4 ms·

> I find the whole idea that you could hold a company which produces petroleum products responsible for climate change ridiculous. That's not what this is abou

by cryptoz 11y ago

> I find the whole idea that you could hold a company which produces petroleum products responsible for climate change ridiculous. That's not what this is about - the question here is that Exxon might have prevented the public from understanding the health risks from using Exxon's product. That means that they way the population votes, the way the population buys products, has been a directed by the lies of Exxon. We can and we will hold them accountable for those lies and the damage caused. > Oil is so undeniably important to the economy and indeed livelihood at this point, that the U.S. has salt caverns full of it in case of an emergency. Oil is only that important because the industry has actively prevented alternatives from being developed. If they had been more forward-thinking, then oil wouldn't be that important and we wouldn't have all our eggs in one basket. > No one in their right mind expects to wake up and find that an oil company has come to the conclusion that "it's really bad stuff and we're going to exit the market immediately on moral ground" or "start making clean oil". Well, I certainly do. Are you saying that I'm not in my right mind? Let's be more polite here, please. > Climate change is a global problem that demands a solution by governments. Oil companies should be exempt from prosecution over climate change. If you're going to say they've profited while the seas are rising, fine, then tax them, not sue them. They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil.

euroclydon 11y ago
> That's not what this is about - the question here is that Exxon might have prevented the public from understanding the health risks from using Exxon's product. That means that they way the population votes, the way the population buys products, has been a directed by the lies of Exxon. We can and we will hold them accountable for those lies and the damage caused. I know it doesn't seem that way, but they must have perceived a danger of being sued over climate change (not health, by the way) in order to have taken these actions. I take issue with a society that would ever allow them to be sued for climate change. > Oil is only that important because the industry has actively prevented alternatives from being developed. If they had been more forward-thinking, then oil wouldn't be that important and we wouldn't have all our eggs in one basket. Not sure about that. Traditional oil production yields massive net energy gains. There's a lot of net energy from solar, but w/o the convenience of a liquid that can be burnt in day or night, and stored for a while. > Well, I certainly do. Are you saying that I'm not in my right mind? Let's be more polite here, please. Okay > They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil. I only read the NYT article. Did you read some other source? The only time "health" is mentioned is in a tobacco comparison.
- the_gastropod 11y ago
  > I take issue with a society that would ever allow them to be sued for climate change. I'm curious where you draw the line here. You must acknowledge that the price of gasoline, for example, is subsidized by the public dealing with its side-effects. Asthma, acid rain, acidification of the oceans, global warming, etc. are all side-effects that have costs associated with them. These costs are paid by you and I—not Exxon-Mobil. Why do you think it would be unreasonable, assuming Exxon-Mobil is guilty of spreading misinformation, for them to cover some of these costs?
  - euroclydon 11y ago
    Because, I don't believe our petroleum usage as a society is affected by ExxonMobile, no matter how much propaganda they spew out. It's bigger than that. You don't create a climate change remediation policy by suing one oil company.
    - the_gastropod 11y ago
      That's effectively like saying the murder problem isn't because of ONE murderer. Why bother arresting a murderer? If Exxon-Mobil is guilty of falsifying information, they should be held accountable. Period. Whether other companies are also guilty is of no consequence to Exxon. They should be held responsible as well.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 11y ago
> They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil. What are the known health risks associated with buying their oil? I think my life is better now because I and people bought their oil and refined it into gasoline, and products that I use.
- the_gastropod 11y ago
  Asthma, for starters. Pumping your car's exhaust into your cabin is probably a poor idea. It's not harmless when you, instead, pump that exhaust into the air we all breath.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Diesel pollution kills hundreds of thousands of people each year.
akiselev 11y ago
Im not a lawyer but from what I can tell, the allegation currently being investigated through subpoenas, is whether Exxon knew the existential risks global climate change poses to their future earning potential and misrepresented them in their financial filings. If this is true, it means that their shareholders has been trading Exxon shares at an inflated price based on premeditated lies that the executives might even be personally liable for. This is a bit different from how the tobacco companies were sued for actual health effects (although their attempts to mislead the public were a component, though had nothing to do with misleading shareholders AFAIK). It's more akin to prosecuting Al Capone for tax evasion when there isn't enough evidence to get him for the main crime. Since the attorney general can't realistically win a law suit on the ecological effects of fossil fuels he's trying to get them for knowingly misrepresenting how future regulations will effect Exxon's bottom line.
- euroclydon 11y ago
  Yeah, I see that now. They stand accused of "funding groups that sought to undermine climate science". Presumably because, had the listed global warming in their annual report as a risk factor, they would have precipitated it's acceptance into the mainstream, thereby inducing government action which would have reduced their sales or profits. I bet it will be difficult to prove malice. Free speech has wide bounds.
  - akiselev 11y ago
    Executives (who have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders) and the public companies they run do not have the right to unrestricted free speech in the same way that the average person does, specifically when it comes to SEC regulated financial reports. In order to have the privelege of raising money by selling stock to the public, the parties involved must abide by rules set forth by the SEC, which are supposed to balance out the information assymetry and skewed incentives between employees and shareholders. Exxon does include climate change as a risk in their financial reports and legally, if not morally, the executives are doing their job by undermining the public debate. The issue here isn't their propaganda, but whether they based their financial disclosures on propaganda they knew to be false. Exxon is in big trouble if the people responsible for their financial reports (which are signed by a C level executive) based their risk assessment on research that they knew to be fraudulent, even if they can legally fund and publicize that research to mislead the public.
13thLetter 11y ago
> They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil. Defining climate change as a "health risk" is insane, sorry. If we go down that road, any policy someone doesn't like could be defined as a "health risk" by a sufficiently creative and unscrupulous debater. Legalize drugs? Health risk because of more addicts. Oppose mass surveillance? Health risk because of injuries from crime and terrorist attacks. Favor green energy? Health risk due to poisonous materials used in manufacturing solar panels. Et cetera. Please at least be honest about this. People like the NYAG are unable to get their agenda through democratically, so they're going to sue their way to victory instead.
- cryptoz 11y ago
  > Defining climate change as a "health risk" is insane, sorry. So far in this thread, I've been called "insane" and "out of my right mind". I really wish HN were more polite, this kind of language is toxic to having a good discussion. Climate change is certainly a health risk. Already there have been numerous issues with fresh water access in developing countries due to local climate change that is largely caused by human activity. Lack of fresh water is a health risk. There are numerous other health risks associated with a changing climate, and it is certainly not "insane" to think that's true.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    > Climate change is certainly a health risk. Already there have been numerous issues with fresh water access in developing countries due to local climate change that is largely caused by human activity a) "Local climate change" that is "largely caused by human activity" is not what we're talking about here. b) If something causing issues with fresh water access is enough to define it as a "health risk" then every natural or human-caused disaster in the history of the world is a "health risk" and the term is meaningless. c) If we can define any problem worldwide as a "health risk" and on that basis sue anyone who disagrees with our evaluation or recommended policy, that's a recipe to legally shut down any argument.
- Goronmon 11y ago

by cryptoz 11y ago

euroclydon 11y ago

> That's not what this is about - the question here is that Exxon might have prevented the public from understanding the health risks from using Exxon's product. That means that they way the population votes, the way the population buys products, has been a directed by the lies of Exxon. We can and we will hold them accountable for those lies and the damage caused. I know it doesn't seem that way, but they must have perceived a danger of being sued over climate change (not health, by the way) in order to have taken these actions. I take issue with a society that would ever allow them to be sued for climate change. > Oil is only that important because the industry has actively prevented alternatives from being developed. If they had been more forward-thinking, then oil wouldn't be that important and we wouldn't have all our eggs in one basket. Not sure about that. Traditional oil production yields massive net energy gains. There's a lot of net energy from solar, but w/o the convenience of a liquid that can be burnt in day or night, and stored for a while. > Well, I certainly do. Are you saying that I'm not in my right mind? Let's be more polite here, please. Okay > They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil. I only read the NYT article. Did you read some other source? The only time "health" is mentioned is in a tobacco comparison.

the_gastropod 11y ago
> I take issue with a society that would ever allow them to be sued for climate change. I'm curious where you draw the line here. You must acknowledge that the price of gasoline, for example, is subsidized by the public dealing with its side-effects. Asthma, acid rain, acidification of the oceans, global warming, etc. are all side-effects that have costs associated with them. These costs are paid by you and I—not Exxon-Mobil. Why do you think it would be unreasonable, assuming Exxon-Mobil is guilty of spreading misinformation, for them to cover some of these costs?
- euroclydon 11y ago
  Because, I don't believe our petroleum usage as a society is affected by ExxonMobile, no matter how much propaganda they spew out. It's bigger than that. You don't create a climate change remediation policy by suing one oil company.
  - the_gastropod 11y ago
    That's effectively like saying the murder problem isn't because of ONE murderer. Why bother arresting a murderer? If Exxon-Mobil is guilty of falsifying information, they should be held accountable. Period. Whether other companies are also guilty is of no consequence to Exxon. They should be held responsible as well.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 11y ago

> They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil. What are the known health risks associated with buying their oil? I think my life is better now because I and people bought their oil and refined it into gasoline, and products that I use.

the_gastropod 11y ago
Asthma, for starters. Pumping your car's exhaust into your cabin is probably a poor idea. It's not harmless when you, instead, pump that exhaust into the air we all breath.
DanBC 11y ago
Diesel pollution kills hundreds of thousands of people each year.

akiselev 11y ago

Im not a lawyer but from what I can tell, the allegation currently being investigated through subpoenas, is whether Exxon knew the existential risks global climate change poses to their future earning potential and misrepresented them in their financial filings. If this is true, it means that their shareholders has been trading Exxon shares at an inflated price based on premeditated lies that the executives might even be personally liable for. This is a bit different from how the tobacco companies were sued for actual health effects (although their attempts to mislead the public were a component, though had nothing to do with misleading shareholders AFAIK). It's more akin to prosecuting Al Capone for tax evasion when there isn't enough evidence to get him for the main crime. Since the attorney general can't realistically win a law suit on the ecological effects of fossil fuels he's trying to get them for knowingly misrepresenting how future regulations will effect Exxon's bottom line.

euroclydon 11y ago
Yeah, I see that now. They stand accused of "funding groups that sought to undermine climate science". Presumably because, had the listed global warming in their annual report as a risk factor, they would have precipitated it's acceptance into the mainstream, thereby inducing government action which would have reduced their sales or profits. I bet it will be difficult to prove malice. Free speech has wide bounds.
- akiselev 11y ago
  Executives (who have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders) and the public companies they run do not have the right to unrestricted free speech in the same way that the average person does, specifically when it comes to SEC regulated financial reports. In order to have the privelege of raising money by selling stock to the public, the parties involved must abide by rules set forth by the SEC, which are supposed to balance out the information assymetry and skewed incentives between employees and shareholders. Exxon does include climate change as a risk in their financial reports and legally, if not morally, the executives are doing their job by undermining the public debate. The issue here isn't their propaganda, but whether they based their financial disclosures on propaganda they knew to be false. Exxon is in big trouble if the people responsible for their financial reports (which are signed by a C level executive) based their risk assessment on research that they knew to be fraudulent, even if they can legally fund and publicize that research to mislead the public.

13thLetter 11y ago

> They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil. Defining climate change as a "health risk" is insane, sorry. If we go down that road, any policy someone doesn't like could be defined as a "health risk" by a sufficiently creative and unscrupulous debater. Legalize drugs? Health risk because of more addicts. Oppose mass surveillance? Health risk because of injuries from crime and terrorist attacks. Favor green energy? Health risk due to poisonous materials used in manufacturing solar panels. Et cetera. Please at least be honest about this. People like the NYAG are unable to get their agenda through democratically, so they're going to sue their way to victory instead.

cryptoz 11y ago
> Defining climate change as a "health risk" is insane, sorry. So far in this thread, I've been called "insane" and "out of my right mind". I really wish HN were more polite, this kind of language is toxic to having a good discussion. Climate change is certainly a health risk. Already there have been numerous issues with fresh water access in developing countries due to local climate change that is largely caused by human activity. Lack of fresh water is a health risk. There are numerous other health risks associated with a changing climate, and it is certainly not "insane" to think that's true.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > Climate change is certainly a health risk. Already there have been numerous issues with fresh water access in developing countries due to local climate change that is largely caused by human activity a) "Local climate change" that is "largely caused by human activity" is not what we're talking about here. b) If something causing issues with fresh water access is enough to define it as a "health risk" then every natural or human-caused disaster in the history of the world is a "health risk" and the term is meaningless. c) If we can define any problem worldwide as a "health risk" and on that basis sue anyone who disagrees with our evaluation or recommended policy, that's a recipe to legally shut down any argument.
Goronmon 11y ago