32 ms·

The pretext of the lawsuit is that Exxon misled its investors, but the real aim is to attack a fossil fuel giant. Suing Exxon obviously hurts its shareholders.

The pretext of the lawsuit is that Exxon misled its investors, but the real aim is to attack a fossil fuel giant. Suing Exxon obviously hurts its shareholders. There is a Wall Street Journal editorial on "New York’s Climate Show Trial" https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yorks-climate-show-trial-11571698112 https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yorks-climate-show-trial-11... .

throwawaysea 7y ago
Wow this was a really interesting read. I didn’t expect the lawsuits to be as frivolous as claimed here, and it makes sense that these are essentially abusing legal processes for activism or public theater.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt... (Matt Levine, Money Stuff: Everything Everywhere Is Securities Fraud)
  - crusso 7y ago
    That's a really fascinating article. The "Chicken LIBOR" collusion will be a case that I'll have to follow closely in the future.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Here's a great Planet Money episode about Chicken LIBOR if you want to deep dive on it: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/05/09/609890025/episode-840-fixing-chicken https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/05/09/609890025/epis...
tomweingarten 7y ago
Take with a grain of salt as this is an opinion piece (not a news article) written in a publication owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has substantial oil interests.
- vixen99 7y ago
  Actually all of us have substantial oil interests as you will discover very rapidly if Greta and Extinction Rebellion get their way.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    Most of us have very little direct oil interests. THe main way most of us have those interests is via it's energy uses which can all be replaced with other fuels (edit:or sources). Non-fuel uses aren't great but have much smaller environmental impacts.
jfengel 7y ago
Note that it is widely said that the WSJ does good news, but that its editorial section is considered by many to be biased. To quote Wikipedia's summary of that view, "The Journal editorial board has promoted pseudoscientific views on the science of climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos." They go into more detail at [1]. That's not a statement one way or the other about this particular editorial, but the WSJ editorial page does have a history of climate denial and I'd take their views on this trial with a grain of salt. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Editorial_page_and_political_stance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Editor...
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  The WSJ has gotten much, much worse since it was purchased by the Murdoch empire a decade ago. Even their non-opinion stuff reads like a business tycoon's lens on Fox News. It is absolutely a mouthpiece in the alt-right Murdoch propaganda machine.
  - josephpmay 7y ago
    I think you may be reading a different WSJ than I am
- showdeadplease 7y ago
  Asking Wikipedia about the WSJ is like asking the Democratic Party about Donald Trump.
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  considered by many to be biased If you're going to cite Wikipedia as authoritative, at least don't use weasel words at the same time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Word...
cowpig 7y ago
From a pragmatic perspective, dealing with the climate crisis is the pretext. There's a history of using the judicial system in this way in the US (particularly on race issues), partly because the judicial appointments tend to be the longest, and so judges can take the long view and make decisions that aren't politically expedient in the short-term. In an era where the failures of the legislative branch to come up with good ways to deal with market externalities are culminating in mass extinction and global crisis, maybe it makes sense to try to get the judicial branch to find interpretations of existing laws that can help mitigate the problem?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I don't think it does make sense. It's not like climate change is an issue the legislature hasn't addressed at all; many people have thought it through, and both Congress and individual states have passed many laws about it. It's very dangerous to let prosecutors and judges make up reasons why things they don't like are illegal.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    The issue has not been fully addressed by the legislature at all. There is real harm being caused by these externalities, and relief in court is the normal route for seeking remediation when there isn't some other mechanism in place to compensate for the harm. Same as anything else. If a big company causes harm to someone through malfeasance, they have a right to seek compensation through the civil courts. Criminal courts have a different standard.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      People should definitely be free to sue Exxon if they think Exxon has harmed them. But that's not what this case is about. In the current trial, the government is only looking to show that Exxon didn't plug in the right numbers to some financial models. If they can, they'll exact a huge fine to punish Exxon for causing climate change, even though they never proved in court that Exxon isn't allowed to cause climate change.
vkou 7y ago
If anti-environmentalism, funded by the likes of Exxon were less prevalent, we wouldn't need these show trials. But you reap what you sow.

throwawaysea 7y ago

Wow this was a really interesting read. I didn’t expect the lawsuits to be as frivolous as claimed here, and it makes sense that these are essentially abusing legal processes for activism or public theater.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt... (Matt Levine, Money Stuff: Everything Everywhere Is Securities Fraud)
- crusso 7y ago
  That's a really fascinating article. The "Chicken LIBOR" collusion will be a case that I'll have to follow closely in the future.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Here's a great Planet Money episode about Chicken LIBOR if you want to deep dive on it: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/05/09/609890025/episode-840-fixing-chicken https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/05/09/609890025/epis...

tomweingarten 7y ago

Take with a grain of salt as this is an opinion piece (not a news article) written in a publication owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has substantial oil interests.

vixen99 7y ago
Actually all of us have substantial oil interests as you will discover very rapidly if Greta and Extinction Rebellion get their way.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Most of us have very little direct oil interests. THe main way most of us have those interests is via it's energy uses which can all be replaced with other fuels (edit:or sources). Non-fuel uses aren't great but have much smaller environmental impacts.

jfengel 7y ago

Note that it is widely said that the WSJ does good news, but that its editorial section is considered by many to be biased. To quote Wikipedia's summary of that view, "The Journal editorial board has promoted pseudoscientific views on the science of climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos." They go into more detail at [1]. That's not a statement one way or the other about this particular editorial, but the WSJ editorial page does have a history of climate denial and I'd take their views on this trial with a grain of salt. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Editorial_page_and_political_stance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Editor...

wayoutthere 7y ago
The WSJ has gotten much, much worse since it was purchased by the Murdoch empire a decade ago. Even their non-opinion stuff reads like a business tycoon's lens on Fox News. It is absolutely a mouthpiece in the alt-right Murdoch propaganda machine.
- josephpmay 7y ago
  I think you may be reading a different WSJ than I am
showdeadplease 7y ago
Asking Wikipedia about the WSJ is like asking the Democratic Party about Donald Trump.
caseysoftware 7y ago
considered by many to be biased If you're going to cite Wikipedia as authoritative, at least don't use weasel words at the same time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Word...

cowpig 7y ago

From a pragmatic perspective, dealing with the climate crisis is the pretext. There's a history of using the judicial system in this way in the US (particularly on race issues), partly because the judicial appointments tend to be the longest, and so judges can take the long view and make decisions that aren't politically expedient in the short-term. In an era where the failures of the legislative branch to come up with good ways to deal with market externalities are culminating in mass extinction and global crisis, maybe it makes sense to try to get the judicial branch to find interpretations of existing laws that can help mitigate the problem?

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
I don't think it does make sense. It's not like climate change is an issue the legislature hasn't addressed at all; many people have thought it through, and both Congress and individual states have passed many laws about it. It's very dangerous to let prosecutors and judges make up reasons why things they don't like are illegal.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  The issue has not been fully addressed by the legislature at all. There is real harm being caused by these externalities, and relief in court is the normal route for seeking remediation when there isn't some other mechanism in place to compensate for the harm. Same as anything else. If a big company causes harm to someone through malfeasance, they have a right to seek compensation through the civil courts. Criminal courts have a different standard.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    People should definitely be free to sue Exxon if they think Exxon has harmed them. But that's not what this case is about. In the current trial, the government is only looking to show that Exxon didn't plug in the right numbers to some financial models. If they can, they'll exact a huge fine to punish Exxon for causing climate change, even though they never proved in court that Exxon isn't allowed to cause climate change.

vkou 7y ago

If anti-environmentalism, funded by the likes of Exxon were less prevalent, we wouldn't need these show trials. But you reap what you sow.