NLPC Denounces Wells Fargo’s Climate Policies at Annual Meeting

The National Legal and Policy presented a “Humanitarian Risks Due to Climate Change Policies” proposal at the Wells Fargo & Company‘s 2024 annual meeting of shareholders today. The proposal asks the company to conduct an audit of its climate policies and release a report on how they may negatively effect the economic and humanitarian development of emerging nations.

Wells Fargo’s board of directors opposed our proposal, as explained on pages 126-127 on the company’s 2024 proxy statement. NLPC’s response to the board’s opposition statement was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission last month.

Speaking as sponsor of the proposal was Luke Perlot, associate director of NLPC’s Corporate Integrity Project. His three-minute remarks can be heard here, and a transcript follows:

Good morning,

 

Wells Fargo claims its commitments to the carbon emissions reduction targets and net zero 2050 goals outlined in the Paris Agreement are necessary. To that end, the firm plans to dramatically reduce the carbon intensity of its energy sector lending portfolios by 2030. Wells Fargo believes that if more companies do not take similar commitments to catalyze the energy transition and reduce the global usage of hydrocarbon energy, anthropogenically driven climate change will result in catastrophic effects to the environment, to the planet, and to humans.

 

Yet the research increasingly shows that the narrative of catastrophic climate change is overexaggerated and misleading. Based on apocalyptic scenarios that are highly unlikely, nonetheless they are often sold by the corporate media as business-as-usual. This is because the climate models used to predict these scenarios are consistently inaccurate and their projections usually fail to pan out. They predict absurd, unrealistic temperatures, often due to data inputs with exaggerated and speculative adjustments, rather than those that reflect the true historical record and trends. So it’s foolish to trust these models to predict the future.

 

Conversely, the negative effects of rapidly reducing the supply of hydrocarbon energy are clear and obvious.

 

First of all, developing nations rely heavily on affordable energy from fossil fuels. According to the International Energy Agency, nearly 760 million people – who primarily live in Africa and Asia – still lack access to electricity.

 

Secondly, when energy prices rise, oil-importing nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are hit the hardest, because of high import prices and weaker currencies, also according to the IEA.

 

The pivot away from fossil fuels, without adequate and affordable alternatives, risks exacerbating poverty rather than alleviating it. This transition, if not managed carefully, will inflate energy costs, reduce energy availability, and stifle economic growth in these vulnerable regions. As a result, Wells Fargo’s allegiance to the Paris Agreement via its energy transition goals are at odds with its commitment to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly the first goal of ending poverty.

 

Our Proposal asks Wells Fargo to conduct an audit of the economic and humanitarian effects, both adverse and beneficial, of its policies, particularly on developing nations.

 

In its opposition to our proposal, Wells Fargo argues that it primarily serves domestic clients, so the impact of its domestic energy policies on emerging economies is limited. Yet it cannot deny the global nature of energy markets. Supply increases or decreases in the US can have a major effect on global prices. The most obvious example is how the US shale boom brought prices down worldwide. OPEC supply cuts demonstrate the same effect in reverse, as international supply decreases lead to international price increases.

 

Wells Fargo must also admit that its existing disclosures are inadequate. Its existing reports focus on the financial and social risks of catastrophic climate change, however unlikely they may be, yet ignore the other side of the story.

 

Some of the Company’s clients may be legitimately concerned with climate change, this is not the issue. The issue is that the Company has made decisions on behalf of all its clients’ assets based on the opinion of a small subset of the political spectrum.

 

We urge the Board to examine all sides of this issue by conducting an audit of the negative economic and humanitarian effects of its climate policies, and we urge our fellow shareholders to vote FOR Item 9.

 

Thank you.

Read NLPC’s shareholder proposal for the Wells Fargo annual meeting here.

Listen to Luke Perlot’s presentation of the proposal at the meeting here.

Read NLPC’s response, filed with the SEC, to the company’s opposition to our shareholder proposal, here.