Supporting Statement:

Chevron has repeatedly stated its commitment to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. It does not appear from publicly available information, however, that Chevron has fully considered the risk that decarbonization on activist schedules

might entail. Claims about the need for decarbonization at all, but especially by some activist-generated date certain, are based on a long series of assumptions that are either counterfactual or insufficiently examined. For decades, for instance, claims have been made that action must be taken before some date, or it will be too late.1 If those claims were right, it’s too late for decarbonization to matter now, so we should be building up economic resources to deal with climate change. If they were wrong, then the odds are high that current claims are also wrong. Chevron’s decarbonization will be meaningless if other countries do not follow the same decarbonization schedules, and there is abundant evidence that they will not.2 The United States government has never mandated net-zero by statute or authorized regulatory action3, and is unlikely ever to do so; this contravenes the assumptions of “stranded asset” analysis. If decarbonization is neither required nor technologically feasible, Chevron will lose significant markets and revenues to private equity firms and (less clean-producing) state actors, thus harming shareholders while also harming the environment. These and all relevant considerations should be fully and objectively examined.