxon scientists were warning privately for years. but you don't need to take my word for it. in 2019, two exxon scientists testified in this very hearing room. they were here when the tobacco executives were, and they testified before mr. raskin's
subcommittee. they said their statements were just plain wrong. a doctor said, quote, exxon was publishing views that their own scientists knew was wrong. we know that because we were working on this, end quote. the disinformation from exxon did not end there. in 2000, exxon ran an advertisement in the "new york times" entitled, "unsettled science." and it said, and i quote, even less is known about the potential positive or negative impacts of climate change. in fact, many academic studies and field experiments have demonstrated that increased levels of carbon dioxide can
promote more climate change. is this consistent with exxon scientists? >> if you read the full article that you reference there, it concludes with a statement that we know now that government people and companies should be taking reasonable action to address the risk of climate change. again, i would come back and say that our position in this space has been consistent with the general consensus in the scientific community. our research was in line with that. it was a small portion -- >> thank you so much. reclaiming my time. the documents tell a different story. let me read you an excerpt from a 1982 memo, which i would like to place in the record, that mb glasser, exxon's manager of environmental affairs, sent to exxon management about the potential impact of climate change.
and he wrote, there are some potentially catastrophic events that should be considered, end quote. he said, those events could include melting ice caps and flooding along the east coast, including in florida and washington. and another private memo from 1981 issued similar warnings. mr. cohen, a top exxon scientist wrote that it was distinctly possible that climate change would, quote, produce an effect that would indeed be catastrophic at least for a substantial fraction of the earth's population, end quote. and that also, unanimous consent to place in the record. exxon had grave warnings from exxon's scientists over and over
and over again. do you believe it was ethical for exxon to run an advertisement that downplayed the risks and instead highlighted the potential positive impacts of climate change? >> chairwoman, again, i would say that in the full context of the memos you're referencing, the message that came across in the full article was consistent with what the general consensus of the community was, and our mention concluded that there was enough knowledge to know that we should be taking action, that people, government and companies should respond and take practical legal action. that was consistent with the science community at the time, and as time as progressed, we continue to maintain a position involved with science and one that's consistent with science.
>> our witnesses today would like you to think that their actions that i have laid out and put in the record are ancient history. but they are not. just this year, an exxon senior lobbyist, chief mccoy, was caught on a video boasting about these efforts, efforts that repeat. >> did we consistently fight against some of the science? yes. did we hide our science? absolutely not. did we -- do we join some of the shadow groups to work against
some of the early efforts? yes, that's true. there's nothing illegal about that. we were looking out for our investments, we were looking out for our -- our -- >> and how did exxon respond? did they come clean about this shocking comments? no. mr. woods called his comments inaccurate and then they fired him. they were obviously lying like the tobacco experts were. i'd like to ask the experts here to take a simple pledge. i want each you to affirm that your organization will no longer spend any money, either directly or indirectly, to oppose efforts to reduce emissions and address climate change. ms. watkins, will you take that pledge on behalf of shell? >> chairwoman maloney, we spend
a lot of money lobbying for climate change right now. >> will you take that pledge, yes or no? if you want a filibuster, i'll take it as a no. will you stop spending money that's dishonest? >> i will pledge that we will continue to spend our money on climate advocacy, climate policy as we have for many years now. >> so in the interests of time, let me ask the rest of the industry representatives on this panel. do any of you refuse to take this pledge? if you refuse to take this pledge, will you please just raise your hand? >> chairwoman maloney, what i would say is that we have stopped all reputational advertising in bp. >> i know you stopped with
testimony. will you take the pledge, yes or no? >> we do have lower carbon policies that take the country and the world to net zero. >> i'm asking if you'll stop spending money, either directly or indirectly, to oppose efforts to reduce emissions and address climate change? just stop spending money? i take that you don't want to take the pledge. all right. i hope that -- >> madam chair? we're nearly two minutes over. >> may i just close for one second? i hope that after 40 years of misleading the public, the blunt climate action of our oil industry will finally change its behavior and join many of the good corporate citizens, community leader scientists who are working together to save our
planet and our children. i now yield to my good friend and colleague, ranking member comer. >> thank you, mrs. chair. i would like to ask you what it's like to be a worker in this economy. how long had joe biden been president before you were fired from your position working for the keystone pipeline? >> thank you for the question, but i think i made that clear in my opening statement that it was three hours after i lost my job. i've got to be truthful and i've got to be fair. i've got to work since then, but most of the work we're doing now is kind of maintaining the aging infrastructure of the systems that we have in this country now. like i said in my testimony, not adding additional capacity when there's still such a great demand for it is causing these
prices to rise, and to me it's a national security issue when we have to write letters to opec asking for more oil. drawing oil out of the strategic petroleum reserve. the strategic petroleum reserve was put in place to -- >> we're going to talk a lot about that in this hearing, but my question is did president biden or anyone in the white house ever apologize to you for creating a situation where you lost your job immediately upon his taking office? >> well, of course not. i'm just a simple welder. i wasn't expecting an apology. it probably wouldn't have meant much to me. an apology isn't going to put food on my table, an apology
doesn't pay my bills. being able to work is what i need. >> absolutely. absolutely. last week president biden said gas prices wouldn't go down until 2022, and when he was asked in the town hall what he was going to do to reduce gas prices, he didn't have an answer on that. what, in your opinion, does the impact of shutting down one pipeline in the keystone have on energy? >> number one is transportation cost. this pipeline was going to replace the transportation because oil had already been coming into the country. it's coming in by rail, and when you can build a pipeline, you can cut transportation costs by nearly a third. >> and probably reduce your carbon footprint at the same time, right? >> exactly. this was a pipeline that was
going to run off of energy. a lot of people don't know that. number two is market speculation. the country saying what was happening. the very first thing president biden had done when you see an attack on the industry like that, and you know all the markets -- a lot of it is speculation to see this attack on it. you get people buying up contracts. >> i hate to see what's happened to you and so many other workers, union workers in america, with the disastrous biden energy policy. it's been a terrible time in america to be a worker in this biden economy. it's a good time to be someone who works from home, but a terrible time to be a worker. i want to ask a quick question to the oil and gas ceos. i'll start with mr. woods and
we'll try to run down these real quickly. mr. woods, how long have you been ceo of exxon? >> 2017. >> have you ever approved a climate disinformation campaign? >> i have not. >> ms. watkins, how long have you been employed at shell? >> three years. >> ms. watkins, in your time at shell, have you ever approved a disinformation campaign? >> no, i have not. >> and have you ever approved a disinformation campaign? >> i have not. >> mr. lawler, how long have you been ceo? >> about a year and a half. >> mr. lawler, have you ever approved a disinformation campaign? >> no, i have not.
>> i would now like to yield to the distinguished fellow from texas. >> thank you to america's affordable energy leaders for joining us. america's energy, i've seen this firsthand where our energy companies came back to workers from the lowest yield to people of color. it's important for our nation where we recognize good-paying jobs and rising paychecks do so much more to lift americans out of poverty than never-ending
government checks. that's why good-paying energy jobs should be protected. if you take out the inventory, america's growth line quarter was zero. the president is a disturbing 0 for 3. even with expectations dumbed down in some cases by 80% or more. the president's best economic growth feat last spring, he remains 1 million jobs short. he's making main street worse for businesses, and demanding more government stimulus that will drive prices up higher and longer. the president now faces a serious question about his accomplishments to heal our economy. part of that is due to a relentless attack on american manager work by the administration and this economy. the taxation and regulatory tax that could kill a million and a half good-paying jobs over time
and drive prices even higher. ironically, our administration made climate change a central focus. it damaged the very industry that holds the key to addressing greenhouse gas emissions around the world. in a small way the rates of standard of living in america, and energy will drive higher for everyone. the smart solution is to make affordable energy cleaner through technology. exporting american technology helps the entire world solve our climate challenges. this industry has already proven it can increase production of american energy to meet our growing demands while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. this industry continues to invest more in research, innovation and technology to make affordable energy cleaner
than any other industry. rather than trying to end their existence, congress should be working with them to clear the path for sharing it with the world. renewables do play a big role in reducing emissions. natural gas is the real bridge to the future. it's a major shift to reduce carbon dioxide emission. affordable energy is a way to lift americans out of poverty and ensure that lower middle americans can advance and thrive. this success has made our country independent and secure. instead of raising energy prices on those who can least afford it, let's rebuild the momentum we made in releasing energy and crude oil export and use that to make america a leader in discovering a cleaner technology. there is a way to transition to
a cleaner energy feature, and i hope they join forces. senator comer, i yield back. >> thank you. i would like to yield the value of my time to the committee on climate projects. >> thank you, senator comer. i would like to thank the chairwoman for having this hearing today. i want to first just point out, madam chair, that i'm going to take a guess that every single person that came to washington this week, that they came here using some sort of fossil fuel. madam chair, i've got two electric vehicles and i've actually rigged up a solar generator to charge them, the most ridiculous and cost-prohibitive thing i've seen in my life. i'm from south louisiana. if projections are correct, then
we are absolutely ground zero for what's going to happen moving forward. we have some of the fastestin the world, and we also have one of the most productive gas in the country where this occurred. i also would like to know when the deepwater happened, it was devastating for the state of louisiana. there is the largest settlement in history because of that. i want to ask the witnesses a question. if we stopped -- maybe mr. summers. if we stopped producing energy
today, stopped producing oil and gas in the united states, yes or no, would there be a stoppage or would folks cease to use oil and gas across the world. yes or no? >> no, congressman, because as you know the world consumes about 100 million barrels of oil every single day. even during the worst part of the pandemic, the world was still consuming about 81 million barrels of oil every day. the world will consume oil and natural gas from now and very long into the future. >> thank you. i want to go back, and i apologize, i was in and out with another hearing going on. i believe it was shell, but i may be mistaken, that noted in their testimony that the most efficient energy production in terms of the mission on the globe, some of the most efficient on the globe is in the gulf of mexico. can some of you confirm that
from your opening statement? >> that is a fact, an operator in the gulf of mexico, and we're really proud that gas will be brought into the country is the lowest gas. >> putting these two things together, if there's clearly going to be demand for energy, because oil and gas is 30 times the density of energy renewal. there is going to continue to be demand. we produce it most efficiently in the united states. why would we stop? everybody in this committee used it to get to work this week, everybody did. something else that's really interesting as we sit here and demonize the united states on the witness panel, the united states has led the world. we are one of the 12 energy
producers in the world. i want to direct you to the energy commission that said the amount of energy we use is historic in american history. mr. summers, could you tell me what primary source of energy resulted in this decrease of emissions. >> it was natural gas. >> thank you very much. natural gas, the very thing we're talking about standing here. madam chair, i would like to read you a quote from a letter. quote, today we call on you to use all your authority and time to pressure opec to increase world oil supplies. okay? asking you to increase world oil supplies. maria cantwell, senator
menendez, senator schumer. quote, may 18, 2018, and i'd like to ask that this be included in the record. >> no objection. >> madam chair, a number of democrats in congress effectively asked the same thing, and as i heard, noted earlier today, jake sullivan sbls other white house officials asked opec to increase oil prublgz. if we produce it most efficiently, what are we doing by stopping it? clearly, we're going to see a 60% increase in global demand for energy, a 60% increase. so the strategy right now by throwing out all conventional energy production, guess who makes 90% of the solar panels? it's china. and by the way, they use child
labor to produce that. it simply doesn't make sense these are the innovators. we've watched our open president, madam chair, shut down keystone pipeline, shut down domestic energy production. they've asked siberia and other countries to produce more energy. madam chair, the use of natural gas, we have a 2% to 4% lower emission profile. this is part of the solution as we move forward leading this energy demand with solar, with nuclear. it's against our interests to shut these things down.
we have carbon capture utilization. when the clinton administration stopped making energy oil for oil, we imported from china. that is not in the best interests of the united states. >> mr. comer, do you yield back? >> i yield back. >> i now recognize ms. sacona, who is on the subcommittee, for 5 minutes. >> thank you to the witnesses appearing here voluntarily. let me start out where i think we'll agree. mr. woods, what's impressive is that in 1977, exxon had a quote, there is general scientific agreement that the manner that
man isly satisfying the energy demand is burning fossil fuels. do you agree with that? >> that is consistent with that. >> you would never make statements that would offend them, correct? >> correct. >> so when they say they do not believe in the linkage of fossil fuels and warming, you would say that's correct, right? >> i would support that statement. looking at the full context of the statement, i can't make a judgment on that. >> you would say false that there is no other fossil fuel, correct? ztz yes.
in the spirit the of giving you the chance to turn the page for the company, i assume you would acknowledge that mr. raymond's statement was incorrect? >> mr. raymond's statement was consistent with all the -- >> i don't want to argue that. when i make a statement that's wrong, when most people make a statement that's wrong, they say, it's a mistake, we regret it. i assume that it was a false statement and the company regrets making it, right? >> i think the expectation would be we look at the time that it was said -- >> for getting whether it was consistent or not -- if someone makes a mistake, just say it was a mistake, and you regret that
statement was out there? would you say that? >> i don't think it's fair to judge something 25 years ago with things we've learned since that time. >> i'm disappointed you're not willing to say something was a mistake. i'm surprised, actually. i thought you would just say it's a mistake. it's not asking much to say it's a mistake that someone put that out. >> let me move on. the united nations 2021 production gas report says consistent with a pathway, oil and gas production would have to decline annually by 4% and 3% respectively. the iea is calling for no new gas development. mr. lawler, they said they support greenhouse gas targets by 2050. you made a strong commitment to reduce oil and gas production by
40% by 2030. i assume you are doing this because you think it's important and part of the solution to the climate crisis, is that correct? >> that's correct. what bp has aligned its strategy on is in accordance with the paris agreement. two years before covid started, we put this in place -- >> i don't mean to cut you off, we just have limited time. you think oil and gas will be going away and that's the best decision? >> shell energy has set a target that's consistent with this paris agreement, and you today announced this new thing where you're going to be having a 50% reduction on 1 and 2, and you are also committed to a 1% per year total reduction decline
decline, correct? >> that is correct. >> you also believe we need to have oil and gas declining every year? >> what we do believe is the carbon demand needs to be reduced if we're going to get to that goal in 2030 -- >> but you're committed to 1% to 2% per year. that's your policy, correct? >> it is and let me just -- >> and chevron announced earlier this year that you plan to increase by 3.5 pierce a compound basis your connection. >> chairman, we will increase
our oil and gas production and reduce the carbon -- zrz and mr. woods, you have said that you want to keep the oil and gas production flat, is that correct? >> we're focused on meeting the needs of society -- >> i don't need an american apple pie speech, just a flat question. 40% production bp, 1% production of shell, chevron is increasing, exxon is increasing. mr. lawler, bp has said that it's economywide greenhouse gas emissions. economywise, you believe other companies need to follow your lead in oil production, is that correct? >> we offered it up as a
suggestion. there are many approaches to net zero. >> i guess my question is this, mr. lawler. do you believe that the science says that other companies should go down every year? >> i think we would agree that the science that is needed to lower emissions is the action on that. >> mr. lawler, are you embarrassed that your company is going up while american counterparts is going down? >> do you commit to doing anything to match your european counterpart to bring the actual demand of oil production down? >> congressman, with all due respect, i'm proud of the company and what we do -- >> so no, you won't -- and mr.
woods, would you commit to matching your european counterparts that bp and shell are doing? do you commit to lower your carbon emission, yes or no? will you commit to lowering production or not? >> we're going to lower emissions which is what we're trying to address. >> i'll take that as a yes. ms. watkins, you seem like the star here. do you agree that ieas that electric vehicles are vital to decarbonization. i assume you do because you said the rise of electric vehicles is vital in road transport? >> yes. >> and i assume, mr. woods, you think it needs to be come natured did i electricity
fags -- electrification. it will be costly for consumers. you've been participating in million-dollar battles to build charging station across the country. will you take the opportunity today to tell him that his opposition to electric vehicles is wrong, and that instead of proposing tax credits on electric vehicles that he should support them? >> we're a member of the api for a number of reasons. >> and i respect that. can you just tell him to stop the electric vehicles advertising? if you say that today, he'll stop. you give him $10 million a year.
>> we have a number of ongoing conversations -- >> could you tell him today? could you just say stop the electric vehicles advertising. it would help us in congress. just tell him to stop. >> i want to speak on behalf of shell. here at shell we firmly believe electric vehicles are a part of the future. >> it will help the president. he's really trying to do what you're asking us to do. you know who has been advertising against the methane fee? api. half a million dollars the last few months in facebook advertising alone against the president's agenda on the methane fees that you supported this morning in your great statement. you said, no, we want to have low cost of methane. can you please, please tell api to stop the advertising on the methane fee? >> there are several places where we are not fully aligned with the api -- >> mr. lawler, anyone, will you
tell them to stop? mr. lawler, will you tell them to stop the advertising? >> mr. khanna, we've been in active communication with api from the time i joined -- >> he's sitting right next to you on the virtual screen. just say stop advertising against electric vehicles. stop the advertising against methane. >> i work for bp and we've been supportive of the green climate solution -- >> i assume mr. woods, mr. worth, this is the chance to redeem yourself. will you tell them to stop that advertising, either of you? >> mr. khanna, we engage in a number of activities in api. the members don't always agree on everything. >> let me ask you this.
the hotel pulled their commitment to api because they said they can't be part of an organization that is engaged against the fight for climate change. will each of you commit to leaving api if they continue to lobby against electric vehicles? will any of you commit to leaving them if they're lobbying against electric vehicles? you know what, folks, here's what's so frustrating because i really don't think you're as bad as the ceos of the past. i don't. you got a horrible record of stuff, you're figuring out how you don't get into litigation trouble while really trying to tell the truth. it's a tough act. i don't envy you. and i don't believe you wanted to be out there spreading misinformation. these groups are spending millions of dollars in congress to kill electric vehicles, and
they're sending millions of dollars for the methane gas. you could tell them to knock it off for the sake of the planet. you could end that lobbying. would any of you take the opportunity to look at api and say stop it? any of you? will you commit, any of you? ms. watkins, come on. would you commit to saying you're not going to fund any group that's going to engage in client disinformation, at least? >> mr. khanna, i continue to be an active of api and some of the advertising is about climate policies. >> would any of you commit to an independent audit to make sure
your funds aren't going to climate denial? raise your hand if you think the climate crisis is one of the most important crises america faces. i think all of you do. it's important, yes. i understand you're punting for a lot of reasons, you can't track all the details, but if your money is going to organizations that are against the fundamental values that you claim you stand for, don't you think you have some obligation to monitor where the money is going and to make some commitment today to the american people? right now your position to the american people is not gotcha. you're saying we're just going to spend. we'll have a conversation. if they want to do false advertising, fine. we'll talk to them behind the scenes. are any of you today prepared to make any statement saying we're going to take accountability for something so important and stop
funding groups that are actively engaged in some form of climate organization. anything would be great. >> congressman khanna, i'll say we have been, for the last several years, laying out very clearly where we are aligned with the trade association. we love the trade association because we were so misaligned that we didn't know how to get back. there is a number of scrutinies around climate policy in that area. >> bps, seven charging stations are on their way in the next
decade. we challenge that with other organizations and will continue to do so. >> i'm not going to ask anything more. i went over a couple minutes. mr. woods, do you have anything? >> we work with a number of organizations and we may not always agree with the positions taken or statements made by industry groups and other organizations. we engage in constructive battling. fossil fuels contributes to it and we're committed to making a better future. we work with associations to try to advance those positions consistent with the broader view of the membership that each of the organizations served, and i would point out the api has evolved a climate position in
coordination with a number of other constructive climate policies. >> okay. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back and i am now recognized for an equivalent amount of time. mr. norman, who is the ranking subcommittee on the environment, for an equivalent amount of time. >> thank you. chairman maloney, i would like to yield to mr. jordan. >> thank you. i'll tell you what's frustrating is for the president to tell american oil companies to decrease production. what does the gentleman want? $8 gasoline? $10 gasoline for the very families we represent? this is crazy what they're talking about. i yield back to the gentleman. thank you for giving me 30
seconds. >> thank you so much. ms. summers, did you realize back several months ago at an oversight hearing, i asked greta thunberg who is a spokesperson for the green new deal and other issues. she has 17.9 million followers. i asked her, with china and india, how are we going to get them to cut their emissions when they're the leaders in the world and america had come down on emissions. do you realize she said they were going to ask them to? is this a proper response, in your opinion? >> thank you, congressman, for the question. as you know, the united states accounts for about 12.6% of world emission. our emissions continue to go down year on year. china's emissions account for
about 32.6% of world emission, and their emission continues to go up. the key point is that, yes, climate change is real, and that we need to step up to the plate and do what we can to address the climate challenge. but at the same time, this is a global challenge. this is a challenge that can't be taken on by one company or one country. we need a global solution to the climate challenge, but this industry has not weighed it for others to step up to the plate to deal with that challenge. in fact, earlier this year, the american petroleum institute put forward a very forward-looking position on climate change, an api climate action framework. the interesting thing about that framework, congressman, is it's not just about what we're asking the government to do, but what the industry is committing to do to reduce climate change over time. we're proud of that
forward-looking agenda, but as you point out, this is a global challenge and the world is going to continue to demand oil and gas for the future. the question i think lawmakers have to answer is whether the world is going to get that oil and gas from the united states where it is produced cleaner, better and safer, or whether they're going to give that oil and gas to countries that are hostile. i think the answer is clear from our perspective. >> and this administration is content to get our natural gas and oil, as mr. jordan said, and pay an ungodly amount in the future, if we can get gas from countries that don't like us. does that make sense to you? >> congressman, hau again for your questions. >> does that make sense? >> no, sir. >> nor does greta thunberg's answer, which was a
pollyanna-ish answer, when she said we will ask them. is it necessary that the goal is to receive oil and gas or keep running on fossil fuel? >> china does not expend just an oil and gas structure. based on the data we've seen, china is adding a coal plant a week. their emissions continue to go up while american emissions keep going down. they have made a switch from coal to natural gas. that's because natural gas prices have gotten lower as a
consequence of the technological and innovative rev tlugs has occurred in this country over the last decade. we're able to find more energy here at home, and as a consequence, we're actually able to reduce emissions while production is going up. in fact, no country in the world has reduced emissions more than in the united states, and it's because of the american gas and oil industry. >> china has not been held to the standards we had, and they are content to providing for other countries. i yield to congresswoman fox. >> thank you very much for yielding. the title of this hearing, big
oil, quote, unquote, however, it's clear that this hearing is part of the disinformation campaign to distract from the biden administration's failed policies that are hurting americans. they kans fechld once gas prices predictably started tries gs, and asked them to bail him out. as of this morning, $3.90 is the highest price of oil in the biden administration. do we see a pattern here? this hurts families across our
nafrgs -- this puts stress on hard-working families. since the democrats aren't interested in asking about this, i want to take a moment to ask mr. woods, ms. watkins, mr. worth, mr. lawler to tell us what your companies are doing to transition to lower carbon energy. >> thank you for the question, congresswoman. it's an important one and one we've been focused on for quite some time, striking the balance to continue to meet the growing demand for energy while we reduce emissions. natural gas is one way of replacing higher fuel emissions,
and we are reduced by 11% and have plans for more aggressive action going forward -- >> i only have about two minute,s, so can you give me real short answers? >> we believe this is a real challenge facing the world. we continue to play a role. but hopefully those will be going down and other things will go up, like solar wind generating energy. >> thank you.
mr. woods? >> mine is simple, be part of a lower carbon energy and we're doing this in three ways. we're taking steps to grow -- and third, we've committed to investing $10 million to lower carbon production. >> thank you. unfortunately, mr. lawler, i've run out of time. i wonder if you could submit your answer in writing. mr. summers, despite some of the rhetoric from your critics, ilts clear from the things you said and others have said that meaningful steps to reduce emissions from operations have already been done. could you describe any other effort in about 30 seconds that are underway in some of the planned industry initiatives that haven't been mentioned?
>> congresswoman, thank you, and great to be with you today. first of all, the api action framework which can be found at api.org/climate is our attempt at addressing climate change. there is a program called environmental partnerships that talks about how we would reduce methane operation. this article has had success and we continue to reduce methane gas. we look forward to expanding that work over time. >> thank you, mr. summers. i yield back to the gentleman from south carolina. >> i yield five minutes to congressman haake.
>> i want to outline the failure of the biden policies and democrats as a whole, and allow this time to a dereliction of duty, to this committee for providing real oversight on pressing issues like the southern border, like global supply chain issues, and like a horrible withdrawal from afghanistan and many americans today in afghanistan while we're having hearings like this to supposedly investigate a campaign of climate change. as it relates to climate change, democrats and their friends in
the media have more what is considered a worst case climate scenario into what today is considered a most likely and sure to happen tomorrow kind of scenario. and it's all about the purposes of justifying an array of liberal socialist wish list priorities such as the green new deal. unfortunately, democrats have shamelessly scared and frightened an entire generation of children in appearing that the end of the world is upon us. economists have said we only have 11 years left to save the planet. are you kidding me? shamelessly creating fear in society and a whole new generation. yet the green new deal that our colleague from new york, her own chief of staff admitted the green new deal was not even
about the environment. there was more of a how do you change the entire economy kind of thing? it promises medical and family leave, paid vacation, retirement security. it says nothing about the environment as a whole. democrats have become masters of accusing others of the very thing they themselves are guilty of. and in this case, misinformation. misinformation meant to scare the public and ignore reality, realities like the truth as the united states has been reducing carbon emissions while china's emissions have been going through the roof. china now produces twice the carbon emissions as the united states, and a quarter of all ga detests freedom, detests democracy, detests human rights. they would love nothing more than for the united states to be crippled in our economy through
these rosy sounding nevertheless horrible policies being presented and crammed down the throats of the american people by the democratic party. and what has the biden administration done about it all? ask mr. crabtree today, and 11,000 others who have lost their jobs because of the horrible policy decisions of this administration. and by the way, union jobs. good paying union jobs which our democrats love to crow about, and yet now these individuals have lost their jobs. the biden administration had no problem killing the keystone pipeline but at the same time, no problem willing to establish nordstream 2. give putin and the russians ask they need, including economic and political leverage over europe. what kind of russian collusion was involved in that kind of deal, i wonder. the biden administration cannot escape the fact that the u.s.
economy still relies on oil and gas for basic necessities, and yet their plan is let's decrease our own energy independence while increasing reliance upon some of the world's most unstable countries. and yet now, these companies that we're talking to today who are being villinized are at the same time being begged by the biden administration to help the reducing energy prices. the hypocrisy is insane. my time has expired and with that i yield back to the gentleman from south carolina. thank you. >> the time has expired. >> the gentle woman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, ms. maloney. chairwoman maloney, for this important hearing with fossil fuel companies. there's ample evidence that the
fossil fuel industry has worked to deceive the public, and sow doubt about climate science. that's been going on for decades. but the tactics they are employing are not new. they are a mirror image of tactics used by tobacco companies decades ago. in 2019, sheryl ubanks, a former justice department prosecutor testified before this committee, civil rights and civil liberties subcommittee, that similar to big tobacco, oil companies have -- i'm quoting, denied there was a consensus and at the same time, their internal documents show they knew there was a consensus. mr. woods, are you familiar with the -- with a scientific by the name of frederick psychs, yes or
no? >> no. >> all right. the doctor was a prominent scientist, even heading the national academy of science. in the 1960s. according to the union of concerned scientists in the 1990s and 2000s, dr. sykes advised a number of exxon's mobile funded groups on scientific research. at the same time, he published several articles questioning science, climate science. including a 1995 "wall street journal" piece arguing against a report issued by the u.n. intergovernmental panel on climate change. in 1998, he led a petition calling for the united states to
leave the kyoto protocol. the doctor claimed in a letter with the petition, and here again i'm quoting, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide environmentally helpful. mr. woods, were you aware that before he began publicly questioning climate science, dr. sykes had a role advising tobacco companies on their medical research? >> no, i'm not familiar with dr. sykes so i don't have any of that context. >> in the 1970s and '80s, dr. sykes advised the rj reynolds tobacco company helping oversee millions of dollars in research funding. he later explained that the tobacco companies, quote, didn't want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking.
big oil tries to distinguish itself from big tobacco, but the fact is the disinformation campaign used for decades by the fossil fuel industry mirrors big tobacco itself in its playbook. injects uncertainty into the public discourse, undermines the science, all while continuing to reign in economic benefits. ultimately, the tobacco industry was held accountable for its deception, but big oil has so far escaped accountability for its long-standing climate denial. and i hope that time will begin to turn today, just as it did with the tobacco executives. i thank you and i yield back, madam chair. >> thank you.
the gentleman from florida, mr. donalds, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. first of all, to the witnesses, the leaders of exxon, chevron, bp, shell, i know that the climate activists in twitter world, which dave chappelle says doesn't exist, and he's right because it's just people who have nothing better to do than type on their kierbds and we do it here in congress, but let's be clear, you need an apology. what i witnessed today was just rank intimidation by the chair of this committee. trying to get you to pledge on what you're going to spend your money on is a gross violation of the first amendment. and just because we're members of congress and we got microphones and we pass laws does not mean that we also have the ability to infringe on your ability to organize or what you choose to spend your money on.
it is disgusting. it is absolutely disgusting. somebody needs to go call merrick garland and tell him to get in here and watch the intimidation that came from this very panel today. this is not about defending big oil or defending big anything. it's about defending the ability of people in our country to be free, say what they want, think what they want, spend their money how they choose. if we're not going to be any better than the chinese, how do we expect to beat them on the world stage when we're cutting our necks when it comes to energy production while they're burning more coal, burning more oil, they're increasing their emissions, and they're not showing up at scotland. you know why? because they're interested in building an economy. they're interested in becoming the dominant economic player across the globe. they're interested in becoming the dominant military player across the globe, and while we joke around and mess around intimidating you guys who frankly heat our homes, you cool our fridges, keep our cars going, this is insane. so i'm sorry for you.
and i'm sorry for the people in our country who have to witness the shenanigans like this and witness circuses like this. that's why they call that one show on hbo "the circus" because that's exactly what this is. madam chair, i'm requesting a letter be entered into the record. this is a letter written by ranking member comer and other ranking members on this committee that actually speaks to the chilling effects that has come from you, madam chair, asking you to stop intimidating companies requesting information that is their first amendment right to have that information. i ask that be admitted into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i have a question now that we're done with that. mr. summers, it was asked earlier by a lot of the executives that they believe in electronic vehicles. it's a noble goal to have. where does energy, the energy -- where does electricity production actually come from? >> thank you, congressman.
before i address that question, i do want to clear one thing up. that a difference of views on electric vehicles is not climate disinformation. we as an organization support all forms of energy. we support the rapid advancements of electronic vehicles as well. but at the same time, what we don't agree with is that the federal government should be the one that are funding that build-out of infrastructure. the concern is that as we build out service stations across the country, those service stations have been developed not by the federal government but by private industry. and members on this panel themselves are investing in building out that infrastructure as is appropriate for the private sector. first of all, i think your question is very, very important, which is where does that energy come from? most of the energy in the united states comes from natural gas. it has replaced coal as the
primary source of energy in this country. >> let me ask you this question as a follow-up. if we don't have natural gas, and obviously, the democrats are against coal, where would we actually get the electricity to power all of these electric cars? where would it come from? >> well, congressman, for most countries and for certainly the united states, the energy -- there would be likely a fuel switch back from natural gas to coal. >> so real quick, i don't mean to cut you off but i have 30 seconds. it's important for the american people to understand that if you follow the idiocy in the bipartisan infrastructure agreement, which is going to make natural gas harder to procure, we're actually not going to have lower emissions. we're going to have higher because you're going to have to switch back to coal fired plants. just for the record let's also say the world will always demand energy. if you're not getting it from us, where we actually do it more
safely and more cleanly, you'll get it from russia, you will get it from china, and they don't care what the climate activists have to say on twitter. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cooper, is now recognized. mr. cooper. >> thank you, madam chair. and i would like to thank all the witnesses for being here today. i think the question before us is, how do we transition the world to a zero carbon economy, as cheaply and as easily as possible. and most all of the witnesses seem to be in favor of market-based solutions to this problem. including a price on carbon. so i would like each of the witnesses to answer what is the right price for carbon? >> yes, sir, so bp has been an advocate of economy-wide market
based price on carbon for many, many years. >> i would like a specific number, please, and i don't have much time. please tell me the price for carbon you would support. >> i don't have a specific price today to answer your question, but we do think it's the most efficient way -- >> mr. woods? >> mr. congressman, very important question. it depends on where you're trying to decarbonize at. we have proposed a very large scale carbon reduction project in the houston channel that would require $100 a ton. depending on how close you are to different sequestrations, that price will change. >> mr. woods -- or mr. wirth? >> congressman, there are different circumstances in economies around the world. there are different carbon prices in economies around the world. >> in the u.s. >> a broad based and transparent price is very important. and a price that gradually --
>> what price? >> congressman, there are different opinions on the number. >> i want your opinion. >> congressman, the cost of mitigating emissions is very different in different sectors of our economy. >> mr. watkins. >> to get to the kinds of reductions we aspire to will be a very high price. >> mr. watkins, the price of carbon. what should it be? >> yes, we can't say a specific price right now. we would need to put this in place. it's a market based carbon price and would need to be an even playing field, and depending on what we're trying to decarbonize, it would be in the marcus. >> the sooner we can reach a fair price on carbon and i know it would fluctuate, the sooner we can achieve that market based reform you say you're for. another part of market based reforms or whether you're a truly based market entity or not, and i was wondering if we could agree on the amount of government subsidies you receive
every year. i think the low estimate it's about $20 billion a year. but the imf estimates that u.s. oil companies receive some $650 billion in direct and indirect subsidies every year. so can the four key oil executives agree on the mount to which they're subsidized at least in the united states by the taxpayer? $20 billion or $650 billion? crickets. none of you have any idea how much you're being subsidized by the u.s. taxpayer? >> congressman, our products are taxed, not subsidized. i can tell you the number of policies that get described as subsidies are similar to those available in other industries and other companies and they're important for american security, american energy investment, and american energy supply.
>> when the tobacco companies were on the hot seat years ago, the first step that congress took was to remove the subsidies for tobacco growing. that was the first step. i think it's very important that we arrive at a degree of subsidies that are involved. i know you are taxed, but you also have special provisions that only apply to oil and gas companies. and don't apply to other firms. in aggregate, how much are those subsidies inthose by definition would not be market based. those are government policies that benefit your companies instead of other types of activities. how much are those subsidies? crickets. >> congressman, i can't answer your question directly, but i would offer though that a healthy oil and gas industry is very important to the transition. >> i agree. i agree. i'm wanting to find answers to market based solutions which you say that you're for.
final point, shareholder activists, these upstart hedge funds, the front page of the "wall street journal" has advocates of shell being broken up because apparently they believe more money could be made for investors by having a better run company. and that shareholder activists have taken seats on exxonmobil's board. that could be the market reform that could be faster than congressional action. i see my time has expired. i thnk the chair. >> thank you. the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new mexico is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. let me start off by saying i'm so glad to have this hearing because i don't think you can truly understand the hypocrisy that happens in this capitol and in this building unless you're watching it like we are today, or hearing it, or participating in it. and the saddest thick of all is we have a president who tweeted about the million jobs he's going to create or the 4 million jobs he's going to create, and
you know what's sad? he's creating jobs overseas. because the very people that heat our homes, that put us to work every day, that have a profound effect on our entire country in terms of national security and job creation is under attack. and while this committee may not like you because you're executives, because your companies have been successful, i just want to apologize for the decorum, because thank you for what you have done. thank you, every one of you, for creating the jobs and for bringing it home. for teaching us that we can be energy independent, and that we can also have a very reliable and long-standing relationship with each and every one of you and the communities and the people that rely on you and who we don't talk about are the seniors. or the lower middle class income people that cannot afford to heat their homes or will have to make decisions this year whether to buy food or to heat their homes or to buy gas. and this is just the tip of the iceberg because later today, or
some time this week or later this year, we're going to pass the most ridiculous bill in history, the infrastructure reconciliation bill, that does nothing for the american people. while you're getting beat down today, there are people here who believe in what you're doing and we thank you for all of the innovation. what i want to do is ask a couple questions to mr. somers. and this is really a no-brainer, but i'm thinking if you could answer the question, maybe somebody will actually listen to you. what would happen to global emissions if my democrat colleagues got their way and the united states stopped completely producing oil and gas? >> congresswoman, thank you for your question. and you represent one of the most prolific oil and gas districts in the country, representing the new mexico side of the prolific permian basin. and as you know, oil and gas has led to a significant increase in jobs in your congressional district and because of that, we have been able to reduce
emissions because we have been able to find that oil and gas in more environmentally responsible ways. and for that matter, the state of new mexico receives about 40% of its budget from the oil and gas industry. to answer your specific question, if the united states stopped using oil and gas, it is likely that the switch -- there would be a reverse switch from the use of natural gas in our electricity generation to the use of coal. in this industry, we need to remember what we at api call the energy trilemma. the energy trilemma is that for every energy source, it needs to be provided affordably, reliably, and cleaner. and so every source has to meet that same challenge. within the oil and gas industry, we're working towards meeting that challenge every single day. there is a reason why u.s. emissions have continued to go down. 65% of the decline in emissions
in the last decade is a consequence of that fuel switch from coal to natural gas. we do not want to reverse that progress. >> right, but we're doing everything we can in this committee and on capitol hill to do just that. which i don't think people understand. this isn't about just starting the car every day. this is about so many of our day-to-day projects touched by petroleum. in fact, i would just submit to saying anybody who has gotten a vaccination or is going to get one, thank you to the oil and gas industry because i would bet that almost every single one of these syringes has been touched by a petroleum product, but we don't want to give a hands up or pat on the back because we would rather tear you down and make you think you're all bad, you're rich, and you don't care about anybody. we know better than that. this is truly personal for me because you just said it, 40% of my state budget comes from this industry. communities in my state, in my
district, are completely made up of the men and women who serve, whether directly or indirectly in jobs related to the industry. and while we sit here and think that we've got a better way, if it's all green and all good, then why are we subsidizing green new everything? why are we pushing out the only industry that is reliable, affordable, and that we desperately need in our nation to remain a global, a global standing when it comes to energy dominance, when it comes to national security? i just want to thank all of you for being here today. i hope that what you're saying will resonate, and i hope you'll get a chance to finish your sentences because it's been hard listening to you try to get your point made when you're being cut off, and with that, madam chair, i yield back. >> the lady yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. wirth, you believe that, quote, climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time, correct, sir?
>> congressman, i try to be very clear on that earlier. we do believe that climate change is real. we accept the consensus. >> yes, sir. and on page three of your witness statement, you said you support the, quote, global net zero ambitions of the paris agreement, correct? >> that is on page three of my statement, congressman. glynn fact, on your october 11th press release, chevron announced that its targeted 2050 for net zero emissions associated with the upstream operations of the company, correct? >> we have announced a net zero aspiration for emissions for our equity upstream production worldwide. >> i'm vlad you mentioned that because you mentioned a couple concepts in your documents. you talk about scope one, scope two, scope three emissions, as well as something called portfolio carbon intensity. and emissions are the total or
absolute amount of carbon or greenhouse gases created by chevron while carbon intensity has to do with the amount of carbon released per unit of oil and gas that you're drilling for. and i was looking at pages 2 through 4 of your sustainability report, sir, and you call them scope one, scope two, and scope three emissions. those are the overall or absolute emissions associated with your operations, right? >> congressman, there is a taxonomy for how emissions are classified that we apply as do companies across the economy. and scope one emissions are defined as those directly associated with the operation of a company. scope two emissions are those associated with purchased electricity or steam, and scope three, there are actually 15 different categories of scope three emissions in the case of our company and our industry, type 11 of scope three has to do
with the use of products. >> correct, now, mr. wirth, according to page 42 of chevron's proxy statement, you receive $29 million in compensation for 2020, correct? >> that is what is reported. >> it appears you received $33 million in compensation in 2019 as well. i'm looking at your compensation calculation on page 49 of the proxy statement, and it talks about how your comps relied on oil, gas flaring and methane intensity reductions, but none of your compensation whatsoever relied on a reduction in scope one, scope two, or scope three emissions, correct? it's not there, nowhere on the page. >> congressman, it is in the fourth category, which relates to health safety and environment, and there is a line in there that relates to achieving our greenhouse gas targets. >> now, there's something called
greenhouse gas management, but it is related to intensity. i have this page right here. and so the main point that is the case is that you could have high overall or absolute emissions associated with your operations or low or no overall emissions associated with your operations, but you would be receiving the same tens of millions of dollars as you do now. and that's a fundamental problem with your compensation system at chevron, that you're not incentivized to reduce your carbon footprint, and that is a big reason why chevron pollutions continue to go up. now, let's contrast that with royal dutch shell, which made an important announcement today. ms. watkins, you announced today a reduction of absolute emissions by 50% by 2030, correct? >> that's correct. >> and you also interestingly
announced that those emissions would apply to scope one, scope two, and scope three. so total emissions of the company, right? >> so our 2030 target we announced today is for scope one and two. our net zero emissions by 2050 includes scope three. >> so by 2050, net zero across all three scopes, whereas as we know with chevron, it's only scope one and scope two, so not all of the emissions. now, ms. watkins, in a time of rising energy demand, why is it that you would say you're going to decline your oil production? why would you give up the opportunity to supply that additional demand? >> we believe that there is an opportunity as part of our power and progress strategy, to accelerate the demand for clean energy. which is why we're working very closely with our customers and in fact we're working with industrial segments, sectors
like the aviation industry, like heavy transport, like the marine industry, in order to accelerate the demand for clean energy products. because this isn't something we can do on our own. this is going to take a full collaborative effort between us, between society, and between the government. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you. mr. crabtree, when did you lose your job? >> thank you, congressman. about three hours after the presidential inauguration this year. >> january 20th, 2021, you lost your job. that's right? >> yes, sir. >> what has happened? you know what's happened to the price of gasoline since that day? >> gone up, i think everybody knows the answer to that question, congressman. it's going nowhere but up. >> increased dramatically, over a dollar a gallon. >> sure. >> you know what's happened to
the company that was overseeing the russian nordstream 2 pipeline, you know what happened to them? >> i believe they were allowed to finish construction. i know that for a fact. >> yeah, sanctions against them were waived. they were allowed to complete construction of that pipeline the same time that yours was closed down. you know what's happened to american energy independence since you were fired? >> the words opec seem to be coming back in the media these days and i didn't hear that for years, so we lost it. >> are co2 emissions in the united states today lower today than they were 20 years ago? >> they are, congressman. >> significantly lower, is that right? >> they are significantly lower. in fact, co2 emissions from the power sector in particular are at the lowest several since 1978. >> that's because, you know, things like cap and trade passed and regulations from the government caused you to lower them, isn't that true? >> congressman, actually, that is because of the innovation that has occurred --
>> exactly. exactly, cap and trade didn't pass. not because of regulations from government. you guys did that on your own because it's just the right thing to do, and it's good business, right? >> that's right, congressman. as i mentioned before, every energy source has to meet that energy trilemma. affordable, reliable, and cleaner. and that's what this industry has delivered. >> ten months ago, was the united states of america energy independent, mr. somers? >> what i would say, congressman, is the united states was north american energy independent. and well on our way to american energy independent. >> we were exporting a lot, too, weren't we? >> we were. unfortunately, over the course of the last few months, we were actually importing oil into the united states for the first time in a while. >> that was my next question. in ten months' time, we went from being energy independent to now we're importing oil. and we had this spectacle of the president of the united states begging opec to increase
production. is that accurate? >> congressman, the u.s. was a net petroleum exporter for the first time since 1958 in the year 2020. and we were very proud of being the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas as a consequence of the innovations and the technological revolution that has occurred in the american oil and gas industry. >> yeah, i mean, i can't say it better than our colleague from florida who spoke a few minutes ago, but in ten months' time, we went from energy independence to the president of the united states begging opec to increase production, to now we're having to import some of our energy needs. we went from $2 gas to $3, $4, $ -- i was in california a week and a half ago, $5 gas. i saw it there, which costs families hundreds of dollars a month in transportation costs. i mean, i think mr. crabtree in his testimony says he still hasn't found a job, so not only
did he lose his job because of the crazy energy policies, his family is paying more for their transportation costs and other energy needs. and what do democrats do today? they come in and badger companies, tell them to further reduce in some cases production of oil and gas, which is only going to exacerbate the problem. it's literally maybe the craziest thing i have ever heard. but that's where they're at. i don't think the american people are with them, though, and tats the good news. i want to thank those companies who are actually increasing production. mr. somers, i want to thank you for your testimony today. mr. crabtree, you deserve better. and hopefully, hopefully with some changes that i think are coming, because i don't think the american people are going to tolerate this, hopefully you'll be employed real soon, and we'll get these energy prices back where the families of this great country deserve to have them. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin, is recognized for five minutes.
>> thank you, madam chair. madam chair, donald trump's party of denialism is engaged in campaigns of propaganda and disinformation about climate change, which he said was a chinese hoax, covid-19, which he said would disappear by easter of last year. the 2020 presidential election, which he continues to claim that he won despite the fact that joe biden beat him by more than 7 million votes. 306 to 232 in the electoral college, and of course, the violent january 6th insurrection, which he says really took place on november 3rd, and adding for good measure that the pro-trump rioters treated our police officers with hugs and kisses, which is presumably how more than 140 of them ended up injured with broken noses, necks, vertebrae, arms, legs, and so on. trump's party has turned the denial of facts, science, and
history into standard operating procedure. and we see the idealogical machinery of lies working overtime today. but as astronomer neil degrasse tyson has observed, the great thing about science is it's true whether or not you believe in it. so they don't believe in science, facts, or u.s. constitution. they don't believe in our elections anymore. they positioned themselves outside of the constitutional order, attacking our constitutional order, but we believe in science and facts and the constitution. now, the lancet report on the health effects of climate change told us last week that this is a civilizational emergency right now. not in the future, today. rising temperatures, says "the washington post," have led to higher rates of heat illness, causing farm workers to collapse in the fields and elderly people to die in their apartments. insects with diseases have multiplied and spread towards the poles. the amount of plant pollen in
the air is increasing, worsening asthma and other pesrespiratory conditions. on and on, report drought, report forest fires, report hurricanes of increasing frequency and velocity. we cannot afford any more propaganda campaigns by corporations subsidized by the government against public policies designed to save humanity. the first amendment does not protect fraudulent commercial speech despite what you heard today. we go back and check out mcintyre v. ohio elections commission stating clearly that the government may and does punish fraud directly. check out the central hudson case, declaring that if commercial speech is fraudulent, it is no longer protected by the first amendment and it may be regulated by the government. mr. lawler, do you accept that the first amendment does not
accept fraudulent commercial speech? >> i wouldn't say i'm an expert on that particular topic. >> mr. wirth, do you accept that the first amendment does not protect fraudulent commercial speech? >> congressman, i am not a constitutional scholar. and i would trust those who are. >> ms. watkins, do you accept that the first amendment does not protect fraudulent commercial speech? >> congressman, i'm not an expert on the legal aspects of this, sorry. >> well, mr. woods, your company has filed several briefs about this, trying to use the first amendment as a sword in litigation against massachusetts attorney general. do you accept that the first amendment does not protect fraudulent speech? >> i'm not a lawyer, sir. >> are you aware of the litigation that exxon brought against healy in federal
district court in texas? >> i'm aware we have had several suits filed against us and we have hired lawyers to defend our rights. >> use your common sense, and i appreciate the fact, but using your common sense, do you think a company has the right to lie, for example, about climate change and then use the first amendment as a camouflage and a shield against litigation? >> i don't believe companies should lie, and i would tell you that we do not do that. >> leaving that aside because there might be a factual dispute on that, but do you believe that if a company were to lie in commercial speech about something like climate change, it should not be protected by the first amendment? >> i don't believe companies should lie. >> okay. and what if a company were to lie? is that protected by the first amendment? >> i think the legal system and our court systems are designed to deal with those types of issues. >> yes, indeed. in fact, you filed a brief in
san francisco versus exxon, filed in texas district court. and i would like to submit for the record the opinion by new york district court judge dismissing exxon's first amendment claims. i would hope as we move forward every person in america and every person on earth has an interest in us defeating this climate nightmare, and i would hope that the corporations which have received a lot of bounty from the u.s. taxpayers at the very least would not lie about climate change and would not try to drape themselves in the first amendment in order to protect their lies. i yield back to you, madam chair. >> gentleman's time expires. at the request of our panelists, first, we're going to hear from the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grossman. he's recognized for five minutes. following that, we'll have a ten-minute break at the request of our panelists today. >> thank you. that was kind of a scary last
couple minutes there. mr. somers, you know, when you google this stuff, at least i remember being a child growing up in the milwaukee area, and it seems to me both the water and even more the air are just so much cleaner today than they were at the time. could you give us some general comments about the amount of pollutants from cars, the amount of pollutants from energy plants, even coal plant -- replaced with coal plants, as far as the cleanliness of the air today? compared to maybe 50 years ago. >> congressman grossman, thank you for your question. and it's great to be with you here today. you know, first of all, i think it's important to acknowledge that the united states leads the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. and again, that is because of what this industry has done to produce more here in the united states. as i also said, the united
states accounts for about 12.6% of world emissions, and that number continues to go down. while china's number is 32.5% of world emissions, and that number continues to go up. which is one of the reasons why we need global solutions as it relates to climate change. additionally, the emissions that have come from the electricity sector are at their lowest level since 1978. and that is because of the fuel switch that has gone on from coal to natural gas. >> holy cow. just a second here. you mean despite the fact the population of this country has gone through the roof and the amount of economic activity has gone through the roof, we have less pollutants coming from the energy sector than 40-plus years ago? >> congressman, in fact, obviously, the united states population has continued to
increase, and world population is expected to grow significantly over the next many years. and even the international energy agency expects that if every country were to meet its paris climate goals, the world would still get 46% of its energy from oil and gas. so we need to make sure that we're making proper investments in the united states for that oil and gas because i believe, and i think most americans believe, that it's important that we're getting our energy here at home rather than being dependent on foreign sources of energy where they're not produced nearly in the way -- in the environmentally responsible way they're produced here in the united states. >> okay, i'm sure we have a bunch of world travelers up there today. i'm looking here on my phone, and it shows that los angeles, which i thought was, you know,
kind of a polluting city, has just a fraction of the amount of pollutants we find in shanghai, for example. you guys get around the world? we can start with you, mr. somers, but other people, do you notice that pollution is more or less as you get around the globe compared to the united states? >> well, congressman, as you know, we live in an environment where what happens in china affects the united states. in fact, the air in china today will be in california two days from now, which is why it's important that we address this issue from a global perspective. while focusing on what we can do as a country to lower our emissions over time. >> okay. are there -- i'm told in other cities, china, maybe in mexico city, india, pollutants in their major metropolitan areas are a lot higher than the united states. is that true? >> that is the case,
congressman. mainly because they have not been afforded the same fuel switch that has occurred in the united states from coal to natural gas. >> somebody told me they're building over 100 coal plants in china right now. is that true? >> that is my understanding as well, congressman. what we want to do here in the united states is we have abundant supplies of natural gas, and we want to make sure we're exporting american environmental progress to the rest of the world. we can do that through liquefied natural gas. we have the resources. we want to share that environmental progress with the rest of the world. >> well, some people like to slow down economic progress here and kind of push that economic progress to other countries. is that going to result in worldwide pollutants going up or down as we kind of push manufacturing to other countries? >> congressman, as you know, for most of the world, the choice is
not between coal and renewables. it is a choice between coal and natural gas, which is why we think it's important that the united states continues to produce -- >> okay, just one more thing for our panel. you guys all have a good story to tell. don't be afraid to tell people how much cleaner things are than the past. it doesn't do you any good to get all woke on us. thanks. >> the gentleman yields back. at the request of our witnesses, we will take a brief ten-minute break. the committee stands in recess for ten minutes.
all the witnesses have returned. the gentleman from illinois, representative quigley, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman, thank you to those involved today. at this point, perhaps it's helpful to put some of this into perspective and ask a question on the overall issue of safety. i serve on the house select committee on intelligence, and we're often briefed on climate change as a threat to our national security. the pentagon refers to climate change as a, quote, threat
multiplier, and recent reports from the department of homeland security, the intelligence community, the national security council and armed services outline the emerging threat of climate change and its ability to wreak havoc, economic havoc, and destabilization in regions. initiate and fuel conflicts, and violence. the hearing has helped document a long-standing and concerted effort to muddy the scientific waters on the threat of climate change and substantive action to prevent it, not the least of which was exxon's internal reports confirmed human global caused warming publicly took the opposite view in a 2017 study of exxon's communications systema misled audiences about climate change, but i think the person who put that all best, dr. rag,
he served a decade as senior analyst, and senior scientist in the bureau of intelligence and research at the u.s. department of state as a director of environment and natural resources. he said and i quote if climate change poses a risk to national security at the pentagon and intelligence community again reminded us last week, shouldn't we view climate disinformation through the same lens as well? i think those before us today have to ask themselves as this investigation goes forward, we need to put it under that prism. let me make a second point, and that is to remind ourselves of the risk and danger involved in these operations. i guess i'd be remiss not talking about a location, literally in my backyard in whiting, indiana, the whiting refinery, one of the largest in the u.s., and its operator bp.
in 1991, the residents of east chicago noticed oil oozing into the basement, a sub, in 2012, bp had to pay an $8 million penalty and spent 4 million on pollution control. in 2014, whiting discharged a slug of crude oil into lake michigan, close to where children swim and wildlife lived, after bp announced it would double its process at the whiting facility. earlier this year, district court judge ruled that bp repeatedly violated limits on emission, specifically particularly air emission between 2015 and 2018, they conducted nine emission tests and failed all nine, demonstrating that whiting was spewing soot into the chicagoland area. what are bp's plans for addressing the house effect of
the presence and communities where the whiting refinery is located? >> thank you for the question, congressman. so, you know, i'm aware of the incidents that have occurred at whiting over time, and what i can share is we take the safety of the community, the safety of our employees very important and that includes the safety of the water and the air that's in the area. what i can say is that we are dedicating resources to correct any deficiencies at the whiting refinery that we find. as you know, the industry is focused on this. we're focused on it. and it is one of our largest refineries in the united states, and the commitment that we have is to lower emissions at the refinery over time, and to protect all of the individuals that work in and around the refinery. >> you know, i think given the limited time we have, what makes sense is if you could submit to the committee the improvements
that you deem necessary, where you are in the time line to make those improvements, and when you expect those to be completed, if you would commit to that, please. >> yes, we will follow up with the actions that we're taking. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, the gentleman from texas, mr. cloyd is recognized for five minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent to submit a few articles for the record. >> without objection. >> these articles with a pin stroke, president joe biden cancelled the keystone xl pipeline projects. biden lists u.s. sanctions on major russian pipelines. while western nations kill energy, china builds coal plants by the dozen. china is planning to build 33 new coal fired power plant. russia projects oil output near
post soviet highs in 2022. europe has become a hostage to russia over energy, analysts warn. europe warns its gas prices surge will drive up food costs. biden asks opec to up oil production while limiting u.s. energy production. qatar petroleum signed a 15-year deal with china. boosting l and g productions. places a $760 million order with china for liquid gas ships. energy costs are stoking inflation, look at u.s. gas prices. home heating sticker shock, the cost of natural gas is up by 180%. food prices poised to surge with fertilizer prices as the highest in years. thank you.
it's been said, of course, many times in this committee in a number of hearings that we are facing a national climate emergency, and i think it's important to put this conversation in context because of course any discussion on any climate solution must be a global one. we know the environment doesn't stop at our borders, and we have to be thoughtful in that when we are enacting policies and certainly discussing potential solutions. i think it's also important that we be able to have the conversation without the hysteria from the extreme left. often there's a sad effort to get americans to be fearful in order to get americans to buy into increased government control in their lives and virtually every single aspect, and i would submit one more article, climate-related deaths have plunged 99.9% since 1932. the world is not going to end in ten years. people are not dying in record numbers because of climate change. yes, we do want clean air and
water, and yes we should continue to make technological improvements to meet those goals, but mr. crabtree, you are not a policy wonk, and therefore not breathing the d.c. air, and so i think you can give us the boots on the ground of an american perspective. we have a number of crises right now, we can talk about inflation, the price of food and gas, the crime epidemic in our communities as a result of defund the police movement and open borders. we can talk about china's nuclear capable hyper sonic missile. these things are also threats to the nation. you mentioned you're concerned about pricing, being able to meet the mortgage payment next month. i imagine like most americans and you can tell me if this is true or not, you rate climate change somewhere between the new national emergency of the parents at school board meetings and being able to meet your
mortgage, is that correct? >> being able to meet my mortgage and take care of my family is my number one priority. i do have concerns about the climate, but i think it's important that we realize we were talking about the negative effects of fossil fuels, but we've got to realize the benefits they provided this country over the years. >> yes, sir. >> if you look at life expectancy in this country -- >> i only have a couple more minutes, so i appreciate that thought. i only have a couple more minutes. i'm going to continue if i can. a u.s. national intelligence council report said this, it was put out in 2005. it said in terms of size, speed and directional flow, the transfer of global wealth and economic power is now underway, roughly from west to east. it's without precedent in modern history and the shift derives from two sources, first, increases in oil and commodity prices, have wind fall profits for gulf states and russia.
lower costs combined with government policies, in the manufacturing and service industries overseas, and so basically it said there's a massive shift going from the american people to nations overseas, and it was because of two reasons, one was oil and gas profits going overseas, and two, manufacturing going overseas. that report went on to say the transfer was inevitable, it could not be stopped yet the last administration. the trump administration showed that those two things could be reversed and give a great wind fall to the american people. the world's demand on energy is growing. that's a good thing. that's people coming out of poverty, people finding mobility, people having fuel to heat their homes many times for the first time. mr. summers, generally speaking does the u.s. produce energy cleaner or more responsibly than other nations that top producers of energy, russia, saudi arabia, iraq, qatar, china, where does the u.s. rank. >> the gentleman's time is
expired. >> the first two minutes was submitting reports. articles for the record. >> that's still your time. >> i believe the rules -- >> the gentleman may answer your question. >> madame chair, that's not supposed to count as my time. >> i didn't think that submitting letters for the record counting against your questioning time. >> it does. but i'll grant the gentleman a little more time. the gentleman may answer your question. >> where does the u.s. rank among some of the world leaders in producing energy responsibly. >> congressman, thank you for your question. based on the data that we have seen, the united states continues to produce these products in a way that is safer, better, and more responsibly produced from an environmental perspective than any other country on earth. >> real quick, has the u.s. reduction in oil and gas in exports led to a surge in other
nations in the middle east and asia adopting green technology. >> congressman, as an organization we of course are focused on continuing to produce in an environmentally safe way these products that are demanded by world consumers. >> i think what we see in some of the articles that i mentioned before, what we see, as we reduce production actually the world finds other sources that are less clean than united states production to meet the demand. i would suggest that the greater the demand that u.s. production is on the world market, the better it is for our green objectives. one more question, and ms. clark, if you could answer this, any discussion about -- >> very quickly. >> any discussion about green energy solutions, it's very important we recognize they require natural resources and that is rare earth minerals. could you speak to the u.s.'s, how reliant is the u.s. on other nations for rare earth minerals,
and what nation controls most of the rare earth minerals, 80 to 90%. >> thank you, congressman. i don't have much time. i believe that china controls too much of the supply of these critical minerals, and it's why we have to balance national security, economic security while combatting climate change together. >> and the u.s. is what percent reliant on rare earth minerals. >> the gentleman's time has expired. you have asked your question. >> it's 100%. thank you, madame chair. >> the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, madame chair. the fossil fuel executives appearing before us today climb that their companies support reaching the goals of the paris agreement, a water shed international environmental treaty as we know, but the committee looked into the lobbying closures filed by your company, and found that your rhetoric of support for the
parish agreement doesn't match reality when it comes to your lobbying. we know what it looks like when your industry really cares about federal initiatives and your companies want to see it succeed, so let me start with you: your company claims the paris agreement is among your highest priorities. the first sentence says chevron supports the paris agreement end quote. i notice that you also touted chevron's support for the paris agreement in the written testimony to this committee. since the start of negotiations on the paris agreement in 2015, chevron has reported 986 total instances of federal lobbying. mr. worth, do you know how many times chevron reported lobbying on the paris agreement? >> congressman, that is information that i don't have in front of me.
but it's certainly -- >> let me tell you what it is, not once, not a single time. not one of those 986 instances of lobbying mentions the paris agreement. now when i compare that to an issue that we know your company really cares about, corporate tax breaks. mr. worth, do you know how many lobbying reports your company filed that included lobbying on tax issues? >> congressman, i don't have that information in front of me. 144, that's the answer. you didn't lobby once on the 28 bills on the paris agreement when former president trump was debating withdrawing from the agreement in 2017, you never lobbying the white house. chevron has spent more than $54 million on lobbying on a lot of other things since 2015. so clearly when your company cares about an issue, you lobby on it, and we can see that in the report.
mr. law ler, bp's 2020 shareholder report pledged to advocate for fundamental and rapid progress towards the paris climate goals. since 2015, the company has reported 488 total instances of legislative lobbying. mr. lawler, how many of those reports mention bp lobbying on the paris agreement? >> i don't have that specific number, but -- >> the answer is one. that amounts to 0.2% of your federal lobbying during that time. by comparison, you lobbied 21 times on the 2017 tax cuts bill. and i'm running out of time. i want to list for the record some information about the other organizations represented here today. since 2015, api has filed 153 lobbying reports aimed at
cutting taxes for oil and gas companies. but just one lobbying report on the paris agreement. exxon has spent $67 million on lobbying since 2015. these are astronomical sums, by the way, just as an aside. 1,543 instances of legislative lobbying that exxon reported, only one mentioned the paris agreement. but exxon lobbied on tax legislation 344 times. so once on the paris agreement, which you claim is a priority, and something you're focused on as a company. 344 times on tax legislation, and shell, responsible for 470 instances of legislative lobbying addressed the paris agreement only five times. that's better than the rest of the crowd, but that's not so
great in itself. but on the tax cut bill, shell lobbied 31 times. so there's no strong public record reflected here in terms of support for the paris agreement, regardless of the claims you make and regardless of the rhetoric we hear day in and day out. we follow the money to determine what the priorities are, and they're headed in a different direction. it's time we start judging these companies, your companies, by your actions, not by the rhetoric, and with that, madame chair, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back, the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. first of all, i think it's been shameful how the other side wants to demonize the oil and gas industry. i'm proud of the oil and gas industry, the innovators drop new technologies, provide a higher standard of living and lots of jobs and economic activity throughout our country.
i want to go back a little bit in history just for a quick review. you know, how this all started. go back to the late 1800s, the industrial revolution, and we had andrew car neg gee seal, refinery at jp morgan, thomas edison, electricity, and now the industrial revolution, and their innovation and entrepreneurship put us on a path to become a global power in this world that's made us the ability to do lots of good things. we stopped tyranny in the 1940s, we've helped countries around the world improve their standard of living and quality of life, and just recently we brought the world on covid vaccines so it's an exceptional country, and part of it, a big play in that is our great companies and just revert back to john k. rockefeller, started with kerosene, and one of the by-products was gasoline,
and combustion engine, they figured out what they could do, and henry ford, and all that took off, but then they had to break up it those monopolies and that probably was a good thing, and the companies represented here today, madame chair, are a spin off of the standard oil company that spin off in my great state of ohio. and i'm proud of that, and what they're going to do in this century to help us transition environmentally friendly, but supply affordable energy available to our consumers, and provide the power to move our country forward into new technologies, hydrogen, renewables or technologies we don't know about yet. i think it's amazing the chair of the subcommittee trying to hold these ceos to account, essentially make a pledge to lower production, and i'm glad to see at least one of them, mr. woods from exxon mobil, we're
going to increase production because demand is out there. and he did say we're going to work to lower emissions and i'm disappointed that the chair failed to recognize that and tried to demonize them. a couple of other things. i always hear, and it came up earlier in the hearing today about how the oil and gas industry gets tax subsidies, it's not fair. i looked into this a little bit ago, and i can't really find it. they get anything all other businesses get. i'll give you an example. some of the anti-oil and gas peel say if you go out and drill a hole, and the legitimate expenses they call it a subsidy. i go out in my businesses and do
things, and you have business expenses and you expense that. i believe that's the case, and there's no real subsidies that go into the oil and gas industry. nobody has told me a real legitimate one. mr. summer, oil and gas industry, you know, we've gone from $60 oil to just last year to $85 for oil, and you see the price of gas. what's the status with our oil rigs, exploration in the country. what's happened in the last ten months, mr. summers? >> congressman, thank you very much for your question, and as you know the state of ohio, our home state has a very robust oil and natural gas industry and incredible history of development. in fact, it is because of that development in your state that we've got to the point where we're producing natural gas that we can share with the rest of the world to meet environmental challenges, not just here at home but in the rest of the
world. u.s. petroleum demand in the united states reached a record high in the month of september. unfortunately supply has not been able to keep pace. domestic oil production in september was down by 1.9 million barrels a day from the level of 2019. >> is that because there's been more pressure put on and our innovators aren't going out and doing what they were doing a year ago because the fear of more burdensome regulations, the cancelling of federal permits on land and waters. >> congressman, thank you for your question. there are a number of different reasons, including the worker shortage occurring in the united states but of course federal regulations and announcements have played a significant role as well. when the first announcement out of the administration was cancelling the keystone xl pipeline, and the second
announcement was cancelling development on federal lands and leases on those federal lands and permitting on those federal lands, it sending a chilling effect across the country where this administration was headed in terms of development of resources here in the united states. >> i'm out of time. i guess just to close, what the future looks for higher prices, demands increasing and the supplies more dependent on peck and russia and everybody else. i yield back. >> the gentle lady from michigan, ms. talib is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. woods, did exxon help fund one alaska, yes or no? >> i'm not familiar with tha. >> one alaska was to pose alaska's valid to require oil companies to pay their fair share. it received nearly $21 million in contributions, 94% of one alaska's contributions came from five oil and gas companies
including exxon and bp, i would like to submit for the record, madame chair, oil companies spend big to try to defeat alaska's tax proposal. >> without objection. >> same thing in colorado in 2018 where measure, this is resident-led ballot measure to ban oil and gas extraction within a 1/2 mile of homes, schools and waterways on the ballot. that front group was called colorado rising. and that one, again, resident-led, that one i'm not going to bother to ask if you're familiar with because i know the answer. many of you, all of you helped fund some of these. chevron specifically funded $33 million behind a subsidiary, noble energy contributed to that front group. mr. summers, are you familiar with energy citizens? >> i am familiar with energy citizens, congresswoman. >> i'm glad you are, a front group to american petroleum group, uses it to flood facebook
with hundreds of ads, opposing hundreds of climate provisions in the build back better act. you spent nearly half a million dollars in misleading ads since august. when you look at the ads, y'all, the public, when you look at these ads they don't say exxon, bp, you all hide and deceive the public. so oil and gas companies can go claiming that they are pro-environment while opposing sensible pro environment measures in secret. lies, plain and simple. madame chair, in michigan, and i would like to submit for the record as well. michigan utilities front groups, misleading campaigns ahead of a vote on energy legislation. >> without objection. >> that consumers energy used a front group called alliance for michigan power and citizens for energizing michigan's economy respectively to target my residents and their amazing work, amazing work. they're the ones fundraising for this, madame chair, to support
increased rooftop solar energy. that's how they wanted to cut the energy costs so they can make a living, so they can provide a quality life for their families by reducing their reliance on corporate polluters. mike, when are you going to cut the checks? >> congresswoman, i'm not sure i understand the context of your question. >> that's okay. >> excuse me, i'd like to correct something that you have been provided with some inaccurate information. doles energy was not a subsidiary of 2018. >> you can submit it for the record, sir. you can submit it to the committee. chevron has environmental abuses in 31 countries worldwide owing 50 billion in judgments and settlement debts that you all have. mike, when are you going to cut
the check? >> congresswoman, i'm not familiar with the numbers used. >> when are you going to cut the $50 billion check you owe, it went through the courts, you owe $50 million to communities in 31 countries. >> congresswoman, i'd be happy to take a look at the source for your information on this, and get back to you on it, because i have no understanding of what you're -- >> i have a message, you made what, $29 million in poisoning the planet. mr. worth, you can't arrest us all. you can't arrest the truth. do you understand what i'm trying to say to you? >> congresswoman, i'm not exactly following. >> so you're targeting actions against the human rights lawyer, what you did there, your company, maybe through subsidiaries, i don't know. i just want to remind you there are more of us than there are of you. you can poison the planet to make money, but we're going to defend the planet so we can live. and we will win.
so, you know, i need chevron to cut the check. you owe $50 billion to indigenous communities and people that you harmed for profit. this is not about vilifying these companies. this is about accountability. you all know we're all paying the costs from our public health to our environment. the actions that you take, and you're hiding behind subsidiaries and it's wrong. these are residents putting ballot initiatives on their local ballots to make a difference to save our planet. get out of the way so they can do the work for the people and the community they live in. thank you, and i yield. >> gentle lady yields back. >> madame chair, mr. higgins is recognized for five minutes. >> point of order. point of order. >> what is your point of order? >> i wanted to say to point a fact with what representative talib said about colorado proposition 112. opposition to that measure was deep, which included john
hickenlooper, the senator, as well as our former colleague governor gerry connolly. >> -- jerry pollock. >> that is not a valid point of order. the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins is now recognized for five minutes. >> my, my, my. good lord help us to be protected from this threat from within. american pate patriots are done with career politicians insanity. we are nauseated by the continuous attacks on working americans and american industry. this entire debacle of a hearing today has been reflective of the exact reasons why my leagues across the aisle will lose their majority status very soon. we have a smashed economy. we've witnessed a disgraceful
retreat from taliban terrorists overseas, abandoning americans. we have a disintegrated southern border, we have unbelievable inflation, medical oppression. we have parents, american parents being threatened by our own doj by having the audacity to exercise their first amendment rights to assemble and address grievance. we have the companies brought before us today, american men and women for a public beating by the democrats on this committee. they have done incredible work to actually lower emissions. these companies have worked with scientists and engineers not politicians to reduce methane by 70% between 2011 and 2019. they have used innovation to clean up their industry on their own, their facilities and plants are incredibly clean and safe. it's abhorrent that my colleagues across the aisle have called a so-called hearing today
to demonize american industry whose products make modern life possible. petroleum products are in everything, the clothes on our back, our computers, our phones, equipment used by military. all medical supplies and equipment. paint, curtains, fabrics and appliances in our homes. fishing rods, lures, sports men. everything all sports products. it's insane. what my colleagues across the aisle are putting these good american men and women through and attacking american workers as our country dissolves around us. you push patriots too far. you've got abridge too far. won't take it anymore. mr. woods, ms. watkins, mr. worth and mr. lawler, i'm about to ask you about a pledge, our
chairwoman asked you for a pledge, i think it was an absurd request but i'm going to ask you about a pledge. mr. woods, do you pledge today to endeavor to continue leading the world in emissions reductions and provide an abundant affordable energy through innovations? i say again so you can think about it, do you pledge today to endeavor to continue leading the world in emissions reductions and providing abundant affordable energy through innovations? >> we try to do that today, and we will continue to try to do that going into the future. >> ms. watkins, same question, do you pledge today for shell to endeavor to continue leading the world in emissions reductions and providing abundant affordable energy through innovations. >> congressman, yes, and i would add clean energy to that. >> thank you, ma'am. >> mr. worth, for chevron, do you pledge today to continue to endeavor leading the world in emissions reductions through
providing abundant, affordable energy, and with innovation. >> yes, i do. >> thank you, sir. mr. lawler, bp america, do you pledge today to endeavor to continue leading the world in emissions reductions and providing abundant, affordable energy for the world through innovations. >> thank you, congressman. we will continue, and i pledge to lower emissions over time. we're trying to help the world reach net zero, and we'll continue to provide the energy that the world needs and increasingly green, and we have a number of projects in motion today that will support those objectives. >> thank you. madame chair, i happily yield the balance of my time so we can get through this display of partisan attack on american workers and american industry. i yield. >> the gentleman yields back.
the gentle lady from california, katie porter is recognize for five minutes. >> thank you, madame chair. we've heard a lot about future plans for investment in renewable energy today. ms. watkins, shell's 2020 annual report called for between 19 and $22 billion in near term spending. i'm representing that with this container of m&ms each recommending 50 million in spend. how much on inflatable gas and chemical operations? >> i think you just said we're going to be spending between 18 and $20 billion this year. >> that's near term on total spending. how much on oil, gas and chemical operations? >> we're going to be spending. >> according to your annual report, 16 to 17 billion for oil, gas and chemicals with another $3 billion for
marketing. how much is shell planning to spend on renewable energy? >> this year we'll be spending between 2 and $3 billion. >> 2 and 3 billion on renewables and energy solutions. in your testimony, you said quote meeting the demand for reliable energy while simultaneously addressing climate change is a huge undertaking and a defining channel of our time. shell has made these promises before. shell pledged to spend 6 billion between 2017 and 2020 on renewable energy. how much did shell actually spend? the answer is about half. ms. watkins, does this look like a huge undertaking to you? >> congresswoman, what i can tell you is that there needs to be both a demand and supply of clean energy, which is why we're working closely with our customers so that that demand increases over time, and we are
ready to supply. >> to me, this does not look like an adequate response to one of the defining challenges of our time. this is green washing. shell is trying to fool people into thinking it's addressing the climate crisis, but what it's actually doing is to continue to put money into sos -- fossil fuels. mr. summers, do you recognize the following statement, ban on federal leasing would derail decades of u.s. energy progress? >> i do. congresswoman. >> that's your statement. how many of the department of interior's approved and ready to drill permits are currently unused? >> congresswoman, it takes a long time to develop these leases that oil and gas -- >> i appreciate that mr. summers. i'm just asking how many permits are unused. >> congresswoman, i think there's a fundamental misunderstanding as to how these -- >> reclaiming my time. mr. summers, there are 7,700
permits unused. how many acres of public land are leased by fossil fuel companies and not even used yet, just available for drilling whenever you decide? >> congresswoman, again, i think you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to how this process works and the time and resources -- >> reclaiming my time, 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. the american petroleum institute even opposed more leasing on our lands. they sued to stop it 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
resource in this country is essential to ensure the energy security of our country, and -- >> reclaiming my time. mr. lawler do you support a pause? >> the administration -- >> it's our hope that the pause ends soon. we think it's important to go forward. >> i thank you for your answer. the answer is no. mr. woods, do you support a pause on new federal and gas leases. >> no. >> ms. watkins. >> no, i do not. >> you have 13.9 million acres 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 crow need, iowa, colorado,
virginia, our land belongs to the american people, not to big oil. when you lobby and sue so you can take more of our public land, you're saying too much is never enough. the american people are tired of this charade. i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. the gentleman from texas mr. sessions is recognized for five minutes. >> madame chairman, thank you very much, and i apologize to our witnesses that were called and asked to take part in this today. as chairman of the rules committee for six years, i never witnessed nor would have allowed this kind of intimidation that has taken place on people who we invited to come and provide open answers. on top of that, they raised their hand to tell the truth, and they were repeatedly stopped rather than allowing them to offer their explanations of things they do.
i apologize to our witnesses and want to thank them as energy company executives to make sure that america has a sound supply of energy that is available and reliable. where we can avoid the things that happened under president jimmy carter where that same attack took place. we had long lines of people in the middle of the winter attempting to get what they needed. each of you represent an industry that helps to provide a solid, cost effective supply. republicans have had issues with energy and that's why just a few years ago we opened up the american market. we opened up the american market to the world, and i believe this helped not just consumers but i believe it helped other people
in the world. mr. summers, have you ever heard of a term called lie heap? >> yes, sir. >> do you know what lie heap is and what it is used for as a federal program? >> i do. lie heap is a well established program that helps low income individuals afford heat in their homes during the winter. >> and it's primarily used in the northeast? >> that is correct. >> can you tell me what the product is that is dumped in to ensure this energy would be available in the northeast? >> well, congressman, as you know, most of the, you know, power in this country, particularly for eat and air-conditioning, or 40% of it now comes from natural gas. >> and lie heat, is that natural gas in the northeast? >> congressman, home heating in
the united states, in the northeast in particular, home heating, a lot of it is from actually oil. >> diesel. is that correct? or what kind of home heating fuel is it? >> it is home heating oil. >> home heating oil. >> so what has the rest of the country done that would be of benefit and responsibility for heating their homes? >> well, congressman, as an industry, we have worked hard to develop these resources here at home so that we don't have to get them from volatile regimes overseas, and that includes, of course, the home heating oil that is used to heat homes in the northeast. >> primarily what i'm looking for, you're the one giving the answer is natural gas is abundant supply in the united
states, is that correct? >> that is correct. in fact, it is 40% of the heat and air-conditioning and power that americans get in their home comes from natural gas, and there has been a significant fuel switch that has occurred over the course of the last many years as a consequence of the natural gas and oil revolution here in the united states where we've been able to produce more here in the united states, and we have not had to import those products from overseas. >> using the term clean energy, how clean is natural gas compared to home heating fuel? >> natural gas is, well, 50% more clean than what it has replaced, coal, and that has been, you know, a real boon to the american environment, and has allowed us to cut emissions over time to generational lows. >> mr. summers, have you ever
heard of this committee or another committee holding a hearing about lie heat, and how dirty that is as compared to natural clean, natural gas? >> i'm not familiar with such a hearing, sir. >> you would think that that would be part of the agenda is to make their own territory cleaner in the winter? madame chairman, i've used my time. i think i made my point. i'd like to yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california, is recognized for five minutes. mr. desaulnier. >> my comments i put in the context of it's been my privilege for 32 years to serve in public office in northern california, home to five oil refineries, significant part of our economy, significant part of
our revenue stream for state and local government, for our school districts. mr. worth, i don't know if you're a constituent, but i know some of your predecessors have been. your headquarters is in the county i represent. i put that in the context, i've also served in the bay area quality lands district, and was appointed by pete wilson, a republican, to the california air resources board, and served under three governors, two republicans and one democrat. so i remind folks that it was a california republican who signed the clean air act, richard nixon, ronald reagan, and another republican, and a conservative republican governor of california started the zev program, the zero emissions vehicle program which i have been intimately involved with auto manufacturers and also to a degree with other regulations
with the heavy duty manufacturers. i have been in at funerals of constituents of mine who have died while working in these refineries. i don't know if you have been in any of those. five of them died. one of them died because the company, not yours, but somebody who's still -- a company that competes with you was appealing a citation from cal osha to replace walky talkies that cost less than a thousand dollars. michael landsman who was trying to use that to tell the folks back in the command unit that they should shut down the hydro cracker, they couldn't hear him in time because so he was eviscerated. that's a long way of saying i have a long history in this field. you provide value, but it's time to change. and we don't have time from an economic standpoint or an
environmental standpoint to haggle over this, but we've got to remember history, and we've got to rebuild trust. mr. summers, the viewpoint that all of this innovation and our reductions have happened because of private industry is just misleading at best. mr. jordan's comments, mr. growthman's comments. our regulations and the california waiver has propelled this innovation, environmentally and from a worker safety standpoint, and it's been my pleasure and very difficult negotiations to be able to work with the private sector to get those. so i wish we could really focus on what's in front of us. an energy industry that's important to us but whose time is passing. mr. grothman's comments and the ideas that we're going back to coal in china, i would just remind folks that china is adding 100,000 charging stations in hydrogen fuel stations a month and is going up
exponentially. the future is not in fossil fuels, and climate carbon intense industries. it's in renewables, and alternatives. and even if we didn't have the existential threat to the climate, that would be an economic reality. it's more efficient. mr. woods, i would like to read a quote, and i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter these into the records a series of articles from the l.a. times, climate action news, and correspondents that myself, and congressman lieu and mr. welsh have been part of with exxon mobil. >> without exception. >> thank you. >> we'll provide that information. so the quote from the "l.a. times" article dated october 23rd, 2015, the headline is how exxon are went from leader to skeptic on climate change research. throughout much of the 1980s, quote exxon earned a public
reputation as a pioneer in climate change research, funded economic research and conducted its own high-tech experiments exploring the science behind global warming, but by 1990 the company in public took a different posture, mr. woods, while still funding select research it poured millions into a campaign that questioned climate change over the next 15 years. it took out permanent ads in the "washington post," the "wall street journal," and "the new york times" condemning the climate change scientists, marking an uncertain, and argued regulations aimed at curbing global warming were ill considered, and premature. how did one of the world's largest oil companies, a leader in climate research become one of its biggest skeptics? one of your employees, the manager of science and technology department actually told the board that in 1989 while the consequences of denial. mr. woods, would you work in
2015, mr. welsh, mr. liu and i met in mr. liu's office with your representative, and we asked for a time line and a response from you on these allegations. it's now 2021. we have asked repeatedly for this information from you to hear your side of the story while litigation has gone on. we haven't gotten a response. would you commit to me personally today to follow through and give us what your representative promised us six years ago? >> the gentleman's time has expired but the gentleman may answer the question. >> i'm not aware of the requests that you reference, but we will follow up with you. i'll commit to follow up with you. >> well, it's a real comment that you're unaware of it. thank you, madame chair. >> the gentleman yields back, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. keller is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you to the many witnesses for being here today. the u.s. energy information
administration published the winter fuels outlook for the upcoming months and their forecast is grim. half of americans use natural gas to heat their homes and they are projected to pay about 30% higher energy prices this winter compared to last. depending on weather and demand, americans could be paying, some estimates, 55 to 60% more to heat their homes and businesses than they were last year. those that will be most affected by these outrageous energy prices will be low income wage earners and those on fixed incomes like our senior citizens. i would ask unanimous consent to include the report into the record. >> without objection. >> mr. crabtree, as a welder, what was your experience when you learned and when the keystone pipeline was shut down,
and do you know how many of your fellow employees, workers, lost their jobs? >> well, at the time when the pipeline was shut down, it was in the early stages of the construction, so it wasn't a lot. it's the fact that there would have been 11,000 union members working had that project been completed. i know the new administration has taken about 80% of our members who were without work during peak construction season this year. >> how does that make you feel that the president of the united states said that you can't build a pipeline here in america but allows the russian to operate two pipelines? >> well, it was definitely frustrating to say the least. >> i can't imagine. and, you know, you've worked on pipelines, and you know, welding and so forth, you know, looking at the team two pipeline, do you
believe those foreign pipelines that like that are better constructing our environment or better constructed than ones in america. >> absolutely not. i'm a member of the union, and we take the utmost pride in the construction and the quality of work we put out. there's plenty of projects here in the united states that could have been providing that same natural gas and putting americans to work, but instead we're letting russia take that. >> and i would think that you and our fellow americans with the skill that you have can instruct a much safer and better pipeline than anybody else in the world. >> that's the absolute truth. like i said, we take a lot of pride in the work we do. >> absolutely. there's no question that vital conservation efforts should be an american priority. it should also not be controversial to say that all of the above domestic energy approach is good for our country. we cannot turn a blind eye to the realities of energy demands and the inability of renewables alone to heat our homes or fuel
our vehicles and power our lives. the united states is already producing energy more cleanly, and more efficiently than nations like russia or china. would any of the witnesses like to speak on the ways in which american made energy is already innovating with government mandates? >> congressman, i'll speak to that. you know, one of the greatest breakthroughs in technology in the last two decades in energy has been the ability to marry up two technologies, which the industry had already used, which is directional drilling and high drawl fracturing, which has allowed to become the leader after decade of decline. that's what's enabled the reductions in emissions that have been cited earlier today, greater than a dozen countries combined around the world is what's reduced criteria
pollutants in our economy and in our cities, and it's just one of many examples of the innovation that goes on by the incredibly talented women and men in this industry across all the companies represented here today, and many many others who are also part of a great american treasure, which is our energy economy. >> thank you, i appreciate that. >> the other thing i would like to say is knowing that -- looking at what our great workers do in america. china has pledged to receive net zero emissions by 2060. is there anybody that believes that's a serious proposal. they're building more coal fired plants, increasing energy in coal and so on. i just think i would really think if we think that's a serious proposal we take a second look.
thank you, and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back, the gentle lady from new york, ms. ocasio-cortez is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much, madame chair. it's not lost on me that we are having a hearing today surrounding fossil fuel misinformation and disinformation campaigns on the same day that we are scheduled to vote on legislation that has been deeply influenced by the lobbying efforts of the fossil fuel industry. it's a wonderful opportunity.
exxon stock price. >> it is. >> and so i would assume with increased value and stock price, and oil production, that would have boost in the value of your compensation, correct. >> my compensation is based on a number of metrics and parameters from environmental safety, and value creation technology development, it is a portfolio of responsibilities that the compensation committee judges me on. >> thank you very much. you know, i think one thing that often gets lost in these conversations is that some of us have to actually live the future that you all are setting on fire for us. by 2028, crop fields are already projected to begin begin to fai famine set to hit the most vulnerable populations. current u.s. drought, fire trends could potentially make whole regions of the united
>> i remember being a child and late '70s and early '80s and and i was fascinating with global and geo political events. there was a dream back then that some day that the united states could achieve energy independence. at the time there was gas line, oil embargo and i remember people weren't worried. they were concerned and scared. this dream seemed like a pipe dream. we're on the cusp of achieving it now of american energy independence. it's remarkable to me that this administration and our friends
across the aisle seem to be intent on us following that and unwittingly their efforts are emboldening our enemy by hamstringing our own industry. cancelling the keystone pipeline was a horrible idea. the fact of the matter is since 2000, the united states has been not only a leader in energy production in the world but also in reducing co2 emissions. those are both remarkable achievements. we should do everything in our power to continue to facilitate this time of success. the energy industry let us not forget is responsible for ten million high paying jobs in this country. it's also a national security issue. we had a few months back, mike pompeo in washington.
one of the primary reasons was because of our abundance of fossil fuels. some of the folks in congress seem to be intent on us letting venezuela and iran and china and russia, countries that aren't as committed to safety. they don't have the protocol and the precaution and the procedures and commitment to safety that we do in this country. that's why we should be exploring offshore and drilling alaska and keystone pipeline because this country, when we produce energy, it's safer for the environment. it's better for every one on the planet. there's a definite moral place to be made for the fossil fuel industry and fossil fuels as a whole. in 1900, the country was under 50 years of age, about 46. now before covid, it was 79
years. that's 72% increase. that's for all rates increased are living longer today. primarily because of this industry. our goal for every one should be that human beings not only in our country but the planet are allowed to live productive and meaningful lives. nay have proven themselves safe. we had a committee hearing demonizing the oil industry and one of the witnesses then were saying about we'll be judged in history. crying the sky will fall by 2028 this desire productions won't come through just like so many have in 2000 when it said
florida would be under water by 2020. they're not. we will be judged by our actions today and we will be judged in history just like so many of our folks in the democratic majority that are going on wild multi-trillion dollar spending digits that they are saddling our future generation, our children, my children, my son with a crushing debt and forcing them into untenable financial crisis. in we want more abundant and cleaning energy, which we all should do, these witnesses here should be the ones that we are supporting and applauding and not demonizing. thank you. i yields back. >> thank you. the gentleman from vermont is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. the issue here is credibility. the oil companies when they began producing oil, discovering
oil did not know about climate change. they were first to learn about it. learning about it concealed it and denied it. on june 6th of 1978, one of your excellent scientists james black in the product research division circulated a presentation he had given to the management committee on the greenhouse effect. the agreement that most likely manner in which man kind influenced global climate is through carbon diioxide release. in your leadership of exxon are you aware of what actions was taken by the board after that report to it about the greenhouse effect was presented?
>> my understanding, congressman, is that report summarized the work of broader scientific community and full reading of that report is consistent with the community. >> let me go on. i don't have that much time. on global distribution of rainfall, in addition to some dramatic questions that might cause theories of global problems such as melting of icecaps did exxon, to your knowledge, share that information, really crucial information with the public at that time? >> i wasn't working for the company at that time. >> you're not aware that information was made available?
we had no unique knowledge we were -- >> let me just go through this. these are records in your own company. these are fot fake news. this is internal documents. exxon in november 12th, 1982, management of environmental affairs program sent a memo to exxon management on the c02 release is the most likely source of inadvertent climate modification and the prevailing opinion attribute co2 to fossil fuel come combustion. did you disclose that to your shareholders? something that would be relevant to your assets? >> my understanding of those reports was publicly available information -- >> i didn't ask that. did you disclose that to your shareholders in your report?
that's my question. >> my understanding is it was a summarized -- >> seriously. i'm not asking what it is. i'm asking whether that information was disclosed in your shareholder report? >> i'm not familiar with the report at that time. >> in february 22, 1989, a report was presented to the board of directors. he stated, quote, data confirm that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere and fossil fuels contribute most of the co2. to your knowledge, did exxon disclose that to its share how olders? >> we made all of our research publicly available. >> did you disclose it to shareholders. yes, no or i don't know? >> we made that publicly available. >> many n may 6th of 1996,
nearly 20 years -- let me go on please. exxon stated in a speech to the economic of detroit, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate. do you agree with that? >> our position taken back at that time was consistent with the state. >> acknowledge that exxon has aggressively fought climate science that they had joined quote shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts and that exxon support of a carbon tax is purely, quote, talking point. he said that exxon is looking out for its investment. how is this knowledge that exxon
mobile had about the dramatic impact of fossil fuels and climate change any different than big tobacco knowing about smoking causing cancer duh denying it and continue to peddling its product. explain the difference. >> mr. mccoy statement did not represent our policy or approach with respect to distinctions. >> the distinction between what exxon knew and big tobacco knew but didn't reveal the differences? >> our research was publicly available and it was consistent in real life largely on outside work. we were part of a broader scientific community working in this space. we had no unique use. >> thank you. my time is up. i yield back. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i've noticed the trend going on
here holding hearings on legislation that has already passed the house. such as you did with hr3755, the abortion on demand bill and the equal rights amendment. as with that trend i've begun to pick up on another trend we're sitting and this one is more disturbing. the new trend is this economy -- committee continues to abuse oversight into private citizens and companies which results in nothing but one big public shame ing campaign. in my ten months here i've been made aware by democrat colleagues have lever anled subpoena threats to compel private entiies and hand over protected materials for the committee staff to ransack.
the used to be the committee on oversight and government reform. it's now called the committee on oversight and reform. the day they choose to remove government from the title was a big red flag to all. house democrats might truly believe their authorities go beyond the four corners of the the united states constitution. this committee should focus oversight active tis and investigation on government operations. not inject itself into private operations. to our witnesses, i want all of you to know that i support and all in approach to ensure our nation is energy independent.
a decision that resulted in hundreds of people losing out on good paying jobs and the seriously undercut our nation's ability to be energy independent in a net energy exporter. to add salt to an open wound, president biden immediately green lighted russia's pipeline when he chose to withdraw sanctions in may. the president's energy policy simply does not make sense. he demands we decrease domestic production yet pleads for opec to increase their production. they are being forced to choose
between heating their homes or putting food on the table. that's been president biden's proposed heating tax found in his absurd big government socialism spending bill called budget reconciliation. it's shameful but again you all have not been called here today to help us conduct oversight of the biden administration's policies. no. you've been called here so my colleagues can drag you through the mud. my first is for mr. summers. given the energy crisis of countries in the eu and asia, what they are currently experiencing that many may argue that is a direct result of pressures to prematurely divest from reliable fossil fuel development. how can the united states avoid a similar fate as the eu and asia is experiencing, sir? >> thank you for your question.
i do think there's a flashing warning sign in europe right now as energy prices continue to go up. it's mainly a consequence of a lack of supply. another major concern is why gas prices have gone up is because russia decided not to export natural gas to the eu during this critical time. it's real warning for american consumers and the world that if you don't create your own supply at home, you're dependent on supplies from regimes that aren't necessarily, don't necessarily have your interest at heart. i think european and other parts of the borld are finding out the
importance of creating supply to ensure that we have access to affordable and reliable energy for deck the kads and decades to come. sdplp thank you. i appreciate that. i will note that our adversaies are very capable of using energy as a weapon. we have done nothing pu help them when we have green lighted the pipeline. with that i yield back. >> the gentle lady from illinois is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you for being here today. your companies claim to have net zero ambitiambitions. the record seems to suggest the company represented here have a long way to go to get there. in its february 2021 energy transition strategy, shell said, and i quote, a lined with the more ambitious goals of the
paris agreement to limit the avenue ranl global temperature above pre-industrial levels, is that correct? >> that is the ambition of the paris agreement. yes, that's correct. >> thank you. it aims to become a net zero business by 2015. is that correct? >> net zero by 2050 is correct. we just announced a goal to cut our emissions by half by 2030. >> why does the independent analysis find that it fails to meet the paris agreement goals? >> i'm not familiar with the independent analysis that you're talk about. i can say that the company i work for is absolutely committed to these dpoels that we put out
there. my composition is directly linked to that. we look forward to continuing to accelerate the energy transition in collaboration with folks like yourself, the government, our customers and segments of the industry. this is something that can't be done alone. >> okay. according to the 2021 united nations gap report, the world must decrease oil production by 4% and gas production by 3% annually between 2020 and 2030 to limit warming to 1.5 degrees celsius. this would equate to a 450% increase in gas production for
shell. they are necessary to limit the most dangerous impact of climate change. earlier this year shell appealed in order by dutch court to cut emissions by 45% by 2030. can you tell me does shell plans comply with court order o cut emissions by ha% by 2030. you can say yes or no. >> one of the reasons we put out the goal we put out today is because we see an opportunity to accelerate our progress strategy. cutting our one and two emissions by half by 2030 is a new target. >> is that a yes or no? i'm asking you yes or no because i don't have a lot of time. >> we're in the process of appealing the dutch court action. we have many targets between now
and then to hit, we are appealing the court order because we don't think the court is the right place to decide this. >> so, it sounds like even though shell's transition strategy called for cutting emissions by 2030, the company is resisting efforts to get there. is that because shell transition strategy to reduce the intensity of its carbon out yn put from oil production relies in part on shell increasing its gas productions, is that correct? >> congresswoman, i would say i have a different way of putting that. we are not resisting. we are embracing the opportunity to transition faster, which is why we're working to increase the demand for low and no carbon fuels. that's how i would characterize it. >> you can't characterize it as a yes or no then.
>> will shell commit to reducing gas reduction as part of its reduction plan? >> we have committed to a number of things and we believe natural gas play ascii role -- plays a key role and we are committed to provide that cleaner burning fuel forcommitted to natural ga and we're committed to continue to work with our customers who look at no carbon fuel such as wind and solar.
>> i yield back. i know my time is up. thank you. >> mr. biggs is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i've been in and out of this hearing. i heard opening statements and listened to a good deal of questioning this morning. i will tell you that if there's one thing that i hope those leading these very important energy companies and the petroleum institute is you kind of got yourself here. you've seen the attitude, it's because of your appeasement. when you get asked this morning about aren't you embarrassed, that's an ir rational question to ask ceos about their company policy. to ask and vilify you and say
will you repudiate your membership in a manufacturing institute to then say and repeatedly ask the question and badger you. that's because you've been appeasing. i'm not saying you shouldn't do your best to reduce carbon emissions and run a clean company. i'm saying you have been brought here so they can beat the crap out of you. that's what this is all about. they're doing it for political reason. that's the shame of it all. this is a hearing where the democrats attack american workers in the private sector. the president and his allies in congress have consistently advocated for policies that have led to higher energy prices and increased inflation.
some of the inflation is systemic but some is drven by scarcity. i hope you get the lesson because if nothing else i say matters, i think you need to know something. these folks will regulate you right out of business tomorrow if they could. don't pretend otherwise. no matter how good of corporate citizens you are or how sincere you are in trying to reduce carbon emissions. that's the purpose of this hearing today to lay the foundation to get rid of you. here is one dated today. this very morning you've got
u.s. state department senior adviser for energy security saying energy producer, should be increasing its output. there's one from two weeks ago. u.s. worried the energy supply not meeting demand. that is where we're headed in the future. we hear this saying quote, we decided we'll let them freeze the good business winner and they'll become more talkative and won't insist on quickly abandoning gas. the stakes are very high. this is a high stakes game. the russian's get it. you get it.
my colleagues across the aisle don't get it. congressional democrats proposal for fixing the problem they caused are worst than president biden's. the bill will increase energy prices and cripple the american economy. gas prices at a seven-year high. democrats are considering enacting a carbon ax to pay for the socialist policy. they love to tout their support of the green new deal claiming it's the only way to fight climate change. the interesting thing is it wasn't a climate change thing at all.
understand appeasement will lead to the demise of your industry and company which will result in hundreds of thousands of people losing work and living in impoverrished states. i have a number of article ts i would like to submit for the record. >> without objection. i have one dated from reuters, october 7th. i have additional ones. we have as europe faces a cold winter, putin seizes on leverage. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we would submit all the articles he would like into the record. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes.
>> thank you. let me thank you the witnesses for being with us today. i'd like to ask a few questions about your company's position on carbon pricing. exxon lobbying website state p, and i quote, without exception, the customers lobbying efforts are aligned with this publicly available position. is that correct? >> yes, it is. >> could you repeat the question, please? >> as it relates to carbon
pricing or carbon taxes, is that correct? >> we do advocate for a carbon tax or price on carbon, yes. sflp is it fair to say that exxon is taking a public position in support of a price on carbon? >> yes. committed staff reviewed those along with other companies. since 2011, exxon and its lobbyists have 344 reports involving lobbying on tax legislation. does this figure sound about right to you? >> i'm not -- i don't have those numbers available to me. >> all right.
according to your company's filing, these lobbying efforts focus on a variety of legislative and policy issues, including protecting oil and gas tax breaks and preserving the corporate tax benefit in president trump's signature tax spending bill. 46 bills have been produced in the house and the senate to deal with carbon pricing. >> i haven't seen the report. i don't know what that number would be. >> thank you. our information say that 12 and
that exxon reported only 12 instances of lobbying on federal legislation that would tack our price carbon. your company's lack of action says the support sends a rather interesting signal. this goes for all the organizations here today. over the last decade, exxon, chevron, bp, shale, there's fearly 6,000 lobbying reports. the committee identified only 34 times that these companies and api reported lobbying on any of the bills that addressed carbon prices. they lobbied 77 times just on
president trump's tax cut. if you do the math, it pretty much means that exxon, chevron, bp, shell and ap reported lobbying 150 times more frequent ly to carve out corporate give aways and president trump's tax cut and actions. on all carbon pricing legislation. if it wasn't for the analysis that the committee released today, none of us sitting here would know what the it doesn't hold up you should scrutiny. i thank you for your answers and appreciate your being here. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kansas is
recognized for five minutes. >> climate change is an issue we need to be looking at. record high inflation and spiking natural gas prices as we approach the coldest month of the year. it's no secret that the cost to ship goods and keep the lights on shows up. increased cost is then passed down to the consumer. farmers have to pay for this administration's shortsighted and counter productive policies
in form of record high fertilizer prices that surpass even the previous peaks of the 2008 global financial crisis. these are a necessary evil in achieving our long term environmental goals especially when the u.s. is forced to outsource our crude oil and raw materials from countries with less stringent emission standards than us. the administration's policies also undermine our energy independence. the president begged opec and russia to increase global output to combat the spiking fuel
prices. some of my colleagues seem to think it's impossible to have both affidavitable, bountiful and innovative energy while having clean air and water. that's simply not true. oil and gas produced here in america is among the cleanest and safest in the world. the united states has been a world leader in reducing carbon emissions without complete reliance on inconsistent sources like wind and solar. the data proves the private sector is tackling climate change without burdensome regulation and congress should continue to allow them to do so. mr. summers, can you describe
some of the ways that green new deal policies, particularly included in reconciliation proposal would effect your industry? >> thank you for your question. we as an industry have taken on the climate change and api released earlier this year our climate action frame work which is a five-step plan to address the climate challenge as an industry. that includes three of those actions even if congress doesn't act on climate chapg in this congress or in the future. we know it's a challenge and we know this industry has the tech nological know how and the engineers in place and the scientists and geologists in place who can tackle this challenge from the private sector.
we do have some concerns about what is in the package and we worked to educate lawmakers on those concerns. it will increase costs on consumers when energy prices are spiking. one of the original included a clean energy performance payment plan that did not include natural gas. we need to continue to incentivize the switch from coal to natural gas to continue on
the road of cutting u.s. emissions. . >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentle lady from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. congress and president biden are hard at work to pass the build back better to take bold, aggressive and long over due action on climate change. many of the witnesses today vigorously oppose key climate provisions. i find that offensive seeing from ground zero in state of florida where climate change is not a some day thing, it's a right now thing. according to influence maps, bp, shell, exxon, mobile and chevron collectively spend more than $150 million every year on lobbying and policy influence activities.
how much has the chamber of commerce spent to defeat the build back better act? >> i don't have the number off the top of my head. >> give me ballpark. >> i really couldn't. >> you have no idea how much the chamber of commerce has spent on lobbying targeted at the build back better act? >> no, i don't. >> you're not doing your job very well if you don't know that answer. i'll give you an idea. just in september, the chamber launched a six figure ad campaign to pressure house democrats to try to vote down the reconciliation package. for a while, the chamber participated in house gop leadership strategy calls to defeat the reconciliation package. perhaps you weren't aware of that either. that's something that actually happened. the chairman released a statement that said the chamber is continuing and expanding its effort to defeat the
reconciliation bill and proposes for the reconciliation bill. that's grossly irresponsible and what you should be doing is working towards trying to find compromise not just spending millions of dollars to defeat something and work against our progress on addressing the climate change issue. what about the american petroleum institute. >> we have worked the influence the process on issues -- >> right. i'm reclaiming my time. to the tune of how much mone? >> i don't have those numbers. >> yeah, i assumed you would answer that way. let me just illuminate things for folks listening to this. api used the front group energy citizens to flood facebook with hundreds of ads and 140 congressional districts at
opposition to reconciliation package. which api claims to support the reduction of methane emissions. >> the american petroleum institute supports the federal regulation for new and existing sources. we expect the new regulation to come out soon from the biden administration. we have been working with them on making sure that regulation makes sense and reducing emissions over time. >> reclaiming my time. i'm sorry. reclaiming my time.
you're opposing the reduction policies on methane emissions in the build back better act which is the proposal of the biden administration. you're either lying about your support for reducing emissions or you're working against yourself which makes no sense and isn't money well spent by your institution. >> respectfully, congresswoman -- >> no. the time is mine. thank you. mr. woods, your company is a member of api, for example. api lobbies to crush good climate policies as i've just illuminated. your own former senior director admitted groups like api to take the tough question and be a whipping boy during congressional hearings. how can you tell us with a straight face you're part of the solution when you're part of the
lobbying efforts? >> as i said after the interview with release that characterization offered up was incorrect and did not reflect the position that our company has taken or the philosophy that we take. >> industry players talk out of both sides of their mouth. the fossil fuel industry reaches into deep pockets to kill the common sense solutions. you're no better than big tobacco in the '90s. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for holding this
hearing. privately funding organizations that promote climate denial or misinformation. isn't it true that between 1998 and 2017 exxon mobile corporation spent $36 million with think tanks promoting climate denial? >> i can't comment on figure you've offered up. the position we have taken -- >> you will not disagree with that amount, would you? >> i don't have the numbers. i can't confirm or deny the amount. the position that we take with the groups we work with is consistent with the position that we take publicly. we don't have to -- >> deny climate change is being connected with co2 emission, correct? >> pardon? i missed your question.
>> you spent a lot of money to get across the point that co2 emissions be do not impact climate? >> i don't agree with that characterization. however, isn't it true that no operational changes were made to respond to the horrifying findings that the company's business operations and products were endangering humanity? >> i'm not aware of any unique understanding that we had in the science. we worked with them to advance
our own understanding and as time passed, the scientific understanding evolved and so did our position and the approach we took to address emission. >> the american petroleum institute known as early as 1957 that carbon emissions were dangerously warming the atmosphere and multiple studies published by exxon mobile and bp found similar results in subsequent years only to be publicized for first time in 2015 and 2018, respectively. >> our companies have worked with the outside group and our understanding and public position has been consistent with that understanding. >> let me ask mr. lowler the question. when did you first learn that
co2 emissions caused climate change? >> thank you for the question. bp was aware early on, very early on. >> was it before 2018? >> i would say before even in the '90s and '80s we were aware of reports out there. there was a lot of science and debate. bp focused on the landmark study in 1996. >> i want to break in right here. research shows between 2010 and 2018 only 2.3% of your investment per capital expenditures went to low carbon
energy. is that true? >> yes, sir, it's true. >> isn't it also true that bp earned $1837.5 billion in 2020? >> i'd have to check that figure. >> you couldn't tell me how much of that was reinvised in clean energy production? >> we had replacement profit. >> my question is how much of that was reinvested in clean energy production?
>> we spent 2 billion. >> for the people suffering from the impacts of wildfires floods and hurricanes, 30 years is too long to wait for your company to change. how do you square the reality of facts on the dprounds with your 2050 date for carbon emissions. >> we have installed a 350 megacaught facility. we will join the wind farm in offshore new york. we'll spend billions behind that. we have very clear targets and again, we have stepped forward that we would be reducing our overall production, our absolute production on a world wide basis by 40% by the year 2030. we are -- >> the world can't wait.
>> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman may continue answering the question but his time has expired. >> we do have near term targets that are significant. is we're sincere and in motion. by 2025 we'll be spending 3 to 4 billion dollar, 5 billion dollar in 2030. we are sincere. >> thank you so much. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes.
>> it's a direct result of the continued operation of the oil and gas companies before this committee. we'll destabilize families and sink entire communities. i'm clear eyed that my opposition is the massive lobbying campaign. your companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying efforts each year. the truth is, these these represent only a fraction of what is actually spent against our efforts to save lives and our planet.
after your lobbyist admitted joining shadow groups to undermine efforts on climate, exxon stated his comments were entirely inconsistent with your company's work. do you stand by that statement? yes or no? >> yes, i do. >> is it your testimony that exxon has not at any point funded any think tanks, advocacy organizations or other shadow groups against climate change efforts? yes or no? >> position we take is transparent and we publish the groups that we support on our website. >> whatever your statements are now the truth is that exxon has
funded dozens of these shadow groups. >> we do not support the heart land group. >> yes or no in. >> do you commit right here to not fund organizations that reject the science of climate change? >> we do not support climate denial. we do not ask people to lobby anything different than our publicly supported position, expressed position? >> these corporations refuse to invest in their own workers to ensure they have a future in renewable economy. i transition from solution base profits to healthy green living.
we are investing time and re -- >> i'm sorry. i'm going to reclaim my time since you weren't providing a percentage. will you commit to providing the documentation to this answer? >> we'll wrk with you. >> i don't have a number on that. we're committed to meeting the needs of the world today. >> what percentage of shell annual revenue is being used to
train your workers for jobs in renewable sectors? >> i don't have a number. i'll be happy to work with you to get one. what i can say is what we're finding is we have engineers that have built offshore oil and gas platforms -- >> i'm sorry. i'm going to run out of time. thank you for that commitment. what percentage of bp's revenue is being used to train your workers? >> i'll need to review what that number is. we're creating entire business units for the renewable sector. >> putting it on people like those in my district and those in the company is the crisis is so dire. what we do in the next ten years will matter for 10,000 years. i believe what we do in the next ten days on infrastructure
investments will be the true predictor of our planet's future. the build back better act is a climate justice bill and a workers justice bill. we can and we must act with urgency. thank you and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. >> thank you. what do you predict the global demand for oil as the united states and the world recover from the coronavirus pandemic? >> thank you for your question. what we're already starting to see as i mentioned is that world oil demand has already risen significantly. the world was consuming 100 million barrels of oil every sipg l day. during the worth part of the pandemic in april of 2020, the world consumed 81 million barrels of oil every single day.
we're close back to the 100 million barrel of oil use every single day. as the economy continues to grow, we expect that to expand as well. >> if the industry does as some of my democrat colleagues have suggested and asked you to pledge to cut production, what would that do to the price of oil for every day working americans if the demand is going up? >> we're already starting to see tha because of worker shortages and concerns about future and current government regulations -- >> because of the biden policy is why we're seeing energy prices go up and what my colleagues on the left are proposing will only make it worse. the oil and gas industry has taken meaningful steps to reduce
emissions from operations. can you describe some of the efforts under way and some of the plan ed industry initiatives to address this challenge head on. >> absolutely. this is a program that is all about allow do you reduce methane emissions within our own operation. this program has seen tremendous success. it works with member companies to replace products within the oil and gas industry that are leading to methane emissions. as a consequence of this, we have big operationers and small operators working together work to ensure that our methane emissions continue to go down. in fact, as a consequence of this program and other programs like it, we've been able to reduce methane emissions by 70%
in five of the largest oil and gas producing regions. we're proud of the work we have done and we need to make sure their energy continues to come affordably, reliably but also cleaner. >> and that gets lost in translation. we're seeing a reduction in emissions, and i think that has been lost in translation with the rhetoric on the other side. mr. crabtree, you are a member of the union, right? >> yes, mr. congressman. >> a few years ago when i started out in the kentucky state house of representatives, the union was pretty democrat.
i've seen the union and united mine workers and other unions that have been just devastated and put out of work by democratic policy starting with the obama administration and now your union put out of work because of the keystone pipeline. what's the general thinking now with the policy from the democratic party with respect to energy production in the united states? >> it's always been of my opinion i don't care if you're a democrat, a republican or independent i will vote with who will put me to work. the president has decided to put us out of work. i'm not going to support him. i wish president trump could have won re-election. that's an honest statement. >> well, i think a lot of people share your sentiment. my last question to you, sir, if the united states went totally
green tomorrow, as some of my colleagues on the left dream about, and eliminate all oil and gas jobs, would americans be able to power their homes or get their families to work or school? >> i think you know the answer to that. >> i know it but i don't know if those from the left know it. >> i can't conceive living in a world carbon neutral or free. >> thank you, sir. madam chair, i yield back. >> ms. bush is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you, chairs maloney and thomas for convening this timely hearing. thanks in large part to those testifying today and the corporations they represent, st. louis has 11 more 90-degree days per year more than when i was born. mr. lawler, are the overwhelming majority of fossil fuel ceos
black or white? >> i don't have the exact numbers but i would assume they're white. >> yes. is an oil refinery more likely to be situated in a black community or a white community? >> i'm not sure how to answer that honestly. we have oil refineries along the u.s. gulf coast and are proud to be community members there. >> it's black, yes. it is black. mr. wirth, are the impacts more likely to hit a black neighborhood or white neighborhood first? >> congresswoman, i have not seen studies that would allow me to give you -- >> the answer is black. the facts are clear, a 2017 naacp report found that black americans are 75% more likely to live next to companies, industrial facilities that directly harm us.
for years you promote fossil fuels despite knowing it is environmental racism and violence in black and brown communities. you are promoing and selling fossil fuels that are killing millions of people. this is a striking example of white supremacy. your choices threaten my lives, my neighbors and our community every single day. i sit before you as a black congresswoman with asthma caused by fossil fuels and the tear gas you fund. i have a lot of questions, let me say. mr. woods, as ceo, are you responsible for what exxon does, yes or no? just a yes or no. >> for what exxon mobil does, yes, i am. >> thank you. thank you for that answer. it's not a coincidence toxic waste is duped in communities like mine. the impact is unspeakable. my basement in a predominantly black neighborhood used to
regularly fill with potentially radioactive waste next to my son's bedroom by your production and burning of fossil fuels. public school programs in st. louis regularly flow with radioactive water. mr. woods, would you send your children to one of these schools, yes or no? >> i'm sorry, could you repeat the question, please? >> would you send your children to one of the schools where radioactive waste, where we have this flooding -- >> no, i wouldn't. >> thank you. i don't want to, either, neither does my community. it's not a coincidence that our communities are more likely to flood. you have known this flooding was coming for years. ms. watkins in a 1988 shell report on page 26 it says large, low lying areas like bangladesh maybe could be abandoned. does that bother you a company deems a country of 98 million brown people expendable in
exchange for lowering profits, yes or no? >> actually, congresswoman, i'm glad my company has been involved in the science, research and involved in these for decades and we have been even and engaging with communities. i feel what you're saying and we are very active in the communities in which we operate and looking to make ourselves very much members of the community and investing communities where there is risk of climate change hitting harder than in other places. >> thank you very much. it bothers me. you didn't say it, but it bothers me. >> it bothers me, too. >> thank you. >> what bothers me -- >> i have to keep moving. but i have another question for you. was shell aware black and indigenous communities flood and burn first? >> i'm sorry, congresswoman, i'm not familiar with what you're referencing. >> let me ask you this, are
black communities like mine expendable to you? >> of course not. communities are not expendable. we work every day hand-in-hand with our communities and, in fact, climate change is such a pressing issue that we have to work with communities as companies and with societies and with the government if we're going to be able to get to that zero by 2050. >> thank you. and your company for decades have been misrepresenting information. you know to be false and continuing even in this hearing, but i thank you for speaking up and saying what you said. we're at a tipping point developing fossil fuels now, it is unconscionable. given each of your rules on humanity, you all should resign. thank you and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. the vice chair gomez is recognized for five minutes. and after his questioning there
will be a five-minute quick break at the request of the witnesses. mr. gomez? >> thank you, madam chair. i want to just continue a little bit on ms. bush's line of questioning. i was in the california state legislature four and a half years. during that time we passed the greenhouse gas reduction goals. we were able to pass a lot of the bills that oil opposed. and opposed it every step of the way, and get us to stop and be able to win those fights. and i get it. you have -- you're in your own business model, that's what you're protecting. we're fighting across the board for communities in california but also in the country especially when the fact that
climate -- the climate crisis disproportionately impacts communities of color. those are the ones most likely to not get the job in the oil fields, the most likely the ones not to see the direct benefits but get the dirtier air, the dirtier water, are always in the path of the destruction from the oil industry. so one of the things i want to focus is, like i said, ms. bush's questioning. let's start with mr. wirth. do you agree it is worse for vulnerable communities or communities of color and low-income communities? >> well, congressman, this is a very important issue, i think, for society, so i appreciate -- >> yes or no, do you agree that climate change is worse for lower income and communities of
color? >> congressman there are many different studies, opinions and assertions on where and how climate change will manifest itself. mr. wirth, listen, i know people who work for you and i respect them. this was a fight that we fought in california, yes or no. if you can't answer that, then there's no reason to ask these other questions. do you believe climate change is worse for communities of color and lower income communities, yes or no? >> congressman, i don't have the ability to answer that. i think the climate change -- >> i'll take that as a no. protect people and the environment so when it states the company has an obligation does that include communities of color? yes or no? >> congressman, absolutely.
chevron strives to be a force for good and we're committed to continually improving our performance in communities that are most vulnerable. >> thank you, i'm glad you see that. we are on the front lines of coping with climate change. ms. woods, do you believe chevron has a moral obligation to prevent the negative health conditions and impacts and deaths caused by your products and the use of your products? >> congressman, i think we have an obligation for doing our part to respond to this great challenge that we've spent all day talking about. >> is the answer a yes or a no? >> i'm sorry? >> yes or no if you see that it also -- you have a moral obligation to prevent the negative health conditions and impacts caused on people by the use of your products?
>> we have an obligation to support people in their livelihoods with affordable, reliable energy with good jobs and doing our part to reduce the -- >> thank you, mr. wirth. ms. watkins, i want to go over to you. shell has said they have a goal of offsetting 120 million tons of co2, is that correct? >> we have a goal that we just announced today of reducing emission that is we control by 2030. >> okay. if shell is committed to reducing its environmental impacts, then why does your plan to appeal a recent court ruling mandating shell to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030? >> we're appealing that court ruling because we feel that is
not something that should be decided in the courts. we are actively looking at accelerating -- we are not even looking at, we are accelerating our policy as evidenced by the new target we put out today and we look forward to continuing to work with governments like yourself, with society in order to accelerate the demand for cleaner resources. >> let me redirect the question. you mention scope one and two but leave out scope three. they are 90% of your emission. so how do you plan on by 2030 if you're not targeting the 90% of your emissions? >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman may answer his question. >> yes, so our scope one and two emissions by 2030, i don't know the exact tonnage. that number is not familiar to
me. it is the vast majority of the emissions is created from the products -- the use of the products we sell. we will be net zero including scope three. that is our target for 2050. >> okay. your press release -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. i now am calling for a quick five-minute recess. it is the request from the witnesses. we stand in recess.
the meeting will come to order. without objection, mr. caston is authorized to participate in today's hearing. mr. caston, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you to the witnesses. i know it has been a long day. i want to start by saying as a chemical engineer by trade who ran some energy companies, i love chemical engineering. it's a lot of fun. i always thought it was cool you could look at the temperature and predict with amazing accuracy how it would change on the other side of your refinery. i think it's no surprise organizations like yours employ smart people like that. they're pretty good at understanding how changes in chemistry affect the temperature and, in fact, back in 1978, as you, of course, know, he
predicted we would have a doubling in co2 around 2025 and that would lead to an increase in temperature which is basically exactly where we are. mr. woods, kudos. you hire exceptionally talented people, you train them. that's one of the talents as ceo. i commend you. we know in light of that information you denied, funded the global climate, contrarian climate, and i don't want to go into that. you've had those conversations already. in the news this week we have all this conversation coming up that facebook is phenomenally good at disinformation and inflaming it. they can convince people vaccines are bad, they can convince people to take horse medicine, they can even convince people it's patriotic to attract the united states capitol, good people. so in light of that, in light of this amazing information, amazing tool to spread
disinformation, in light of the fact you actively worked to spread that disinformation, it is intriguing to me that in 2021, according to influence map, exxon spent $4 billion on facebook ads and 75% of the money has been since june and,fact, digital advertising spend was $50,000 a week and up to $600,000 a week in october. mr. wirth, do you dispute those numbers about your advertising? >> i don't have those numbers available to me. >> sound about right, though? >> i don't have a good view of those numbers today. >> could you speculate what might have been going on that would cause you to rapidly increase on providing disinformation? >> congressman, i would first make a point that i think differences of opinion are not information. >> respectfully, sir, it's not negotiable. we're not going there. do you know why you are amping up your spending on facebook in
the last few weeks by a factor of 12? >> i don't know what our spending is. it's hard for me to comment on what's changed. >> okay. mr. summers, that same analysis analyzed a little over $25,000 ads from the fossil fuel and were from american petroleum institute natural gas as a solution. i go back to my friends in the chemical engineer sector, methane is about 84 times as potent a greenhouse gas chemical as carbon dioxide when initially released. it last as decade in the atmosphere and breaks down. over 100 years, 30 times as impactful over 20 years which is the time we have to get to zero. somewhere between 1% to 3% leak
age rate in the system, and methane is worst, and you are saying this is part of the climate solution. mr. summers, do you dispute that methane is 80 times more potent greenhouse gas than co2? >> congressman, thank you for your question. natural gas has led -- >> just asking for a yes or no, do you dispute it is more potent? >> congressman, this industry has done everything we can do -- >> do you dispute the science is my only question? >> we trust the climate science. >> do you believe the natural gas has less than 2% leaks? >> congressman, we don't dispute the science this this space. >> that's the leakage rates. we don't want to have leaks but is it your position there's less than 2%? >> congressman, we have programs at the american petroleum
institute to work to limit methane emissions -- >> you're ducking my question, sir. if you don't have that, you have to ask why you're calling something a climate solution that as we sit today is warming up the planet. a former board member of mine used to tell us when we got in board disputes the only thing that matters is whether our grandchildren are proud of us. the west is on fire. floods are coming, ice is melting. my question for all of with you you can submit for the record, are your grandchildren proud of you? i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. jones is allowed to participate in today's hearing. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. if you listen to our witnesses or read their climate plans you might condition conclude climate
capture is so impactful that it will save us from the catastrophic effects of climate change. exxon, for example, is promoting a proposed carbon capture and storage house designed from industrial facilities and power plants according to exxon's own ads and marketing materials. to have the best of both worlds continue to burn fossil fuels with reckless abandon but pay none of the climate crisis. mr. woods, at an investor meeting earlier this year you were quoted as saying climate capture and storage is going to be needed to reduce emissions, and your written testimony reflects that sentiment as well. today there are 13 active commercial carbon capture and storage sites in the u.s. according to the global ccs institute 2020 report.
one of those sites belongs to exxon, correct? a simple yes or no will do. >> i'm not familiar with that report but we do have a facility in the u.s., yes. >> in wyoming? >> yes. >> 12 of those sites, including the one exxon owns, the captured carbon is used for what is called enhanced oil recovery, pressurizing co2. is that correct? >> yes. >> in fact, 95% of the carbon being captured at these u.s. sites is used for extracting more oil. to be clear exxon and others are using captured co2 to extract more oil and calling this a climate mitigation strategy. when exxon promotes climate capture as a solution, does this
include carbon capture use? >> you are confusing the technology with its uses. capture is a proven technology to concentrate co2. the question is what you do with that concentration, we can store it. our houston hub is to capture that co2 and store it offshore. it would not be used for enhanced oil recovery. so there's a difference between the technology and what you use the technology for -- >> mr. woods, i do have other questions. a yes or no answer. when exxon promotes carbon capture as a climate solution, does this include carbon capture for oil recovery? >> our focus has been to capture co2 and sequester not for eor. >> even though the overwhelming majority of carbon capture is ultimately used to extract even
more fossil fuel, it's a way to, quote, be consistent with the goals of the paris climate agreement. it might help extract more oil but it won't do anything to prevent us from paying the costs of a climate crisis. ex ott, and to be fair, the rest of the industry would need to capture and store an ever increasing amount of carbon there is not the capacity or structure at scale to meet 2030 or 2050 obligations under the paris climate agreement. the u.s., as you know, is committed to reaching net 'zo row by 2050. exxon's carbon capture facility has only been able to capture less than 20% of the carbon produced by the single plant on which it operates. mr. woods, how do you expect to capture enough of exxon's future
emissions from extraction transportation and other company operations to remain consistent with the country's net zero obligation? >> congressman, that's the big challenge we face moving from one energy source to another and it has been widely recognized in order for society to be successful and the iea that carbon capture will play an important role in that and the policy to support implementation will be important to achieve society's objectives. so no matter what solution we go to, there will be extensive need for additional investment in infrastructure as well as the technology to replace today's energy system. so it's not a question of spending more money. it's where you spend that money, and i would make the point that a number are required and large investments in those solutions are required across our economy and across the world as a whole. >> thank you, mr. woods. i understand that to mean you
don't know yet how you can capture enough of exxon's future emissions from extraction transportation and other company operations to remain consistent with our country's net zero obligation. with that, madam chair, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. without objection, mr. lovett is authorized to participate in today's hearing. you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much, madam chairwoman, and thank you to all the witnesses. i want to shift our focus to the oil refinery workers your companies employ. mr. woods, i'm going to ask you a few yes or no questions and then get into one issue in more detail. does exxon mobil educate workers on possible job loss from climate change? and have you advised workers you believe addressing the climate crisis may cause some of them to lose their jobs? >> we've talked about with our organization is the opportunity to address the risk through
investments and technologies -- >> i'm asking about people's jobs, sir. >> i'll get to that. >> well, i don't have a lot of time. so do you talk to them about they may lose their jobs, yes or no? >> we believe the transition will involve capabilities and skill sets consistent with our businesses and can evolve into different applications like carbon capture. >> got it. do you have specific programs to protect the workers you currently employ? is that what you're saying? >> as the world transitions and as the solutions will be required like hydrogen, those investments will require workers to operate those facilities. >> i understand. would you say that from your perspective the company considers the well-being of your workers when you're making new business decisions?
>> we believe -- our workers are fundamental to the value proposition of our company, very important to the equation. >> okay. i really have to question a lot of what you consider as your workers are making -- how much you really consider them when you're making these decisions given reports coming out of the beaumont refinery. can you confirm on may 1st your company escorted 650 oil refiners in beaumont, replacing experienced members of the united steelworkers 243 with temporary workers to force a vote on your latest contract proposal? >> at beaumont we've had contract negotiations ongoing for quite some time. >> did you lock the workers out, sir, and replace -- >> we failed to reach an agreement, and as part of that process and the strike notice we
had a lockout, that's correct. >> well, madam chairwoman, exxon mobil states in its guiding principles for employees, quote, we're committed to maintaining safe work environment enriched by diversity and characterized by open communication, trust and fair treatment. i fail to see how that is true based on today's hearing. exxon mobil and other fossil fuel companies have sold this untrue narrative that they are acting out of concern for their workers while simultaneously undermining them as is the case with the lockout in beaumont, texas. we have evidence their workers aren't their primary concern in their business decisions regarding climate change. as many have referenced earlier former senior adviser case mccoy was caught on camera defending the early efforts to fight against climate science stating there's nothing illegal and we're just looking out for our
investments, for our shareholders. he didn't mention the workers. when they can no longer hide, they work behind-the-scenes to shift on to the backs of their workers by refusing to give them a seat at the table or be clear of the long term impact on their livelihood. i am tired of these addressing climate change in the name of protecting good jobs and workers. let us remember it was not the ceos and big bosses that made oil refinery jobs good jobs be. it was unions and workers who fought for decades and are still fighting for these benefits. we can support our workers to have good jobs. i implore all the witnesses testifying to give workers a seat at the table.
and supported in this transition while corporate polluters save for those they have pedaled for decades. with that, with ten seconds to spare, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. without objection ms. omar is allowed to participate in today's hearing. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much, madam chair. i am glad to join this discussion. there have been a lot of conversations around the coordinated efforts, the fossil fuel companies have put together to create and spread disinformation about climate change as we heard earlier in 1998 the american petroleum institute or api assembled a
global science communication team, compromised the fossil fuel companies a misinformation campaign is your rounding climate change. the action plan says, quote, sharing chevron was a member of the global climate science communication team, correct? >> congresswoman, i appreciate the question. >> it is just yes or no. >> i'm not familiar with the instance you're referring to. i don't have any knowledge of that. >> mr. woods, the action plan also says, quote, randy randall of exxon was a member of the team, do you agree? >> i don't know about that. that was several decades ago.
>> so on page two of the april 3, 1998, action plan says these employees were listed as members who contributed to the development of the plan. in 1998 the global climate science communication team produced action plan outlining a strategy that conducts a coordinated misinformation campaign on the climate change. mr. woods developing this plan, this action plan, right? >> i'm not familiar with that activity. that was 20 years ago. >> do you know if that is involved in creating the action plan? >> i don't have information about the instance you are making reference to. >> again, on page two of that action plan, the plan explained that, quote, victory, end quote,
would be achieved when, quote, average citizens understand anden in climate science and recognition becomes part of the conventional wisdom. exxon executives warned the reality of the climate change as early as the 1970s. as you know api shared information within the industry about the dangers of climate change. a plan to inject uncertainty into the climate debate. did they see victory as laid out in the action plan? >> i am not familiar with what
you are referring to. i was 23 years old. i came to api in 2018. >> as i study, it seems very clear that they did. the fossil fuel industry works collectively to prevent action on change, coordinated their campaigns with groups like the global climate science team. their efforts at misinformation were conscious and deliberate. the fossil fuel industry has continued efforts by making $780 million in political donations. with 80% going to republicans. the industry made $189 million in donations to candidates and
committees of which 84% went to republicans and mostly climate deniers. another reason we need to get it out of our politics. despite knowing the devastating impact on our company. it seems you have achieved that victory of leading the public with disinformation. as one of my colleagues said earlier i hope you are ashamed of the future you contributed to your children and for ours, and i ask you all to resign. with that i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. i am prepared to close now. all of our witnesses have had their time to ask questions and witnesses have responded.
i thank them for their time and testimony. i want to offer the ranking member an opportunity to offer any closing remarks he may have. >> thank you, madam chair. i honestly, sincerely, think this was one of the better hearings we've had today. the one thing most americans would take from it is the biden energy policy have already had a dramatic impact on the inflationary prices that we've seen of gas and what we're going to see this winter with natural gas. i think that was an important thing for the american people to see. this was a timely hearing because gas prices have risen 27 days in a row. we've had interesting antics
from my friends on the other side of the aisle. we've had a request to make a pledge, of all things, cut production when we're seeing gas prices soaring right now. the last thing in the world we need to do is cut production. cutting production at the same time joe biden is pleading with opec to increase production. it makes no sense. lobbying the industry, the paris climate accord. lobbying for that. the only countries that would have spent money lobbying for the paris climate accord would have been energy companies in china or ukraine.
perhaps when we become the majority and we subpoena hundred hunter biden, we can ask that question. as senator omar just said, attacking the oil and gas industry for donating 80% of their contributions to republicans, madam chair, i guess they feel like donating to the democrats. this is crazy this policy that's only going to make energy prices higher. only going to make us more dependent on foreign countries for our energy and will doing in to reduce carbon emissions. we've seen stunts like with katie porter. looked like she was in california, madam chair, i hope she doesn't get fined by gavin newsom for polluting or whatever she was doing there in the back of her car in california.
the most predictable thing we've seen today, democrats attacking private sector companies for making a profit and what always confuses me is why my friends on the left continue to attack companies for making a profit while at the same time wanting to increase the corporate tax. if corporations don't make a profit, it doesn't matter what the corporate tax rate is. i think there's a lot of differing opinions the american people have seen today from this hearing. i want to thank our witnesses who came here today and thank the investment that you've made in creating good paying jobs in doing your best to see we are less dependent on foreign oil. i want to thank you for your investments to reduce carbon emissions. the climate is important to republicans as well.
to reduce our carbon footprint while at the same time reduce our dependence on countries for countries and at the same time create and maintain good paying jobs. so that's a hallmark of the republican policy. we care about the climate but we want to work with the private sector to reduce carbon emissions and continue to create good paying jobs. with that, madam chair, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i want to thank all of the witnesses for appearing today and thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their participation in this important hearing. i've been listening carefully to today's testimony. as i said earlier i had hoped today would be a turning point for the oil industry.
i was grateful to hear the top fossil fuel ceos finally admit that climate change is real, that burning fossil fuel is causing it. and we must act urgently to fix it. but i was disappointed much of the same denial and deflection withins refuse to take responsibility for decades long disinformation campaign and even after agreeing that we are, in fact, in code red crisis, they refuse to stop funding groups that are still blocking reforms like expanding the use of electric vehicles. i see no choice but to continue
our committee's investigation until we see the truth. we requested documents from each of these companies six weeks ago which were due on september 30th. we followed up before the due date to identify categories of documents that were of particular importance to be produced quickly. we sent warning letters to all six companies urging them and complete productions by october 25th or face further action. unfortunately none of the six entities have produced a substantial portion of the key documents requested. instead they produced reams of other documents many of which
were publicly available. one entity sent in 1,500 pages printed from their own website available publicly along with 4,000 pages of newsletters filled with industry press releases. others sent us publicly available annual reports and listings on facebook and linkedin. now let me tell you what the fossil fuel companies have not produced. these organizations have not produced the funding information that we requested and that we need to understand their payments to shadow groups and to over 150 public relations companies.
and advertisements on social media. nearly all the companies have failed to turn over board materials the committee needs to examine corporate strategies on climate change. and with only a few limited exceptions the fossil fuel companies have not produced any internal documents or communications from senior executives about their company's role in climate change. i have tried very hard to obtain this information voluntarily but the oil companies employ the same tactics they use for decades on climate policy, delay and obstruction. well, that ends today, members of the committee that i intend
to issue subpoenas to those represented here today. i have draft subpoenas here. please know that i do not take this step lightly when republican dan burton was chairman of this committee he issued more than 1,000 subpoenas without a single complaint from my republican colleagues. i have been much more selective, but we are at code red for climate and i am committed to doing everything i can to help rescue this planet and save it for our children. we need to get to the bottom of the disinformation campaign and with these subpoenas we will. >> madam chair, point of order? point of order? >> what is the gentleman's point of order? >> just want to publicly say i object to the issuance of subpoenas, the oil and gas executives here today have
provided over 100,000 pages of documents, and we feel like that's an infringement upon their first amendment rights. >> well, mr. chairman, they produced documents but they were not the documents that we requested. most of it is like this, completely publicly available on their website. their annual reports. and, as you know, chairman khanna and i wrote you a letter highlighting our serious concerns that the fossil fuel organizations were not fully complying with our request and were obstructing and delaying our investigation. i also noted that we gave these organizations multiple opportunities to produce them voluntarily. we requested to produce them voluntarily. we requested it in writing and phone calls and reaching out to their offices. in fact, chairman rokhanna and i
wrote to them last week and warned them if they did not comply voluntarily that the committee would be forced to consider additional steps to obtain compliance. so we have been true to our word and we spent a great deal trying to obtain these documents. we were not able to obtain them. they are important. we are now requesting them with a subpoena. i have draft subpoenas here. >> madam chair, we strongly reiterate the fact that we feel this is an infringement upon their first amendment rights. this is the government -- this is oversight and government reform committee. we're supposed to focus on waste, fraud and abuse in the federal bureaucracy. >> before we close, in closing i
want to thank our panelists once again for their remarks and i want to commend my colleagues for participating in this very important conversation. with that and without objection all members will have five legislative days of which to submit extraneous materials and submit additional written questions from the witnesses to the chair which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. i ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you can. and with that this meeting is adjourned.