AMSTERDAM - Royal Dutch Shell expects to pump out all the fossil fuel reserves listed on its balance sheet, its chief executive said, dismissing concerns that production limits in the wake of the Paris climate accord could hit the energy giant's valuation.

In an interview with Dutch newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad, Ben van Beurden said the issue of "stranded" reserves - deposits in the ground that cannot be used because of carbon emissions limitations - would have no impact on balance sheets.

"The company is valued on producable reserves that we can produce in the next 12 or 13 years," he said. "We should certainly be able to produce those under any climate outcome. Even if global temperatures can only rise by 2 degrees."

The Paris Climate Agreement, which came into force this month, commits almost 200 countries, including China, the United States and the European Union, to limiting temperature increases to 2 degrees and weaning the world economy off fossil fuels.

The Anglo-Dutch energy giant, the world's third largest by market capitalisation, has bet heavily on a lower-carbon future, with investments in wind and renewables capped by the $50 billion acquisition of British Gas in February.

Van Beurden was also skeptical that revaluation of reserves after the climate deal could trigger a financial shock, saying that the oil price's collapse from $120 to $30 a barrel showed the industry's ability to weather much larger shocks. </s> Ben van Beurden, chief executive officer of Royal Dutch Shell, speaks during a news conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, February 15, 2016. REUTERS/Sergio Moraes

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Royal Dutch Shell expects to pump out all the fossil fuel reserves listed on its balance sheet, its chief executive said, dismissing concerns that production limits in the wake of the Paris climate accord could hit the energy giant’s valuation.

In an interview with Dutch newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad, Ben van Beurden said the issue of “stranded” reserves - deposits in the ground that cannot be used because of carbon emissions limitations - would have no impact on balance sheets.

“The company is valued on producable reserves that we can produce in the next 12 or 13 years,” he said. “We should certainly be able to produce those under any climate outcome. Even if global temperatures can only rise by 2 degrees.”

The Paris Climate Agreement, which came into force this month, commits almost 200 countries, including China, the United States and the European Union, to limiting temperature increases to 2 degrees and weaning the world economy off fossil fuels.

The Anglo-Dutch energy giant, the world’s third largest by market capitalization, has bet heavily on a lower-carbon future, with investments in wind and renewables capped by the $50 billion acquisition of British Gas in February.

Van Beurden was also skeptical that revaluation of reserves after the climate deal could trigger a financial shock, saying that the oil price’s collapse from $120 to $30 a barrel showed the industry’s ability to weather much larger shocks.

“Each $10 fall costs us $5 billion in cash a year,” he said. “The fact that over the coming few decades we are transitioning, in a more or less ordered way, to a low-carbon society is less draconian than what we’ve seen over the past two years.”

He also told the newspaper that there would be no changes to Shell’s dividend policy, even though pay-outs at the current level outstripped the company’s cash flow. “(Shareholders) want a stable dividend. We must be seen as reliable,” he said.

Even with oil at $47 a barrel, the company could make adequate investments with current dividend levels, he said, adding that only a slight increase in demand could send prices up again, since even at the peak of U.S. shale production, there was only a 2 percent global surplus. </s> A federal judge dismissed a pair of lawsuits that two California cities filed against major oil companies for their roles in climate change and its effects.

The ruling is a blow to San Francisco and Oakland and environmentalists who have long tried to hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate change.

Judge William Alsup stated in his late Monday ruling that his decision did not hinge on climate science and that there was no dispute about the harms of fossil fuels.

ADVERTISEMENT

But Alsup, nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton William (Bill) Jefferson ClintonTrump probes threaten to overshadow Democrats' agenda Kansas, South Carolina GOP scrap presidential nominating contests Democrats ignore Asian American and Pacific Islander voters at their peril MORE, ultimately felt that the core questions raised in the case were best left up to the federal government, Congress and international organizations.

“Questions of how to appropriately balance these worldwide negatives against the worldwide positives of the energy itself, and of how to allocate the pluses and minuses among the nations of the world, demand the expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate,” Alsup wrote.

“Nuisance suits in various United States judicial districts regarding conduct worldwide are far less likely to solve the problem and, indeed, could interfere with reaching a worldwide consensus,” he continued.

“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case.”

Alsup also felt that for a court to weigh in on substantive policy questions would be a violation of the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, since those are rights reserved for other branches.

The lawsuits, filed last year, employed a novel legal strategy to try to accomplish climate goals, a strategy that a handful of other major liberal cities have started to try as well.. The defendants were BP, Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell.

The National Association of Manufacturers, which has fought the strategy and sees the lawsuits as a threat to manufacturing, praised Alsup’s ruling.

“From the moment these baseless lawsuits were filed, we have argued that the courtroom was not the proper venue to address this global challenge,” NAM president Jay Timmons said in a statement.

“Judge Alsup agreed. Other municipalities around the country who have filed similar lawsuits should take note as those complaints are likely to end the same way.”

Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri said the company has “said all along that addressing the risks of climate change is a serious global challenge that should be addressed by policymakers and not by the courts.”

Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, said the ruling is a disappointment. His group has been actively pushing for similar lawsuits around the country.

“The case before the judge was never about how to solve global climate change but simply whether oil and gas producers should help San Francisco and Oakland pay for the costs of adapting to it,” he said in a statement.

“By kicking the case to a do-nothing Congress and a climate denying White House, the court essentially ruled that taxpayers alone should pay the massive costs of adapting to climate change.” </s> A California court ruled in favor of the nation’s top oil companies on Monday, dismissing a lawsuit that held them responsible for the effects of global climate change.

Last year, the cities of San Francisco and Oakland sued Chevron Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and BP Plc for an abatement fund that would help to aid cities affected by flooding allegedly caused by climate change. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Chevron’s motion to dismiss the suit, however, stating that “the scope of plaintiffs’ theory is breathtaking. It would reach the sale of fossil fuels anywhere in the world, including all past and otherwise lawful sales,” according to a statement released by Chevron.

Chevron noted that similar claims of the production and sale of oil and gas being a public nuisance that produces harmful greenhouse gas emissions had been rejected in courts across the country.

The company also stated that it had filed motions to dismiss such cases in other U.S. cities and counties, including in New York City and King County, Washington, although it does support “meaningful efforts to address climate change and accepts internationally recognized climate science.”

“Reliable, affordable energy is not a public nuisance but a public necessity,” said R. Hewitt Pate, Chevron’s vice president and general counsel. “Tackling the difficult international policy issues of climate change requires honest and constructive discussion. Using lawsuits to vilify the men and women who provide the energy we all need is neither honest nor constructive.” </s> From Macron to Musk: World rallies behind #ParisAgreement following Trump's withdrawal

President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change has drawn swift backlash from politicians, business leaders, celebrities and green groups across the world in a renewed effort to step up the fight against global warming.

In the 24-hours since Trump's controversial decision, the #ParisAgreement has been trending on Twitter, with a host of social media voicing their dissent - ranging from Trump's presidential predecessor Barack Obama through to Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Zuckerberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Notably, Tesla’s chief executive Elon Musk has announced that he will be leaving the US President's advisory council, stepping down as a technology industry advisor for the White House. Musk has been critical of politicians in the past, accusing them of taking the “easy path” to subsidise fossil fuels.

Musk took to Twitter to announce that he was “departing presidential councils”, noting that “climate change is real” and that “leaving Paris is not good for America or the world". Walt Disney’s chairman Robert Iger has also resigned from the President’s Council over Trump's Paris Agreement decision.

Business leaders have long sought to appeal to Trump’s businessman persona to persuade the President to remain in the Paris Agreement. Musk signed a joint-letter alongside the chief executives of Unilever, Virgin, Coca-Cola, Walt Disney and others to highlight the economic benefits of remaining in the accord.

But in this instance, Trump’s “art of the deal” is to ignore what all others are pursuing. Overnight, Apple’s chief executive Tim Cook, Google’s chief executive Sundar Pichai and Facebook’s Zuckerberg all used social media to note their disappoint over the decision.

“Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement is bad for the environment, bad for the economy, and puts our children at risk,” Zuckerberg said in a Facebook post. “Stopping climate change is something we can only do as a global community, and we have to act together before it’s too late.”

Even the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein - who hasn’t tweet since he joined the platform in 2011 - posted a message deriding Trump's decision.

While businesses stand defiant against the decision, cities and states are seemingly scaling up climate ambitions. An open letter from 82 mayors representing 39 million Americans has promised to “adopt, honour, and uphold the commitments to the goals enshrined in the Paris Agreement”. Mayors from the likes of New York City, Washington and San Francisco had called on Trump to expand renewable energy sources and green infrastructure to achieve US energy security and create a manufacturing, energy and construction boom in America.

The push from cities has been spearheaded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Since Trump’s announcement, Bloomberg has so far gathered 30 mayors, three governors, more than 80 university presidents and more than 100 businesses to attempt to get a group submission accepted by the United Nations. If successful, the submission would place the group’s climate actions alongside the national contributions agreed under the Paris Agreement by other nations.

French President Emmanuel Macron has led the responses from other nations. Using the slogan “Make Our Planet Great Again”, Macron reiterated his commitment to finding new ways to limit the impacts of global warming in line with the accord, in a message posted on YouTube.

Here in the UK, a range of ministers including Amber Rudd, Nick Clegg and Greg Clark have reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to the Paris Agreement, while Labour's Jeremy Corbyn and the Green Party's Caroline Lucas have outright criticised Trump over his decision.

Prime Minister Theresa May has also reportedly told Trump of her “disappointment” over the decision, according to a Downing Street statement. However, May has not signed a joint condemnation from France, Germany, and Italy.

For Trump's decision to come into effect, the US will have to undergo a complex legal process to officially withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Parties can only pull out three years after the Agreement officially entered force, meaning the earliest withdrawal via this route would be November 2019. However, withdrawing from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would trigger a departure from the accord, and this would only require one years’ notice. </s> SAN FRANCISCO - Businesses and corporate leaders were quick to react to President Trump's decision Thursday to pull the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk made good on his threat to leave President Trump's CEO-stacked economic council if he turns his back on the consortium of nations pledged to fight climate change. Trump has argued that taxes and other measures imposed by such a group would hamper U.S. economic growth.

Musk tweeted that "climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world."

Musk, whose companies not only make rockets and fancy electric cars but also are pushing hard into solar electricity, had been very public about defending his decision to be a part of Trump's advisory group, arguing that having the president's ear was better than having no influence at all.

Other reactions that expressed disappointment with the president's decision include those from:

General Motors said it is sticking by a previous assertion that combating climate change is good for business. The company said its Chevrolet Bolt electric car, the only long-range mass-market electric vehicle in the U.S., is an example of its commitment to zero-emission solutions.

“GM will not waver from our commitment to the environment and our position on climate change has not changed,” General Motors said in a statement following the president’s announcement. “International agreements aside, we remain committed to creating a better environment.”

Google CEO Sundar Pichai tweeted he was "Disappointed with today’s decision. Google will keep working hard for a cleaner, more prosperous future for all."

The computing giant, a carbon neutral company since 2007, is on track this year to reach its goal of 100% renewable energy for global operations.

Customer relationship management software CEO Marc Benioff tweeted that he was "Deeply disappointed by President's decision to withdraw from ParisAgreement. We will double our efforts to fight climate change."

Benioff included a photo of Salesforce's official response, which notes that his company is pushing to achieve carbon-neutral cloud storage status while running 100% on renewable energy.

The computing giant posted a message on its website "reaffirming its support" for the Paris agreement.

"IBM has been one of industry’s earliest — and unambiguous — leaders on the subject of climate change with a commitment that goes back decades. Ten years ago, we declared that climate change was one of the most critical global environmental challenges facing the planet," the statement reads.

IBM CEO Ginni Rometty is on the presidential economic advisory council that Musk has just left.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella tweeted that "We believe climate change is an urgent issue that demands global action. We remain committed to doing our part."

Nadella linked to his company's official statement on the decision to exit the Paris agreement. It noted that Microsoft had for weeks, and along with other big companies, lobbied President Trump on the matter, urging him to keep the U.S. in the agreement.

"We believe that continued U.S. participation benefits U.S. businesses and the economy in important and multiple ways," wrote Microsoft president Brad Smith. "A global framework strengthens competitiveness for American businesses. It creates new markets for innovative clean technologies, from green power to smart grids to cloud-enabled solutions." </s> In a blow to activists seeking a way to hold big oil companies accountable for the damaging effects of global warming, a federal judge dismissed a pair of groundbreaking climate change lawsuits on Monday brought by two California cities against several major oil firms.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who had ordered a first-of-its-kind climate change “tutorial” earlier this year to help him understand issues raised by the suits, said in a lengthy ruling that he “fully accepts the vast scientific consensus” that fossil fuels have contributed to increasing temperatures and rising sea levels. But he said the problem was simply too massive — and too global in scope — for just one “district judge or jury” to solve.

Noting that the world has reaped many benefits from fossil fuels since the dawn of the industrial era, the San Francisco-based judge said “questions of how to appropriately balance ... worldwide negatives against the worldwide positives of the energy itself” must be handled by the U.S. government’s executive and legislative branches.

The cities of San Francisco and Oakland sued BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell last year. City officials argued that the five companies had created a “public nuisance,” and should be held accountable for the destructive — and costly — ramifications of global warming.

The suits accused the companies of having long known of the link between fossil fuels and planet-warming greenhouse gases, yet had not only done little to prevent their damaging effects but had even tried to hide these facts from the public.

The suits argued that the companies should help pay for sea walls and other infrastructure projects aimed at protecting communities against the effects of global warming. San Francisco has estimated that some $10 billion of public property and up to $39 billion of private land has been put at risk because of climate change-related rising seas, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.

While Alsup acknowledged the existence of climate change and its associated risks, he said he was not persuaded by the cities’ legal argument.

“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,” Alsup wrote in his ruling, adding that the “court will stay its hand in favor of solutions by the legislative and executive branches.”

Alsup, who invited experts from both sides of the case to be part of the climate change tutorial he presided over in March, also said he didn’t believe that oil companies were the only ones to blame for Earth’s environmental crisis.

“All of us have benefitted” from the “monumental progress” spurred by the industrial revolution, Alsup wrote. “Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?”

Michael Burger of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law told The New York Times it was “too early to tell” whether Alsup’s decision would have an impact on those efforts. Attorney and policy expert Andrew Grossman suggested on Twitter, however, that “given the respect for Alsup, expect his reasoning to carry weight in other cases.”

Alsup, who has presided over several high-profile cases, was nominated to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton and has served on it since 1999. </s> June 26 (Reuters) - A federal court in California dismissed climate change lawsuits by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against five oil companies, saying the complaints required foreign and domestic policy decisions that were outside its purview.

San Francisco and Oakland sued Chevron Corp, Exxon Mobil Corp, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and BP Plc last year seeking an abatement fund to help the cities address flooding they said was a result of climate change.

Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said in the ruling that the dangers raised by the complainants were real and worldwide, and both parties accepted the science behind global warming.

"(However), the problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a District Judge or jury in a public nuisance case," Judge Alsup said. http://bit.ly/2Irnpo4

The suit was one of several filed by cities and local governments around the country that argued in part the production of fossil fuels had led to rising tides that damaged shorelines, roads and other properties requiring remediation.

Alsup, who held a primer on climate change during the case, wrote that although scientists agree burning fossil fuels is raising ocean levels, the suits "could interfere with reaching a worldwide consensus" on the social pros and cons of fuel use.

Chevron, which took the lead in fighting the case, called the decision "important and well-reasoned" and said although the ruling is not binding on other courts, judges in similar cases "should follow Judge Alsup's lead and dismiss their cases as well," according to spokesman Sean Comey.

Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, an advocacy group that supports the lawsuits, called the decision disappointing, but added: "This fight is just getting started and we expect to win."

A Shell spokeswoman said the company regards climate change to be a complex problem, which is not an issue for the courts but requires sound government policy.

The case is City of Oakland V. BP, Chevron and others, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 17-CV-06011. </s> While delivering a partial victory for science by affirming the undeniable role that fossil fuels have played in the global climate crisis, a federal judge on Monday tossed out a pair of lawsuits filed by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco, California that sought to make five oil and gas companies pay for their contributions to global warming-induced sea level rise, which has left oceanfront communities fighting increased flooding, coastal erosion, and property damage.

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup—who was lauded earlier this year for hosting a historic "climate tutorial" in court for this case—wrote in his 16-page decision:

This order fully accepts the vast scientific consensus that the combustion of fossil fuels has materially increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which in turn has increased the median temperature of the planet and accelerated sea level rise. But questions of how to appropriately balance these worldwide negatives against the worldwide positives of the energy itself, and of how to allocate the pluses and minueses among the nations of the world, demand the expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate. Nuisance suits in various United States judicial districts regarding conduct worldwide are far less likely to solve the problem and, indeed, could interfere with reaching a worldwide consensus.

Because the cities accused these five major fossil fuel companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell—of creating a "public nuisance" that warranted compensation, this particular case wasn't about solving the global climate crisis, explained Richard Wiles of the Center for Climate Integrity, "but simply whether oil and gas producers should help San Francisco and Oakland pay for the costs of adapting to it."

"By kicking the case to a do-nothing Congress and a climate denying White House, the court essentially ruled that taxpayers alone should pay the massive costs of adapting to climate change," Wiles said.

"There are always adverse decisions along the road to victory. That was true in tobacco, lead, and asbestos, where the courts ultimately crafted a solution to a major crisis. This fight is just getting started and we expect to win."

—Richard Wiles, Center for Climate Integrity

"This is obviously not the ruling we wanted, but this doesn't mean the case is over," John Coté, a spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney, said. "We're reviewing the order and will decide on our next steps shortly."

Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker told E&E News the lawyers are "considering all options, including an appeal."

Although Alsup sided with the fossil fuel companies, Coté added: "We're pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute. Our litigation forced a public court proceeding on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny it is real and valid. Our belief remains that these companies are liable for the harm they've caused."

While dismissing the suits, Alsup wrote: "The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and California. The issue is a legal one." Though the five companies named in the suit are among the world's largest producers, the judge pointed out that "anyone who supplied fossil fuels with knowledge of the problem would be liable."

"It is never good when a judge says the other side wins," Niskanen Center attorney David Bookbinder—a co-counsel for a similar case brought by communities in Colorado—told Axios. However, "this is round one of many, many rounds of decisions in these cases," he said. "By no means is it the end of the process."

"There are always adverse decisions along the road to victory. That was true in tobacco, lead, and asbestos, where the courts ultimately crafted a solution to a major crisis," concluded Wiles. "This fight is just getting started and we expect to win."
The chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, Ben van Beurden, denies the claim that his company's balance sheet contains any assets that will be "stranded," that is that will have to be written off, due to the Paris Climate Accord.