3 ms·
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 rout
by 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 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.