12 ms·

NY State alleges ExxonMobil knew risks of climate change and defrauded investors

321 points by colinprince 7y ago

OrgNet 7y ago
sounds like a 5 trillion settlement would be appropriate in this case...
- irq 7y ago
  Probably even more than that, when you consider how many more years the planet will be dealing with Exxon's BS, even if they were to cease operations today.
  - kjar 7y ago
    The company knew the physical ramifications from at least the 1970s, suppressed that knowledge, and now we are locked into decades their product manifested for many decades. Extractive industry - oil, coal, methane needs to have ended decades ago. We are climatically locked in for insane destabilization
  - OrgNet 7y ago
    > even if they were to cease operations today I would be surprised if a 5 trillion fine would not achieve that goal...
shanxS 7y ago
Interesting, use that money to fund R&D to reduce CO2 in atmosphere?
- lazyjones 7y ago
  We already know very well how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but we're doing the opposite. For example, in the EU we're adding "biofuels" to gasoline for stupid reasons and part of that comes from palm oil, which is produced where rainforests are cut down first. So we're not only trying to save the dirty ICE, but we're also destroying rainforests in order to look "green". I don't expect anything good to come from politics under the pretense of saving the planet.
tlb 7y ago
Source article: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24102018/exxon-climate-fraud-lawsuit-new-york-attorney-general-investigation-tillerson https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24102018/exxon-climate-fr... Are there previous examples of a lawsuit over a company misleading shareholders about potential future liabilities, where the liabilities are still unknown? We still don't know how much business Exxon might lose, or how much its penalties might be, as a result of climate change. So how would you calculate which shareholders lost how much?
- united893 7y ago
  That's not the source. That article merely rehashes the AG PR[1] and doc [2] from 2018. This article just discusses preparations for the opening arguments due to commence. [1] - https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-underwood-files-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil-defrauding-investors-regarding-financial https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-underwood-files-lawsuit-a... [2] - https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint_0.pdf https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint_...
- hughw 7y ago
  There's some chance that governments worldwide will decide the costs of transforming the energy base and applying conservation measures, outweigh the benefits of possibly avoiding the increase of 2°C and attendant problems. In that case, Exxon's internal proxy GHG cost projections don't look wrong. Whether it's a securities law violation, different matter.
- qtplatypus 7y ago
  It is not the the future liabilities are unknown. It is that exon had information that it new that would effect those liabilities and didn’t inform the stockmarket. It isn’t up to the company to work out how much that they will loose but it is up to Exon to give the market the information they need in order to make an informed decision.
heyoni 7y ago
Does this stuff ever get us anywhere? I just looked at the AG's website and it looks like we're constantly suing every high powered entity in America: https://ag.ny.gov https://ag.ny.gov
- kmlx 7y ago
  i recommend this essay about how absolutely crazy the AG role actually is: https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1913&context=lawreview https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1913...
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    Now explain the New York AG and why it seems others are twiddling their thumbs in comparison Or perhaps they are active against multinational corporations but arent physically close enough to the media for it to ever surface?
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
      The New York AG has the obvious advantage of having jurisdiction over the world's financial capital. Other states may often lack the nexus with the business to have standing. Then, it's simply a matter of experience: corporate and especially financial law is beyond complex, and they have the expertise, plus the financial resources, to investigate such cases. New York law is also similarly ahead. And, of course, the majority of Attorneys General are currently Republican and have absolutely no interest interfering with corporations unless those happen to be involved in journalism, renewable energy or other despicably altruistic lines of business.
- ta20938 7y ago
  Many of the undertakings that happen at the state level require a functioning federal government for them to go anywhere. We do not have a functioning federal government, so here we are.
  - 7y ago
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
At first blush, this seems like rough justice to me. Based on cynical assumptions, I'm guessing that the NY AG actually has an axe to grind about ExxonMobil's political/PR efforts regarding climate change, but couldn't pursue them because of First Amendment protections. And so the AG is grasping at other legal straws within the same general topic area.
- _underfl0w_ 7y ago
  Even if it's neither one, I'd still rather someone with political/socioeconomic power spend time arguing for sound science, rather than against it.
- mikeash 7y ago
  They knew that their product would mess with the climate and they not only hid this information, but actively lied to convince people of the opposite, all so that they could make more money. And they made an incomprehensible amount of money. This sure sounds like fraud to me, and people have gone to prison for far, far less. Madoff got 150 years in prison for fraud equal to just a couple years of Exxon’s profits. Rough justice? Maybe for the victims. Exxon should feel very lucky if it stops at losing this lawsuit. Of course, this is the US, where real punishments are reserved for individuals, and large companies are effectively outside the law.
- matthewdgreen 7y ago
  Lying to investors is a serious crime. What you're saying is that Exxon actually committed a much more serious set of bad acts -- acts that may be constitutionally protected -- and that "lying to investors" doesn't seem as serious when compared with Exxon's real bad acts. But that's insane. It's like saying that I shouldn't be prosecuted for arson if setting someone's house on fire also kills them.
  - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
    Sorry, let me clarify. My impression from reading the article was that Exxon's communications to shareholders weren't materially lies in any relevant legal sense. I.e., that trying to prosecute them is at the very least a legal stretch, or at worst a case of malicious prosecution. If I misunderstood the article or missing something crucial in it, I apologize.
beeschlenker 7y ago
Obama rapes & kills 2 boys. DeBlasio 5, Buttgieg 5, Cuomo 4, Murray 3, Dorsey 3, Thiel 3. Trump $4 billion to cover. Pelosi $3 billion, Harris $1 billion, Schumer $2 billion, to help bring the boys over the border. See pages 18-23, 8, 11, 12, 35, 45, 61, 62 Having trouble getting traction. Getting censored/banned. Billions in bribes paid to Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris to enable a Soros funded child raping ring to operate in the USA. Please listen to the links below. Turn up the volume and put headphones on. You will hear these people, and many other high profile people, incriminate themselves in unbelievable fashion. Full 71 page document filled with red handed evidence like this at the bottom. Go to pages 18-23 of this document and you will hear Dorsey and Thiel raping children. You will hear their screams. They both rape and kill three. Also at the "rape party" of note: Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Murray, Peter Buttgieg, George Soros, Barack Obama. Please copy and paste this post and repost it. I keep getting censored by these people. Peter Thiel and Jack Dorsey raping and killing three boys each. Turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_100-200.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzZrjobxhNIEf38M3xk-IeA5SeF4aUtB/view?usp=sharing Obama admits to raping and killing boys he{re, with commentary from Peter Thiel, George Soros, Matt Porter: https://s3.wasabisys.com/out2/Out2/15JanCh3_0545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LCDoc1kT7cfSeKQ1vniP_sx32_bRsHau/view?usp=sharing Trump demands $4 billion to "take a blind eye" at 1015+ (link missing from report, unsure how). Here's pieces of dialogue: 1015 The President requests four billion and henry Porter agrees to it. Some dialogue below. 1017 Donald Trump: Why don't you think about it. 1017 Henry Porter: I don't need to think about it. I'm ready for you to find out what we're really about. 1017 Gigi Hadid: I don't think it's a good idea Henry. 1017 Henry Porter: ...no shit. Jelena just stop talking about it. 1018 Gigi Hadid: About what? 1018 Henry Porter: The child raping. 1018 Donald Trump: What the fuck are you talking about? 1018 Gigi Hadid: Mr. President we are child rapists. 1018 Donald Trump: You cannot be serious. 1018 Donald Trump: You're gonna need $4 billion for me to take a blind eye. 1019 ?: People are laughing because they think four billion is too much. I think it's not a problem when you have $35 billion. 1022 Donald Trump: You better have that $4 billion or you can kiss this shit goodbye. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv2/3Jan/3JanCh3_900-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing Trump wants $138 million to ensure smooth outcome for false judgment for a court case: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/10JanCh3/10JanCh3_951-1033.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iSeGHDToFRoRdIht50Wii0i30mlw9INp/view?usp=sharing Obama explains the Illuminati with Jack Dorsey: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_200-347.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ok1-9IvANULzKBOwADFgaiYCFi6yszfj/view?usp=sharing At 230 a conversation is occurring on the embedded Porter camera system with Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Barack Obama, Bill M^urray, and the Porter's. Jack Dorsey provides a statement defining who their group is: "The Illum%inati is an underground organization of child rapists and homosexuals." Matthew Porter: "We have to thin the herd, so Barack is going to explain a few things." At 232 Barack Obama says the following: "You people have to realize we are child rapi'sts. The Illuminati are child rapists. As soon as you figure that out, you can decide what to do. Everybody is freaking out about what just happened [child raping event still going on]. This is who ^we are." Full 71 page document: https://s3.wasabisys.com/aviewmefirst/FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dXNjPQdQ8c-hFFLt9LT0GiSY5Vud0TzL/view?usp=sharing Please post this anywhere you can! Each google drive link is a backup to the wasabi link just in case one is "down". A word about the "faggot" usage: it was a necessary tool. It showed three things: they were not in control, if they were the usage would have be stopped. Everyone out there needed to see t%his. Two, it made it unpleasant for them to be in the headspace, which has obvious advantages. Three, it pointed out impersonators of BS because they would not call each other faggot, thus helping to mitigate the spread of false information. Apologies for those unintentionally offended. Of special interest to the LGBT community, I give you Barack Obama in a foursome with Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey, and Matthew Porter. It is on page 12 of the document where you can download the video containing audio footage of the "event". Link is just above under "Full 71 page document".
zaroth 7y ago
I’m reminded instantly of the article “Everything Everywhere is Securities Fraud” [1] Oh, look, Matt Levine actually references this case at the top of that article. Unexpected recursion detected. [1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...
- throwawayjava 7y ago
  Liars who make money on their lies are fraudsters, and fraud needs to have criminal repercussions Yes, LOTS of people lie to make money. Yes, all those people are doing something wrong. And yes, that wrong thing is bad enough for society that we should punish it. "Everything" is not fraud. Telling lies to make money is the definition of fraud. If you think that describes "everything" that happens in the economy... Well, stop telling lies. And yes, lots of fraud is impossible to prove because the actors know the law. Patent trolling comes to mind. And yes, lots of powerful people commit fraud throughout their career in impunity. Fraud is normal. However, the normalcy of fraud and of getting away with deviancy does not make fraud acceptable. I'm routinely astounded by how surprised people are to learn that telling lies to make money is illegal. Tech in particular needs to do something about the fact fraud has reached meme status in our industry ('fake it till you make it').
  - geofft 7y ago
    I don't think people are surprised that it is fraud, just that there isn't a better way to prosecute it. If ExxonMobil's board hired a hitman to kill a competitor's CEO, I think people would hope that the response is to prosecute the board for murder and not merely for fraudulently claiming their company is valuable when they were actually relying on destabilizing their competitor. No one's defending the fraud, it just doesn't seem like the most important problem here.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
Bostonian 7y ago
This is ridiculous. For decades, New Yorkers, like all Americans, have enjoyed the benefits of cheap energy. Exxon and other oil companies are giving consumers what they want.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Do consumers want a ruined planet?
  - orf 7y ago
    After seeing the absolutely bonkers car culture that America has, then yes. At least yes as an implicit result of the lifestyle they cannot or will not stop.
    - jogjayr 7y ago
      > > Do consumers want a ruined planet? > After seeing the absolutely bonkers car culture that America has, then yes. The planet is a lot more than just America.
- gmanley 7y ago
  They are getting sued for allegedly lying to their investors. How does them continuing to sell oil to consumers have any relevance?
- losteric 7y ago
  They lied to the public about side effects of their product. That's ridiculously illegal.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Maybe they did, but this lawsuit isn't about that. The lawsuit claims only that they lied to investors about how they were managing the financial risks of increased climate regulation.
thaumaturgy 7y ago
A likely factor in this lawsuit is the excellent investigative series done by InsideClimate News. They were a finalist for a Pulitzer for this series. Part [1] covers the beginnings of Exxon's own climate research in the late 70s, and the findings of their scientists, which was approximately accurate to modern climate behavior today, 40 years later. Back in 1979, Exxon outfitted some of their ships with equipment to detect CO2 absorption in the ocean along their routes; Exxon was, at the time, one of the leading climate research organizations in the world. Part [2] covers some of Exxon's research and findings in more detail. Part [3] describes the climate models that Exxon's researchers developed in the early 80s, and some of the early decisions that corporate leadership made to downplay the implications of these models and search for other poorly-founded ideas that might rebut them. Part [4] is about Exxon's discovery of and response to a major CO2 source in the South China Sea. Part [5] briefly talks about synthetic fuel technology under development in the 1980s and the impact that early climate science might have had on exploring that technology. And [6] finally gets to the meaty part where, after well over a decade of their own research efforts were telling them otherwise, company executives began a misinformation campaign through the 90s and 2000s, downplaying the certainty of climate science and its potential effects. You can also explore a pile of internal Exxon documents yourself [7]. The comparison between energy companies and tobacco companies is apt. There is no doubt that, even as Exxon duped an entire legion of people into believing that climate science was "uncertain", internally they had solid research demonstrating the effects their practices would have on the global climate. It's fair to say that climate change skeptics have been arguing against Exxon's own research. They just didn't know they were arguing against Exxon's research, because Exxon lied, repeatedly, to the public. Their executives did not want to accept the potential liability associated with the findings of their own internal research. [1]: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-resea... [2]: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-climate-research-would-protect-its-business https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-d... [3]: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-... [4]: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08102015/Exxons-Business-Ambition-Collided-with-Climate-Change-Under-a-Distant-Sea https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08102015/Exxons-Business-... [5]: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08102015/highlighting-allure-synfuels-exxon-played-down-climate-risks https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08102015/highlighting-all... [6]: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doub... [7]: https://insideclimatenews.org/search_documents?topic=All&project=41124&keywords= https://insideclimatenews.org/search_documents?topic=All&pro...
Derek_MK 7y ago
It seems like the big distinction is going to be between "they didn't tell investors that they were a huge climate change contributor" and "they didn't tell investors how much money they'd lose out on from stricter environmental regulation".
chiefalchemist 7y ago
So it's not that they've endangered the public, or maybe even the environment. It's that they deceived shareholders.
- inlined 7y ago
  I think they’re using an interesting legal strategy here. They can use shareholder fraud to have legal standing to pull them into court, but the case prema facie rests on the acceptance of climate change.
  - FranzFerdiNaN 7y ago
    Luckily Exxon can’t deny climate change based on their own research done the past couple dozen years.
  - rebuilder 7y ago
    Does it rely on acceptance? If ExxonMobil's research indicated their business had serious risks relating to climate change, and they failed to disclose those risks to shareholders, does it matter whether their research later on turned out to be right or not? Isn't the main claim here that they chose not to disclose information that they fully believed was correct?
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    Yes. I agree. It's the Al Capone strategy. But the fact remains, shareholders are more protected than the environment and/or the public. We're 20 yrs into the 21 century FFS. You'd think we'd woken up already.
    - inlined 7y ago
      Who else would sue? The EPA, which is currently headed by a self-professed climate change denier? I would be surprised if the NY AG didn’t run for president some day. They clearly seem intent on finding creative ways to do others’ jobs. E.g. the sting on supplements that’s didn’t contain their supposed ingredients (FDA, which should at least close loopholes in this kind of fraud), promises to prosecute Trump for tax evasion (IRS), and fraud over climate change (EPA)
cronix 7y ago
The main pic in the article strangely looks like a nuclear power plant.
- ndonnellan 7y ago
  All sorts of power plants have those large cooling towers which have become symbols of nuclear power plants. To me it looks more like a natural gas plant, what with those smaller exhaust stacks next to the cooling towers. See "natural draft cooling towers": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_tower
hughw 7y ago
Full NYAG complaint here [1]. [1] https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/425-2018-10-24-exxon-complaint/7d82160337839c883934/optimized/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/425-2018-10-24-exxon...
radford-neal 7y ago
Hasn't Exxon been rather profitable for the last 40 years? How have the investors of 1979 lost out? In any case, my understanding is that all of Exxon's research was publicly available, so investors could look at it and judge for themselves what they thought the risks were. The idea that Exxon executives were supposed to make their own scientific determination regarding the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate - an issue that has since then been the subject of 40 years of intensive debate in the scientific community - is absurd. Yes, absurd. This is not a good-faith law suit. It is political intimidation and extortion.
- bdamm 7y ago
  Exxon has been profitable but they allegedly did it by committing fraud. They allegedly knew the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate, and allegedly conspired to cover it up. Part of the reason there is "intensive debate" is because of Exxon's cover up. It wouldn't have been much of a debate without it. Therefore, Exxon was purposefully redirecting the efforts of investors to understand the risks that the company faced.
  - radford-neal 7y ago
    The suit alleges that the investors were defrauded - not the public, or some such. (That would also be absurd, but it isn't relevant anyway, so no point arguing about it.) But the investors made lots of money. It doesn't make sense. The idea that anything Exxon did had a major influence on the debate about the effect of CO2 on climate is ridiculous. Many billions of dollars have been spent on climate research by governments. Are we to believe that a few scientists at Exxon had it all figured out 40 years ago? And then because Exxon executives didn't decide their product was evil and therefore exit the industry, nobody else realized the truth, even though the reports by the Exxon scientists were published...? It doesn't make sense.
    - bdamm 7y ago
      Fraud is making money by lying. The fact that the investors made money doesn't negate the fraud. They were unaware of risks that the company knew about. Public companies (emphasis on public) are required to reveal to all investors the risks of investing in the company. Read any prospectus and you will see that they don't generally hold back, and in many cases go into specific and extensive detail on known risks.
egdod 7y ago
What a bunch of pandering nonsense.
jeandejean 7y ago
I'm super worried by these lawsuits. Instead of forcing the oil industry to invest in cleaner energies, to clean the atmosphere by for instance paying for planting massive amount of trees, or even to extract oil more sustainably... They want them to pay investors that were deceived by a fact everybody fucking knew for decades. Makes me feel we're doomed and incapable of focusing on real challenges.
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > Instead of forcing the oil industry to ... It does not have to be "instead". Can be in addition to. These things are not mutually exclusive. NYAG does what they can in their power.
  - jeandejean 7y ago
    Very true!
- jgaa 7y ago
  It's probably a law issue. Is it illegal to lie and deceive to make money? No. Is it illegal to destroy the Earth's eco system? Only if it's intended as an act of terror. Is it illegal to mislead the share holders? Yes. So that's the crime they can prosecute.
  - nfoz 7y ago
    > Is it illegal to lie and deceive to make money? No. What, really? Isn't that the definition of fraud?
spodek 7y ago
The sad irony is that the pattern of - knowing the science enough to know they're contributing to others suffering - knowing what might happen with reasonable certainty - but compartmentalizing that awareness internally to avoid acting - hiding it externally - and keeping doing what they were doing describes the reactions of most individuals about climate change.
- dd36 7y ago
  And actively funding propaganda that delays action.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ThomPete 7y ago
  It's not that simple and my guess is that the AG wont win it (neither do they care to) Unless it can be demonstrated scientifically that humans are the primary cause of climate change (despite what you hear that causality is not established) I don't think there is any case what so ever unless some weird inconsequential settlement. Also A life without fossil fuel is a life most of us don't want to live. So sure there are drawbacks with using fossil fuels just as there were with using wood or just as there is with dong or other lesser versions of fuel. But the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. We wouldn't have this conversation if it wasn't for fossil fuel. Last but not least. This smells of politics, not of justice. NY is trying to push for a much more green profile. So it's likely to do with that probably as an attempt at getting de-blasio nominated (yes politics is that scruppules)
  - marmaduke 7y ago
    > life without fossil fuel is a life most of us don't want to live. This is downright silly. Sure I have a cellphone, car but I don't live for those things. I live for the people around me, and they are not made of fossil fuel.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
BillyWilly 7y ago
Yea, good luck with that.
salusbury 7y ago
What's the likelihood on this changing the industry as a whole?
- rebuilder 7y ago
  The obvious lesson would be not to try to find out if your business has enormous environmental consequences.
fromthestart 7y ago
>Exxon and other energy companies knew as long ago as 30 years that carbon emissions were becoming perilous to the planet. This is ridiculous. No one knew about climate change 30 years ago. A small number of scientists were aware of the possibility of climate change - it took some 30 years of research, heavily dependent on modeling capability which was only really unlocked in the last decade or so, to come to any sort of alarmist consensus, not to mention less than 30 years ago the consensus was one of global cooling. Sure, in hindsight, it all seems obvious, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we're talking about terraforming a planet on the scale of 100 years. You'd be crazy to believe in such a thing without some hard data to back that up. Meanwhile let's ignore that society, globally, has advanced - technologically and socially - on the back of petroleum fuel. We all may be paying a price, but we are all partaking in the reward.
- ghouse 7y ago
  >This is ridiculous. It's not ridiculous. I was taught about the carbon cycle, greenhouse gasses, and climate change in a United States public high school in 1993. 26 years ago. >Meanwhile let's ignore that society, globally, has advanced - technologically and socially - on the back of petroleum fuel. Sure, but society has provided massive subsidies (both direct and indirect) to carbon-based fuels. Had we not provided those subsidies, society would be much better off.
  - fromthestart 7y ago
    >It's not ridiculous. I was taught about the carbon cycle, greenhouse gasses, and climate change in a United States public high school in 1993. 26 years ago. Climate is a complex, chaotic system. Again, there was no certainty regarding warming without the decades of research, data gathering, and modeling that followed. Knowledge of the carbon cycle and greenhouse potential is not enough alone to prove that the planet is warming from human activities. And, again, 20 years ago the consensus was that of global cooling, to emphasize the degree of uncertainty in the historic consensus. You're underestimating the gravity of the notion that we are terraforming, modifying global climate, which normally changes over 10^4-10^6 years, on the scale of 10^2, 2-4 orders of magnitude difference. No time in history have humans even been able to do such a thing, let alone had they reason to believe that it were even possible. >Sure, but society has provided massive subsidies (both direct and indirect) to carbon-based fuels. Had we not provided those subsidies, society would be much better off. Much better off without fuel for local and global shipping and power generation and raw material for plastics?
mrosett 7y ago
Assume for sake of argument that climate change is catastrophic and that ExxonMobil knew as much. We’re to believe that the real victims here are ExxonMobil’s investors?
- wmf 7y ago
  No, just that the investors are the first victims to sue.
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    Also, the most likely set of victims to win in the current political climate.
- hristov 7y ago
  They might not be the greatest victims but they certainly are some of the victims. They invested money in a company whose business model was unsustainable. The company knew that the business model was unsustainable but did not tell them. In the US publicly traded companies have a duty to let their shareholders know all material risks to the company that the company is aware of. The response to this is usually “but everyone knows about climate change”. But that is not the case. By now everyone has heard of climate change but many still don't believe it/dispute it. You can call these people stupid and uneducated but they are entitled to the same protections under the law which means that they have a right to be alerted to the potential danger to their investments posed by climate change. I am sure even the more ignorant would pay more attention if the climate change warnings came directly from an oil company they are thinking of investing in. Furthermore, the NYAG says he has evidence that Exxon knew it was happening as long as 30 years ago. Back in the late 80s and early 90s climate change was far from settled thing.
  - positive_future 7y ago
    > Back in the late 80s and early 90s climate change was far from settled thing. I was under the assumption that the basic tennets of climate change were well understood by scientists more than 100 years ago. While the climate models have been developed only recently, enabling more accurate predictions, climate science is centuries old as it relates to understanding human impact on our climate. Climate science was as "settled" in the 80s and 90s as it is today. Yes, the predictions are more accurate today, but the confidence that we are changing Earth's climate was just as strong then as now. I remember in 1997-8 being taught in US public schools, in no uncertain terms, that we are changing the climate, warming the atmosphere into a runaway greenhouse effect. This was in the US South in a very red state that mostly denies climate science today. The only way to interpret the idea that climate science was "less settled" in the 80s 90s is political. It has been "settled" for 100+ years in rational scientific discourse.
perfunctory 7y ago
“What we are facing now is a person whose crime dwarfs all of the crimes ever committed in human history. We were unable to find a single law applicable to his crime. So we recommend that the crime of Extinction of Life on Earth be added to international law, and that Rey Diaz be tried under it.” — Cixin Liu, The Dark Forest
- rebuilder 7y ago
  Retroactive legislation is usually frowned upon or outright banned in many jurisdictions.
  - GabrielMtn 7y ago
    Criminal negligence then? Sedition? They internally predicted catastrophic damage to society. It is obscene.
  - patientplatypus 7y ago
    I believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity is literally true in this case.
- ausbah 7y ago
  For some context, in the novel Rey Diaz tried to hold back a alien invasion by threatening to blow the whole solar system into the sun with nuclear weapons.
jgaa 7y ago
When will Saudi Arabia, Russia and Norway be sued in an international court to pay for the damage they did (and continue doing every day?
euroPoor 7y ago
This is one of many cases, cf https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02121-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02121-6
thecleaner 7y ago
I hope NY State wins the lawsuit. Typically investor fraud lawsuits have higher penalties. If it was workers rights that wouldn't be a problem for them.
cytherean 7y ago
I hate fossil fuels as the next guy, but a. we need them as there are no alternatives currently b. everybody with just a little gray matter under their skull knew that burning fossil fuels is not good for the environment, and our health.
- cheeze 7y ago
  I think that there are some alternatives, but they definitely aren't feasible in many parts of the world at this point. That being said, I do think one could make a strong argument that Exxon lied to investors through omittance of a truth that they new. Not that they were harming the environment, but that they misrepresented risk to the business due to environmental harm.

321 points by colinprince 7y ago

OrgNet 7y ago

sounds like a 5 trillion settlement would be appropriate in this case...

irq 7y ago
Probably even more than that, when you consider how many more years the planet will be dealing with Exxon's BS, even if they were to cease operations today.
- kjar 7y ago
  The company knew the physical ramifications from at least the 1970s, suppressed that knowledge, and now we are locked into decades their product manifested for many decades. Extractive industry - oil, coal, methane needs to have ended decades ago. We are climatically locked in for insane destabilization
- OrgNet 7y ago
  > even if they were to cease operations today I would be surprised if a 5 trillion fine would not achieve that goal...

shanxS 7y ago

Interesting, use that money to fund R&D to reduce CO2 in atmosphere?

lazyjones 7y ago
We already know very well how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but we're doing the opposite. For example, in the EU we're adding "biofuels" to gasoline for stupid reasons and part of that comes from palm oil, which is produced where rainforests are cut down first. So we're not only trying to save the dirty ICE, but we're also destroying rainforests in order to look "green". I don't expect anything good to come from politics under the pretense of saving the planet.

tlb 7y ago

Source article: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24102018/exxon-climate-fraud-lawsuit-new-york-attorney-general-investigation-tillerson https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24102018/exxon-climate-fr... Are there previous examples of a lawsuit over a company misleading shareholders about potential future liabilities, where the liabilities are still unknown? We still don't know how much business Exxon might lose, or how much its penalties might be, as a result of climate change. So how would you calculate which shareholders lost how much?

united893 7y ago
That's not the source. That article merely rehashes the AG PR[1] and doc [2] from 2018. This article just discusses preparations for the opening arguments due to commence. [1] - https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-underwood-files-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil-defrauding-investors-regarding-financial https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-underwood-files-lawsuit-a... [2] - https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint_0.pdf https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint_...
hughw 7y ago
There's some chance that governments worldwide will decide the costs of transforming the energy base and applying conservation measures, outweigh the benefits of possibly avoiding the increase of 2°C and attendant problems. In that case, Exxon's internal proxy GHG cost projections don't look wrong. Whether it's a securities law violation, different matter.
qtplatypus 7y ago
It is not the the future liabilities are unknown. It is that exon had information that it new that would effect those liabilities and didn’t inform the stockmarket. It isn’t up to the company to work out how much that they will loose but it is up to Exon to give the market the information they need in order to make an informed decision.

heyoni 7y ago

Does this stuff ever get us anywhere? I just looked at the AG's website and it looks like we're constantly suing every high powered entity in America: https://ag.ny.gov https://ag.ny.gov

kmlx 7y ago
i recommend this essay about how absolutely crazy the AG role actually is: https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1913&context=lawreview https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1913...
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Now explain the New York AG and why it seems others are twiddling their thumbs in comparison Or perhaps they are active against multinational corporations but arent physically close enough to the media for it to ever surface?
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
    The New York AG has the obvious advantage of having jurisdiction over the world's financial capital. Other states may often lack the nexus with the business to have standing. Then, it's simply a matter of experience: corporate and especially financial law is beyond complex, and they have the expertise, plus the financial resources, to investigate such cases. New York law is also similarly ahead. And, of course, the majority of Attorneys General are currently Republican and have absolutely no interest interfering with corporations unless those happen to be involved in journalism, renewable energy or other despicably altruistic lines of business.
ta20938 7y ago
Many of the undertakings that happen at the state level require a functioning federal government for them to go anywhere. We do not have a functioning federal government, so here we are.
- 7y ago

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago

At first blush, this seems like rough justice to me. Based on cynical assumptions, I'm guessing that the NY AG actually has an axe to grind about ExxonMobil's political/PR efforts regarding climate change, but couldn't pursue them because of First Amendment protections. And so the AG is grasping at other legal straws within the same general topic area.

_underfl0w_ 7y ago
Even if it's neither one, I'd still rather someone with political/socioeconomic power spend time arguing for sound science, rather than against it.
mikeash 7y ago
They knew that their product would mess with the climate and they not only hid this information, but actively lied to convince people of the opposite, all so that they could make more money. And they made an incomprehensible amount of money. This sure sounds like fraud to me, and people have gone to prison for far, far less. Madoff got 150 years in prison for fraud equal to just a couple years of Exxon’s profits. Rough justice? Maybe for the victims. Exxon should feel very lucky if it stops at losing this lawsuit. Of course, this is the US, where real punishments are reserved for individuals, and large companies are effectively outside the law.
matthewdgreen 7y ago
Lying to investors is a serious crime. What you're saying is that Exxon actually committed a much more serious set of bad acts -- acts that may be constitutionally protected -- and that "lying to investors" doesn't seem as serious when compared with Exxon's real bad acts. But that's insane. It's like saying that I shouldn't be prosecuted for arson if setting someone's house on fire also kills them.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  Sorry, let me clarify. My impression from reading the article was that Exxon's communications to shareholders weren't materially lies in any relevant legal sense. I.e., that trying to prosecute them is at the very least a legal stretch, or at worst a case of malicious prosecution. If I misunderstood the article or missing something crucial in it, I apologize.

beeschlenker 7y ago

Obama rapes & kills 2 boys. DeBlasio 5, Buttgieg 5, Cuomo 4, Murray 3, Dorsey 3, Thiel 3. Trump $4 billion to cover. Pelosi $3 billion, Harris $1 billion, Schumer $2 billion, to help bring the boys over the border. See pages 18-23, 8, 11, 12, 35, 45, 61, 62 Having trouble getting traction. Getting censored/banned. Billions in bribes paid to Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris to enable a Soros funded child raping ring to operate in the USA. Please listen to the links below. Turn up the volume and put headphones on. You will hear these people, and many other high profile people, incriminate themselves in unbelievable fashion. Full 71 page document filled with red handed evidence like this at the bottom. Go to pages 18-23 of this document and you will hear Dorsey and Thiel raping children. You will hear their screams. They both rape and kill three. Also at the "rape party" of note: Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Murray, Peter Buttgieg, George Soros, Barack Obama. Please copy and paste this post and repost it. I keep getting censored by these people. Peter Thiel and Jack Dorsey raping and killing three boys each. Turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_100-200.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzZrjobxhNIEf38M3xk-IeA5SeF4aUtB/view?usp=sharing Obama admits to raping and killing boys he{re, with commentary from Peter Thiel, George Soros, Matt Porter: https://s3.wasabisys.com/out2/Out2/15JanCh3_0545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LCDoc1kT7cfSeKQ1vniP_sx32_bRsHau/view?usp=sharing Trump demands $4 billion to "take a blind eye" at 1015+ (link missing from report, unsure how). Here's pieces of dialogue: 1015 The President requests four billion and henry Porter agrees to it. Some dialogue below. 1017 Donald Trump: Why don't you think about it. 1017 Henry Porter: I don't need to think about it. I'm ready for you to find out what we're really about. 1017 Gigi Hadid: I don't think it's a good idea Henry. 1017 Henry Porter: ...no shit. Jelena just stop talking about it. 1018 Gigi Hadid: About what? 1018 Henry Porter: The child raping. 1018 Donald Trump: What the fuck are you talking about? 1018 Gigi Hadid: Mr. President we are child rapists. 1018 Donald Trump: You cannot be serious. 1018 Donald Trump: You're gonna need $4 billion for me to take a blind eye. 1019 ?: People are laughing because they think four billion is too much. I think it's not a problem when you have $35 billion. 1022 Donald Trump: You better have that $4 billion or you can kiss this shit goodbye. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv2/3Jan/3JanCh3_900-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing Trump wants $138 million to ensure smooth outcome for false judgment for a court case: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/10JanCh3/10JanCh3_951-1033.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iSeGHDToFRoRdIht50Wii0i30mlw9INp/view?usp=sharing Obama explains the Illuminati with Jack Dorsey: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_200-347.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ok1-9IvANULzKBOwADFgaiYCFi6yszfj/view?usp=sharing At 230 a conversation is occurring on the embedded Porter camera system with Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Barack Obama, Bill M^urray, and the Porter's. Jack Dorsey provides a statement defining who their group is: "The Illum%inati is an underground organization of child rapists and homosexuals." Matthew Porter: "We have to thin the herd, so Barack is going to explain a few things." At 232 Barack Obama says the following: "You people have to realize we are child rapi'sts. The Illuminati are child rapists. As soon as you figure that out, you can decide what to do. Everybody is freaking out about what just happened [child raping event still going on]. This is who ^we are." Full 71 page document: https://s3.wasabisys.com/aviewmefirst/FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dXNjPQdQ8c-hFFLt9LT0GiSY5Vud0TzL/view?usp=sharing Please post this anywhere you can! Each google drive link is a backup to the wasabi link just in case one is "down". A word about the "faggot" usage: it was a necessary tool. It showed three things: they were not in control, if they were the usage would have be stopped. Everyone out there needed to see t%his. Two, it made it unpleasant for them to be in the headspace, which has obvious advantages. Three, it pointed out impersonators of BS because they would not call each other faggot, thus helping to mitigate the spread of false information. Apologies for those unintentionally offended. Of special interest to the LGBT community, I give you Barack Obama in a foursome with Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey, and Matthew Porter. It is on page 12 of the document where you can download the video containing audio footage of the "event". Link is just above under "Full 71 page document".

zaroth 7y ago

I’m reminded instantly of the article “Everything Everywhere is Securities Fraud” [1] Oh, look, Matt Levine actually references this case at the top of that article. Unexpected recursion detected. [1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...

throwawayjava 7y ago
Liars who make money on their lies are fraudsters, and fraud needs to have criminal repercussions Yes, LOTS of people lie to make money. Yes, all those people are doing something wrong. And yes, that wrong thing is bad enough for society that we should punish it. "Everything" is not fraud. Telling lies to make money is the definition of fraud. If you think that describes "everything" that happens in the economy... Well, stop telling lies. And yes, lots of fraud is impossible to prove because the actors know the law. Patent trolling comes to mind. And yes, lots of powerful people commit fraud throughout their career in impunity. Fraud is normal. However, the normalcy of fraud and of getting away with deviancy does not make fraud acceptable. I'm routinely astounded by how surprised people are to learn that telling lies to make money is illegal. Tech in particular needs to do something about the fact fraud has reached meme status in our industry ('fake it till you make it').
- geofft 7y ago
  I don't think people are surprised that it is fraud, just that there isn't a better way to prosecute it. If ExxonMobil's board hired a hitman to kill a competitor's CEO, I think people would hope that the response is to prosecute the board for murder and not merely for fraudulently claiming their company is valuable when they were actually relying on destabilizing their competitor. No one's defending the fraud, it just doesn't seem like the most important problem here.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

Bostonian 7y ago

This is ridiculous. For decades, New Yorkers, like all Americans, have enjoyed the benefits of cheap energy. Exxon and other oil companies are giving consumers what they want.

saagarjha 7y ago
Do consumers want a ruined planet?
- orf 7y ago
  After seeing the absolutely bonkers car culture that America has, then yes. At least yes as an implicit result of the lifestyle they cannot or will not stop.
  - jogjayr 7y ago
    > > Do consumers want a ruined planet? > After seeing the absolutely bonkers car culture that America has, then yes. The planet is a lot more than just America.
gmanley 7y ago
They are getting sued for allegedly lying to their investors. How does them continuing to sell oil to consumers have any relevance?
losteric 7y ago
They lied to the public about side effects of their product. That's ridiculously illegal.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Maybe they did, but this lawsuit isn't about that. The lawsuit claims only that they lied to investors about how they were managing the financial risks of increased climate regulation.

thaumaturgy 7y ago

A likely factor in this lawsuit is the excellent investigative series done by InsideClimate News. They were a finalist for a Pulitzer for this series. Part [1] covers the beginnings of Exxon's own climate research in the late 70s, and the findings of their scientists, which was approximately accurate to modern climate behavior today, 40 years later. Back in 1979, Exxon outfitted some of their ships with equipment to detect CO2 absorption in the ocean along their routes; Exxon was, at the time, one of the leading climate research organizations in the world. Part [2] covers some of Exxon's research and findings in more detail. Part [3] describes the climate models that Exxon's researchers developed in the early 80s, and some of the early decisions that corporate leadership made to downplay the implications of these models and search for other poorly-founded ideas that might rebut them. Part [4] is about Exxon's discovery of and response to a major CO2 source in the South China Sea. Part [5] briefly talks about synthetic fuel technology under development in the 1980s and the impact that early climate science might have had on exploring that technology. And [6] finally gets to the meaty part where, after well over a decade of their own research efforts were telling them otherwise, company executives began a misinformation campaign through the 90s and 2000s, downplaying the certainty of climate science and its potential effects. You can also explore a pile of internal Exxon documents yourself [7]. The comparison between energy companies and tobacco companies is apt. There is no doubt that, even as Exxon duped an entire legion of people into believing that climate science was "uncertain", internally they had solid research demonstrating the effects their practices would have on the global climate. It's fair to say that climate change skeptics have been arguing against Exxon's own research. They just didn't know they were arguing against Exxon's research, because Exxon lied, repeatedly, to the public. Their executives did not want to accept the potential liability associated with the findings of their own internal research. [1]: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-resea... [2]: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-climate-research-would-protect-its-business https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-d... [3]: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-... [4]: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08102015/Exxons-Business-Ambition-Collided-with-Climate-Change-Under-a-Distant-Sea https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08102015/Exxons-Business-... [5]: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08102015/highlighting-allure-synfuels-exxon-played-down-climate-risks https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08102015/highlighting-all... [6]: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doub... [7]: https://insideclimatenews.org/search_documents?topic=All&project=41124&keywords= https://insideclimatenews.org/search_documents?topic=All&pro...

Derek_MK 7y ago

It seems like the big distinction is going to be between "they didn't tell investors that they were a huge climate change contributor" and "they didn't tell investors how much money they'd lose out on from stricter environmental regulation".

chiefalchemist 7y ago

So it's not that they've endangered the public, or maybe even the environment. It's that they deceived shareholders.

inlined 7y ago
I think they’re using an interesting legal strategy here. They can use shareholder fraud to have legal standing to pull them into court, but the case prema facie rests on the acceptance of climate change.
- FranzFerdiNaN 7y ago
  Luckily Exxon can’t deny climate change based on their own research done the past couple dozen years.
- rebuilder 7y ago
  Does it rely on acceptance? If ExxonMobil's research indicated their business had serious risks relating to climate change, and they failed to disclose those risks to shareholders, does it matter whether their research later on turned out to be right or not? Isn't the main claim here that they chose not to disclose information that they fully believed was correct?
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  Yes. I agree. It's the Al Capone strategy. But the fact remains, shareholders are more protected than the environment and/or the public. We're 20 yrs into the 21 century FFS. You'd think we'd woken up already.
  - inlined 7y ago
    Who else would sue? The EPA, which is currently headed by a self-professed climate change denier? I would be surprised if the NY AG didn’t run for president some day. They clearly seem intent on finding creative ways to do others’ jobs. E.g. the sting on supplements that’s didn’t contain their supposed ingredients (FDA, which should at least close loopholes in this kind of fraud), promises to prosecute Trump for tax evasion (IRS), and fraud over climate change (EPA)

cronix 7y ago

The main pic in the article strangely looks like a nuclear power plant.

ndonnellan 7y ago
All sorts of power plants have those large cooling towers which have become symbols of nuclear power plants. To me it looks more like a natural gas plant, what with those smaller exhaust stacks next to the cooling towers. See "natural draft cooling towers": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_tower

hughw 7y ago

Full NYAG complaint here [1]. [1] https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/425-2018-10-24-exxon-complaint/7d82160337839c883934/optimized/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/425-2018-10-24-exxon...

radford-neal 7y ago

Hasn't Exxon been rather profitable for the last 40 years? How have the investors of 1979 lost out? In any case, my understanding is that all of Exxon's research was publicly available, so investors could look at it and judge for themselves what they thought the risks were. The idea that Exxon executives were supposed to make their own scientific determination regarding the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate - an issue that has since then been the subject of 40 years of intensive debate in the scientific community - is absurd. Yes, absurd. This is not a good-faith law suit. It is political intimidation and extortion.

bdamm 7y ago
Exxon has been profitable but they allegedly did it by committing fraud. They allegedly knew the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate, and allegedly conspired to cover it up. Part of the reason there is "intensive debate" is because of Exxon's cover up. It wouldn't have been much of a debate without it. Therefore, Exxon was purposefully redirecting the efforts of investors to understand the risks that the company faced.
- radford-neal 7y ago
  The suit alleges that the investors were defrauded - not the public, or some such. (That would also be absurd, but it isn't relevant anyway, so no point arguing about it.) But the investors made lots of money. It doesn't make sense. The idea that anything Exxon did had a major influence on the debate about the effect of CO2 on climate is ridiculous. Many billions of dollars have been spent on climate research by governments. Are we to believe that a few scientists at Exxon had it all figured out 40 years ago? And then because Exxon executives didn't decide their product was evil and therefore exit the industry, nobody else realized the truth, even though the reports by the Exxon scientists were published...? It doesn't make sense.
  - bdamm 7y ago
    Fraud is making money by lying. The fact that the investors made money doesn't negate the fraud. They were unaware of risks that the company knew about. Public companies (emphasis on public) are required to reveal to all investors the risks of investing in the company. Read any prospectus and you will see that they don't generally hold back, and in many cases go into specific and extensive detail on known risks.

egdod 7y ago

What a bunch of pandering nonsense.

jeandejean 7y ago

I'm super worried by these lawsuits. Instead of forcing the oil industry to invest in cleaner energies, to clean the atmosphere by for instance paying for planting massive amount of trees, or even to extract oil more sustainably... They want them to pay investors that were deceived by a fact everybody fucking knew for decades. Makes me feel we're doomed and incapable of focusing on real challenges.

perfunctory 7y ago
> Instead of forcing the oil industry to ... It does not have to be "instead". Can be in addition to. These things are not mutually exclusive. NYAG does what they can in their power.
- jeandejean 7y ago
  Very true!
jgaa 7y ago
It's probably a law issue. Is it illegal to lie and deceive to make money? No. Is it illegal to destroy the Earth's eco system? Only if it's intended as an act of terror. Is it illegal to mislead the share holders? Yes. So that's the crime they can prosecute.
- nfoz 7y ago
  > Is it illegal to lie and deceive to make money? No. What, really? Isn't that the definition of fraud?

spodek 7y ago

The sad irony is that the pattern of - knowing the science enough to know they're contributing to others suffering - knowing what might happen with reasonable certainty - but compartmentalizing that awareness internally to avoid acting - hiding it externally - and keeping doing what they were doing describes the reactions of most individuals about climate change.

dd36 7y ago
And actively funding propaganda that delays action.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ThomPete 7y ago
It's not that simple and my guess is that the AG wont win it (neither do they care to) Unless it can be demonstrated scientifically that humans are the primary cause of climate change (despite what you hear that causality is not established) I don't think there is any case what so ever unless some weird inconsequential settlement. Also A life without fossil fuel is a life most of us don't want to live. So sure there are drawbacks with using fossil fuels just as there were with using wood or just as there is with dong or other lesser versions of fuel. But the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. We wouldn't have this conversation if it wasn't for fossil fuel. Last but not least. This smells of politics, not of justice. NY is trying to push for a much more green profile. So it's likely to do with that probably as an attempt at getting de-blasio nominated (yes politics is that scruppules)
- marmaduke 7y ago
  > life without fossil fuel is a life most of us don't want to live. This is downright silly. Sure I have a cellphone, car but I don't live for those things. I live for the people around me, and they are not made of fossil fuel.
  - ThomPete 7y ago

BillyWilly 7y ago

Yea, good luck with that.

salusbury 7y ago

What's the likelihood on this changing the industry as a whole?

rebuilder 7y ago
The obvious lesson would be not to try to find out if your business has enormous environmental consequences.

fromthestart 7y ago

>Exxon and other energy companies knew as long ago as 30 years that carbon emissions were becoming perilous to the planet. This is ridiculous. No one knew about climate change 30 years ago. A small number of scientists were aware of the possibility of climate change - it took some 30 years of research, heavily dependent on modeling capability which was only really unlocked in the last decade or so, to come to any sort of alarmist consensus, not to mention less than 30 years ago the consensus was one of global cooling. Sure, in hindsight, it all seems obvious, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we're talking about terraforming a planet on the scale of 100 years. You'd be crazy to believe in such a thing without some hard data to back that up. Meanwhile let's ignore that society, globally, has advanced - technologically and socially - on the back of petroleum fuel. We all may be paying a price, but we are all partaking in the reward.

ghouse 7y ago
>This is ridiculous. It's not ridiculous. I was taught about the carbon cycle, greenhouse gasses, and climate change in a United States public high school in 1993. 26 years ago. >Meanwhile let's ignore that society, globally, has advanced - technologically and socially - on the back of petroleum fuel. Sure, but society has provided massive subsidies (both direct and indirect) to carbon-based fuels. Had we not provided those subsidies, society would be much better off.
- fromthestart 7y ago
  >It's not ridiculous. I was taught about the carbon cycle, greenhouse gasses, and climate change in a United States public high school in 1993. 26 years ago. Climate is a complex, chaotic system. Again, there was no certainty regarding warming without the decades of research, data gathering, and modeling that followed. Knowledge of the carbon cycle and greenhouse potential is not enough alone to prove that the planet is warming from human activities. And, again, 20 years ago the consensus was that of global cooling, to emphasize the degree of uncertainty in the historic consensus. You're underestimating the gravity of the notion that we are terraforming, modifying global climate, which normally changes over 10^4-10^6 years, on the scale of 10^2, 2-4 orders of magnitude difference. No time in history have humans even been able to do such a thing, let alone had they reason to believe that it were even possible. >Sure, but society has provided massive subsidies (both direct and indirect) to carbon-based fuels. Had we not provided those subsidies, society would be much better off. Much better off without fuel for local and global shipping and power generation and raw material for plastics?

mrosett 7y ago

Assume for sake of argument that climate change is catastrophic and that ExxonMobil knew as much. We’re to believe that the real victims here are ExxonMobil’s investors?

wmf 7y ago
No, just that the investors are the first victims to sue.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  Also, the most likely set of victims to win in the current political climate.
hristov 7y ago
They might not be the greatest victims but they certainly are some of the victims. They invested money in a company whose business model was unsustainable. The company knew that the business model was unsustainable but did not tell them. In the US publicly traded companies have a duty to let their shareholders know all material risks to the company that the company is aware of. The response to this is usually “but everyone knows about climate change”. But that is not the case. By now everyone has heard of climate change but many still don't believe it/dispute it. You can call these people stupid and uneducated but they are entitled to the same protections under the law which means that they have a right to be alerted to the potential danger to their investments posed by climate change. I am sure even the more ignorant would pay more attention if the climate change warnings came directly from an oil company they are thinking of investing in. Furthermore, the NYAG says he has evidence that Exxon knew it was happening as long as 30 years ago. Back in the late 80s and early 90s climate change was far from settled thing.
- positive_future 7y ago
  > Back in the late 80s and early 90s climate change was far from settled thing. I was under the assumption that the basic tennets of climate change were well understood by scientists more than 100 years ago. While the climate models have been developed only recently, enabling more accurate predictions, climate science is centuries old as it relates to understanding human impact on our climate. Climate science was as "settled" in the 80s and 90s as it is today. Yes, the predictions are more accurate today, but the confidence that we are changing Earth's climate was just as strong then as now. I remember in 1997-8 being taught in US public schools, in no uncertain terms, that we are changing the climate, warming the atmosphere into a runaway greenhouse effect. This was in the US South in a very red state that mostly denies climate science today. The only way to interpret the idea that climate science was "less settled" in the 80s 90s is political. It has been "settled" for 100+ years in rational scientific discourse.

perfunctory 7y ago

“What we are facing now is a person whose crime dwarfs all of the crimes ever committed in human history. We were unable to find a single law applicable to his crime. So we recommend that the crime of Extinction of Life on Earth be added to international law, and that Rey Diaz be tried under it.” — Cixin Liu, The Dark Forest

rebuilder 7y ago
Retroactive legislation is usually frowned upon or outright banned in many jurisdictions.
- GabrielMtn 7y ago
  Criminal negligence then? Sedition? They internally predicted catastrophic damage to society. It is obscene.
- patientplatypus 7y ago
  I believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity is literally true in this case.
ausbah 7y ago
For some context, in the novel Rey Diaz tried to hold back a alien invasion by threatening to blow the whole solar system into the sun with nuclear weapons.

jgaa 7y ago

When will Saudi Arabia, Russia and Norway be sued in an international court to pay for the damage they did (and continue doing every day?

euroPoor 7y ago

This is one of many cases, cf https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02121-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02121-6

thecleaner 7y ago

I hope NY State wins the lawsuit. Typically investor fraud lawsuits have higher penalties. If it was workers rights that wouldn't be a problem for them.

cytherean 7y ago

I hate fossil fuels as the next guy, but a. we need them as there are no alternatives currently b. everybody with just a little gray matter under their skull knew that burning fossil fuels is not good for the environment, and our health.

cheeze 7y ago
I think that there are some alternatives, but they definitely aren't feasible in many parts of the world at this point. That being said, I do think one could make a strong argument that Exxon lied to investors through omittance of a truth that they new. Not that they were harming the environment, but that they misrepresented risk to the business due to environmental harm.