corporate-climate-appendix-e-114ce2fff63980f2.pdf

The document contains interview transcripts with executives from Denbury Resources, Exxon Mobil, NRG Energy, TECO Energy, and Waste Management (ConocoPhillips participated but declined to be quoted). The interviews explore corporate stances on climate science, the physical risks of climate change to business operations, mitigation efforts, and the funding of political or policy-oriented organizations. Findings reveal a spectrum of responses: some companies acknowledge the risks and invest in clean energy or efficiency, while others avoid taking official positions on climate science or deny that physical climate impacts currently affect their operations.

• Denbury Resources does not have an official corporate position on climate change, though its business model focuses on using anthropogenic CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to increase domestic energy production.
• Exxon Mobil acknowledges that global temperatures have risen since pre-industrial times and that greenhouse gas emissions pose risks that "warrant action," though the company avoids a "climate change litmus test" for the various public policy groups it supports.
• NRG Energy identifies climate change as one of the "most pressing issues" and has invested in solar power, including projects in the Mojave Desert and Arizona, as well as electric vehicle charging networks.
• TECO Energy completed a billion-dollar agreement with the EPA and Department of Justice by 2010 to reduce emissions, including a CO2 reduction of approximately 20% to 25%.
• Waste Management avoids taking an official corporate position on the science of climate change, preferring to focus on "sustainability goals" and reducing its carbon footprint through initiatives like natural gas fueled vehicles.
• Several interviewed companies, including Exxon Mobil, NRG Energy, and TECO Energy, stated that they have not taken proactive steps to prepare for the physical impacts of climate change on their facilities, citing a lack of pinpointable risks or the long-term nature of the threats.
• Regarding the Waxman-Markey ACES Act, NRG Energy supported the bill, while Exxon Mobil opposed it, claiming it "treated the industry unfairly," and Denbury Resources and Waste Management did not take a formal stand on the bill in its entirety.

APA

Union of Concerned Scientists (n.d.). corporate-climate-appendix-e-114ce2fff63980f2.pdf. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/corporate-climate-appendix-e.pdf

Chicago

Union of Concerned Scientists. corporate-climate-appendix-e-114ce2fff63980f2.pdf. n.d. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/corporate-climate-appendix-e.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Union of Concerned Scientists |title=corporate-climate-appendix-e-114ce2fff63980f2.pdf |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/corporate-climate-appendix-e.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{unionofconcernedscientistsndcorporateclimateappendixe114ce2fff63980f2pdf, author = {{Union of Concerned Scientists}}, title = {{corporate-climate-appendix-e-114ce2fff63980f2.pdf}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/corporate-climate-appendix-e.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }