4 ms·
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 (particularl
by 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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 agoPeople 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.
- Robotbeat 7y agoThey absolutely can seek damages for Exxon hiding an enormous long-term liability. Which still exists and still hasn't been paid for.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoCertainly, hiding liabilities to inflate your company’s value is bad. But is that really what anyone cares about here? If Exxon can show that their financial models were always properly adjusted for the future risks of climate change, how many people do you think will conclude that they did nothing wrong?
- Robotbeat 7y agoActually, yes. If Exxon and all other companies operated as if those future liabilities mattered and didn't hide the full price from investors and engage lobbyists to keep that full price from being levied on them, then we wouldn't be in this pickle.