2 ms·

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 clim

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.

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.