The third shift has been driven by investors, as over 20 fossil fuel companies have released detailed information about how they view their exposure to carbon asset risks including: whether they put an internal price on carbon, what screening prices they use for sanctioning projects, whether they assess their resilience to a 2 degree limit on global warming, and how they are planning for climate impacts.

While the quality of these disclosures varies, they have provided valuable information that investors have used to challenge faulty assumptions and boost awareness about the risks and uncertainty of investing in fossil fuels. In some cases, we’re seeing an impact within companies. Former coal giants like BHP Billiton and Exxaro, for example, have affirmed the consensus on climate science and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, Total has made major investments in solar and Statoil has created a new renewable energy division focused on offshore wind.

The fourth big indicator of change can be seen in the growth of renewables. Solar photovoltaic technologies for example, are already cheaper in many parts of the world than fossil fuel power, and UBS has predicted solar will replace nuclear and coal to become the “default technology of the future to generate and supply electricity.” Furthermore, extreme weather events from droughts to flooding to heat waves and wildfires weigh in favor of more distributed energy systems built around renewables and energy storage, to promote resilience.

Finally, members of Ceres’ Investor Network on Climate Risk, led by the New York City Comptroller and CalPERS, have ramped up pressure on boards of directors at 33 fossil fuel companies, which faced resolutions calling for “proxy access” or the right of major investors to nominate independent directors to company boards. Despite opposition from companies, many of the proposals received majority support at annual meetings, including Chevron’s. Shareholders also forced boards and CEOs to address their failure to adequately manage carbon asset risk by pushing resolutions aimed at adding board members with expertise on climate or directly challenging continued capital expenditures on high-risk projects.

Companies like Exxon and Chevron are betting that the next 100 years will look a lot like the last 100 years, even though the facts suggest otherwise. Investors, analysts, and even the Pope can see the writing on the wall: the global transition to a clean-energy economy is happening, and the fossil fuel majors are at risk of being left behind.